It seems that there is a, frankly unbridgeable, schism developing between two sides of Male Sexualist thought.

On the one hand you have the Bergian wing. Under the ‘leadership’ of Eivind Berge, they are composed mainly of ‘paedosexualist’ LGBT, Muslim (or sympathetic to the Muslim world view), feminist supporting, Left leaning ‘MAPs’ and ‘Ephebophiles’. Their leader, Eivind, is also fervently anti- masturbation and anti-porn, although it’s unclear if any of his followers or those who identify on the same Male Sexualist wing as him, actually share his views on NoFap.

We could call them Bergians, Bergian Male Sexualists, or perhaps LGBT, as their common goal appears to be to gain acceptance within the LGBT movement, which would become the LGBTP movement. Let’s settle then on LGBTP male sexualists.

Members of the Bergians include (or comprise of) the notorious Tom O’Carroll, Holocaust 21, the notorioius Tom Grauer, and Holocaust 22(!).

The other school of Male Sexualist thought, largely rejects the idea of a movement all-together. In fact, those who might be loosely classified under the term, might not even acknowledge themselves as ‘Male Sexualists’, let alone be part of a movement.

But it’s clear that there is a very small group of bloggers and commentators left over from the early days of men’s rights and the Manosphere (and they might even reject those terms), who remain both staunchly anti-feminist, and honest about issues of male sexuality and its persecution by the feminist state.

So we wont give them a name, other than ‘Male Sexualists’ (if for no other reason than the simplest description of men who still discuss normal male sexuality). Their numbers include of course myself (the antifeminist), Scarecrow (Men-Factor), Rookh (Anglo-Bitch), and others, including commentators such as ‘Jack’, even if they comment regularly at LGBTP blogs such as Eivind’s.

As the anti-feminist wing of Male Sexualists is not really a ‘movement’ (of course, neither is the LGBTP wing), there is no ‘leader’. Just a loose and small collection of bloggers and online commentators who share certain positions (and disagree on lots!). Despite this, most or all would likely tip their hats at certain figures who went before, such as the great, much loved and much missed Angry Harry. Perhaps also, certain early figures of the Manosphere who are no longer around, an example of whom is Roissy, or those who are still here but who have been transformed into something so different as to not really be the same thing at all, like a caterpillar into a butterfly, like a beautiful teenage girl into a femihag, as ‘Ferdinand Bardemu’ into Matt Forney.

Can the two sides get along, or even, dare I say it, reconcile? The former, probably not, unless simply to ignore each other. As for reconciling, it would be in at least my view that the LGBTP ‘male sexualists’ are at this stage more of an enemy than a friend, and that the differences are irrecocnilable. Anti-porn, anti-masturbation, failing to distinguish normal male sexuality from ‘paedosexuality’ (another clumsy invention of Eivind it seems), failing to even discern the primary enemy (feminists). Eivind today seems intent on taking on the equivalent role that Paul Elam performed in the MRM, and committing the same murderous deed – taking the roots of a dangerous revolutionary but fledgling intellectual idea, cutting them out and replacing them with something benign and feminine, while still (vaguely) claiming to be fighting for men.

As for calling Male Sexualism a movement – this is almost as absurd as annointing ‘leaders’. The modern online MRM had hundreds of active participants before anyone even called it a movement, and even then, I can’t remember anyone ever calling somebody a ‘leader’. After it had been established for some time, and consisted of thousands of men active in blogs, and then on other forms of Web 2.0 (now known as social media), then many of us started to refer to Angry Harry as ‘the father’ of the MRM, or Roissy as the founder of the Manosphere (and Roissy himself called Michael Houellebecq the ‘father’ of the Manosphere). Angry Harry certainly never called himself or thought of himself as leader of a men’s rights movement. Even today, nobody has ever tried to claim a ‘leadership’ role (of course, Paul Elam did in all but name, but did not succeed).

Should we then ignore the LGBTP male sexualists, attempt to get along with them, or attack them? Perhaps ignoring them is the best option, but consider that if one side embraces the term Male Sexualism (which might be a deadweight term already because of Tom Grauer), then it might succeed in hijacking our cause, especially if ‘our side’ doesn’t particularly acknowledge that banner (Male Sexualism). On the other hand, they are such a ragamuffin band of (to be frank) autists, that they wont make any headway (thankfully). I mean, seriously, to anyone not an autist – what are the odds of a movement trying to reconcile Islam, LGBT(P), ‘paedosexualism’, normal male sexuality (though Eivind increasingly likes to pretend this is cougar chasing), NoFap and masturbation shaming, the female sex offender charade..succeeding? Or even attracting more than a dozen followers in the next 100 years?

So yes, let us ignore them (finally!).

No doubt I triggered all this with my article 2 or 3 years ago lamenting the fact that no such movement for male sexuality had arisen, and immediately up popped Tom Grauer – who did certainly have a (brief) go at kickstarting something, and perhaps he ought to be considered a (clumsy) hero for that. Unfortunately, it has to be more deft, slow, and organic than he had wished for, particularly as cancel culture (which the clueless and autistic LGBTP male sexualists don’t seem able to associate with feminists either) becomes increasingly vicious.

Certainly, despite their lofty ambitions and overblown pretensions, the LGBTP male sexualists, with their pink pussy hats and flags, and their #LoveIsLove slogans printed on their pink t-shirts, wont be storming the Bastille anytime soon.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54930488

A Dutch police chief has called for an end to “paedophile hunting” after a 73-year-old retired teacher was beaten up by teenagers and died of his injuries.

Oscar Dros said there was a risk more people could die and he appealed for justice to be left to the authorities.

The man from the eastern city of Arnhem was lured into having sexual contact with a minor while in a gay chatroom.

As I mentioned the other day, there doesn’t seem much point carrying on the struggle, at least not in this form. We lost. We tried our best…or at least I did…but we’ve lost. One in 4 billion men with balls and fists can’t do much alone.

I had realistic hopes when starting this blog. We were never going to defeat feminism or crush anti-sex and paedo hysterias. The aim was to show that many of us were men enough to raise our fists in defiance. At least point out who the enemy were – the femihags. Perhaps, optimistically, with the growing manosphere and more specifically the men’s rights movement at our side, we could slow the pace of legislation and hatred, until such time as society changed fundamentally (in my optimistic hope – the world of eternal youth and sex rationally divorced entirely from reproduction), that the underlying reasons for the hysterias would dissipate.

But the truth is, it was clear before very long that we didn’t have a chance. I’m not going to compose another essay in what went wrong, but /r/mensrights, Paul Elam, the ‘Honey Badgers’ etc, and the general American puritanical stupidity took over what might have been a secular, pro male sexuality men’s rights movement in the style of Angry Harry, Steve Moxon, or any number of British writers on men’s rights who had gone before.

I visited reddit/com/r/mensrights for the first time in years the other day. The first post at the top of the page was, of course, a story about a female teacher getting a short sentence for banging a lucky teen lad, and the consequent outrage from MRA arseholes in the comments section. One of them actually said something close to ‘equal injustice for all’, as a thing to be proud of (‘the fight for justice is equal’ or such). I almost threw up. I doubt if the story on the Dutch teacher being beaten to death by anti-paedophile vigilantes was even posted (what has this to do with men’s rights dude?).

The only thing that remains is for digital archaologists in the year 3,000, probably Chinese or Turkish or something like that, to uncover our writings, and conclude as evidence that there was some defiance in that brief, inexplicable period of terminal decline of the West, when trannies were held up as normal and attraction to fertile youth was the worst perversion imaginable.

But there’s really no hope of that. They certainly wont call it the ‘Male Sexualist Movement’, taken over as it has by paedophile activists, MAPs, feminists, and other anti-porn puritans.

I stated the other day that the only good thing about Eivind’s blog is that he does allow comments still. Of course, it’s rapidly being taken over by the aspie paedophiles and MAPs that he chooses to ally himself with (and then clumsily distance himself from). One such creature claimed I have been proven mistaken in my opposition to feminism all along, because Judith Levine has got a new book out, and Ruth Ginsburg wanted to lower the age of consent to 12.

Well, well, well. I guess that totally overrides the fact that the vast majority of the countless NGO members working day and night to further increase the odds of creatures like him to be raped in prison (not to mention ordinary people like you and me), are hardcore feminists. Not to mention that the age of consent was raised from 12 to 16 or 18 in the West by feminists, and today, they have raised the age at which a girl is automatically assumed to have been raped, no matter how willing she engaged in sex, to 13 (in the UK) or 15 (in France). In fact, this aspie paedophile actually thinks that Ruth Ginsburg, who implemented that feminist treaty into law in the USA (or tried to) – raising the threshold to 12 – actually meant that I’m a fool for not getting behind her and her fellow feminists.

As I wrote a while ago when the bitch croaked :

The words above may upset the several followers of Eivind Berge’s ‘MAP NO FAP’ movement (I will not mention Eivind again in this post), given that Ruth was a feminist, and the alt-right pedocrites have been quick (while taking a break from fapping to anime 8 year old girl pics) to promote nonsense viral memes suggesting she wanted to lower the age of consent. In fact, she was simply arguing for the case (pushed by feminists on a global level and now introduced worldwide) for sex with under 12’s to be automatically considered rape, no matter however willing. Indeed, she also stressed that this and other age of consent laws should apply equally to women having sex with boys. So maybe Eivind and his MAPs wont be a fan of her’s after all (O.K., I lied about not mentioning Eivind again), although MRA paedocrites will.

What I remember most strikingly about Ruth Ginsburg is her quote soon after taking up her role, of comparing sex offenders to a virus that ‘needs to be eradicated’. In the feminist Sexual Holocaust against men, this evil cunt has certainly been one of the leading players.

As for Judith Levine, great she’s got a new book out. Probably the only book she could sell, given that her name is permanently associated with her first one (the excellent ‘Harmful to Minors’). To say that she, or Camille Pagilia, somehow prove that feminists are our natural allies instead of the enemy, is like saying that MRAs believe that women should be allowed to have sex with 12 year old boys because of Eivind Berge’s writings.

If you want to look at a country that actually cares about children, then look at Poland. While other peaceful utopias of progressiveness, like err.. France, prioritize defining sex with girls a day before the age of consent (15) as rape, or hounding old men into prison (or suicide) for admitting sex with horny teen sluts half-a-century ago, Poland actually protects children from real abuse. Such as recently passing a law forbidding the obscene ‘right’ of women to murder their unborn babies.

Of course the cunts aren’t too happy about this. Poland has been rocked by protests for the last week. From the anger on display, you might have thought somebody had drawn a picture of Mohammed or something. But no, this is about the intrinsic wimmin’s right, granted to them just about everywhere else on Earth, to flush their unborn child down the toilet pan if it makes their lives a little easier. Polish women have even apparently ‘gone on strike’. I don’t know what that entails exactly. I doubt if any women anywhere will ever go on strike from their main biologically programmed activity – trying to increase their sexual market value through cunt blocking other (younger prettier) women and putting men in jail for fake sexual crimes.

But it does make you think. Women immediately get out into the streets in their millions and protest their ‘right’ to kill their unborn children. Their bodies, their rights. Yet at the same time, men can’t even look at a topless picture of a 17 year old ‘child’ in their own home, without then fearing permanently the boot through the door, a year in prison at fear of rape from your cellmates, and your name being splashed in the local newspapers and years on the sex offenders register. And of course no marches or protests against that. Only a handful even questioning it online. Why is this? How is it possible?

At this point, we have to finally admit (if we haven’t done so already) that there is something deep and intrinsic in society, and the biologically rooted set up between the sexes, that is the reason why. Men cannot protest their sexual rights. Not at least, as ‘men’. Subsections of men can, when persecuted by other men – such as homosexuals and trannies, who are really only able to do so because they are seen as not being fully men (in the case of trannies, actually identifying as women). But not men, for being ‘men’. Certainly not when the momentum for the persecution comes from women – the ‘victims’. As Schopenhauer said, women do not possess a sense of justice. Unfortunately, men do, even the dumbest, and women can easily manipulate this. Men look up at the stars and seek the eternal laws in the pursuit of justice. Women look down at their empty cunts and wonder how they can manipulate men into getting them filled with alpha cock.

*Note that I’m just giving the case of a man having his life destroyed for looking at one picture of a topless 17 year old girl as an example, as the clearest and most obvious injustice. Something to be juxtaposed with the automatically assumed ‘right’, defended with violence, of Polish women to kill their 8 month old unborn children. Of course, not only would the so-called ‘men’s rights movement’ not consider this an issue, nor would the tiny split from the movement that was supposed to continue the real men’s rights fight to oppose our never ending sexual criminalization – ‘Male Sexualism’, and its self declared leader Eivind Berge.

The only good thing left about this egoist’s blog is that he does still allow comments. And in among all thirsty Eivind’s ramblings and his White Knighting over the latest American teacher who wasn’t given the pussy pass after being caught sucking 15 year old black chad cock, you do get the occasional gem of a comment. Take this one from ‘Jack’ :

Eivind, I sympathise with your raging against Society. Fact is, Societies will either contrive to kill 40% of their men through wars, or they will try to put 40% of their men in jail through sex, drug or blasphemy laws (victimless crime). The fact that they exceptionally also put the odd female behind bars like in these hot teacher cases is a red herring. The emphasis of male-entrapment laws may change every half century but their purpose is the same. Isn’t that because too many males are born compared to the percentage of beddable females at any given time? That’s what mother nature wants us male to be you know, killers of other males. Sad but true.

Even with a level-field, whithout such sex, drug or blasphemy laws, the shortage of beddable females would leave men like you and me high and dry. In the end, Societies are a free-for-all where the young and strong (or the young and beautiful) get everything while the normal folk like you and me are left holding the short en of the stick.

I take it that this is the same French ‘Jack’ who used to comment here. We fell out a little because, although sharing Eivind’s hatred of pigs, he once chided me for calling feminists hags and bitter cunts. We should be less mean to feminists, and more mean to men, who are the REAL problem! Despite this, I still love Jack.

Of course the second question is – granted that men are incapable of even forming a sizeable movement to protest against their persecution and criminalization, but then why is it impossible even for a handful to raise their fists in unison and scream ‘femihags’? At least to show these creatures that there was a handful of men left, if not a movement, rather than one or two individuals?

I mean it’s not fucking rocket science. The reason why 50 year old hags around the world in their innumerable NGO’s and ‘child protection’ charities are criminalizing men for even thinking about young, nubile females is…well…because they are 50 year old hags rather than young nubile females, doh, doh, doh, doh,doh, doh. Jesus Christ.

Yet I genuinely appear to be the only one out of 3 billion men on the planet saying this? How is this freaking possible? How? Even the tiny corner of the internet, consisting of maybe a dozen people (I’m not including all the aspie ‘maps’ and ‘ephebophiles etc.), I’m the only one. And no, I’m not humble bragging about being ‘special’. It really does almost drive me into suicidal thoughts. Why? Why? Why? Why, am I the only person alive, raising my fists in the air, and screaming ‘femihags’? Why?

This isn’t quite the same question I addressed at the beginning of the article, although it is related. The reason so few men can see they are being criminalized as the result of injustice, is surely because of some deep rooted biologically necessitated structure within society and the relationship between the sexes (and between sexually competing men, as Jack alludes to). But still, why are the tiny number of men who ARE able to see injustice, so silent on the obvious cause (bitterness and jealousy of women, and in particular femihags)? Even when people like Eivind can see that feminists are responsible, it doesn’t seem to interest him as to why feminists are doing this. In fact, he spends much more time (like Jack did here) raging against men – such as pigs – for doing the dirty work of feminists (even though he supports the thinking behind feminist anti-porn laws which result in the bulk of male ‘sex offenders’ in the Western World). And he takes great pains to point out he is not a ‘misogynist’ (lol). He really does worship women (or at least want to get his thirsty NoFap balls into the pants of every HB5 skank on the planet). A small cabel of feminists are responsible, certainly not women, who are sugar and spice and all things nice. Don’t ask him how, because he hasn’t a clue. He even thinks feminists are ‘stoopid’ for thinking they are hurting men by locking them up to be raped for looking at pictures of fertile girls.

There have been one or two of my readers who did promote the message, who did raise their fists and scream ‘femihags’. One such was ‘MRA Front’, but he didn’t continue his blog for very long.

There have been others, greater intellects than mine, who have been fully aware of what feminists are up to – Steve Moxon is one example. But I wouldn’t call his efforts, even as an ‘MRA’ as raising his fists at the femihags. Rather scientifically pointing out why feminists are anti-porn, raise the age of consent (and inflate paedophilia) and create ‘rape hysteria’ and such. Other intellectuals and writers before the modern (Angry Harry’s) men’s rights movement made similar claims in books such as ‘The Decline of Males’ and ‘No More Sex War’.

Earlier still, and before the British and European proto-men’s movements were subsumed by Paul Elam style American puritanism and dumbfuckery, and MRAs were even more overt in calling out feminists for their game of sexual market rigging. Indeed, the accepted ‘first’ MRA – the great Ernest Belfort Bax – would regularly write that feminists were ‘obsessed’ with raising the age of consent, and that it was their primary purpose. And indeed it was. Belfort Bax was writing in the period when the Sexual Purity Movements of America and the UK, whose primary aim was raising the age of consent (from 12 to 21) and criminalizing prostitution (as well of course outlawing drinking dens which also served as establishments were men could pick up teenage prostitutes and other ‘loose women’), were morphing into ‘feminism’ and the right of women to have the vote. Though this came secondary to the woman’s movement. The feminists, or ‘suffragettes’ who fought for the ‘right’ of women to vote, only did so because they saw it as a means to get their primary ‘sexual purity’ goals established into law. And they were very open about this.

That feminism is about unattractive/aging women rigging the sexual market in their favor, through shaming, manipulation, and above all, the employment of (male) State violence and incarceration, is not even an open question. It’s freaking obvious. In the wider manosphere, it was often pointed out almost in passing. Of course, writers like ‘Roosh’ and PUAs such as ‘Krauser PUA’, wouldn’t take the obvious step of calling out age of consent laws for being feminist injustices. The reason is that they didn’t want to put their heads above the parapet (even a step too far for Roosh).

But for those, such as the likes of Eivind, who have put their heads above the parapet and at least called out feminist laws, why is it so difficult to stress the element of jealousy, spite, femihaggishness, and sexual market rigging?

I think a number of key reasons. For one thing, we are so tiny in number, that it is likely we are in some sense mentally ill or autistic, in order to either even see behind the social conditioning of feminism and then to raise our voices about it. And I’ve spoken about this before.

This appears to have a number of practical implications that have been to our cost. For example, our little movement appears to be made up of egotistical aspies, each of whom wants to be the leader of a movement (and in Eivind and Tom Grauer’s cases, more of a cult), even if that movement has only one or two people in it and is only going to be a crosshair for others to aim at.

Another consequence appears to be the typical asperger’s trait of thinking that you are special, a genius, brighter than even the other aspies in the room. So instead of rallying around a simple cry of ‘down with the femihags’, every aspie wants to be the genius who has feminism figured through their own unique theory. The right one. For years when I allowed comments on this blog, virtually every single reader had their own idea of what feminism was about. They might have generally agreed that feminists were criminalizing men with oppressive anti-sex laws, but the idea that it was femihags doing so out of spite and jealousy was too, well…simple. There had to be far more to it than that. Feminists are just pawns. Maybe the FBI working with Mossad. Maybe 5G masts. Maybe Bill Gates and his vaccines.

I was guilty of this too by making the mistake of presenting it as a ‘theory’ (femihag theory). It’s not a theory. It’s mindblowingly obvious. Just Google image the latest child protection NGO meeting deciding on the next law they will lobby for to put thousands more men in prison for thought crimes, and any non-aspie would see it’s mindblowingly obvious.

Other things that haven’t helped are of course the ‘crossover’ with the 100% aspie MAPs and ‘ephebophiles’. So although ‘we’ are likely aspie or mental (and in my case, as I have admitted, when I was young I did suffer from mental health problems), we are not as aspie or hopeless as these sad barely alive creatures who are incapable of even seeing feminists as the enemy. But there is an inevitable crossover, not helped by the likes of thirsty Eivind actively courting them as allies. These people might be brought around to seeing feminists as an enemy, but they are still too ‘progressive’ (lol) to be ‘misogynistic’ and call out feminists as the bitter hag cunts that they are.

And overlaying it all, we have the global reach of American Conservatism, and the consequent idea in reaction that it is American puritanism that is the primary cause of our woes, not feminists – which doesn’t even make sense, as sexual puritanism as part of the modern American Conservative movement began with the (feminist dominated) Sexual Purity Movements of the late 19th century.

Why have I been immune to all this? Well I really don’t want to turn this into egotism or bragging, which is precisely one of our problems as I just pointed out, but rather just thinking about this in a detached, objective manner out of curiosity. In my case, I developed schizophrenia when I was at university (a very good university, despite a very working class background). Several of the people in my ‘ward’ (not quite a padded cell) are dead now. The life expectancy of male schizophrenics is much lower than for the rest of the population, due to high suicide rates and problems caused by medication. I’m in my 50’s now, completely recovered (through my own efforts), with the fitness and body of a very healthy 20 year old (despite a recent health scare caused by a genetic disposition for bowel cancer). I’m financially independent etc. Even though I missed a year out of my studies at university, and didn’t retake the year, I still left with a good degree, just missing out on a First (and even then I think I was marked down because I was openly anti-feminist). So in my case, although I share many aspie traits, I’m not an aspie, yet my mental rupture (if you like) when I was young, was enough for me to see behind the Emperor’s new clothes. And very rarely, for somebody who was as ill as I was at one stage, I was able to make a full recovery.

So…if you’ve got this far in reading today’s stream of anti-feminist consciousness – why can’t we raise our fists?

Because of biology, aspies, Americans, and arseholes.

In precisely that order.

—————————————————————————————————–
*As an addendum to this article, compare the contrast in sentencing taking place in the UK these days.

A homosexual former contestant on a UK TV reality show had his sentence for ‘sexually exploiting’ seven teenage boys just under the age of consent reduced from 17 to 14 years on appeal. His crime? Asking them to send him nude pics and videos in return for cash or alcohol. I’m not saying this should be legal, or he isn’t a ‘bad un’, but 17 years? And reducing it by just 3 years on appeal is almost an equal injustice.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/breaking-x-factors-danny-tetley-22913461

Meanwhile, a mother who left her dying 13 year old daughter on the sofa while she went out to the pub, has been jailed for only 3 years.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-54735097

And last week a random football fan who was viciously assaulted, had his head stamped on, by multiple thugs for wearing the wrong supporter’s kit, finally died after being left paralyzed from the attack several years ago. His attackers are all free men, walking the streets after serving their pathetic sentences already.

https://postintrend.com/sports/uk-football-fan-dies-5-years-after-being-left-brain-damaged-in-vicious-attack-by-12-thugs-rt-sport-news/