Jul 092016
 

I found an example that proves that the feminist idea that there is pervasive misogyny in the tech industry is nothing but paranoid propaganda:

Here’s an example I was thinking of after I wrote my original post.

I work at a largish engineering company, and help organize events for summer interns. One of them is an “ask us anything” panel where we encourage interns to ask recently graduated full-time employees about life at the company without managers / HR in the room.

Every year, we get a young woman asking us something along the lines of “I’ve heard the engineering industry is super sexist. How horribly oppressed am I going to be?”

Now, the response they usually get from the ladies on the panel (who I assume are being truthful) is basically “you will very occasionally get some sexist / not-quite-appropriate remarks, almost exclusively from people either within 10 years of retirement (hence self solving) or from the non-college educated techs that have a rougher culture in general. This will be mildly annoying but won’t have a real effect on your career”.

So given that it seems workplace sexism for our engineers isn’t really fake, but is typically a minor irritant at worst, is that female intern really well served by being primed to expect lousy sexist treatment? The potential paranoia that every adverse decision is unavoidable due to your gender, or that today will be the day you’re horribly harassed… can’t that be worse than the actual harm of the intransigent remaining vestiges of professional sexism?

This shows that there is no vile hive mind running an assault mission against women in tech.  In addition, the two examples of “kindly annoying misogyny” in tech are likely to not be misogyny at all.  In the case of the men within 10 years of retirement, that is more likely to be noting more than failing to use the latest SJW approved language than actual misogyny.  For the less educated men, that is likely to be the problem as well plus the (college educated) women being bigoted against men who are not college educated.  Thus, it is clear that there is no misogyny in the tech industry.

Jun 252016
 

I don’t know how to describe this so let me start off with the words of Sarah Nadav, a startup founder who came up with a new idea:

Let’s talk about an uncomfortable truth, sexual harassment and assault is common in the tech industry. The only reason we don’t hear more about it is because the men who perpetrate it the most are also the ones who hold the “keys to the kingdom”- as investors or powerful industry figures, women don’t want to ruin their careers by speaking out.

So I have come to a conclusion. I am adding a “sexual misconduct clause” into all of my investment agreements. If an investor or employee of the investor/accelerator/incubator makes a sexual advance towards me or anyone in my company (Civilize), then they are stripped of all of their shares in Civilize (even the ones that have vested) and there will be a public notice to shareholders as to the reason why.

Notice the jump from sexual assault to a sexual advance, which could mean anything including asking someone out for coffee.  On top of that, not only is there no due process when an alleged “sexual advance” occurs, but how easily this could be used for fraud.  Want to steal an investors shares in a startup?  That’s easy to do with this since all you have to do is accuse the investor (or one of their employees) of asking someone out.  Who would want to invest in such a scenario?

Or what if the person who is falsely accused of asking someone out is gay?  Or a gay individual actually asks someone out of the same sex?  That will be an immediate fraud lawsuit plus the accusation of discrimination against gays and homophobia.  And that has to be an issue, because she says that ” sexual harassment and assault is common in the tech industry”.  Remember, we keep hearing about how few women are in tech.  For sexual harassment and assault to be endemic in tech, that has to mean the primary victims of this alleged epidemic are men not women.

I don’t know how this would be enforceable.  Take how she listed employees of an incubator as being bound by this clause.  Every employee of the incubator would have to be informed and sign a document to that effect.  Any smart employee of said incubator will just avoid Sarah Nadav and her company.  Another reason that it would not be enforceable is the question of how it would apply to Sarah Nadav herself.  What happens if she (or one of her employees) asks out an investor, an employee of an investor, or an employee at an incubator?  Why does she and her employees have the right to ask people out working for their incubator or investor, but not the reverse.  For that matter, someone who is pissed off at her could use this policy against her by falsely accusing her of sexual advances and threatening to use this policy against the accuser.

Where did Sarah Nadav get this insane idea?  Read her own words:

Let me walk you through my process:

Yesterday I read Lena Dunham’s Linkedin post

We don’t need to continue reading after that, but it gets worse.  She is by her own admission filled with rage about (potential) investors:

While other CEOs are worried about getting funded, I am shit scared that one of them will invest.

Every time I get up to pitch, instead of sharing my vision I am exploding with rage. And then I apologize and promise to do better, and change my pitch to one that is even more antagonizing then the last.

I was literally told that I need to work harder on hiding my thinly veiled contempt for the investors.

The good news is that no one will have to deal with her “sexual advance clause” and its fraud because she will have already scared all investors away.  Despite this, Sarah Nadav is worried that an investor will want to have dinner with her:

Because here is my deepest fear- I am afraid that one of these men, these bad actors will end up investing in Civilize. He will have a board seat, he will own part of my life’s work. One day, he will offer to take me out to dinner and I will think it is professional but he will have another agenda (because in his mind lunch is for business and dinner is for lovers but I didn’t get the memo), he will make an advance, I won’t know what to do, everything will get awkward and I will be afraid of making an enemy of him because he will have the power to oust me from my company.

I have good news for Sarah Nadav.  She never needs to worry about an investor (or any other man) asking her out to dinner.  No investor will invest in her startup after seeing her rage and contempt.  No man (investor or otherwise) will ask her to dinner because they won’t want to be alone with her.  Given her rage, paranoia, and all around crazy, no man will want to be anywhere near her without multiple witnesses.  And that will be true for many women too.  The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Sarah Nadav has decided to shout, “I’m insane.  Don’t invest in my startup.”  We have all gotten the message.

Apr 242016
 

For a man to be a victim of the false rape industry, it used to be that a woman (usually who had sex with the man) actually had to make an accusation against that man.  Thanks to the reclassification of rape as a civil rights violation such standards of due process no longer need to be followed.  At Colorado State University – Pueblo, a male athlete and his female trainer start a relationship. Everything during the relationship was consensual, but another person made a complaint to the university that the trainer was raped. The trainer strenuously disagreed saying, “I’m fine and I wasn’t raped.” That didn’t stop the athlete from getting expelled from the university for rape.

What happened here was that since rape is now reclassified as a “civil rights violation”, it doesn’t matter if the alleged victim says everything was consensual.  His relationship with his trainer offended someone else so the athlete violated the “civil rights” of women regardless of repeated statements from the woman he had sex with that made it clear she wasn’t raped.  We will see more of this in the future since feminists will declare that women who don’t think they were raped to be victims of “internalized misogyny” and can’t be trusted as a result.

At this point I’m waiting for a man living in the middle of nowhere in North Dakota with no other person within a hundred miles to be accused of rape/violating the civil rights of women because some woman that he never met was pissed off at him.  This will happen sooner or later.

Apr 012016
 

I found this group on the internet called the hybrid children community.  This is a group of women (mainly in their 20s) who think that aliens abducted them, had mind blowing sex with them knocking them up, and then took their hybrid human-alien children away from them.  (No, this is not an April Fools joke, but it should be.)

Obviously, these women are insane, but what would it mean if they weren’t?  It means that aliens are smart enough to know that what is best for their children is to keep them away from their mothers.  Aliens understand this at such a deep level that they abduct women from other planets who can’t follow them back to their home worlds. 

The women in the hybrid children community are incapable of having relationships with men.  This should be a surprise to no one.  While many men are willing to stick their dick into crazy, no man is that hard up that he won’t run in the other direction when meeting one of these women.  I’m certain that these women were just as insane before “discovering” that aliens were abducting them to have hybrid babies.  This is what happens to women who don’t get attention from men.  Thanks to MGTOW, the marriage strike, and so forth, more women will join the hybrid children community so that they can enjoy the delusion that alien men desire them.  I think I can speak for aliens everywhere when I say that alien men don’t want these women too.

Mar 082016
 

Since today is International Women’s Day, let’s take a look at female contributions to science.  While any writing on this topic should include events like #ShirtGate/#ShirtStorm, the unwarranted attacks on Dr. Matt Taylor, and the witch hunt against Dr. Tim Hunt, not to mention the feminist belief that Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica is a rape manual, I am going to focus on female attempts to “contribute” to the body of scientific knowledge.

Anna Catherine Hickey-Moody “contributed” to science how carbon fiber is sexist.  Yes, there is actually an academic paper that carbon fiber oppresses women.  Take a look at the abstract for the paper:

In this paper I am concerned with instances in which carbon fiber extends performances of masculinity that are attached to particular kinds of hegemonic male bodies. In examining carbon fiber as a prosthetic form of masculinity, I advance three main arguments. Firstly, carbon fiber can be a site of the supersession of disability that is affected through masculinized technology. Disability can be ‘overcome’ through carbon fiber. Disability is often culturally coded as feminine (Pedersen, 2001; Meeuf, 2009; Garland-Thompson 1997). Building on this cultural construction of disability as feminine, in and as a technology of masculine homosociality (Sedgwick, 1985), carbon fiber reproduced disability as feminine when carbon fiber prosthetic lower legs allowed Oscar Pistorius to compete in the non-disabled Olympic games. Secondly, I argue that carbon fiber can be a homosocial surface; that is, carbon fiber becomes both a surface extension of the self and a third party mediator in homosocial relationships, a surface that facilitates intimacy between men in ways that devalue femininity in both male and female bodies. I examine surfaces as material extensions of subjectivity, and carbon fiber surfaces as vectors of the cultural economies of masculine competition to which I refer. Thirdly, the case of Oscar Pistorius is exemplary of the masculinization of carbon fire, and the associated binding of a psychic attitude of misogyny and power to a form of violent and competitive masculine subjectivity. In this article I explore the affects, economies and surfaces of what I call ‘carbon fiber masculinity’ and discusses Pistorius’ use of carbon fiber, homosociality and misogyny as forms of protest masculinity through which he unconsciously attempted to recuperate his gendered identity from emasculating discourses of disability.

If carbon fiber oppresses women, then wait until we can become cyborgs.  I anticipate feminists will start shrieking that cyborgs are a MRA army, if carbon fiber scares them this much.

Several authors (some of which were men, but without women’s contributions this paper wouldn’t exist) “contributed” to science how men use glaciers to oppress women.  At least that’s what I think the paper says.  It’s hard to tell since it is filled will gibberish if it’s abstract is anything to go by:

Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.

None of this compares to the “contributions” to science of French philosopher, Luce Irigaray.  Irigaray has seriously said that E=mc2 is a sexed (aka sexist) equation that privileges the speed of light over other speeds.  She also said that “masculine physics” privileges rigid, solid things and that men are incapable of understanding fluid mechanics:

The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids… From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.

I guess all of those male physics professors and scientists who study fluid mechanics should just give up.  For International Women’s Day, celebrate these female contributions to science.

Dec 222015
 

I found an article about how students in the Women & Gender Studies department of West Virginia University had a fair to show off what they learned in the last semester. This fair was supposed to show “real world applications” of their coursework. “Real world applications” to these women & gender studies students making penis piñatas.  I’m not joking, but I wish I was.

Since the goal of this women & gender studies fair was to show what students learn in those “subjects”, we are forced to conclude from the penis piñata that they learned to attack male genitalia with a bat. And they intend to attack male genitalia with bats in the future because the other purpose of this fair was to show “real world applications” of women & gender studies.

For comparison, let’s take a look at what an equivalent STEM fair would look like. (Put aside the fact that STEM students would be too busy with real work for such a thing.). Instead of making silly piñatas, there would be demos of computer softwaruse hardware and demos of various engineering fields from aerospace engineering to electrical engineering to materials engineering. These would all be things that have clearly improved people’s lives unlike penis piñatas. The only reason that a penis piñata would even be near such an event is because of women & gender studies students protesting a STEM fair. (They would protest because improving people’s lives is misogyny.)

In other words women’s studies is so useless that a penis piñata is considered a real world application of the subject.

Dec 052015
 

Anon informed us that a woman named Zoe Stavri, who blogs under the name Another Angry Woman, has baked bread with her vaginal yeast.  She even tweeted about it under the hashtag, #cuntsourdoughShe also sent it to a couple of radio hosts without telling them that the bread was made from vaginal yeast until after they (and others at the radio station) ate it.

This is another example of women going filthy and feral and demonstrating their inability to handle modern civilization.  Zoe Stavri never considered whether it was safe to eat her vaginal bread.  (She also didn’t realize that the yeast used to make bread is completely different from the yeast found in her vagina.)  It is also similar to vagina software, how women only make software related to their vaginas (i.e. not getting pregnant, abortion, and so forth) when men aren’t around.  Just like with vagina software, Zoe Stavri couldn’t actually invent a new type of bread or an improvement on how the bake bread.  All she could add was her vagina.

One of the #cuntsourdough tweets responding to Zoe Stavri suggested using vaginal yeast to brew beer:

Again, we have another example of the vagina software phenomenon.  These women couldn’t come up with any new ideas in brewing beer so they just come up with vagina beer.  Like with the vagina bread, they also don’t consider whether vagina beer was safe to drink.  Ironically, the woman who made that tweet says that she is a supporter of “good food for all” in her Twitter profile.

Anon suggested I create a page documenting all of these examples of women who can’t handle modern civilization.  I have done that here, and that page will automatically update anytime I add a new article on this subject.

May 302015
 

InfoWars/PrisonPlanet (Alex Jones’s websites) released a youtube video about something called neomasculinity:

I noticed several things about the video.  While it used game language and other language from this part of the internet, it’s clear that whoever wrote the script for that video didn’t really understand what we talk about.  MGTOW gets attacked (which has led to responses from MGTOW like Barbarossa).  Overall, this is another attempt at entryism by tradcons with some game terms used as an unsuccessful attempt to hide that it is an attempt at entryism.

This is nothing new.  It’s just another form of Game 2.0/Man Up 2.0, an attempt to repackage game for the benefit of women (and in this case Alex Jones’s bank account).  This is the same thing Susan Walsh, the Manhood Academy/Manhood 101 morons, and others have tried and failed to do.  This time it has a dash of, “you have to get married because DEPOPULATION AGENDA!!!” (which is why believing in the depopulation agenda is misandry) and “They (whoever they is) are putting chemicals in the water to turn you gay”, but it’s really no different.  It’s an extreme form of the tradcon cry, “You have to get married to save civilization”.

Why is Alex Jones interested in creating another game 2.0 and attacking MGTOW now?  Sandman discovered that on Google trends that MGTOW became more popular than PrisonPlanet starting a couple of months ago, and MGTOW is only getting more popular.  Alex Jones is having the same problem all tradcons are having in trying to recruit young men.  As Hollenhund described, young men refusing to follow the tradcon script.  Alex Jones’s conspiracy theories are all derived from tradcon ideology, so when young men refuse to follow the tradcon script, they won’t buy into his conspiracy theories.

Alex Jones has a history of trying to cannibalize grass roots movements, and that is what he is doing with neomasculinity.  Barbarossa and John the Other had a conversation where they talked about that and how it turns into mission creep to the point where the original mission of a grass roots group gets replaced with doing nothing other than talking about the NWO.  Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists treat the NWO as all powerful so nothing can be done.  It creates a self fulfilling prophecy of nothing getting done.  After Alex Jones cannibalizes a grass roots group, the group is completely neutralized.  If Alex Jones is successful both game and MGTOW (and the M(H)RM) would be cannibalized to the point where they are meaningless.

I am certain that Alex Jones’s attempt at entryism will fail.  We have dealt with entryist tradcons before.  Tradcons have nothing to offer game, MGTOW (or the M(H)RM) so neither does Alex Jones.  No one is impressed by, “You have to get married to save civilization”, so no one will be impressed by, “You have to get married to save civilization because DEPOPULATION AGENDA!!!”  We may see a few guys planning on pulling a Mark Minter use neomasculinity as a cover, but that will be it.  We don’t need Mark Minters so good riddance to them.

The more tradcons attack MGTOW, the more popular it becomes.  Let Alex Jones attack MGTOW and try his attempt at entryism.  He will fail, and MGTOW will be more popular afterwards.

Feb 152015
 

Anti-#GamerGate has made six (known) great mistakes before this week.  This week we discovered that Anti-#GamerGate has made its seventh and final great mistake with this week’s Law & Order: SVU episode about #GamerGate.  If you haven’t seen it, here’s a shortened version of it on Youtube.  The episode is widely regarded as a joke to the point where Forbes, along with several others, called it the reefer madness of our generation.  It has also made more people pro-#GamerGate.

What makes this Anti-#GamerGate’s next great mistake is that they compared gamers to terrorists/ISIS/etc. enough times that people outside of Anti-#GamerGate started believing them in a very literal way.  The “gamers” in the episode made ISIS style videos and other nonsense.  This Law & Order: SVU episode ran with everything Anti-#GamerGate has said about gamers like a rampaging bull in a china shop.  This is dangerous for Anti-#GamerGate because Anti-#GamerGate has lost control of their own narrative.  (A few Anti-#GamerGaters even realize this.)  One of the things that happened in the episode was that Kotaku, which is solidly SJW/feminist and Anti-#GamerGate, was lumped in with the misogynist terrorist gamers.  This is why this is Anti-#GamerGate’s final mistake.  They created a narrative where despite being Anti-#GamerGate, they’re still lumped in with the the gamers they hate.

darknetThis is a bigger problem for Anti-#GamerGate than just being lumped in with gamers.  The episode had Ice-T saying gibberish like, “they’re uploading threats through the dark net!”  While that sentence makes no sense, the real problem is that its an attack on online privacy and anonymity.  This is the type of thing that will draw the ire of the online rights crowd (with good reason), which adds to one of the previous great mistake that Anti-#GamerGate has been making.

This episode of Law & Order: SVU, like many other of its episodes, is supposed to be “ripped from the headlines”.  But there’s a problem with that.  When have female game developers or even the Anita Sarkeesians of the world been kidnapped and raped?  Never.  That’s a glaring difference between the episode and reality.  Anti-#GamerGate was more careful about this sort of thing, but the wider media doesn’t care.  When people realize that such things are a complete myth, they will question Anti-#GamerGate’s claims of online harassment and death threats and find a complete lack of evidence.  They will also find that there has not been a single arrest, much less a single conviction in a court of law.  The wider media doesn’t care about maintaining the specifics of #Anti-GamerGate’s narrative, but Anti-#GamerGate has to deal with the fallout of the wider media now controlling its narrative.

Oct 052013
 

A couple days ago Miriam Carey, a woman from Connecticut, was involved in a car chase here in DC where she rammed a barricade at the White House eventually leading to police having to shoot her.  Carey was suffering from several forms of mental illness including postpartum depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.  Carey’s boyfriend (and father of her child) had to call the police twice on her last year because of her mentally ill behavior that was dangerous to their daughter.  Carey even believed that President Obama was going to lockdown her hometown, had her put under electronic surveillance, was stalking her, and that she could communicate with the President.  Despite all of this a social worker believed that Carey was “100% better” at the beginning on this year.  Obviously, this was wrong.

There is a lot of denial about Carey’s mental illness.  Carey’s family is denying that she was bipolar and schizophrenic.  Instead, Carey’s family is saying that she only had postpartum depression.  Carey’s family is denying that she was bipolar and schizophrenic despite that fact that she was being treated for it and that there is a family history of schizophrenia.  What is with all of this denial?  Why did a social worker think that Carey was “100% better” at the beginning of this year?

Miriam Carey’s mental illness weren’t taken seriously because she’s a woman.  The standards for mental sanity are much for stringent for men.  Had the standards of mental sanity applied to men, also applied to women, then Carey would never have had the opportunity to go to DC to try and get to Obama.  She never would have been shot.  Why aren’t the standards for mental sanity the same for men and women?  Obviously, they should be.  That’s another result of feminism.  If doctors and social workers actually tried to apply the same standards for mental sanity to women, feminists would be up in arms yelling about how “women’s natural ways of thinking are being declared a mental illness by the patriarchy”.  Feminists need a lesser standard of mental sanity for women for many reasons from a justification of female bad and feral behavior to making things like the false abuse industry possible.

Since feminism is so pervasive, neither a social worker (who is a part of a profession that is very sympathetic to feminism) nor Carey’s family believed that Carey was mentally ill (beyond postpartum depression).  This isn’t the fault of the DC police who had to take extreme measures.  Until feminism is forced out of the mental health and social work fields, there will be more Miriam Careys that the police will have to deal with in the future.

Aug 242013
 

Manboobz has decided to compare male geeks to the KKK:

Indeed, many of them — as tech dudes in a male-dominated tech world — are in fact in fairly privileged positions. For them to claim they need a “safe space” to protect themselves from the evils of “fake gamer girls” is a bit like Klan members claiming they need a “safe space” to protect themselves from blacks, Jews and Catholics. (Which is more or less what Klan members have argued over the years, albeit in less PC language.)

Manboobz seems to think that a group of dudes who want to engage in geeky activities without interference from feminists is equivalent to a group that lynched massive numbers of black men and engaged in terrorism.  Just as that comparison makes no sense, it makes no sense to call male geeks, “privileged”.  These are men who are at the bottom of the social hierarchy.  It’s a guarantee that almost any woman is higher on the social hierarchy than they are.  Feminists believe that homeless men are more privileged than women too so I’m not surprised they believe the same thing about male geeks.

Unlike the KKK, male geeks do need a safe space from women.  The feminist assault on the male geek subculture proves that.  Take Anita Sarkeesian.  She thinks it’s perfect all right to declare fatwas on male video game designers like how she endorses the murder of Randy Pitchford for reviving a video game series she doesn’t like:

Male geeks have nothing in common with the KKK, but their enemies do.

May 052013
 

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

Feminists say that feminism is about equality.  MRAs and many other anti-feminists know that feminism is really about female supremacism.  Louise Pennington writing in the Huffington Post admits that feminism admits that and believes that “equality” is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the liberation of women:

My original feminism was about equality: women were equal to men and all we needed was the laws to force misogynists to stop being misogynists. The older I get, the more I believe that ‘equality’ is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the true liberation of women. Equality before the law means nothing when violence is endemic;

What is the “true liberation of women”?  It’s nothing more than female supremacism.  Since Pennington is against both equality between men and women and presumably women having a lesser status than men (because women wouldn’t be “liberated” in this case), the only option left is that she supports female supremacism.  This is confirmed by her attack on equality before the law and elsewhere in Pennington’s article:

Feminism requires more than equality. It requires liberation. It requires the liberation of ALL women from male violence.

Governments have been waging a war on crime ever since governments have been around despite knowing that the complete elimination of crime (or violence) is impossible.  The only way to even try to do such a thing is a police state the likes of which wasn’t even seen in the Soviet Union.  Neither socialism nor the police state of the Soviet Union were totalitarian enough and female supremacist enough for her because even socialists still pay lip service to equality and the idea that both men and women have human rights:

Until two years ago, I would have still identified as a socialist-feminist, although my awareness of the structural oppression of women was growing. The unrelenting misogyny and rape apologism on the left made me reconsider my political stance as did the creation of the Feminist/Women’s Rights board on Mumsnet. The more I read on Mumsnet, the more radical my feminism became. I started reading Andrea Dworkin, Natasha Walters, Kate Millett, Susan Faludi, Susan Maushart, Ariel Levy, Gail Dines, Germaine Greer, and Audre Lorde. I learned about cultural femicide and I started reading only fiction books written by women: Isabel Allende, Alice Walker, Maya Angelou, Kate Mosse, Margaret Atwood, Kris Radish, Barbara Kingsolver, and Andrea Levy amongst many others. I started reading about women’s lives and the power of real sisterhood.

My feminism, both the definition and activism, has changed dramatically over the past 18 years. Now, I self-define as an anti-capitalist, pro-radical feminist as I believe that the source of women’s oppression is male violence which is perpetuated by the structures of our capitalist economy. The Patriarchy may predate capitalism but we cannot destroy it without destroying capitalism too. I don’t always feel a ‘real feminist’ or a ‘good enough’ feminist. All I know is that I am a feminist who truly believes that women have the power to liberate all women from male violence; that feminism is fundamentally about the power of sisterhood.

My feminist activism involves privileging women’s voices over men’s voices. I now only read books written by women. I try to get my main news from women’s news sites and women journalists like Soraya Chemaly, Samira Ahmed, Bidisha, Helen Lewis, Bim Adewunmi, and Sarah Smith. I follow only women journalists on Twitter and Facebook. I support organisations which are placing women’s experiences at the centre of public debate: Women Under Siege, The Everyday Sexism Project, and The Women’s Room UK.

Pennington says here that she is privileging women over men.  It’s not just about what Pennington reads or her actvism.  Throughout her article, Pennington doesn’t just attack the a general vague idea of “equality”, she attacks very specific ideas of equality, namely equality before the law.  Being against equality before the law means that Pennington wants to elevate women above men legally which is the most important aspect of female supremacism.  There can be no doubt here that Pennington is a female supremacist and that feminism is about female supremacism.  

Apr 242013
 

If a feminist says X, doesn’t that mean that someone saying not X or anti-X is an anti-feminist?  Your initial impulse might be to say yes, but the answer is not necessarily.  It depends on what X is and what feminists mean by X.  It also depends on whether feminists actually want X or are just saying it.  If a feminist says X, picking the opposite position of X without analyzing what the feminists actually mean and whether feminists are being honest when they say X is letting feminists define your reality.  Increasingly, this is what tradcons are doing.

A good example of this is the word, “equality”.  When a MRA like Paul Elam says the word, “equality”, he is talking about things like equality before the law (fair trials, innocent until proven guilty, etc.).  In other words, Paul Elam is speaking in standard English.  When a feminist says “equality” they are completely redefining the term to be something else, namely men and women being completely the same (with enforcement by a large oppressive government).  This is not standard English, but that isn’t the worst problem.  Even by “feministese”, feminists are lying because what they really want is female supremacism.

What tradcons do in this case is blur the standard English definition of the word, “equality” and the “feministese” definition.  They then use this as a platform to say that there’s no difference between MRAs like Paul Elam and actual feminists.  Then the tradcons take the position of being “anti-equality” so that they’re “anti-feminist”.  What has happened here is that the tradcons have completely failed to actually analyze the situation.  If you look at the context in which a MRA talks about equality vs. a feminist talking about equality, it’s obvious that the MRA and the feminist mean two completely different things.  Plus, the MRA is honest while the feminist is dishonest.  To say otherwise like the tradcons do, only helps the feminists because tradcons are implicitly saying that feminists are honest and speaking standard English.  Both of those are wrong, and a big part of the anti-feminist argument is to show that feminists are redefining language when it suits them and that feminists are dishonest.  Tradcons are sabotaging actual anti-feminist efforts.

“Equality” isn’t the only example of tradcons doing this.  You can see the same thing with Mark Richardson’s (Oz Conservative) “autonomy theory”.  It’s a long philosophical treatise that uses common English terms (like “autonomy”) are completely redefines them.  In many cases, it redefines them into the “feministese” version of those terms.

Trying to confront tradcons about this is useless.  They just hide behind “philosophy” when you confront them.  The problem is tradcon thinking and language has been completely taken over by feminism.  Saying the opposite of what the feminists say when your ideas and language is completely controlled by them, does not make you an anti-feminist.  All it means is that you have let feminists define and control your reality.

Apr 032013
 

One thing I have noticed about many of the articles that have been written about the whole Adria Richards situation is that they either explicitly or implicitly try to communicate that there is some sort of misogynist internet troll army or MRA internet troll army.  (This is a good example, and so is this.)

The reality is that this is a myth.  The truth is the internet trolls that went after Adria Richards have no connection to the MRM (or the tech industry) and can’t seriously be called anti-feminist much less misogynist.  The trolls came from places like 4chan and amorphous groups like Anonymous.  Anyone can claim affiliation with 4chan or Anonymous, so every and any point of view will be represented by those groups (if they are even cohesive enough to be called groups).  4chan and Anonymous will go after anyone that any of its “members” feels like going after.  For example, 4chan recently spread fake rumors that Justin Bieber raped a 13 year old girl so as you can see internet trolls go after anyone, not just women.  Anonymous has gone after anti-feminists so no one can honestly say that Anonymous is opposed to feminism.

It’s important to be aware of this information because feminists will use internet trolls as an example of an army of misogynists abusing women over the internet ignoring that internet trolls do the same thing to everybody.  We need to counter this myth that internet trolls are some sort of adjunct army of the MRM (or misogyny in general) whenever it comes up.

Mar 162013
 

Picard Double FacepalmIt’s been a while since I handed out any Capt. Picard Double Facepalm Awards so it’s with great irony that I give a Capt. Picard Double Facepalm Award to Capt. Picard himself, Patrick Stewart.  Patrick Stewart earned this award through pounding his fist nine times on a podium because that’s supposedly how many seconds there are between instances of a woman getting beaten in the U.S.  Stewart did not talk about men ever being the victims of violence calling on one million men to “do something” (whatever this something is not defined) about this supposed epidemic.

What Stewart was doing was part of an international effort, so we must wonder why he is only focusing on the U.S. as a source of assaults and violence on women as opposed to his home country, the U.K., or anywhere else.  Perhaps what Stewart was doing has more to do with anti-Americanism than anything else.

It’s for these reasons that Capt. Picard gets a double facepalm award from himself.  For good measure, I’m also going to thrown in a Godzilla facepalm for him.

godzilla_facepalm

Mar 062013
 

On Jezebel, noted mangina, Hugo Schwyzer, is promoting pegging, which is a sexual act where a woman wearing a strap on fucks a man up his ass.  Hugo Schwyzer considers this a great way to turn men feminist.  The commenters on that piece mostly agree and apparently engage in pegging quite regularly.  Do hetero people really want to engage in pegging?  Obviously the answer is no except for ideological (i.e. feminist) reasons.  It would not be an enjoyable act for either a hetero man or a hetero woman.  Unless your girlfriend or boyfriend is questioning his/her sexuality or considers himself/herself a feminist, then you are never going to get a request to engage in pegging.

Since most women have no interest in pegging men, then what is the problem?  The problem is similar to the Susan Walsh line of, “I’m not a feminist because I’m against sluts/have no interest in being a slut.”  The average woman is going to look at feminists talking about pegging and think their nuts.  This sounds like a good thing except that it give the average woman cover for her own misandry because clearly she “can’t be a feminist” because she isn’t interested in unusual sex acts like pegging.  The average “not a feminist” woman will still be a misandrist and do things like use the feminist anti-family court system to divorce her husband all the while considering herself different from the feminists in the same way that Susan Walsh thinks that she is “not a feminist”.

What is happening with feminists and pegging is that what gets called “feminist” becomes a smaller and smaller subset of true misandry as feminism requires more and more obscure ideas and practices for someone to consider themselves a feminist.  This creates a problem where it becomes easier for women and manginas can be both “anti-feminist” (although they would be AFINOs, anti-feminist in name only) and misandrist at the same time.

Feb 092013
 

By now I’m sure all of you have heard about Chris Dorner, the former LA cop who went on a killing spree.  He produced a manifesto against the LAPD, but there is a small part of it that we should know about:

Those lesbian officers in supervising positions who go to work, day in day out, with the sole intent of attempting to prove your misandrist authority (not feminism) to degrade male officers. You are a high value target.

Since Chris Dorner is trying to defend feminism here, he is a feminist despite his complaints against misandrist lesbians.  Misandry is feminism so trying to separate the two is a useless exercise in cognitive dissonance.  It’s likely that Chris Dorner’s cognitive dissonance about feminism contributed to driving him insane and going on this killing spree.  Chris Dorner would have been better off if he became an anti-feminist.

Dec 222012
 

It’s December 22nd, the day after the day the world was supposed to end, and we’re still here like I said a year ago.  I anticipate we will see headlines like, “World Didn’t End Yesterday: Women Hardest Hit”, just like we would have seen if the world had ended yesterday.

If you need yesterday to mean something, then make this the beginning of the mens rights era, and rededicate yourself to mens rights ACTIVISM.

Sep 132012
 

My last post has certainly stirred the pot.  Bill Price over at The Spearhead provided a thoughtful response.  Ankle-biter, Matt Forney, decided to call me a “perma-virgin” which anyone who reads this blog knows is absurd. Elsewhere I have been called a false flag operation:

Just like those knotheads RooshV and Krauser talk about sex because they never have really have any; PMAFT blabs on about false flags because he’s probably a false-flagger himself.

The only time I talk about false flags is when someone accuses me of being one or makes the stupid comment, the the MRM is filled with them.  At least if you combine false flag and perma-virgin, maybe something starts to make sense.  None of this is insane as what Nestorius said about Paul Elam:

It appears the Paul Elam is a Mason, and that he is getting paid for his website (as one commenter at Roosh’s blog said).
In fact, it is expected that the Masons will be leading an anti-feminist movement. Feminism is the thesis and men rights movement is the antithesis out of which they will create the synthesis.
One thing that is very suspicious about AVfM is that it is full of sophistry and nonsense. The titles attracts you and make you believe there is content while there is none.

On the other hand Jack Donovan is a Satanist (therefore a Mason) and a homosexual. He doesn’t hide the fact that he is a Satanist: jack-donovan.com/documents/081909_jackmalebranche_cos_resignation.html. Therefore, Donovan is clearly a dis-info agent. I never could understand how a homosexual is teaching men about manhood?!

One should always be careful that there will always be infiltration in every field, and the “manosphere” is a wide field which the Masons could use to indoctrinate clueless people out there.

I’m a false flag and a perma-virgin.  Paul Elam is a Mason, and a member of the Illuminati, and on the government’s payroll.  What brings up all of these ludicrous accusations?  (They’re connected more deeply than just being absurd.  There have been previous conspiracy theory based accusations that the MRM was recruiting sexless/virgin men, and that the “elite” is recruiting virgin men.)  This isn’t due to a MRM vs. Game fight.  There is something else going on.  What is telling is how when Roosh originally said that the MRM is dead, men like John Rambo and Peter Nolan, neither of whom are gamers, jumped on the bandwagon.  In fact this is part of a pattern we have seen elsewhere.

John Rambo spams the MRM in an attempt to make the MRM about his foreign women BS.  He failed and now attacks the MRM.

Peter Nolan tried to turn the MRM into an arm of the Freeman on the land conspiracy theory.  He failed and now attacks the MRM.

The Manhood 101 idiots tried to turn the MRM into peddlers of their BS.  They failed and now attack the MRM.  (They spend most of their time attacking Paul Elam since he did the work in fighting them off.)

Susan Walsh tried to turn the MRM (and the larger manosphere) into an arm of her Game 2.0/Man Up 2.0 scheme involving fake empowerment of men so that men would become chumps who would marry women after they were done riding the cock carousel.  She failed and now attacks the MRM (and the larger manosphere in her case).  In addition, she also called the idea that I am working for the elite (i.e. I’m a false flag) compelling.

White Nationalists tried to turn the MRM into a movement of racists and anti-semites.  They failed and now attack the MRM and accuse the MRM of being run by the Jews.

Traditionalist conservatives tried to turn the MRM into an arm of traditionalism (along with all of the misandry associated with traditionalism).  They failed and now attack the MRM.

You can see a pattern here.  Some individual or group decides to come in and co-opt the MRM so that MRAs will become the personal army for their pet cause.  They start by pretending to agree with the MRM about feminism.  Eventually (or in many cases quickly) the MRM recognizes what they are and wants nothing to do with them.  Then these individuals and groups turn on the MRM when they realize that their attempt at co-opting the MRM has failed.  Paul Elam is often a target at this point since he runs the most visible MRM internet organization.

The same thing happened with Roosh, Matt Forney, etc.  What they are is not gamers.  Matt Forney says that they are “paleomasculinits” (so even he admits that they aren’t just gamers), but what they really are is just guys selling self-improvement and lifestyle BS.  It doesn’t just involve game.  It includes diet BS, exercise BS, etc.  They came in to the MRM thinking that they could sell their self-improvement and lifestyle BS, but that didn’t work out.  They turned on the MRM and now attack the MRM.  They’re especially pissed because the existence of MRAs provides a competing option to the books they are selling.  MRAs are unintentionally a threat to their income so we get a lot of crap from them about how the MRM is dead.

What is going on in all of these cases is not an MRM vs. game fight (although that does happen from time to time).  It’s a fight between the MRM and every individual and group that wants to co-opt the MRM for its pet cause.  The good news is that they have all failed.  This is the real reason why there is so much venom against the MRM.  In many ways, this shows that the MRM has been successful to a degree.  We wouldn’t see so many attempts to co-opt the MRM if there wasn’t something worth taking over.  This also means that we need to be vigilant against future attempts to co-opt the MRM since as the MRM grows, the number of individuals and groups who want to co-opt the MRM will only increase.

Sep 092012
 

Apparently, when Paul Elam isn’t taking orders from the Jews that run the MRM, he is on the government payroll and works for the Illuminati:

“who do not understand the history and politics of the situation.”

And I guess we have to be on the government ABC agencies payrolls to understand the situation, right Paul?

(I’ve heard evidence that Paul Elam is on the payroll of the government).

To all the men here? You really think the MRM wasn’t infiltrated and subverted, just like the Illuminati has done to every other movement? It’s called CONTROLLED OPPOSITION.

Paul Elam is the Alex Jones of the MRM. They are both disinfo agents.

The author of this comment has “heard” evidence that Paul Elam is on the payroll of the government.  By “heard” I’m sure he means the voices in his head told him.  The part in quotes was written by Zed so I guess this guy thinks Zed is on the government payroll too.

This sort of comment shouldn’t be a surprise to readers of this blog.  Lots of conspiracy theorists believe the MRM is run by the Jews/Freemasons/Bankers/Reptile Aliens/Rockefellers/the government/boogeyman of the week.

The author of that comment is John Rambo.  He is the man whose entire contribution to the MRM is pissing MRAs off by spamming the same comment about boycotting American women over and over again.  The difference between John Rambo and Paul Elam is that Paul Elam is about action, as in getting things done.  John Rambo is about spamming other people’s blogs and making conspiracy theory accusations against men like Paul Elam who are taking action to improve the lives of men and boys.  It’s no surprise that John Rambo supports another conspiracy theorist who doesn’t do anything except spam (and pretend to declare war on the governments of Ireland and Australia), Peter Nolan.

What this is really all about is substantive action to advance mens rights which Paul Elam and others do vs. pretending to do something to advance mens rights like Roosh, John Rambo, and Peter Nolan do.  This is why I reluctantly agree with Paul Elam saying goodbye to the manosphere.  There’s way too much mental masturbation going on from conspiratorial accusations like the one above to whining about how the MRM is really “feminist”, to whining how the MRM doesn’t have a definition of masculinity.  The MRM needs to focused on substantive action that rolls back feminist policies that hurt men and boys.  That’s what Paul Elam and the rest of the crew of AVfM (in addition to many other MRAs) is all about.  The reason why Paul Elam and the MRM is a focal point for attacks like the absurd attack against Paul Elam above is because anyone who just wants to pretend to so something & engage in mental masturbation is (by definition) opposed to substantive action and those that engage in substantive action.

Mar 042012
 

Many of you may not understand why there is such a loathing for the Christian Church in the manosphere.  It’s a combination of factors involving things from pretending to be anti-feminist when they’re actually not to the way that the Christian Church alienates men in general.  The latter goes beyond men who find the manosphere.  I found an article at Boundless, a major Christian website, that shows just how hard the Church is working to alienate men:

They are screened through children’s ministry and youth ministry. These programs remove the ones who are poorly suited to church culture. The final mix of adult churchgoers is heavily female and very short on high-testosterone men.

So if a man manages to stay in the church, he will be accused of being “low testosterone”.

Many of the dropouts are the wiggly, high-testosterone boys who grow up to become leaders, athletes and alpha males. The kind of men many women would love to be dating right now – if only there were more of them following Jesus.

Here we’re getting to the real reason why we see articles lamenting the lack of men in the church.  It’s because there isn’t enough men in church that women find attractive.  (This is confirmed in the author’s second article where he says that more Christian young men are needed for the women in church.)  While there can be some truth to this, its not due to guys in church being “low testosterone”.  It is because the men in church are trying to conform to a feminized environment, plus other problems like the single women in church have been seriously slutting it up.  Don’t hold your breath expecting Boundless to talk about that.

The single men who survive the screening process generally fit one of the following profiles:

1. The Bible geeks. Quiet, studious men who love to study theological tomes. Or verbal guys who love to teach.

2. The musical. They play in the band. Or they stand on the front row raising their hands during the music.

3. The asexual. Guys who are OK with kissing dating (and kissing) goodbye.

4. The predators. Guys who know there are plenty of desperate young women in church and enjoy trying to get them in bed.

5. The social misfits. Strange men who come to church because it’s the only place women will smile at them.

If you’re into these kinds of guys, then the church dating scene isn’t so bad. If not, then you’ll have to fight over the most rare (and for some, the most desirable) category of single churchgoing men: the late converts. These are men who came to Christ in their teens or 20s, bypassing much of the screening process. Many were saved out of terrible sin. They have been forgiven much and love God much. (These guys get snapped up quickly by the best-looking women.)

So if you’re a man who manages to stay in church, you will be thought of as either a nerd, gay (it doesn’t explicitly say gay above but there are veiled references to homosexuality), asexual, a “predator” who is tricking pure women into debauchery, or creepy.  (Before someone brings up the Sunday Morning Nightclub to explain the predator category, there are so few guys knowingly doing that so it wouldn’t come up on Boundless.)  It’s shaming language on overload.

Chances are a man in church will be accused of being all of the above even though it makes no sense to accuse to a man of being a gay, virgin, asexual, creepy nerd who tricks women into sexual sin.  Why is this?  Because the church is feminized and misandrist, it throws everything that women consider to be “bad” at men even though they are physically impossible to all happen at once such as being a gay, virgin, asexual, creepy nerd who seduces women against their will.  It also has to do with hiding the real nature of the women in the congregation.  If you were to compare the sexual sins of the women in church vs. the men, the men on average would be much more “sexually pure” than the women.  If you have spent enough time in the manosphere and/or are familiar with the 80/20 rule, this should not surprise you.  What the church is trying to do is manufacture fake sins (being “creepy”, asexuality, a “nerd”) and transfer the sins the women have committed (like being a slut) on to the men.

If Jesus returned, the Christian Church would denounce him as a loser, gay, asexual, creepy, virgin nerd who was going to church just to prey on women.

What happens is that a man in church is likely to get accused of things that aren’t really sins and actual sins he’s rarely or never committed, but the women do on a weekly basis.  It’s better for a man who wants to stay in church to leave the church in his teens and 20s and bang a lot of women.  If you look at the last paragraph that I quoted above, it’s almost like Boundless is encouraging that strategy.  This means that any pretense of actual Christianity that the Christian Church has is now gone forever.

For a man, why would he stay in the church?  If he stays, he will be accused of sins he never committed and things that women want to be sins but actually aren’t.  He will get more respect from the church by staying away from it as we see here.  Of course, there’s no reason for him to come back because no man wants to deal with this rank hypocrisy and misandry.  Eventually, the only men in church will be married men dragged there by their wives.  All other men will be so thoroughly disgusted with the church that they will never come back.  Even for a man that believes in Jesus won’t come back because the Christian Church is a feminized place that worships women and no longer worships Jesus/God.

Sooner or later this will cause the Christian Church to implode and die.

Feb 012012
 

I found this comment:

rumor has it Elam is the actual man behind the anti-game nonsense

Rumor has it?  Yes, Paul Elam disagrees with game.  Deal with it.  He has better things to do than secretly organize a campaign against game.  It’s things like this that make me embarrassed to be associated with the game community.

Dec 262011
 

At least according to this (H/T: The MGTOW Forums):

By Curtis Powers, curtis.powers@iowastatedaily.com

When I look at the various social problems in America, there seems to be one common link: a lack of good men.

Men who will take responsibility for their actions and not fear commitment. Men who will get married, raise their children well, work hard at their job and for their community, and be a voice for the poor and oppressed.

Maybe that’s a sweeping generalization or an oversimplification of things, but hang with me on this. Let’s look at some major issues, for example the financial crisis and abortion. Then let’s examine more root-level issues like video games.

Let’s start with the financial crisis. From an article in The Atlantic, it appears porn may have helped start our financial collapse in 2008. Here are some noteworthy lines from the story:

“A senior attorney — a man — at the SEC’s Washington headquarters spent up to eight hours a day looking at and downloading pornography.”

“An accountant was blocked more than 16,000 times in a month from visiting websites classified as ‘sex’ or ‘pornography.’ Yet, he still managed to amass a collection of ‘very graphic’ material on his hard drive by using Google images.”

“The number of cases jumped from two in 2007 to 16 in 2008. The cracks in the financial system emerged in mid-2007 and spread into full-blown panic by the fall of 2008.”

That’s a pretty alarming report and speaks volumes. After all, what are you doing looking at porn, especially at work? Especially in that quantity. Also, where’s the accountability from other people within the agency? It’s surprising in this day and age that it would go unnoticed for so long.

How about abortion? Another article on The Catholic Education Resource Center’s website, stated, “Nearly 40 percent of post-abortive women in one study reported that partners pressured them into having the abortions.”

“Indeed, in her study of the data, Emory University professor Elizabeth Fox-Genovese reports that ‘the most enthusiastic fans of abortion have been men — at least until they have children of their own.'”

It is very sad to hear that some men would force women into having abortions. A woman shouldn’t have to face that kind of pressure when dealing with an unplanned pregnancy.

She should be able to count on the unquestioned support of her partner. However, in this day and age, most men don’t want to grow up and in this case, take responsibility for helping raise their own children.

This trend is called by some as “emerging adulthood.” More accurately for men, it could probably be called the Cartman Syndrome, which can be summarized with the following quote: “I’ll do what I want, whatever I want, for as long I want, and never grow up unless I have to.”

Therefore, as the City Journal points out, “Single Young Males, or SYMs, by contrast, often seem to hang out in a playground of drinking, hooking up, playing ‘Halo 3,’ and, in many cases, underachieving. With them, adulthood looks as though it’s receding.”

This is illustrated most poignantly with video games. Check out this stat from the same article which is appropriately entitled, “Child-Man in the Promised Land.”

“Those boys have grown up to become child-man gamers, turning a niche industry into a $12 billion powerhouse. Men between the ages of 18 and 34 are now the biggest gamers; according to Nielsen Media, almost half — 48.2 percent — of American males in that age bracket had used a console during the last quarter of 2006, and did so, on average, two hours and 43 minutes per day. (That’s 13 minutes longer than 12 to 17-year-olds, who evidently have more responsibilities than today’s twentysomethings.)”

That is simply shocking, appalling even. Expand that out over a week and it’s roughly 19 hours. That’s a part-time job!

Women, on the other hand, seem to be doing just the opposite. Right before that line describing young, single men, it states, “But while we grapple with the name, it’s time to state what is now obvious to legions of frustrated young women: the limbo doesn’t bring out the best in young men.”

“With women, you could argue that adulthood is in fact emergent. Single women in their twenties and early thirties are joining an international New Girl Order, hyperachieving in both school and an increasingly female-friendly workplace, while packing leisure hours with shopping, traveling, and dining with friends.”

No wonder women make up 60 percent of college graduates today.

Anyway, it’s been hard for me to pinpoint an underlying problem. Though like the previous article I wrote about “Amusing ourselves to death,” it seems to be more a problem of men loving what will ruin us.

However, there seems to be one thing that can help us — men — think about how we’re doing. Ask yourself this question: When I die, what will my obituary say? More importantly, what will your family say about you?

Will it say, “Here lies [your name]. He wasted his life on sports, movies, video games and porn. He died alone in a nursing home.”

Or will it say, “Here lies [your name]. He worked hard at his job, for his community, and stood up for the poor and the oppressed. He leaves behind his wife, lots of children,and lots of grandchildren who dearly loved him and will do things even greater than he.”

I hope that one day I will be able to look back upon my life when I am old and know that I have left a legacy for future generations. I hope that you men can, too.

There are so many things wrong with this that I don’t know where to begin.  It just speaks for itself.

Dec 212011
 

Today is December 21st 2011.  One year from today is when lots of people are saying the world will end or mostly end because of some nonsense about the Mayan calendar.  It’s all nonsense.  One year from today, nothing will happen except maybe some morons going nuts.

The “Mayan calendar” only ends on 12/21/12 in the same way a 2011 calendar ends on 12/31/11.   The world isn’t going to end on 12/31/11, and it’s not going to end on 12/21/12 either.  The “Mayan calendar” that ends in 2012 is known as the long count calendar.  The Mayans actually had several long count calendars, some of which have already “ended”.  If you think Mayan calendars mean anything when it comes to the end of the world, then since some of the long count calendars have ended already means the world has already ended several times over.  Everything is a figment of your imagination.

Penn & Teller when they had their Bullshit! show did an episode on 2012.  They talk to various scientists plus experts in Mayan culture and history including an actual Mayan princess.  All of them say that the world isn’t going to end on 2012, especially the Mayan princess.  (The video of that episode is below, but parts of it are NSFW):

Neil deGrasse Tyson, author and director of the Hayden Planetarium, has also been active explaining 2012:

NASA put out this video explaining some of the facts about 2012:

A year from today I am going to write another post title, “We’re Still Here” because we will all be still here.  End of story.

Translate »