Category Archives: sexual politics

Ms. American Pie Chart: How Monogamy, Commitment, and Marriage are under attack from the Left


Fact: a beautiful woman is flush with social capital. She has a lot of social and romantic options. This is the result of winning a genetic lottery, and nothing more. It’s inherited privilege.

A man’s options, on the other hand, are limited to his finances. So this too is an inherited privilege, or lack thereof. While the beautiful woman has many social options, the poor man is limited to the ugly and promiscuous women who accept him. Due to the materialistic tastes of women and the superficial tastes of men, romance is an intrinsically classist game.

The feminist community keeps the beautiful woman ignorant of social subterfuge, via social subterfuge. They want her to be ideologically naive, so that she will be open to polyamorism. The most beautiful women are usually brainwashed by their communities in this way. They are taught to be too trusting, and promiscuous.


The only ones they are taught to fear are male monogamists. These men, who are the only men who could emotionally do right by her in the context of a monogamous relationship, are stigmatized to her as ‘possessive’, ‘insecure’, and ‘territorial’. Which is especially ironic and hypocritical when they say this about someone who has few possessions, been deliberately denied security, and has no territory. This is how sexual conquistadors project their repressed guilt onto the relatively innocent scapegoat.


But not the friendly, schmoozing man-whore. You can trust him. He’ll never judge your background or blame you for romantic mis-steps. In fact, sycophantic apologists like these are always telling women that, even though they have a wider array of options than men, it isn’t their fault when they pick wrong.

The lower socio-economic class of men, however, face the harsher end of the double-standard. Not only are they confined to worse and fewer options, they are singularly blamed when picking one of these options, usually ‘chosen’ out of starvation-induced desperation, catastrophically fails.

Shotgun Wedding

What is ‘marriage material’ to a liberal? The fugly woman that no one wants. That’s who they want to marry off to some desperate schmuck. The really attractive woman? Everyone wants a piece of her, and it’s the goal of the community, collectively, to turn her into a pie chart, with all the comrades getting a slice.

As I said before, a lot of very careful brainwashing goes into this. In fact, admitting you are a monogamist, as a male, is like putting a giant target on your back. Marriage is a class privilege. An expensive one. So of course the sexual communists are going to sabotage that guy. They’re going to sabotage his career, and his emotional well-being, any way they can.

A smart, sensitive man can be made to appear stupid and callous if his feelings are neglected long enough. And such a man will almost certainly be deliberately neglected by the liberal community, which knows that lack of love will negatively affect their cognition. It will also make him brittle, and cripple him socially, for lack of good graces. This is probably why the World Health Organization has declared being single a disability.


The idea is, keep a man in a lower socio-economic class, and he won’t be able to afford his dream marriage. At the same time, get to the beautiful woman early in life and, through ‘anti-slut shaming rhetoric’, convince her to be promiscuous. This is all done under the guise of goodwill, but I assure you the intentions behind this are purely selfish.

So the monogamist is mischaracterized and kept down, while the promiscuous male is idealized as a true gentleman. And with all the love he’s getting, it’s easy for him to keep up the act. This is all carried out by the same feminists who say ‘How could a woman ever owe a man anything?’ And these people actually want a woman to be President. Sounds like a recipe for a dictator, to me… A revisionist, Stalinist dictator. This is merely the tip of the Cultural Marxist iceberg.

If a monogamist is emotionally secure, cannot be coerced, brainwashed, or bribed, people will says his beauty standards are ‘unrealistic’. But given that there are many beautiful women out there, even if they are a bit uncommon, his standards aren’t unreal, just improbable. So all that is, when they do that, is them trying to undermine his self-confidence to sell him short.

The most pragmatic advice I can give to men who want a dream marriage: focus on yourself, make a lot of money, and then watch the better options open up. It’s shallow and shitty of them, but that’s the way it is. Make a bunch of money and join the country club, or perhaps a church in the Woodlands, TX. You just gotta keep your nose to the grindstone, and make sure you have what they want by the time you meet them.

Don’t get distracted by compromise, because I know from experience that compromise will only drag you down, and keep you away from better opportunities. That’s how territorial, hypocritical, and selfish these women are. They all want someone out of their league, but they get mad at you for wanting an equal.

Der Kommunity will keep you alienated for so long, using bullshit excuses, 5, 10 years get behind you, and by the time you’re doing better on money, you’re old, fat and bald. And then they say that’s why you don’t get who you want. Don’t surround yourself with retards, because they will retard you. Hang out with true progressives, because liberal regressives will only alienate you into category by yourself, making you a retarded unicorn.

Liberal regressives are only good for excuses. They will suck the goodwill out of you until you have none left. And the liberals will call you ‘selfish’ to expect any kind of reciprocity, much like the villains in an Ayn Rand novel.

So as a plebeian male, your options are either: involuntary celibacy (or willful abstinence), the county meth orgy (local orgy people are rarely as attractive as the orgy people in porn, trust me), or a shotgun wedding to the county pig. Or maybe, if you’re really lucky, you can have that end-of-the-line, still somewhat attractive 30-something woman fresh off the carousel. That’s best case scenario.

Part of rape culture is to sexually exploit someone, and then confine them to a ‘damaged goods’ social class. And that can happen to either gender, trust me. The difference is: women are warned about this, and men aren’t. Women do this against medical advice, and men do it out of educational neglect.

It’s all done collectively, through social brainwashing, quite deliberately, by liberals who will publicly claim ignorance and innocence. This is effectively a war on marriage itself, because the more sexual partners either participant in the marriage has had, the less likely it will succeed. This is because of what’s called ‘the traveler’s effect’ by psychologists. People who sleep around are also more likely to develop substance abuse problems, which will almost certainly lower their legal, social, and financial status. And then the liberals will simply blame the concept of marriage and monogamy as faulty, rather than blaming their own sexual Machiavellianism.


Women don’t want an argumentative boyfriend. They want someone who says ‘yes ma’am’. The smarter you are, the harder to manipulate, the less women want you.This is the feminine version of rape culture.


What’s Worse Than Dying Alone? I’ll Tell Ya.

So last night, as I slept fitfully in my fortress of bachelor solitude, in my dreams, my father came to me and he said:

“Son, I understand all this MGTOW and MRA stuff you’re doing right now, and I’m not gonna say that you’re wrong in any of your points, but my point to you is ‘What’s worse than dying alone?'”


I woke up to this, and had some deep shower thoughts about it. Ultimately, I decided that becoming my father is worse than dying alone.

Now, you gotta understand, my father’s a moderately successful man. Made good money, married well, lives on an island, in an ivory tower. We’d all be lucky to be doing as well as he has, and many of us, sadly, won’t. But he’s stated publicly, many times, that if he weren’t married, he’d give it all up, live on the swamp, in a trailer, and just go fishing all the time.


And if you had a decent career, made six figures for 20 or 30 years, that’s entirely possible. With all the principle and equity you have in 401k’s and real estate, at age 70+ you’ve probably got a million dollars, which isn’t really that much these days, but still, you could invest that smartly, and expect at least $50,000/yr interest income, live in the swamp, hunt alligators, or do an Indian motorcycle hostel tour of Europe, like you wanted to when you were young but couldn’t, because unlike the rich kids, you went to Vietnam. Or you could even put that money into a good nursing home, where they would keep you strung out on fentanyl until you died. Fentanyl is good shit, man.


But that’s not enough to keep the missus happy, so you don’t do that kinda fun stuff. Instead, you keep working, well into your 70’s, just so you can uphold a standard of living insisted upon by an old bag, who doesn’t do much for you any more. And no, I’m not referring to my mother. My mother’s a saint my father left behind, for the sake of status symbols, in the go-go Reagan 80’s. But let’s not embarrass dear old Dad and Gangy anymore than we already have…


Let’s generalize the scenario, and apply it to our own generation, which is different from the Boomers’ in key ways. Me, for instance: I just turned 36. I’m a college graduate, with ten years professional experience in the software industry. Even at the foothills of middle age, I feel that I have a bright future to anticipate. I don’t look bad, either. A girl could do a lot worse.


At my age, they say ‘all the good ones are taken’. And for the most part, they’re right…  Single women my age, best case scenario, are the victims of male sexual entitlement, having been ‘alpha-widowed’, which is to say, left behind by some high-status male like my old man, who wanted a newer trophy. I honestly believe that this scenario is more rare in my generation, because in my generation, men have more social conscience, and women, for the most part, have less. In other words, the key difference between GenX/Y and Boomers is that, due to 3rd-wave feminist empowerment, men are actually more likely to be ‘alpha-widowered’ than women. Which is exactly what has given rise to the whole modern MRA/MGTOW movement!

So here I am, 36 years old, and hormones don’t control my behavior anymore. Don’t get me wrong, when I see, through the window of a nightclub, a young, hot, 21-year-old girl dancing, as I’m walking by, on the way to the folk-music pub where everyone knows my name, I’m tempted to go in there and throw some of my disposable income at her. But I know from experience that I would be admonished as a ‘dirty old man’ for doing so, probably upset the delicate social eco-system of all the not-as-well-established guys her own age who want to fuck her (or perhaps already have), and she wouldn’t end up taking me seriously, anyway. Even if I did make it into the VIP section of her little personal club, she’d eventually rationalize pump-and-dumping me, because at their age, they’re all probably either sluts or teases. Or both, relative to different people, as the situation entices.


So I’m told to stick with women my own age. But they aren’t attractive to me. Especially the ones who’ve been left in the ‘single’ pile for awhile, often with good cause. What am I, supposed to feel sorry for them? That’s kinda difficult, seeing how I was there when, 10 or 15 years ago, they were the slutty teases dancing in clubs. And I watched them abandon many good men for superficial reasons, which they then rationalized to their friends, thus poisoning those men’s reputations with other women, in addition to breaking his heart, all to make themselves look and feel better about getting bored and wanting more varied sexual experience with that poor guy’s friends and relatives.


And if that broken-hearted guy reacted to this in any way but a good-natured ‘Thank you, sir, may I have another?’, then not only did their exes turn the community’s women against him, but they turned the males against him as well. Because when young women of primitive social ethics insist ‘he bad man’, other men eventually form a crude posse, complete with with pointy sticks and rocks, and chase the ‘bad man’ away, just so they can impress the opposite sex. We call those ‘white knights’, in my generation, and there are plenty of them. Their stock is replenished progressively in the next generation, even as it is depleted by experience-based disillusionment in the current generation. As those who peddle and exploit optimistic idealism know, there’s a sucker born every minute.


And most single women, at my age, have some bullshit like that in their background. Meanwhile, I had my head down, was graduating college and starting a career. And enduring years-long periods of social alienation that most women, with their expectations of social privilege, quite frankly, probably couldn’t survive. But now, I’m supposed to grovel for their approval, like a true southern gentleman, knowing full well how decadent, socially over-privileged, and non-committal they used to be, with their current acquiescence to ‘family values’ surely the product of some desperate survival instinct. These are known as ‘hamsters’ who have ‘hit the wall’.


And as black as their pasts may be, their futures seem to be even worse. They say the true test of love is to add fifty years or fifty pounds to the subject of your affection, and see if you still love them. Also, add to that a net financial loss from her low income that doesn’t cover her expansive tastes, frequent sabbaticals, and failed pottery studios. The hotter she is, or was, the higher maintenance, and hence, more hemorrhaging money, putting your Indian motorcycle retirement even more in jeopardy.


So, what’s worse than dying alone?

Being a slave to depreciating assets, man.

Passive vs Active Sexism

I think we all know what active sexism looks like. The 2016 election has provided us with many examples. Although I am not known as a feminist, I admit that Donald Trump has said some things in his campaign that are deplorable. Ultimately, I believe Donald Trump is a demagogue using common prejudices of the lower class to incite division and drum up partisan support for his candidacy, and  that’s extremely manipulative.


Unfortunately, overt sexism, racism, and other forms of prejudice are not the worst social problems that America’s cultural melting pot faces. As with most social problems, the less obvious ones, left to fester in the dark underbelly of society, are actually worse than the obvious red herrings.

The most obvious examples of overt sexism are the guys who say these sexist things in public, and thus become whipping boys for PC liberals. The weapon liberal society types use against men of this type is social alienation. Regardless of whether his opinions come from ignorance, negative life experience, or being brainwashed by worse bigots, society’s ‘solution’ is to alienate this person.

‘Let him have his stupid opinion in the corner, alone,’ they say, ‘And when he’s ready to start towing the community line, perhaps start including him again (but only at the lowest tier of our social hierarchy).’


The problem? This is meant to set a social example, but ends up setting that community up to be invaded by a lot of ‘false flag’ liberal idealists, which is to say: people who say what they have to in order to get what they want. And so, you end up with these territorial, protectionist White Knights, who espouse feminist ideals, but over time, their behavior, and how it conflicts with their carefully-crafted public image, kind of reveals who they truly are. But by that time, a bunch of beta males have been bullied, and a bunch of women have been sexually exploited, by these wolves in sheeps’ clothing.


So here’s this guy who is a guard dog, his pretentious ego boosted by random sexual encounters generated through schmoozing, and he’s projecting his own sexism onto everyone who challenges the turf of his ever-expanding sexual conquest. And I’ve seen social pressures create a lot of these monsters hiding in human skin.

Many local men in my community have become this through sexual brainwashing. What’s so distressing and disillusioning is how obvious they are to their fellow men, while at the same time fooling naive females. For example, I once worked in an office with several of these types of guys. They were all card-carrying Democrats, many of them outspoken atheists. And in their outward demeanor, they were prone to express very feminist rhetoric.


The flipside of that coin? Most of them went to strip clubs every weekend. They got around a lot more than me. And in private, amongst their male co-workers, there was a lot of what Trump would refer to as ‘male locker-room talk’. One guy gets a blow job from a hot model, he brags to all his friends about it, his elders pat him on the back and say ‘atta boy’. When I talked to the subject of this conversation, which turned my stomach a bit to be included in, she said ‘Oh, I love [your co-worker]. He’s such a gentleman.’ It’s enough to make anyone of social conscience quite jaded, which is exactly what they want. They want to deflate your ego and confidence in society, because that puts you in the corner even more, so there is more for them.

These same people have referred to me as ‘misogynist’ simply for maintaining a male rights advocacy blog, sold me short to women in my community by downplaying my career skills, exaggerating my shortcomings, et cetera… So these people are actually quite sexist. They seek a better sex life at the expense of the have-nots, proving that social capitalists can be equally as ruthless as financial capitalists. And I’m just sitting here, waiting for a woman of my physical and personality type, who is smart enough to see through this bullshit.

suspicious angry young woman on white background

The truth is, women can be very sexist in this way, too. In the same way that men rate women by their bra size, women can often rate men by their penis size, how long they last, et cetera. The worst is when they think of the measure of a man as how many or the quality of women that he gets. This is basically reducing the measure of a man to a factor that they control, and they control it not just individually, but via socially engineering groupthink.

Social democrats are bandwagon-jumpers. They won’t feel guilty about something that everyone around them is doing, because they feel validated by the crowd. Public approval is often more important to them than ethical correctness.


Of course, just because some people are better at getting what they want does NOT make them better people. Here we see the wise at odds with the clever, and most of the bystanders are too stupid to root for the right person, because subtlety goes right over their heads.

And ultimately, the effect of chivalry on women is not positive! The social privilege therefrom makes them more dependent and less skilled. This is a modern social problem exacerbated by 3rd Wave ‘Feminists’, who want to have their cake and eat it too: they want equal rights AND their doors held open for them, which is where they cross the line from feminism into female chauvinism, because privilege and equality simply CANNOT co-exist.


As someone who loves strong, independent, educated women, I lament to see the most beautiful and desirable of females get sucked into this kind of ‘model mentality’, where they think the world owes them a living simply for winning a genetic lottery, they are able to coax men into doing/paying everything for them, and when they get older and their looks fade, they don’t have anything to fall back on! I feel sorry for the end-of-the-line guy who ends up marrying these women, often out of desperation, because they tend to be spoiled, and bitter about no longer getting everything they want for free or being ‘sexually exploited’ by so many men.  They’re simply bad relationship material.


And that’s why I think it’s so important to judge people by their behavior rather then their speech, because so many these days are merely ‘playing politics’, and there’s nothing socially just about it. Conversely, in the age of misinformation, reputation is often a very malleable thing that manipulative social politicians use to keep people apart, turn some people into whores, and others into spinsters.


The Cultural Marxist’s Playbook


What is Cultural Marxism?  Some people define Cultural Marxism as ‘an ideology which emphasizes culture as a main cause of inequalities.‘  Others define Cultural Marxism as ‘The gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia. This utopia will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, god or even family or the state.’  Still others dismiss the whole idea of Cultural Marxism as a ‘right-wing conspiracy theory’, worthy only of a footnote in a German political history text.

I hate to say that I have personally witnessed Cultural Marxism firsthand, in Austin, TX.  It’s a very politically and financially polarized college town, and I believe that Cultural Marxism is prevalent here to a degree, because this town was built to exploit in-group/out-group politics via fraternity-esque social classism, so the practices of Cultural Marxist exploiters play right into that, as well as into the ‘college liberal’ PC/SJW culture.  After all, college is the place where promising youngsters are homogenized into blank slugs for the corporate machine, so that makes it pretty easy for bad influences to hi-jack the signal, and inject their own programming.

Austin residents have actually become so paranoid about becoming the victims of Culturally Marxist local social establishments, that even the rednecks act ‘politically correct’, if only because they don’t want to be accused of ‘intersectionality‘, the irony here being that Cultural Marxism is far more institutionalized than Intersectionality, even in little old Austin, TX!  If you ask me, Intersectionality is a Dallas thing, and Cultural Marxism is an Austin thing.  I consider myself a refugee from Dallas Intersectionality who ran to Austin for some liberal empathy and compassion, only to find myself a victim of Austin Cultural Marxism.

I think it’s totally possible to be the victim of both Intersectionality AND Cultural Marxism at once, or more commonly in direct sequence: If you are a cannabis user, no matter your race, the bigoted government will rob you and confine you to an artificially low social class, and then liberal Cultural Marxists of the community will take advantage of your shitty situation, by selling you short with one compromising situation or another.


I was having a conversation with a local male feminist about Miss USA dumping Tim Tebow because he practices abstinence, and he said that the NFL star needed to be ‘reprogrammed’.  I said ‘What do you think a shrink is gonna do for this guy besides reinforce his pre-existing value system?’  People put way too much stock in shrinks in this town.  It’s a replacement that atheists use instead of religion.  Instead of confessing to a priest, you confess to a shrink. Instead of being advised by a clergyman, you are advised by a therapist. Instead of the dogma being controlled by the Vatican, it is controlled by the academic elite. Instead of Heaven and Hell, there is assimilation and commitment. Instead of a tithe there is an insurance premium. Instead of congregation there is group. Instead of communion wafers there are anti-depressants.

There is very little difference between psychology and religion. Both are for people who are too stupid or scared to think for themselves, and make their own choices.  Anyway, shrinks are professional yes-men who reaffirm whatever you want them to as long as your payments clear.  That’s why everyone thinks they are right all the time here, because they have a shrink that tells them they are right.  It’s probably the same guy telling everyone they are right, even bitter enemies with directly conflicting agendas.  His throwing up a green light in all directions makes me question whether the shrink is a psycho, actually.

Anyway, my point being that Austinites aren’t very good at living up to the stereotype of being good social liberals, tolerant of others’ cultures.  Look what happened when this guy’s Cadillac rims got badly critiqued on reddit.  Perfect example of Culturally Marxist intolerance, complete with appeal to authority in order to induce State intervention:


I don’t know what’s worse sometimes: that Austin has become too ‘Hollywood’, or that it’s the phony, overly-idealistic, snooty, spoiled liberals who hypocritically complain the loudest about Austin becoming too ‘Hollywood’.  Too many princesses, not enough people willing to be subjugated as peasants. Irrational fantasies conflict.  Douchebag photographers and Southern beauty queens manipulating eachother to a point where you can’t tell who is exploiting whom.  What’s sad is that Cultural Marxism has actually been used in extremely closed and elitist modelling communities by Machiavellian moguls who attempt to have a monopoly on beauty.

It seems like there are so many locals who have ‘gone Hollywood’: Models, photographers, SJWs, cokeheads, DJs, swingers, etc… They even had a nightclub party called ‘Damn the Paparazzi’. Yeah, there’s lots of paparazzi around here. You wish your life were that interesting.  Austin people being Hollywood is the definition of ‘pretentious’.  If you could understand the ridiculousness of Texans imitating stereotypical Hollywood culture, and then complaining when actual Californians move here trying to get away from all that, then you would understand the ridiculousness of this town.  Of course, these are the same people who use words like ‘poseur’, ‘inauthentic’, and ‘cultural misappropriation’.


As an avowed socialist, I find it important to say that Cultural Marxism is not exclusively linked to economic socialism, as some of the biggest Cultural Marxists I’ve met here were avid capitalists, people who try to exploit systemic AND inherent imbalances in order to bend the people around them to their wills.  Think of the movie ‘Trading Places’ with Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy.  The Duke brothers in that movie broke a rich white man down, and built a poor black man up using the principles of Cultural Marxism, despite the fact that they were avowed capitalists, though some may question how true Scotsmen they could possibly be, if they were willing to abandon business ethics and common sense the way they did, in order to hurt someone they knew to be good, and help someone completely random, of unknown status.  But regardless of their professed and actual politics, cultural Marxists can be easily identified by their behavior.


So what does a Cultural Marxist’s playbook of tactics and ideologies look like?

1.  In order to make someone what you want them to be, you must first break down their pre-existing identity.


After reflecting on this anti-Muslim Austin shit, I have this to say: It didn’t become obvious to me how prejudiced, xenophobic, and classist Texans are until I moved from one Texan city to another.  I mean, I had some idea, but I guess in my hometown I was somewhat on the winning end of it.  Don’t get me wrong, there were definitely people who were pretentious about being too rich, too popular, or too pretty for me in my hometown, but at the very least, I had a  place, which is more than I can say that Austin has offered me so far.  Though my hometown’s opportunities for creative people were highly limited, I was at least somewhat respected by the local establishments and institutions, because I grew up there and they could clearly trace my social lineage.

Austin has been highly different: there are plenty of opportunities for my kind of people here, but they are hoarded by a social elite of cliquey protectionists. Even as a person of relatively privileged background (I’m actually the product of a mixed-class divorce, so my background is a bit hard to define- suffice to say that I am familiar with a broad spectrum of social and financial classes), I have been exploited, oppressed, and misclassified by small-minded locals. And so often it is done by people who consider themselves ‘progressive’, often rationalized with liberal rhetoric.

Austinites will not even tolerate ‘normal’ white Judeo-Christian people from Dallas, SA, or Houston, so why do you think they would tolerate foreign national Muslims? Muslims have Christian capitalist conservative enemies here. They also have liberal atheist feminist enemies here. They want a piece of the Austin pie? It won’t come easy. I’m not endorsing that fact, just acknowledging it.  The social conflicts between varying flavors of ideological purism and cultural Marxism will tear a new-jack down in this town.  You start out young, naive idealist College Freshman, and end up jaded, hardened, wizened College Senior.


The locals see outsiders as one of two things: blank lumps of clay to be molded to the local whims, or ‘closed-minded people’, and if you have any kind of integrity or identity, the locals are not going to really respect that unless it’s compatible with their own.  Seeing how petty white, upper-middle class, Judeo-Christian capitalists are with eachother, I can only imagine how they are to a person of completely different race, religion, and nationality.

The local reaction to this Anti-Muslim incident has been blame-shifty as Hell. Conservatives have been blamed (‘Damn intolerant hicks!’).  Out-of-towners have been blamed (‘Only people who don’t understand what Austin is all about would do that’).  Of course, those pointing fingers have no justification to assume that the ‘racists’ who did this were strictly conservative. There are liberals who are bigoted and conservatives who aren’t racist. No one wants to admit that most people are at least a little prejudiced. They actually make ‘non-prejudice’ an ‘us and them’ thing. Which is ridiculously hypocritical, and only encourages socio-political polarization.

The sad reality of which I am a perfect example, is that even if you are a white, Judeo-Christian, and upper-middle-class out-of-towner, there are many Austinite locals who will still refuse to accept you in any but a subservient and assimilating role, simply because you are not from here.  They don’t recognize you as one of the people they went to one of the local high schools with, so you will always be a second-class citizen to them.  There is also quite a bit of ‘Austinite exceptionalism’ going on, where the locals get to be royalty by way of social privilege, and the transplants have to swim or sink due to lack of social capital and independent agency.  Hell, even if you share the same weirdo niche interests with the locals: socialism, environmentalism, New Ageism, atheism, recreational drug use, scene subcultures, alternative diets, polyamorism, etc, they are still going to treat you like a new-jack and make you pay dues, and by the time they finally accept you, you will resent them and no longer want to be a member of their group.

They might use the state to break you down, or your career, or your school, or your church, or whatever.  They might use the counter-culture or the underground to do it.  Whatever they have control of, from the highest office to the lowest dungeon.  Cultural Marxists exist at all levels of society.  And they aren’t just going after religious fundamentalists and conservatives, either, but a lot of them attack the subcultures as well.  Whether you are a punk, metalhead, Burner or whatever, they don’t like that and want you to be more mainstream and mass-marketable.


2.  A fish-out-of-water or newcomer will be easy to control, socially, because they have low social capital and agency, especially relative to the local establishments.


Because they don’t know anyone, trust the wrong people, don’t trust anyone, are either too open- or too closed-minded, and thus predictably manipulated.  Literally any new entrant’s social, legal, or professional status can be manipulated socially by their new community, as these are all dependent upon social class that is malleable by perception.  Remember that money, social class, etc, are all social and legal constructs, and thus can be manipulated socially and systemically by those with more pull than the intended victim.

This is what Ayn Rand would refer to as ‘the Aristocracy of Pull’, as much as I hate to quote Ayn Rand.  Basically a popular, desirable, or especially capable person could be just as socially over-privileged as someone of high financial class, and there are plenty of broke-but-popular performers who are examples of that.  This is why cultural Marxists tend to favor college town environments, because they are full of non-local residents, who are easy to manipulate, because they are young, open-minded, and socially unincorporated with the locals.  In such a town, the local establishment usually exists solely to fleece the college flock.

Because so much of what defines us as people is actually a social construct, with little to do with our intrinsic natures, cultural Marxist can use that to make people into the antithesis of themselves.  Think about it: when you say that someone is ‘classy’, is that because they intrinsically have class, or because they were raised a certain way?  In other words, is that variable internally or externally defined?  Stripped of their money and social support structures, would this person also be stripped of their ‘class’?  What if they are only ‘classy’ because they are cloistered, and haven’t had the opportunity to misbehave?

And that’s exactly how the cultural Marxists strips them of their class by convincing them of this idealistic delusion of a classless society.  You believe in that and let your behavior follow that belief, and you will eventually end up in a lower social class than you started.  Probably lower than the people who sold you down that river.  And you might notice that those people sell a lot of people down that river.

3.  You can control someone’s actions (and therefore the public’s perception of their identities) by controlling their personal circumstances.


A sure sign of prejudice is actively restricting someone from being a good person, and then blaming them for being a bad person.  This is basically just ‘why are you hitting yourself’, where people are put into a ‘damaged goods’ class and then not allowed to be anything but a victim thereafter.

Examples: deprived of money or legitimate employment, a person may turn to crime and can then be intervened upon by rationalization that they are intrinsically a criminal. Deprived of sex or other meaningful social contact, they will act in a predictably anti-social or phonily schmoozing manner, etc…  If you send some black people to consistently antagonize someone or rob them, they may develop racial complexes.  If you tell gay people to mess with them, they are going to become homophobes, etc, which brings me to my next point:

4.  Self-fulfilling social prophecies:


If you tell everyone that someone is a sexist, racist, or classist, the other races, sexes, and classes will treat them poorly, and they will eventually become what you have called them. At that point, they can be victimized in the typical way that sexists, classists, and racists will be victimized by a liberal community. The underlying principle here is that people will become what you have convinced the people around them that they are. Thus, even if you are wrong at first, they will eventually fulfill your expectations, if you put them in the right social conditions.

Note that Cultural Marxists will almost always omit the first part of that story.  The part where you were nice and open-minded when you first arrived in their environment, and one by one, their entire community ripped you off until you then became ‘closed-minded and uncool’.  What they’re gonna tell everyone is that you simply are an asshole and always were, and none of their actions or the actions of their friends had anything to do with it.

5.  Misinformation is the cultural Marxist’s bread-and-butter.


Remember, the cultural Marxist takes advantage of information deficits between you and your community.  Because your community doesn’t know much about you, an unscrupulous person can easily mischaracterize you as this or that.  They can tell lies about your private behavior, past or present.  Single and lonely?  They can create the impression that you are the biggest player in town, and thus keep people away from you by making them believe that you don’t NEED any more friends.  They can convince the world you are feasting when you are actually the victim of famine.

Cultural Marxists love to create this impression of a ‘Participation Trophy Society’, because it creates this false standard that everyone actually got a participation trophy.  The reality is that some people didn’t, and some people’s trophies were nicer than others.  A Cultural Marxist Panglosses that over.  They create the perception of privilege and stability in individuals who have never enjoyed either, just so they can continue to prop up those who have always had both!

They can perpetuate terrible situations for you, using nothing but gossip power.  The thing that they love to do most is convince people that you are the opposite of who you actually are, so that way you will be perpetually misunderstood by those around you.  Even if the well-intentioned in your community want to help you, which they probably won’t because you’ve been demonized, but they wouldn’t know how anyway, because they’ve been misled about how you actually are and what you actually need to be happy.  The misinformationists have convinced them you are a gay, meth-addicted, rapist racist, when in fact you are merely a serial monogamist who smokes pot and prefers fair-haired, pale-skinned ladies.

6.  Social ostricization is the cultural Marxist’s weapon of choice.


The idea is that, even if capitalists or the government were able to build a materially perfect world (I don’t believe this is possible, but assume for a minute), social liberals could still ruin it socially, by making everyone emotionally miserable, usually in protest for some pie-in-the-sky cause that very few people care about.  And they do it with polyamory, race-baiting, divisive echo chambers, etc…  Creating artificial social problems for someone who is otherwise healthy and normal, usually as a means of negative reinforcement, in order to manipulate the target into changing their behavior in the desired way, for the purpose of ending the negative stimulus.

Consider this: a handsome man or beautiful woman moves to town.  S/he has money and education.  Obviously, this person will be high status, and give little consideration to people and things which are ‘beneath them’.  But if you destroy their social life collectively, demonize them professionally, criminalize them systemically, that will bring them down to a lower level of society, and now they will compromise in ways they never dreamed of doing before.  Then this compromise will be fundamentally misattributed to their identity, or some aspect of their core being, rather than to the crummy situation that the community has collectively put them in.  For men, it’s usually a ploy to get to your money, your connections, or perhaps even your extraordinary capabilities.  For women, a ploy for sexual exploitation.

7.  Cultural Marxism is highly correlated with sexual and racial ambiguity. 


Hate to say it, but transgenders, with their ill-conceived notion of ‘fluid gender identity’ are extremely guilty here, as are plain old gays, bis, and polys, all of whom depend upon people with poorly defined self-concepts for ‘new recruits’.  Also, people who want to have sex with those outside of their race, or stick others with inter-racial partners.  These people can all be perverts who tend to prey upon normal people who want to ‘experiment’ in college.  Now, don’t get me wrong: transgenders, gays, and inter-racial relationship advocates don’t HAVE to be culturally Marxist, by definition, but frequently they are.

Think about it: these people can say that race is a social construct, and they can even get people to believe that, but the only way to truly eliminate race is to make everyone a mulatto with no perception of ethnic roots.  Now, I don’t have a problem with black men going after white women.  I really don’t, unless it’s the same one I want.  Some white women can only be satisfied by a black man, and that’s their prerogative.  I’ve had white women discriminate against me for reasons far pettier than skin color, ie: I wore the wrong jacket, so I figure if a black guy finds a white woman who’s into him, more power to the guy.

On the other hand, that leaves a lot of black women jilted, and who do the Cultural Marxists try to set them up with?  That’s right: beta white guy!  Beta white guy will settle for a black girl.  We’ve kept him single for years.  He must be desperate by now.  All the skinny white girls passed him up, because we called him ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’, and that’s so uncool.  Now’s his chance to prove us wrong.  Stick him with a black girl. Make sure she’s overweight, too, get some body-type acceptance going there, as well.  Basically, let’s give the beta white guy Precious.  He should be thankful he gets anyone.


Of course, once you’ve gotten the beta white guy to fuck a black chick out of desperation, you can just as easily accuse him of exploiting woman of lower social and financial class by subjecting her to a possessive and exploitative patriarchal relationship…  That’s pretty much what liberal revisionist historians did to Thomas Jefferson.  Sorry, I’d fuck a black girl, but I don’t want to be accused of being a ‘slave rapist’ 200 years from now. And the misinformationists are getting so bold that they now do that to people within their own lifetime!  Of course, I guess it all depends upon whether or not you got the girl off.  Let’s not pretend, even for a second, that there aren’t feminists out there who will, post hoc, call sex that was, at the time consensual, ‘rape’.


My point:  I can’t hate black men for liking white women, or women with paler skin than themselves.  I like white women, especially those more pale than myself.  I’m just saying that biracial romance, on a mass scale, creates logistical complications that can leave some people out if they don’t want to compromise, and still others never even get offered the opportunity to compromise!

Of course, the feminist matriarchy will always intervene to protect a woman’s right to be romantically racist, ensuring that they are never made to feel racist for maintaining racial romantic preferences, but they most certainly don’t offer men this same service.  It’s more likely they will racially ad hominem the man who prefers some races to others in dating.

8.  Cultural Marxists tend to be atheists.


Look at the bumper-sticker above.  Did a Cultural Marxist make that?  NO!  A multi-culturalist did.  A Cultural Marxist, like Stalin, doesn’t want anyone to have a religion or a culture unique to their geographical region, genetic heritage, or even their personal tastes!  Cultural Marxists are globalists, Statists, and Authoritarians.  A multi-culturalist celebrates diversity, and a Cultural Marxist wants to eliminate it altogether.  That’s the difference between the two.  Cultural Marxists aren’t the KKK, and they aren’t the Black Panthers either.  They are people who are intolerantly GREY.  They want everyone to be generic and interchangeable, with no relative strengths, weaknesses, or individually defining characteristics.

Let’s all be interchangeable Lego blocks for the Cultural Marxists.  Anyway, I’m not much of a religious person, but I do see value in spirituality, the religious component of world culture, the historical significance of figures like Christ, Buddha, etc…  That’s more tolerance than you will get from an atheist.

9.  Cultural Marxists use your desires and needs to get you to conform to their expectations.


You new in town?  Well I guess you want employment, social accommodation, food, and shelter, right?  Well, then you are going to have to do/be A, B, and C, because all the employers, landlords, and social groups around here only accept those who are A, B, and C, and they specifically hate X, Y, and Z, so you better not be those at all!

The lines you hear from Cultural Marxists are often generalizations about the local community that imply you must conform with local expectations in some way in order to fit in socially (and often by extension professionally, and even legally).  In other words: ‘No one around here hires Republicans’, or ‘Everyone around here hates Male Rights Advocates.’  Key words: no one and everyone.  I always tell those people that no one likes generalizers, but the irony is usually lost on them.

The bottom line: Cultural Marxists cock-block you, deny you employment, etc… for ‘liberal reasons’… but the end result is a stagnant or even regressive society, so you can’t really call them ‘progressives’… They may think of themselves that way, but their deliberate misapplication of liberal ideologies does not lead to a progressive society. Also, most of their ‘crusading’ behavior is entirely self-serving, but masked as altruism.

10.  Cultural Marxists are con artists who fly false flags of liberal idealism.


‘You’re not racist, are you?  That’s good, because I’m collecting for inner-city children’s basketball teams.’  You don’t want to be racist, so you give that guy your money.  He goes around the corner and spends it on crack.  You find out it was a scam later.  You feel stupid.  You stop trusting black people.  Black people pick up on that, and start calling you ‘racist’.  It’s a negative feedback loop created by liberal pettiness.

The sad truth is that liberal ideals are commonly the basis of urban scams.  Growing up in Dallas, I learned to ignore the word ‘Hey!’ when traversing the ghetto, because a zillion experiences interacting with ghetto people had taught me that if you make eye contact with that person, their next words will be, ‘You got a cigarette/dollar/ride uptown/spare kidney?’  Of course, when you ignore people in this way you are at risk of being called ‘racist’, no matter how many taxes you pay or how much you donate to local charities.  ‘There goes that racist classist who doesn’t even want to acknowledge the poor or blacks.’

Of course, these same people will not hesitate to stereotype white people via Privilege Politics, and all of the racist assumptions they entail.

11.  Cultural Marxists tend to be non-confrontational backstabbers and well-poisoners.


Think about it.  If someone called you racist, sexist, or classist to your face, you’d be able to defend yourself pretty well, right?  You could probably provide examples of past incidents where you have helped the less fortunate, express some kind of current idealism, or even produce witnesses of the female, ethnic, or financially destitute variety, who could testify on your behalf.

That’s why cultural Marxists almost NEVER confront their victims directly.  Their whole goal is to create a public misperception of you that will totally ruin your social life, without ever giving you a chance to refute or respond, by quietly gossiping about you, behind your back, taking your statements out of context, caricaturizing the negative aspects of your personality, exaggerating your problems, lying by omitting your strengths, and generally depicting you to others in a way that’s extremely biased against you, personally.

12.  Cultural Marxists are hypocritically stereotypers and misrepresenters, of both groups and individuals.


All men are sexists, all Muslims are terrorists, all Capitalist are greedy, all Republicans are bigots, all drug dealers are sexual exploiters…  Sound familiar?  ‘If so-and-so is X, then that means they are also Y’.  This is the kind of bad logic they use to alienate individuals or even entire categories of people from the community.  Basically, Cultural Marxists MISREPRESENT their enemies by speaking for them, often inaccurately or poorly, misrepresenting hyperbole as objective fact.  Note that there is a thin line between that and Hunter Thompson/Jello Biafra -esque ‘Gonzo Journalism’.

13.  Cultural Marxists blame the individual even if their environment (and those who control it) is truly to blame. 


This is called the ‘fundamental attribution error‘ or simply ‘victim-blaming‘.  And what’s ironic is that we typically think of this as a conservative misconception:  The rich blaming the poor for their shoddy circumstances in life, white people blaming black people for the consequences of racism, or misogynists blaming the female victims of rape.  Most liberals generally acknowledge this to be bad, but that doesn’t stop them from hypocritically doing it themselves, to others.  I find feminists are especially bad about this type of hypocrisy, bitching about conservative victim-blaming even as they indulge in stereotypical liberal victim-blaming, the favorite target of which is the white male, Christianity, Capitalism, etc…

Liberals victim-blame their enemies and opponents, and they do it by deliberately creating a bad social situation for someone, and then blaming them for it by saying, ‘He did it to himself’.  One example I heard of this was when someone accused me of ‘alienating myself’…  what an absurd accusation, as alienation and ostricization, by definition, are things that the group does to the individual, not vice-versa.  This accusation was literally doublethink, but it flew easily in a community where logic and critical thinking abilities are not championed or even possessed by the majority of group members.  Which brings me to my next point:

14.  Objectivity and critical thinking are the bane of Cultural Marxists. 


Check out this article accusing Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook of ‘damaging public discourse’.

The only thing Facebook has destroyed is the mainstream media’s ability to make everyone think alike. The author is not lamenting the death of consensus, she is lamenting the death of false consensus, the ability of a ‘Ministry of Information’ to force ‘consensus’ on people who don’t consent.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand the problems that misinformation poses, but those are caveats for the reader, not the publisher. We all have the right to express our subjective opinions, and if the reader gets taken in by falsehood, fantasy, or bias, that’s their own damn fault for not fact-checking. If you want to prevent the repercussions of that, teach critical thinking in public school. Oh, but liberals hate critical thinking, don’t they? It causes people to question their bullshit.

Anyway, the greatest threat to public discourse is ‘politically correct’ people and religious fanatics, both of whom insulate themselves and others into ‘echo chambers’… polarizing society by saying, ‘I’m only going to pay attention to those who agree with me, and pretend that everyone else doesn’t exist.’  Which brings me to my next point.



15.  Cultural Marxists create and employ social echo chambers in order to create and exploit divisions between people. 


These people literally FEED ON BIAS.  They also feed on social division.  If two people are not in communication with eachother, they can exploit the rift between them by perpetuating their misunderstanding of eachother.  This often relies upon completely false stories.  In the case of a rich kid in college, there are a million ways to exploit him.  Unscrupulous people could blackmail that kid for anything he might not want his parents to know, or anything that might change their image of him in a way he didn’t want.

The bad guys could also go to the kids parents’ tell him, ‘Your son has gambling debts/bangs cocktail waitresses two at a time/got my daughter pregnant’, etc, whether it happened or not, simply as a means of getting Mommy and Daddy to ‘handle it’ with money.

Exes are often exploited the same way.  ‘How’s my ex I never see anymore?’  ‘She screwed your best friend.  Now you should screw hers.’  Also, an obsolete or stereotypical understanding of a person could be used to mischaracterize them by reputation to those they haven’t seen in years or have ever met at all.  In other words, they tell you some bullshit about an individual or a group, and then try to get you to do something stupid in reaction to that.  I know a woman whose parents’ divorce made her believe that all marriages were lies, all paternity was spoofed, and she went down a pretty perverted social course after that.

The point is that people who don’t communicate with eachother are not likely to possess accurate understandings of eachother’s personalities, and Cultural Marxists use that to exploit people who are cut off from eachother.  Once a person is persona non grata in one camp, a Cultural Marxist will create a dogma about that person that gets repeated and handed down from person to person…  and because that person isn’t a member of that group, everyone just assumes that dogma is true, whether it is or not.

And they use intermediaries to do this, mostly.  You might not realize that the person who made you feel some way about someone or their category was actually being directed to do that by some disconnected third party who has taken an interest in shaping your worldview.  Multi-culturalists, on the other hand, are uniters, not dividers.


16.  Cultural Marxists tend to profess to be ‘non-judgmental’, but are actually the most judgmental of all.

They say they accept everyone, but in actuality accept no one.  They have nominally accepted you so they could dissect and diagnose you under the pretense of acceptance.  These are dangerous people to fall in with, because they sell you short by telling you to suspend your judgment, and then later victim-blame you for having ‘bad judgment’.

Those who pretend that there are no consequences to being non-judgmental are pretty easy to lose respect for when you watch their cycles of social drama play out a few times.

The ‘non-judgmental people’ act like they are these compassionate, enlightened people… the reality is that they are psychos who enjoy watching people get hurt. In not calling a whatever a whatever, they are really just setting people up for failure and selling them short, all in the name of ‘not stereotyping others’… It’s easy to get taken in by that kind of ideology when you’re young, but if you mature at all as you age, you lose respect for those emotionally detached, selfishly manipulative people acting like they are trying to help everyone get along. 

Basically, Cultural Marxists are the Spin Doctors of social perception, and based on whether they like you or not, they can use their powers for or against you.  But there is so little consistency in how they wield those powers, it is difficult to think of them as having any social or intellectual integrity.  On the forums and in theory, these people tend to be idealist who have this all-inclusive ideology that accepts everyone…  except ‘bigots’, of course.  In real-life practice, they are actually extremely socially manipulative and petty.  These are kick-banners and false-consensus-perpetuators and groupthinkers.  Of course, ‘they say it don’t be that way, but it do.’

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil2

17.  The natural enemy and polar opposite of the Cultural Marxist is the ideological purist, but that doesn’t make them right, or any better.


The conflict between ideological purism and cultural Marxism is the conflict between ‘my way is the only way’ and ‘you can’t have a definite, exclusive identity, because that offends someone’. Both are problems in America. Two extremes to avoid. Happiness lies in the middle ground, swaying to whatever side suits your current purpose.

In Austin, you have your typical Texas bigots: ‘I’m white, Christian, conservative, and capitalist, and everyone is wrong but me.’ And it goes without saying that those people are a drag. People who want to maintain the status quo, materialists, social classists, religious fundamentalists, etc…

But then you have your cultural Marxists, who are a liberal reaction to that, and they are not much better (in fact, in extreme cases they are much worse). It seems like they mostly exist to take advantage of college kids, who are geographically displaced, socially disconnected, environmentally overwhelmed, and don’t really have fully-formed identities.

Basically, what I have found is that there are two types of bigots in Texas (or anywhere): conservative bigots and liberal bigots. The conservative bigots only respect people like them, and the liberal bigots only respect people who remain nebulous about their identities… The middle ground between those is the multi-culturalist, I believe.  But while multi-culturalism is a very fine and American goal, it is often used as a false flag to mask Culturally Marxist intentions, and thus exploit naive idealism and altruism until there is none left in this world. 

Finally, the last piece of advice I can give you is to remember that no matter where you go, they will somehow try to turn you into something that you are not, in order to suit the petty agendas and biases of their particular geography and society.  But a person of integrity, who knows who they are, will always maintain their exclusive identity, no matter what situation they find themselves temporarily entangled in, rather than simply ‘going along to get along’ by ‘doing as the Romans do’.


Ladies: How to win the genuine respect of gentlemen

There are many types of ways people exercise power over others.  For most of human history, the primary methods for doing this were fear or coercion.  Men obeyed orders from their superiors because they were afraid of being punished for disobeying.  Chains of command were set up based on the authority of one person over another, or the ability of one person to punish another.  You can see this in informal prison pecking orders, which are often determined by physical size, toughness, fighting ability, intimidation ability, or organizational popularity or ‘pull’.  The business example of this is the chain of command of the wealthy over the poor in capitalist economies.  The more institutional example of this is Renaissance-era Japanese bushido schools, in which gaining ranks entailed, among other things, learning new knots used to restrain lower-ranking members.  A higher-ranking member of the clan could tie a knot so complicated that the lower ranking members did not have the training to untie it, thus they were made subordinate to the elder’s superior ability.  We also see this in Chinese Kung Fu schools, where the younger fighters lack the techniques in the form of counter-moves to defeat the older masters.
The information privileges of an information society also come into play here, and we see this in the ranks of modern military intelligence as well.  These informational hierarchies are often enforced by ‘rating’.  One who has received tank training is considered ‘rated’ to pilot a tank, as opposed to those who have not received this training, although we do not consider the random person to necessarily be without innate piloting talent just because he hasn’t been trained.  Or ‘clearance’, as in he who has ‘top secret clearance’ is cleared to view secret documents.  Also, in the field, ‘crypto keys’ allow certain people to decode encrypted messages that lower-ranking operatives don’t have the expertise to decipher.  Obviously, ‘information privilege’ can easily be used to run the lives of other people deemed ‘subordinate’, if they are kept in the dark, and subject to a more learned person who has a broader sight of what is really happening in the world at large.

Then, as man became more civilized, empathy and appeals to emotion or ideals (nationalism, pacifism, social justice, religious dogma, even racial or cultural prejudice) became the primary means for control or influence over others.  This is the basis of both pro-social influences (Jesus, Gandhi), and anti-social influences (Hitler).  But even a successful appeal to sympathy doesn’t necessarily entail real respect, as pity entials looking down on someone.  Too often in the modern age, we see that the victims become the victimizers via a social convention I call ‘sympathy privilege’, where a historically oppressed person is given, out of sympathy, the privilege to oppress others.  The best example of this in modern times is the Israel-Palestine conflict.But none of these kinds of power is truly respect.  True respect can only be derived from merit and genuinely pro-social, egalitarian intentions.  So, these are the things one needs to develop in order to win the genuine respect of men, as opposed to the appearance of esteem, feigned for selfish, sycophantic, manipulative purposes.

1.  Don’t play ego games.  Too often, women influence male behavior by assaulting his ego.  “If you were a real man, you would bite the bullet and ask me to dinner at your expense.”  While this may yield results in the form of eliciting the desired behavior in the target male, it will not win our respect.  We already take enough of this kind of manipulative crap from other men, especially our fathers.  So the last thing a man is going to find mentally attractive is a woman who sounds like his father, his boss, or the guy who bullied him in junior high.

Playing ego games will also set off a man’s ‘whore alarm’, because these are the kinds of tactics commonly used by whores.  If a man walks by a row of whores, and turns down their propositions, they will often attack his sense of self-worth in order to elicit a predictable reaction in the form of an attempt to prove them wrong.  “You must be broke, impotent, or gay if you don’t want to pay for sex,” they will imply.  Since sex addicts are people who have low self-esteem, and thus seek esteem from others, this is the kind of rhetoric that prostitutes use to exploit men, not just on the street, but in nightclubs, on Facebook, and even in workplace environments.

Also, trying to make a man jealous may yield immediate results, but will often ultimately breed resentment.  Having witnessed many polyamorous relationships, I have often found that they are fueled by jealousy competitions over who has slept with who’s friends.  But only a low-caliber of man will fall for this, as a smarter man will simply stop caring about a woman who plays these kinds of games, believing her to be of inferior character.  Even if this one-upmanship is non-sexual in nature (I have a nicer car/house/clothes than you), it will still cause the more idealistic man to think that your priorities and values are out of whack.

2.  Cultivate power over yourself, not others.  A manipulative person can make someone do something for him; a skilled person can do it for himself.  This is the difference between social, financial, or systemic power, and genuine capability.  Men respect people who are highly capable and do things for themselves, rather than weaseling someone else into doing the dirty work or figuring out the details.  It is commonly believed by men that women tend to have more social power than practical capabilities, and this causes us to look down on them, in the same way that a skilled technical worker might look down on an incompetent manager.

In the same way that a gluttonous, oppressive, exploitative rich man is not as genuinely respected as a poorer man with self-control, capabilities that go beyond writing checks to get things done, and down-to-Earth practicality, a woman who gets everything done via coercive or manipulative means will not be as respected as a woman who does things for herself.  Don’t abuse your social capital, or the power you have will be hollow, and more feared than respected.

3.  Develop your mind and capabilities.  Everyone has to have an intellectual pursuit, even if we all have different intellectual pursuits.  In the same way that a person who doesn’t exercise or eat right will get fat and physically unattractive, a person who doesn’t challenge their mind or immerse themselves in information they find interesting will have an undeveloped, lazy, ignorant mind which is not mentally attractive.  Among highly intelligent men, there is a fear of the rarity of romantic partners who are truly on our level, mentally.  By relying too much on their appearances to get by, some women curse themselves to be perceived as sex objects, who ‘aren’t relationship material’, not because of some physical defect, but simply because they are unable to carry on a high-level conversation, and truly relate to the man on his intellectual level, as an equal.

You don’t necessarily have to have the same intellectual interests as a man.  Some people have musical knowledge, mechanical knowledge, computer knowledge, literary knowledge, cultural/anthropological knowledge, natural science knowledge, etc…  But what we are generally looking for in a serious relationship is someone who has equal intellectual depth, even if it is in a totally different area of expertise than our own.  Something interesting to discuss during the 90% of a relationship that exists between sexy times.  Knowledge and ability will make us respect your mind as opposed to just being into you for your body.

If a man doesn’t respect the particular intellectual pursuit you have chosen, don’t change to accommodate him.  Find people who do respect your choices of interest.
When I was studying neuroscience, there was a woman in my class who was undisputably the head of the class.  A key skill of neuroanatomy is to recognize obscurely-defined shapes in the brain, and be able to recall their hard-to-pronounce German names, because they were named after the scientist who discovered them.  She was the best at this, and no male students thought less of her as a woman for this, or less of themselves as men.  Intelligence and rationality are not exclusively male traits.
When I got in trouble with the law for cultivating psychedelic mushrooms, it was a female lawyer who got me probation instead of prison time, via the compassion of a female judge.  These are the kinds of women I respect: women whose capabilities meet or exceed my own.  Women who are impartial enough to recognize a victim in need of help, as tempted as they are by their own bias to condemn him as a villain.  But I certainly won’t respect a whiny, mediocre, 22-year old liberal arts drop-out who demands to be compensated for her incompetence.

4.  Think independently.  Even if a million people believed that 2+2=5, that would not make it so.  The collective will of a million people’s intentions cannot change lead into gold, make a poorly-designed airplane fly without crashing, or make badly-written software work properly.  No amount of wishful intentions will change reality for the better without practical action.  Though our perceptions are malleable, reality is objective.  Often, women, who tend to be more social, democratic, and consensus-minded, are perceived by men as having a hive mind.  They tend to communicate with eachother more than men do, which can make their misperceptions contagious, and hence, women can sometimes universally agree upon conclusions which are actually wrong.  This cultivated mass delusion can often cause devastating social injustices, for both men AND women.

5.  Be straightforward, not deceptive.  Talk TO people, not ABOUT them.  Don’t avoid confrontation, ostensibly to ‘keep the peace’, even as you secretly make social war.  Men often feel as though women conspire against them, others, even eachother, by passive-aggressively talking behind their backs instead of confronting men with their issues and disputes.  Once again, rather than an appeal to genuine capability, this is an appeal to social power, and men don’t respect that.  Even if the group is collectively, synergistically stronger than the individual, if the group’s component members are weaker than the individual, he will not respect the group any more combined than he would as individuals.

Too often, men find that women shit-talk behind the back, and often this is misinformation designed to hurt someone, or secrets kept in order to keep someone in the dark to a truth that might change their behavior or outlook on life.  We consider this sneaky, underhanded, and not fair play.  You may win via these methods, but you will not be respected ultimately, and thus, your victory might be fleeting.

6.  Abandon gender roles.  One thing an open-minded person hates is when people confirm, rather than defy stereotypes.  So don’t be a stereotypical girl!  Not only does confirming the female gender role make us lose faith in any open-minded gender egalitarian ideals we may have, but letting the circumstance of being born a woman reduce you to certain roles isn’t fair to you!  At the same time, don’t hold men to stereotypical gender roles, either.  We don’t like being expected to fulfill ‘man duties’ like fixing the computer or taking the aggressive lead in romance any more than women like being held to the roles of a cook or a maid.

7.  Don’t be afraid to fail or be criticized.  Everyone who tries to do anything is bad at it at first.  Everyone is a poser when they don’t know the ropes of the game they have chosen to play, and all they have is their aspirations.  Just think about this Dave Grohl quote:

“Musicians should go to a yard sale and buy and old fucking drum set and get in their garage and just suck. And get their friends to come in and they’ll suck, too. And then they’ll fucking start playing and they’ll have the best time they’ve ever had in their lives and then all of a sudden they’ll become Nirvana.”

Sometimes women are too afraid of judgment to try something new.  But notice how male communities (the healthy ones anyway) support eachother when first starting out, especially if we have similar tastes or aspirations.  A more experienced musician might support a newcomer even though he is less skilled than those better established.  Computer programmers mentor eachother.  So do car mechanics.  Although some businesses can be very competitive or territorial, everyone respects a productive person more than someone who doesn’t even try.  The important thing is to put forth an effort, and most men will respect that even if your effort doesn’t have the support of a well-established personal skill.  Most advances skill sets are developed through a series of failures and lessons learned.

So thicken your skin!  Don’t let constructive criticism or even back-handed derision keep you from learning and improving at whatever endeavors you have decided to undertake.  Otherwise, you are confirming a ‘women are emotionally weak’ stereotype, and that will encourage additional disrespect from males.  And realize that, as much as men value support, we also value critical thought!  If a musician records something and it sounds bad, he wants to be made aware of what’s wrong with it so he can improve!  This is preferable to being laughed at behind the back or publicly embarrassed.  And when you unquestioningly support someone, this sometimes isn’t helping them if they are wrong in their opinions or behavior, such as when overweight people are enabled when they are told ‘you look perfectly healthy’.  By limiting a person’s exposure to only supportive dogma, not only are you aiding in brainwashing them, but you are leaving them wide open to a public pwning when they can’t defend their ideas in a healthy debate.

8.  Don’t make everything about sex.  Often when expressing masculist refutations of extreme feminism or even when disputing women on topics totally unrelated to social issues, men are met with the response, ‘Oh yeah, well you just think that because you aren’t getting laid!’  or ‘You’re never going to get laid if you keep advocating for male rights!  You need to abandon your perspective, no matter how legitimate it is, and instead tow the feminist line!  Only then will we scratch your back.’  This sexual-intellectual quid pro quo is not an argumentative tactic that men respect, as it is a fallacy in the form of an irrelevant ad hominem and a bad attempt at sexual bribery and sexual coercion.  By implying inadequacy in a man’s sex life, abilities, or lack thereof, women are only confirming that sexual gatekeeping and romantic judgment are the only powers they have, and powers that are often poorly wielded at that.  Also, don’t project a sexual intention onto any male who approaches you.  Maybe we have no interest in sex with you, or don’t even know you well enough to even be thinking along those lines.  Maybe we just want to be your friend right now, and maybe sexual intentions will never come into play.

This is the female equivalent of Beavis and Butthead saying, ‘that’s what she said’.  It simply isn’t appropriate to bring sex into certain discussions.  Also, if you want to take revenge upon a man who has offended you, don’t mess with his social life as a means of doing so!  This is, once again, a very typical abuse of female social power, and there is nothing novel or exemplary about it.  It’s a juvenile tactic that is only respected by other juvenile people, and yet it happens all the time!  Instead, best him in a positive way, by being highly capable, hopefully more capable than him, in some regard.

9.  Innovate, don’t imitate.  Remember how I discussed the Chinese Kung Fu School technique-based chains of command earlier?  Well, there were some especially gifted students who were able to upset these chains of command with innovation or precociousness!  In other words, they would independently figure out advanced techniques on their own, without being taught, or, better yet, they might even invent entirely new styles that were highly effective against existing techniques.  At this point, these prodigies were not merely learning kung fu from their elders, but they were actually contributing to hand-to-hand combat theory and technique…  and that will win the respect of both your peers and your elders.

10.  Romantically, have high/specific standards and guard yourself.  But at the same time be open-minded and as unsuperficial and non-materialistic as comfort and reasonable standard of living allows.  Be willing to entertain strange notions, but not necessarily follow them all the way home.  Above all, don’t lead men on as a means of juicing them, because no one respects a tease or a gold-digging materialist.  Don’t exploit someone for being attracted to you.  At a certain point in every would-be romantic relationship, you have to tell them yes or no, rather than using ambiguity to benefit from a drawn-out and ultimately unfruitful courtship process.  But at the same time, keep in mind, the fewer people you let get close to you, the more a man will value your intimacy.  I qualify that statement by saying I have no idea how that works for polyamorists, because I am very far from that persuasion, personally.

11.  Don’t abuse liberal/feminist rhetoric, or people will stop believing in it, and in YOU.  One of the reasons Hitler is so reviled as one of history’s greatest villains is that he abused liberal rhetoric.  He told everyone what they wanted to hear, ideas that sounded good and probably would have been good had he followed through on them.  Then, when the people put him in power, he did things completely differently than he promised.  This actually discredited socialism in the minds of many, as even though Hitler’s actions were not those of a true socialist, socialism was the false flag he flew while committing his terrible crimes against humanity.

In a similar way, many women fly a false flag of gender egalitarianism-oriented feminism, when in fact they are acting sexistly or misandristically.  Often, they use idealistic dogma to rationalize pathological behavior.  This does not lend any credit to either them or their professed cause.  Using liberal ideals to generate power over others for sinister purposes is a low tactic, and will not win genuine respect.  Don’t mistake female chauvinism for genuine feminism!  Don’t abuse privilege politics, or refuse to acknowledge that there are under-privileged white men and over-privileged black females!

Don’t turn every personal dispute into a political battle!  Pick your battles wisely, instead of making a big deal over something trivial, like a scientist’s shirt.  And most of all, don’t be afraid to admit you are wrong just because you think admitting you are wrong will damage the credibility of an unrealistic feminist ideal.

12.  Don’t blame men for all your problems, or refuse to acknowledge that women can be the source of problems, for both themselves AND others, too!  Instead realize that, in modern society, both men AND women are systemically oppressed and exploited, albeit in different ways, because we have different tastes, needs, and are in different positions, socially.  This system cannot be properly called ‘patriarchy’ anymore, because there are so many women at high levels who have sold out to it for selfish gains at the expense of others, and so many men are at the bottom, being victimized, simply because we refuse to go along.

Also, support the men who resist this system, not the men who support it.  A man’s wealth is no badge of honor if it was stolen via exploitative or oppressive means.  A poor man’s principles and ideals should be more respected.

13.  Don’t be overly-materialistic.  Materialists, whether male or female, are not likely to be seen as having integrity.  Remember that it takes two entities to make fascism work:  The materially rich who use their wealth to control the lives of others, and the person who values material things enough to allow themselves to be controlled via such petty means.

Although the stereotype is that men have more financial privilege than women in general, some of them don’t.  In a specific comparison of one particular man to one particular woman, she might actually be more financially over-privileged than him, depending upon things like family background and social opportunity.  So holding this against them either way is a lose-lose setup for men.  Either we are financially over-privileged, which implies tyranny and exploitation, or we don’t have the money we are expected to have, and this implies inadequacy.

Where’s YOUR money?  In today’s economy and social order, you are just as capable of getting out there and making it as we are.  Men respect women who provide for themselves more than they respect women who manipulate others into providing for them.  To many women, most men are either Patrick Bateman from American psycho, or a scrub, and either way, we lose.

14.  Acknowledge your social privilege, and the lack of similar privilege among most males.  It is not the nature of western society for men to have social power.  No one is pursuing us, asking us out, or trying to win our approval or friendship.  We are in constant competition with eachother, and this can often be detrimental to us individually, and counter-productive.  This can actually negatively affect our career opportunities, especially in industries heavily influenced by beauty privilege, like show business, where women are given their jobs based on looks, and men are forced to play supporting roles for lower pay, in the form of writing scripts or music for more attractive performers.  Most men are not inherently attractive creatures, nor do existing social conventions encourage men to play a passive romantic role, or women to play an aggressive role.  Men have to prove ourselves through merit, not social privilege.  The days of rule via divine right, social privilege, or even inherited capital are coming to an end.  The future is meritocracy.

15.  Don’t flake out.  Have your shit together.  Don’t let others down.  If you say you are going to be there at 9AM with a finished presentation, be there at 9AM with the finished presentation.  If you say you got five on it, have five on it.  No excuses, lies, games, or blame-shifting.

16.  Don’t ‘sell yourself’, be yourself.  Don’t tell men what you think we want to hear in order to have relationships or friendships with us.  Instead, be yourself independent of male approval.  Good men would rather know where they truly stand with someone than have a fake relationship, for utilitarian purposes, based on deliberately fabricated false impressions.

17.  Don’t play men against eachother.  Men have enough social challenges without you seducing our friends and turning them against us.  I say this as a middle-aged man who has lost nearly all of his friends due to women coming between us, despite the fact that I have NEVER done this to any woman or her friends.  Again, it’s a very common tactic, and most men lose respect for any woman who uses it, even if they are the one receiving her sexual benefits at the moment.  You are abusing male desperation caused by a general sexual strike being perpetrated against males by females.  Manipulating courts and police with lies so that you can benefit from their systemically applied force also falls into this category.  The woman who manipulates men to be violent or exercise tyrannical force on her behalf is no more honorable than the man who is violent.  Not spurring unproductive or destructive competition for female approval amongst males kind of goes along with #1, not playing ego games.

18.  Don’t use your reproductive powers to oppress and exploit men.  Again, this is typical, ghetto in a Maury Povich way, and no one respects it.  The problem with reproductive rights is that it takes two to make a baby, but only the female has the power to terminate or carry the pregnancy to term, and the man gets stuck with the bill either way. Most people agree that the consequences of one’s personal choices should be one’s own responsibility, and yet there is no clear way to apply this principle to the reproductive process. There are many men who have disagreed with their partner’s choice one way or another, and yet they are stuck with the consequences.

Also, the fact that the female gender is solely legally responsible for the decision to bring more people in the world should put culpability for overpopulation in their hands alone. And yet many women would rather blame horny men than the maternal instinct for the unsustainable growth in human population.  You may get a child support check every month for playing these kinds of games, but you will not get respect.  Recognize that the more people you choose to put into the world, the less there is to go around for all of us.  Creating children does not necessarily create wealth, despite the impression that government subsidization might create, especially if they are poorly raised and grow up to be leechy losers.

19.  Don’t be afraid of a truly equal relationship.  I have been single now for over three years.  As an older gentlemen with high standards born of bad past romantic experiences, I have only met a handful of women I really wanted to date in that time.  But they all seemed to be pre-occupied with men who were beneath them.  It seemed to me that being the one in charge, either explicitly or via subterfuge, was more important to them than having a genuine relationship with a true equal.  Empowerment through dominance will never be as rewarding to you as empowerment through synergy.
20.  Acknowledge that, just as there are situations where you are the most knowledgeable and hence the most qualified to give orders, there are also situations where a man might hold this position by merit.  I’m sure that many women will see this list as a ‘list of demands’ or some oppressive code exerted against them by men.  Refusing to follow pragmatically-justified orders just because they come from a man and you style yourself a feminist is akin to the anarchist who runs a stoplight merely because he doesn’t want to be told what to do.  This is a clear cut case of impractical ideology being prioritized over pragmatism.  Even though we are all equal, there are plenty of situations in which a man (or woman) is operationally in charge, and should be.  In the same way that a man in grad school should respect a female PhD, there are plenty of situations in which a woman should respect a man’s superior expertise and wisdom, simply because she is less well-versed in the topic at hand than he.  Operationally, every boat needs a captain, and as much as we all want to be thought of as having control over our lives, it’s probably a good idea to obey traffic signals, in order to avoid getting run over.
21.  Don’t be so biased that you lose your objectivity, or are afraid to acknowledge an inconvenient truth.  So often liberals are fighting so hard against stereotypes that we are unwilling to call out the person who fulfills them.  While it is wrong to call a woman ‘whore’ simply for embracing her sexuality, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t call a whore a whore.  Prostitution is a dirty, insidious, racket managed from the shadows, via social subterfuge, and it exploits both genders equally.  But when someone attacks prostitution, every john will deny that such a thing even exists, and feminists will tow the line.  But this isn’t addressing the social problems caused by sexual exploitation.  Sexual slavery is not anything a civilized person likes to see, and yet so often, prostitution is the path of least resistance for young women.  Their community gives them the resources to do whatever they want, and yet they choose to become whores of some kind, out of laziness or greed. The more you consider sex as compensation, a way to repay debts or fulfill obligations, or a way out of trouble, the more you leave yourself wide open to being called a whore.
‘Fairness’ doesn’t necessarily mean what is best for women.  ‘Fairness’ more often entails solutions to social problems which are mutually amicable, and don’t entail imbalance.  So consider these problems from all angles, and not just your own limited perspective.  Acknowledge your bias and work to improve it.  Don’t ignore valid information just because it contradicts your preconceived notions.  Approach life with the same rationality a scientist would have: unattached to his or her own ideas, and instead more concerned with finding the objective truth.
22.  Respect the need for cognitive liberty as you fight for sexual liberty.  If the right to control your body is important to you, so should the right to control your brain.  And yet feminist presence at rallies for reproductive rights is always so much greater than feminist presence at anti-prohibition or NORML meetings.  News flash: sexual liberty is hollow and meaningless without cognitive liberty.  Just as you do not appreciate the efforts of the system to control your vagina, many people do not appreciate the efforts of the system to control our brains, which regulate ALL human behavior, including sexual behavior.  So often sexual exploitation is disguised or sold as sexual liberty.  And a woman who chooses to employ mind-altering substances is more likely to get exploited, sexually and financially, by the government, than by her dealers and fellow enthusiasts.
23.  Don’t confuse ‘equality’ with ‘interchangeability’.  Though we may all have equal rights, we do not all have equal capabilities.  You wouldn’t give a 5-year old the keys to a nuclear weapon by way of naive ideals that purport everyone is equal, even those who lack training or expertise, so don’t think of one man or woman as ‘just as good as the next’.  We all have superiors and inferiors in one regard or another.  And never make the mistake of thinking that true equality can be systemically bestowed upon someone.  Just as Jello Biafra once said, ‘Don’t HATE the media, BE the media,’ don’t DEMAND equality, ACHIEVE equality.
24.  Don’t confuse ‘enabling a victim complex’ with ‘blaming the victim’.  We see this in the legal system all the time.  If a woman is violent, so often the system takes pity on her, and let’s her off the hook in the name of ‘not blaming the victim‘, or the person who was driven to bad behavior via previous abuse by others.  But if a man commits the same crime and tries to play the victim card, the system says he has a ‘victim complex‘ that ‘shouldn’t be enabled.  Maybe this is part of the reason why men get longer prison sentences for the same crimes, relative to women.  Besides the fact that women’s beauty privilege causes them to elicit more sympathy than ugly, rough-looking men.  Just because those with victim complexes are often victim blamers, that doesn’t mean we should assume that everyone who claims to be a victim has a victim complex.
25.  Don’t project your own weakness onto others.  Not everyone has the same problems you have, even if they are in the same situation.  Some people create bad situations for themselves, but others are legitimately victims of society.  So it is not appropriate to assume that someone is the source of their own problems just because you have caused similar problems for yourself.  Acknowledge that men are not always at fault for their situations, just as females are often blameless victims.  So it’s not appropriate to assume that others have the same personal deficiencies you have, even if they happen to be in a similar situation.
26.  Don’t misperceive men via stereotypical assumptions.  We know you don’t like it when this is done to you, and we don’t like it when it is done to us, either.  Don’t think you understand men just because you have understood a man.  We are all unique snowflakes.  Don’t think that all men want is casual sex, or that men have no emotions.  We do have emotions, and they are just as valid as yours.  And if you sexually exploit a man when you know he wants a serious relationship, this is just as bad as a man doing the same to you.  Not all male rights advocates are hypersexual, violent lunatics.  There are middle grounds and shades of grey between everything, so judge people as individuals, not groups.  Don’t mistakenly indulge in the fallacy of false dichotomy: that men are either with you or against you.  Most men are more complicated and nuanced than common stereotypes propagated by common female misconceptions.
27.  Don’t be a hypocrite who applies double standards to others.  Any standard that can be applied to a man’s behavior can be applied to a woman’s behavior as well.  Keeping in mind that gender differences can cause us to have different values, priorities, weaknesses, and advantages.  The Golden Rule is widely acknowledged to be a failure, because everyone wants something different, or may have to use different means to achieve the same goal.  And men understand that women may need more help in some ways and less help in others.  But seriously, the other day, a female friend told me that I ‘overthink romance’ and this makes me ‘unapproachable’.  Can you imagine if I had said this to a woman?  ‘You think too much and it makes you unattractive.’  This is the EXACT SAME KIND OF SEXISM that men used to apply to feminists, 50 years ago.  It is almost as if women have become the very monsters they originally set out to fight.
28.  The goal of the gender egalitarian society should be to give everyone the same experience.  This means teaching men and women the same, not differently.  This means propping a woman up to a man’d level when she needs it, and a man up to a woman’ level when he needs it.  I say this as a man who was raised in a social environment where men were taught differently than women: Women were taught to guard themselves and have high standards, and men were taught to ‘not be superficial or closed-minded’, and ‘take whatever they can get’, and this has resulted in a whole generation of under-confident men who have been jilted and exploited by women with inflated senses of self worth.
Never was I told that some women are abusive liars, who will ruin your life, drag you down, or waste your time.  No one wanted to put those kinds of preconceived notions in my head.  Everyone was too afraid to be politically incorrect.  And yet these same people were in a different room, telling women how evil and pervy men are.
At the same time, women never seem to want to acknowledge that many of them have a far higher standard of living or quality of life than most men, especially in the West (America and Europe).  This is simply dishonest and exploitative.
And that’s it.  I’d like to re-iterate that, while I feel that rights should be a given (including the rights to medical care, employment, food, and shelter), true respect and the genuine esteem of one’s peers must be earned.  And don’t confuse fear or coercion-based power with genuine respect.  Finally, I will make the female community my promise as a gentleman to uphold my end of all these commandments, and so would many other men, although I cannot speak for all men.