Where are the negrophile hunters?

The BBC is to screen a documentary on the efforts of American FBI agents to ‘hunt down’ Western sex tourists in Cambodia.  The film is entitled ‘The Paedophile Hunters’.  The title, together with the BBC website article promoting the film, is rather illuminating.  Firstly, it dehumanizes the paedophiles to the level of animals, only fit for being hunted down as vermin.  This from the same organization that is so nauseatingly politically correct that it refused to describe the London Tube bombers as terrorists.  Sex starved Muslim men who were willing to blow-up innocent children because they had been promised with the reward of 72 adolescent virgins to fuck for eternity.

After reducing paedophiles to non-human beings, the write-up then makes clear that what we are talking about are ‘sex tourists’.  Paedophiles = animals = sex tourists.   Pictures of small Asian children walking hand in hand with dirty old Western men illustrate the article.  There can be no arguing with that.  But, as we know, once the emotions are stirred and any possibility of a moral and sane discussion has been precluded, the legislation that results is aimed chiefly at deterring men from paying for sex with prostitutes at all, or even deterring them from picking up any attractive young women in foreign nightclubs and bars, for fear of the consequences if they turn out to have been under 18.  In fact, the article makes this rather explicit :

“That’s a common defence, that these kids are older than what they appear to be because they’re Asian,” says ICE agent Gary Philips. “And if I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that, I’d probably be a millionaire.”

In the space of a few sentences, and a couple of ridiculously emotive pictures of small children, we’ve gone from paedophiles who pay for sex with infants, to ‘sex tourists’ who mistakenly pick up 17 year old ‘kids’ in bars.

Paedophiles = animals = men who unwittingly have sex with 17 year old ‘kids’.

One of the article’s underlying tones seems to be the proud boasting of reconciliation between America and Cambodia.  Yep, those child protection obsessed Americans may have been napalming your 8 year old kids by the million only a generation ago, but when it comes to hunting down men like dogs, men who commit the crime of ending up in bed with cute 17 year old Asian girls instead of marrying obese, masculine 40 year old American women back home, then Cambodia is now part of Team America.  Now doesn’t that make you feel good?  Can there be a more heartwarming story than that?

No.  It makes me feel sick.  In the most perverted piece of irony in the article, evidently lost upon its writer, we are told that ‘Agent Vansak Suos was once a conscripted boy soldier in Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge army’.  Presumably as a sign of the ‘progress’ that Cambodia has made.  This is ironic because the historically absurd idea that 17 year old girls are children, and that any men who pursue them are paedophiles, has taken root worldwide primarily because of the United Nations Declaration upon the Rights of the ‘Child’ – puritanical elements of which were lobbied for by American conservatives in tandem with feminist sexual pressure groups.  However, America remains only one of two countries in the entire world (the other is Somalia) who refused to sign the declaration themselves.  The reason?  Because America was loathe to give up its right to send 16 year old boys out to die as cannon fodder on foreign fields.  As well as putting retarded 16 year old black kids on to death row.

But one final question remains.  Where are the negrophile hunters?  The BBC is predictably silent upon the tens of thousands of wealthy American and European women who flock to the Carribean in order to molest and abuse the ‘big bamboos’ of poverty stricken, illiterate, drug addled Rastafarians.  Black men with the same IQ as the typical 11 year old Asian girl (the average IQ in Jamaica is 72).

I dream of the day when there exists an uncastrated men’s rights movement that is strong enough to stand up for male sexuality.  A movement large enough to spawn sub-groups dedicated to hunting down such female sex tourists and bringing these creatures to justice.  This week, Beatrice Ask, the feminist chief rapist of Sweden, called for stiffer penalties on those caught paying for sex.  To my knowledge, Sweden has the same sex tourist laws that feminists have foisted upon the rest of the Western world.  There must be thousands of Swedish women amongst those obese whordes who fly to the West Indies each year to buy sex with black cock.  Why don’t we hunt these negrophiles down and ensure that they too, must face justice?  Hopefully, at the end of a sex starved lesbian’s strap-on-black-dildo in some tiny rat infested prison cell…

 

Men’s Rights Gets Google PageRank Boost

This week, Google have once again updated their ‘PageRanks’ – an algorithm that awards each website on the internet a mark out of 10 for ‘authority’.  These updates occur once every 6 months or so, and are based upon factors such as the number of other quality and relevant sites that are linking in to yours.  A high Google PageRank is important because it affects your website’s position within their search results.

Two men’s rights sites now appear to have achieved an impressive rank of 5 – AngryHarry.com and The-Spearhead.com  A PageRank of 5 is very good, and as far as I know had not been achieved by any men’s rights site previously (I think last week Angry Harry had a rank of 3, and The Spearhead one of 4).

One of the things that scores heavily towards PageRank is a link from a highly authoritative website such as a leading news outlet.  For that reason, it’s possible that Paul Elam’s AVoiceForMen.com could reach a rank of 6 when the next update occurs, on account of being linked to by the New York Times.  If that happens, it will mean that a men’s rights site will have achieved Google parity with Feministing.com, the leading dedicated feminist website.

My own little perverted and extremist corner of the men’s rights blogosphere did boast a dizzy rank of 4 only a few months ago, but for some reason crashed back down to 1 overnight.  This occured shortly after my YouTube account was banned (Google, of course, owns YouTube).  It is likely that theantifeminist.com was associated by Google with my YouTube account, and therefore was penalised when my account was ‘terminated’.  A word of warning, therefore,  to those men’s rights bloggers who are also on YouTube – if you have recieved a community guideline warning, then it is probably prudent to delete your YouTube account.  Piss off the Google Monster, and you effectively find yourself banned from the interweb.

A final word of advice.  When linking to feminist sites, always be sure to add rel=”nofollow” within the html link tag.  This prevents your PageRank ‘linkjuice’ from being passed on to the site of your enemy.

*Edit : I did of course forget MensNewsDaily.com, which I presume would have, and did already have, a page ranking of 5 – because of the fact that Google trusts it as a news source.  At the moment it’s not showing in my browser so I can’t check.  But, in any case, MND is a little different in that it is a news hub rather than a blog.

Kloo2Yoo and the Promise and Peril of Reddit Men’s Rights

arthur schopenhauer graveHaving returned from my annual pilgrimage to the grave of Arthur Schopenhauer in Frankfurt, I will now write the piece I promised earlier. An important piece, detailing as it does, a development in the course of anti-feminism that has probably had the old misery guts himself turning in his grave, as well as Ernest Belfort Bax, the very first men’s rights activist, not to mention Steve Moxon, and quite a few others, choking on their breakfast cereal in disbelief and dismay.

In the last couple of weeks, there has been a wave of excitement at the prospect of the men’s rights movement finally breaking through to the masses.  In particular, we have had the announcement of both the Futurist’s urls@urinals campaign, and Paul Elam’s proposed men’s rights internet radio station.

But, however inspiring and potentially massive these developments undoubtedly are, they are both arguably dwarfed by another less noticed and talked about breakthrough –  Men’s Rights is now on the default list of Reddit, the internet’s biggest social bookmarking hub.  As a consequence, that subreddit, already the largest online men’s rights community by far, is now attracting over 100 new members each and every day.

It would be impossible to put a monetry value upon that kind of free publicity for our movement.  Businesses would pay thousands, if not millions of dollars for that kind of advertising.  It’s the equivalent of men’s rights flyers being put up in a thousand urinals every day, or HBO dedicating an hour’s programming each week solely to men’s rights issues.

But there is a problem.  Kloo2Yoo, the creator and moderator of a men’s rights community that will probably have over 100,000 members by the end of next year, is either a feminist or an idiot.  This has been discussed previously both here and elsewhere, but recently it’s taken on an even more disturbing and sinister turn.

Kloo2yoo recently submitted a post to r/mensrights linking to the story of a woman who takes her 5 year old son around America on book signing tours and daytime chat shows, with the little boy ‘happily’ dressed in pink skirts and other exaggeratedly girlie attire.  To the title of his post, he added the question as to what name we should invent to encourage other pre-school male toddlers who ‘want’ to escape the patriarchal shackles of their imposed gender, and to dress up as little girls – or circus freaks, for Oprah Winfrey and her like.

Now, I consider myself about as far away from the alpha-male wannabe ultra-conservative patriarch men’s rights charicature that some of our enemies (and some idiots in our movement) want to portray and define all of us as being.  I’ve been a vegetarian since the age of 5.  This is my favourite video on YouTube.  Well, actually, maybe this is.  One of the most beautiful human beings I ever met was a 16 year old girl trapped inside the body of a boy (and mentally tortured because, quite reasonably, in the UK, you have to be 18 before you are deemed mature enough to consent to go through with a sex change operation).  I certainly have nothing against transexuals and certainly nothing against fighting society’s fixed definitions of what it is to be a man (which comes from the sexual needs of women as much as the needs of ‘patriarchal’ society).

But we’re talking about pre-schoolers here, and a woman who is messing with her 5 year old son’s very identity for highly questionable motives.

The other disturbing aspect of this is that Kloo2Yoo then approves a radical feminist troll (thepinkmask or catlebrity) posting tips on how to encourage your own pre-school son to accept that they are really, in actual fact, girls.

Arguing against feminists criminalizing as subhuman paedophiles the 99% of the global male population who will ,at one time or another, inevitably click upon an image of a 30 year old woman in pigtails, whilst surfing for porn, is not men’s rights or anti-feminism (despite what Steve Moxon says), and will get you an immediate ban, yet supporting radical feminists cross-dressing and interfering with the very soul and identity of your little pre-schooler IS men’s rights.

Apparently.  In the world of Kloo2Yoo.

Well, I want no part of it.  But the most important thing is, the men’s rights community should surely want no part in it. But there’s more.  Last week, Kloo2Yoo effectively admitted that he was a feminist.

The fact that reddit.com/r/mensrights has been so spectacularly successful hasn’t got much to do with kloo2 whatsoever.  Rather, it has everything to do with the work and posting of relevant links by the likes of Pierce Harlan and others.  Kloo2, in effect, got lucky, by being the first person to create a subreddit by the name of ‘mensrights’.  But last week’s admission by Kloo2 suggests that, rather than being simply the lucky idiot that he often comes across as, he is in fact a feminist and misandrist and that r/mensrights is, indeed, a veritable attempt at creating a false flag operation against our movement. 

Kloo2’s admission that he had set up feminist subreddits BEFORE creating r/mensrights, was made in a comment to a post entitled something along the lines of ‘I propose that we hereby identify ourselves as being true feminists rather than as men’s rights activists‘.  The post, although massively and typically upvoted by the feminist brigade, has seemingly been mysteriously deleted.  Presumably, because I left a comment calling Kloo2 out on his admission.  Kloo2 also made a comment offering to hand over r/mensrights to the person who made the post.  Again, he did this because either he is simply retarded, or 13 years old as some have claimed, or because he is indeed a feminist trojan horse.

What can be done?

I have set up an alternative reddit that is more open to an array of diverging but genuine men’s rights views, and less tolerant of obvious feminist trolls : http://reddit.com/r/mensrightsmovement, but, to be honest, it has no hope of competing with r/mensrights, and nor should it have to.  As I explained earlier, Reddit.com/r/mensrights is a potential Godsend and a certain breakthrough for the movement.  If Kloo2yoo is merely an idiot, rather than being a sinister part of a feminist operation to control the voice and development of the men’s rights movement, then he has a moral duty right now to allow other, more senior and intelligent members of our movement, to become moderators.  People like AngryHarry, Paul Elam, ManWomanMyth, the Futurist, and Pierce Harlan.  In fact, above all Pierce Harlan, as it is his hard work that has made that reddit what it potentially is, in spite of kloo2yoo’s idiocy and betrayal in allowing the place to become infested with feminist trolls and puritanical lunatics ( a recent post by Harlan detailing the way in which sex offenders are forced to masturbate recieved almost as many downvotes as upvotes).

I suggest that some kind of petition, some concrete moral pressure at least, is put upon Kloo2Yoo to allow senior and genuine men’s rights activists to become moderators of r/mensrights.  I would further suggest that the position of that community in shaping the future voice of our movement is so vast and obvious that it may even require that others in the movement offer to purchase ownership of r/mensrights from Kloo2Yoo.

Whatever the solution is, I hope you’ll agree that this is an important issue that needs to be discussed.

 

 

Chris Brand : Paedophilic Pleasantry to Cost Tax Payer 500K

You may not have heard of him, but Chris Brand is one of the greatest of anti-feminist heroes.  Sacked by femi-nazi’s from his position as Professor of Psychology at Edinburgh University in the 90’s (for writing a book claiming that black and white IQ differences are largely genetic, as well as arguing that Nobel Prize winners who have consensual sex with above IQ teenagers should not go to jail to be raped and beaten), Brand can claim to be the owner of one of the oldest, if not the very oldest, regularly updated political blogs on the internet.  Here’s a brief taste of his inimitable writing style, published on his site yesterday :

PAEDOPHILIC PLEASANTRY TO COST TAXPAYER £500K

Showing Britain’s Pakistani youth that paedophilia did not need to involve raping, torture, pimping and (as Labourite Jack Straw put it) ‘treating girls like meat, unmarried affluent graphic design businessman and polo player Giles Cross, then 43, fell for an unnameable-for-legal reasons anorexic fifteen- year-old girl whom he met at stables in Cheshire. Soon the pair were on most affectionate terms (he called her Belle, she called him Beau) and one thing led to another over 15 months in Cross’s ‘Ink’n’Paper’ office.

The pair would talk until 5am on Skype while Cross took thousands of ‘screen shot’ pictures of his beloved in her bedroom. Said the girl [17 by the time of the seven-day 2011 trial in Chester] as Cross was jailed for a savage four years (after her parents discovered the liaison) (Daily Telegraph, 15 i, ‘The predatory paedophile at the polo club’; Daily Mail, 15 i):

“We were kissing, touching and hugging each other. Then he took my jeans off and I was just touching him and kissing. I was OK with that and I didn’t tell him to stop or anything. I trusted him, I thought I loved him. We kept it a secret from everyone.” Defending, lawyer Duncan Bold said that when the alleged victim was being taken to the police station for questioning she was screaming and shouting saying she didn’t want to go. Later on in proceedings the alleged victim’s mother confirmed this.

Another healthy-enough example of age-gapped relations emerged as Italian Duce Silvio Berlusconi, 74, found himself hauled into the limelight of the courts for having a pally and possibly paying relationship with gorgeous flaxen-haired, bee-stung-lipped and –bosomed Moroccan-born belly dancer Miss Karima El Mahroug, 17 – who claimed to have been given jewellery and £6K in cash at one of Silvio’s “‘bunga-bunga” orgies ooops parties.

To prosecute this ‘crime,’ Italian taxpayers would have to cough up at least £1M – and much more if Silvio had to be imprisoned, since his business empire and lawyers would run night-and-day appeals to what was left of Italy’s justice system after years of its being broken by the Mafia.

Dialogue with a Transhumanist

I cling to the belief that Transhumanism, perhaps marshalled by a strong men’s rights movement, is the best hope for ending the rape of the male that is feminism – in that it could someday render the sexual conflict between men and women obsolete.  However, recently, I’ve become aware of just how anti-male and pro-feminist the Transhumanist movement actually is.  David Pearce, one of the two founders of the World Transhumanist Society, and a personal hero of mine, appears in one of his writings to blame all human aggression upon the Y chromosone.  A couple of weeks ago, Ray Kurzweil, the most famous ‘Singularitarian’, published a piece on his site entitled ‘Neuro Nonsense’, which approvingly referred to a recent feminist ‘scientific’ work claming that there are no hardwired differences between men and women. 

That the transhumanism and singularity movements are so anti-male is disturbing on a number of levels.  One can easily imagine their influence being used one day, for example, to validate a feminist government’s mandating of genetic or chemical therapy to ‘improve men’.  Another example, which might strike you as almost comedic given how incredible it appears, is the plan (in process) to reverse engineer the human brain and create an ‘artificial mind’.  Some have speculated that if this task is achieved, which some predict might only be a few years away, it could represent the moment of the Singularity – whereby the intelligence of such an artificial silicone mind could quickly be improved and upgraded, and upgrade itself in fact, to the point where it almost instantly dwarfs that of any human.  If an individual human brain is used in order to create this artificial mind, and harbringer of the Singularity, no prizes for guessing which politically correct gender it will belong to.

This week, the moral think tank of both Transhumanism and the Singularity – The Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies (IEET) published a piece entitled ‘Feminism’s Social Side Effects’.  The author – Hank Pellissier – compares a series of global ranking lists measuring such things as relative happiness and crime levels, with the ‘Global Gender Gap Index’, which purports to measure the most and least feminist nations.  On the basis of the fact that many of the same countries (in particular the Nordic countries and New Zealand) appear at the top of both the feminist rankings and all the other quality of life indexes, he concludes chirpily that feminism = social prosperity and happiness.

I left several comments underneath his piece, and to his credit he both published and answered them (fairly and politely).  Here is the complete dialogue :

My First Response : You are making a basic error of confusing correlation with causation.

Only rich countries can afford the luxury of feminism. Richer countries are also going to have longer male lifespans, happier people, less likely to be at war, and even more ‘democratic’ (especially as female participation in government is likely to be one of the measures of democracy’).

Third wave feminism – the sudden dominance of women at all levels of government – is still a relatively recent phenomenon, even in Scandinavia. Let’s see if these lists still stand in another 10 or 20 years time.

Such ranking lists of national happiness are difficult to believe or take seriously, in any case. The Netherlands is always in the top 3, yet has one of the highest rates of native emigration in Europe. If people are so happy there, why are so many millions leaving or thinking of leaving?

Most of the nations listed are only now moving from ‘equality’ into becoming overt gynocratic states. You can see what is happening already in such places as Iceland or Sweden, where you will be thrown into jail if you visit a strip club or have sex with a burst condom.

I assume that after the events of the last few weeks, that the Nordic countries may start to slip down the list of most ‘peaceful’ nations. Also, I suspect, from the list of most ‘non-religious’.

If you showed the same lists from the 1970’s you would probably get much the same countries in almost precisely the same order. The point is, feminism is now breaking lives (of men and boys), and within a generation or two, the effects on wider society will be obvious and horrendous.

One final thought for a transhumanist : pornography, at least the production, is more or less banned in the feminist utopias of Iceland and Sweden. Do not forget that the adult industry has more or less driven forward technological progress from cave paintings to the internet, and will surely be the catalyst for virtual reality (sex).

Hanks first reply : for theantifeminist — thanks for your comments. I am actually writing about many of the issues you brought up, that I will hopefully be presenting in future essays. Regarding what you posted, I have a few comments:
1. I disagree with your remark “only rich countries can afford the luxury of feminism.” Depriving half the population from fully participating in the economic arena is not conducive to a nation’s prosperity. Children in “anti-feminist” nations are also raised by disempowered and uneducated mothers, to their own disadvantage.
2. Iceland’s legislature voted unanimously to outlaw strip clubs. Their contention is that supporting strip clubs promotes international sex trafficing and child prostitution. If you want to heap scorn on Iceland’s decision to ban strip clubs, you owe it to your readership to include this information.
3. Assange is on trial for allegedly committing two crimes — once his condom burst and he continued to have sex without the consent of his partner, and second, he was having unprotected sex with his partner when she was asleep. In your post you said he could go to jail for “having sex without a condom” – again, you presented incomplete info because you want to buttress your contention, not reveal the truth of the situation.
4. The banning of pornography production in Iceland and Sweden was a decision made in two of the world’s “most democratic” nations. I don’t see it as a catastrophic choice. I think it is interesting and revolutionary direction to take. Women have been sexually objectified forever, and this is moving a step away from that. Congrats to them.
Thanks again for your comments.

My Second Response@Hank,
I constantly tell my readers about how feminists are forever shamefully exploiting the tragic abuse of a small minority of children and women to take liberties away from men (and younger and better looking females) and which just so happens to strenghten their own position in a free sexual market (for example, their lovers or prospective lovers & partners have less of an alternative sexual outlet to a real relationship if stripclubs & prostitution are outlawed – that’s pretty close to rape don’t you think?).
Without being rude, you seem to justify sweeping and simplistic judgements upon how things are and should be on the basis of a flimsy grasp of cause and effect – rich nations are feminist, therefore feminism is good ; sex trafficking is evil, feminists don’t like sex trafficking, feminists don’t like strip clubs, therefore strip clubs are as evil as sex trafficking. I guess its your utopian mindset.

I think you owe it to men to actually demonstrate that something many or most of them do is evil before you allow feminists to take it away from them, just because they, and perhaps you, don’t like it. I hope you’re aware that Hitler justified everything on the basis of ‘protecting the children of Germany’. (BTW, as you know, a lot of people think transhumanism, conflated with eugenics, leads directly to Auschwitz).

It is highly disturbing to me that you see the decision to ban porn as a ‘revolutinary and interesting act’ and that you assume that the ‘sexual objectification’ of women is intrinsically evil and something to be removed.

If I walk down the street and see an attractive skimpily dressed woman, am I evil for merely glancing at her and admiring her sexual beauty? As a transhumanist, would you like that impulse removed from my dna code, if it can’t be removed by the social engineering of feminists, of course? A recent study into men who didn’t look at porn failed, on account of the fact that the researchers couldn’t find any man who didn’t look at porn. Perhaps you and your transhumanist friends belong to that rareified and strictly hypothetical segment of the male population who do not ever look at porn, and have never sexually objectified the opposite sex, and therefore can afford to view legislation that criminilizes and dehumanizes the essential nature of what it is to be a man as ‘interesting’. In that case, you really have already lost your humanity.

Hank’s Second Reply : for antifeminist – Ha! thanks for your comments. I don’t want you to think transhumanists don’t look at porn, that would be WILDLY INACCURATE and I thoroughly share your enjoyment of looking at attractive women. However, my attitude has changed considerably since I became the father of two daughters. I want them to live in a world where they can have equal opportunities to succeed, where they can be viewed as leaders, and where they get judged by men for more than their physical dimensions. I know (many) men are programmed to view women as primarily sexual objects, but I think this is rather sad and superficial, don’t you? I always felt diminished when I was regarded that way.
Regarding your previous statement that feminism is a product of wealth, I still disagree — I am sure it is a product of culture. There are wealthy “antifeminist” nations (Qatar) and impoverished nations that rate high on the Global Gender Gap index. (Philippines and Lesotho) Virtually every Islamic nation scores low on the “women-friendly” chart, because the religion does not seem to promote equality. The highest rated nations for women’s equality seem to be liberal Protestant / atheist nations.

…..for Paul, iPan, theantifeminist, & Bill —
what do you think a sexual utopia should be?
sometimes I get the impression from transhumanist men that what they want out of the future is just really great 3D porn and superhot Sex robots.
I think this lacks imagination and foresight.
Partly because it seems like it is not what women really want and they are half the planet. Sexual utopia needs to make a significant majority happier.
There’s two things l’d like to see:
1. increased sexual aggression from women. I think this would be interesting, and beneficial for females, to be the gender taking the initiative more often. Being passive isn’t good training for leadership or entrepreneurial risk.
2. eventually, I’ve always liked the scenario Ursela K. LeGuin developed in “Left Hand of Darkness” where people were able to switch genders easily. To go through life as both male and female would eliminate all divisiveness, misunderstandings, and gender war.

My Third Response :  @Hank

“for Paul, iPan, theantifeminist, & Bill —
what do you think a sexual utopia should be? “

You make some good points in that reply.  To answer your question, I think a sexual utopia would be where every sexual being can fulfill his sexual needs without causing pain or harm to himself/herself or others.

Regarding the point about transhumanists only wanting 3d porn and sex robots.  If that’s the case, I’m reassured. Because most transhumanists I’ve read on this subject want to ‘perfect’ humanity by killing the male sex drive altogether, or even wiping men from the face of the planet.

I would also state that a free sexual market IS undeniably cruel and savage for a woman’s sexual and emotional needs.   The ageing process is particularly evil for women, and lets hope that science can fix that soon.  I also agree that women should be allowed to experience sex in the way that most men appear able to – as a physical and (non possesive) emotional joy.  Perhaps transhumanism can fix that too.

I think what will happen very soon is that virtual sex will replace physical face to face sex.  When it becomes as real as the real thing (likely to be remarkably soon) virtual sex will have so many advantages over real sex – even, you’ll be pleased to know, for women.

For example, women will no longer have to compete with 18 y.o teenage girls with perfect breasts – they can be that perfect teenage girl for their virtual lover..or they can be whoever,whatever they want to be.  Eventually, any roleplay or virtual identity will be possible.  I guess at some point the manipulation of memory, self-identity etc will become so advanced that an 80 year old woman (or man!) could literally BECOME an innocent female virgin for an hour of casual lovemaking.

At that point, the age old sexual conflict between men and women, which is fuelling the bitterness of modern feminism, and consequently so much pain for both men and women as well as disruption to society (despite what your lists say), will be over.

Also consider the impact of radical life-extension.  The number of
people having families and aspiring to ‘life-long’ monogamous partnerships will dwindle, perhaps even be forcibly reduced by governments concerned about over-population.  As David Pearce argues, the separation of sex from reproduction and traditional (selfish) concepts of love is inevitable.  Traditional sexual morality, which feminists largely subscribe to and legislate for, will be obsolete.

You say that transhumanists don’t have much imagination.  Actually, it’s feminists with their incessant barrage of man hating sex negative laws which do not have imagination.  For example, in 20 years time, when these bitter and sad old Icelandic feminists can present themselves as perfect bodied young holograms in order to have virtual sex, will they have criminalized themselves with these ridiculous laws banning strip clubs or absurd definitions of ‘virtual child pornography’ which make anime pictures of girls in bikinis illegal?

Feminism has always been a sexual trade union responding to changes in technology that rip open the free sexual market at an ever increasing speed.  The first wave resulted from industrialisation (the first feminists called not for the vote but for the banning of prostitution, saloon bars, and a rise in the age of consent), the second wave began immediately the contraceptive pill was introduced and allowed men to enjoy consequence free sex, the current third wave has been created out of globalisation and the internet, which enables Polish hookers to offer a feminist’s husband sex for $30, or for him to chat live with a Russian webcam girl at any time of day across the world.

There will come a point soon, call it a singuarity moment if you will, when technology will open the free sexual market to the extent that feminists can’t keep up, or hopefully, no longer even want to.

Anway, thankyou for allowing my comments to be posted.

Finally, @the postfuturist.  I guess you agree with me (and the vast majority of muslim women) that conservative Islam does not oppress women, at least not as much as the free ‘meat’ market of the west does, if the lustful gaze of a man is so much the worst thing that a woman can suffer.

Given that this was posted on Reddit, I’m surprised few others submitted anti-feminist comments.  Given that the writer of the piece, although his original thesis is obviously absurd, has demonstrated his fairness and openness to intelligent debate, perhaps this is an opportunity to let him have YOUR opinions on what a sexual utopia might be? Please remember to be polite, as he has been very fair.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pellissier20110108

The Guardian Debates Whether Men’s Rights Supporters Should Be Banned from Comments

This is actually the clearest piece of evidence I’ve yet seen that we might actually be having the Femmies on the run…what a week it’s been for men’s rights!

How anti-women is the Guardian? This might seem an odd question for those brought up on the idea that the Guardian has always been associated with a feminist perspective, embodied in the work of Mary Stott, columnist Jill Tweedie and, in the present day, Polly Toynbee.

However, some correspondents feel that the Guardian, in print and online, doesn’t do enough to defend and promote women. “I am writing to complain about the sexism on Comment is free and the failure of the Guardian to acknowledge, or address, the lack of female commenters below the line and the predominance of anti-feminist and sexist male bloggers,” wrote one correspondent who had prepared a spreadsheet with an analysis of the gender of the commenters.

“The article, On rape, the left still doesn’t get it, of 27 December, highlights this. In the first 50 comments, ie the front page, there are 28 identifiably male and five female posters. I have included only those who have stated their gender in profiles or posts. However, unless one looks to the profile archive, the anonymous nature of posting hides this disparity. It is not obvious that there is no substantive contribution to this discussion by women. Many of the posters are habitually sexist commentators … the hostile culture women face on Comment is free must encourage their absence.”

Naomi Wolf’s article on 6 January, which argued that the women accusing men of rape should not have anonymity, brought forth this comment: “It is their fault [the Guardian]. They know this is manna from heaven to the Cif [Comment is free] mob. They are chief cheerleaders for the Daily Mail campaign against rape victims. They are providing a platform for the kind of propaganda that persuaded Dave that rape anonymity for defendants would be such a great first move for his government. And, meanwhile, the rape conviction rate stays exactly where it always was.” Her solution would be to turn off the comments on issues that traditionally attract anti-women comments, such as those that relate to “men’s rights“, and be even tougher on moderating the comments.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/10/dearth-comments-women-print-online

And we won’t be silenced :

….Our community guidelines ban sexism, and sexist comments are removed as soon as moderators are aware of them. “But,” Cif’s editor says, “it can also be important and productive to engage with, debate and challenge views you disagree with, and that is what Cif is about.”

Subscribe to Reddit Men’s Rights Movement for more breaking anti-feminist stories and for a moderation policy that does not promote the abuse of toddlers by radical feminist transexuals.

The best and the worst of the week that was

The Futurist (Fifth Horseman) – the author of ‘The Misandry Bubble’ – revealed a new strategy to kickstart the men’s rights movement into going viral – ‘URLs for Urinals’ consists of posting men’s rights flyers on to the spaces above men’s urinals.  Jay Hammers has some ready made versions for you to print out and start posting : https://sites.google.com/site/jaymhammers/files/misandry-01-03-11.ppt

Perhaps it would be a good idea if we all took photos of our activist deeds?  Of course, taking photographs in a men’s urinals is always a bit open to misinterpretation, but I guess most of us will be putting up the flyers when the loos are empty.   So get posting and snapping, scream homophobia if anybody ‘catches’ you (you could claim they are gay rights flyers), and then publish the photos online as proof of your good work and as inspiration for others.  I’ll try to put a photo up here myself in the next couple of weeks.

And just to prove that the men’s rights movement is gaining ground, or at least attention, both the Futurist and Paul Elam were referred to in a New York Times piece entitled ‘The Study of Man’, with Paul Elam’s website actually linked to.  Some cheeky conspiracy theorists have suggested that the author of the apparently damning piece might actually be sympathetic to the cause.  As I’ve mentioned here before, the traditional publishing industry is in slave to the female dollar.  This was highlighted a year or so ago when the outspoken Rod Liddle was effectively blocked from becoming editor of the British ‘Independent’ broadsheet newspaper because of concerns that his regular anti-feminist statements might turn off women readers.  If Charles McGrath, who wrote the New York Times article, really had wanted to bash men’s rights, he could have chosen some far more ‘mysogynistic’ websites than Paul’s.  In fact, he linked to one of the men’s rights sites most likely to appear reasonable to the average male reader of that paper.

Not that, in my humble and perhaps biased opinion, any publicity is bad publicity for the men’s rights movement.  At the moment, the fact is, 90% of men don’t even know we exist.  With more mainstream media outlets now covering the movement every now and again, the outlook is clearly more positive that this will change, albeit rather slowly. The main task is still to wake men up from their feminist induced chivalrous stupour.  Men won’t listen until they can hear us.

The biggest threat to any growing men’s rights movement is still that some voices will be silenced at the expense of others.  I don’t apologise for the controversial subjects that I discuss in this blog.  However big men’s rights might become, it won’t speak for all men, or even a minority of men, unless such topics are part of the movement.  I firmly believe that there is nothing I have said of importance on this site that key men’s rights supporters and anti-feminists from Schopenhauer to Ernest Belfort Bax, to the likes of modern writers such as Neil Lyndon and Steve Moxon, wouldn’t recognise to be manifestly true and obvious.  And when a ‘senior’ men’s rights activist tells me, as one did last week, that the possibility of feminists raising the age of consent to 20 is not a men’s rights issue, and to think that it is is tantamount to campaigning for paedophilia, then that person is either a fraud or a coward, or at least he is on this issue. 

At the minimum, such men’s rights supporters should be consistant.  For example – if you truly believe that it is so manifestly obvious that men should go to prison to be raped as paedophiles for having consensual sex with women old enough to vote – and that this is consistant with men’s rights, then you shouldn’t also hold that it is right for politically motivated radical feminists to interfere with the very identities of 3 year old toddlers, as Kloo2Yoo, the moderator of reddit.com/r/mensrights, appears to do here : http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/exrxm/princessboy_supporting_crossdressing_behaviour_in/c1bs2o0?context=3

THE FEMINIST ABUSE OF INFANTS IS NOT MEN’S RIGHTS – I WANT NO PART OF IT

I will be devoting an entire article to this later in the week.

Most Converts to Islam are Women – Only White Knights are Surprised

The BBC reports that there are an estimated 100,000 British converts to Islam, and that at least 3/4 of them are women.  To put that in another way – for every one British male who converts, there are at least three British females who willingly submit to Allah.

At Regent’s Park Mosque in central London there are many white faces among the crowd for Friday prayers.

Conversions happen here every week – largely on a Saturday, and they are mostly women.

Tony Blair’s sister-in-law, Lauren Booth, is a recent convert and prays there.

One London imam, Ajmal Masroor, says the findings of the study come as little surprise to him. He says in his experience around three-quarters of converts are women.

Islam is a religion that oppresses women only in the minds of white knight liberals and male atheists.  Yes, of course Islam is appallingly cruel to the handful of women who are beaten for wearing un-Islamic or revealing dress, stoned to death for adultery etc.  However, for the vast majority of women under Islamic rule, life is fundamentally better and more content than it is for Western women.  Women who live within, and who suffer daily competition and threat under, a liberal and free sexual market that can favour only the young and attractive.

Gentlemen – Leave Saudi Women Alone!

As for the freedom of women when it comes to marriage and divorce, I know that the system in the country obliges the person who will tie the knot legally to directly communicate with the woman and make sure she agrees with the proposal.

As for divorce, I also know that it’s a woman’s right, under the Shariah rules, to ask for kulu (to file for divorce and give the husband back his dowry) the moment a she dislikes being with her husband. Judges are aware of it.

I know there are instances where these rules are ignored or violated by fathers or judges. Some judges delay the procedures of kulu because they want to sort out the problems between a man and his wife to avoid a divorce. But these violations don’t mean that women in the Kingdom are oppressed when it comes to marriage and divorce!

 If present trends continue, Feminism will have destroyed European civilisation in just a handful of generations. The response to the free sexual market by European women is the catalyst for the inevitable Islamification of Europe within a century.  Feminism, the sexual trade union created to meet the fears and insecurities of women in such a sexually competitive society, leads to a birth rate well below replacement levels.  And this requires that all the nations of Europe replace their rapidly diminishing native workforces with massive immigrant labour from neighbouring (muslim) lands.  To compound this, we now have ever increasing numbers of European women flocking to Islam as an alternative solution to the free sexual market, and feminism’s percieved failure to close it.

What is needed is a secular and liberal movement that sees feminism for what it is – as much an evil threat to Enlightenment values as Islamism itself is.  A secular movement that is postive towards pornography, prostitution, and fights the sex offender hysteria for the threat to liberty, and all men, that it undoubtedly is. Unfortunately, liberal atheists such as Richard Dawkins and his like need feminism and ‘the oppression of women’ mantra as a stick to beat their religious adversaries with.  Sadly ignorant, in their rational feel good bliss, that it is women, motivated solely by their selfish and fundamental sexual needs, that are, and probably always have been, the essential life force that drives both religion and irrationalism.

Feminists have now infested and taken over both the left, the center, and the right of politics. In fact, it is probably impossible to build any kind of political movement nowadays without including the threatened female reproductive voice – a voice that inevitably dilutes and perverts the message of the original struggle.  Alas, probably the men’s rights movement, in the need to build momentum, will go the same way. It is already showing signs of becoming hijacked into little more than the Conservative Father’s Association of North America. An association whose members pray every day  pathetically for a Sarah Palin type figure to deliver some kind of ‘legitamacy’.