Men: You're Fired

This is your memo informing you that your position as provider workhorse has been terminated.

Women are not going back to becoming housewives. A collapse of the economy is not going to change this. Only a full scale loss of technology is going to change this fact because it was not women who liberated themselves - no matter how much feminists want to believe - it was technology which allowed for the changes.

Redundancy of housework meant that women as housewife was made redundant. Women however were smart enough to realize that they're redundancy in the home could not stand and so they became workers, flooding the market with cheap labor. They did this because they could do it. The office was comfortable, safe, and provided them with meaning to their lives and they're not leaving. They're not going to shift en masse to being housewives anymore because that job simply does not function within modernity.

Women didn't change their instincts though and those instincts have exacerbated the inherent greed of the female sex. Women - possessed of mild grade narcissism - cannot except any form of criticism since it damages their weak sense of self, a sense of self mostly derived from two places: the acceptance of the collectives they ascribe to and the dominant authority figures in their lives. Any female readers who feels emotional pangs at this paragraph is verifying this assertion.

This greed of the female is what drives the search for a good man. To the woman, who is naturally inclined to seek a mate for provision, a man who earns less than her is not a good man. This is the singular reason women can't find good man. Men didn't get worse. They didn't really change. Women didn't change their definition of good man either. A good man is the same: a superior man. The further the female ego is built up the less likely she will be to find any man as good since the definition of a good man is someone who is superior to her in every way and one in which she can exploit with her sex.

The role of the provider is not needed. Why aren't you listening to women? They don't need you. They've made that clear. Every time a woman utters a variation on the "men are useless" meme she is elucidating her own beliefs about men. And what are those beliefs? Did men suddenly stop being romantic, compassionate, and loving? No, men did not drop that part of themselves. What changed in recent decades is that women began to earn their own money. That's it. Now that they've done that they've declared the majority of the male sex as inferior, obsolete, and unnecessary. But men are still clinging to this model of manhood which does not exist and cannot exist in the modern world. Men are no longer providers for women.

Ask yourself this question. If women truly are the romantic, pair bonding sex, then when the role of men as provider of the family was destroyed, what did women do? Did women turn to romance? Did they suddenly start finding romantic, caring, sensitive men attractive? Did women start looking at men for reasons other than financially?  Or did they divorce their husbands, take their children, and write articles about the end of men?

Men are under NO obligations to women or society. None. Women don't need you in that role. You're not needed to carry the species. Men are like workers who continue to show up at the factory years after it's been shut down. It's time to find a new identity. One you create for yourself.

Women Rule the World

Women rule by proxy. Men certainly have limited power. If we break power down into economic, political, and reproductive then we can see that women in aggregate have far more power than men. There are more female voters. Women control more wealth than men. And most importantly, women’s sexual power far exceeds men’s.

The fact that women have not voted in a female president since being able to vote en masse for a hundred years is telling of their thoughts of ruling overtly. This is corroborated with women’s general dislike of working for a female boss. Though it does appear that women have decided they want to rule overtly now as I think most people are predicting a Clinton presidency as well as a female fed chief, giving the two most powerful positions over to females. I expect HIlary will be hated by women more than men, even by the women who voted for her.

Women’s power is a tripod propped up by capitalism, democracy, and sex. Sweep a single leg and the tripod falls. They’re more responsible for the way the world is than men are. They’re willing to take credit for improvements in society, even though they didn’t cause them, but not for the failings. There’s also the fact that women influence the subsequent generations through child rearing far greater than anyone else.

I’m conflicted on how I feel about a female president. On one hand I believe her term will be doomed from the beginning because of the economy, so it’s she’ll be seen as a failure. The other hand is that she’s guaranteed to make life worse for men.

Women will do what they're told by an authority figure. The milgram experiment is interesting to look at from a gender perspective. 100% of the female participants were willing to kill a person because an authority figure told them to do it. Sherly Sandberg is telling women to lead overtly. She's as much of an authority figure as they'll need. They're likely to follow what she says even if it makes them miserable. Expect that women will never surrender power.

Likely in the transformation from covert rule to overt rule some power will be displaced. Women will not lose any sexual power. That is certain. What power women will lose is the power of the victim class. They will attempt to retain this as long as possible but only so many bogus statistics will be held to when reality conflicts with them at every step. 

Women are innately sexists so it's likely that if women achieve overt power they will follow their solipsistic beliefs to a maximum conclusion and disenfranchise men to the point of violent revolt. Women are less rational than men  and being taught that men are the enemy. By making rational discourse impossible you make war inevitable. 

White men are the greatest pussy beggars

Japan and China have as much technology as anyone else and while they've made changes to feminize their countries they have no where near the level of feminist insanity that effects the west. What's the difference? 

Perhaps it's as Magua from The Last of the Mohicans says.  "Magua understands that the white man is a dog to his women." Magua understands the white man well. There is no greater pussy beggar than white men. In the femdom communities the huge majority are white men eager to worship their goddess. Not surprisingly this post at koanic details the prevalence of whites who posses neanderthal DNA. What's interesting is that he states that the neanderthals were a matriarchal group. Taken together this can help explain a lot of the things we see happening today.

Empower Men

The best way to empower men is stop praising them for getting laid. Stop offering your friends validation for having sex. It's not an accomplishment. Running an ironman race is an accomplishment. Rebuilding a 67' mustang is an accomplishment. Winning Gladiator in WoW is an accomplishment. Rutting in the age of secularized mutual masturbation is nothing to brag about.

If you're seeking validation from sex you're not seeking sex. How many men right now would not care too much about sex if they didn't get congratulatory high fives from their friends? How many PUA forums would dry up if it weren't for all of the men posting lay reports. Ask yourself this, are you interested in the sex or the validation from your friends more?

Validating this behavior is what gives women so much power because they control sex absolutely or close enough. Then when a man wants some approval, some attention, he knows he'll get it twice. Once from the woman which is bad enough but another time from the men. I bet there will be less men willing to sleep with less than worthwhile women without the conciliatory high fiving that often comes from it.

I'm not saying to shame men. They don't need that. Leave men alone. But treat sex like a chimichanga. It's not even a steak dinner with a sweet potato and brown sugar. It's just a taco stand grade chimichanga that you picked up after your workout. No big deal.

More importantly though offer men validation and approval for things that actually matter. Things that don't involve kissing a woman's ass or giving her any underserved attention. For god sakes stop shaming men who don't get laid. It doesn't make you superior no matter what Roosh thinks. Sex has become a handshake now. We've taken on the mold of masturbating bonobos. Sticking your dick into a soulless woman's hole is as validating to your manhood as taking a shower in the morning. Treat it as such.

Women Choose and Men Lose

Women are already disposed towards materialism and pettiness. When they display it by mate selecting for money they just expose themselves for what they are. I appreciate it as it saves me time from realizing that these women are soulless. In the past that might have taken a few dates to figure out. Soulless women will wind up with soulless men in loveless marriages only connected by their lust for money.

So a woman who reads what I wrote might be offended. It sounsd harsh. Certainly, it does. I look down on this type of woman though. There is nothing for me to be intimidated by. I have the wealth I need to survive. See, that’s the difference. I wouldn’t expect a woman to date homeless men or men who can’t support themselves but every woman reading this knows that’s not what women want. They want to exploit their potential husbands to fill the void in them where their soul should be. They shove plastic crap made in China into their psyches, garbage food grown in Mexico, and spend, spend, spend endlessly with the crack addict belief that this time I’ll be happy, fulfilled, content.

Men will let them do it too because men are pathetic and needy. Their only accomplishments in life have become getting pussy and most can’t even do that so these pathetic men will do anything to receive the least bit of attention and validation from a woman. They’ll marry fat, bitch women. They’ll sell other men out without thought.

And nothing will change. Women have all of the power in sexual relationships and men are needy slaves. This woman will probably get what she wants. Most women will. Men aren’t on strike. That is nonsense. Look at Minter. The first woman to offer him companionship and he jumps at the chance to get enslaved with her.

Men need to understand one thing. Women do not like you. They never have liked you. They are built and designed to exploit you and cast you aside the moment your usefulness is gone. Women say they don’t need men. They’re right. They don’t. They’ve made that clear and I believe them. Right now, men need women. If they didn’t need women they wouldn’t be so eager to endure abuse, so willing to be exploited. Women are going to get whatever they want and men are going to accept it and suffer for it.

Should Women Vote

Should women vote? I don’t like the question mainly because I’m uncertain about democracy. It seems impossible to contain the electorate. Originally, women could vote if they were considered heads of house but that generally fell on a man. The intent was that only those who contributed to the republic would have a say in how it was run. It worked at the time but lawmakers need jobs and they constantly reform lest they be put out of business. Eventually, groups lobbied for expansion of the electorate to include everyone natural born. There was never really any need to discriminate against women with the vote.

But voting was a terrible idea anyway. First, because it politicizes people who should not be concerned with politics. Prior to democracy no one cared about issues. The issues of the day were the things that mattered. Did I have a job. Was there food available to eat. The banality of gay marriage would have no place in the majority. If the answer to the former questions was a no then the people voted with pitchforks and guillotines and replaced their leaders by force. It offered real consequences to the leaders because if they screwed up their heads rolled. Now the elite wield the vote like a cudgel to legitimize their rule. They can deflect the blame if the president miscalculates something because he was the chosen elect of the people. It’s the people’s fault for voting for a moron. Third, democracy politicizes the family when the family should be united. Their survival should be paramount and linked symbiotically to each other. By the division created along political issues it furthers the dividing line between woman and man who are naturally going to hold differing political opinions and creates animosity where union is needed.

Besides which, opposing female suffrage directly is too radical a notion for too little gain. It demonizes the manosphere et al further and offers fuel to our opponents to ignore everything else they might be willing to listen to otherwise. Only a small percent of feminists are truly man hating. The others are just following their lead. They’re going along to get along and many would be willing to listen to a new way of life if one was presented. The problem is that there isn’t another paradigm offered. There is the feminist woman and nothing else.

Bombing For Peace

Feminist assert their certainty that the spread of feminism into the world is cause of social ascent. Backed by the statistics of a reduction of crime and violence within western countries they spread their ideology pell mell without regard for the veracity of their claims and while it may be true about the statistics, in the endless complexity of society and historical change there are very few certainties.

Most of their claims can be reduced to the hypothetical pile with one phrase. Correlation does not equal causation. An oft cited saying in our scientifically driven, digital age and one that holds merit in many circumstances. The drop in crime is debatable as well.    In America, some cities have an increase in gun violence but a decrease in gun homicide. The answer is found not in police tactics but in medical technology. Of course the police are all too willing to take the praise. But so are the politicians. So are the professors. Oddly, the doctors seem to be the last group in line to claim this victory even though they're most responsible for it. Some E.R. surgeons claim that only 1/5 gunshot wounds are fatal now.

George Bush believed in democracy and capitalism as fervently as the feminists believe in the authenticity of their claims. Bush invaded several countries under the ostensible auspices of liberating the Iraqi people and while many might wish to make the claim that Bush was not the brightest president to set foot in the office he wasn't without his reasons. Democracies rarely war against each other. In the modern world the spread of democracy is correlative with the spread of peace. Though a caveat must be that democracies tend not to war against each other. Instead, a democracy because a war among itself, preferring electoral war if possible and civil war if not. But Bush looked at the planet and with the zealous belief of those who keep the faith he bombed for peace believing that if he could establish democracy within Iraq and Afghanistan he would cement his legacy as a peaceful warrior.

There are many correlations to the decline in crime but a look at history shows that the majority of social changes enacted today are not anything new. When looking at society it's important to understand the novel. What is it up about this era that is different from the last. Women obtained power throughout history so it's not that and contra to the women's studies revisionist theory of history, men have never been an oppressive force to women. As Warren Farrell points out, it's best to say that both men and women have traditionally been repressed by gender roles. It's an example of the individual sacrificing itself on the altar of the collective. Women have worked as well. In particular the lower and middle class women were often treated no differently than lower and middle class men. They worked. They did the jobs they were capable and while there was sexual segregation in employment, they were not chained to the stove as it often remarked.

So what did change and what has changed about our time? There are many corollaries that one can draw from the present. One is that the majority white or Christian countries are more peaceful though no feminists will ever make that claim lest they be ejected from the safety of the leftists hive mind. Perhaps it was evolution. Maybe in two hundred years humans evolved enough to allow for these changes within society to occur. Doubtful, as I've seen no evidence of it. In fact, it appears that our intelligence has already peaked so it's unlikely we've had some great behavioral or intellectual evolution. But the pioneers who settled America didn't have cell phones. Neither did the 19th century feminists, nor the women who gained power in ancient Sparta. They didn't have cars or high speed internet. They didn't have washing machines which made their jobs redundant in the home. They didn't have birth control.

The most likely answer as to why things have changed and improved is not found in social or ideological progress but within technology. All of the examples given by the feminists always fail to mention the impact that technology has had. In fact, any progressive is likely to cite their own ideology as the driving force behind what they deem the moralization of humanity when it fact is has always been driven by technology and not morality.

Socrates was an abolitionist long before the Emancipation Proclamation. He was probably the first feminist as well so it was never a lack of moral ambition that was missing within the world. The ideology was there and has been there for literal millennia but what was lacking was the wherewithal. Once innovation in agriculture - the cotton gin for example - made slaves redundant or for the most part economically inefficient it was only a short time before they were freed.

Society is a vast, complex network not easily understood. There is a certain balance to it. For each joy of civilization one must sacrifice something else. Simplified it is a balance between collective beliefs and individual desires. It has been throughout history this balance between the individual and the collective which has lead to the advance of technology and consequently the advance of society. Where one element became unbalanced the other becomes dominant and eventually a rebalancing occurs. Society is self-correcting and if enough people abandon the sacrifice of their individuality for the collective by destroying all social bonds and "social constructs" there will be no collective and no society left and un-oppressed individuals will all meander around unrestrained and listless, lacking cohesion. They will probably all congratulate themselves on their moral superiority though.

It's easy to conflate change within society to ideology. Temping, especially when someone wants that ideology to spread. Backed by the veracity of not only the moral superiority but the efficiency of one's belief it's easy to become entrenched in that belief system to the exclusion of all others. From there it's no great leap to follow in the steps of other leaders who were absolutely certain in their righteousness and start "bombing for peace". And while there is no lack of groups willing to accept the victory for the advance of civilization there is none who can rightly claim it since it is not social advancement that we see in the world today but technological innovation.

If Hillary Clinton Becomes President

Back when Obama got elected the first time I thought it might bring about some change in race. I thought the racial ideologues would back off with their white racist witch hunts. How can a country be racist if it elected a black man? I was wrong. The anti-racism spiel seemed to intensify if anything.

The same will happen with a female president. If you think a female president will make the feminists back off you're mistaken. It will embolden them and they'll roll out even more blatant female supremacist laws and misandrous organizations. The stories that will come out of the media will make The End of Men article look pro-male.

Just wait until a lesbian, man-hating, feminist sits in the oval office. Women will lose their minds with hate.

The Female Not the Male is the Sexist

An unpublicized study reveals the nature of women, exposing an innate sisterhood between them which doesn't exist among men. I also believe this points to female solipsism and the general inability of women to even acknowledge that men exist. The study found a large ingroup bias among women that did not exist in men. Here's a link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274/

On the feminization of the military

One day they'll push too far and some young man with ambition will realize he has no hopes of obtaining the rank he deserves through merit. He'll split off and take a lot of other angry young men with him. There's only so much transgender and gay praise a southern boy can take before he's had it and realizes that the military and the nation he believed in no longer existed. Then things get interesting. Real interesting.

When most people hear of secession and civil war they have an image of dumb rednecks with shotguns lead by Alex Jones. Then they say how impossible it is for citizens to fight the military which may or may not be true but the more likely scenario is of a schism within the military of highly trained, heavily armed soldiers performing a coup or going rogue against the military. So when the leftists imagine a revolt they always envision the military on THEIR side when any real civil war will have a military, political leaders, and infrastructure on both sides.

Considering that the majority of the military are all white, male, christian, conservatives who are being oppressed with leftist tolerance, the splinter faction scenario is possible. Another possibility is that the white christians simply stop joining the military and as diversity becomes the norm within the military we go the way of Rome and fill up the rank with foreigners and aliens. Similarly as Rome, once the decline accelerates the foreign born military will not hold loyalty to anyone and will turn to looting and piracy once the .gov checks stop rolling in.

But leftists don't live in reality. They long for ideals and not realism. For a society to function properly it must focus its intent on the mainstream of the culture not the outlier. The transgender is such a tiny minority that paying them any mind within the collective is wasted since their issues don't matter. 

Feminist Demand Respect

If someone demands something from you than you can be sure they're incapable of earning it. I have never once in my life heard a man demand respect from someone. The concept seems so alien and bizarre to the men I've met that the concept could never be considered. Respect, like trust, must be earned.

Let's talk about thieves, crooks, and any other type of people who sets out to deceive someone. If a thief sat down next to you on a bench and demanded that you trust him and hand over your money, would you? Even if you didn't know the person was a thief. Let's assume they dress nicely, look clean, and speak well. Would you now be willing fork over your wallet? Some people may but most would be highly suspicious of someone they barely knowing demanding money no matter how nicely they asked.

What do you think would happen if you started questioning the thief? The last thing he's going to do is admit he's a thief. He wants to talk about anything but stealing and theft. What he most likely wants is spin the blame onto you. "What you don't trust me?" By that question, he assumes that trust should be given to everyone all the time. He is also implying that you're the way not worth or willing to trust.

And the reason is simple. Trust is earned over time through continuous acts of trustful behavior. In other words trust is a consequence of action. By the thieves demand of trust he is implying that he cannot earn it because if he could earn your trust than he would. The same is true of respect. Respect is earned through continuous acts of accomplishment, achievement, and presentation. Respect is a form of love and admiration for another.

Now imagine a strange woman walks up to a man and demands that she fall in love with him. How absurd would that sound? Even if they slept together and got married there's little chance that either of them are going to love each other. Love doesn't work like that and they would only fall in love by chance.

What someone does gain from demanding respect is not respect but fear. There is a subtle threat of violence to someone demanding respect. Respect me or else! You can be sure that whenever someone demands something that cannot be given that they're doing it for one reason. They're incapable of achieving it and because respect can only be earned they will never have it. By their inability to earn respect they reveal both their inability to earn and their fear of not having it.

Demanding respect is as absurd as demanding love.

Continue Reading: The Littlest Feminist 2

The Red Pill: My Tumble Down the Rabbit Hole

In college I was a liberal, feminist, full of white guilt who empathized with the underdog. I genuinely thought things would be better if we gave all the power to women because I saw them as compassionate and loving. Irrational and controlled by their emotions, yes. But they loved more and would take care of everyone like a mother tends to her babe.

Then I met reality. I was never exposed to the fact that women aren't the compassionate, loving sex that they say they are. Now I see female empowerment as enslavement. They compromise freedom for security because they're comfortable being well-kept slaves. But I would have happily drifted through my beta life had I not seen the hate that feminists, and to a lesser degree, women have toward men. It shocked me. I woke up in the most jarring, disturbing, trauma-inducing way possible. All my dreams of a nice house and a beautiful, loving wife and family were shattered. I swallowed the red pill and tumbled down the rabbit hole.

I had always related to rebels, to fighter, and revolutionaries. As a kid I loved the Revolutionary War. I loved to learn about fighting and triumphing against tyranny. I thought that one day I would fight in a war like that against the government. Even as a kid I was a future revolutionary. So it was easy for me to relate to conspiracy theories.

Alex Jones lead into David Icke and he led into various New Age conspiracy theories and then to the Zeitgeist films. I remember watching them when they first came out and was amazed. But a part of me was disappointed. All of this stuff I had watched on the internet for years and nothing ever happened. Nothing changed. There didn't seem to be some great awakening and I thought the same thing with the Zeitgeist films. Fun to watch but nothing more than that.

I was wrong though. Zeitgeist is on netflix and is being watched by millions of people. Agree or disagree with the premise of the film, it's getting attention and has some devoted followers. Change, big change, real change, and not the Obama-laced-poison change, is coming.

Now the statements of Zeitgeist are being echoed all across the web. People are aware of technological unemployment, robot revolutions, and a drastically changing society.

Eventually, Zeitgeist led me to Stefan Molyneux and to the ideas of anarcho capitalism.  Molyneux was exactly what I wanted. He had it all. He could explain everything in clear, logical reasoning. He had so much of the philosophical work on the subject done. It was a joy to sit back and listen to him extol the virtues of anarchy with perfect logic.

I signed up at his forums and started posting. Years ago, I had taken my first draught of the red pill but I had rejected it. I couldn't face the truth about women. I didn't know where to turn or what to do. But one day on Molyneux's forum, someone linked a heartistse article and with much caution and some fear, I dared to take my first steps into the manosphere.

I was shocked. Everything was much more advanced than I thought. Everything was laid out. Game. Hypergamy. Attraction. Philosophy. Society. It was so much more developed than I thought it would be. My assumption was that it was a tiny community, a few blogs and nothing more. Eventually, it lead me to MGTOW, to the reactionaries, to the PUAs, and onward and they all seemed to vibe with my anarchistic sensibility.

But this wasn't just a community I wanted to observe.  I had things to say. I had spent a big bulk of my life picking up bits of wisdom, studying religion and philosophy, and trying to understand as much of human behavior as possible. I felt I needed to share that information with others. I had some insights into things that others lacked and I wanted to join a community of like minded people, so I began this blog.

Originally, it was only intended to be a blog on philosophy. I wrote a few pieces, read some more writing, and then abandoned it for several years while I struggled with isolation and depression which followed my post-college years.

Now that I've spent some months in the manosphere, I no longer feel the need to read any of the feminists blabber. I don't read much of any mainstream media sources. They are all wretched hives of intellectual dishonesty endlessly spouting statistics and studies which only further their cause while conveniently ignoring anything to the contrary.

So I don't feel the need to contribute to disseminating the feminist claptrap. That's already been done. For me, I focus on a holistic approach. For example, when someone asks if I support gay marriage, I rebut with a question. "Do you know the long term consequences involved with making marriage gay?" The change will not only affects individual but marriage as a whole.

Taking a holistic approach, instead of individualist, to its extreme is to ask the BIG QUESTIONS. And that's what I do. I let others deal with the details. That's not my forte and that's what I hope to contribute to the manosphere.

Continue Reading: The Future Is Small

What Penis Envy Looks Like

What does penis envy look like? A feminist usually. The career driven, materialistic woman, devoid of feminine surrender to masculine dominance attempts to fulfill herself and the void within her with material objects. She envies the man and the masculine attributes of accomplishment, success, and work. Quite accurately, a woman has a void, a vagina, which is penetrated and filled with a penis. The man imbues her with his essence and if he is dominant enough, she engulfs herself in his being, taking on many of his aspects and personality traits.

A woman doesn't love football. But she meets a man and falls in love. She begins to take on his interests, be filled with who he is, and adopts an interest in football. She does this is in her own way of course. For a woman, football is about social time. The game is nearly irrelevant. She roots for her man's team and not the home team. She is given direction by him. 

The feminine is organic, non-linear. It twists and turns. Quite accurately, we refer to mother nature because nature best represents the feminine. In nature there are no right angles, there are only curves and swirls. There are leaves and stones. A woman is an empty vessel, she is water and assumes the form of man nearest her. 

But what happens when a woman is abandoned? Some argue that a woman's greatest fears is that of abandonment. But there are few times she is abandoned. In modernity, with the absence of the dominant masculine to fill her, she finds her fulfillment in two places. One is through object insertion. Through wanton materialism, she seeks to take into herself and her psyche, the objects surrounding her. The things she buys grants her a temporary reprieve from her fear of abandonment. What is abandonment? It can only be described as a sea without the bedrock underneath it, an unholy existence. And all fears are derived of the fear of death.

The second way she is filled is through the state. The dominant social paradigm foisted on her is the closest thing to a masculine embrace that many often know. She looks with envy and lust to the trappings of power. She seeks to consume that power and control it by proxy. She consumes through her orifice and greedily engulfs her dominant ideology. Through the proxy of sex, the female may gain power over others while relieving herself of the consequences of that power. She need not hold overt power, instead wisely consuming the phallus from her nest. 

It is by nature of irrevocable balance that as her overt power is established she loses the covert nature and instead is inundated with the trappings of consequence and responsibility. She is held accountable. Not only that but as she assumes the masculine she can no longer rely on the feminine within herself to provide consolation. Any man she attaches too will be less than likely to support her emotionally. Even if she requests it and the man agrees and heaps praise and commendation on her, she recoils from him as something inhuman, an aberration, since she is guided by her spirit. She has rejected the feminine within herself and out of an unconscious wisdom she concisely rejects that spirit within any other she finds and in particular within a man. To maintain this frame of masculinity within woman she must be inundated with constant propaganda which condemns the feminine and praises the masculine in her since without this she will revert back to nature. 

By feminizing man he is instilled with a lack of his own essence. By condemning the masculine within man he suffers nearly the same fate as penis envy. That useless phallus, which he neither penetrates with, nor understands is used only in the symbolic consumption of rudimentary sex through masturbation. Because he has been feminized, he lacks a definable, stable source to draw his strength from. Instead he seeks out the same desires as the woman, wishing object insertion to placate his new-found instability. The feminized man is neither bedrock nor water. He is the abhorrent mix of the two. He is clay, easily shaped, easily controlled, seeking after the material for reasons unknown to him since he has become an unconscious vessel of the feminine. 

However, once enough water mixes with clay both sexes of the species become little more than mud, useless to anyone, devoid of spirit, devoid of sexuality and this new species is largely androgynous and asexual, kept in check only through the constant authority of violence and the constant pursuit of objects. For what reason they know not.

Continue Reading: Reverse Sexual Imprinting

Shocking Study Sending Panic Through Feminist Groups

A new study released by Columbia university has revealed some remarkable findings in sex differences between men and women.  The study, conducted by Leah Manhater found that men, on average, have more penises than women. The research was conducted with billions of tax payers money and found a conclusive link between men and penises which spanned all cultures and ethnicity.

"The findings were conclusive," Manhater said, "Men seem to have penises more than women." It was tallied that 99% of men had a penis and less than 1% of women had a penis.

Outrage has been sweeping across the feminist community as they react to this recent finding. One feminist, known as Jennifer Gargantuan had this to say. "Oppression. The only reason men have more penises than women is because of a millennia of patriarchal oppression. This should only redouble our quest for equality. Women should be encouraged to grow penises from an early age." Planned Parenting is looking into the matter.

While the study had conclusive findings some are challenging the assertion. One women's studies scientist is doing research into the penis gender gap in her latest book, "Woman Of the Cock." In it she claims that not only is there no penis gender gap but women have bigger penises than men and know how to use them a lot better.

The study has also managed to attract some political attention as well. "This is an outrage," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "I've had a penis my whole life and I won't stop until every woman has a penis which is as equally as small as my husbands."

Hugo Dickless, a male feminist, has taken proactive measures to end this misogyny by castrating himself and donating it to his wife. "I wasn't using it. It's best she have it since she usually pegs my anus four nights a week anyway."  He also created a new website, cockless.com, in which men can donate their useless cocks to women. Their slogan, "Chop off the cock. End oppression," has received shrugs from most feminist groups.  They've had a total of 0 participants but are expected to receive funding from the government for the next two centuries.

Obama made his own statement on the matter. "Not only do women have large and voluptuous penises but Michelle's is larger than mine which you can tell by my gaping asshole."

Continue Reading: The Littlest Feminist

The Family is Dead. Cui Bono?

Single parents are a bane on society as all evidence dictates. A large portion of mate selection in females is determined by financial success of the male. There is a direct correlation between a depression and a decrease in marriage and an increase in divorce. The basis of mate selection is hypergamy. To reject hypergamy is a total rejection of the red pill.

To assume that a woman becomes dependent on a man because she doesn't have a career is to denigrate the role of mother and elevate the role of provider. Instead it's best to view traditional family roles as interdependent where each provides to the best of their ability for the other. The wife rears and fosters children and the husband provides and protects those children.

There is no need for forced gender roles. They occur naturally. Propaganda is used only to enforce the unnatural. There is no need to try and convince teenagers to have sex, for example. They do it naturally. Feminism is the propaganda which has elevated the role of provider to the stratosphere and relegated the role of nurturer to a derogatory term.

My thoughts on how to run a society in modernity is to bring a sort of soft segregation where women are encouraged to be wives and mothers but in their free time they could work for charity organizations.
The problem with integration is that men and women compete against each other and then see one another as the enemy instead of how they truly are, complementary pairs who work in unison.

Men need male spaces to compete against each other. They don't want to compete against women as their is nothing to gain from it. Once an area becomes feminized there is "male flight" from that sphere, see education and psychology.

The problem is that modern technology has decreased the amount of time spent on housework. No one wants to be bored. By giving women their own space, their own goals, and "hunting grounds" in non-profit work they can contribute, be occupied, and know that they're helping their communities. This also solves problems such as sexual harassment and gender quotas. Diversity doesn't benefit anyone but those who profit from division.

Not too long ago, in the time before social security, there was this thing called family. It was social security. The older generations knew that if they screwed up raising their children they would pay for it in their elder years because the young would be the ones who protected and provided for the old. But they have social security. The disconnect between the young and the old is just as great and important as the disconnect between men and women.

The thing about marriage is the same thing about family. When the old were dependent on the young for their survival they made families work. When women and men were dependent on each other they made marriage work. Strong bonds were formed, strong families, and strong nations. Now everyone is independent and isolated, weak and easily controlled.

Cui bono?

The Littlest Feminist 2

The Littlest Feminist trotted through the jungle alone. "I am a big girl," she told herself for the hundredth time.  The jungle was dim. The canopy of trees overhead blocked out the sun. The jungle was large. The jungle stirred with strange noises. The Littlest Feminist felt small. "I am not afraid," she said as her heart pounded in her chest, as her hands began to shake. "I am a big girl." Her voice cracked. She swallowed and began walking again.

As she walked she heard the noises: the animal calls, the wind, the hoots, even a howl. "That doesn't scare me," she whispered gulping down some air.

She stopped. The sound of rustling in the bushes beside her drew her attention. Her head snapped. She heard the growl and saw the body fly through the air. White and black and orange stripes flew at her. The jaws, the teeth, the fangs. She froze, transfixed, rooted to the spot. A tiger, her mind conjured.

Then she heard a bang like thunder. She saw a flash of light like lightning. A rifle shot loud enough to shake her ears. The tiger roared a pathetic forlorn moan and instead of a glorious pounce it's body crumbled. Its momentum ceased.

The Littlest Feminist turned around, wondering if Daddy had come back to find her. He probably needed her help, she thought.

"Daddy?" She called in the direction of the gunshot. But it was not Daddy that emerged from the bush but a strange boy.

"Are you lost?" the strange boy asked.

"No," she said, "Yes, I mean but I'm not scared." And she realized that she wasn't scared anymore. She was so brave.

"We need to go," the man said. "Follow me." He gestured.

"You're not my boss," The Littlest Feminist said, stamping a foot. She pointed at herself. "Big girl," she said. "Got it?  She huffed. "I don't need you."

"You'd be dead right now if I hadn't followed you here."

"You're not the boss of me," the Littlest Feminist said again and then walked over to the tiger's body. The tiger lay clumped in the dirt, drawing his last breaths. "Bad tiger," she admonished. "That's a bad tiger. No more tiger's attacking little girls. You understand? You're mean and I won't have it. Bad tiger." She kicked the tiger again and hurt her toe though she didn't say anything lest her bravery fail. The tiger's chest lifted one last time and then never rose again. "I killed it," she exclaimed. "I'm a hero."

"I think I had something to do with it," the boy said.

"Don't be so silly, boy. You have such a big ego."

"I shot it!"

"All you think about is yourself!"

"Are you on medications?" The boy asked quietly.

"Only prozac, lithium, and paxil."

"Only?"

"Well if things were fair I wouldn't need to take so many but things aren't fair. Boys don't understand stuff. See you're a bicycle."

"What?" the boy asked, scratching his head.

"A bicycle. Boys are bicycles and I got feet so why would I need a bicycle?"

"What are you talking about?"

"Boys and fishes and girls. You wouldn't understand these things. Not a boy, no. It's very sophisticated feminist stuff."

"Where did you hear that?"

"I read it in one of my coloring books."

The boy stared at the Littlest Feminist for a long time. He stared as one stares at an alien object.  Then the tension in his eyes waned. He seized the Littlest Feminist by the hand began leading her through the jungle

"I'm being oppressed," she said, though his touch was gentle and she had to admit that she felt a sudden stirring deep inside her. She pushed it down though as a sign of her oppression.

The sun soon rose and the canopy of darkness lifted slightly. They walked through the whole day, the boy eventually dropping her hand. She followed at her own pace, letting him think he was leading.

Later the boy stopped. "Look," he said pointing up into the trees. Yellow, ripe bananas dangled just out of reach overhead. "Hungry?" He asked. The Littlest Feminist nodded. "I'll get us some food."

He tried to leap up and grasp at the bananas but they were out of reach. "This won't work," he said. He thought for a moment. "Alright, why don't you stand on my shoulders."

"Why don't stand on mine?" The Littlest Feminist asked.

"Sure," The boy said.

It took two tries before the boy realized it was hopeless. The Littlest Feminist was too little. She kept dropping him. The second time he slipped off her shoulders he landed and hit his head on something. The Littlest Feminist laughed.

"Why don't I get on your shoulders?" The Littlest Feminist said.

The boy rubbed his head and stood. He nodded. The Littlest Feminist came over and he knelt down. She crawled up on top of him and he was surprised how light she felt. "Hold still," she commanded. He hoisted her up. He spread his legs and planted his feet. She was easy to carry.

The Littlest Feminist stood atop his shoulders and she felt big. "This is what a big girl feels like," she said. She stared around at the jungle. It wasn't so scary after all. She was tall and strong. "This was a great idea," she said. "I'm glad I thought of it."

The boy offered no protest.

Then something changed in the Littlest Feminist. She looked down at the boy and it was as if he were invisible. He was not a boy, she decided. He was something else. She tried to name it but got bored and then forgot about him entirely.

She felt so tall, so strong. "I'm so tall," she said.

"Get the bananas," he said.

"Taller than you are. And smarter too." She stared around the jungle, thrilled with her new found glory. She ignored the protests in her belly, that feeling that something was missing, something was not quite right. Daddy? No, she did not need a daddy or a little boy. She was a fish or was it a bicycle?

"Bananas," the boy shrieked and though she was light at first, her weight was beginning to tax him.

She looked up, remembering the bananas. She pulled one off the vine. She peeled it and stuffed it in her mouth then dropped the peel. She pulled another off the tree and ate it.

"Hurry up," the boy said. His knees began to wobble.

The Littlest Feminist started to stuff herself with the fruit.

"Save some for me," the boy protested.

"Don't be so needy."

"I can't do this much longer," he said. He was straining to stand. Her shoes were digging into his shoulders.

"I'm so tall," she remarked, "And these bananas are so good."

"I'm going to fall," the boy called out.

"I'm going to stay this tall forever," the Littlest Feminist said.

Then the boy's legs collapsed. He fell. The girl's weight crashed down on him and their bodies tangled with each other. "Rape!" The Littlest Feminist cried.

"Get off me," the boy ordered. They untangled themselves and stood.

"I was taller than you," The Littlest Feminist said, noticing that she had to look up at the boy, which gave her butterflies in her belly which she righteously destroyed. "What did you do to me?" The Littlest Feminist asked. "I was taller than this. Taller than you. I could see so far."

"You were never taller than me," the boy said.

"You tricked me," she complained.

The boy pointed. "We'll come to my village if we keep on this direction." And without waiting for her to follow he set off through the jungle.

Not soon after, the jungle cleared and a village came in sight. "I made it," The Littlest Feminist declared, pleased with herself.

"You're so arrogant," the boy said.

"You're just a bitter loser."

"I'm done with you," the boy said and walked away.

"Why are you so angry?" She asked but the boy ignored her and trudged off toward the village. "He's just intimidated by a big girl," she reasoned. But he was getting really far away and she didn't want him to get lost without her so she ran to catch up to him.

Arrogant, she thought. He was wrong. She wasn't arrogant. She was humble. She was the most humble!

Continue Reading: Language, Consciousness, and Reincarnation

The Littlest Feminist

"Daddy, I love you," says the Littlest Feminist. 

"I love you too princess. I'd do anything for you."

"Anything, Daddy? Really?"

"Of course." 

"Well I want things to be fair."

"I don't see what's not fair, honey."

"I'm not tall like the basketball player. Make it fair."

And then the daddy did his best to make it fair but the Littlest Feminist was not pleased.

"Daddy, it's not fair. I'm not smart like the scientist. Make it fair." 

And the daddy did his best to make it fair but the Littlest Feminist was not pleased.

"Daddy I'm not rich like a millionaire." 

Again daddy did everything he could to make the Littlest Feminist a millionaire.

"Daddy, someone called me a bad name. Daddy, I'm not as beautiful as a model." 

Daddy did everything he could for the Littlest Feminist and worked until he was too tired to stand.

"That's all I can do, princess. There's nothing more. I'm tired from working so hard."

"I don't need you, Daddy. I'm independent. I'm a big girl."

"Of course you are, princess."

"I don't want you around me, daddy. Leave me alone. You're mean and it's not fair. I'm not happy and it's all your fault. Fix it daddy. I want you to leave me alone because I'm a big girl and I don't need a daddy. I can do it all on my own." 

"I'll leave then, princess." And the daddy left.

"Daddy is gone. Now I'm a big girl." The littlest feminist looked around and realized there was no one left to give her things. There was no one left to call for help. There was no one even left to talk to. "Daddy come back," she cried. 

"Daddy, it's not fair. It's not nice here and I'm lonely. Daddy, why did you leave me?" But there was no one to hear the Littlest Feminist's cries because daddy was gone. He went and rode a motorcycle, and went hunting, and spent time with his friends, and slept in till noon, and finally discovered what it was like to live for himself, and he lived happily ever after.

The end.

Continue Reading: The Littlest Feminist Goes to the Jungle 

How We Can Win

The MRA is in its infancy, it's weak, scattered, lacks funds, and faces an entrenched juggernaut known as feminism. Knowing that, we must choose our fights carefully. No matter how pressing many issues are, most should be ignored until later. I know the temptation to fight for injustice everywhere it's found. I know you hold sympathy for men and boys suffering in this system but we must not divide our attention. We believe we're right but history is full of defeated armies who believed in the righteousness of their cause. Any battle against feminism is unwinnable at this point. Except one.

Feminists are quite literally obsessed with rape to the point of madness. In fact, anything that has to do with sex and reproduction is their turf. And like any other gang they'll be willing to die to defend what they consider theirs. We will lose every fight. Except one.

Consider how important image is. The MRA is seen as weak, impotent, and hopeless. This image is so strong that many in the fight for men's rights believe it themselves. How great of a boon to the MRA would a decisive, public victory against feminism be?

What, my dear brothers and sisters, do we have to lose? When you're in the sewers even the gutter is an upgrade. What I propose is for all MRAs, and anyone in support of men's issues, to adopt the fight for the male pill and put this at the forefront of everything we do. Here's why.

Young men will line up to get on the pill. Young, healthy males are the least likely demographic to seek medical help. The male pill targets that exact demographic. The drug companies know the numbers. They know the demographic. They can't ignore it. Their lobbyists will be, in effect, on our side.

Feminism was, initially, a huge success for the economy. The workforce nearly doubled, the housing market grew because of divorce, and women earning a paycheck also put most of that money back into the market. Looking at the numbers, it was insane not to support it. If men want men's issues supported they need to make it economical to do so.

The image of a victory will be the most important thing. If we appear to win, appear to be strong, it won't matter that we only rode the victory on the coattails of the drug companies. It will be a symbolic victory but just as important because the male pill is going to happen whether MRAs get involved or not. The MRA can co opt this for their benefit by making it appear as though we are stronger and have more power than we do. And this image of strength, no matter how ephemeral, will draw attention and support from those who can only follow strength. No one loves a loser and if we try to fight uphill battles, beleaguered as we are now, our image as losers will only solidify.

If I'm right and the male pill is inevitable because of economic forces, than anything feminist do will be ineffective. Not only will their opposition fail, the more they resist, the greater our victory will be. This is why we should draw a clear line between men's rights and feminism divided by the male pill. Not only do I believe we should try to fight for the male pill but should try to encourage feminists to fight against it. We should antagonize them, galvanize their resistance, and make it clear that the male pill is this decade's battle that feminism must win. Because they can't win and when they lose it will be our Battle of Concord, our shot heard round the world, that proves to the mighty juggernaut of feminism that women on pedestals can only fall.

Women's world of spite

Women live through the tribe and the herd. More importantly today, they live through the sisterhood which actively seeks to denigrate men in relation to women. This is the foundation of feminism. That women were oppressed by men. Everything else a feminist says is derived from this erroneous assumption. So when the collective female ego sees the Sisterhood rising and men failing, she celebrates. When women yammer for gendercide, it's derived from this assumption. That women are the victims and men are the villains.

The female ego has run amok in society today. It has been propped up by an endless supply of grrlll power and female superiority articles that seem to come out of the media in a constant deluge. Collectively, women have decided that men have no feelings so anything they do and say to men is justified. In the feminist mind men oppressed women so they're just taking revenge.

 Any time men surpass women it needs to be corrected. The best example is in education where men still outperform women in math. Recently, women started to outperform men in reading. Anyone who understands the arrogance of women know what the "social scientists" will conclude. Women are superior readers because of genetics. Men only outperform girls because of bias.

Men and women are complementary pairs. Comparing the two is like comparing fire to water. Feminists scream at fire and wonder why it's hot. If only they could change fire and make it more like water all the problems would be solved. Of course, changing fire means destroying it or removing it from its essence.

Amazingly, people are lead to believe that the only reason women underperform is because of bias. The belief is that women hear that men are better at math and so they believe they can't compete. If this assertion is true, that ability can be altered to a large degree by what others say, why don't these superior women believe the same thing applies to men? Why do they believe they can post and exalt women over men and it have no consequence on men?

Sensitivity to a woman's delicate nature is held as a virtue. We can't tell women they're inferior in math, that they'll likely never outperform men in any area in life but we can tell men they're worthless, obsolete, and inferior. Oh, and this magically won't have any consequences on how men perform or view women. Just how often do you think you can kick a dog before he bites?

Being sensitive to others is a virtue. If this principle is true it must be applied universally. If I say that peace is a virtue and yet I spread peace by blowing people up, I do not believe my original statement.I do not believe in peace as a virtue. I have exempted myself from my own rule. If being sensitive to the feelings of others is a virtue, than women need to apply this to everyone, not just themselves. Otherwise, sensitivity is not a virtue.

A better world cannot be built on the backs of hatred and arrogance. A better future will never be derived from the spite women hold for men any more than hate will beget love. Hate creates more hate.

Women and Consequences

The less rational a person is the less likely they are to understand the consequences to their actions. At extreme levels of irrationality we see people who believe they exist within a vacuum. That actions have no consequences and desire is the only requisite to understand how our actions will change the future.

Judith Grossman, an attorney, couldn't see it coming.

I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act. But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.
What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.

What this woman didn't understand was that by expressing female privilege she would castrate her son. Women are learning this as their sons are in a state of perpetual childhood, stuck in dependency, and a drain on the single mother's income. The realization that women have failed an entire generation is only beginning.

Martin Luther King Jr. said that no oppressor ever willingly surrenders their power over the oppressed. The oppressed must demand it, must take it. When women protested for their "liberation" there was no counter protest. The voice of the opposition was silent as men leapt to do their bidding. How could an oppressed group have little or no resistance?

Do we see the same thing with men's rights?

The personal is the political and now that women face the financial and romantic consequences of their actions they're beginning to understand that they do not exist in a vacuum. Their son's suicide, false rape charge, joblessness are the consequence. Their daughters's pregnancy, spinsterhood, and anxiety is a consequence. While the trumpets of feminist triumphalism have barely receded the consequence of their actions are no longer deniable. As a wise woman once said, "We can evade reality but we can't evade the consequences of reality."