Author: The AntiFeminist

There is a blogger who claims to represent myself, my readers, and pretty much anybody who thinks sex laws are repressive. He titles himself as our ‘leader’, whether we acknowledge it or not. In his eyes, he has the authority to make such a grand claim because he is ‘public’ with his activism. This public activism consists mainly of his blog, his YouTube channel, as well as several spells in the limelight. Ironically, or rather cringe worthily, the two or three readers of his blog who identify as his ‘followers’ all refuse to even give themselves a unique username when commentating at his site.

His first brush with fame was when he earned a brief notoriety in his Norwegian homeland for making threats against the police. This eventually led to his arrest (to his astonishment), his imprisonment and then his release after a trial, and a change in the law to close the remarkable loophole of Norway being the only nation on Earth where to publicly threaten to stab police officers was found to be not illegal (he was actually able to successfully sue for wrongful arrest). Of course this was when he was younger and still a bit of a firebrand. Still with some testosterone in his balls, which appear to have withered away after years of ‘NoFap’, something he promotes with a religeous zeal.

Indeed, the blogger’s next appearance in the Norwegian limelight came around a decade later, in a kind of comedy segment in an otherwise serious television documentary on Incels and other ‘dangerous’ young men online. He was filmed on a hot summer’s day, wearing his knitted cardigan, mentioning briefly our view that male sexuality is being persecuted, before spending the rest of his appearance on the show trying to pitch his ‘Fertile Dating’ site as a viable business idea. The show’s producers actually gathered a handful of business people to smirk and giggle while he tried to explain what was different about his site, ostensibly aimed at singles hoping to meet somebody to reproduce with (he admits he hopes to get laid through it himself, and has first pick in the unlikely event of a new female member). As mentioned, his appearance on the show served as a few minutes of cringeworthy light-relief, and probably to reassure the viewer that most of these ‘angry young males’ will, like him, end up as largely harmless, if a little eccentric, cardigan wearing middle-aged men.

The third appearance in the limelight is probably his proudest moment. A feminist Danish filmmaker had seen his obliviously unaware comedy role on that incel documentary, and took a look at his blog as well as his YouTube videos. Now his videos, even after his two episodes of national exposure, only attract a few visitors each. And most of those viewers are probably non-plussed or repulsed by what they are seeing – an apparently naked and puny man showering himself whilst talking about the injustice of the latest female teacher being sent to jail for sex with a student. This feminist director evidently decided that he would be the perfect subject for a black comedy, and after a number of ‘dates’, they agreed that she could make a short film based upon his character. And when the film came out, it emerged that he had been portrayed as a mentally ill and lonely weirdo with erectile dysfunction problems who finally finds love in a sex doll brothel. Rather than suing the director for defamation, the blogger was proud of being the’star’ of a feminist’s black comedy, and even more so when it won an award at the Cannes film festival. Even when the jury spoke of how they giggled whilst watching it, it was not enough to shake this blogger’s conviction that he had achieved something incredibly worthy and that his status as a ‘leader’ was now unquestionable.

But award-winning Cannes movies and fertile dating sites aside, what does our dear leader actually say about how we got to our present predicament of sexual persecution? A leader suggests a movement, and any movement worth it’s name needs an ideology. Just as communists need the narrative of class struggle in order to fight against capitalism, no doubt we need an explanation of why male sexuality became persecuted. A basic narrative that we can all agree upon that forms the basis of our world view, enshrining our tactics and goals, as well as defining a clear enemy who we are opposing and resisting. Surely our leader, a genius who was the subject of an award-winning Cannes documentary, can provide that. After all, he has been blogging about these issues (well, mainly about the ‘female sex offender charade’) for two decades. So what is his answer? How did we go from the sexual freedom of the 60’s and 70’s to paedohysteria, MeToo, and the new puritanism of today?

Well, this is his answer. His explanation is….it just happened. Things were better in the 70s, and now they’re worse. He gives this a name. He calls it ‘cultural drift’.

Let’s just call it Asbergian drift.

Feminists exploit rape and murder of white French woman in Paris to futher misandry, while at the same time warning ‘the right’ not to exploit it to further racism.

After the shocking rape and murder of a young student in Paris, by a Moroccan migrant who was due to be deported, a French feminist has described it as another ‘femicide’ – the ridiculous idea that men are conducting a war of extermination against women by murder. Feminists define pretty much any murder of a female by a man, unless perhaps the motivation was robbery, as ‘gender motivated femicide’. Despite this absurd criteria, the number of ‘femicides’ in France in 2022 was only 147, out of a female population of around 34 million, and around 1,000 murders in total, the vast majority of the victims being men at the hands of other men.

Although statistics on race would not be available in France, a disproportionate number of murders are committed in France by African born or descent individuals against native white people. The ‘right-wing‘ in France use the hashtag #Francocide to highlight this whenever a new case appears, as it regularly does.

But while feminists are allowed to describe any murder of a woman by a man as ‘femicide’, white people are not allowed to describe murders of white people by foreigners as ‘Francocide’. Even in this shocking case, where a failed asylum seeker, who should already have been deported under a court order that had been issued, raped and murdered a white French girl.

As a French feminist makes clear :

Sandrine Rousseau of the Ecologists said the murder was a “femicide” which should be “punished severely”. But she warned that the far right would “exploit it to spread its racist and xenophobic hate”.

According to her Wikipedia entry :

Sandrine Rousseau is a French economist and politician who has represented the 9th constituency of Paris in the National Assembly since 2022. Member of Europe Ecology – The Greens (EELV), she has been widely seen as a figurehead of France’s MeToo movement against sexual violence, and describes herself as an ecofeminist.

Despite making it their life’s work to combat ‘gender violence’, including ‘femicide’, and lobbying for and introducing ever more laws and punishments (against men) in order to achieve that, such left-wing feminists are only too happy to embrace migrants, and even call for open-borders, in the knowledge that this will result in more women and girls being assaulted, raped, and even murdered.

In fact, they will publish ‘studies‘ that ‘show’ that climate change will increase domestic and sexual abuse on women, yet will not acknowledge the obvious fact that unchecked migration will do so.

Again, Sexual Trade Union theory, or ‘the Green Pill’, explains this apparent feminist madness. Feminists do not give a rat’s arse about women or girls being raped or murdered by migrants. What they care about is limiting the sexual freedom of men in general, in order to shore up their own abysmal sexual value, as well as simply providing an outlet for their sexual bitterness and resentment towards the male sex which rejects them.

As I have argued here many times over the last two decades :

Feminists support unchecked Third World immigration into the West, because they understand that it will increase sexual assaults on women and girls, including rapes and murders, and that they will be able to exploit the anger over this in order to successfully lobby for new anti-sex laws and harsher punishments, that will increase their own sexual market value.

A clear example of this was only a couple of years ago, when France defnitively set their age of consent at 15, and legally defined any sex with a child below that age as ‘rape’. This was in response to anger over two French men of African extraction walking free from court after having sex with a young girl below 15.

If the right-wing ‘exploit’ cases of migrants and foreigners raping young Frenchwomen, then feminists exploit that exploitation for their own Sexual Trade Union ends, whilst simultaneously virtue signalling their pretend abhorrance.

Feminism is a sexual trade union.

More precisely, femnism is primarily a sexual trade union for women with low sexual market value.

Feminism arose in response to technologically driven changes to society which liberalized the sexual market, lowered the ‘price’ of sex, and thus decreased the SMV of the mass of women.

As the sexual power of young and attractive women has increased, so has the political power of older and unattractive women in response.

Everything a feminist does, is to raise her sexual market value, or to take revenge for her lack of sexual market value.

A man who understands the above statements, has taken the ‘green pill’.

Most so-called MRAs believe that equality of injustice is men’s rights.

If there is hope, it lies in the incels.

Minor Thoughts

Men are shamed for being attracted to younger females. We are ‘objectifying’ them and prizing their ‘youth’ rather than their personhood. This is actually a common pseudo-intellectual argument to support a high age of consent and to condemn those who are attracted to females of a certain (young) age as ‘paedophiles’, ‘predators’, and the like. Such men, it is claimed, are unable to see their love interest as a person existing over time, and are therefore ‘exploiting them’ for their youth. And yet most men would not care if their object of affection was actually older than they thought. They are attracted to their beauty, and/or their youthful personality. Compare this to to the attitude of most women today towards older men. A woman can be attracted to you, and yet the moment she realizes you are older than she thought, her feelings will change. Women on dating apps will set age limits on who can contact them or see their profile. As far as sex, dating, or even simple friendship is concerned, men are reduced to a number, an age, and if you are on the wrong side of it, no matter how healthy and young in mind and body you feel, you don’t exist to them, or if you do, it is only to elicit feelings of disgust and ‘ickiness’.

In fact, it is women, and matriarchial society, that is objectifying older men, and discriminating against them through their age, when they say that older men cannot love a young female (but that a young man, or boy can). An older man in love with a young female is not reducing her to her particular and transiant age, but a society that condemns such a man, to the point of denying him his liberty, on account of his age, most certainly is.

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 existence. 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 a 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 recognition of both the wisdom of traditionalism and 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 banging traditionalist 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 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.