Ariana Grande Is the Perfect Symbol of Modern Women

Who is Ariana Grande? I’m not even going to bother to look up her exact information, because I don’t care enough, but I’m pretty sure she is 18 or 19 years old, and is either from Italy, or her parents are. Any girls that are also this age (or younger) have very much in common with her: very physically attractive, and very masculine, and very dumb.

She looks lady-like on the outside, but her mannerisms and actions are like that of a frat brother. It reminds me of the internet porn industry, where the female actresses talk like sailors and throw punches like Mike Tyson. They are women only in appearance, and unfortunately this is good enough for most men.

If you are reading this, I can hear it now: “but not ALL women are like that!” I admit this, but if you are over 25 years of age, you basically come from a different world than these girls. You came up in a world without cell phones, high speed internet, porn a click away on any device, and hundreds of other degeneracy inducing things.

I don’t dislike technology; I only dislike it when it is used in bad taste.

Does God/The Afterlife Exist?

It doesn’t seem true to me that everything happens for a reason. Sure, it might seem that way after you get fired from your job, only to find an even better one a couple weeks later. Or to a filthy rich kid that never has any problems in his life. But what would a childhood cancer patient say to this idea? Or a starving kid? People never think about this.

This is the most compelling argument against god. That he lets suffering happen. To me, the only worthwhile counter-argument is that for some reason god didn’t want the universe to last forever. If nothing bad ever happened, it would never decline.

Or maybe god sticks us in our own individual matrixes. Maybe you are the only thing that’s real. You are living a kind of dream life. That way other people do not suffer because they do not really exist.

You could also argue that god brought suffering into the world so that we could appreciate the good things better. But isn’t that really unfair to the people who got shafted? The idea is to make some people suffer so that the others can appreciate things more? One way out of this mess is to go with the whole karma/reincarnation thing. That seems gimmicky though. Besides, when have you ever been rewarded for doing good things? If karma does exist, it surely seems to only serve as punishment. In which case we are brought back to the suffering problem again.

I feel very comfortable stating that god does not exist. Or if he does exist, he is not the all-good-doing, all-pleasant god that everyone thinks he is. If that is true, how do we know that he won’t be having an off day when we die, and he will send us to hell for an eternity just because he feels like it?

I prefer to look to physics for salvation instead of to god. It’s very possible that we are, in fact, living in the matrix. Given the billions of years that the universe has been around, it is almost inevitable that an advanced animal species would have built a computer simulated reality. If i put a monkey and a typewriter in a room for thousands of years, eventually the monkey will type the first chapter of Romeo and Juliet just out of randomly pressing keys. Similarly, if you put an intelligent species on earth (or an equivalent planet), they will eventually figure out computers, and then supercomputers, and then quantum computers, and then finally computers powerful enough to simulate an entire universe. But what if this already happened? And we are the ones living in the simulation?

Alternately, what if time doesn’t work in any way close to how we think it does? What if every moment of your life lives on forever, and can be picked up like from a bookshelf? We think of moment A passing to moment B, and then moment A being gone forever, but what if this is an illusion? What if all moments exist at the same time? If this is true, maybe you live your exact same life over and over again, as Nietzsche thought. I would sign up for that, but there are lots of people who surely wouldn’t.

20 Things Wrong With North American Women

I have to admit this list was inspired by Roosh V at and

American, Canadian, and some European Women:

1. They talk like truck drivers
2. They act like men
3. Instead of trying to lose weight, they try to define fat as sexy
4. Almost everything is “weird” or “creepy” to them
5. Very few of them bother to learn how to cook
6. They see nothing insane about having 500+ sexual partners
7. They rarely, if ever, wear high heels
8. They are never held responsible for anything, always a way out of things
9. They are slobs
10. They can watch Netflix for 40 days and nights straight
11. They probably cannot name more than 10 american states
12. They probably cannot point out much more than their home state on a map (if that)
13. They elect politicians based on haircuts and tie colors
14. They are sweaty balls of lard
15. They are entertained by their phones in the same way a retarded child is entertained by the same toy for years on end
16. They are addicted to attention
17. They will never admit when they are wrong
18. They eat frosting out of the package at 10 pm at night (usually with their bare hands)
19. They idolize Kim Kardashian. Enough said.
20. They like stupid music

To a girl, what makes something “weird”?

I am not a linguist, but I’m willing to bet that female usage of the word “weird” far surpasses that of men. At its core, the word implies that something has not gone as expected. Something has strayed from the script. Throughout human history, it is a woman’s script that daily life adheres to. I don’t think the wife being in charge of all household spending, for example, is a new phenomenon. It’s the same concept, only with a new application.

In the manosphere much has been written about the word “creepy”. These words are similar, but different in the sense that “creepy” implies (in the oft-innaccurate female mind) a more immediate threat. Whereas a weirdo signifies a bumbling, but probably harmless person, a “creep” means to them someone that has active intentions.

The purpose of these words is to shame someone (usually beta males) into submission. Obviously nature made women less powerful, so they have to use non-physical manipulation tactics. Throw this atop the heap of other ways women manipulate men, including but certainly not limited to the see-through yoga pants+thong combination.

But what specifically? If your compliments are not said in exactly the correct tone of voice. If you approach her but she does not like you. If you are too nice. If you are wearing something not from American Eagle (or whichever poor man’s designer clothing line is popular today).

Much has been made of the idea that women see more colors in the color spectrum than men, but most often it seems like they only see things in black and white. Their minds are far, far less flexible than men.

We Are Embedded In The World

I don’t remember which one it was, but there is a video where Roosh says that the view outside of his bedroom helps him write. I think his words were that it inspires him. His voice seemed like he was half kidding, and half serious. I’m going to give credibility to the serious part. We in the west tend to overestimate the extent to which we are separate from the person next to us, from the neighborhood we live in, and even from the device that you are reading this on. If you’ve ever been high (even on weed), walking from the gloomy room with one small window, over to the well-lit room with large windows produces a change in “vibe”. This is evidence that our environment influences us.

How can we use this? Much like my previous post on music, the elements of the world that enter your senses have real effects. If you 1) clean up your filthy work area/car/whatever, and 2) take more time to appreciate the environment around you, you will be more motivated in life. So, if you are ever unhappy with your circumstances, pay more care and attention to your surroundings.

Don’t look at the mountains – see them.

What is music? A redpill analysis:

To an insect, the entire world is vibrations. They cannot see, taste, or hear (well). Ultimately vibrations are energy. Energy can be transmitted. We can use electron flows to stimulate the charging cells in our cell phone batteries.

In almost the same way, I can play you a Bruno Mars song that will transmit a set of vibrations. If you listen to enough Bruno Mars songs, your brain seems to assimilate, and become familiar with its energy. It is not a coincidence that my favorite band used to be the Goo Goo Dolls. I also used to be solidly beta. “I don’t want the world to see me, cus I don’t think that they’d understand” is pretty much the opposite of alpha.

Buddhists, as well as the prominent 20th century philosopher Martin Heidegger would say that the “self” is somewhat of an illusion. I agree with this. It seems true to say that what we call the “self”, is completely the product of our environment. Here, I am considering genetics also part of the environment, because one does not influence their genes, but it is instead the other way around. If you eat lots of saturated fats, you will get fat. If you eat an absurd amount of carrots, you will appear orange. If you drink a very large amount of water, your cells will swell with water and you will die.

So, it is not a stretch to think that you-are-what-you-eat when it comes to music. I urge all men to press delete-all on their soft rock music collections. I’m not going to tell you that listening to Metallica will help get you laid, because that in itself certainly will not, but it will help get your mindset right more than you think.

My Manosphere Beef

I’m a smart guy. I have six years of college education. And like many of my manosphere comrades, I have read a lot of philosophy. Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and many others. Don’t discount this: when a person reads philosophy during their formative years, it causes them to think about things much more critically. When everyone else is falling in line, a philosophy reader can consider things from many different viewpoints. I know without asking that plenty in the manosphere community know exactly what I’m getting at (I’ve seen the name Schopenhauer slapped on enough things to know).

That being said, after reading tons of manosphere doctrine in the past year, my one biggest beef is the over-simplification and over-generalization of female attraction. It is correct to make generalizations about the dating wilderness. By all means, redpill thought is the best medium to use in getting laid. However, within existing social circles, redpill ideas are often unneccessary. For example, I saw some data the other day that showed meeting-through-friends is still the number one way to get laid. So for every game-oriented man getting laid using that means, there are twice that amount (or more) that are simply gaining notches through friends of friends. Game is completely unnecessary in the latter case. Now, if you are like me, once getting into your mid to late twenties, it is much more likely that your social circle will shrink significantly. People relocate. Or sometimes they enter serious LTRs and sell their souls that way.

For example, I have never had to neg or obsessively escalate a girl that was already in my “tribe”. If she’s already in your social circle, that is one of the best forms of pre-screening. It’s only when you are an outsider that you need to employ game techniques.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it highlights the extreme herd instinct of women. (Literally.) They have an animalistic instinct in the same way that a school of fish or a group of sheep would. The so-called “hive mind”. On the other hand (and this is where my beef comes in), social circle expansion should be taught more often in the manosphere self-improvement camps. Even in today’s socially skeptical and frigid climate.