In the future, the sexual trade union has been crushed, at least in outer space… according to the following successful Levi Spaceman advert that appeared back in 1995, anyway (6 weeks and 2 days before paedohysteria swept the world and men suddenly realised that perfect skin, hips and waist were never up to much…and never had been, or are you a sick f***** nonce or sumfink?) :
The space girl in the video is Kristina Semenovskaya, who presumably was 15 or 16 at the time, given that she was born in 1979. The massively popular ad also gave Babylon Zoo their one hit wonder – ‘Spaceman‘.
Joking aside, as I’ve argued here previously, in the future, most women will choose to look like this girl i.e. a perfect 16 year old teen. And when science gives them that capability, through stem cell facelifts, nano-technology, virtual surrogates etc, then the sexual trade union becomes pointless. Although, as Michel Houellebecq would point out, nature will then only find tortuous new methods of sexual competition.
A ‘man of 21 with learning disabilities has been granted taxpayers’ money to fly to Amsterdam and have sex with a prostitute.
His social worker says sex is a ‘human right’ for the unnamed individual – described as a frustrated virgin.
His trip to a brothel in the Dutch capital’s red light district next month is being funded through a £520million scheme introduced by the last government to empower those with disabilities.
They are given a personal budget and can choose what services this is spent on.
Good! This is the most heartwarming story I’ve read in a long time, save for the predictable outrage from the sexual trade union’s conservative mouth piece – the Daily Mail.
I spoke in my last post about the effects of the free sexual market in producing grotesquely varied outcomes in terms of ‘winners and losers’. Feminism, and the overturning of ‘patriarchy’, has been the response of the mass of unattractive female losers. The ‘Mystery Method’ and Game has been the response of male ‘losers’ (high IQ white betas).
In his novels, the French writer Michel Houellebecq discusses various solutions to the unfair outcomes produced by the free sexual market. In Platform, an economic solution is proposed, consisting of a heretical defence of western sexual tourism to Asia. Why shouldn’t wealthy, but obese or old westerners, trade their own sought after goods with the poor, yet sexually attractive members of Asian societies? In the earlier and more popular Atomised, a more radical, femi-nazi type solution is presented – the abolition of sexual desire altogether, brought about through genetic intervention. Even more inflammatory, he playfully suggests at times that teenage girls should ‘justify their spoilt existance’ by being encouraged to trade their sexual beauty for the gifts of the older men whose taxes already support their extended adolescent lifestyles.
Now, I wish to make clear I am speaking as an ‘anti-feminist’ and all round agent provocateur, rather than as a ‘men’s rights supporter’. But I agree wholeheartedly that the state should have no more or less right to redress the imbalances of a free sexual market than it does presently to correct those of the economic free market.
Why shouldn’t those with beauty and youth be encouraged to enter into mutually advantageous relationships with the less attractive, but wealthier (an example of this is ‘compensation dating’ in Japan)? After a year of working 40 hour weeks, I’m now earning close to $2,000 a week. Why should my hard earned work go towards supporting the family of 5 on welfare down the road through the taxes that I pay, and yet if I offered to take the 17 year old daughter out to an expensive dinner, with an understanding that my sexual needs would be catered for afterwards, I would face prosecution as a sex offender (payment for sex with a minor – even though above the age of consent)?
Of course, as I have always argued, the law that would prosecute me is itself a state attempt at redressing the imbalances produced by the free sexual market. But it is one that ONLY addresses the sexual disadvantages of older, unattractive women. Because I cannot use my modest wealth to ‘buy’ sexual favours from the young and attractive, I am more likely to end up in a relationship with an older, unattractive woman who will herself profit from my income.
The actions of those English councils might appear to indicate the birth of a more enlightened and caring sexual age. But the disabled young men with learning difficulties are actually being put at risk of being prosecuted for ‘paying for sex’ if it turns out that those Amsterdam prostitutes were trafficked (or more likely if they claim to have been trafficked to avoid deportation as illegal immigrants).
This world, created by the feminists and their allies, both conservative and cultural marxist, is full of Orwellian contradictions. We hold the highest value to be the reduction of human misery and inequality. Few object to disabled people having financial compensation, privilages, and other support from the state, even the right to ‘compete’ at Olympic Games. Yet the idea that sex is a human right, rather than something that must be arduously won in the free sexual jungle, is something that strikes most as absurd. Even the feminists have to pretend that their sexual trade union laws are attempts to save ‘victims’ rather than honestly admitting that they are nothing more than attempts to preserve the sexual ‘rights’ of older, unattractive women in that cruel and ruthless sexual market.
Michel Houellebecq points out the contradictions inherent in a social democratic society where sex has become a commoddity. In such a world, we ought to encourage classes of 16 year old schoolgirls to visit retirement homes and to give the lonely old men there one last blowjob before the dying of the light. In my view, such a world would be fairer, more beautiful, and definitely more consistent than our present one.
An articulate and reflective PUA ruminates upon the moral issues of being paid by horny young males in order to help them get knee-deep in pussy :
Generally, we are getting students who are seriously vulnerable to the predations of women. Like a dog who chases a car down the street and then doesn’t know what to do when it catches up, like the fool who grabs a tiger by the tail, we in the seduction community are teaching guys to walk into a trap. What trap?
False paternity claims and ensuing child support that will cripple them financially
Emotional abuse from passive aggressive bitches who try to destroy your self esteem and your faith in humanity
STDs, some of which can ruin your fertility or harm your future wife
False rape claims that will see your reputation ruined, your career ended, and likely a long stint in jail just because some whore gets buyers remorse
Now I’m not going into the topic of whether the PUA life is a shallow one. That’s an oversold meme and I care little for it. I’m talking about this:
By encouraging naïve men to sleep with many women, we are exposing them to risks they don’t even know exist.
Like most in the MRM, I have an ambivalent attitude towards the PUA community. Some argue that it gives men control, others that it makes you a slave to pussy. At least this PUA guru is aware of the risks involved.
In brief, my politically incorrect view of ‘the Game’ is as follows : The pick-up-artist community originated in multi-cultural centers such as Toronto as a response to the inability of white geeks, earning up-to 6 figure salaries, to compete with urban black men and other ‘naturals’ in the free sexual market. This ’extension of the domain of the struggle’ constitutes the underlying theme of all of Michel Houellebecq’s novels. The economic jungle has extended into the private realm, yet with a different set of rules, a different set of winners and losers, and with no equivalent to taxation or a welfare safety net to reduce the worst discrepancies in outcome. At least for men. Older, unattractive women, the female losers in the free sexual market, have of course organised themselves through feminism into a highly effective sexual trade union that is making it increasingly dangerous or illegal for men to pursue young females. At the same time as allowing women themselves to easily cuckold their husbands and spend their massive divorce payouts in hunting for big bamboo, in nightclubs or on the beaches of Jamaica.
The differing male/female responses to the creation of the free sexual marketplace surely tell us a lot about our respective psychologies, and why men’s rights continues to make miniscule headway in comparison to the march of feminism. Men seem unable to policiticize their sexual rights (as normal, heterosexual men). Hell, most men won’t even admit that women prefer black cock. Of course, it’s true as well that most women won’t admit openly the even more obvious truth that men prefer teenage girls (many men won’t). But every woman knows in her own head that it’s the truth. This is why they are able to create world-wide political movements that transfrom social ethics within decades, whereas men can only come up with ‘the Mystery Method’, something that appeals to men individually, and our instinctive and primal need to compete with other men in order to get pussy.
Men analyse and compete, women politicize and unite.
Of course, it’s a good thing that men do not (or no longer) further their own sexual interests through the creation of spurious laws that criminilize white women having interracial sex, in the way that women have created laws that destroy men for even looking at younger females. But it’s probably also true that the only hope for the men’s rights movement is if the much larger, and more relevant to young men PUA community can become in someway politicised. Men too, have to learn that the personal has become political, and not just a game.
I would also add that, in my view, the efforts of the PUA community are an attempt to restore IQ to sexual selection (indirectly through the skill of the game, just as high male IQ was selected for previously indirectly via wealth/high status). In a sense therefore, PUAs are possiblenoble saviours of civilisation (along with Transhumanism). (The Fifth Horseman made a great comment regarding this at Anti-Feminist Tech, I haven’t yet been able to re-locate the article for the link).
It is not clear if Robert Lee Blevins, 33, was aware of their age when he pulled his car up alongside them and snapped a photo.
This is why this blog exists, why its subtitle is the ‘rape of the male’, and why I have absolutely no regret in questioning the age of consent laws that underpin such madness.
And of course, taking photos of a bullied 15 year old girl dying in the street is pefectly legal, and no doubt will end up on a dozen sick American websites, with no objections from the FemiWhores, their sexual trade union ‘child protection’ groups, or Republican congressmen.
The movie depicts an entire urban community in the grip of mass hysteria and fear as they struggle to track down and identify a child murderer. The police throw their full resources into finding the killer, but after eight months they still have nothing to show for their efforts. One of the problems that the overworked police force faces is a deluge of false allegations from a hyper-frightened public. In one poignant scene, a man who is walking down the street is approached by a little girl and asked what time it is. He gives her the time, but this act alone incites a mob of accusing onlookers, screaming that this man must be the child-killer and culminating in the police hauling him off to be questioned. Another scene shows a group of men sitting around a table in rapt attention as one reads them a newspaper article. That article prompts one of the paranoid men to accuse the one sitting directly across from him of being the killer. Threats between them ensue.
Where else but the current gender Zeitgeist can a woman with crows feet, sagging breasts, reduced sexual hormones, a vagina that does not lubricate as it once did, more difficulty conceiving and less ability to attract sexual partners of their preference, stand up and say “I am in my sexual prime,” and have everyone in their presence nod their head in agreement?
Only in a world where we tell women whatever they want to hear, no matter how ridiculous.
Manwomanmyth, creator of a superb series of men’s rights videos on YouTube, has become the latest MRA to voice concern over Reddit/r/mensrights- a place supposedly for supporters to post and discuss links relating to the cause, yet instead dominated by feminists who spend most of their time telling others what is and isn’t an issue for men (and never mention men’s needs when posting in other reddits that are of importance to themselves – i.e anything and only anything pertaining to sex and relationships).
It is the Internet equivalent to a false-flag operation against the men’s movement….
The genuine issues affecting men and viewpoints voiced by men are, with regularity, roundly dismissed and disparaged in an orchestrated fashion by what seems like a clique of individuals – bothmen and women, I believe – with strongly Feminist viewpoints. The intent seems to be about constructing a “pretend” or faux men’s rights forum, a kind of hoax or dummy site whose purpose seems to be to draw attention away from legitimate and fair examination of men’s issues.
Now, no single person or group, no particular political persuasion or allegiance, has the right to define what men’s rights is and ought to be – although one or two individuals with out of control self-aggrandizing egos might think otherwise. The problem with Reddit mens rights is that it is feminists who are defining what our agenda should be, feminists who clearly have no real interest in men’s rights or for speaking up for men elsewhere on the internet. This is a danger because reddit is likely to reach no.1 on Google for ‘men’s rights’ and will therefore become our unofficial ‘home page’. Yet it will not have been able to achieve this feat through the usual and valid route of being linked to, and thus given authority, by dozens of genuine men’s rights blogs. It enjoys its high position on Google simply because it is piggy-backing on the massive page ranking of Reddit.com itself.
In fact, if myself and JayHammers hadn’t set up our alternative – reddit/r/mensrightslinks (and thus splitting the reddit Google page rank) it probably would already have reached the summit, or at least managed to nestle itself behind wikipedia.org/mensrights.
The human race will be extinct in 100 years, a top scientist in Australia credited with helping wipe out smallpox believes.
Humans devouring natural resources and population numbers exploding daily have made microbiology professor Frank Fenner a pessimist.
Now I like to keep a sceptical mind on tales of environmental doom as much as the rest of us who belong outside the PC Leftie religion, but it seems to me to be just as much an irrational act of blind faith to suppose that homo-sapians can continue indefinitely to breed, consume, and to strip nature of its dwindling resources. Why should it be assumed that global warming is a left-wing issue and disbelief in it, not only a conservative, but a men’s rights issue? Why does ‘Mens News Daily’ carry THREE different ‘global warming is nonsense” stories on its front page on the very day that it chooses to completely ignore Elena Kagan’s triumphant supreme court decision to allow the indefinite detention of men who break feminist sex laws? It is true that the great Angry Harry talks a lot about global warming, but he at least places the subject in its proper context – an example of how elites are using fear and ropey science to increase their own globalised state power and personal wealth. And, as usual, he has been proven to a large extent right. However, what is the underlying faith of humanism and it’s feminist parasitical off-shoot, if not the incredulous dogma that humans have God like powers to shape the world in their own image – completely ignoring the Darwinian reality that we are just another shifting gene variation, subject to evolutionary laws like every other animal? Surely it is the role of Conservative’s to challenge this delusion in all it’s forms?
On a related topic, I spotted this interesting piece by Ferdinand Bardamu of Inmalafide.com, in which he proposes a novel solution to the ever diminishing birth rates of the white race and consequent possible demise at the hands of breeding like rabbit johnny foreigners. The typical answer of conservatives, and of course, white nationalists, is to propose a return to the ultra-traditional family values that have been devastated by a combination of feminism and sexual liberation. Ferdinand, on the other hand, claims that ‘it’s easier to destroy than create’ and argues that we should concentrate on spreading the poison pill of Western decadence to our foreign rivals :
We begin by mass airdropping “sexual humanitarian aid” packages into third world countries. Porn mags, hand lotion, and condoms for the guys, vibrators and the Pill for the girls. When Achmed from Fallujah getsa look at this month’s Playboy Centerfold, he’ll be too busy cranking his little Muhammad to spare a drop of love juice for his hairy, burqa-clad wife. And if Maria from Santo Domingo doesn’t have to worry about getting pregnant, she’ll be free to spend her quinceñera getting her Virgin Mary desecrated by all the hot boys in the barrio. It’ll be like a sweatier, sexier, more sallow-faced Berlin Airlift.
I agree. First of all, the planet could not sustain a Europe and America that rediscovered how to breed like Muslims or Indians.
Secondly, what the hell is the point of abandoning Western liberalism and copying Islamic values, simply in order to maintain Western civilisation? (O.K, it would be valid if you simply want to preserve the ‘white race’, which is what Ferdinand’s post is responding to, but squarely put to the multitude of ultra-conservatives who dominate the anti-feminist movement – just convert to Islam and be done withit. Don’t bother with men’s rights. Just spend your time trying to bring awareness to feminists that their movement is merely a subconscious response to the supposed sexual liberation, and that Islam IS the best lowest common sexual denominator between the mass of beta males and beta females.
Of course, there isn’t any need to drop playboy magazines over Tehran or Islamabad. Per head of internet population, these burka barmy nations have the highest number of google searches for porn in the entire world - despite porn being illegal in those countries. As Michael Houellebecq has pointed out (see below), the technological, economic, and cultural forces forever widening the free sexual market will inevitably rip open Islamic societies too. That might save the west, but it will largely mean that feminists will replace Mullahs in those countries, in vainly trying to close the sexual market, whilst having their (economically independent) cake and eating it.
I don’t believe that sexual liberation is, in itself, the cause of problems in western society. As I constantly argue here, Feminism is a response to sexual liberation, not the cause of it. Single teenage mothers, the hatred and distrust between generations, boys having no male role models in their lives – these things are the cause of societal breakdown in the West, and the primary cause of these things is the feminist response to sexual liberation. Furthermore, as I will argue in another post, the conservative response (particularly the American model) only serves to exacerbate these problems.
Today’s adventures in Craigslist: A California man called the cops when the woman he hired from the site to perform a “sexy dance” showed up and, surprisingly, didn’t live up to the promises of her ad’s photo. The man gave her $200 upfront, then reconsidered and told her to take $20 for cab fare and be on her way. She left with all the money instead, prompting the call to police
And why shouldn’t he? Women excel in obtaining what they want from men through false sexual signals – whether they are deceitful whores of the official or unofficial sort. Yet there are actually feminist creatures such as Denise Romano attempting to have Pick-up-artists arrested for rape – when such people are doing nothing other than using skill and their high iqs to send false sexual signals to beautiful women in order to lay them (i.e. that they are alpha male dominant apes when in fact they are beta male ‘geeks’).
Here is a suggestion. There are now nearly a million sex offenders in the USA. An ever increasing majority of those will have become sex offenders through breaking laws that were created by feminists that just so happen to increase the sexual power of those feminists (in a free sexual market). Why not attempt to have the evil women behind those laws brought to court for ‘attempted rape’? Now that you can be locked away indefinitely, it’s not as if u have anything to lose except your chains (and your daily ass rape in the shower). At least it might bring to the public arena the clear selfish sexual motivations of most of these evil harridans.
A secondary school has banned girls from wearing skirts, regardless of length, to prevent them from attracting unwanted attention.
Another step closer to the burka…for teenage girls only..
A common objection to my thesis of feminism being primarily a sexual trade union is to point out that feminists no longer seem overly concerned, or at least active, at attempting a complete ban on pornography. The reason is actually quite simple. Feminists have largely retired their attempts at obtaining an outright ban, because the hysteria over child porn and subsequent laws have enabled them to achieve something far greater than an outright prohibition would. It has enabled them to spread the worldwide meme that all under 18′s (‘minors’) are non-sexual children who are stictly, and equally, out of bounds for men. That the innate maleattraction to fertile teenage girls is ’paedophilia’ is something that no culture in human history has ever taken seriously before (and any such culture would likely have been outbred and wiped out by rivals in a few generations if it had). And it would never have been able to propagate itself outside of America and the dusty vaginas of middle-aged feminists and train-spotting ultra conservatives, if porn had been universally illegal.
In effect, feminists have used ‘child porn’, a concept that would have little meaning if ALL porn was illegal. to introduce a world-wide age of consent of 18, something which has been a driving motivation of feminists since the social purity movements and the early suffragettes, and something which they have singularly failed to achieve (outside of a few states in America). As recently as a decade ago, feminist lobby groups were still trying to force the United Nations to impose a global age of consent setat 18. They failed, but successfully switched tactics to effectively obtain the same end by pressurising the UN to universally define a child as anybody under the age of 18. So now, so much as look at a 17 year old girl anywhere in the world and you face being spat at as a paedophile if you’re over 21, despite the fact that the age of consent is 18 in less than 2% of the nations of the Earth (you could also face ‘child porn’ charges in Europe if you sexted your 17 year old girlfriend thanking her for the ‘great sex’ after legally fucking her).
On the issue which has been the historical driving force behind feminism, the unattractive, middle-aged woman has finally won, and it is a victory that would likely never have been possible if second wave feminists had succeeded in making porn illegal.
*Also, the existance of virtual child pornography laws, as well as the infamous 2257 law, are largely responsible for the entire ‘MILF’ fetish. Pornography webmasters are now so afraid to fall foul of these laws that ‘Barely Legal 18 y.o. teen sites are becoming much rarer. Pornographers are choosing to play safe and promote MILF/Mature sites, which now proliferate in the pornosphere.
This is a bit of an antifeminist.com exclusive, as the announcement of Houellebecq’s forthcoming new novel hasn’t appeared yet in any english google news links. Michel Houellebecq is an important writer (and massively read everywhere outside of the anglosphere) because he picks apart the delusions of the Feminist ’liberal’ equality faith, most commonly in the primal sexual setting which acts as both their embarrasing origin and their inevitable demise. A Houellebecq novel is a pornographic version of what might be produced by throwing into a fucked up literary grinder the collected works of Marx, Schopenhauer, Camus.. and the Carry On Film scripts.
The new novel is entitled La carte et le territoire (‘the map and the territory’) and no doubt the small band of English speaking Houellebecq fans will have to wait an extra year for the translation to appear.
