Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Ah yes, i remember this..

The male and the female, a shining artifact of the past. What a powerful little dialogue here, a woman telling a man he should love himself!

Yet this my freinds is a cautionary tale, if you think that 99% of the entire female population ANYWHERE on earth, but particularly in the west are like this, you are sorely mistaken. And the propensity for men to beleive that there exists his own private angelic warm and sirenic soulmate, is the cuase of much male suffering. Too often men ridicule and laugh at the knight in shining armor fantasies that women dream up... this desire for a man to come and sweep them off their feet, ride them off into the sunset... the desire to be rescued forever and ever

We laugh at these fantasies becuase we know that this fictional ethereal male archtype that women seem to have dreamed up, is very unlike the actual male human being, and his wants and desires, we laugh becuase thier veiw of the ideal male is so dramatically opposite to the reality in terms of how the male mind operates, that we see it as nothing more than wishfull thinking from an irrational female mind, an infantile need for a second daddy.

Except what you just saw is the male version of this fantasy, an affectionate accepting madonna filling the male void with kind words and agenuine connection, satiating the deep-seeded mother-need that rests within most men. thats what ive decided to call it... male-mother-need.

It is the male condition being one that displays variance down to our very chromosomal makeup, in the form the XY, that has imprisoned us in a constant make or break existence. Societies, and civilizations have benefitted well from an almost boundless male deductive capacity... the ability to see the unseen, is a hallmark of the male, and civilization as we know it demands it in a cold mechanical sort of way, constantly testing the limits of the totality of its men, and exerting incredible pressurres until the next male provides that next critical insight, that ushers forth a wellspring of change.

This pressure, while benefitting the civilizational group as a whole, exerts an incredible amount of pressure on men as a totality... and they are viewed as a totality. The individual male, his hopes his thoughts and dreams are irrelevant in the eyes of a society which views him as just another potential insight rich vein in the giant watershed moment mining operation.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual male that doesnt understand societies required indifference to individual male desire, he may very well seek solace, in the fantasy that there exist... somewhere ... a kind, caring exceptionally warm woman that willl demand of him, only what he demands of her, simple companionship and affection. therein lies the danger, this is what motivates men like MJ or Kobe bryant to pair up with one woman in marriage and take great financial risk in doing so. for all of our incredible powers of logical reasoning, we cant logically conclude, that women never did like us... for us. such an epiphany, would thrust the individual male into a darkness that has for eons terrified him. he is alone. and unless he does something useful nobody will see any intrinsic value in him. This raking clawing threat is compounded many times over in men of wealth and status like Michael jordan, his wealth and fame, compounds the need for a genuine connection with a single, and in his mind incorruptible female. Icredibly wealthy and emotionally needy men are the holy grail of the predatory western parasite after all.

"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them." Henry david thoreau

thats what were so scared of, were scared of the possibility that were only wanted in this society because of all the things we do to sustain it, we have a creeping suspision that in the event that a society could somehow build and sustain itself without the contributions of men, that its only a matter of time before that society would seek to expel its men.

so i introduce the term male civilizationale draw: and define it as a force chaaracteristic to all civilizations exerted onto the totality of its men as though an industrial resource, for the betterment of the men women and children, in the civilation but at the expense of only men, which is designed to maximize male innovation.

Rather than honestly looking at what appears to be a reality in which the totality of females view the totality of men as an unfeeling and untiring renewable resource, to be drawn upon, we place our faith in the female, or rather the individual female, who would never think to use us. this is why we as men tend to magnify even the most trivial acts of kindness from women as being proof positive... or rather disproof positive of the overall trend of female usury in regards to men

is my assessment wrong, my prognosis to grim? too much of an exaggeration? you do know that the majority of homeless are men, why?... for all the reasons i just gave you, because if single mothers where the majority of homeless youd see a society up in arms

we all know that there are women having children they cannot pay for because they know that welfare, and wic and food-stamps will pay their way, its no secret, the question... is why are these programs put into place?... its simple, we care when women are out on the streets, but when men are out on the streets, its somehow their fault accross the board regardless of individual circumstances because of civilizational male draw.

this is no plea for sympathy, just a wake up call, you can choose to look for your own private little paradise on earth in the form of a woman that most likely doesn't exist, or you can start to exert pressure onto society by refusing to feed it, stop being scared that you might not ever find the right woman, and start being scared, and then angry that society is using you on multiple fronts without consent. never in history men had the opportunity to truly understand themselves, our ientity has always been strained through a female filter first and then offered up to us condensed in a solution of chivalry and misandry but this is what im offering all of the men listening to this, a chance to contribute to a shift in male thought and attitude whether women and society want it or not,, taking such a path, does not involve swearing off women, it merely involves accepting something about their nature that will for the rest of your life, render you incapable of viewing them in the form that society has drawn them. this is what male sovereignty is, hatred f women? dont flatter yourselves, weve been indifferent for a long time now..... the questions and the answers to them are now being framed in such a way that it can be devoid of any female input. and the question must now be formed shaped, and eventually answered by men. what path will men take going into the future? This is your next watershed moment men, except this one has the otential to free men for good. many men say that the objectives delineated here are impossible, that men are biologically incapable of rendering themselves free of the influence women and society have over them. i say its not only possible, but necessary. we discovered and split the atom we can do anything we please.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

your vote counts for nothing... "vote or die" morons please jump off a cliff

The american political process is devoid of any real choice... What i mean to say is that your vote, despite your being fed a seemingly never ending directive telling you otherwise in the days leading up to any major american election, your vote counts for nothing. The most important component of any accurate tally is of course its verifiability, yet not a single american has any irrefutable proof that his or her vote is ever even counted.

We pull a lever, we leave and we expect elected officials and a media machine run for profit by corporate and political interests, to tell us if our politicians are still elected. Its utter foolishness... When people tell you to vote they are telling you to suspend reality plain and simple. Its convenient for the average american to assume that their vote is tangible and real and valuable, and so we see a mass acceptance of an un-certifiable election process because the illusion of choice must never be tampered with, if they american prole is to continue his own demise.

There are football games to be watched after all. But we the american people have no real way of verifying any conclusive election result, and what most likely is the case is that there is an inaccuracy, and even a complete falsification and ignorance of any electoral process at the expense of the american voter, as one heads further and further out from the intimacy of local governance.

To imply that there is in fact unknown and unseen entities that truly are in control of american politics, is to be branded a nutjob lunatic in america. It is of course a knee-jerk reaction for any disenfranchised civilization to attack those who point out the writing on the wall, no matter how clear and legible it is. But im not going to rattle off, some speech about the rockefellers or the jews or whatever, because none of that can be conclusively proven,

True power when wielded correctly is almost always invisible. Im going to simply state, that the situation is very clearly one in which a robust media machine is functioning as a vast feeler apparatus designed to tacitly gauge the general public consensus, via polling, and creating the illusion of objectivity by introducing a controversial issue, and debating only a limited set of viewpoints. Conversation framing if you want to call it that...

The media functioning as this feeler apparatus is then of course required to have an intimate knowledge of public consensus... when enough pressure is exerted by the public, the trajectory of the political body will reflect that, its not the true wishes of the people but a manageable facade of what the people think that they want and need from their political intelligentsia.

If a war is needed, then the stupid american proles will be groomed for war, they will be asked... but really told their opinions of whether or not a diplomatic or military solution to the problem in whereverstan is favorable, counting on the fact that they will never ask themselves whether either is necessary in the first place. the average american is so out of touch with reality that any behavior, absolutely anything can be introduced, debated normalized and accepted within a period of a decade.

The sad state of american manhood, has been reduced to the beer swilling sex crazed sports acolyte, through this very process. The effeminate self hating vegetarian male heterophobe, as well the pseudo-christian red-blooded evangelical war mongering right winger are prototypes of the same kind of operant conditioning. Not a single original thought between either of them exists, and in fact every american cultural archetype arose through this culture/perspective assembly line, we have no sovereign consciousness.

Its no surprise that our political process has been, taken over completely, not co-opted, but completely commandeered, so as to be rendered useless... So dont tell me to go vote, and dont tell me to vote or die, i dont give a shit about a fake political process, i dont give a shit about mitt romney or newt gingrich or obama, or taking precious time out of my day to go pull a lever in a booth to convince myself that i have any control. I guess that since americans generally are aware that they are getting fucked over by the state, they at least demand a lever to pull to make them feel special and important, its very romantic, but a futile childish gesture devoid of any political potency. The real possibility for change lies in the swaying of minds, and the changing of perspective, since this political system is one that eschews exactitudes, all that is needed for a change in divorce and child support law, is the appearance of enough resistance to it, so that the powers that be run the risk of showing openly that the wishes of the public can be ignored. this is the political future that men must confront, one of generalities, where perception and reality are synonymous with one another.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Single mom psychology, seeks the spousification of male sons

This is why the wire is a masterpiece. I consider it to be arguably the best show of all time, and it displays unapologetically the catastrophic consequence, that matriarchy exerts onto adolescent men. The video above depicts Delonda, and her son Namond discussing how Namond intends to provide for her... the mother, now that Namond's father has received a life sentence in prison.

The psychology of the single mother, a derivative of the female psychology in general, is on full display here and it highlights a very important process by which the single mother subjects her male children to a process of spousification, that places the adolescent male in the position of stand in husband, with all of the obligations and responsibilities that this implies.

This stems from the propensity for women to view children as resources, that are linked to provision from the father. In the event that the father is no longer able to produce wealth, the next best thing, granted the woman still seeks to procure financial stability are the sons of the father. Male children in matriarchal up-bringings where poverty is rampant become the de-facto breadwinners providers and protectors to the mother.

It's an extension of female thought patterns that view men through a filter of greed and usury, and the adolescent male in the single mother household, becomes both the husband and the possession of the single mother.

This compels the single mother to continue a process of emasculation of the adolescent male, that she feels she could never complete with his father, and since the mother being an adult, has full control over whatever resources are coming into the home via the everyman... foodstamps and welfare and other predominantly male funded govt subsidies, she can weild this desire to own and mentally castrate her own male child with complete power and impunity.

The adolescent boy being the progeny of his father will undoubtedly and specifically as he approaches manhood, take on both physical and other heritable qualities of his father and the single mom will actually build resentment to her son for this, furthering her efforts to emasculate, control, and spousify him.

All this of course creates a profound rift in the adolescent male's development and it can manifest in various ways in him, One being the adolescent male taking on the persona of hyper masculine bravado, a desperate mad dash to project as much Pseudo masculinity as possible, and i explain this further in my video titled deconstructing PUA fruads.

In this scenario the adolescent male develops an extreme distrust for other men, because he fears that any strong male figure will betray him in the same way that his father has. What isnt usually discussed is just how he feels that his father betrayed him, the generic supposition being that feelings of abandonment cause him to feel betrayed, but the part that hurts him the most is the fact that he feels that his father didn't rescue him, from the manipulations and attacks leveled against him by his own mother.

The passage of time provides the male youth with more independence and physical strength as well as a desire to challenge authority, the mother inevitably loses control and throws the rebellious son out onto the streets, populated by other males that are just as wayward and confused as himself, along with all of the unresolved male hostility and abandonment issues, and what results is violence.. lots of it

Are my claims nothing but psychological conjecture? maybe, but the fact remains that young adolescent males in single mother households are more likely to commit crime, and more likely to join gangs, that they describe as their family, and their brothers, and more likely to shoot and kill other men from other gangs, so we see amongst these adolescent males a need for brotherhood and male bonding, as well as a need to attack men which they perceive as being hostile. We need to start asking ourselves, to what degree is the absence of fathers causing this behavior as opposed to the degree that the presence of single mothers are causing it.

Thats right the presence of single mothers, lets start analyzing that for a change. lets start asking ourselves why, wherever we see single motherhood we see male on male violence, we see poverty, we see despair, why should we be handing out wick and food-stamps and welfare to single mother's when everything points to them being the problem and not the victims of it.

We see our society with all its talk about a war on poverty and urban renewal, and president obama blaming the fathers... on fathers day nonetheless, all in hopes of hiding the fact that single mothers are the ones in direct control of male youth in the matriarchal settings, they are the heads of these so called urban renewal projects, they are the ones raising these so called deadbeat fathers.

It is them that have held a generation of young men under siege, and our society loves to label them thugs and criminals an warehouse them in jail-cells like animals, but the truth is that single motherhood is the problem, not these men... these men would flourish, given the correct opportunities, but as long as single mothers are treated with empathy, sympathy and even praise our society, you can expect to be treated to the pleasure of higher crime and poverty rates, with no solution in sight.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Kobe to divorce: feminist divorce industry claims its next goliath

What not to do? ^^^ this

The feminist divorce industry has poached another 12 pointer, this time Kobe Bryant. But honestly i cant say i feel sorry for him. lets review the facts.

- Kobe bryant is a millionaire NBA star

- He decided to get hitched to a video ho

-California law requires a marriage of 10 years in order for a woman to be eligible for alimony

-Kobe's wife is divorcing him after 10 years

Do the math. It seems that even the most successful men still have a infantile need to live happily ever after with that one special lady!

Only that special lady is just another instinctively feminist, greedy western skank, biding her time for the big payout.

Just observe the body language, her face tells it all... such is the countenance of a parasitic predator, observing every expression of her husband's, host's face probing for any resistance to the sex-anesthesia she has secreted into him over the years. The reactionary cunt probably had the divorce planned out before the marriage even occured.

Enjoy kobe hopefully the pussy was worth it.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Flawed male desire leads to traditional parasitism

I'd like to talk about what exactly commensurate compensation means. Commensurate meaning that if I as an employee or a business owner provide a service, then I expect to be compensated to a degree that is commensurate with the value of that service. The reason I say this is because certain women that come on my channel seem to have a predilection for telling me, that they are "good" women to their husbands...

Not resembling feminists and their constant demands for female privilege. And so I would like to appraise the services these benevolent women offer to their husbands in hopes of determining just how important the alleviations you offer are to your men in terms of burden relief. So a lot of it boils down to a simple exchange of sex for resources.

Ok is that commensurate? Well each man can decide that on his own but that still leaves us with the question to be answered in the general sense. Is your sexual recompense such that it alleviates all if the pressures and stresses exerted on your husband?

In physics we study force; the laws of physics state that when no net force is exerted on an object then the object is in a state of rest. Meaning that if one force is exerting more force than another, it is not at rest. With that said is your sex counteracting the force exerted on you husband such that the forces exerted on to him by his 70 hour work week are negated?

If they aren't then you, and the sex you dole out are an inadequate recompense for his efforts.

We want solely for the interests of men to find out whether or not the traditional wife provides enough bang for her buck, in the hopes of furthering the interests of the men listening to this and if we arrive at the conclusion that your sex is not commensurate then we will, regardless of what traditional homemakers have to say about it, pressure more and more men to do away with their desire to provide for a woman.

So we ask then who gets the better deal? the one giving out the sex, or the one working to support the one giving it out in hopes of continued access to it?

If sex was adequate compensation then why do men die earlier? These good women would have us think that they're doing their part. Yet it's funny because every time I see a husband and wife out in public one seems to be aging less, with this relaxed smug look on thief faces, almost as if they know they're getting away with with a better part of the deal.

Weve all seen these walking vestiges of masculinity with the wife and kids in some walgreens pharmacy on the weekend looking dead behind the eyes... resigned to his fate, and to you generic american husband i feel nothing but pity...

its pitiful to see you drag your dried out exoskeletons wherever the misses leads you, wondering why the weekends pass by so fast, and why the workweeks last so long and why you never get to see your kids, and why your too tired to see them anyway, and never once do you ask yourself why that suburbanite prostitute passing for your wife doesn't get off her lazy ass and start helping you out.

well because the sex, only you get it less and less now dont you? only even if you were still getting it as often your still slated to die earlier because you... and this is the part where you should listen and listen good... you are not receiving commensurate exchange.

you see we men have been told that this is a division of labor and indeed it is, thats exactly what it is... a categorically unfair division of labor. The loving traditional wife wouldn't be so loving if she was the one pulling a 70 hour work week, and what then would your loving traditional wife say when you attempt to pay her in sex

That form of payment is good enough for her to pay you with but not good enough for her to work for and receive as payment.

So what's the point? To encourage less and less men to participate in western traditional marriage, and to show that traditional marriage came out of a reality that simply does not exist anymore, and most importantly, women that claim to want traditional relationships consisting of turning dials on washing machines and dishwashers and doling out sex while you go out and bust your ass to support her, are deceptive, and selfish parasites that are perfectly fine with letting you slowly degrade your own male vitality and health to make things easier for her...

Men have been conditioned to think that they are worthless which is why we are so obsessed with proving our worth to women. We have to earn our way out of worthlessness which is why most men don't give a damn that the vast majority of homeless are the same gender as them, men are worthless, and you with your job and your mortgage and your responsibilities, you my friend are just a little less worthless than that male bum on the street, aren't you.. That mentality is what gets us into trouble.

women are paying us with the counterfeit currency of sex, and to be honest, most men arent even paying for just sex they are paying for some skewed form of motherly companionship. Many men secretly fantasize about some kind of constant motherly female affection is my best guess from what ive observed. Its far from just sex, we have a weakness within ourselves that desires female affection.

We as men have a bad habit of imagining the ideal women as being kind, inviting and warm, and someone that we can show our weakness to, but the reality is that women simply hate weak men. Its the cold hard reality that men need to face and address, you will find no solace in the bosom of a woman i assure you.

No you see it is time for men to stand up and look around them and see that it is a very cold place, and you are the only one that can pull yourself up out of this frigid There is no mommy coming to save you men, there is no mommy to make you feel safe, and as a matter of fact women despise men that show any weakness, because they want to be taken care of.

Thats right they despise you for wanting the same things that they demand from men. security protection reassurance etc. these things a man must earn, by overcoming insecurity, and danger in order to earn self assurance which women respond to... But it still boils down to one fundamental truth. men you are alone, in the eyes of this society and the only ones that will be rewarded are the ones that perform, and perform well according to this societies standards.

if you think for a second that in this society your inherent personhood matters as a man, you are sorely mistaken. This society just does not care. There exists a very real power however in knowing exactly where one stands, no matter how desolate and isolated your situation is.

If we know we are alone, then its possible that men just might for once in history find it mutually benefecial to help each other out for a change, to stop crawling over each other to get to the top and start asking ourselves why is it the we always seem to start at the bottom while the other half of the human race gets a leg up in every conceivable way from the state, and from our culture in general? Why are we made to compete with each other, to tear each other apart and hate each other, in order to gain acceptance from the very people that hate men for being at the top, and hate them even more for being on the bottom of the societal ladder.

Our main weakness as men lies within our inability to recognize when and how men are hated, we want so desperately to believe the illusion, we want so desperately to be liked and wanted and needed, that we have lost all sort of instinct for self preservation, to the point where we will literally jump in front of knives and bullets for women we dont even know. The system is not designed for male contentedness, it doesn't want male happiness, it wants you to constantly feel incomplete, it thrives off of your insecurity , it needs you to question yourself, it needs you to be in constant fear... Of what exactly? of being alone of being a virgin, of continuing to have sex after your no longer a version, of being muscular, of not going bald, of this of that of everything. Because remember you are not allowed a shred of weakness or vulnerability, it stifles the spirit of men it is pesticide on the male soul, and i want out. I want out...go ahead, repeat it for yourself, see how it makes you feel to say it... I want out. say it my fellow men we want out. there is real value in saying this because society still has no clue, their pumping out these man up articles one right after another arent they? have we raised a generation of men that dont know how to be men? where have all the good men gone? how come women are outperforming men in this and that?, they simply will not come admit that this is a result of a sustained effort to disenfranchise men, one in which the end result can only be, men turning their backs on a society that will to the bitter end hate on men for doing so. Becuase you exist to serve, there wont be an equal treatment of male victims of domestic violence, for example no matter how much the inequality of it is pointed out, simply because you as a man have no right in this society to demand equal treatment.

Such a thing would spell death for this society, and so to demand equality from this society is to demand that this society voluntarily carry out a process of self implosion. I certainly wont say that men shouldn't fight for these things. They most certainly should.. im simply making the claim that our society...western society as we know it, cannot exist, in the event that men begin to enjoy equal protections under the law fully.

And so my conclusion is simple, men must understand the following statements


Traditionalism is no longer functional in a society where technology has progressed to a point where it has cut the net working time of a homemaker in half, and the women that are sticking to traditionalism, are merely enjoying a free ride at the expense of you the provider workhorse, and they know it. Its about time you take note of it also.


Women do not like men for their inherent personhood, they like what you can give them, once you arent giving it to them, whether it be excitement, or sex that they enjoy, or money then you are simply a non entity to them. Meaning that women have no conceptualization of masculinity outside the scope, of how they can benefit from it. And so they see it as nothing more than a transactional mechanism... a slot machine in which they have thanks to biology, a very good idea of when and how to pull the levers in order to hit the jackpot. See the excerpt on briffualts law in the description box in regards to this. Also even when you are providing to women what they want, they are always testing you to see if your still man enough to provide it, and in the period of time that you still are man enough, they on some level resent you for being able to do so, see also my video sharon Osbourne demonstrates innate female misandry in the description box.

there is a very real power and strength to be extracted from the modern western male admitting to himself, hat he can and will experience vulnerability, and moments of weakness, just like women get to. This is not quote “getting in touch with your feminine side” and that very axiom proves my point, that any expression of vulnerability is associated with the female... meaning that if men show any vulnerability, then they are exhibiting female behavior, its just anther way of shaming men to take the bullshit that women never have to endure. Men will not truly understand their strengths until they are allowed to explore their weaknesses, and its time we wrestle away the the monopoly that women have on vulnerability. Yes men have historically been pillars of strength, but even atlas shrugged, and you will to many times I assure you. And so along with male sovereignty I want to introduce the concept of male vulnerability, in hopes that men begin to define it as an concept that is independent of all things feminine and is uniquely male,

Finally, to make it clear as I have numerous times in previous videos. These videos are being posted, as a resource for men. More specifically MRA/MGTOW minded men. I do not care about female input, although I allow them to watch. If women have something to say, in the comments section, please make sure that you keep it relevant to mra/mgtow topics. The time for debating women has passed a long time ago. If you want to debate the merits of the mens movement, go do it over at feministing

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Einstein's Marriage contract

A. You will make sure…

*that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order;

*that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room;

*that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only.

B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, you will forego…

*my sitting at home with you;

*my going out of traveling with you.

C. You will obey the following points in your relations with me…

*you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me in any way;

*you will stop talking to me if I request it;

*you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it.

D. You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behavior.

It should be noted that men such as constitute the end result of civilizational draw on male utility discussed earlier in my video .... Einstein was one of the watershed inducing arbiters of scientific insight that civilization squeezes out of it's male resources, the equivalent of the 1901 spindletop oil strike, a veritable hope diamond of male brilliance that came out of civilizations basic demand for male resource.

It is however interesting to note, that his attitude was one in which, although he pursued numerous women, generally eschewed them as a mere distraction in the pursuit of a much more grandiose imperative. After his wife, a physicist herself, albeit a much less profound one then Einstein, rejected the marriage contract, Einsteen in a supreme act of confidence in his scientific ability, predicted he would win a Nobel prize for his efforts and offered his wife a trade of the substantial financial portion of the prize in exchange for her granting him a divorce.

Now Einstein wrote many love letters to his first wife MIleva , and mustve cared for her on some level, but it was rumored that his wife Mileva was harboring resentment and jealousy towards him, as a result of his rise to preeminence in the intellectual world of physics, combined with her second failure of her final exams at the swiss polytechnic institute where she met Einstein.her failure to pass these final exams should settle the rumors and speculations surrounding Einstein's supposed plagiarism of Mileva, but of course conspiracy theories persist, implying that Mileva was the actual originator of Einstein's theory of relativity.

Our society is one which desires desperately to peruse the annals of history, in hopes of wrenching away the achievements of great men, or at the very least slandering their names now that they arent here to defend themselves. Case in point, i was watching a documentary on Einstein which is in the link box, in which Einstein's affairs with other women were being discussed, and like clockwork, some feminist crone devoid of any credible achievement or talent sees fit to call Einstein, one of the greatest minds the world has ever seen, a misogynist, a hater of women, based on how he treated his wife.

I feel it important to point out these little instances of feminist revisionist history for posterity because it highlights the nature of feminist intellectualism, and how it hinges, not on cultivating excellence in women, but on tearing down all areas of male achievement. It needs to be said and observed that for all of its talk, for all of its cackling noise it has never once, and never will compel women to create something all on their own, without their fare share of provision from the so called patriarchy they claim to despise.

Feminism functions as a vast handicap of convenience on the women under its purview, and women are inherently inclined towards its adoption. Its to the point now where an entire phylum of college curricula, grounded in the explaining away of female mediocrity persist at the university level across the entire spectrum of western education. Meaning that the only possible output that we will receive for the acedemization of excuse making and mediocrity, is of course more excuse making and mediocrity.

Millions upon millions of dollars committed to the art of manufacturing grievance where none exists and we are awarded with" Einstein well he was a misogynist "...Take notice that in this so called patriarchy no one man is immortalized or venerated for simply talking about the inherent proclivities of men, there must be action, there must then be remarkable achievement... we don't erect statues of Isaac newton because he walked around talking about how great men are, we do so because of his vast scientific achievement, the most notable feminists are of course comprised of petulant old hags that dedicated their lives to ceaseless proclamation of self congratulatory gender preening, although it's not exactly a shock to me that the underpinning of feminists gender theory rests on the foundation of the mysterious emotional acumen of the divine feminine, or in other words a bunch of over emotional, lazy dishonest bullshit of no actual value.

I'll finish with a message to women, if you want respect, real credible hard earned respect I suggest that you not only distance your self from this disingenuous feminist movement that slowly pilfers it's way into all areas if importance since, in and of itself it cannot sustain it's own weight. Not only should you distance yourself, but you should actively seek to discredit it. until this happens en masse any supposed claims of gender equality under the law from self identifying feminists is invalid, and any general reconciliation between men and women is invalid, the possibility of reconciliation between men and women exists only in a reality where men are allowed full control over their lives period. that means no privileges or advantages for women period. theres no need to elaborate further about the state of affairs between the genders that women and the state ruined until this occurs period.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

women manufactured their own "oppression". threats of nihilism to anyone that points it out

all heard at one time or another the shaming tactic of accused bitterness, we cant get laid etc etc.. I love it when i hear that... why? because it tells me that i am making women, or more specifically the power structure that women operate in very uncomfortable... So much so that they threaten me with nihilism. Yes i said nihilism, complete and utter destruction. consider it an autoimmune response from the hive mind of the fairer sex. consider it an attack, because that's exactly what it is and consider the weapon with which that attack is carried out as being tied in intimately with procreation. You see the male human being is very good at understanding force, explicitly.

If two nations are in conflict the men of those nations create tools with which to threaten each other with force. They design missiles and bombs and mustard gas and jet fighters, because they recognize intimately the real threat posed by the forces of the opposing side. The constant leveraging of access to female breeding power however is a force with which men are yet to understand implicitly.

Women are experts when it comes to leveraging their sexual appeal. perhaps experts is the wrong word, since they do this instinctively. When a man makes women uncomfortable by threatening their power, they immediately tell him that if he keeps it up he wont have access to female breeding power. that's what it boils down to, its them saying that if you want to threaten female privilege comfort and hypocrisy, they will respond with threats of lysistrata designed to destroy you completely and utterly in the genetic sense.

Women understand this to be the only true source of feminine power, and so when a female tells you in response to some pro-male rhetoric that your just mad because you cant get laid she is in an indirect and obscure way informing you that if you keep it up you will never pass on your genetic legacy. genetic legacy is the foundation of female thought, it is their obsession, since it is their sustenance, and provides to them access to male ability and wealth.

In other words their meal ticket. Any and all attempts at resisting misandry will be viewed as an attempt to devalue the price of access to genetic legacy and thus it will also be viewed as a threat to the sustenance of women in general. In the event that a man has already passed on his genetic legacy women will go for the next best thing,.. complete separation of a man and his children. custody battles represent the attempt to separate genetic transmission from the transmission of custom culture and wisdom from the male to his progeny.. you see the female mind is thinking ... he may have passed on his genes but he wont pass on his identity. And the amount of damage this exerts onto her children is seen simply as a a slightly unfortunate price of doing business at best. the only words for this, the only description that accurately encapsulates this type of thought process and behavior is the word evil. yes there exists something in women that is evil, there i said it.

Now watch any women listening turn around and tell me how im bitter and angry and watch them tell me how they'd never give me the time of day, and how ill never get laid, watch them do it.. Watch them stamp their feet and buckle on their metaphorical chastity belts in my field of view so that i know the exact consequences of having dared to expectorate all over the alter of female power.

In fairness i suspect men have the same penchant for evil, i suspect it to be a characteristic of human nature. The only difference is the frequency with which you hear about the evil-doings of the so called fairer sex. they can gnash their teeth all they'd like but theres nothing they can do to change whats coming towards them. Things for better or worse have been set into motion, the days of misandry and female affluence are numbered and in direct proportionality to the time it takes for feminist societies to consume themselves.

What proof do i have of this female obsession with their ability to control reproduction? well western society has given to women contraceptives far superior than those available to men, they have given them abortion... they have erected vast storage facilities full of male genetic material in the form of sperm banks, we have solidified the presumption of motherhood, and given women complete control of children at the expense of the father. This state of affairs whether they arose organically along the lines of a matrifocal society designed first and for most to pander to women, or via a more nefarious trajectory in which the powers that be purposefully engineered it, lends itself to female homogeny and power over men.

lets talk about rape for a second, a word that is currently owned with full rights and privileges by feminists. Since they claim to hate rape so much, why would they seek to deprive half of the human population from protection against it by making the legal definition of rape one which can only applies to women? that shows a very clear motive the purpose is to ive extra protection to women in regards to the crime of rape, and because a man that rapes a woman is in effect cheating, he is bypassing female selectivity. and yes he should be punished without a doubt, but specifically for the fact that he chose to attack and sexually enslave and psychologically torture another human being. this standard for the disbursement of punishment for the crime of rape could never fall in agreement with feminist motivations because their reason for hating rape is composed entirely out of a desire to control men as much as possible via access to sex. Understand that. if feminists hated rape you would see them demanding that male prisoners be protected from it. you would see them demand that the legal definition of the crime be rewritten to accommodate men. It's about control thats all its ever been about

what women fail to realize is that men are no longer scared of that threat. women you have over-leveraged, and in fact it is women who will suffer through possibly the first instance in history of a mass dying off of barren and bitter women that divorced and aborted what would have been thier husbands and children. I dont take any pleasure in this but let me paint a picture of what the Germaine Greers of the world and the countless acolytes theyve spawned are headed towards. They will be packed into nursing homes, where no-one will come and visit you, and you will pass in to the next life bitter alone and isolated much in the same manner that you have wished upon men.

Yes those are some pretty ugly words, and you can turn away in disgust if you please, or you can take that for what it is, a picture that delves past crimson lipstick and carnal female beauty and a holds a mirror up to the very essence of what it means to be female, society tells you nothing but the good.. allow me to paint you a very detailed picture of the bad. let us for the sake of accuracy ask ourselves the simple question, of just what exactly is woman, well thats a pretty difficult question to answer, but a few things that i can say for sure is that they are for the most part reactionary, permanently infantilized and quite possibly predisposed to hate their need of men. this would explain their audacious characterization of the past few thousand years as being a millennial epoch of female oppression and patriarchal power, one which i would like to disprove right here and now.

I would like to posit that the cause of women's so called oppression was in fact women, and that it actually has been them that have held themselves back, for the duration of human history. First let me lay out and define what the oppression of women actually is. It is the failure of women to compete with men since the dawn of and even before the experiment of civilization started. When human beings where living in nomadic hunter gatherer societies, they lived effectively in roving microcosms of civilization, scaled down islands unto themselves that pitted the tribe against the very real dangers, that the illusion of our modern day civilization obsfucates.

In other words human beings at one point in their history fund themselves in a state of proto civilization poised on the brink of conquering the planet, and establishing ourselves as the dominant species on the planet. It was at this point in time that women manifested their own so called oppression by letting the responsibility for the single greatest undertaking in human history, (Ie the building of civilization fall squarely on the shoulders of men.)

Thinking back to what our male ancestors must have felt when tasked with understanding the forces of nature, and conquering fire, while fighting off predators, the elements, disease, all the while developing agriculture and animal husbandry and setting up the necessary steps through sheer drive and willpower, to finally beat-back the proverbial jungle. the pressure must have been incredible and yet this was the start of what women view as the patriarchy, the spark of their so called oppression. Meaning that at this critical juncture in human history, just to make things clear it was men that did the necessary work and tackled the incredibly daunting task of taming mother nature.

Surely these men could have used help from their women...and im not talking merely about procreating, im sick of this monopoly women seem to believe they have on childbirth as if its their unique contribution to the human race, as ive just said women may dole out the majority of access to their reproductive ability, and an illusion of excess female contribution due to over-leveraging and price gouging surely exists, but i assure you that the male contribution to the propagation of our species in terms fissile genetic material is just as valuble as its female counterpart.
When all is said and done there cannot be human life without male sperm, if procreation where some manifestation of female divinity like women would have you believe then they wouldn't need something uniquely male to make it happen.. to every female listening to this you are a mere 50 percent of the requisite parts of the propagation of our species, your not helping men to procreate, any more than men are helping you to do the same.

No to be clear men could have used help in the mitigation of danger, and the understanding of the physical world around them they could have used help in the acquisition of food and resources, and more importantly they would have most certainly wanted the help... there was no chivalry and gender favoritism back then our species was to put it simply confronted with what have to had seemed like damn near insurmountable odds, and survival was the number one priority, both genders had the opportunity to carve out civilization, both genders could have contributed to the survival of our species in their own unique and tangible way, yet only one gender stepped up and did what had to be done, one gender proved themselves the other waited around every night for a bunch of proactive battle hardened men to bring home some tusked or fanged beast that they killed with their bare hands in the wilderness, or plucked out of the trees with some spear that they fashioned.

This is to say that when we where nothing but roving bands of hunter gatherers, one gender did the hunting, the gathering, one gender and that same gender while balancing these burdens showed the wherewithal and insight and the observational skills to gather enough information about the world around them, to make it so that the men women and children that constitute the human species wold no longer have to live in a world where these burdens existed. It was on this theatre of war between man and the elements that women would one day fashion their non-existent oppression in order to cover up for the fact that they contributed the minimum amount of effort to making life better for our species.

Lets assume that the total endeavors of both men and women that where beneficial to the quality of life of the human race, could be quantified for the purposes of comparison, what exactly would we arrive at. Well lets go ahead and assume that the vast majority of scientific discovery...practically 100% can be attributed to the endeavors of men, and I think its fair to assume that 50 or 60 percent of the progression of the human species can be attributed to scientific endeavor, possibly even more.. lets attribute 20 percent to actual physical labor, the erection of everything from the first mudhuts to the tallest skyscrapers, all of which where once again provided in the vast majority by men... this leaves the last necessary competent of human progression that of procreation which as ive said is a contribution provided for in equal amounts by both men and women,.

and so what percentage of contribution does that leave women with overall to the betterment of humanity...ten 15 % at best. ?

I know I know im going to get the generic screeching feminist talking about madam curie or some other deflectionary nonsense but we all know the truth, science and innovation has been characterized by male thought since the dawn of civilization and unless you can show me some unknown country or continent brimming with bridges and pyramids, and aqueduct and wifi networks and electricity grids and sewer systems erected by women we all know that what im saying is true. This isnt bragging, or even an attempt to tell women that they are inferior, this is simply a statement of fact that one gender chose to act in a way that eventually bettered and continues to better humanity, and the other has saw fit for the last century to typify this explosion of human innovation and improvement that was the last 2000 years as a prolonged exercise in the oppression of women.. I would tell women they should be ashamed of themselves if I had any evidence that throughout human history they had any capacity for it.

Instead well do a simple thought experiment and put this issue to rest

quick without thinking to much about about think of someone that changed the course of human history for the better...

how many of you regardless of your gender though immediately of a male? be honest.. i know i know the patriarchy made you do it...