Feminism has killed thousands of men and millions of babies.

Women Complaining About Lack Of Available Slavemasters

One of the favourite myths of feminism is that the mechanism by which men oppressed women was marriage.

Let us begin with a gem of historical research that can be found at Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins. One Mrs. Charlotte Smith in 1896 was so riled up and so aghast at the numbers of men who were refusing to get married that she started a campaign to force men to marry, and called upon public servants and officials to “do something” about this calumny against women.

“There are 47,000 girls between the ages of 20 and 29 years in this state who cannot find husbands… [and] the bachelor politicians, they do not dare discuss the social evil question. No man can be a good, honorable and upright citizen who has not entered into the holy bonds of wedlock”

Now wait just a minute – that can’t be right – men are roaming the land in hordes, gathering together in secret patriarchy meetings, laying plans on how best to trap and enslave these fair maidens into marriage! Feminists have said so.

In her paper entitled Sisterhood and Slavery: Transatlantic Antislavery and Women’s Rights, Karen Offen takes a jaunt through history to justify the use of the word or analogy “slavery” as comparable to the status of women

In case you haven’t noticed, Ms. Offen’s paper covers the period from the 1650s to 1848, a period during which women campaigned to have bachelors punished for refusing marriage. It is also a time in which we read of women having the legal liberty to choose for a husband any man who took her fancy, and if that man refused to marry her he was heavily fined according to the value of his possessions.

Let’s fast-forward a bit in history and the period just after the first World War. What was one of the major issues?

Condemned to be virgins: The two million women robbed by the war

Now take a closer look at the extracts from the letters cited in the article

Even when women were prepared to “settle” in a desperate attempt to “get married” there were conditions. The ladies preferred their men –injured or not, disabled or not, to be of a certain status. To be “Officers.” Hypergamy anyone? Gynocentrism?

MGTOW now an LGBTQIA category... And there's nothing you can do about it

The headline is likely to provoke an emotional reaction from both the woke and the virulently anti-woke, but I stride forth with my flack jacket on in order to make a salient point: that far from being a fringe group of misogynistic terrorists who refuse to court the ladies, MGTOW is perfectly aligned with the LGBTQIA category ‘Aromantic’ – a term indicating a profound disinterest in romantic love.

When it comes to romantic love they simply don’t want it.

Men Going Their Own Way are unmoved by the fantasy of romantic love, viewing its latent BDSM overtones as a theatre of female dominatrixes and male subs, a model that has grown from a kind of sexual feudalism instituted by affluent ladies of the medieval era. MGTOW typically reject this model because it requires men to go down on a literal and proverbial knee before a woman.

I should add, for the slow of mind, that MGTOW is concerned with a wider array of issues than this. However, the romance problem forms a molten core around which many of their concerns for male self-determination revolve.

The result of ‘Men going their aromantic way’ is in some ways striking. These men have inaugurated an enduring sex strike, putting quietly into practice what women routinely threaten if they don’t get their own way – as we recently saw from Joy Behar who called for ‘sex strike’ after Supreme Court abortion law leak. As usual it seems men have beaten women to the punch.

image

As this graph demonstrates, young men are driving a decline in sex. Perhaps more accurately they may be rejecting the pathological contamination of sexual intimacy with romantic love – aka, the idea that men need to demonstrate obeisance and servitude toward “romantic” partners before being “rewarded” with sex.

MGTOW probably won’t be entering a Pride float anytime soon, but in theory their cause is every bit as deserving under the umbrella of that one, powerful word – AROMANTIC.

RE: Sweden, where man-beating is sport!

Let’s hold out for the honesty and bravery that used to characterize what real men were.

If anyone wants to know where all the good men went, look up women’s asses.

There is hardly a man out there that doesn’t know this beating is wrong.

Cowards remain silent.

I've traveled to Sweden. The horrible behavior of the Swedish policewomen doesn't surprise me as Sweden is a feminist totalitarian state. In general, Swedish men, have capitulated to feminist tyranny. However, Swedish men are refusing to serve in the Swedish military resulting in a dramatic and devastating decline in the Swedish military !

I can’t believe men—MEN—are truly man enough to actually resist! Something tells me that their resistance won’t last long. The authorities there will likely require men to enlist but while of course, women will have real choices.

Someone remind me to NEVER spend a cent in that feminist hell hole.

Makes sense. Why would men want to support a feminist totalitarian state? They need to institute the draft for women so women like that police officer can take their hate out on the battlefield.

Because they can’t be real men unless they cave in and let women have their juvenile way no matter how detrimental it is to basically everything else?

To hell with the fate of the world; just make darn sure he gets him a woman no matter the lies pouring from his cowardly lips.

Let’s just be glad that at least a few males are man enough to do the right thing.

(-DJ-)

The following discussion was published in 1707 AD under the title Female Grievances: Dialogues between two Young Ladies concerning Love and Marriage. The discussion shows that even back in the 1700’s women were trying to limit men’s freedom and stop men from living as bachelors.

Eliza: Amongst all the female grievances we have hitherto debated there still remains one we have not yet touch’d upon. There are an abundance of bachelors who, thro’ a cowardly apprehension of the cares and troubles of the marry’d state, are so fearful of entering into it, that they would rather run the hazard of damning their souls with the repeated sin of fornication.

Mariana: I’ll assure you I like your thoughts very well, for if we consider rightly, we can allow bachelors to be no other than drones in the great-hive of the Common-wealth. With all my heart; you would have me begin, so accordingly I’ll proceed to the business, vis:

That every bachelor above the age of twenty, and childless widower under the age of fifty, shall be obliged to marry within the circle of one year, commencing from the date of the Act, or else be liable to be press’d into the Sea or Land Service (after the expiration of the Term limited) when ever Her Majesties Forces shall need a further recruit.

Eliza: O sye, Madam, should we put such a cruel article upon the poor gentlemen it would be constru’d as downright tyranny, beyond all president.

Can you imagine the outrage if some random guy posted such a thing ragging on women? The earth would suddenly stop rotating and fire and brimstone would rain down upon us.

But his is what happens when you raise a few generations of girls to think they are superior, entitled...or that men are inferior knuckle daggers living under a bridge.

It's not that marriage is a trap for men, puts them at risk, at the whims of a woman...it's that we, you know, the "toxic masculinity" crowd, need to "man up". God is nowhere near this issue.

(Aman Singh)
This makes my blood boil. God, makes me repulsed from womankind.

(mark mooroolbark)
Astonishing. yet still we are told women were slaves and oppressed right up until the sexual revolution of the sixties. Another lie in an endless sea of lies.

Whenever you point out that men rather than women are the disadvantaged and those on the receiving end of prejudice, the first thing you get back – after the blunt denial – is: ‘what about women in Islamic countries?’ Everyone assumes that female face and body coverings are ‘oppressive’ to women and at the behest of men. Yet both of these assumptions are false.

Female Islamic dress codes are cultural practices similar to foot-binding in China and female circumcision (genital mutilation) in sub-Saharan Africa and other regions, in that they are all cultural codification of female intra-sexual competition to secure high mate-value pair-bonded sexual partners.

As with all fashions, they are not imposed but readily adopted as women wish to join the more advantageous in-group and to dissociate themselves from the relative under-dog out-group.

Yes, of course, men will at the behest of women reinforce such behavior. This is not in any respect ‘oppression’ by men. If anything it is a imposition on them by women to which they feel duty bound to accede.

Now, when I’m allowed to get as far as putting across this explanation, the next retort is that even if it is women themselves ‘oppressing’ each other, it is still women being ‘oppressed’, and that therefore we still need to focus on women and not on men as being disadvantaged.

So there you have it. A default assumption that what in fact women do to themselves is instead done to them by men. We see this all the time in the persistent ridiculous ‘size zero’ controversy. Women don’t really want to be super slim, we are told; they would prefer to be size 14. It’s just the all-powerful male fashion industry that is forcing them. Yet the fashion industry is female-controlled, of course.

We live in an era of unprecedented political stupidity where the notion of a particular highly implausible social ‘oppressor’-‘oppressed’ dynamic is unfalsifiable. No amount of evidence, however internally consistent and externally validated, can shift PC-fascist conviction. Not until, that is, the whole edifice collapses under its own stupendous dead weight. And that is starting to happen. We live in times set to be rather interesting.

Robert Heinlein wrote about the crazy years. This period covered the late 20th century and early 21st century. A growing number of people are regarding this as prescient.

No means no is the past. The future is yes means yes or as it is now often called affirmative consent.

In an affirmative consent jurisdiction, a woman engaging in sex with a man need not notify the man when she withdraws consent.

Consider now that consent can be withdrawn at any time.

Even a short delay can result in jail. Kevin Ibbs became known as the 30 second rapist and was imprisoned for 4 years. Maouloud Baby continued for only 5-10 seconds and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with all but 5 suspended. Both of these cases occurred without the additional risk of affirmative consent.

Any man that has sex with a woman in such an affirmative consent jurisdiction is allowing her to point a gun at his head – permanently.

As if all this wasn’t bad enough, there is a variant of affirmative consent called enthusiastic consent. So far no jurisdiction has gone this far but feminists continue to push for it.

Note that the entire discussion to this point revolves around women’s consent. While these laws are written in a gender-neutral manner they are always applied in an entirely gendered manner. And the gender that gets to go to jail is the male gender.

Affirmative consent laws have the potential to cause irreparable damage to our society. I believe these laws will be revoked or more likely pared away in the future. By then it may be too late. The damage will have been done. Damage to human relationships and thus ultimately damage to the family structure. A society that harms the family structure will ultimately fall to one that does not.

[Alison Phipps recently published an essay titled White tears, white rage.]

After reading Phipps essay I’m immediately reminded of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old African American who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955 after being falsely accused of offending a white woman. White men bashed him for offending a white women’s fragile sensibilities (which it turns out was fabricated by the woman) and proceeded to showcase their “chivalry” via the act of torturing and brutally bashing the boy to death. In this one image is captured the scenario painted by Phipps – the compact that would keep white women at the top of the food chain.

While I won’t join Phipps in her general malignment of white men, the question remains have certain men throughout history showcased white supremacy, sometimes brutally? Yes they have – but to what ends? I’m going to finish with an unpopular conclusion: that white male supremacy, if and when it has existed, has been driven by a desire to protect a culture of white female supremacy. Keep in mind that this conclusion is becoming recognized not only in the rarefied writings of feminists and MRAs, but also among the everyday populace which has in recent times immortalized the ‘Karen’ figure as an example of racist, misandrist, and narcissistic entitlement.

WHITE SUPREMACY: A EUPHEMISM FOR WHITE WOMEN WORSHIP

Whether men called her ma’am, m’lady, or some other highfalutin title, the sexual dynamic was always one that positions woman as dominatrix, and the man as liegemen. It resembles sadomasochism. This has been the centrepiece of the women’s movement in which early feminists looked down on their ebony lessers, which we see continued in the spa and nail shops which have exclusively women of color carving the toejam out of pampered and ’empowered’ white women’s nails.

In Three Cheers for White Men, Rachel Fulton Brown waxes poetic about men’s having abetted a culture of worshipping white women, which led to the three evils of misandry, racism, and (white) female narcissism:

1. When white women invented chivalry and courtly love, white men agreed that it was better for knights to spend their time protecting women rather than raping them, and even agreed to write songs for them rather than expecting them to want to have sex with them without being forced.

2. When white men argued that marriage was a sacrament valid only if both the man and the woman consented, white men exerted themselves to become good husbands rather than expecting women to live as their slaves.

3. When white women invented feminism, white men supported them and even went so far as to vote to let them vote, not to mention hiring them as workers and supporting their education.

Fulton Brown copped a lot of flack for praising white men’s chivalry and women’s associated pedestalization. But she was right, even if I would radically differ with her in response to this history — ie. my reaction is one of disgust and rejection of the narcissism and sadomasochism embedded in the heart of the same construct.

Transsexuals exercise influence beyond their numbers. Woe to the public figure who offends them. A guy in drag was always good for a cheap laugh. Today there is no shortage of comic potential in the topic of former men/current women competing against female athletes but no one would dare attempt to make fun of the situation. What’s a young man to do these days? He looks around and sees females not just competing with him but being kicked upstairs while he remains on the ground floor. His upward mobility is stunted, his status is declining, his sex is anathematized at every turn. But if he’s willing to undergo hormone injections and invest in a new wardrobe…

Well, if women became masculine to gain an advantage in competitive circles, then doesn’t it make sense for a man to become feminine to gain an advantage in a matriarchal welfare state? Now I’m not saying that men who cross over are consciously seeking out a higher status. I think the concept has been absorbed by their subconscious, so when they come of age, they realize it is not possible to function in society as anything close to a traditional male.

Your manosphere reading list may include Norah Vincent’s Self-Made Man, her account of passing as a man for a year and a half. She went from being a masculine woman, as her friends described her, to an effeminate man, as her bowling buddies described him. Well, much to the consternation of feminists everywhere, she wrote, “I can’t help believing…that we live in parallel worlds, that there is at bottom really no such thing as that mystical unifying creature we call a human being, but only male human beings and female human beings, as separate as sects.”

Ironically, the trans woman may still be the object of the male gaze but out of disbelief rather than lust. Even a man well-schooled in etiquette can’t help but indulge in a few WTF double-takes when face-to-face with the likes of Levine.

THE WARRIOR & THE FISHWIFE – FEMALE ARCHETYPES IN VIRGIL’S AENEID

EDITOR’S NOTE: Following on from his previous exploration of male archetypes in The Aeneid and the horrors of a blue pill existence, Jai Singh investigates the same work in search of female archetypes, with particular emphasis on the goddess Juno as a figure who embodies feminist attitudes. Juno, as many here will be familiar, is the Roman version of the Greek goddess Hera who was previously explored in these pages as a representation of feminism and feminists. For anyone interested in learning more about the figure of Hera/Juno and her pivotal influence on fomenting gender discord, I further recommend the video channel of Greta Aurora, a learned archetypalist who will be delivering a series of analyses on the Hera archetype and its associated impact on men, boys and ‘non-Hera’ women. — PW.

She then begins to raise that hell by commanding Alecto – one of the Furies, female beings from the underworld who are used to tormenting men who do not deserve to be tormented – to instigate the war. Most importantly, Juno does not care that the fulfilment of her vindictive desires will lead to the loss of innocent lives, in the same way that a petty wife will use the family court system to financially and psychologically torture her ex-husband and not give a damn about the impact of parental alienation on the children. Throughout the Aeneid, she treats Aeneas like an overbearing mother who does not want her son to become independent, because if he did, it would leave her with no role to play in his life, and that purposelessness is hell for such a mother. Despite the fact that a red pill analysis of the fate that compels Aeneas to do what he does reveals the cruel and corrupt nature of that fate, Juno is not resisting this fate out of a benevolent desire to take care of Aeneas.

WHY MRAS (AND THEIR SYMPATHISERS) SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE FUNDING OF AVA BRIGHTON’S DOCUMENTARY ‘A VOID’

The young Dutch anti-feminist Ava Brighton (above) has quickly made a name for herself in the MRM. Her website is here. She burst onto the consciousness of MRAs nine months ago with her first video, ‘Are Almost All Women CLINICALLY INSANE?’ She has since published another 17 videos, the latest being the trailer (11:14) for her forthcoming documentary A VOID.

I hardly need remind MRAs (and their sympathisers) how influential Cassie Jaye’s movie The Red Pill was, internationally. It was first screened almost four years ago, and I’m writing this piece to urge MRAs to help fund Ava’s documentary project, which is already well underway, A VOID. I believe it has the potential to be even more impactful than The Red Pill, in part because it focuses on the feminists’ battle which has surely caused more human suffering than any of their other battles – their battle against the nuclear family, which has had such a devastating impact on men, women and children. This impact has been both direct and indirect, for example the devastating impact of fatherlessness on children – especially boys – an issue so well explored by Warren Farrell in The Boy Crisis, and by William Collins in The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect.

The feminist battle against the nuclear family – and against fathers in particular – first came to Ava’s attention because her partner Tristan Lonley had suffered such egregious attacks. The two of them spoke at the last Messages 4 Men conference in London, last November. Their talks are on the associated playlist (22 videos).

Ava recently launched a campaign and crowdfunding website for her documentary. From the website:

What I’m doing.

In these tumultuous times of change I’m here on Indiegogo, trying to raise funds for my feature documentary ‘A VOID’.

The project started off as a movie to raise awareness for alienated fathers and their children. I saw men being completely destroyed, stripped of their rights and from their children, their possessions, their sanity and, in too many cases, their lives. I wondered why this is happening to hundreds of thousands of men, all around the world. So I wanted to give them a voice, especially when I noticed men don’t dare to speak, are not believed and the system is, by default, against them: Men’s oblivion, an invisible black hole, most people don’t even know exists – until you get near it.

This became the start of a long and dark journey into the hidden realms behind feminism – if this is even the correct term, as what the female whistle-blowers described sounded a thousand times more savage than the fight for equality.

Once word got out I was considering making this documentary, female whistle-blowers started to join in, and this is where ‘A VOID’ took a sharp turn and got sucked past the event horizon of this black hole.

It made me realize I had to record all the whistle-blowers’ interviews prior to announcing the making of this movie. And now, with over 30 hours of the most important footage, ‘A VOID’ is becoming a movie in which women expose the truth behind the gender warfare. And we’ll be needing you to help us explode this evidence across the world.

What is the film about / what’s the story / what’s the angle?

In ‘A VOID’, Ava Brighton takes you on a terrifying journey beyond the event horizon of the black hole behind the feminist movement.

It’s the women who do the exposing: ominous testimonials of former feminists, mothers and academics are the centre point of the film, while at the heart are the voices of victimized men, alienated fathers telling their tragic stories. Ava Brighton doesn’t speak, the stories of these women and men are speaking for themselves, collectively providing the answers to the many questions surrounding the gender war and the hidden, worldwide war against men.

[From "Why Can’t the Men’s Movement Get its Act Together?"; article since deleted but saved here]

Some say the Men’s Movement is ineffective because the Feminists are so successful at turning men into androgynies that there are probably only a couple of hundred men left in America. If true, it’s not easy for such a small group to change the course of 300 million.

Some, however, argue ego. Men are too aggressive and opinionated—they just can’t cooperate. Yet, practically all the great social changes in history, for good or ill, occurred because men worked together.

Others claim an absence of organization with too many groups going in too many different directions. But there are hundreds of Feminist organizations spread across the land doing lots of different activities and focused on different goals, although a uniting factor may be their inherent fear and hatred of men.

The lack of success by the Men’s Movement isn’t for want of talent or will. It has skillful public speakers and writers trying to educate, elucidate and enlighten; competent litigators trying to put the blindfold back across the eyes of Justice; effective lobbyists exercising their First Amendment right of association; and gutsy demonstrators willing to fight for their rights no matter how many names the “morality pundits” call them.

So why can’t the Men’s Movement effectively fight the Feminists? In this capitalistic society—it’s money, the primary source of power in America. The federal government gives Feminist organizations hundreds of millions of dollars a year while foundations, corporations, and individuals chip in millions more.

[…]

The future prospect of the Men’s Movement raising enough money to exercise some influence in America is unlikely. But there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly—firearms. At some point, the men in this country will take the Declaration of Independence literally:

“[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right,
it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for
their future security.”

During the interview which naturally took place in front of an all-female audience, Michelle made the following observations about men.

Men should simply be better if they want to help women achieve gender equality. Be better at everything. Be better fathers. Good lord, just being good fathers who love your daughters and are providing a solid example of what it means to be a good man in the world, showing them what it feels like to be loved.

A woman with a powerful voice and a very public platform decides it is her right to sit in judgment upon the male gender and tell them how they can be better men and better fathers. She even feels the need to tell fathers to love their daughters. It is breathtakingly arrogant and deeply offensive. I know that the “flip the genders” test is by now old hat, but it remains the single best way to make people reflect upon the incredibly different way in which the public responds to what men and women have to say about each other.

Imagine if you will, that Donald Trump held a rally or did an interview with a male journalist who was so enamored with him that he would be willing to lick his boots should he ask him to do so. Imagine this interview is taking place in front of an all-male audience.

The interviewer asks Trump if he has any advice for the women of America.

Trump responds: “Be better mothers. Good lord, just being good mothers who love your sons and are providing a solid example of what it means to be a woman in the world.”

Of course, these words are spoken to the accompanying applause and cheers of the all-male audience.

There is nothing in Michelle Obama’s words that one could call hateful (not yet.) But the sheer arrogance and prejudice are clearly evident to any objective observer. Now, if Mr. Trump has spoken the words I just quoted the media would crucify him. Even people in his camp would have thrown their hands up in dismay at his stupidity and chauvinism.

Can you believe it? This buffoon has the effrontery to lecture the women of America and tell them how to be better women-him, a man! What a fat, sexist pig! He has cost himself the women’s vote if indeed he had any to begin with. How can this woman hating pig even be running for President? There would be street marches and breathless, orgasmic editorials by the salivating left and head shaking condemnation from the right.

Here we have the First Lady, on stage with the most famous, influential and richest female in America and the only reaction to these words were positive. I am yet to hear one word of condemnation.

The words became far more poisonous as the interview continued, but the audience and Oprah remained as enthusiastic and supportive as ever.

Obama told Winfrey that it’s sad that her experience of never being physically abused by a man is a “rare reality.”

Just pause and read those words again. Can you believe it? The First Lady just said that the vast majority of men in America physically abuse their wives and partners. This is the only inference one can make when she states it is a “rare reality” for a woman never to experience physical abuse in a relationship with a man.

Public condemnation, criticism, raised eyebrows- zero. Again, not even a mild rebuke from a conservative journalist or politician. Nothing.

Let’s flip it again.

Trump says to his all-male audience. “I am fortunate enough to have been in a relationship where I have never been nagged or been used as an ATM, but this is a rare reality for men in America.”

The campaign would end there. There is every possibility his very life could be in danger. The media would eviscerate him, and his friends would apologize on his behalf and beg forgiveness from the women of America.

And surely being called nag is preferable to being branded a woman basher.

Nevertheless, as much as Trump has trampled on many politically correct conventions, if he attacked the whole female gender he would be finished. As it is, if he calls one nasty, abusive, obese woman a “pig” this apparently can be taken to mean he hates all women.

[...]

Hillary is able to call Trump a sexist, racist, homophobe to his face and Trump knows that if he responds with the same slurs ( even with ample factual evidence to support him), the public would condemn him and call him a bully and misogynist. How liberating is it to be a female politician debating a male in 2016, knowing your opponent fights you with both hands tied behind his back and his tongue tethered? Is it any wonder Hillary smirked so smugly throughout the first debate?

Sady Doyle is a feminist blogger with a problem. She is concerned that for years she and her sisters in the struggle have been harassed, stalked, threatened, called names and otherwise made to feel uncomfortable. She’s written herself a little advice piece over at inthesetimes.com, called The Girls Guide to Staying Safe Online, in which she claims to have received a death threat, hate mail, rape threats and the like. She also claims that her photo inspired someone to pontificate about fucking her in the ass.

Doyle doesn’t mention precisely why she thinks all this is (allegedly) happening, except to say that apparently being a feminist blogger, or even having a female screen name, is enough. All these women have to do is screech online about men being pigs; lie about everything from phony wage gaps to domestic violence to an imaginary rape culture – while they glorify their own bigotry and sense of entitlement. And then for some inexplicable reason they end up getting an occasional bit of nastiness via email or in the comment sections of men’s websites.

Fuck sake, what has happened to the world that a grrl can’t even trash half the human race based on sex without someone getting all huffy about it?

Of course, Sady, I ask that question rhetorically because I know the answer. The reactions you have seen over the past several years are just the beginning of a boil over that was inevitable from the moment gender feminism raised its ugly head.

For the last fifty years, feminist ideologues like yourself have been given free reign to lie, distort, vilify and practice open hatred toward men and boys. You have been given pathological enabling by politicians, police, and a more than sizable portion of the well trained and obsequious male population. You have been given almost godlike power over families and sufficient hegemony over the lives of men that you can effectively destroy them with no more effort than it takes to point a finger. And you have not hesitated to support a culture that embraces the use and abuse of those powers, and writes them into law.

You have trumped over truth, reason and justice with an ersatz victim card, over and over again, and you even attempt to do so now, inferring that anyone who says things you don’t like, about your ass or otherwise, is some sort of threat that must be dealt with – socially and legally.

But no matter what you do, you are going to see a lot more of the things you don’t like in the future. I don’t mean that in the way of violent threats and continued fixation on your rectum, but in much more organized, high impact consequences for those of your ilk, courtesy of the men’s movement.

Simply put, we are coming for you. All of you.

And by the time we are done you will wax nostalgic over the days when all you had to deal with was someone expressing a desire to fuck you up your shopworn ass.

The fact is, Sady, you are a corrupt, hate-spreading bigot. I would ask you to remember that when you whine about a little rough talk, but it is pointless to ask someone to remember something they can’t or won’t acknowledge in the first place.

It is your bigotry that is at the source of all your troubles, just as it is your bigotry that is spawning troubles that you cannot imagine, but that are nonetheless coming down the pike.

Misandry will find its way to the graveyard of failed ideas. It will die its quiet death alongside racism and other social pathogens. In that light, there is no “safety” for you and your kind. You will all be exposed, and publicly excoriated; forced into the shadows alongside other bigots.

Ask Pamela O’Shaughnessy. She is a Harvard educated attorney and a best-selling author that goes by the online name of Vliet Tiptree. By any definition she is a person of means and some influence. She is also a feminist advocating eugenic shaping and control of men.

We have exposed her publicly, which has outraged her. But she is powerless to do anything about it. She will take whatever we dish out and her only reaction will be to slink further into the darkness, hidden away in private forums where the disease of her thinking won’t see much sunlight, or be allowed to gain a growing audience.

She will take all this because she has to. And she has to because she is a bigot. Bigots only have two choices when it comes to public discourse. One is to retreat, which O’Shaughnessy has wisely done. Two is to stay and pretend not to be a bigot. That pretense becomes more difficult to maintain as an individual’s words fall under real scrutiny – and as more people stand up publicly to the hate.

There’s a lot more standing up going on these days.

The harshness you and your ilk have been subjected to is just the first signs of an approaching tipping point; the place where the misandry bubble is stretching toward the inevitable explosion. And yes, Doyle, that would be the explosion that will take you out; not with violence or rape, but with the illuminating light of truth.

Unfortunately, just because your moral superiors are organizing to take you down with truth and reason, it does not mean that the inklings of violence you are now seeing are going to stop. There is little you can do about that either. Hate begets hate.

You will just have to deal with increasing hostile reactions that will mirror the virulence you practice. Alongside the wholesale razing of civil rights under the feminist agenda, a little rough talk up the pooper just doesn’t amount to much.

The garden of Eden story is a great red pill but I prefer the story of Samson. Samson was the strongest man that ever lived. His enemies couldn’t destroy him so they had to use a female to get close to him and learn his weakness. Samson’s enemies (the Philistines) used Delilah to break Samson the same way the elites and Jewish bankers used feminism to destroy the nuclear family. That story is one of the best red pills ever written for men and it teaches you first and foremost that it is women’s treachery that leads to the downfall of great men. You have to be strong and smart enough to look past womens’ sex appeal, their stupid minds games and their juvenile theatrics. In the end, it will save your life and your freedom.

What we’re dealing with is not human. These things, these monsters, I’ve studied them inside and out for decades.

They must be disposed of without mercy and with extreme prejudice. One is enough to take down a nation if not the world.

In this day and age, willful ignorance is no excuse. Today there is a line. And anyone is on either one side or the other. That line didn’t used to exist but it does now. Make sure you know where it is.

The fitch bases and the Mary Kelletts and the Lori Jacksons and all the others are here for one reason: destroy men and children and civilization.

I am here for one purpose: stop them. It’s them or us. When I encounter one, my palms itch, my skin crawls and my gums bleed spontaneously.

Then I proceed to completely anihilate it. Sometimes the process takes more than a decade. (Evil is very resilient and persistent.)

I used to think like you decades ago but got over it quickly. Do what you want. There’s nothing hateful about destroying that which threatens the survival of yourself and others upon whom you depend.

This is a war. These things want more than anyone else and they don’t care how they get it, who they destroy. They are addicted to power and control and they will do anything to satisfy that addiction.

These things don’t just want more than everyone else but they want to deny men and children what they need.

I admire your pluck but you are naive to think that you can educate or negotiate or compromise with these things. You can either destroy them or they will destroy you and everything else.

These things cannot be eqated to children. Children grow up. They learn. They aren’t particularly dangerous. But these are creatures with minds arrested at three years of age and with the weapons of adults.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

Fat, spoilt, malcontent wimmin (feminazis in particular) are the result of modern, MAN-made, western technology. Period!
A womyn’s thanks will never, ever be given to all those inventive, historic, American Men, who invented all those things to make wimmin’s work a thing of the past. (and boy howdy, did they ever!!!)

If wimmin still had to scrub laundry with rocks in a creek, sweep dirt floors, work on a loom, tend the livestock, chop the wood,, etc., ad infinitum; just how many big mouthed bitches do you think we would be hearing from right about now?

Sorry grrrrrrls, those women were too busy working to merely survive, to complain about any sort of mythical “oppression” or “sexism”. They knew their place, but more importantly; they were PROUD of who they were! That’s right; PROUD. I won’t even bother to try and explain why these noble and virtuous women may have felt so—

What a glaring and disgusting difference between these brave, truly strong and courageous pioneer women of not even two hundred years ago and our modern, empowered, independant, gyno-American, two-legged cess pits.

I urge all Men here to have a look at wiki’s description of what was commonly known as a scold’s bridle, or the Branks. For whatever foolish reason, this item was done away with some time ago. This invention to end Men’s suffering, needs to be brought back into public acceptance and application, post haste, imo.