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.

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/

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

Images Post

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.

You're a Tier 5 Male

You can make a long line of  men who line up to worship women and denigrate men in order to hold some office. Why would women even need to claim a political office when they hold so much power over politicians? They don't need in office. If they actually did take political power they would lose some of their control. It's hard to claim to be oppressed if all the women are shown to have overt control.

The marriage is governed by the wife. If she lets the man lead, it's at her behest since the husband in any marriage holds slim to no authority. Marriage is slavery for men. Period. A woman can have a man arrested for no reason, on a whim. If she lets a man lead it's because she sees some benefit to herself in it. If that doesn't work out she ditches him, ruins his life. She uses proxy violence of other men. In most cases, the police to enforce her will, to dominate and ruin a man's life. She can remove a man from her house at a word. She can have him arrested for no reason. She can take his children, his wealth, and his freedom and there is NOTHING a man can do about it. That's power. Denying the nature of the relationship between men and women in America is asinine. A child has more power in the family than the husband.

All marriage is matriarchal. How many men need to be ruined before men realize the nature of marriage is so slanted to empower women? How much abuse are you willing to take exactly? How submissive and stupid are you?

Game serves one function, to lead men into opposition to feminism and the matriarchy. Period. Otherwise, game is only more female worship. It gives women what they want, which is dominant men to control them and give them a sense of pseudo-submission to a man. It's impossible for a man to claim any real power over a woman. She can always turn to the white knights known as the police to destroy him.

Clubs are matriarchal. They pay worship to the female by doing everything to draw women in. Women in the club know they hold all the power, surrounded by thirsty men who will worship them with their dollars, dress, act, and say stupid lines to placate the female ego. For a chance for a man to be dominated and controlled by females he must overcome his anxiety and fear of rejection, perform for her like a parakeet, like a good little slave boy that he is, just to have the privilege of her bestowing her pussy on him. A pussy she did nothing to earn, an orifice she was born with and today entitles her to complete and total power over half of the population.

Education is the den of more female worship. It doesn't take much of a genius to realize why there is women's studies and not men's studies.  If a man says anything a woman disapproves of he's kicked out, but women can and will say the most hateful, embarrassing, things to men in public and suffer no consequences for their actions.

How the fuck do you still think women want equality? Are you that fucking stupid?

Women are not worth your time and effort. Rejecting women completely is your only option for freedom because ANYTIME you engage with a woman in our society she has ALL of the power. As I said before, if a child is abused by his mother, he can have some recourse. He can gain help. A man has none. If a woman attacks a man in public she's praised. If a man dares to defend himself the white knights will line up to destroy him.

Just how much of a fucking pussy are you? Just how much do you hate yourself?

The hierarchy of this matriarchal society is as follow.

Tier 1: Leaders, rich, elite, these are mostly men. Feminism spawned from upper class white women because they were bored. Many of the men are in power because they supplicate themselves to women. In exchange for that supplication they are granted some power and authority so long as it does not conflict with the females wishes. At the same time women refuse to take overt power. They wield covert power through the electorate. They control the politicians which gives them carte blanch to both deny any responsibility for their actions and to continue the tired rhetoric of oppression.

Tier 2: Middle management. The new leisure class. These are all women. They're given jobs based on having a cunt and they're given power over everyone below them to do as they please. They are never held accountable for their actions. They are the majority of voters. Most of these women hate men. I can't say all. Given the chance they will destroy most men in their lives without remorse, pity, or care beyond how it reflects on her status.

Tier 3: Female children. Given special treatment in schools, promoted above boys, given more focus and attention from teachers. They have the curriculum changed not in order to advance humanity as a whole, but only to advance girls over men. Even when that advancement denigrates the whole, as does the case in reading when phonics was thrown out. They can be beaten by women so long as it's not too severe.

Tier 4: Male children. They are to be controlled. Doped with drugs that destroy and pervert their minds. Labelled troubled children for having the audacity to throw a snowball. They have much energy and little outlet for that energy. Passed over by the female teachers who promote the sisterhood. They can be beaten, drugged, mutilated, and raped so long as the person doing it is a woman.

Tier 5: Adult males. Expected to work and compete against privileged female coworkers who can have him fired for no reason, can make up bogus sexual harassment charges, will be given authority over him for no reason other than the sisterhood. He will be fired if he complains.  Kicked out on the street, he will have no shelter for him. Women will walk by him as he lay in a gutter and be invisible to him, all the while these women will wonder where all the men went. They're in the gutter where you put them. They'll be given jobs that women don't want because they're too hard. They'll be sent into war to die for the matriarchy, to die in mines, to die on radio towers. And when they return home from these wars they'll kill themselves because they'll realize how worthless their lives are in the matriarchy and the agony of a loveless life without children or respect is simply too much to bare. Then they'll be told they're cowards for recognizing the hopeless situation for what it is. Man up you fucks. You're not allowed to die until a woman decides you should.

There is no help for tier 5. None. There is no power. There is nothing but pain and death. Any joy is at the behest of a female. Any involvement with a woman is done at her will. Period. There is no better example of matriarchy than that. To hit and be exempt from being hit back. This is the structure of society today.

This is a gender war. Men need to realize this.Women in the MRA? Sure, we'll take defectors. Considering men can't speak for themselves. The lower class isn't even allowed its own voice, isn't even allowed to complain except at the safe distance of the internet.

One thing I can promise you is that women will never be satisfied. Hypergamy is innate to the female of this species and does not just relate to sexual selection. And there are taxes coming. Expect it. The feminists will never stop. Nothing will ever make them feel "equal" and at this point it's become obvious they want nothing to do with equality.

These new taxes are going to be targeted at men. Whether it's some feminist who says we need to tax men 30% more for the gender wage gap or some economist who wants a bachelor tax passed. It's going to happen. And men will roll over and do it. They'll give up their guns. They'll give up everything because the majority of men are cowards, submissives, and weak.

So this goes out to all the men who still engage with women. You're a fool, a coward, and a traitor. Pump and dump is the only recourse and make sure you get recorded consent for sex. If you're thinking about marriage than you're a traitor to men. Forget about helping humanity or making society better. You can't. It's stacked against you completely.

The only way to win this game, as I've said before, is to not play. To go your own way. If even a tiny percent of the male population withdraw their labor, refuse to support the irresponsible behavior of women, they'll have no tax dollars to stand on. To do that I make a few suggestions.

1. Become the biggest parasite you can. Sign up for an Obama phone if you qualify. Get on disability. Take from every charity. If you can get medicaid than do it, and use it as much as you can. Take and take and take.

2. Do not marry. Shame other men you know who are considering marriage. Inform them of the consequences. All women are like that. He didn't find the unicorn among the cows.

3. My suggestion is to only enter relationships with women as needed. If you're dating than never pay for anything. I mean that. Nothing. Reverse chivalry. Pay for nothing and demand that she pays for her female privilege  If she doesn't like it than tell her to fuck off.

How weak are you that you need to pay for your own slavery, to cough up your wage to your slavemaster? She pays. For everything. Period. If she want to engage with a man at this stage in our society than she should have the responsibility to pay for that.

The balance of power in a relationship must be restored. She is given a job over you. She is given attention in schools, scholarships, government programs to support her, and you're not. She fucking pays. Not you. If she isn't willing to spend her money on you than she's not worth keeping. You're already paying for her and her sisterhood to ruin your life. This is the closest thing to the balance of power you find in your relationships with women. If women want all the freedoms of being a man than let them suffer the responsibilities of being a man.

Continue Reading: Morals Make the World Go Round

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."

A Game With No Goal Posts

We have stepped out in a Kafka novel now. Something like the Trial where everything is backward. The doors are windows and down is up. We use nostalgia to find art because we can produce nothing great today. If the artist wishes to display something accurate he must paint confusion, film insanity, write about madness. This is western civilization, a dead man walking without a soul, and his pulse is quickly fading.

The perfect image to exemplify western society today is Frankenstein.  More relevant than ever, we're propped up by machines and technology, our brains digitized to pulp so that 10% of americans can't find America on a map. They can still vote though. Gun crime has increased but the murder rate has declined. Hospitals have better emergency treatment and more victims are saved. 24% of boys are being treated for ADHD and stuck on drugs that turn them into dope fiends, pervert their fragile minds even further, and guarantee that this living dead beast known as the west will not die quietly. There is a storm coming when this beast lets off its death rattle and begins to convulse. And just as dogs and cats can sense an earthquake coming, people can feel this storm as well. We see it in the fascination with doomsday prophecy. It's not the prophecy which is important, it's how much the people relate to it. We can see this in the prepper movement because people know that something is looming.

Nietzsche theorized that each age had a spirit. Spengler believed civilization rose and fell as per the cycles of seasons. He considered the west now in its winter. But what is the spirit of this age? If we could break a decade down into a single word what would we call it? For the 00s that word should be terrorism or perhaps fear. For the 10s that word is confusion.

We don't face external conflict but internal malaise. The wars of today are of spirit. Confusion. Anything good is considered hateful. Beauty is phoney, created on an operating table. Happiness is induced through medication. Everyone is a lesbian now, attempting to achieve completion through object insertion into their psyche. And everything is on sale except a spirit. We are the lifeless form stumbling through existence. We are Frankenstein's monster.

To see clear through this dross is impossible. We have not perfect vision, for just as it is impossible to stand on the moon and see all dimensions of the earth, we are always left in perpetual obscurity. Seeing is no longer believing. We need to video record it as well with audio and stream it in 1080 hd for something to be real.

If you work you're called privileged. If you're homeless you'll be assaulted and ignored. If you commit a crime it will be an example of your racism and your hatred of others so long as that crime conforms to someone's political agenda.  If you speak out you're a racist. If you remain silent you'll be robbed. If you go to college you'll be in debt. If you go into the military you'll follow the order of a mexican lesbian transgender general. If you marry you're at the whim of your wife and whether she lets you keep your house, your money, and your freedom. If you save money you harm the economy somehow. If you spend you're a materialist. If you're a christian you're a nut and stupid. If you're an atheist you're an amoral baby killer. If you like women you're a homophobe. If you don't like women you're gay. If you're not crazy it's because you're not paying attention.

Existential angst is not a problem graduate students experience anymore. It's mainstream! Existential angst has gone viral. We exist in a time of confusion where there are thousands of rules but criminals go unpunished. Everyone is to blame for anything good. If you win you lose. If you lose you still lose and this is the era of the shambling, bumbling, soulless monster of Dr. Frankenstein's creation. This is the world we exist in today.

Feminism or Capitalist?

How much are women worth?

I walked past the magazine rack and couldn't help but notice rows of fashion and celebrity magazines. I  crossed through the romance and self-help section. Women outnumbered the men in the bookstore. It's not an accident that everyone markets to the female identity.

After my jaunt through the bookstore I started thinking about women. Misandry is replete through society and while there's plenty of outright hatred of men, I'm not convinced that feminism can be solely blamed. Gynocentrism is so successful because it's economical. Pandering to women is profitable. For men, it's not so much.

Humans are social animals. Women even more than men. They live through the sisterhood, vicariously drawing strength or suffering, feeling outrage or triumphant, through others. In a consumer based society, where materialism and profits are worshiped as the most high God, this social drive, instead of being a benefit to women is a detriment. It allows markets to manipulate women's collective and status seeking tendencies for their own aims.

I bought a protein bar made for women. When I ate it I wondered if I was going to grow bitch tits. I looked through the ingredients but saw no special female formula. When women define the majority of markets it's obvious that men will be neglected. Women's products are everywhere. Many of these products aren't marketed to women for their utility. Women identity with women as women. Men don't. They'll purchase a man's razor blade but not because it fulfills any sense of masculine obligation. They buy it for utility or status elevation but marketing strictly to men as men has proven ineffective.

Feminism is not alone in the madhouse of modernity. The combination of feminism, capitalism, and democracy are to blame for this rotten fish. Democracy guarantees that women will be catered to by the politicians. Women are the majority but also identify as women and that collective mindset guarantees the vote seeking politician will make appeals to that collective.

The merger of state and feminist power is femi-fascism. The state's ceaseless quest for infinite power allows for the feminists to serve as useful puppets to expand and enact greater control over the citizenry. Just dress a bill up as for women and anyone who opposes it can be called bad names.

Many of the MRAs don't even seem aware of what they're opposing. It's not just feminism. Gynocentrism is fueled by women - feminist or not - and their collectivist mentality and their pocketbooks which are ever in flux. Women are good little consumers buying useless plastic junk made in China. No one is going to convince men to start spending on men's products. That's the point. Men and women are different.

Consider the alpha female of  a chimpanzee tribe. The females and males are ranked hierarchically in different ways. The males are determined alpha by their physical strength and dominant personality. The females are determined alpha by reproductive ability and their submission to dominance. While chimps don't relate at a 1:1 ratio to humans we can still draw some conclusions about our shared similarities.

When women look at celebrity magazines they're search for the alpha of females. They're looking for Jennifer Aniston and what she's doing. They're good little betas seeking out just how to relate to the world so they go and have their hair cut just like Jennifer, dress like her, and date guys like her. The girls on the cover of fashion and women's magazines are the alphas of modern western society. This is who women derive their sense of identity from, who they emulate and seek to become.

If men want their problems addressed than the best way to do it is to make it profitable. Make it profitable for markets to pander to men and their interests and they will. For decades though men have been willingly to quietly accept humiliation and insult without offering any protest. They haven't spoken with their pocketbooks or their voice. This is beginning to change though.

Labeling yourself a feminist is become less and less popular. The angry, fat feminist is chiche now. No woman wants that label. Popular culture and politics takes years or decades to catch up to the collective consciousness. While that time has definitely been shortened due to technology like the internet, it still takes a while for people to react. Men are beginning to protest. Things will catch up to the dominant cultural memes.

I don't support political activism because if it's effective it's because the state sees some benefit to itself in it. Meaning more taxes and state run institutions. I don't oppose MRAs but I do recognize the danger especially when so many men are desperate and will cling to "any port in  a storm." I don't want more government and more arms of the state springing up. I don't care if those arms have label's like the Men's Division. It's state involvement that causes the bulk of the problems because without the guns of the government the feminists would be nothing more than fat, loveless, spinsters that no one would would want to listen to.

However, the best way to get politicians to side with men will be tax revenue. Nothing motivates the state like a threat to the amount of money they can steal. Show the government a loss in revenue from ignoring men and there will be changes over night.

Nothing speaks like dollars.