Why Is It Impossible For Us To Even Raise Our Fists?

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/

Some Logical Consequences of Eivind Berge’s NoFap Thirsty Philosophy

Rather than rant off on Eivind’s blog, I’ll post some stream of consciousness rants here. Although I’ve probably already triggered Eivind with that first sentence, as he doesn’t believe I’m conscious. Rather, he thinks I’m a zombie for preferring to live in a world in which I could fap to nude photos of HB10 teen girls to chasing the likes of crazy middle-aged cunts such as false rape accuser Ulrika Jonsson for ‘real sex’.

1 – As described above, sex with a ‘real’ woman, no matter how hideous – physically and mentally – is inferior to any kind of masturbation, even involving ‘virtual sex’, even when the object (whether a photograph or a virtual sex partner) is a HB10 ripe beauty. If feminists succeeded in raising the age of consent to 40, Eivind would still claim that any man who chose to fap to pictures of young females, rather than chase 40+ women for sex, would be a ‘zombie’.

2 – You only become a homosexual when you have a real homosexual encounter. A man who lived his entire life fapping to gay porn, never once showing any sexual interest in females, could not be described as a homosexual. Even if he fruitlessly (excuse the pun) chased males every day of his life (between wanks), he would not be a gay man.

3 – No matter how real virtual sex becomes, even when it reaches the level of Matrix style indistinguishability from the real thing, it will have nothing to do with ‘sex’ or ‘sexuality’ according to Eivind. Eivind seems to be lacking in even a basic education in philosophy, for otherwise he would know that all of our sense perceptions ultimately are just neurons firing in the brain.

4 – Eivind really should insist on ‘au naturale’ at all times in anything related to sex. Females should never wear scent. They should never shave their legs or armpits. They should not wear make-up. Perhaps they should never wash at all? Anything else is surely artificial and making things less ‘real’?

5 – Most certainly, it would appear Eivind should insist on raw sex at all times. A condom is surely unnatural and a primitive form of ‘virtual sex’. Indeed, a condom defeats the whole purpose of sex, which is fertilization of the female. Unless it leads to fertilization and pregnancy, is it even real sex? Eivind’s thoughts, such as they are, seem to be rooted in a very literal reading of evolutionary science. Otherwise, it’s not clear at all why jerking off to a girl on live webcam, is so much inferior to say, getting a handjob off of her in ‘real life’. Sex seems to have to be real physical penetration, because that’s what male sexuality is ‘about’. But strictly speaking, what male sexuality is about is impregnating as many ripe and beautiful females as possible in order to spread one’s genes. Any sex that doesn’t lead to pregnancy is as worthless in this sense as fapping. As (as far as I know) Eivind has never succeeded in impregnating a female (in fact, the reason apparently he dumped his girlfriend Emma the Emu), then Eivind is no better than a virgin who has spent his entire life fapping.

6 – Male sexualists should support an Islamist Sharia style society in which women are covered up at all times. In fact, one wonders why Eivind doesn’t emigrate today to some ideal heaven such as Afghanistan. For the reason women are covered up is for much the same reason porn is banned in these places (and Christian shit holes too), as well as increasingly feminist shit holes – so that men are less likely to fap contentedly (at the sight of female flesh) rather than seek sex (in the case of religious societies, through marriage). To elaborate further – I know of no place on Earth, past or present, in which images of females (ie. porn or nudity) were forbidden, but that free sex was permitted.

As to whether I and other readers who believe porn should be legal, that there is nothing shameful in masturbation, and that the ever creeping criminalization of (male) pornography by feminists is something worth fighting against, are ‘zombies’ – as Eivind claims, all I can say is that this says more about Eivind’s psychological condition than it does about our supposed lack of one. The inability to see minds in others has a clinical name, and it begins with an A.

I would say that in a real sense Evind, while conscious, is more of a zombie. That’s because he seems to not only be in chain to his ‘selfish genes’ (as we all are), but he doesn’t even seem aware of it. Rather, he seems to go the extra mile to live his entire existence blindly at their will.

And here I’m not accusing him or shaming him of being an ‘animal’, as feminists and MRA frauds do to us for talking about the age of consent or attraction to teenage girls being natural. No, I’m saying that Eivind is almost becoming a parody. It’s one thing to point out that feminist legislation is built on lies regarding the claims that attraction to young girls is ‘perverted’ and ‘unnatural’, it’s another to argue that the only thing that matters is fulfilling your DNA evolutionary programming, and that anything else (such as fapping) isn’t even anything related to sex, or male sexuality.

Finally, I need to point out that Eivind’s criticism of me is built on straw. I do not choose fapping over real sex. I just think that men shouldn’t go to prison for fapping, and that fapping to a picture of a HB10 teenage girl, is preferable to chasing a HB5 skank who is benefitting from the very laws that put men in prison for fapping.

Never once in my life has my fapping led to me not chasing real pussy. I fap less these days just as I chase real pussy less. It’s called getting older, resulting in lower testosterone as well as a realism that a 50 year old man has to spend an awful lot of time and effort to bang a hot, legal teen girl (short of paying for it). Of course banging a hot girl is preferable to wanking over a pic of the same girl (although if matrix style virtual reality tactile porn is ever invented, it wouldn’t really be any different to real sex – at least if it involves a real partner).

Yes, I’ll admit, fapping in my youth probably did lead me to spend less time chasing skanky pussy. It raised my standards. It led me to chase hotter females.

And no, I’ve never been into sex robots or a champion of them. They are just sex dolls that can ‘talk’. I’ve argued here that a better solution would be for females to be genetically modified to be permanently younger, more beautiful, sweeter, and hornier. To which Eivind came on my blog to White Knight and call me an ‘imbecile’ no better than radical feminists.

Plato’s Allegory of the Prisoners

It is the year 2040. In a gloomy European prison cell, a group of three sex offenders sit chained. They have committed different offences. One has been convicted of sex with a 19 year old girl. They met at a party, and the girl told him she was 22 – one year above the age of consent in the year 2028. He was sentenced to life. He admits he is an ‘ephebophile’ – different to other men – for being attracted to women who look under 21, but he maintains he is a virtuous ephebophile, and that he would never make the same mistake again.

The other two prisoners call themselves ‘Male Sexualists’. They have not broken any sex law, other than blogged years ago about what they described as the creeping insanity of ‘anti-sex’ laws. For that, they were both convicted in the late 2020’s of sex thought crimes and also sentenced to life. One is Eivind Berge, and the other is the Anti-Feminist.

All three prisoners are bound in such a manner that they are forced to constantly stare straight ahead at the dimly lit wall facing them, unaware even of what is taking place around them in the prison cell, let alone the world outside. They have been in that situation for over a decade. The ‘Ephebophile’ has forgotten what the prison cell looks like other than the wall, never mind the world outside. Eivind Berge still vaguely remembers details of the prison cell behind him, but has largely forgotten the outside world. The Anti-Feminist, however, still retains a vivid memory of life outside the prison cell.

Behind them is a fire, which causes shadows to flicker and change shape on the only wall the three inmates can see.

On the floor, in front of the fire, scuttle cockroaches, also known as paedocrites. They cause vague and fleeting shadows to appear on the wall. The ephebophile thinks these are normal people walking in front of them. He wishes he could be like them, but he can’t. He knows he is a bad man, unlike the paedocrites, but if only he could be released from his chains, he would show he can be a virtuous ephebophile. Eivind and the Anti-Feminist both laugh at the ephebophile for being so stupid and submissive.

Larger shadows come into view occasionally on the prison wall. These are the prison guards passing in front of the fire.

The ephebophile thinks these are Gods come to save them. He has vague memories of the feminist judge sentencing him to life without parole, and gloatingly telling him and the court that he is a subhuman paedophile who will get raped repeatedly while incarcerated. Over years of mental deterioration caused by his situation, the ephebophile connects the shadows to feminist Gods, who have omnipotent power over the world – the prison cell – and as Gods are benevolent, will one day save him and other ephebophiles if only they pray fervently enough and prove their virtuous nature to the feminist God.

Eivind realizes that the ephebophile is mistaken. The shadows are not Gods, they are male prison guards. Eivind wishes he could tear the prison guards with his bare hands, but when he attempts to grab them, he finds there is nothing there. He still cannot see that they are merely shadows.

Still, Eivind thinks he has the answer. If only he could enlist the help of the ephebophile, perhaps the combined might of the two of them could reach out and grasp the guard whose dark shape appears to be tauntingly moving right in front of them on the wall?

But no, the ephebophile is furious at Eivind for suggesting he attack the Gods who are their only chance of freedom.

Only the third prisoner – the Anti-Feminist – realizes that the shapes on the wall are not Gods, nor are they actual prison guards, but they are in fact merely the shadows of prison guards. Trying to grab them is, therefore, futile.

Furthermore, not only is the Anti-Feminist the only prisoner who can see that the shapes on the wall are merely shadows, unlike Eivind, he remembers that the prison guards themselves are not the ultimate cause of their life in the prison cell. He recalls that it is the feminists themselves, out in the real world, who are causing their experiences in the prison cell, and that the male prison guards are simply puppets.

Finally, one day, after disturbing dreams, Eivind woke up and realized again that it was the feminists outside the cell, who were the real enemy, the real cause of their captivity.

He turned away from the ephebophile at his side, and he turned away from the shadows on the wall, and he looked at the Anti-Feminist again as his brother, in order to make one final bid for freedom, to escape the prison cell, and to confront the feminists in the outside world with the light of defiant truth once more.

But Eivind remembered he had killed the Anti-Feminist years ago. He had choked him to death in a fit of self-righteous fury when he caught him fapping to a shadow on the wall, that by a trick of the flickering light, bore a very erotic resemblance to the shape of a nubile 17 year old Russian ice skater.

Eivind realized there was no other option left but to side with the ephebophile. The ephebophile was so happy that Eivind had been restored to sanity. He lost no time in finally convincing Eivind that the shadows on the wall were in fact feminist Gods, and that they must bow down and pray before them every day for the rest of their lives in order to reach deliverance and truth in the next world.

A finer analysis is not needed.

In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see.

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

Rage, Rage Against The Dying Of The Light

For a number of years I’ve become pretty dejected at the current state of affairs and trajectory of our sad little ‘movement’. There is obviously no hope of generating even a modicum of resistance to the ongoing and relentless Sexual Holocaust.

This dejection got to the point where I didn’t even bother with this site anymore, or even read the few other sites worth following, such as Eivind Berge (before he became Eivind Sperge) or Men-Factor. Hell, I even stopped paying any interest in cuties as I passed them in the street.

For some reason, the news coming out of France over the last few weeks has really lit my fire again. I can’t put into words the incandescent rage at the femihags and against this society that I feel when I read of the treatment of author Gabriel Matzneff, who openly admitted having consensual and loving sex with 14 year olds decades ago, when in France such a thing was about as ‘criminal’ as forgetting to put back your library books on time. Now he’s getting charged with rape of a minor, on the basis of a law introduced just last year, because some fat aging 47 year old hag, bitter at the fact that she has zero sexual power over any male, compared to the time when she was a young teen and could seduce any man in France, has ‘re-framed’ her experience as abuse. She says she didn’t consent, she says she was scarred for life (despite having a wonderfully successful life, but hell she can’t pull an alpha bad boy any more), therefore this intelligent old man, has to be anally raped in prison for the rest of his life.

No doubt they will be coming for Michael Houellebecq next. The fact that he has written sympathetically about ‘paedophiles’ in his world famous novels will be enough, even if he didn’t ‘abuse’ any willing 14 year old girls decades ago.

France can burn, and it will, and it is. What an abysmal country. It literally is burning every week (although the media don’t show the yellow vest protests anymore, preferring to focus on a couple of hundred paid chanters in Tehran). It is sliding into Islamization (and likely a brutal civil war that will result in the bloody and painful deaths of millions), or rather Femislamization, combining the worst aspects of both feminism and Islam anti-sex laws (just as in countries such as Turkey), as I predicted ten years ago will happen eveywhere, and actually encouraged by autistic Male Sexualists such as Grauer and Eivind Berge.

Am I really the only one out of 3 billion men on Earth who is burning with rage at this? Well there is one other person. Eivind Berge of course. But he’s clearly profoundly autistic and his rage seems more of the autistic kind of grammer nazis and spelling bees. He once went into an aspie fit on this site for my claiming that sex offenders get raped in prison. Of course, men can’t be raped, only physically assaulted with penises, and Eivind never got assaulted with a penis during his time in a Norwegian holiday camp. How dare I abuse the English language in such a manner. The female sex offender charade is all that matters.

I’m currently in Spain, a country that was as close to paradise as can get only a few years ago. It’s incredible that one hag, a femiservative later kicked out of office for corruption, could wield so much power over men’s cocks, that she could raise the age of consent single-handedly from 13 to 16, above even the recommendations of the United Nations and her own cabinet colleagues.

Of course it was illegal for British people to have sex with anyone under 16 outside of the UK for a number of years before Spain raised its age of consent laws. This was due to Jacqui Smith, another fat, repulsive hag, who also was kicked out of office because of corruption on her part. Now her long suffering husband has finally escaped her clutches and can go back to fapping to porn in peace.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7878737/Former-Labour-Home-secretary-Jacqui-Smith-splits-husband.html

I must make it clear, I have never once in my life had sexual contact with a person under the age of 16. Sadly, now I never will be able to. Before Jacqui, it would have been quite easy, and fully legal, but any opportunities that arose, I walked away, simply because I – being able to predict the future – could see that society would be changing fast, even places like Spain and Germany, and France, and the girl consenting fully under the current law would at the very least be claiming to have been abused when an older hag.

Still, it’s painful now in Spain passing pretty teenage girls (and Spanish girls have never seemed prettier to me), and seeing their faces light up and immediately start brushing their hair and smiling when they notice me glancing at them, and wishing that I would talk to them. And I’m 50 years old now.

And yet, they will come for us eventually. When Eivind Berge started his blog, he was unable to see that Norway, a country with one of the best education systems in the world and a relatively tolerant and relaxed attitude to even controversial free speech, would eventually descend into the same hysteria as places like the UK.

Even if I shut down this blog now, despite never having broke even the most ridiculous of femihag laws in my life, I’ve always been aware they will come for me eventually, even if it’s in twenty years time. It’s too late to turn back now.

The femihags have cut off our cocks, we must never allow them to cut out our tongues.

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

https://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/25/Coleman_Poem_Do_not_go_gentle_into_that_good_night.pdf

Why is there still no pro male sexuality movement?

The invention of the pill changed the sexual landscape forever, and fifty years later, society is still coming to terms with it and working out a new sexual moral code. Or more accurately, women have been working out how to continue justifying and protecting their maladaptive needs, and constrain male sexuality, in a new sexual rulebook enforced upon society and men through feminism (and femiservatism).

The pill, as well as other technological ‘advances’ such as abortion on demand, effectively separated sex from reproduction for the first time in tens of thousands of years of human existance. It ought to have, and for a brief time did, largely separate sex from stifling morality. The pill sexually liberated men far more than it did women, and certainly older women (the type of women which tends to have political power). The problem for men is that in the decades since, whilst feminism has exploded in its Second and Third Waves as a response to the new sexual realities, and as a brutal counterrevolution to the sexual revolution, there has been a near complete lack of male reply.

The pill enabled men to have sex with women without consequence. Sexual morality for thousands of years had been based upon the need to compel men (and the community) to support impregnated women. In fact, Western Civilization today is built upon the Christian myth of the virgin Mary and her baby Jesus, a myth we celebrate each year at this time by giving gifts, mirroring the gifts (resources) given to Mary and the fatherless newborn child Jesus. The pill changed all this. It didn’t liberate women, because women’s psychology didn’t change. The philosopher Schopenhauer wrote that after sex, a woman wants to embrace and hold her man, the man just wants to go to sleep (no doubt, to dream of sex with other young fertile women). Men no longer had to be held accountable for the sex act, as a woman was no longer left potentially high and dry, holding a baby. Men thought the sex war had ended, and gleefully left the battlefield with their cocks in their hands. In fact, the war was about to take on an ever greater brutality, with only one side fighting it.

In terms of political movements comparable to feminism, men have thus far come up with the Men’s Rights Movement and MGTOW, and more broadly the Manosphere, and even more broadly I guess, the alt-right.

The men’s rights movement had promising beginnings, with even its very founder – the Victorian thinker Ernest Belfort Bax – being a free love advocate, railing in his extensive writings against such things as feminist definitions of sexual assault, and the raising of the age of consent (their ‘favourite krank’ as he put it). This continued into the modern age when, for the first time, the sexual upheavals of the 60’s and 70’s were analyzed from the point of view of men, by ‘men’s rights’ authors such as David Thomas, Neil Lyndon, and Lionel Tiger, and the online MRM founder Angry Harry. The latter three, certainly, recognized the pill as fundamentally changing the balance of power between the sexes, and all of these early MRAs were positive in their view of male sexuality that had been diminished by the feminist response to the sexual revolution (and all of them recognized intuitively that feminism was responding to the sexual revolution of the 60’s that had liberated men more than women, not creating it as per the standard narrative).

Since then, as we have documented here recently, the MRM has turned into a curious mirror of victimhood feminism, not merely in the sense of being a male version of feminism, but actually validating feminist sexual morality and demanding ‘a piece of the pie’ in terms of shared and equal victimhood in a regrettably free sexual marketplace.

The MGTOW appears on the surface more promising. At least MGTOWs, who reject women completely, aren’t likely to suffer the fate of the MRM in being infected and taken over by female ‘sympathetic’ parasites such as the ‘Honey Badgers’. Unlike MRAs, MGTOWs do also propose a sexual strategy in response to the changed sexual universe men and women now inhabit. Go your own way and leave women behind. However, there are two major problems with the MGTOW approach. Firstly, it seems more like an admission of defeat on the part of men, rather than a new battle tactic in response to the changed formations of the enemy (feminism). If men can no longer fight on the sexual battlefield, it’s time to leave it. Secondly, MGTOWs tend to be a little short on details of how men, especially young horny men, are actually supposed to lead a sexually fulfilling life in the absence of women and girls. They don’t tend to talk about porn much, and certainly don’t seem to rage against the ever increasing criminalization of porn. Maybe they think we should just castrate ourselves, or think about puppies, or Margaret Thatcher, every time a sexual thought enters our head? The one exception to this rule is sex robots. MGTOWs like to talk about sex robots..A LOT! If you subscribe to any of the leading MGTOWs or even the ones with a dozen subscribers, every other video now is about sex robots and how sexbots will lead to the MGTOW sextopia. And fair play to them, they do appear to recognize that feminists such as Kathleen Richardson are trying desperately hard to ban sex robots (for obvious reasons).

A third issue with MGTOWs is that it all seems to be a little too much like the feminist modus operandi – older, less sexually valuable individuals telling their younger more sexually valuable (and viable) rivals that sex is wicked, that it will lead to harm, that we’re only telling you this to protect you etc. Not that I believe that MGTOWs are hypocrites or actively trying to stop young people having sex out of bitterness and rivalry, as femihags are doing, but let’s just say it’s easy to be an MGTOW when you’re an old unattractive fart like me who women, and especially young hotties, don’t want anymore.

The Manosphere and the ‘alt-right’ have pretty much gone the same way as the MRM – heavily influenced by ‘sympathetic’ and invariably conservative women (the alt-right are currently having this battle with ‘tradhots’ – at least, unlike MRAs who are supposed to actually be a specifically MEN’S movement, the alt-rightists like RooshV recognize the danger of letting women speak for them).

Some readers may remember a time when Ferdinand Bardemu, the webmaster of InMalaFide and one of the founders of the Mansophere, would heavily promote this site on his weekly link dump (and I’m eternally grateful to old Ferd). Then Ferdinand Bardemu turned into Matt Forney, an ultra-traditionalist who wanted a piece of the growing alt-right action, and who recognized that being sympathetic to such taboo issues as the age of consent would be near suicide, as Milo later discovered.

Heartiste/Roissy, another founder of the Mansophere, also bravely and explicitly spoke up on issues such as paedohysteria and the age of consent, and is still bravely doing so, even if tempered a little (30 year old men dating late teens ‘icky’???).

The alt-right was indeed very promising as a possible pro male sexuality movement. After all, it has an openly gay Englishman who boasts of sucking black cocks as its nominal head. It grew as a young conservative male’s alternative to traditional mainstream establishment Conservatism/Republicism – recognizing the bullshit of the Left as regards transgender rights and anti-male sexuality feminism, and seeking some form of middle-ground between the wisdom of traditionalism and the realities of the changed post-pill sexual landscape for men. Finally, a possible men’s movement that sought to create a genuine new male sexual morality unconstrained by outdated female orientated traditionalism whilst sticking two fingers up at feminism and so called ‘progressivism’. Sadly, as you would expect from an American dominated conservative movement, it has descended back into traditionalism and now alt-righters spend most of their time accusing Democrats and left-wingers of being ‘paedophiles’, apparently so brain dead that it came as a genuine surprise when their own sort – such as Roy Moore – inevitably started facing the same accusations.

American politics is now conducted akin to the thinking of World War One generals. A Republican will consider that if the last man in the USA not imprisoned for paedophilia or sex crimes is a Republican supporter, then that will mean that the Republicans have won.

And finally, a brief word on PUAs. PUAs again promised to bring something new to the table. A new sexual strategy in the new sexual landscape was finally being promoted by men for men. Further, a lot of the leading PUAs, such as our old friend Krauser PUA, were political and anti-feminist. In the end, it brought nothing. PUAs didn’t want to actively fight feminists because all this ‘red pill’ shit would ‘lower their frame’ and threaten to reduce their 1 in 100 lay ratios to something as beta as 1 in 125. Never mind that one day very soon talking to women in the street will be illegal, and it in fact might be in the UK by the end of next year). Most of these PUAs are so clueless and unaware of anything but their relentless pursuit of HB6 pussy that they will actually be non-plussed when they run up to a woman from behind with the ‘Yad stop’ and have their scripted negging routine rudely interrupted by the hand of a copper on their shoulder. Further, when PUAs are aware and politicized, they are inevitably traditionalist, and somehow perform mental gymnastics to accommodate this ultra-traditionalism with a life devoted to trying to pump and dump conservative teenage virgins in Eastern Europe.

So MRAs, MGTOWs, Alt-Righters and PUAs have all disappointed and we still await a movement by men and for men that actually puts forward a positive sexual path for all men in an era when sex and reproduction (and hence rationally speaking sex and morality) have and increasingly will be divorced, and that is furthermore prepared to fight for it.

Why the ‘Sexual Abuse’ of Boys is Much More Serious than that of Girls

MHRAs are right when they say that society downplays the sexual abuse of boys as compared to girls. In fact MHRAs don’t go far enough. According to the underlying feminist logic behind sexual abuse and its devastating impact upon the victim, the sexual abuse of boys is MUCH more serious than that of girls.

For most of history, society regarded the ‘sexual abuse’ of young teenage girls as serious because it entailed the ruining of her ‘honour’ – her reputation as virginal and chaste, and hence her value as a future wife. Of course, this historical justification for protecting young girls from sex never made any sense with regard to boys, of whom virility not virginity was prized, and hence the ‘double standard’ that MHRAs vent their fury against so much today became very much rooted in society.

Now in today’s feminist society, we pretend that virginity is no longer something to be valued in a female, and hence we can no longer argue that girls need to be protected from the male ‘predator’ in order to preserve their ‘honour’. Instead, we now claim that it is their minds or psyches that are ‘ruined’ by sex with older men. This is the feminist ‘trauma model’ of sexual abuse, and is nothing more than an attempt at a ‘scientific’ re-formulation of the desire to preserve virginity in girls, even though we have ostensibly abandoned that value. Feminsts want a high age of consent in order to remove sexual competition to themselves and their followers, and they use the ‘trauma model’ of abuse as a thinly disguised way to exploit the hardwired male inclination to protect and White Knight the virginity and chastity of young girls.

The Trauma Model is a near entirely empty concept with zero scientific credibility. It is, in fact, the Trauma Myth, or equally, the Trauma Tautology. Why does underage teen sex lead to trauma? Because underage teen sex is bad! Why is underage teen sex bad? Because underage teen sex leads to trauma!

In fact, a moment’s reflection would lead any sane and rational person to understand that if post-pubescent teenage sex was inherently traumatic, the human race would likely have become extinct within a few generations of arising. Certainly, many thousands of years and generations before the word ‘teen’ became far and away the most searched for porn term online.

But lets pretend that teenage sex is bad, not because it ‘ruins’ the ‘honour’ of the teen ‘victim’, but because it ruins his or her mind, esepcially their psycho-sexual functioning. As we know, in this, MHRAs agree entirely with feminists. All they want is for society to accept that underage sex affects boys in as devastating a fashion as it does girls. But they should go further than this. Because if this is the reason that teenage sex is bad, then teenage sex will affect boys much more adversely than it does girls. This is because it is the male that is expected to take the lead in sexual relationships, from start to finish. Men pursue women and women choose. Men have to display confidence, assertiveness (feminists have made this a legal minefield, of course), humour, risk taking for fear of rejection etc, as well as status which comes from a good career and achieving a high social rank. Women simply choose, and the wealth of their choices is determined largely by their looks.

Even in regards to navigating life and social relationships in general , some of what we might expect to be the marks of a somewhat damaged personality – shyness, introvertedness, nervousness etc – are much more easily forgiven, and even admired or found cute in a female, than they are in a male.

If teenage sex is bad because if devastates a young person’s ability to function sexually with the opposite sex, their confidence with regards to both sex and to social relationships and life in general, then we should expect it to have a far more serious impact upon boys than girls.

Perhaps MHRAs should not campaign to simply abolish the double standard, but to reverse it? Perhaps indeed we should raise the age of consent with regard to boys and lower it with regard to girls? This is the logical outcome of the trauma model of sexual abuse, or rather the ‘Trauma Tautology’.

An alternative would be to see the Truama Tautology for what it is, to campaign for the abolishment of the feminist high age of consent (or at least not to promote the Trauma Tautology and feminist child abuse industry), and to recognise that the disposibility of and contempt for the male is found in the double standard as regards alleged ‘predators’ rather than the ‘victims’ who have had that status forced upon them by feminists. It is the victim label that ‘ruins’ teenage ‘victims’ of willing sex, and it does so even more seriously for boys than for girls, and it is the ‘predator’ label which is leading thousands of men, and even increasingly boys, to face lives of imprisonment, fear, and ostracisation as ‘sex offenders’, the feminist version of the Nazi pink triangle, and perhaps soon, the feminist version of the holocaust.