Do Sex Ratios Cause Feminism and the Scarlett O’Hara Effect? Introducing the Cunty Country Ratio

April 23, 2016

*trigger warning: I use the terms sex and gender interchangeably. Because sex and gender are interchangeable terms, bitches.

*The idea from this post—that sex ratios affect how women behave  in a society–has actually been explored in a real sociological theory: The Guttentag- Secord Theory. Hattip: The Tingler in his comments to my comment at Heartiste here. However, from what I’ve read, Guttentag-Secord reaches different conclusions than what I’m positing and seeing in reality (for example, Guttentag-Secord posits that more men than women will increase marriage rates and lower divorce rates, whereas I think it would decrease them, since women will have more options for mate resources from other, more desperate males).

RooshV published an article a few months back about how nightgame was dead. As part of  his argument, he posted several pictures he had taken of night clubs he had visited, and pointed out (via marking folks with blue and pink dots) how men vastly outnumbered  women at the North American nightclubs.

The pictures got me thinking: what if gender imbalance is what causes feminist behavior?

People respond to supply and demand. And a big fish in a small pond feels a lot better, ego-wise, than being just another fish.  Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven, and all that.

So why wouldn’t this apply to the sexual market place? Specifically, to female entitlement?

If there are more dudes than chicks at an establishment–such as a night club or bar– you notice how even the Plainest Janes cop a bitch attitude, become attention whores, act like princesses, and otherwise lose their femininity. The location suddenly becomes its own little world, mentally sealing people into it, and can warp  men there into thinking the chick who is a 5 is really a 6 or a 7.This goes double if the men are hard up or extremely horny. Instinct overrides logic.

This can go to extremes. At a comic book  convention, for example, the few women who go are usually plain to ugly, and yet, amongst a sea of desperate dicks, most of whom are socially awkward nerdy types, these women “blossom” into attention-whoring princesses: wearing revealing clothing, bitch flirting with the few top nerds, making beta orbiters do ridiculous things for them, and otherwise start thinking they are 10s. It might take those girls several weeks to come off the delusional high such a convention would cause upon their brains.

I call it the Scarlett O’Hara Effect. Scarlett was the most sought-after sexpot in Atlanta in Gone With the Wind, with dozens of rich, handsome suitors who pursued her for years, and so she was warped into an entitled bitchy cunt. Not even poverty, the destruction of her family, the burning of Atlanta, and Rhett Butler’s badass game could tame her ego after it had been inflated during her sexual awakening period. .

She was spoiled. Oh fiddle-dee-dee!

So if this kind of ego-warping via sex imbalance can occur on a small scale such as at a bar or a convention–and can inflate a woman’s ego to another level lasts for weeks afterwards–could this happen on a societal scale?

The CIA World Factbook lists the gender ratios of nations around the world. Notably, it appears that more males than females are born every year: somewhere between 1.05-1.07 males born to every female. Throughout most of world history, such an imbalance was necessary because of war, hunting, and other dangerous activities men had to do to keep civilization going. Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive.

But in a society such as in the United States of 2016, dangerous jobs are rare, so much so there is a cottage industry of reality TV shows of “dangerous” jobs for the soft public to gawk at, like customers at a freak show. And the risk of invasion, slaughter, and enslavement are well-nigh laughable to most of the West. And our medical advances are keeping a lot of folks alive that just thirty years ago would have died.

So what is the result? Men in the U.S. are not being killed off at the rate they were in the past.Between the ages of 24-54,  there are 63,838,086 men to 63,947,036 women.   That is 0.998 men for every woman. The sexes are roughly equal in number in the prime dating market.

That  doesn’t seem like it would cause much in the way of problems such as feminism….except when you compare it to nations where, in 2016, we (as Americans) think the women are more feminine and less feminist and less cunty.  Suddenly a 0.998 ratio of males to females seems significant, because even a slight drop in the ratio of males to females correlates with better, sexier, more feminine women.

Countries Where Americans View the Women as More Feminine And Attractive Than American Women

Russia: between the ages of 24-54: 31,779,688 men to 33,086,346 women. That’s 0.961 men for every woman.

Brazil: between the ages of 24-54: 44,358,524 men to 45,111,178 women. That’s 0.983 men for every woman..

Japan: between the ages of 24-54: 23,764,421 men to 24,297,773 women. That’s 0.978 men for every woman.

Thailand: between the ages of 24-54: 15,675,425 men to 16,061,864 women. That’s 0.976 men for every woman.

Now, let’s look at countries where, from an American point of view, feminism is strong and/or the women stereotyped as bitchy and cunty (please get offended):

Countries Where Americans View the Women as Feminist and/or Cunty

Canada: between the ages of 24-54.  7,239,027 men to 7,041,886 women. That’s 1.03 men for every woman.

United Kingdom: between the ages of 24-54: 13,344,087 men to 12,873,234 women. That’s 1.04 men for every woman.

Argentina: between the ages of 24-54:  8,452,645 men to 8,489,476 women. That’s 0.995 men for every woman, nearly one man for every woman, nearly statistically identical (0.998 to 0.995) to the U.S. (And let’s not forget that, even though Argentinian women are viewed as being just as bitchy as U.S. women, they are viewed as being more attractive and fit and feminine in looks–which I  almost want to attribute to that .003 difference).

Such numbers, of course, don’t take local factors into consideration. For example, there might be a surplus of women between 24-54 in a specific city or town that would make them more feminine.

But overall they seem to support a hypothesis: bitchiness/feminism in women is correlated to if they have to compete for a man/ risk not having one. That is, if there is real risk that women in a nation will end up old maids because there aren’t enough men to go around—that no man might put up with their behavior–women will instinctively rush to curb their behavior and make it more pleasing to men.

In other words: the more options a woman has, the less willing she is to behave. Or: Thirsty Dudes Create Fat Princesses.

Ironically, this would mean that if feminists/lesbians truly want feminism to survive and thrive and rule the world…they need to start aborting females and select for a lot more men. Another way to say this: Queen Bees Need A Lot of Drones.

It would seem to be that there might be a Cunty Country Ratio/Rule: if there are equal or more men than woman in a nation, the women will be entitled bitches. If there are more women than men, women will behave and be feminine and pleasing. The more men than women, the cuntier the behavior. The more women than men, the more sweet and pleasing.

This also suggests that feminism is nothing more than a rationalization for cunty female behavior. Women get entitled because the number of males is equal to or greater than females, and then try to intellectually justify their bad behavior.

The Cunty Country Ratio/Rule  has an application to getting laid. If you’re thinking about traveling  to meet women, you should check to see what the ratio of males to females are between 24-54, just as you check a club or bar to see if it’s a sausage fest. The lower the over all Cunty Country Ratio–as with Russia–the easier it should be for you to meet an attractive woman who acts pleasant and feminine. Avoid, however, countries with high ratios—which I would say is a 1 to 1 ratio, or beyond. For example, I might avoid Saudi Arabia (1.15!) and China (1.04) like the plague, unless you think (1) your ethnicity would do very well there and appeal to the exotic; and (2) you would avoid getting tortured by the local governments.

A good rule of thumb for American guys seems to be finding a travel location with a Cunty Country Ratio of, at most, 0.98 males to females between the ages of 24-54. Overall for men from any nation, if you travel for coozy, look for a nation where the Cunty Country Ratio is at least .02  less that your home country.

Any higher and it gets too cunty to be pleasurable, because you’re either equaling or exceeding your own nation’s percentage of Cunty Cunts. Again, this doesn’t factor in local demographics, your status as exotic foreigner, your wealth versus the locals, your game, and your ability to speak the language. But it seems like a good rule of thumb.

The End of U.S. Civilization: Get a Whore

March 20, 2016

Tonight I witnessed a fat white chick choose a black subhuman over a civilized human being to go home with.

It was both hilarious and sad. A dichotomous situation from across the bar, and individual, yet so telling of our failed civilization.

It made a deep impression on my drunk mind, I know not why, even from across the bar: watching the substandard “woman” choose bestiality over a seemingly good, upstanding, beta man. Watching the beta’s disappointment when she made out with her chosen monkey was all too painful–though the loser was not of my race (yellow, not white), I felt a pinge and twinge in my civilized heart.

It was at that moment I decided that paid whores were all that was worth my sex drive. I would advise you men to do the same.

End of civilization rape!

Evil George Soros Funds John Kasich to Attack Trump And Disenfranchise Trump Supporters

March 16, 2016

Why is John Kasich staying in the race at this point, when he cannot win enough delegates to take the nomination before the convention?

Answer: George Soros.

Kasich is being funded by none other than Dr. Evil himself, George Soros:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/14/report-soros-money-funding-john-kasichs-presidential-bid/

Soros is the megalefty and megawealthly evil dude who is responsible for the Chicago riots against Trump (he funds Moveon.org and BLM, which have claimed responsibility for shutting the Chicago rally down). He put Obama in the White House (one of his biggest donors) and in fact promoted all the riots at Baltimore, Ferguson, and the Zimmerman death threats, as well as the BLM movement on campuses and the Occutards.

So why is a megalefty supporting an ostensible R candidate?

Well, Kasich is a cuck, of course.

But more importantly, Soros is keeping Kasich in to hopefully block Trump via a brokered/contested convention. If Trump can’t get 1237 delegates—and Kasich staying in might prevent that, by peeling off a few—then the Establishment Republicans can draft another candidate at the convention. Which is what Soros wants—a nice cuck to either lose to the D, or else be a cuck in the White House.

Trump scares even Soros. So much so he’ll help Republicans out.

Soros rape!

Trump Supporters: Punch Back Twice As Hard

March 12, 2016

The Left used violence to shut down a Trump rally.

Time to punch back twice as hard.

Girlbusters

March 7, 2016

They remade/rebooted the awesome Ghostbusters. With four unfunny women. Because feminism. And because women suck. And the left does, too. Fuck you, Hollywood.

One does not gild the lily, add ketchup to kobe beef steak, or remake classic movies. Especially if you do so by adding preachy left-wing didacticism, such as removing all the males and replacing them with all females because, “Yay! Grrrrlpower!”

It’s time’s like this I remember the immortal words of Jay Sherman, from the wonderful TV show The Critic: “If the movie’s a remake of a classic, rent the classic.” (at 0:59) .

This movie will fail. And it’s tombstone shall read but one word:

GIRLBUSTERS.

*drops mic*

Trump VP : Ann Coulter (and Make the Pick Right Now)

March 2, 2016

Scott Adams is the creator of the comic strip Dilbert. But he is also a very perspicacious man and blogger. Since August 2015, he has been analyzing Donald Trump’s behavior and has said that everything Trump has done has been by design and is very brilliant from a “master persuader” point of view. Adams has made several predictions about Trump that have come true. Adams has even predicted a Trump landslide in the general election.

Now, one of Adams’s running themes is that Trump thinks in “3-D” while most politicians and media types think in “2-D.” The “2-D v. 3-D” theme is dense to unpack, but one key aspect of it is that 2-D types see Trump’s actions and think he’s being unhinged, while Adams analyzes it and sees how Trump’s actions are well-planned efforts towards the larger goal of the presidency. For example, Adams notes that Trump’s insults to others are always fresh (meaning never done before), visual, and leave the opponents struggling to qualify themselves-Adams calls them “Linguistic Killshots.”

So, thinking more 3-D (out of the box, but planned well) than 2-D, I had  a fresh insight this morning:

Trump should make Ann Coulter his Vice-Presidential running mate. And do so right now-before the primary is even over.

Now, from a 2-D perspective, this is all sorts of wrong:

  • Coulter has no experience as a politician
  • Coulter is a propagandist and columnist and disliked by many moderates
  • Coulter has said too many outrageous things that will come back to haunt her
  • Coulter and Trump are firebrand and bombastic overkill; Trump should get a sober running mate to give him gravitas
  • Coulter doesn’t deliver any delegates like Cruz, Rubio, Carson, or Kasich could
  • Coulter doesn’t deliver any states like a governor or senator could
  • Coulter isn’t an inside-the-Beltway lobbyist or legislator who could work the logistics of lobbying for bills
  • Coulter is too hardline on immigration, abortion, etc.
  • Coulter is a talk show talking head and not a “serious thinker”
  • Picking a VP now means you’re restricted in making a deal later, at the convention, to break a deadlock or get some support-keep your options open, Donald!

But that’s all 2-D thinking. What is the 3-D thinking on this:

  • Coulter immediately negates any claims by Hillary on women voters who want to vote for a woman because she’s a woman
  • Coulter makes it ok for pro-life women to vote for Trump-she is a fanatic against abortion
  • Coulter makes it ok for moderate feminist women to vote for Trump-she is a full time career woman
  • Coulter is excellent in front of the cameras and the national media-she will not be Sarah Palined.
  • Coulter gives Trump hardcore conservative credentials so that if the Republican Party try to torpedo him, the rank-and-file will further line up behind Trump and obliterate the remains of the Republican apparatus
  • Coulter isn’t embarrassed by anything she’s ever said or written-if anything, she’s gone more hardline as the years have gone on. Lack of shame for not being a Lefty always throws the Left into fits of madness, as  the reaction to Trump shows.
  • Coulter in a VP debate would be as entertaining as Trump, which would increase enthusiasm.
  • Trump is winning on a lot of new voters turning out for him, and his quips and TV dominance are a part of that; Coulter will only increase that, as she herself is known as a firebrand.
  • Coulter takes away any lingering “anti-woman” attacks on Trump.
  • Coulter attacking Hillary Clinton with all of Coulter’s arsenal and as Hillary’s competitor would be pure gold.
  • Assassination Insurance: Coulter is the reason Trump has gone hard on immigration; it was her book that swayed him. If the The Powers That Be (TPTB) do take a shot at  Trump—and I believe they will–he will be replaced by a person more hardline and ball-busting that Trump on the immigration issue, making assassination post-election useless, and pre-election even more dangerous, as Coulter could ride a now-enraged electorate and Trump’s own campaign apparatus to victory all to “secure Trump’s legacy” by enacting twice as harsh immigration law/enforcement.
  • Inevitability: by picking a VP now, Trump is telling the world he’s already got the nomination locked up. This is called getting a person to “think past the sale” (as Scott Adams puts it). The “inevitibility” argument actually is a self-fulfilling prophecy to the left-they are disheartened quite easily in the face of a confident opponent who tells them, from the start and often, that the Left is going to lose. Psych them out now.
  • News Cycle Hijack via shock value/confidence value: no non-incumbent has ever selected a VP this early. It shows how confident Trump is in his campaign-and his confidence is a big part of his popularity-and allows his VP pick to dominate the news cycle, whereas it would be dominated by talk about whether the convention will be brokered and Bernie Sanders and whether he can win enough primaries to prevent a brokered convention.
  • The VP job is largely a useless job. The best you can do is get a second Chief of Staff out of it like Dick Cheney was. But most of the time you get bumbling idiots like Joe Biden and Dan Quayle and Al Gore. Coulter transforms the position into a bully pulpit of a Trump attack dog.

Ann Coulter as VP-I think I just jizzed my pants.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Stone, are you paying attention?  Be bold sirs! And Ann…take the job!

What Effect Will RooshV’s Cancellation Have?

February 4, 2016

RooshV cancelled his planned worldwide meetup–despite previously stating that it would go on in the face of the protests.

What impact will this have upon the manosphere?

I’m confused as to why he cancelled at this point. There are scattered claims from commenters on his websites that the meetings will be held unofficially, and still go on. But there is little but speculation as to why he cancelled it — physical threats?

I believe that, whatever it was, it must have been serious. I believe in RooshV and his message, even if he hates me.

Now that the SJWs know they can intimidate RooshV into cancelling—will they ever really stop?

RooshV February 6th (this Saturday) Meetup, Protests and Intimidation, and How to Fight Back UPDATE: The Left got so violent, RooshV had to cancel

February 3, 2016

UPDATE: The Left got so violent, RooshV had to cancel. Repeat: the meetup is CANCELLED.

RooshV is planning a world wide meetup this Saturday, February 6, 2016. The meetup will occur in hundreds of cities across the globe.

If you can go to your city’s meetup, you should go. Check the details on RooshV’s website.

But in even more important news, the left is trying to intimidate people into not going by staging protests at group meeting points:

https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-53491.html

https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-53471.html

Any planned attendees who are lawyers or law students—or heck, even if you aren’t—– look up the following legal information/local laws for your state and city meetup:

  1. Freedom of association (1st Amendment AND your state’s constitution)
  2. Freedom of speech. (1st Amendment AND your state’s constitution)
  3. Slander
  4. Libel
  5. Defamation
  6. Harassment/ Bullying
  7. Stalking
  8. Gender intimidation
  9. Title 9 gender equality (if protester is organized/run by college)
  10. Threats of Assault
  11. Intimidation (general)
  12. Right to record another
  13. If any protester is a member of law enforcement or works for the government (1st Amendment definitely at issue if they are)

Show up armed with cellphone cameras, guys, and be shitlords. If confronted with waving cellphone cameras and screaming protesters, whip out your own and record EVERYTHING. And everyone do it—sometimes one microphone won’t pic up what another will. Tell anyone you face they are being recorded. Gather the protesters names, addresses, and what organization they are from, if possible. And then tell them if they violate any of the above laws, they will be sued and prosecuted for it.

Remember: punch back twice as hard, as their leader said And do not be afraid; we are with you.  We are going to win.

And, if you have time, read Vox Day’s SJW’s Always Lie to learn some great self-defense techniques against SJW character assaults. That and the Anonymous Conservative’s two books are invaluable: The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans and How to Deal With Narcissists.

P.S. Get the word out on this on all of your blogs and to all of your friends. Feel free to copy and past this all. Support the cause!

 

UPDATE: The Left got so violent, RooshV had to cancel. Repeat: the meetup is CANCELLED.

 

Gather the Names

January 5, 2016

Now is the the time to gather the names of all those public figures in favor of mass immigration, amnesty, and anti-white ethnic replacement.

Because if Trump wins and successfully deports the enemies and closes the borders, the attempts to back track will be quick and mind-fuckingly (thanks, Heartiste) 1984-esque.

The following will happen:

New York Times columns disappear from the database. Ditto the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun, Chicago Tribune, Politico, Atlantic, and every other major lefty publication. You will literally not be able to find the written sentiments in their own records, because they will brazenly destroy them— like Hilary Clinton.

And don’t bother trying Lexis; the left will launch a coordinated hack or buyoff to delete all evidence from there as well.

The major television networks will similarly conduct a document-shred. Videos will “accidentally” be erased or lost by NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN. YouTube uploads of such videos will be flagged for “copyright infringement” or some other nonsense.

And then the same will happen (more clumsily) by the cuck publications. National Review? Back issues deleted. The Weekly Standard? Database failure. Townhall.com? Trojan horse wiped out the columns.

All the traitors will deny later being traitors. And other traitors, when not busy  out there scrubbing their own histories will either support them–“I swear, as the head of The National Review and on the grave of William F. Buckley, that so-and-so NEVER supported amnesty/mass immigration/ethnic replacement”—or else claim “Hey, it was no big deal, let’s just forgive and forget like grown-ups. Please?

So gather the names now. The names of each traitor supporting open borders. Screenshot every column, download them all in PDF, and document each television and radio interview where they are in favor of open borders.

And when the worm turns…be prepared with the evidence of their treason.

Who are the Men Behind the Curtain for the Black Lives Matter movement?

December 4, 2015

Earlier in the Obama regime we had Occupy Wallstreet come out of nowhere in mass groups and start “occupying” parks around the country. The news media was frenzied to put this as a “mass spontaneous movement” but it seemed highly dubious: yes, the people who showed up a week after the occupations began were clearly just tag-alongs and monkey see-monkey do type followers, but the first wave of the Occutards didn’t all just mass head for the parks in major cities—they were too low IQ, too disorganized, and too mentally unbalanced to do it. So its probable that some lefty group—probably Soros-funded, but then again, could be a non-Soros offshoot of the crazy (and little reported) WTO protesters.

Then Ferguson’s and Baltimore’s riots and demonstrations came, and were shown to have been pushed by Soros-money. Again, low-IQ, disorganized, mentally unbalanced folks all converged on an area in a lefty-protest that fell into chaos. Who sent them? This time it was Soros.

Now, we see a bunch of lower-IQ, disorganized, mentally unbalanced blacks on college campuses around the country suddenly organizing media-cognizant “protests” and “sitins” and such to flex black power and burn out whitey. Someone has to be organizing them initially and sending them out. Follow the money (and power). Who spoke to the BLM leaders, when, how, where, and what did they say?

And, as I’ve said before about the 1960s protests/riots,  it wasn’t large or spontaneous, but carefully organized at first and sent out to get good media coverage (to make them seem larger and influence a lot more people). The tactics in the 60s started off as similar to those in the 1950s anti-segregation protests, which were run by CPUSA members and funded by Communists. The 1950s stayed organized and on focus and never let the media-friendly martyr images cause riots. But by the 1960s, cocky with the success of the 50s protests and the destruction of McCarthyism, the organizations lost control, and it devolved into a lot more riots and violence.

What we’re seeing in all of these instances is a concerted effort by some well-funded organizers to get a mass of low-IQ, disorganized, mentally-unbalanced losers together as a mob to do the organizers’ bidding. These groups could not be doing this “spontaneously” at all—- except in later cases of monkey-see, monkey-do, and those latter instances just devolve into either riots or disspation.

What we’re seeing, therefore, is some very wealthy and powerful hands behind the curtain doing this deliberately for some end goal. Possibly just for the chaos itself—as the chaos may serve to keep America from organizing against their threat—or possibly for some other reason (for example, Soros may believe that he is truly provoking a proletariat revolution by organizing the underclasses, or he may be using the riots to hide some financial skulduggery on his part).

But the Black Lives Matter (BLM) isn’t a bunch of blacks doing this on their own spontaneously or because they just realized they’re affirmative action cases. That’s highly unlikely. That’s like saying that Islamic terrorists are “spontaneously” shooting up and bombing places with no connection to one another; all of them are being radicalized by careful propaganda by organized terrorist hierarchies, who set them loose hoping for chaos.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.