Tit for Ta-riff

Tit for Ta-riff

Canadians have started to boycott U.S. goods. Nobody said the Canadians were smart, now did they? What’s the guff on this issue anyhow? Do Canadians put a tariff on US Dairy? Well if they do then it is Canadians who are paying that extra 270% and they should be pissed also!

Oh, but the Canadian dairy workers, the poor uncompetitive Canadian dairy workers.

Tariff, Schmariff

Tariffs do not matter, deficits do. Currently it appears that the US has an $18 billion trade deficit with Canada. Why would it matter what tariff any country puts on any product from any country if there were no deficit among those countries? It wouldn’t. So why does this matter to Trump that a 270% tariff is on dairy products? It doesn’t. He is upset over the deficit. He does not want a deficit with any country. Which country wants a deficit with another country?  There are no countries that want a deficit with another country.

Lefties like Kind and Nice — Screw Facts

Why does Canada think it is OK that the US has a deficit with Canada? Because Canada has a victim mentality and is for the most part leftist and thinks in lines of kindness instead of rightness. What is right and fair is that there is no deficit. Why is there a deficit? Because Canada does not have a huge economy and the US does and Canada thinks that the US can afford to have our trade agreements a little lopsided. After all, shouldn’t your neighbor be nice and kind?

Nice and kind is a state one degree beyond what is right. For instance, what is right is no deficit, what is kind is allowing a deficit to help Canada a bit. However, let’s take a closer look at the situation.


The US has suggested it might put tariffs on steel and aluminum products from Canada. Canada has issued that it will retaliate dollar for dollar. This is fair, right? Well if it is, then I like these types of deals. The US has the largest economy on earth. Canada’s economy is 17th and the American Economy is approximately 10 times larger than Canada’s. The American population is approximately 10 times larger than Canada’s as well. If PM Trudeau wanted to ‘retaliate’ then why would he not make it 10 dollars per 1 dollar. After all, one dollar in the American economy is the equivalent to 10 in the Canadian economy. For every 1 Canadian dollar there are 10 American dollars and if you wanted the impact upon both nations to be equal it would need to be 10 times that of which strife is imposed upon Canada to affect the US in a similar fashion.

Rose-Colored Glasses

Realistically, if you look at the trade deal now from this perspective, even if there was neither a surplus nor a deficit, Canada, with its 1/10 the size of economy and its 1/10 the size of population is receiving the better end of the deal and is benefiting to a higher degree. It might sound somewhat condescending, but Canada should be grateful to be able to even participate in this kind of deal, having one of the best, largest and most active shoppers next door. This gratefulness does not even take into consideration the security Canada receives having the US next door. This gratefulness does not even consider the military budgets Canada does not have to implement as they enjoy special protection status via proximity.

Shooting One’s Foot

Canada has only one bordering country. Trade with any other country is going to add a substantial transportation cost onto is products’ price tags. America has the world knocking at its door wanting to do business with the biggest, best, most active shopper with the deepest pockets in the world. It does not really need Canada. With that said, Canada offers great value and products to the US, including extremely important products which the US requires. Indeed, trade between the two countries is symbiotic with both countries benefiting. Canada should hold its head high as it competes with and for the best market in the world. So why all the cry-baby limp-wrist antics of PM Trudeau? One of the exceptionally strong aspects of this relationship between the US and Canada is that both countries genuinely like and enjoy each other. President Trump, although you wouldn’t know it from lame stream media, is not a bully and I am sure that if PM Trudeau was to enter serious, honest talks with the President, that Canada would end up once again with the better end of the deal. That yes, the US would be kind to Canada and give it a bit more and hope and help it get on its feet stronger for a better and brighter future.

Oops There Goes Another one

So now, if Canada does not piss off the US too much more, they might still be able to hope for a fair deal. Unfortunately, PM Trudeau is a feminist PM in a feminist country that leans lopsidedly to the left. Canada only knows the PC culture of nice and kind and does not understand fair and right. Feminists are not fair or right. It is no wonder that Canada has consistently trended as the number 1 region on earth for MGTOW for years now (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=MGTOW) PM Trudeau’s antics are what he needs to do to appease the feminist, leftist, simps, knights and jina’s. however, I think he is inadvertently red-pilling folks by the thousands but the truth and facts particularly regarding trade is something that seems to only be seen through rose-colored glasses.


Should Canada Care about Climate Change?

Should Canada Care about Climate Change?

There always seems to be controversy about climate change. Climate change is a dumb term. The climate changes, always. It is a natural thing. However, global warming was also a dumb term. The Globe warms and cools in phases again, naturally and in phases.

Carbon Foot Print

We hear about a carbon foot print. The carbon footprint is a measurement of greenhouse gases emissions per capita (person) in tons per year. For instance, the top five countries who have the highest carbon foot prints are Qatar (39.7), Kuwait (24.4), United Arab Emirates (21.8), Australia (18.6) and Turkmenistan (17.5).

Total Emissions Per Country

However, as the measurement is per capita (per person) we need to look at countries based on total emission to obtain a more truthful statistic. The top countries that emit the most Co2 in kt are China (10,641,789) United States (5,172,336), India (2,254,968), Russia (1,760,895) and Japan (1,252,890).

Carbon Sink

There is a third metric that needs to be considered as well and this is the concept of a carbon sink. A carbon sink is a forest, ocean or other natural environment viewed in terms of its ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A desert area with no water, forests or vegetation in general would have a much lower absorption value as a carbon sink than a country rich in old-growth forests, ancient forests, soil and bodies of water. Additional considerations are the development level or degree of a nation and the population per square kilometer.

The concept of a carbon sink has not been operationalized yet, that is it has not been assigned a quantifiable value, as far as the author of this article is currently aware. One can be assured that a complex formula has been devised however, because of the dynamic nature of carbon footprints and sources of carbon sinks there are no overall values that have been assigned on a country basis.

For instance, when looking at the top 5 countries that produce the most greenhouse gases, 4 of them contain substantially large land masses and one could be forgiven if they assumed that Russia was a greater carbon sink than Japan. If true, this means that some of Russia’s carbon emissions could be considered nullified compared with Japan.

Benefit cost ratios are less favorable. Given higher costs concerns over competitiveness matter. E.g. European carbon tax made conditional in 1992 on US and Japan adopting the same. They didn’t. US concerns over developing country competition.

The Truth

Today, with all the leftist propaganda and social justice warriors’ issues it appears that society is heading for a collapse or at least a substantial shift regarding ideologies. In a sentence society can be described as there is a substantial percentage (50%) of the societal population that just wants to be left alone and the other half of the population will not leave them alone. That sounds somewhat simplistic and there is no argument that some of those that just wan to be left alone are negligent regarding the posterity of the globe. Additionally, there should be no argument that there are those who constantly dictate to others what they should do who take things too far with no evidence in a bid to make others bend to their will in a classic power trip scenario.

Regarding ‘climate change’, are we destroying our planet? There is no doubt that humans affect the environment of the planet. Are we destroying it? The evidence is just not in. Yes, we are affecting it in a detrimental way, however to what extent is the planet resilient and self-healing? Unfortunately, the faction that constantly dictates to others state they know the answer. Their steadfast confident attitudes do nothing but motivate those that are more evidence-based with their decision-making process to dismiss their claims. Is there a god? Do we know if there is a god or not empirically? No, and anyone who refutes this claim with their platitudes of intelligent design arguments and ‘evidence is all around you’ statements do not understand debate, epistemology and rely on too heavily on faith.

Another unanswerable question is, is there life after death? Anyone who claims to know this answer can safely be ignored. No, they do not know. Whether they answer yes or no, they should be and will be ignored by a more logical, reasonable and accountable mindset.

Canada’s Impact on Climate Change

Canada’s carbon footprint is substantial coming in 9th at 15.5 tons of greenhouse gases per person per year. Coincidently, Canada is also the 9th largest producer of greenhouse gases producing 555, 401 kt annually. However, to not excuse Canada, the top 5 producers produce 21x, 11x,7x, 5x, over 3x and 3x as much greenhouse gases as Canada per annum.

Only one country in these top five are larger than Canada and could compare with Canada regarding being a carbon sink and that is Russia. Russia also has over 10x the population as Canada. It can be safely assumed that the fifth largest producer of greenhouse gases does not compare at all with Canada regarding its ability of being a carbon sink and that is Japan.

Canada’s GDP per capita is $48,100 and is one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet. 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the American border in the southern region of Canada. Canada’s northern half of landmass is so cold that it remains permanently frozen all year round locked up in permafrost.

Canada has more fresh water than any other country with up to 3 million lakes and has 20% of the world’s fresh water. Canada has 9% of the worlds forests and can fill Cambodia, Cameroon, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Nicaragua, South Korea, Sweden, Uruguay and the United Kingdom with its forests. Canada has adopted practices protecting soil’s role as a natural carbon sink since before 1991.

How does Climate Change and Climate Change Policies Affect Canada?

Canada has the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world only surpassed by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Canada is 9th in the world in recoverable shale oil. Canada is 5th in Shale gas. Canada is the 5th largest exporter of oil in the world exporting 1.576 million of barrels a day. Any policies that affect either the price of oil or the daily usage of oil negatively affects Canada’s economy.

Canada’s Greenhouse gas emissions policies recently implemented by PM Trudeau are currently reducing the Alberta oil sands production and negatively affecting Canada’s economy.


Realistically, any form of minor global warming benefits Canada. Between 1906 and 1982, the area of ice shelves fell 90 % as arctic winter temperatures fell approximately 1C every decade for the past 6 decades. As a result, the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage could soon be open to commercial sea traffic and this will directly compete with the Panama Canal as early as 2050. Some may consider this shallow and environmentally problematic, however in considering modern and prehistory climate models, this phenomenon is natural and indeed if it can be prevented the side effects caused could be substantially more problematic inducing a chain reaction of catastrophic events.

Additionally, the impact on agriculture of climate change has a positive affect on agriculture production and farmable land size and land use initiatives for Canada.

It should be noted that overall, Canada is a carbon sink and not a carbon source globally. That means Canada’s carbon footprint does not affect the globe in any manner at all other than reducing the amount of carbon it nullifies that is produced by other leading countries of greenhouse effects.

The implementation of climate change policy creates great hardship on the tax payer and citizen of Canada. Climate change policy drains the public bank, disrupts private industries and greatly harms Canada’s economy. If there are any developed countries that can safely ignore the entire climate change conversation, it is Canada as long as Canada commits to a frugal mindset regarding producing greenhouse gases and pollution.

Some will argue that Canada needs to set a good example for the world. No, it does not. No one cares except odd pompous virtue-signaling politicians at formal political dinner parties. Then, why should others reduce their emissions? because their emissions are affecting the world.

Still others say that allocating funds on greenhouse policy, even if not necessary, help stimulate the economy both financially and technically. I suggest those individuals read the Parable of the Broken Window by the great French economist Frederick Basitiat who eloquently dismisses fiscal waste and destruction for what it is, bad for the economy.

In conclusion, it must be stated that although Canada is large in stature and mass, that Canada is comparable if not smaller population-wise than some of the world’s largest cities. Yes, the second largest country in mass in the world has only 35 million citizens. Canada should not participate in notions or implement policy regarding climate change. At the very most, Canada should not be a trail blazer and be an outlier only to implement policy when prepared and with the least economic effects on the Canadian citizen and economy.

Is leftism Dangerous?

Is leftism Dangerous?

The most dangerous ideologies today are ideologies that are centered or underpinned by leftist ideas. Genetics for some reason seems to drive them bonkers. If there is a god or a great architect of the universe, then these brilliant leftists in all their wisdom and might think they are smarter and mightier than it. They see the error in its ways and they do not see the error of their ways.

Biology and Genetics

Biological genetics dictates physical limitations and general individual characteristics whether they are the degree of which you can think deeply about concepts, the degree of which you can lift great deals weight or qualify to run in Olympic competitions or the level of which you can earn income because you have a beautiful voice that others wish to spend their time and money producing or spend their hard earned income so they can listen  to said voice.

These biological differences could dictate in most instances what you should or should not do as well. You might sing well but you can’t run fast or long, therefore you might not try to become a long-distance runner or a sprinter. You might have a beautiful voice, but you are ugly and fat, therefore you might not consider pursuing becoming a fashion model in the vain, insane fashion industry.

Common Sense, Money and Power

A common thread to this line of thinking relies upon some modicum of common sense and this common sense answers the question ‘why’ which is answered based on money, power and degree of common sense. When a situation, belief, concept, decision or idea is questioned and the mere act of questioning this belief, concept, decision or idea induces anger from many people and further when facts or theories are used to support this act of questioning and these facts or theories threatens peoples’ income, or power or degree of common sense they abstract, then people tend to get very angry.

Leftist tend to dress up and complement this feigned anger with moral outrage by indicting or provoking charges of sexism or racism or by eliciting non-factual feel-good, look-stupid ad hominem attacks of Nazism or white supremacy. Do not be fooled or distracted. This is about power and control, money and common sense or any combination thereof.


If this is about money and power, then genetics or the study of genetics is the enemy of every leftist’s reality. In society today, people have on offer goods and services or some form of a delusion. Learned MGTOW understand delusion all too well, the delusion women offer, the subjugated mind of the delusional female or the concept of marriage. However, the general population is constantly bombarded by delusion. Marketing for the most part sells the sizzle and not the steak. How often do people buy the latest and greatest exercising devices which are going to fix all their weight problems or buy into secret ideas or concepts such as the more you give, the more you receive?

Modeling agencies provide beautiful people for enterprises that need the images of beautiful people to prop them up or to prop their products up. These same agencies will accept money from people who are not the most beautiful people or even downright ugly people. They take their money, pretend to train them and then refer them. The goal is not to make money from providing these people as models but to make money from these people wanting to be models. There are so many levels of honesty and dishonesty going on here it is frightening.

The Many levels of Delusion

On one hand, the agency meets its own goals, providing goods and services to customers by providing models to needy customers, providing jobs and contracts to models and earning commissions. The agency provides something to people who want something they cannot achieve on their own, namely models for companies, jobs for models and commissions for stock holders of the agency.

On the other hand, the agency provides goods and services in the form of delusion. Again, on many levels. The agency allows the ugly, fat or ordinary models to be delusional, the agency accepts money from them for selling them delusion which is delusional in and of itself and the agency convinces itself that some customers might want this ordinary, ugly or fat models which again is delusional. If a customer hires a fat, ugly or ordinary model as the ordinary person then they buy in to this delusion and when the public accepts the fat, ugly or ordinary model in the finalized marketing, the delusion is complete.

There are many industries that cater to delusion. As mentioned the modeling industry, but also the acting industry, the self-help industry, all religions in general and the ‘get-rich-quick’ industry. The adage if it sounds too good to be true, then it is probably not true, is the most ignored adage of the delusion industry closely followed by if it looks like a duck, walks like and duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Snake oil hucksters prey upon delusion and delusion is ubiquitous in today’s societies as well as societies gone by. Selling people hope where there is a shortage of hope or ability is lucrative.


Parents are supposed to be encouraging towards their children and indeed that is a primary function of being a parent, to draw out abilities and desires from young adults who have not yet discovered their individual abilities and talents. You expose children to as much as possible hoping to draw out where the perfect balance of desire and ability lies in the hopes of focusing your child’s energies towards those directions, thus ensuring your children’s success in life. This is natural and traditionally women bore the brunt of this enthusiasm, being the cheerleaders of our children’s motivations. The father’s role was to whittle down these sometimes-unrealistic aspirations and enthusiasms to a more reasonable and rational direction which were more in line with reality.

A parent who encourages a child in a direction towards something he is not good at, is not doing their child any favors. They are opening the child to bullying and embarrassment. Pretending your child is good at something they are not good at only encourages him to waste his time, energies and resources and puts him in situations where he is going to be humiliated and laughed at, where he is going to do a bad job.  This is cruel to encourage people far beyond their abilities, and if you encourage people into the wrong direction regarding their abilities, you prevent them from continuing to expose themselves and explore and find things they love and are good at and people are willing to pay for them. Blanket enthusiasm and exposure to a wide variety of things is great when children are young, to continue that beyond rational limits is horrible. We need a balance of being critical and being realistic. When get older and begin to go to university, the first year we study many things and as our academic careers progress we narrow our focus until we become experts in a narrow field of study.

In the relatively recent past and for centuries prior, it was the father who was awarded children upon the collapse of the nuclear family. This fact tends to offend the sensibilities of many feminist and women today, but facts do not really care about your feelings. In recent decades, due to feminism, the role of mothers has gone from co-parenting to omniscient and the encouragement and inclusiveness of everyone for everything all the time and everywhere has become ubiquitous. Everyone gets a trophy, competition has been eliminated, meritocracy is a nasty, bad and excluding concept and masculinity is absent in the single-mother household and has become evil. Being kind, fair and nice has overtaken being smart, efficient and truthful. Being kind, fair and nice has overtaken making the correct decisions. Indeed, being kind, fair and nice has overtaken common sense.

Yes, it is humiliating, demotivating and wrong to belittle a child who is just starting out. It is not only unfair and wrong, but it stifles the natural innate enthusiasm of most children and thus avoiding the disgrace inflicted by unjust criticism of a child is noble. However, this humiliation is a two-edged sword, as encouraging a child to continue at something they are not good at beyond all evidence and reason exposes them to societal humiliation, too. There needs to be a rational, realistic reasoned balance accurately placed into the child’s developmental timeline.

100% Environmental

With that said, leftists are totally and genuinely radically obsessed on environmental explanations regarding where each of us end up in our lot in life. Women gravitate towards people-centric occupations whilst men gravitate towards working with things and ideas. The reasons why are neither 100% environmental nor are they 100% to do with genetics. There are things that are more genetics-based such as intelligence, eye color and height. Indeed, there is probably nothing in your personality that has nothing at all to do with genetics. Genetics has a lot to do with who and what we are and to throw away genetics as a basis of this is, and to say that everything is 100% environmental is not only dumb but it is dangerous and intellectually dishonest.

Why leftist do this is because by making everything 100% environmental, they have something to offer the world which is equality of outcome. Now they have a product to sell, namely egalitarianism of outcome. If our intelligence, our predilections, our preferences, our talents, our gender, if everything is 100% environmental, then the social environment can be tweaked and re-tweaked until equality of outcome is achieved. All inequalities and disparity between and among groups can be classified as racism, sexism, nationalism, all the ismistics (words ending with ism, ist, or ic) and can be rooted out of society if only they, the dear well-meaning-but-utterly-dumb-leftists who are nothing but power hungry, are given the power to do so. The power they need, the power they thrive upon, the power they dream about having is the might of the state with their guns and their bombs and their jails and their weapons to enforce their dogma and ideology upon the masses, you and me.

0% Genetics

For leftism to work, genetics cannot be a factor, everything needs to be environmental. It is impossible, difficult or unethical to change genetics or genes to a degree, but anything environmental can be changed. Laws cannot be passed to dictate anything genetic. We cannot pass laws to make women smarter, men dumber, women stronger or men to be more woman-like genetically. Laws cannot be passed to make white people black or hairy people bald genetically. Laws cannot be passed to genetically change hair or eye color.

Over time government policy can influence genetics. A welfare state can change the demographic landscape of a country, immigration policy can affect the demographic landscape of a country. In time these shifts in the demographic landscape of the country will affect the genetic landscape of a country. However, modification of the genetic landscape of a nation in the here-and-now cannot be legislated. By accepting the innate and significant overwhelming role genetics plays in who and what we are, we explore the various disparities from a causative perspective, apart from that of a bigoted injustice perpetrated by environmental factors and all the ismistics, but from an indication of genetic diversity, namely sexually oriented diversity, gender diversity and ethnic diversity to name just a few elements of genetic diversity predicted via evolution.

The fact that men were hunting, fighting, protecting gathering and building and women were raising and baring children, cooking, cleaning and nesting and that these differences produced changes and differences in the body but not the brain is insipid and undeniable. To think our brains as tiny as they are, which use up to 33% or our energy and are pampered and nurtured more than any other organ we own, are not the most subjected to the forces of evolution not only between the genders but ethnicities is illogical. Oddly, the left which admonishes religions for rejecting aspects of evolution, rejects evolution completely.

Some state that men have exploited women over history, but it is the person that hires another to do his bidding who does not participate in physical fitness, the person that exploits another that does not do the heavy lifting, the person that is exploited is the person that develops the muscle and strength. Men have ended up with 40% more upper body strength and muscle than women because it was required of a man to expend greater strength and resources than woman.

Mothers encourage children to be good at something children are not good at, and justifiably so. Then, fathers tell it straight to the children in due time if they are not cutting it at something not because fathers are pricks, but because fathers want their children to succeed, they want to protect their children from humiliation and failure. There are always those half-truths, my mother thinks I am a good poet. However, as fathers not only disappear from the nuclear family, children’s lives and become absent from society, the delusion of equality of outcome has firmly taken hold as mothers cultivate the potential of children and fathers no longer focus children away from what they are not good at and keep them on track towards what the child is best at.

By accepting the significance of genetics, that genetics are responsible and the cause of differences and disparities in outcomes among and between groups, then these causes and differences in outcomes can be explored. We can operationalize or normalize by a variety of factors or variations. For instance, when we look at the wage gap that portrays women as earning substantially less than men, the factors or number of factors you use to obtain averages have been bi-variate, that is two factors, namely male and female have been used. All the salaries of men were added together and averaged, and all the salaries of women were added together and averaged and low and behold, women earn less. This is not only deceptive, but it is evil and wrong because it pits women against men, balkanizes our society, shows improper use of statistics, is intellectually dishonest and for the most part belittles the efforts and the value of men. This balkanizes our societies by saying that this disparity is because of bigotry, sexism and misogynists and only sow resentment on both sides of the issue unnecessarily and is counterproductive.

Normalizing the Wage Gap

If you really wanted to find out if men and women are paid differently, then you need to find the variables that will allow you to operationalize your data and normalize the data based on a multitude of variables or factors that explain substantial differences not only between men and women but also between men and men and women and women.

Why are there not many Vietnamese in the NBA?  We could stat that It must be bigotry or racism, or we could normalize our data by the amount of Vietnamese in the U.S., height, muscle mass or exposure to the game. It could be that once normalized by the amount of Vietnamese in the U.S., height, muscle mass and exposure to the game we find there is a higher representation of Vietnamese in the NBA than there should be or perhaps it is just right.

When looking at the wage gap, for women we can normalize by education and the fact that women tend to be attracted to or focus on occupations that are generally lower in compensation because they work with people rather than things. If you want to make money, then you might focus on becoming a process engineer in the petroleum industry or become a plumber or electrician.  One job requires substantial education, another is dirty and still another is dangerous. All require certification, and all pay well. However, women tend to not dominate these fields, opting for other fields that are required but just do not pay as well.

Other factors or variables would be experience based. How many years of experience do you have? Did you stay home with your children? How many years did you work and earn money? Staying home and raising children does not pay well. Yes, it is noble and yes, it is required but when we average out your salary, the amount of years you stayed home with the children is going to put a substantial downward bump in your average yearly salary over your lifetime.

Complain as one might, that you did not get paid, but face it, you should feel lucky you could do that. Many cannot and would love to stay home and raise and influence their children. If you were lucky enough to stay home with your kids, then it is very likely that your husband or father of your children works and pays the bills. The woman is indeed getting paid. If your husband earns $50K a year, then he pays the woman most of that income. He does not get half of that. He needs to pay for everything, the house, food, utilities, insurance and the woman and kids will get at least $40K of that $50 or more. Is this money counted in this wage gap figure? No, it should be but according to the current wage gap calculations it is not. The man is listed as making $50K and the woman is listed as making $0. If we were to normalize this, then the man might receive $30K and the women $20K and even that is not honest as a fairer account would be $25K for both the woman and the man.

Another factor of normalization would be the variable of IQ. Women tend to follow a bell curve regarding intelligence as men do, but the most intelligent people are men, and overwhelmingly the most stupid people tend to be men as well. If one was not intellectually dishonest and wanted to truly find out if there were a wage gap, then upon normalizing the data you would find out that women are not underpaid relative to men and if you added in alimony, child support, affirmative action programs, and government programs that coercively redistribute wealth involuntarily, it would be found that women are overpaid relative to men and this is not even considering that the data show young, unmarried, childless women earn as much as 20% more than young, unmarried, childless men for the past 20 years.

However, as mentioned, the purpose of stating this erroneous purported wage gap is to sow resentment and balkanize society with the hopes that people forfeit their rights and freedoms to close this make-believe gap that represents nothing but misogynistic bigotry and sexism.

However, what this wage gap rhetoric has to offer is a solution to the unfairness that they want. Why the wage gap is purported is the same as the never-Trumpers goals of the American government failing in lieu of Trump succeeding. Their hatred is so deep they would rather the government to fail than Trump to not fail let alone have any success.  These people are ill. They have a mental deficiency. That is not meant as an insult, it is an observation.

Why the left will never accept genetics or the wage gap as a farce is because, if all you have on offer is solutions to unfairness and there is no unfairness, then you don’t have anything to offer. If you don’t have anything on offer to sell, then you get mad and the only way to get power is to have solutions to unfairness which requires them to invent imaginary bigotry, sexism and prejudices. The left will manufacture unfairness if they can, so they can fix the evil injustices that gives them purpose, that of which they have no purpose in life if injustices do not exist.

The wage gap is relative and requires normalization of some form to see through all the fog and understand the truth. Genetics is a factor or variable of normalization and being so is potentially an explanation for some of the disparities and injustices in the world and offers solutions that compete directly and nullifies the left’s solutions to unfairness, which for the most part are for an unfairness that is few and a far between. To top this off, genetics is a solution that the left has deemed, rightly so, to be profitless politically because they cannot implement legislation to change genetics.

Equality of outcome cannot coexist with genetics. Why would one give up rights to freedoms and property for equality of outcome if disparities and injustices can be explained by genetics? Being kind and fair has no place in equality of opportunity enforced by law as it will produce disparate outcomes because of genetics, but if leftists say that if you give them political power and money, they have solutions to these injustices because everything is 100% environmental.

Leftists believe that fewer women don’t want to become plumbers and electricians because they were not raised playing with screw drivers and wire crimpers as children and therefore, they are going to fix this, make it right and be fair and kind. This is not to say that there is no environment influence at play here, there is but the degree to which genetics is recognized negatively correlates with the degree of power people who offer equity of outcome solutions have based on environmental factors alone.

Genetics undercuts the market for equity of outcome. Leftist say the same as the communists in that the communist manifesto states that you, the worker, produces what the factory or company is selling. You are the one who is making it, and the lazy boss just exploits you and gets rich doing nothing and while you work for low pay for the work that you do.

The reality is that bosses tend to have higher IQs than the workers. The bosses have created the jobs, the factory and invested in this opportunity for people to work. He rents you the machines that allow you to make 200 pencils per hour instead of 20 pencils per hour. He finances the utilities and supplies that you require to be able to produce the pencils in return for some portion of your wages. If you could only make 20 pencils per hour before and now you can make 200 pencils per hour, you are up 180 pencils per hour and this difference you are not going to get for free. The boss is going to take his portion of this production, perhaps 40 or 50 pencils per hour or whatever the percentage is. Either way, you are making more per hour, you get more pencils, and your boss gets more pencils. Everything is good. You can go back to working for yourself and make 20 pencils per hour. However, as the worker you do not have to take the risk of investing in the pencil machine, and the supplies cost, electricity, heating, mortgage, insurance, etc. When you honestly look at it, the boss does not want to keep you down. If you can make more, he makes more. Only someone who has never been a boss would fantasize that the boss is trying to keep you down or someone that has never worked in a capitalist environment.

Again, Realistically, the boss desperately wants to pay you more. If he can pay you more it’s because you are producing more and if he pays you even more, again you are going to produce even more. That is until there are no gains in paying you more. However, a salesman who doubles his sales is going to make more money from the increased sales. But, your boss cannot pay you more, if you are not producing more.

Pareto Principle (80/20 Rule)

The 80/20 rule or the Pareto principle, is where 80% of the peas come from 20% of the plants or 80% of the effects comes from 20% of the cause. 20% of the workers produce 80% of the value.  The numbers do not need to be exact, the principle is that most things in life are not distributed evenly, that some contribute more than others.

So, if you have 100, workers then 20 of them are going to be producing 80% of the value of your business. Of those 20 workers, 4 of them are going to be producing 65% of your business’ value. Of 100 workers, 4 workers are producing 65% of your businesses value. Each of the 4 produces approximately 18% of your business’ value, and the other 96 workers produce approximately 0.3% of your business’ value.

Are any workers going to get paid more than other workers? Of course, there are, or you are either not going to get that type of productivity or those high-producing workers are going to go elsewhere to greener pastures.

If these people are high-energy people who are willing to work seven days a week, forfeit their family life, work nights and weekends, willing to travel, willing to have no work-life balance and they are just super talented people then what is there to resent. In any creative industry be it musicians, painter, actors or writers, 95% of all money goes to the top 5% of the people because they have the above characteristics.

Understanding and recognizing genetics regarding intelligence makes it harder to be resentful and easier to be grateful which drive leftists bonkers. Telling a leftist worker that they should be grateful that this guy or that guy was smart enough or worked hard enough or long enough, took risks and saved money and produced a product that makes our company’s bottom line better and makes it easier for you to sell our company’s products and earn more money than you should earn and drives up demand for your labor which increases everyone’s wages. You should be grateful that you can make 200 pencils an hour.

The notion that your boss is exploiting you by taking 50 pencils from you an hour and leaves you with 150 when you can only create 20 pencils an hour on your own without his machine is fantasy. These machines and factories don’t fall from the sky automagically. You should be grateful.

The singer who just does not quite cut it, can say of the top 5%ers that it is just the connections and that the singers are being exploited and be resentful, but it is that resentment that will hold them back from ever being successful as who wants to work with someone that is resentful.

Leftism doesn’t just describe a lack of success, it doesn’t just predict a lack of success, it creates and manifests a lack of success. Any person that views another person as a bad, negative inhumane person who is just exploiting people isn’t employable and even if they do get the job, they are only going to lose it eventually anyhow. As they exclaim “I knew the capitalist system did not work”, it will be obvious that, no, your hatred of the capitalist system doesn’t work.

The singer who just does not quite cut it can be grateful for these superstars because it is them who have created and keep entire industries afloat and vibrant, they keep radio pertinent, cd production facilities, studios, concert venues, agencies, security, paparazzi, t-shirt and merchandising industries vibrant, blazing several trails that many including the singer who does not quite cut it can hook into and make a fortune. You should kneel and kiss their ring and thank them and be grateful for them. This is not only a perfectly rational perspective, but the perspective of resentment is just a victim mentality, that you are just a resource to be exploited. If women are only earning 70 cents per dollar that men earn for the same work, the same productivity, then who pays them 71 cents, or 75 cents or 80 cents is going to make a fortune exploiting them. Indeed, if this is the situation then the solution that fixes this injustice would be natural especially in a capitalist environment and the need for the leftist’s solution to the injustice is not and never will be required or needed.

Indeed, in accordance to the educational decisions women have made, the choices to have the children they have had and if they are as productive as men over the course of their careers then their wages would be bid up by the greed of the capitalists. However, the leftist says that it is the greed of the capitalists that makes them underbid and underpay women. Everyone is underpaid, every man and woman think they are underpaid.

What is this underpaid amount anyhow? Whatever it is, you are just under that amount. Why is it that you should get this amount that is deemed to be not underpaid? What you get is what you negotiate for. If it is under payment for your services, then do not work there. You get what you are worth and if you are not worth the amount you have deemed to be underpaid then you need to work for less, go elsewhere to work or provide our own work and salary. If you earn a lot for a company, an amount that others can not earn for that company, then economics 101 dictates that you go ask for more earnings. If you ask too much, then there is no benefit for the company to pay you more. There is no incentive for them to pay you more or even keep you as an employee.

If you think you are underpaid, then you probably think you are under-dated.  Again, that magically amount of dates that you should have to be not under-dated, you are just below that. The evil gynocentric society is ensuring you are under-dated, keeping you just below having an amount of dates that is not considered in the under-dated range. One might then assume there is an angel looking over your shoulder down upon you keeping you underpaid so you can maintain your under-dated status. Who knows?

Women are not underpaid. If women are producing they will get what they ask for. On one hand leftists say that profit drives down women’s wages relative to men’s wages and out of the other side of their mouths, on the other hand they say capitalists are so greedy that they use every advantage to get ahead and paying women slightly more than what they are paying now would make a capitalist a fortune. It just doesn’t make any sense. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. It just does not make any sense, but it is not supposed to make sense, it is supposed to sow resentment.

If you can convince women that they are underpaid relative to men, that men are mean and exploiting women not giving them what they deserve. Then you can get women to surrender their rights of property for society, their rights of negotiation, their rights of freedom of association, that they are going to surrender the rights of people for whatever they see fit because it is unfair. In this manner, you bypass genetics, innate abilities and capacities, the bell curve, meritocracy. Then people will surrender moral principles like property rights. Instead of telling women, you want to be empowered, then you need to go negotiate for what you want. By the way if you decide to have children then somebody needs to pay for those. If a woman is on welfare, why is that not considered pay? Technically its not pay but it is a transfer or resource, involuntary mind you, it is the wallet rape of men. If a man is paying a woman’s bills because she stays home with their children, then she is being paid. This pay is not considered income because it would close that ‘wage gap’ and may even put her on top. Women are responsible for over 85% of all purchase be they household or not. In going to any mall, you would be hard pressed to find even one RadioShack. Even BestBuy’s are difficult to find. Mall’s are entirely for women all the time. However, you know, it is a patriarchy though.

It is genetics, whether race or gender that pushes back against the supposed evil bigotry and nastiness that is represented by free society appealing to the resentful and the unsuccessful as it states it is not your fault you are not succeeding, institutional this and systemic that and violence and the patriarchy, massive amounts of white supremacy, racism, and there for you cannot succeed but do not worry, surrender your rights and freedoms and we will go what is innately yours.

That kid Stole My Bike

From a morality perspective, if one was to go to a kid and say, I am going to go steal a bike for you worth $500 for only $50. Most of us will have reservations about that. This person is going to go steal a bike for me, that is wrong. Who wants that, and who wants to live in a neighbor hood where everyone is doing that? In our current society most of us would say no thanks.

However, if someone came up to you and said, when you were little your parents had bought you a nice bike for when you got older, it was a bigger bike than you could handle at the time. I know the kid that stole that bike. For $10 I will go steal that bike back for you. It is your bike. This situation is a lot more tempting. He is not stealing a bike that was never yours. This is your bike and he is just going to get it back. Isn’t that exactly what the police would do? If you called up the police and you told them some kid across the street stole your bike and he is riding around the neighborhood on it. The police will come bay find the kid and ascertain whose bike it is. They will go and get the bike, by force if necessary, from the kid across the street and bring it back to you. People will agree that this is right, and this is fair and that is just and that is good.

However, you have to say that you were stolen from. If you were not stolen from and someone goes and steals a bike for you then that is a violation of property. If you were stolen from and someone gets that bike back for you then that is an affirmation of property.

This is pretend justice. Justice means equality of opportunity and social justice means equality of outcome. Social justice and leftists try and appeal to your sense of morality to destroy actual morality.

Little Jimmy goes and turns off some kid’s computer while in the middle doing some homework or playing a computer game and upsets the kid on the computer. The kid pushes little Jimmy who turned off the computer. Jimmy now lies to his big brother or bigger friend, saying someone wronged him and pushed him and Jimmy gets his big brother or bigger friend to go correct this injustice. Jimmy’s big brother or bigger friend is now doing wrong because little Jimmy was at fault in the first place for turning off the computer and this has resulted in negative behavior of other people. The big brother thinks he is correcting a wrong, but he is creating a wrong. So if a leftist says to you that you should have what these rich people have or you should have what the middle class have or something has been taken away from you or you have been exploited in some manner and they get you to believe this and get you to go the government and get me back my bike that was stolen from me, get me back that money that was stolen from me, get me back the wages that I was not paid and you believe you are affirming your property rights, but you are not. You were never stolen from in the first place. Then you are getting the government to go steal somebody’s bike and bring it to you all disguised as fairness and rightness in property ownership.

In 1992, Charles Murray published the Bell Curve and stated that the incomes across America were that the Japanese and Chinese are very high with the Jews even higher, with whites in the middle followed by Hispanics and blacks at the bottom. If you were to normalize by IQ, then these differences and disparities all but vanished. That explanation is very powerful, but the left lost it and went bonkers as they so often do.

Charles took it particularly hard and found it a rough thing to go through, especially because back in the era, if you were attacked unjustly, the main stream media, who were also left back then, held all the cards and you had little to no capacity to rebut or respond unlike today whereas we have the internet and you can rebut of explain until the cows come home.

We can try and excuse the left and make excuses for them and say that they were sensitive to the feelings of blacks and Hispanics, but if you were sensitive to the feelings of blacks, you would limit immigration from low-skill nations as these immigrants have been directly driving the wages of the most economically vulnerable in society which are blacks. You would also get rid of the welfare state which traps blacks in a perpetual cycle of poverty and underclass and has destroyed the black nuclear family. As Walter Williams has stated, the welfare state has done what slavery, segregation and Jim Crow could not do and that is destroyed the back family. So, the left, if they cared would be against the welfare state and low-skilled immigration.

What is the left about? The left is about selling you a product called injustice. Disparate outcomes are the result of injustice, are the result of bad people doing wrong things like bigotry, sexism, racism and anything else they can utilize to pitch you on what they must sell. They ask you to give up your principles, your property, your freedoms, give up freedom of association and then we will restore to you that of which was stolen from you.

However, genetics is a pushback on all disparities of outcome are the result of injustice and whatever whittles that sense of injustice that the left is selling, whittles down the market that the left can sell into. It is about money and power. They only claim to be scientific as to get religion out of the way because religion has a strong focus on individual choices, individual conscience and recognize that people have different abilities. However, when genetics comes up the left become hysterically anti scientific to the point where they will physically attack people bring up competing theories to the market they want to sell into.

Their hysteria is served by a rigorous devotion to reason and evidence. The superstition of radical environmental triggered egalitarianism is an exceptionally dangerous superstition driving many dysfunctional and destructive policies in the west at the moment that challenging though it may be, that the reality of group differences in genetics, the reality that genetics explains an extraordinary amount of inequalities within society and then turn out to not be inequalities but rather representations of human biodiversity is where we need to take our stand because this is the most important issue that is going on in the world right now. If it diminishes the left’s capacity to sell resentment and sow the seeds of the civilization that gave birth, then so be it.

These ideas are paraphrased from Stefan Molyneux.

Is the Wage Gap a Myth? NO!

Many people today think that the wage gap is a myth. This is not true. These people are sexist, and they ignore substantial numbers of multi-variate studies conducted by reputable institutions and reputable scholars such as the U.S Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Indeed, the wage gap denial is the biggest scandal purported on the human population in the past 50 years. However, facts just do not seem to matter, do they? As long as there is a victim mentality, there will be wage gap deniers.

Let’s look at the facts, shall we? According to a TIME article (Luscombe, 2010) in 2010 based on the 2008 U.S. census data, 10 years ago mind you, out of 150 cities studied, young women earn more than young men in 147 cities. Additionally, they earn as much as 20% more than men, but who cares about facts anyway. The attitude women today have is disgusting and shows their sheer entitlement. Additionally, the author of this article apologizes for these sentiments about as much as women in general do for their unreasonable, unaccountable immature attitudes they present daily.

No wonder men for the most part not only ignore women but safely ignore woman and the growing trend is that women are beginning to ignore women also. There is no question as to why groups such as MGTOW are not only growing at record speeds but encapsulating all demographics of men as young as 13 years old. In fact, women are beginning to sympathize and agree with the MGTOW mind set as well, mind you ladies you are definitely not welcome in MGTOW – men only, happily.

Referring to the TIME article, look at the title, “Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top”, let’s just for one moment see how acceptable that title is, shall we? Change the word ‘women’ to men, “Workplace Salaries: At Last, Men on Top.” Imagine the backlash if that was the title. Why is it OK to see men falling to the bottom of the income ladder? Would it be OK to see women falling to the bottom of the income ladder? Is it OK for young men’s economic gains to outpace women? Then, why is it OK for young women’s economic gains to outpace men?

We constantly hear the term misogynist being thrown around everywhere, all the time and thank god for that or we would not know it was misogynistic. However, misandry is alive and well, in practice, in reality and in fact. For instance, just stating what is observable in reality will trigger some women and white knights to call these statements misogynistic while proving the stated misandry statement.

Men are earning less and less and as of 2015 young men earning less than $30,000 per year had doubled over the past 40 years whereas women earning more than $60,000, yes $60,000 per year has increased, 13% (Vespa, 2017).

Additionally, women are whining about needing more women in management positions. What is it women really want? They already make more money than men. According to the 2017 Bureau Labor Statistics which surveyed the 153,337,000 workers in the United states, women make up 46.9% of the labor force and hold 51.6 % of the best jobs namely, top management, professional and related occupations (Statistics). At what point is it fair, equal or too much? All men know the answer to this; however, women do not know the answer and if you are a woman and you think you do know when it is too much then please elaborate in the comments of this article. Perhaps we have too many women in management positions already and if you think that we do not, then please elaborate. I predict that there will be no comments elaborating when it is we have too many women and if there is they will be dumb arguments and safely ignored.

It is very easy to find statistics and studies which show that women today are earning more than men and that the traditional ‘wage gap’ argument relied on only bi-variate factors namely male and female. No other factors were considered. However, when explaining why women earn more today, specifically with millennials all the multi-variate factors just come pouring out as if one had a nasty case of diarrhea.

So, young women earn more than young men today because they are better educated. Fair enough. However, statistics show that women are more than 60% of university students. Notice the ‘more than’ and all of sudden statistics become vague (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2012/02/16/the-male-female-ratio-in-college/). Some stats say 56% which are just not accurate. Most say, ‘more than 60%’. Anyone with recent experience in any university knows there is an issue with male/female ratios in universities. The real numbers are more like 70%  female if not more. Some of the classes the author of this article taught were 90% women.

If women are earning more than men today because they have better education and more women are in universities, namely for every two women there is one male in university, that is half as much men, then what are we going to do about it? We all know the answer to this, nothing. Why? Is it because we don’t agree with this premise? No, it is because woman are hypocrites and there are too many white nights, manginas, simpletons and men in general that just want some tang and are willing to forgo their dignity to get some.

Additionally, there are calls that use this statistic as an excuse to hire more women at universities. Imagine, women at this point do not do anything about nor do they care about the inequalities of gender in universities. One could only imagine the extent of which this crisis would grow if we get rid of what little men are currently represented in universities now. ‘Women represent 57% of college students—but just 26% of school leaders (https://www.eab.com/daily-briefing/2015/03/19/one-quarter-of-presidents-are-women) and Not only are more women employed in schools and universities, they call for even more! Nothing to see here, move along.

Is it OK if women were making less than men for the same work, same experience and same competency level? If not, then what can we do about this to equal or level out the difference? Now take all those ideas you have and change the word ‘men’ to ‘women’ and the word ‘women’ to ‘men’ and that’s what we need to do to change the scandal being purported upon men in society today.

We need to stop programs for women regarding universities 5 years ago. Men need to be admitted for free just to increase the numbers a little bit, however even something as drastic as this will not create an equilibrium in university demographics between males and females. Men do not want to go to a gynocentric university where they are going to potentially be put in jail!

However, with the recent pound-me-too (#metoo) campaign which I don’t really understand, have some tact you nasty whorish women, it appears it is too late for fixing the current state of society regarding men and women. Today 7% of men are not even in the labor force and neither do they wish to be nor do they plan on entering the work force.

Even if there were a wage gap against women, which there is not, some of the factors being thrown around are that married men earn more as they have a supportive wife helping with his household affairs and married women are penalized for being married (http://epc2014.princeton.edu/papers/140782), additionally, women with children, it is claimed, earn less because they have children. If this is true, what is the solution? Don’t get married? Don’t have kids? Why do women hate to be women so much? Why are women so jealous of men?

Perhaps we can tax the heck out of men more, who already pay 200% more tax than women do, earn less than women and use less per capita of government programs. No thank you! I will just take a crap job, earn less, work more under the table in the black market to avoid the tax that go to women and go fishing on the weekends thanks. Additionally, men no longer even want to work with women let alone ‘man-splain’ their knowledge as we have done via apprenticeships for 1000s of years.

Now that women have ‘fixed’ society, I posit that we allow men to back-out of society and go start another society. Give women and manginas the current society, which sucks so bad according to them, that they dearly want for some reason, even though it sucks so bad, for free with no strings attached. Just allow men to go their own way and start a new society for themselves with all their guns, masculinity and patriarchy so as to not offend all the progressive liberals. If not, then there will be a civil war.
Before finishing this article, lets do a little wage-gap reality check challenge shall we?

Wage Gap Reality-check challenge

“It seems to be common knowledge that men are earning more than women as spouted by women, manginas and all the media. However, there are many men, who are very responsible and have lots of responsibilities and important jobs.”

“Yes, but there are also many women dear sir. They too, have responsibilities and important jobs.”

“Yes, but I can name many men, most my friends, who go to work every day and work hard, and get dirty and sometimes injure themselves at work, just to go home late at night to their families and friends”

“Yes, dear sir, but I too can name many women, most of who are my friends and who work hard and long hours who are also subject to getting home late to their family and sometimes subject to injuries”

“But there are so many men working with difficult jobs, I think perhaps 51% of all people working are men, a great number of men indeed and I do not purport that they earn more or less than anyone else. I also purport that they do not earn the same or equal as other be they men or women”

“Yes, dear sir, I proclaim that many women work with difficult jobs also, I think perhaps 50% of all people working are women, a great deal of women indeed and I do purport that they earn less than men and I also purport that they do not earn equal to men, although you also purport men do not earn equal to other men, but I do purport women earn less than men, indeed”

“Ah, I see, so I give you this challenge and give you all the time you need that is reasonable to list 5 names of women who you know as we all know many women and men, who we can name personally, and are not what someone else says but as we anecdotally can state from our own personal knowledge to earn less than a man who has the same experience, knowledge and competency.

No response.

“Hmm, I see you are having a problem, so I extend this challenge to be only 3 names that you personally know, after all this is a pandemic issue that all state to be true, all media state to be true and even some mangina men state to be true and free of false claims as apparent by their overly obvious triggering. Therefore, please provide three names and take all the time you need that is reasonable in nature.”

No response.

“Hmm, problems are to be overcome and not be obstacles and thus I challenge you to name only 1 woman who earns less than a man who has the same experience and competence of that of a man. After all, we all know many men and women and it should be easy considering this pandemic situation and one should quickly be able to name 1 woman who earns less than a man of equal situations”

“hmmm, lest I wait.”

No response.


If you can’t see that you have been tricked, hoodwinked and played the fool then you are really dumb. In your maleficence, you are destroying society. One in your position should be proud of your accomplishment.

So, is the wage gap a myth? No, it is not. Men do not earn as much a women and women are entitled and are provided much more opportunities than men. Are you going to work when you finish university? Who cares. That is such a dumb question and it is a question that is NEVER asked of a man. Women’s problems are rooted in the fact, THE FACT, that they have too many options and this is why women and their opinions are ignored by most men, that is unless the man wants vaj. Women need to become reasonable and accountable and stop acting like adult children.

Oh, and what about men who earn less than women for the same work. I am not going to list full names here because there are literally thousands. Instead I am going to list industries where women earn more than men for no reason other than the fact they are women: The Porn industry, Magazine models, runway models, the fashion industry in general. So, what about you? Name some women that earn less than men for no reason at all.


Luscombe, B. (2010, Sept. 01 2020). Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

Statistics, B. o. L. Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

Vespa, J. (2017). The Changing Economics and Demographics of Young Adulthood:1975-2016. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/p20-579.pdf

Are you a White Knight?

Men are dumb

MGTOW non colesA white knight is defined as a thing or a person that comes to someone’s aid. Another definition is a person or company making an acceptable counteroffer for a company facing a hostile takeover.  Both definitions seem noble if not honorable.

However, there is a third term that is commonly used in today’s MGTOW community, used as a derogatory term often to show disdain or contempt for a man that comes to the aid of a woman whether she needs aid or not and to state that your actions are pathetic and groveling in nature.

These men think they are ‘being nice’. Some of these men are so manipulated by society, culture and media that they only think they are being nice and do not see any underpinnings for their actions.  However, these men are few and far between.  If a man calls you a white knight he is insinuating that he feels you are unaware of your actions. You may very well be totally aware of your actions, and if you are aware of your actions then you are just worshiping vaj and acting in a groveling manner in hopes of getting some. You will not get any though. You will be put in the friend or ally zone forever or until she has nothing to do or is bored. The sad thing is that many men are totally aware of this and find this action to be acceptable.

If a man calls another man a white knight, he is either expressing his utter disparagement towards that man or trying to red-pill him. The later is much more prevalent than one might think. Red-pilled men are very anxious and willing to share their knowledge, understandings and experiences with other men.

White knights come in all shapes and sizes. However, women cannot be white knights. Women are by nature white knights, just as they are leftists by nature. Any woman who is not a white knight by nature is a weirdo. However, there are a few weirdos out there. So, what does a woman who is not a white knight sound like? She is the woman who says stuff like, “If I was him I would punch her in the face” or, “doesn’t he see that she is using him?”MGTOW non coles

There tends to be an over representation of white knights in men that aspire to be classified as a jock. This is understandable though as these guys are usually capitalizing on their innate need to pummel some poor unsuspecting guy who they’ve identified as weaker than they are and the potentially get vaj at the same time.

With that said there is no shortage of white knights at all as they permeate all strata of society from incels, nerds, handicapped mentally and physically fat, skinny, poor, short and the ugly.  You don’t even need to be really- ugly, just a little ugly as a man’s desire for tang is directly correlated with a woman’s supply of baby-rabies vaccine injectors.

So, are you a white knight or are the guys around you white knights. It is a rare man indeed that is naturally a white knight and unaware of it. White knights are usually very cognizant of the fact they are white knights. However, if you truly are unaware of if you are a white night or not, then here are a couple questions for you that will give you an indication of your propensity of white knight-ism.

Please read the following narrative before answering the white knight questions.

Barbie: Brand new dress. Never worn because too big for me. Fits sizes 10-14. Super Stretchy material. $20.

Paul: would smash

Benji:  What exactly do you mean by that? Are you trying to say that you would have sex with this woman? That is gross, and a gross way of saying it. Seriously, you are pathetic. I think you are forgetting that no, you wouldn’t smash. This woman is probably so far out of your league you wouldn’t even touch. In fact, I imagine that if you are stalking Vic deals saying stuff like that, then the most intimate human contact that you’ve received lately is using a public toilet when the seat is still warm.

Enjoy your lonelines

PS: Beautiful dress: D

Barbie: I adore you Benji

Benji: Right back at you my love

Paul: Excuse me Ben, I am sorry you took my comment seriously. I understand the purpose of your comment was to win female approval at the expense of your dignity, so I am not particularly offended.


Question 1: who is the white knight in the example?

Question 2: Is Ben going to get tang?

Question 3: What is the likelihood Ben is a woman?


In the example the white knight in the story is Benji and no, he is not going to get any tang. He was just put in the friend zone forever. The likelihood that Ben or Benj or Benji is a woman is great. There is also a great likelihood he is gay though. What kind of a man calls himself Benji instead of Ben or Benjamin? And what kind of a man spells his name Benji instead of Benjy. That is like spelling your name Billi instead of Billy.

As mentioned earlier, women biologically are leftists, that is unless they are weirdos. Don’t take it the wrong way, women weirdos are wonderful, it is just that when compared with the general population they are not normal, and therefore the moniker weirdo is apt. Being white knights biologically things women say will be the same as what a male White knight says.

For instance, “There is no good reason to hit a woman. You should never ever under any circumstances ever hit a woman, ever, never.” This is quite rich indeed. Never? How about if she is about to kill you with a gun and you don’t have a gun, should you hit her then? That took 2 seconds to come up with. What if she lied to you, married you, had some other guys kid and didn’t tell you, cheated on you, tried to kill you, cried crocodile tears, divorced you, lied in court and ended up with the house you had before you married her, paying for her and her children and her new nut-juice dispenser in your house and then proceeds to laugh at you telling she is pregnant with some other-other guys kid you will pay for as you have to live in your car because you cannot afford life? That one took longer but only because it was a longer sentence.

The point is that there are millions of reasons you should hit a woman. Billions. It is a stupid statement like many stupid statements. A better statement would be even though there are billions of reasons you might want to hit a woman, you should not. There, problem fixed. White knights don’t fix problems because they are addicted to vaj. They don’t want to say anything that even whiffs of fish and tastes like chicken unless it is tang that they might not get any. They will say very, very stupid things and agree to even stupider demands for tang.

White knights are incognizant of the fact they are misogynists.  Firstly, they are total hypocrites that will do and say anything for vaj. Women are good for only one thing, vaj. This is how they think. They concoct huge, complex situations all underpinned by their innate need to have vaj. Secondly, they do not think women are equal at all. Women need to be protected, “Are you OK? Do you need help? Did he upset you?”, sound familiar? How about the double-whammy misogynist-misandrist type white knights? “Did he offend you? You need to apologize to the woman! Dude you need to apologize to the woman or we are going to have a problem! I am about to punch you in the head unless you apologize to the woman.  You see their attitude is they hate men and just want to beat them, and they think the poor womens are so weak and fragile and cannot possible deal with anything themselves, why? Because they are women.MGTOW non coles

Leftists are white knights in general and usually for two reasons. One is that most programs are for women so being a leftist means you might get some. Secondly, if a program does not benefit a woman, then it might benefit an identifiable (women love identity politics) segment of the population deemed to be weak like the blind, and women will find you compassionate and therefore you might get some. Do you see a cyclical theme emerging: you might get some?

So, if you still don’t know if you are a white knight or not, then there are a couple final questions which should help you figure that out on your own. Do you like Donald Trump? It’s OK if you don’t, but you need to have a reason. You don’t even need a good reason. For instance, it’s OK to hate someone for no reason at all. We all do it all the time. We meet someone new and we don’t like them. It’s illogical but it’s very common, for no reason at all, but  own that.  Why don’t you like him? If you answer a bunch of stuff other people say or because he grabs vaj, christ, every man and I am not going to shame men by saying every real man, every man who has sex with a woman grabs vaj, wants to grab vaj or dreams about grabbing vaj and if you say that is bad, it’s because you are white knighting some woman right now hoping you will get some.

Think for yourself, be aware and don’t white knight.