Sep 272015

Libertarianism has been unable to deal with the fact that the primary supporters of big government are women.  The only way to get small government is to deal with this fact yet like with Republicans, most Libertarians refuse to deal with it.  They will come up with excuses like “the libertarian movement needs to grow first”, which is an admission that Libertarians will not reduce government if a woman complains.  Or they will say, “women were tricked into supporting big government because men didn’t respect women”, which is avoiding the issue by blaming men.

It’s clear that for many Libertarian women, Libertarianism isn’t about small or minimal government, but removing competing government programs that draw money away from government programs that give money to women.  (This is a reason why we need Geolibertarianism or Geoanarchism because even Libertarians can’t be trusted to be Libertarian when it counts.)  One way in which this happens is attacks on Libertarian men (or men “accused” of being libertarian despite not actually being libertarian) such as this article by Elizabeth Nolan Brown at where she says that libertarianism is being invaded by “misogynists” from #GamerGate, the MRM/MHRM, the MGTOW community.

Brown’s article is filled with minor lies such that GamerGaters commonly have Gadsden flags in their twitter profiles.  In reality, GamerGaters are more likely to use anime characters or Vivian James, the #GamerGate mascot, in their profiles.  Also, most GamerGaters are liberals/leftists or they started out that way but became (more) libertarian later when they realized that talk about alleged sexism in video games was Jack Thompson with breasts .  The biggest lie in Brown’s article is that #GamerGate/MRAs/MGTOW secretly want a big government program to dictate gender norms.  The is the exact opposite of the truth.  Feminists have already setup a multitude of big government programs to benefit women at the expense of men.  What the so called “misogynists” invading Libertarianism want is those government programs eliminated.  They don’t want government programs.

What Brown has done with her article is a case of DARVO (deny, attack, reverse victim and offender), a common tactic used by feminists.  She starts out with the assumption that big government programs that benefit women at the expense of men don’t exist (outside of a few minor cases, maybe).  Then she accuses the so called “misogynists” of wanting big government programs against women.  Brown reversed the victim and offender exactly since it’s feminists that created a multitude of government programs to hurt men, and her so called “misogynists” that want them removed.

As we know most GamerGaters aren’t Libertarians, so why is #GamerGate being lumped in with Brown’s so called “misogynists”.  It’s impossible to legitimately be a Libertarian and not in principle support #GamerGate.  The obvious endgame for the feminist war on video games is for the government to control what video games can be created since feminist infiltration of the video game industry is a failure and so is their attempt to replace video games with choose your own adventure stories.  No legitimate Libertarian can support this, but many Libertarian women can’t admit this since doing so would expose them as fake libertarians who just want to remove government programs that block the expansion of government programs for women.  In other words, #GamerGate by doing nothing but existing threatens to expose many Libertarian women for the frauds they are.

New Page: How Geolibertarianism Can Stop Redistribution From Men To Women

 Anti-Family Courts, female economic bubbles, marriage strike, MGTOW, socialism  Comments Off on New Page: How Geolibertarianism Can Stop Redistribution From Men To Women
Sep 072015

I have added a new page about how Geolibertarianism, a form of libertarianism, can help stop feminism, in particular government redistribution from men to women.  I’m disabling comments on this post because all of the content is on the new page.  Follow the link or click on the tab at the top of the blog to read the page and comment on it.

Aug 182015

We have already seen women become filthier and filthier. Feminists have been saying that potty training oppresses women.  There are an increasing number of examples of women pissing and taking dumps anywhere but a toilet.  (And that includes everything from women taking dumps in showers to women pissing outside like a pet.)

That is bad enough, but it turns out that women are taking less and less showers.  In a British survey, nearly 80% of women admitted that they aren’t taking daily showers. Many women are even showering less than once every three days. (Additionally, two thirds of women in the survey don’t remove their makeup before they go to bed, and one eighth of women in the survey admitted to not brushing their teeth before they go to bed.)  At this rate, women are going to stop showering and taking baths.  In a hot month like August women are going to stink, and it will be a very nasty stink.  And that’s before adding on the stink from that will come from refusing to properly use a toilet.

This will be a just another reason for men to go their own way.  Very few men will choose to deal with women who continuously stink and are covered in a layer of filth.  It’s disturbing that women think that they can do this without men objecting to it.

Aug 152015

There’s this feminist science fiction movie called Advantageous.  Among other things in the movie, women are increasingly becoming homeless because women can’t get jobs.  The stated reason for this in the movie is that jobs have been destroyed due to technology and since unemployed men are more likely to start revolutions.  Thus it makes more sense to employ men.

This is a good example of how feminist science fiction is a failure.  While preventing revolutions might be the stated reason for not giving women jobs in the future, it’s not the real reason.  The real reason is a combination of women’s work being automated, men being more productive, and men not creating problems in the workplace such as frivolous lawsuits like women do.

On top of this the movie doesn’t address why women (or more women) just don’t become stay at home mothers.  That’s because feminists can’t understand the marriage strike or MGTOW.  What has happened in this movie (even though it can’t explain it) is that the marriage strike has reached critical mass, MGTOW has greatly expanded, and employers have been forced to stand up to women.  The widespread homelessness of women in this movie is not due to misogyny.  It’s because women’s behavior towards men has been so vile that both men and employers want nothing to do with them.  Of course, a feminist science fiction movie can’t understand this.

Jun 212015

Since today is father’s day, I added a new page about how fatherhood and not marriage is essential for civilization.  I’m disabling comments on this post because all of the content is on the new page.  Follow the link or click on the tab at the top of the blog to read the page and comment on it.

Jun 122015

The Washington Post had an article on how cuckolding is becoming mainstream.  I don’t know if that’s true, but I’m sure that when that article came out a million men (at least) decided to never get married and go their own way (even though they have never heard of MGTOW).

If the article has any truth to it, most young men will not want anything to do with marriage.  All the shaming language from tradcons, which are functionally equivalent to the UN sending strongly worded letters, can not compete with the desire of most men not to be cuckolded.  The harshest shaming language from tradcons pales in comparison to the current disaster marriage is right now.  If cuckolding becomes more commonplace then the difference only becomes greater.

Tradcons are fighting a battle they can’t win.  If a man’s options are being cuckolded or having to occasionally listen to impotent shaming language from tradcons, nearly all men will choose not to be cuckolded.

Jun 032015

Despite being a newly created hashtag, #GiveMoneyToWomen is not new.  Men have been giving money to women since the beginning of civilization.  You can see that in how women are responsible for 80% of all spending.  This is a gap of $10 trillion between women’s spending and women’s earnings.  David Frum documented this in a tweet:

Why is the #GiveMoneyToWomen hashtag necessary?  Why has it started now?  Giving money to women isn’t new, but what is new is that there are men refusing to give money to women.  MGTOW is going strong, but lots of men are GTOW without ever hearing of the term, MGTOW.  With men refusing to get married and refusing to work more than they have to, women aren’t going to get money from men like they used to.  There are two ways of getting money from men, marriage and via wealth redistribution from the state.  When a man refuses to get married and keeps his work output to a minimum, he prevents women from getting his money from both methods.  Enough men have done this, so we now have women doing the internet equivalent of standing on a street corner yelling, “I HAVE A VAGINA.  GIVE ME MONEY”.

There’s nothing left except to be that much more direct about it.  Sometime in the near future I’m sure we will see something like a #IHaveAVaginaGiveMeMoney hashtag.

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.

May 252015

Today is Memorial Day in the US which means its a day to remember those who have died in war.  What group has died in war more than any other group?  Men, in particular young men, and many young men died as nothing more than cannon fodder.

The modern equivalent of cannon fodder does not involve drafting men to die in wars.  The modern equivalent of cannon fodder is attempting to get young men to follow gynocentric scripts for the benefit of women which involves getting married and/or having men’s income transferred to women via taxes and government spending.  The tradcons, the feminists, and other groups are all guilty of trying use young men as cannon fodder.  It’s not an exaggeration to say that all of these groups want to use young men as cannon fodder.  They want young men to do things that in the best case scenario not in their best interests and in the worst case scenario will involve losing your assets and your children, and being thrown in prison.

What groups are trying to draft young men as cannon fodder?  Hollenhund describes each group and their respective script:

In online parlance, “MGTOW” basically refers to any man who’s off-script. There are many scripts out there.

The tradcon / white nationalist script: bust your ass and remain celibate, then marry some supposedly good and worthy Christian “virgin”, move to some rural area, have lots of kids and homeschool them, grow your own food and brag about your lifestyle on the Internet.

The feminist script: bust your ass and have egalitarian relationships with feminist women based on mutual respect, marry an ageing spinster or single mother, have 1 or 2 children and indoctrinate them with feminism, move to the suburbs, pay off your wife’s debts, brag about it all on the Internet and then tearfully claim it’s all your fault when she frivorces you and ruins your life.

The MHRA script: bust your ass and do lots of activism on behalf of MRA organizations. Donate money, show up on protests and conferences. Paint a target on your back for tradcons and feminists to shoot at. Whenever attacked, claim that you support “gender equality” and love women.

The PUA script: bust your ass, work out like crazy, spend your free time learning all sorts of “valuable” skills, go on a diet, approach 10 women everyday, travel the Third World, brag about it all online, then move to the Philippines or Latvia when you’re tired of it all, then self-publish your memoirs in online format and sell it on Amazon.

The people pushing these scripts are all targeting the same demographic, young single betas, so they are in fierce competition. What is making their job even harder is that a growing segment of these betas are refusing to follow any script. This is making more and more people angry and frustrated, as evidenced by increasingly shrill public discourse about MGTOWs and the “Sexodus”. Young men are supposed to be dumb disposable shits, after all, and follow a script. But a growing number of them simply won’t do it.

Each of these groups is trying to draft young men as cannon fodder, and they’re all using the same tactic in trying to draft them, shaming language.  However, it is not working.  Most of these young men have never heard of MGTOW, yet they have decided to refuse to become cannon fodder for these groups, effectively becoming MGTOW.

Why are young men refusing to become cannon fodder in increasing numbers?  First, the attacks on them are become more and more shrill which just steels their resolve to become cannon fodder.  Each of the groups that want to use men as cannon fodder are not offering young men any incentives to follow them.  There’s a saying that was said in the Soviet Union, “They pretend to pay us.  We pretend to work.”  Even the Soviets understood somewhat that incentives matter which is more than can be said for any of the groups that Hollenhund listed.  Sending young men the equivalent of increasingly insane strong worded letters is not a strategy that will work to convince young men.

Second, young men see just how bad women are becoming.  This is a strong disincentive to join any group that wants to use them as cannon fodder.  Young men see the behavior of women and are getting more and more fed up with them for good reason.  In 6 years of blogging, the most popular page on this blog by far is a page where I documented several comments from The Spearhead where young men were talking about how they are fed up with women.  The second most popular page on this blog was a follow up to that page.  This is not a coincidence.  Those pages represent how growing numbers of young men feel about women due to their experiences with women.

Why should a young man become cannon fodder for the indirect or direct benefit of women they are fed up with?  Even if a young man is willing to sacrifice himself as cannon fodder, he isn’t going to sacrifice himself for a group he is fed up with and likely hates him.  More and more young men are figuring this out and refuse to become cannon fodder.

May 142015

This article for The Guardian thinks that Elon Musk’s push for Mars is going to somehow lead to #GamerGate taking over Mars in 50 years:

The first woman to be raped in space has probably already been born. And if that last sentence makes you howl with protest or insist that such a thing just wouldn’t happen, then I’d stop a second and ask yourself why.

I’m a fan of SpaceX, after some initial scepticism. I think it’s usually better to dosomething, however imperfect, than nothing, and I admire people like Elon Muskwho take on the hard challenges, and make progress in spite of naysayers. I think Lee is absolutely right though when she says:

“When we look around and see a homogenous group of individuals discussing these issues – issues that command insane budgets, we should pause. Why aren’t other voices and perspectives at the table? How much is this conversation being controlled (framed, initiated, directed, routed) by capitalist and political interests of the (few) people at the table?”

It’s early days, but if we really want to create a progressive new world then issues like these should be at the hearts of our efforts from the very start. I hope Musk and his peers open up that discussion sooner rather than later, and I hope that people like Lee can take part in it. The last thing we need is to wake up in 50 years and find that a bunch of #gamergate nobheads are running Mars.

This is absurd, but putting that aside, so what? What if all those evil white men (and Asian men since they’re practically considered white men now) leave for Mars? Wouldn’t that be a good thing for people like this? Wouldn’t that mean that Earth would become a paradise without all those evil white (and Asian) men? Obviously not, and whoever wrote this article knows it.

Robert A. Heinlein, the science fiction author, said, “Reach low orbit and you’re halfway to anywhere in the solar system.” That is because the energy required to get from the ground to low Earth orbit is the same as the energy required to get from low Earth orbit to anywhere in the solar system. If you can get to low Earth orbit, anywhere in the solar system is within reach. This is what worries people like the author of article. If it’s possible for a sufficient number of men to get to low Earth orbit, they can escape to anywhere in the solar system. Outside of the moon anywhere in the solar system is too far away to be dominated by a nation on Earth. What they’re really worried about is a migration of men to Mars (or anywhere else in space) who will then give the middle finger to all the women and manginas still on Earth. All the nonsense about women being raped in space and rovers being enslaved is just a really bad cover for this.

It’s similar to how MGTOW drives women and manginas insane because each man who goes his own way can’t be controlled. Men migrating to Mars is the same thing on a larger scale.

May 042015

Since Avengers: Age Of Ultron came out this weekend, this week on the blog with be Ultron week.  All posts this week will be discussing various aspects of Ultron.  (There are a aome spoilers for Avengers: Age Of Ultron.  You have been warned.)

There’s a line in the movie (that also is in the trailers) that Ultron says, “You want to protect the world, but you don’t want it to change.” What Tony Stark and Bruce Banner wanted by creating Ultron was something that would allow everyone on Earth to ignore what was happening beyond Earth.  Ultron would protect the world from alien threats so that everyone could live their lives as if the world had not changed.  It turns out that trying to create such a protector is impossible.  One of Ultron’s messages was that if humanity doesn’t evolve it will die.  The movie is about his quest to force evolution in a manner similar to the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs.  Vision, the good artificial intelligence, in the movie agrees with Ultron’s assessment that humanity will die if it doesn’t evolve.  Vision just disagrees with Ultron’s methods of killing anyone to do it.

Women and manginas want an “Ultron” that will enforce the status quo.  Their “Ultron” will force things to be like they were in 1987 or 1962 or some other date in the past forever.  It will force men who are engaging in a marriage strike to marry, destroy MGTOW, and keep men in the dark about the real nature of women like previous generations of men were in the dark.

The problem is that in both cases creating an “Ultron” that will keep the world in a static state is impossible.  What many men have discovered is that they need to evolve to survive.  That evolution involves GTOW, refusing to marry, etc.  Any attempt to create an “Ultron” that will end the marriage strike and MGTOW will fall victim to the same problem that Tony Stark and Bruce Banner had.  It will just force more men to evolve faster.  Everything from attempts to shame men who refuse to marry to college rape hysteria is an attempt at creating an “Ultron” who will enforce the misandrist status quo.  However, it has not worked.  More men just discovered the truth of how marriage is a bad deal for men, the false rape industry, and the real nature of women.  All it has done is cause more men to evolve.  That’s the problem for women and manginas.  They want to keep the status quo, but they can’t stop evolution just like Tony Stark and Bruce Banner could not.

Apr 222015

Tyler Cowen, a professor at George Mason University, recently interviewed Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal and investor in Facebook.  Here is an excerpt from that interview where Thiel talks about Aspergers being important for innovation and the problems of conformity:

TYLER COWEN: Let me give you my take on how I’ve tried to fit different parts of your thought together. And again, for all you listeners, this doesn’t have to be true. It’s just my mental model of Peter Thiel. That you’re one of a lot of thinkers who takes the idea of original sin — it doesn’t have to be a theological commitment — seriously. Tocqueville wrote in the 19th century that America eventually would evolve to be a land of complacent people who were going to stop believing in original sin and stick to a kind of conformist mediocrity.

So you have taken this to heart. The world out there is deeply weird. Even though there appears to be free entry into ideas production, because of René Girard–like ideas, the people who deviate, someone comes down on them pretty hard. So there’s excess conformity, the original sin in people’s motives gets magnified at the social level. So basically, there are distortions out there. And everything we can see, it’s a gnostic theology, and a relatively small number of people who can see through those distortions can be great entrepreneurs, or can tell the truth about politics.

And it’s all ultimately some kind of bundled, implicitly theological, but not necessarily involving belief in God, but theological perspective about the nature of people. And it ends up spreading to all the different parts of society and that, to me, has been what ties your thought together. But that’s a hypothesis; let’s hear your reaction to that.

PETER THIEL: Let’s see. I think the way original sin normally works is that it resides in individuals, in one way or another. And so theologically, I would place it much more in society. And so I think society is both something that’s very real and very powerful, but on the whole quite problematic. We always run the risk of losing sight of that.

I don’t know if it’s strictly the awareness of it that solves it. Certainly, there probably are some people who are just vaguely oblivious to it, so in Silicon Valley, I point out that many of the more successful entrepreneurs seem to be suffering from a mild form of Asperger’s where it’s like you’re missing the imitation, socialization gene.

TYLER COWEN: And that’s a plus, right?

PETER THIEL: It happens to be a plus for innovation, and creating great companies, but I think we always should turn this around as an incredible critique of our society. We need to ask, what is it about our society where those of us who do not suffer from Asperger’s are at some massive disadvantage because we will be talked out of our interesting, original, creative ideas before they are even fully formed?

We’ll notice that’s a little bit too weird, that’s a little bit too strange. Maybe I’ll just go ahead and open the restaurant that I’ve been talking about, that everyone else can understand and agree with, or do something extremely safe and conventional, and therefore hypercompetitive, and probably not that great as an idea.

I’d say a lot of these people may not understand this larger theory about society, but they are somewhat oblivious to it, and it pushes progress. Now, certainly my own experience would have been a little bit more where — I grew up in Northern California. It was this hyper-tracked process, where my eighth grade junior high school yearbook, one of my friends wrote in, “I know you’re going to get into Stanford in four years.”

Four years later I got into Stanford, then I got into Stanford Law School. You won all the conventionally tracked competitions; you ended up at a big law firm in Manhattan. From the outside, it was a place where everybody wanted to get in. On the inside, it was a place where everybody wanted to get out.

You ask one of the people down the hall from me, said that it was great to see me leave. I left after seven months and three days, it was great to see me leave. It was like “I had no idea it was possible to escape from Alcatraz.”

TYLER COWEN: What did you learn there?

PETER THIEL: I learned that I was incredibly prone to this problem of social convention. If you want to give it a religious terminology, the psychological terminology would be that I had a rolling quarter life crisis in my mid-20s. The religious terminology, I had a quasi-conversion experience where I realized the value system was deeply corrupt and needed to be questioned.

I do think that one of the ways of challenging convention, one way, the Asperger’s way, is just to be vaguely oblivious to it all, and continue apace. Then I think there is another modality where you just become aware of how conventional our conventions really are, and then that becomes sort of an indirect route of trying to start thinking for yourself.

TYLER COWEN: In your view, perhaps the contemporary world is becoming, I don’t know what the word would be, stranger, or weirder, or more shaped by individuals who are different, precisely because conformity is being piled on other places. So if the movers and shakers would be people who are in some way neuro diverse, then overall, the world is becoming more surprising in a way, right? That’s what we expect at different margins, at different corners. This will accumulate. It may not ever feel like we’re getting out of the great stagnation, but each bit of change we get is in a way a more different change than we would get, say, in 1957, where everything was done with guys with white shirts and starched white collars, hoping they would be able to buy a little pocket calculator someday.

PETER THIEL: I think the innovation that we are getting is driven in strange ways.

I worry that the conformity problem is actually more acute than it was in the ’50s or ’60s, so that the category of the eccentric scientist, or even the eccentric professor, is a species that is steadily going extinct because there is less space for that in our research universities than there used to be.

I worry that perhaps, if anything, it’s a little bit the other way. It’s very hard to measure these things or calibrate them, but I think that in politics, the conventional approach is to simply look at pollsters. What are your positions going to be? You just look at the polls, you figure this out, and it works fairly well.

At the end of the day, that’s probably not how the system really changes. It probably will be changed by some idiosyncratic people who have really strong convictions, and are over time, able to convince more people of them. But whether this means that we have more or less change is hard to evaluate. It always comes from these somewhat nonconventional channels.

An interesting thing to do with this part of the interview is replace Aspergers with masculinity and conformity with feminization.  When you do that what Thiel is saying makes just as much sense if not more.

What is going on here is that innovation requires a willingness to buck conformity just as Thiel points out.  However, Aspergers (or Autism Level 1 as it is now called in the DSM-5) in many ways is just having an ultra-masculine brain.  In other words, innovation is driven by masculinity.  On the other hand, conformity is driven by femininity.  Thiel points out that the increasing conformity of universities has driven out the eccentric innovative scientist and their Aspergers/ultra-masculine brains.  What has happened to universities over the time period Thiel is talking about?  They have become feminized so naturally they became conformist and hostile to innovation.  That’s why innovation and change comes from nonconventional channels as Thiel points out.  That describes the M(H)RM, MGTOW, and #GamerGate.

Thiel also had something to say about Japan and innovation and conformity:

TYLER COWEN: In the back room, we were talking about Japan, and a recent trip of yours to Japan. Maybe you would like to relate some of what you were saying?

PETER THIEL: They always want you to say things that are sort of contrarian and surprising, and so they asked me at this discussion I was giving in Japan. And the answer that I came up with, which was both flattering to the audience, but somewhat disturbing from our perspective, was I think we always think of Japan as this hyper-imitative, noncreative culture of extreme conformity.

My suggestion is that perhaps at this point, Japan is the least conformist, the least imitative country in the world. There’s actually a lot of interesting aesthetic cultural stuff going on, there still is a lot of very successful types of businesses. There’s innovation in food production, all sorts of interesting areas.

But then it’s an indictment of the West, where I think Japan is no longer the Japan of the Meiji Restoration of the 1870s, or the Japan of the cheap plastic imitation toys of the 1950s. It’s a country that no longer thinks it can get that much by copying the West. There’s probably still some narrow interest in IT and software. Outside of that, I think they are copying the US and Western Europe less and less.

People aren’t even learning English that much anymore. They’re speaking less English than they were 15, 20 years ago. The golf courses are all getting shut down and converted to solar farms or something; people don’t even want to play golf anymore. I think we need to take this as a real critique of our society, very seriously, that they’re finding less that’s desirable to imitate in the US or Western Europe.

I’m not sure about the golf thing because golf is also declining in the US, but that’s beside the point.  Why would Japan want to copy the West less now?  It’s because so much of the West is feminized.  The Japanese know better.  Thiel points out that the one thing Japan is interested in from the West is IT and software.  In other words, Japan only wants to copy things from the West that aren’t feminized.

One thing I have noticed is how much feminists and SJWs hate Japan.  This provides an interesting angle of that.  Japan is rejecting the feminists and SJWs since they are not innovative and ossified conformists.

Feb 182015

I found this blog about how #GamerGate is the last stand of individualism.  I certainly agree that gaming is a fundamentally individualist endavor, and that #GamerGate is a battle between individuality and collectivism.  Feminists/SJWs and the other enemies of #GamerGate do not see you as an individual.  You are simply cishet (white) male to them, same as every other cishet (white) male out there.  If you’re not a cishet (white) male, and you support #GamerGate, then you’re a weaponized minority suffering from false consciousness.  Otherwise you’re in the progressive stack of victims (with white women at the top).

I disagree that #GamerGate is the last stand of individualism because there are several other fronts where individuality is fighting collectivism.  (It’s likely that the blog author simple isn’t aware of this).  The MRM/MHRM is an individualist endeavor.  MGTOW is the ultimate example of individuality, and collectivism has no weapon that can defeat MGTOW.  MGTOW has no organization or leaders so it forces the collectivists to deal with men as individuals.  They are unable to deal with men as individuals so collectivism is guaranteed to lose against MGTOW.

Apr 072014

This article at the New York Times is the latest hit piece on men working in the tech industry.  While it would take weeks to fully document the misandry in that article, one thing of note in the article and its comments were the attacks on startups.  In contrast, large companies and government were glorified along with their HR departments:

Dear Women: come to Microsoft, to IBM, to Cisco, to Apple or even to Google/Facebook. We are “dinosaurs” (which means that we have been around for many years) and we actually have an HR department and diversity policies. The older ones among us (Microsoft, IBM, Cisco) are not liked by the macho and libertarian TechCrunch crowd – just like older people are hated by the “cool” young ones.

It’s the same with this comment:

Now, my daughter’s attitude is that she wouldn’t be caught dead applying to jobs with hi tech companies in Silicon Valley. She is repelled by what she hears about the corporate culture – and her impression that it’s filled with people like her classmates. Instead, she wants to work for governmental agencies or companies that she feels are run by “grown ups” such as IBM. This attitude is becoming widespread among female CS majors. I think it’s pretty sad that the best and brightest young women in the CS field are writing off big segments of the tech world as potential employers. These companies better act and act quickly.

The article admits that tech startups are the most innovative part of the economy.  They are not experiencing a loss because women are taking jobs in large corporations and the government.  It has been pointed out that sectors of the economy that employ women are all known for their low productivity.  They are also known for their lack of innovation.  This is not a coincidence.

If women were so vital for success tech startups would be failing left and right, but that isn’t happening.  Instead startups are providing men in the tech industry an escape hatch from working at large corporations and the government.  On top of that startups have made lots of men rich outside of the control of women and the feminine imperative.  Men who work at startups are effectively GTOW with respect to employment.  Their productivity is benefiting themselves and not women working in useless jobs like HR and diversity officers.

The reason why we see this article attacking startups and Obamacare attempting to make it harder to form startups is because it is in women’s interests to see men forced to work in large corporations and the government.  Men are not serving the feminine imperative when they work at a startup.  I also suspect there’s a fear that startups will spread beyond the tech industry.  If other industries have a startup ecosystem, even more me will be able to keep their productivity for themselves.  Startups aren’t just a threat to the feminine imperative in the tech industry.  They are a threat to the feminine imperative in every industry.

Feb 192014

Both The Spearhead and AVFM have covered what happened to the MGTOW Forums.  MGTOW Forums looks to be back in some form although there has been nothing new since 2/11 so I suspect it’s only an archive.

There are plenty of other MGTOW and related forums around.  Some are new.  Some have been around for a while.  Here’s a list:

  1. Happy Bachelors
  3. Going Your Own Way
Oct 312013

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

This year there is an election for governor in the state of Virginia.  The two main candidates are Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat, and Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican.  Terry McAuliffe is known for being a major Democratic party fundraiser and has a long history of questionable business dealings.  McAuliffe has no real platform so his campaign has resorted to using the mythical “war on women” to attack Cuccinelli with most of his attacks focused on abortion and birth control.

Invoking the nonexistent “war on women” is par for the course for Democrats.  What is unique about McAuliffe campaign’s use of this tactic is that they are trying to connect Cuccinelli to fathers’ rights groups.  Here is an example:

The “leader” of the fathers’ rights movement that Cuccinelli was representing was Ron Gringnol Jr., a former Virginia House of Delegates candidate, who was in a custody dispute with his ex-wife.  Cuccinelli only “took time off” from being Attorney General because he was closing out the case from his private practice before being Attorney General, and the case was scheduled to be in court two weeks after he was sworn in as AG of Virginia.  What this boils down to is that Cuccinelli was simply representing a man who wanted to see his children.  He was representing a man who wanted to be a father to his children.

Terry McAuliffe does not understand men who want to be fathers to their kids since he doesn’t care about being a father.  When one of his kids was being born, McAuliffe left his wife in the hospital to attend a fundraiser for the Democratic Party.  When McAuliffe’s son Peter was born, McAuliffe stopped for another fundraiser while taking his wife and his newborn son home from the hospital.  When McAuliffe’s son Jack was being born, McAuliffe thought it was more important to argue with the anesthesiologist and obstetrician involved with his son’s birth about socialized medicine than to just be there for his wife and newborn son.

While it’s clear that Terry McAuliffe hates fathers to the point of not caring about being a father to his own kids, the views of his supporters on fathers are worse.  The graphic shown above was posted to facebook, and here is the response from one of McAuliffe’s supporters:

I do not know him personally but any man who would delve into a womans issue such as child bearing and raising children is obviously insane.

This woman is saying that any man who wants to be a father to their children is insane.  She believes that fatherhood should not exist (although it’s safe to assume that she doesn’t want to give up the gravy train of men paying child support).

To cover up McAuliffe’s deficiencies as a candidate for governor, his campaign has run the most anti-father (and anti-male) campaign in American history.  Polls currently show that McAuliffe has a very comfortable lead over Cuccinelli.  While there are other issues involved such as the recent government shutdown, this shows that McAuliffe’s anti-father bigotry resonates with a section of the electorate.  The end result of McAuliffe getting elected will be than even more young men will decide that it’s too dangerous to become a father and to go their own way.

Jun 292013

Every so often, a man in this part of the internet decides to give up on the M(H)RM or MGTOW.  Usually, it’s because of a (perceived) lack of progress in rolling back feminism to the point where such men declare that rolling back feminism can never happen.  Paul Elam had a good response to such men:

And now we have started building a better option for ourselves with the MHRM and MGTOW. That is what pissed me about this. It is happening right in front of him, but not on his schedule, so he is going to whine.

This is what it’s really all about it.  It’s not happening on their schedule (or in their way) so they whine about it.  Yes, the progress being made in rolling back feminism is happening very slowly right now.  It’s understandable to be frustrated about this.  (I wish more progress was being made too.)  However, it is happening.  Once the M(H)RM, MGTOW, and/or other anti-feminist (and de-facto anti-feminist) efforts reach critical mass, then we will see feminism rolled back much faster.

One thing that’s poorly understood is why anti-feminism hasn’t reached critical mass yet.  That reason is old men.  Old men lived before feminism and even now don’t take the problem of feminism seriously.  Most old men that are against feminism even now treat it as something that is irrelevant to the daily lives of men instead of an entity that controls government policy.  Young men, on the other hand, are much more likely to realize the truth about feminism even if they haven’t fully defined the problem yet.  Young men have lived their entire lives under feminist control.  They went to feminist controlled day care, public schools, colleges (if they went to college), and workplaces.  Young men have always lived under a feminist controlled government and had to deal with feminist influenced women (and that’s includes women who don’t think they’re feminist).  They have seen their fathers, uncles, and older brothers get ass raped and lose their children in divorce court.  Every day an old man who is more likely to be feminist or who is not meaningfully opposed to feminism is replaced by a young man who has directly experienced the devastation feminism causes in his own life even if he hasn’t fully defined the problem as feminism just yet.  Anti-feminism will gain critical mass simply from old men dying and being replaced by young men even if nothing else is done.  It’s a slow process (relatively speaking), but it it happening.  Starting around 2020 or so, we will see anti-feminist progress gain speed.

Unfortunately, we have to be patient.

Jun 082013

I very rarely disagree with Paul Elam openly.  This is because he gets lots of “criticism” that’s baseless and all around silly nonsense that boils down to “Paul Elam is a godless commie or leftist”, “Paul Elam is a male version of a feminist”, “Paul Elam isn’t doing things my way or making the M(H)RM all about my pet issue”, “AVFM is insufficiently ‘Christian’ or ‘libertarian'”, “Paul Elam hates the white race”, or “Paul Elam and his terminology doesn’t follow my obscure philosophy”.  Adding my own disagreements, while minor, just creates an atmosphere of “see everyone hates Paul Elam”.  Also, Paul Elam (& AVFM) are in the trenches actually doing something a lot more than any of us.  They have a better idea of what would work to advance the M(H)RM from that alone than I ever could.

That being said, I agree with what rmaxgenactivepua said in his response to the most recent Entitlement Princess of the Month:

She also happens to be a former AVFM’er, proving AVFM needs to vet the women more stringently

Yes, AVFM needs to vet women (and men) joining it more stringently, because entryism is going to be an increasing problem.  (Entryism is when a group infiltrates another group, usually larger, in an attempt to expand their political or ideological base.)  We have already seen attempts at entryism in the M(H)RM from groups like the tradcons and the white (knight) nationalists.  In the game world, Susan Walsh was an entryist trying to create a “Game 2.0″.  (In fact, WBB is basically the Susan Walsh of the M(H)RM.)  As the M(H)RM expands in numbers and gets closer to the mainstream, the entryists will get more numerous and more sophisticated.  They will do a better job maintaining a pretense of supporting the M(H)RM than the tradcons or the white (knight) nationalists ever did.

How do we identify entryists in the M(H)RM?  We can’t assume that only women will be entryists.   Even though a woman is more likely to be an entryist than a man, both men and women can be entryists.  As time goes on there will be more entryists.  For now at least, the way to identify entryists like WBB is to find out their opinion on MGTOW.  Since MGTOW isn’t a movement of any kind, entryist tactics won’t work on it.  Thus, sooner or later an entryist will express their disgust and revulsion for MGTOW and will try to separate the M(H)RM from the MGTOW because MGTOW is a threat to what they’re trying to do.  If someone in the M(H)RM isn’t at least willing to leave MGTOW alone, then they’re definitely an entryist.

Jun 042013

The votes are in for the April 2012 Entitlement Princess of the Month.  The winner with 66% of the votes is Jamie Cuaca, the Indonesian woman who demanded $450,000 a month alimony.  Remember to keep submitting new entitlement princesses on the Entitlement Princess of the Month submission page.

This month is another month with no voting because there is an incredibly obvious winner.  The winner of the May 2013 Entitlement Princess of the Month is Kristina Hansen, otherwise known as Wooly Bumblebee at A Voice For Men.  She worked hard for the award by viciously slandering the idea of MGTOW (men going their own way).  She did it on Facebook:



And on youtube:

Both the Facebook comment and the video are dripping with entitlement.  She thinks she has the right to tell men how to live their lives and to control the direction of the M(H)RM.  You can see more of her entitlement princessness in this conversation she had with Paul Elam who understandably is getting very annoyed with her.  (The relevant part starts around 6:30):

While this video is filled with entitlement on her part, the most important aspect of her entitlement complex is how she refuses to listen.  She refuses to listen to Paul Elam.  She refuses to listen to the experiences of men.  She thinks she has the right to tell men to shut up.

Anything I write about these two videos will not do them justice.  You just have to watch them, and if you do it will become completely clear why Kristina Hansen was the only choice for the May 2013 Entitlement Princess of the Month.

Sep 042012

In my previous post asking if it was possible to defend a male space without making it explicitly hostile to women, Dragnet asked if there had been actual examples of a private organization that had been forced to accept women instead of private organizations just caving to cultural pressure.  The problem with that question is that “cultural pressure” could also include government pressure.  For example, in the past the government had threatened the MPAA with more regulation if it didn’t create its own film rating system.  The MPAA film rating system is “voluntary”, but it’s “voluntary” in the same way that people/businesses who have to pay off the mob for “protection” is voluntary.

Beyond that, there are examples of the government explicitly forcing purely private organizations to admit women.  It’s happened to a lot of charitable/service organizations.  The Boys and Girls Clubs used to be the Boys Clubs until the government ordered them to admit females.  The same thing happened to the Jaycees, the Kiwanis, and the Rotary Club.  When this issue came before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court decided that these organizations were really “public accommodations” instead of the purely private organizations they actually were because their membership was “too inclusive” to be a private organization.  The Supreme Court also used reasoning that since these organizations could be used for business/career networking, anti-discrimination laws for employment also applied here to a degree.  What this means is that three guys having an ad hoc hunting club without women (for example) isn’t going to have to worry about the Supreme Court forcing them to admit women.  If it was a hunting clubs with thousands of members (or more), then the Supreme Court can and would order them to admit women.

The Supreme Court’s argument about business/career networking is particularly dangerous because business/career networking can happen anywhere where there is two or more people.  That reasoning gives the government carte blanche to order any organization regardless of size or its nature to admit women.  (For that matter, this reasoning gives the government an excuse to order any private organization to do what it wants.)

The Supreme Court also has not defined where the line between a truly private organization and a “public” one is.  At any time the government can come in and declare a private organization to be a “public accommodation”.  In theory it could define the three guys with an ad hoc hunting club to be a public accommodation.  That doesn’t happen because it isn’t worth the time of the government to do that.  The line between private organization and “public accommodation” is whenever the government wants to get involved with how a private organization runs things.

This tells us a lot about some of the problems that any mens rights organization will face in the future.  Consider a mens rights organization, which by definition is a private organization, that decides to exclude women.  That would make sense as we have seen women derail things as simple as blogs, and women disrupting the workings of (proto-)mens rights organizations.  As soon as that mens rights organization starts getting somewhere, the first thing the government will do will be to declare it a “public accommodation” because it is sufficiently large according to the government and business/career networking can happen there.  That will be the end of that mens rights organization.  Either the organization will disband to refuse to comply with the government’s orders, or it will admit women and grind to a halt.  Either way the mens rights organization in question is dead.

This isn’t an unsolvable problem, but it is a difficult one.  Completely decentralized solutions like MGTOW avoid this problem, but that isn’t going to get any laws changed either, at least not directly.  It’s the political equivalent of women invading a male space.  Once a male space gets big enough women are either going to want in or want to destroy it.

Aug 182012

I have been thinking a lot about the importance of male spaces.  There has been a feminist war on the existence of any and all male spaces based on the principle of if men are doing something, no matter what it is, without women, then they have to be stopped immediately.  This is also applies to predominantly male spaces like STEM employment, video games, “geek culture”, etc.  It’s no surprise that we have seen a feminist/female assault against these areas such as the constant blather about sexism in video games and Obama’s attempt to apply Title IX to STEM.  Whiskey has talked about how (female) Twilight fans (including the “Twi-moms”) took over Comic Con and ruined it.

We are running out of male spaces.  The feminization of game is being attempted.  There have been several attempts to turn the MRM into being all about women.  (The most recent attempt was the LadyMRAs reddit which was supposedly about women helping the MRM ended up exposing its real agenda when they became rabidly insane against MGTOW.)  The only real space that has managed to completely resist and fight off feminization and feminist invasion is MGTOW.  At least one reason for this is because women in general see the MGTOW as hostile to women (regardless of what men in the MGTOW space are actually doing).

Knowing that MGTOW has been the only male space to resist feminization and feminist invasion because it is (de facto) hostile to women, then is the only way to preserve male spaces by making them hostile to women?  8ball commenting at SWAB’s blog thinks that this could be the case:

I’m starting to wonder if it’s even possible to have a male-only space that isn’t hostile to women. And contrary to popular belief, this isn’t because I think any gathering of men will inherently turn misogynistic, rather the opposite.

Any space that isn’t completely alienating to women will eventually be …. “invaded” (for lack of a better term) by women, who will then insist that it conform to their sensibilities. Look at Geek culture for example.

You can see this happening in places like The Good Men Project. Most of their readers are women, a good percentage of their articles are not even remotely about men, and another significant percentage are about how men’s lives affect women. And even when the article is about men… often it is written by a woman.

I’m not sure how good of an example The Good Mangina Project is since it was started by male feminist men, but in thinking about it, 8ball has a point that even The Good Mangina Project now has a much higher percentage of women authors and women commenting and less articles even tangentially relevant to men than when they started.  In a way, this does show that male spaces have to be hostile to women to defend against feminization and feminist invasion.  While The Good Mangina Project didn’t start out as a true male space, it shows that any space that is feminized will become more feminized over time.

I’m certainly willing to listen to ideas on how to protect male spaces without making them completely hostile and alienating to women, but at this point, I can’t see any other solution to protecting male spaces.

Feb 292012

Deti compiled a list of memes that we hear from (conservative female supremacist) tradcons who claim to be against feminism, but are really AFINOs (anti-feminist in name only):

1. The manosphere is full of bitter and angry men.

2. Because of their bitterness and anger, these men are dangerous and violent, and therefore must be controlled (and punished if necessary).

3. These men are immoral and stand athwart conventional Judeo-Christian morality because they associate and identify ideologically with the Game/pickup artist sect of the manosphere.

4. Game is immoral, even in the marriage context, because it is grounded in fraud, deceit and manipulation of women.

5. Assuming it is true that Game allows men to exploit women’s psychological, sexual and sociobiological composition to ultimately manipulate them into sex (whether married or not), it proves that men are less moral than women, and that women occupy a higher moral plane than men. Women are pure. Men are base.

6. Men are much more to blame for the current SMP mess than women. Even though women were freed from prior legal, social and medical/risk of pregnancy constraints to have sex with whomever they wanted, men are more to blame because they took advantage of it. Men should have restrained themselves from the sexual smorgasbord the women put on offer.

7. Men who aren’t having sex should not be complaining about it. Christian single men are supposed to be chaste. Period, Full stop. Never mind that they see women — including the women in Church — doing literally whatever they want with whomever they want.

8. Christian single women are supposed to be chaste too, but if they are not, it is ultimately some man’s fault. Shaming sluts is diametrically opposed to Christian tenets of love, forgiveness and redemption, so we won’t do it. All she has to do is repent, come to Church and say she’s sorry for letting some man (men) ravage her body, and God will do the rest. We’ll leave aside for later the sticky wicket of natural consequences. Someone else will have to deal with that. We deal in the spiritual, and that’s all we need to do.

9. The divorce culture, the current legal setup in which women are encouraged to divorce for the flimsiest of reasons, men are impoverished and income streams to divorced women are arranged, the destruction of families: these things are bad. But men going around having premarital sex and deflowering precious paragons of virtue is worse, even if the paragons were begging for it. And any man who does this deserves to have a woman divorce and impoverish him, because that’s just and fair, and our God is a God of justice.

10. This so-called MGTOW business is merely men becoming parasites upon society. MGTOWs do nothing and ultimately give nothing back to the society in which they live and feed upon. They need to leave the MGTOW lifestyle, man up, quit playing video games and working at the comic book store, and marry the “reformed sluts” on which we are slapping those coats of Kilz. That way, these men can contribute to society in a way we believe is most appropriate. But if things go bad, or she decides she’s not haaaappy, or decides to EatPrayLove, he’s on his own. It’s his job to be nice to her, be sensitive to her needs, and submit himself to Jesus, the Ultimate Boyfriend and Lover of His/Her Soul. And if she leaves, it’s not our fault. We did our part. We had her pray the prayer. Hey, he f**ked up, he trusted us.

11. (Courtesy of FlirtyIntroverts) If men have it so bad and they feel they cannot get married because of unfair divorce laws, then they need to band together and change the divorce laws to make them fairer. The fact that the vast majority of men are not agitating for wholesale divorce reform means (1) they don’t think they are being treated unfairly; (2) the men who do get screwed got what’s coming to them; and/or (3) men still have all the political and economic power in this country and if they really wanted reform it would happen tomorrow.

Everytime a socon/tradcon shows up in the manosphere, they always end up saying these 11 things.  I don’t expect this to change.

Feb 122012

There’s a new show on the Discovery channel called Bering Sea Gold.  It’s one of those reality TV shows that show blue collar men working in remote regions of the world.  In this case, it’s about men from Nome, Alaska who are mining the seafloor of the Bering Sea for gold.

I’m not that interested in that type of show, but I usually like to catch an episode or two of these shows to confirm a theory I have about them.  That theory is that there will never be more than one woman who is a regular on this kind of TV show.  The reason for that is because when there’s real (and hard) work to be done, women are nowhere to be found.  It’s men who get real work done.  Sometimes, you will see one woman on this type of show, but no more because she’s the token chick.  This is probably because the producers didn’t want to feature men exclusively.

My theory held with Bering Sea Gold.  There’s only one woman who is mining gold, and she clearly is the token chick.  This chick is trying to earn money so she can pay to get a Masters degree in opera in Europe.  Apparently, she thought gold mining would be a good way to get cash.  Her main purpose seems to be showing cleavage to the camera (which she has done a few times) and screwing up.  To mine gold from the seafloor or the Bering Sea someone dives down from their boat and takes a massive vacuum to suck the top of the seafloor into a machine that sorts the gold from the dirt.  This works because the gold is in tiny pieces and on the top of the seafloor due to various natural processes.  The first time the token chick dived down, she wasn’t careful, and her arm got sucked into the vacuum.  She was able to get her arm out and was fine, but right before it happened anyone watching could tell she wasn’t being careful and was going to get her arm sucked into the vacuum.  Later she said that she is absent minded and not very safety conscious.  In other words, she an a direct encounter with reality that slapped her in the face.  The gold mining boat she is on is just her and the captain/owner of the boat.  The captain even said that her contribution to his gold mining operation was pretty minimal.

Beyond the token chick, there were some very interesting metaphors in this show.  The captain/owner of the boat that the token chick works on seems like a he could be a MGHOW.  At one point he talked about how he doesn’t have a girlfriend (the token chick isn’t his girlfriend and there is nothing going on between them at all), and how gold is really his girlfriend right now.  He also does things like live in a Mongolian yurt on the beach, etc.  Given the size of his boat and mining operation, he is also the one making the most money so far.  (There is a boat that is making more money than him, but it’s much bigger and has more overhead so this guy is coming out ahead so far.)  Of course the token chick is working for the possible MGHOW.  He has the gold (literally) while everyone else is tapped out.

On one of the other boats, the captain of that boat owes a lot in child support payments.  He has talked about how if he doesn’t get some money to pay child support, he’s going to jail.  In other words, he is practically mining gold to hand over to his ex-wife and her increasing demands.  That’s a real good metaphor for the feminist anti-family court system.

Even in Nome, Alaska, you can’t get away from feminism.

Jul 252011

One of the biggest strengths of mens rights is it’s ability to provide data and evidence:

Leave alone MRA, they have a capability to provide data and evidence way beyond this One-what blogger could ever do.

Marriage has benefits? Provide data. MRA can provide statistics and experience about courts, media, cops.

Not going on their way? If it seems a loser move, many MRA does not mean it as a refusal of sex altogether. Just the crap called marriage.

I am starting to believe MRA in abstract is too complicatd to understand for the average internet user (or blogger like that). MRA relates to men’s rights, not state, not religion, not any fucking else. No men’s rights? No civilization. Realize it.

While all of this is true, it goes beyond that.  While the MRM can provide data and evidence that it is correct, many men will experience the evidence directly (such as dealing with anti-family courts or a false sexual harassment allegation) or indirectly (knowing a man who has been the victim of feminism).  This is the reason that many men will come to conclusions that agree with MRAs and MGTOW before finding MRA and MGTOW blogs (if they ever find them).

Translate »