Tag Archives: MRA

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.


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’.


Why Prostituion Ultimately Creates More Misery Than Joy


When I was a hustler, ‘pimp’ was a well-intentioned ‘compliment’ applied to me that I never really appreciated.  My business was narcotics.  Yeah, I knew pimps.  I knew hit-men.  I knew money-laundering embezzlers.  But all I did was grow and distribute an illegal flora, had little to do with any other kind of syndicated vice, and viewed the relationships I had with those types as necessary evils at best.  I can’t speak for all drug dealers, however, there are many who are very anti-prostitution; even though they are civil libertarians, they still consider the sex industry evil, and refuse to contribute to that injustice.  In other words, the sex trade and the drug trade are not necessarily tied together.


The best hustlers want nothing more than to legitimize their trade, which is relatively harmless in and of itself, and that means keeping their contact with the rest of the criminal underworld down to a bare minimum, because we don’t want to be lumped in with that lot.  Also, unless you want beef with the law, the upper class, and other gangsters, it’s in your best interest to be a good example, don’t step on anyone’s toes, and keep your nose clean.  Moreso even than a person of privileged background, the kind of spoiled brat who is your constant customer.  They get to have fun and go buck with their parents’ money, but you have to keep your head down to make yours.  That’s the way the socio-economic class system works, and lowly career black-market criminals, no matter how successful, will never be on the winning end of that.

So I always resented this label of ‘pimp’ that some people mistakenly applied to me, maybe because they saw me dressed to go out, or with a few women, none of whom I was actually sleeping with, as they were merely platonic companions.  Pimps are the kinds of figures that get idolized by naive, over-privileged suburban dude-bros who don’t really understand the ugly nature of pimping and prostitution.  Their fraternities throw these stupid ‘Pimp and Ho’ costume parties, if a guy is known to be especially lucky with the ladies, they call him a ‘pimp’, etc…


But the reality is, pimps are terrible people who get your little sister strung out on meth, so they can peddle her ass to all your homeboys, and anyone else who needs an easy lay.  The only people who idolize pimps are bourgeois poseurs who have never actually met a real pimp in their entire life.  For everyone else, to call them a pimp might as well be to call them a slave-driving rape-enabler.   In other words, unless you think like a total d-bag, it’s not really a compliment to call someone that.


Then there are the lassiez-faire libertarians who think that prostitution should be legalized, as they believe it to be a ‘victimless crime’.  Now, as someone who is intimately familiar with the criminal underworld, I can tell you that prostitution actually has a LOT of victims. That it’s a really insidious, dirty business. Self-entitled whores are basically social exploiters and misinformationistas who take advantage of sex/drug addicts and the deliberately alienated… not to mention that often times, the women (especially if migrants) are indentured servants, slaves to debt, who are never allowed by their pimps (or the limitations of their practices) to make more than their cost of living, so they will never be free until they get too old, are put to pasture, and at that point they are basically up shit creek, because they never went to school or developed any skills.  But even in the best of scenarios, where there is no pimp or artificial, unnecessarily high administrative overhead, where the woman is merely using the internet to sell her self, prostitution is still another form of wage-slavery.


There are many who say that, just like the Drug War, the illegality of the sex trade is what causes all the problems with it, and not the trade itself.  While I follow their reasoning when it comes to prohibition of narcotics, I draw the line at the sex trade.  The evil inherent in prostitution, or even just promiscuity, is independent of artificial government-made taboo. Because that’s where you get into exploitative and downright oppressive social power structures built upon the syndication of vice.   But most people are not directly aware of all that, especially the customers, who don’t really have any interest in being aware of the damage their patronage causes.  I was aware because I was a friend to many ladies of the evening, the one to whom they came to cry upon a friendly shoulder.


And the Drug War only makes sexual exploitation worse and more common.  Because the implied threat of government punishment allows for all kinds of artificially-induced compromising situations.  Strip clubs launder drug money sometimes, and then the dancers have to keep the cops, judges, and politicians happy, if you know what I mean. But that’s a side effect of the Drug War more than the enforcement of anti-prostitution laws.  In a world where illicit sex is accepted, but drugs are criminalized, you are going to see some strange bedfellows born of compromising situations, believe me. 


I honestly believe that fake sex with a prostitute is usually bad and unnatural. Syndicated sex prevents real love and natural sex, which are far better, from happening.  When sex becomes a business, that business has to expand and conquer more and more turf, until it sucks in all of the resources.  This can make unspoiled beauty hard to find, to a point where the local modelling agencies, strip clubs, and prostitution rings really ARE the reasons why you can’t find a pretty girl who ISN’T materialistic and disloyal.  These operations generally try to have a monopoly on beauty, leaving gentlemen their leftovers and remainders, constantly sucking in the youngest and freshest starlets.  Also, the prostitution industry’s ‘marketing methods’ can often be quite insidiously deceptive and socially despotic.  Turning people out is bad karma, basically, and has social consequences that the owners and patrons alike refuse to acknowledge or take responsibility for.


One proponent of legal prostitution told me that prostitution prevents rape.  Other people think that prostitution is rape.  I mean, it’s forced sex that happens because of the coercion of capitalism, and most of the money earned goes to the landlord, the electric company, the grocer, the department store, the pimp, the drug dealer, etc…  Which means that the hos are just doing what they have to do to pay bills, often struggling to cover the costs of an exorbitant standard of living, and never get any real money.  One has to imagine that, in a socialized society, where everyone is materially equal, their basic needs including education taken care of, no one would ever feel materially pressured to have sex with people they weren’t actually attracted to or in love with.  But then the old fat rich guys who run the world would never get laid, and they ain’t havin’ that.


Still other people think that marriage is prostitution, and in some cases, I agree.  There are third world countries where 45-year-old Western males can buy the virgin marriage of indigenous third world teen girls, and in that case I think the ‘marriage is prostitution’ people are right.  Or in the case of many mixed-class American marriages.  Most of Donald Trump’s marriages to Eastern European immigrant sex-slaves probably count, on some level,  as prostitution.


When I talk about how prostitution is wrong, a lot of guys disagree, and I have to explain it to them in a way that appeals to their self-interest:

Right now, there are probably like a BILLION dudes not getting laid, because of one simple, universal truth:

Lying whores talk shit, and naive girls believe them.


The dudes who ARE getting laid, are either in long term relationships, or they are whore-mongering johns having bad sex with nasty, disloyal whores.

I’ve seen it so many times, in so many cases: the reason a guy is not getting laid naturally is because of lying hos, either in his past or present environment. Even if he isn’t their customer, they want him to be a customer, so they attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy by saying that he already is a customer. Either that, or a promiscuous ex is talking shit, and naive people who believe ho stories take her word over his. 


Whores, both male and female, can often be the biggest cock-blockers, and that’s how they stay in business.  Remember that they make their money not by being sexually liberal, and giving sex away, but by being conservative, and controlling the sex lives of others.  Many women who describe themselves as ‘feminists’ fall into this category as well.  Modern liberals, especially of the PC/SJW variety, have become more proficient cock-blockers than the Church ever was. 

The idea is that making sex harder to come by naturally will force men to give up more than it is actually worth to get it.  And for a man in his middle-age, ready to settle down, the modus operandi of liberal feminist communities is to communally conspire to cock-block him until he has gone so long without sex that he is desperate, and that’s when they get him to compromise: either by hiring a prostitute or initiating a relationship with a single mom, an ugly woman beneath his own beauty class, or damaged goods looking to redeem herself.  Remember, conservative women, whether whores or monogamists, are like a union, and free-spirited sluts are the scabs.


Prostitution is ultimately bad for the girls, too.  Sex-positive female chauvinists think they are in control, and might sexistly consider themselves the winners in the battle of the genders, but usually they waste their money and their youth, get ruined for marriage, and end up pathetic old spinsters, or in unhappy marriages wrought with tensions created by their former promiscuous lifestyles. 

The definition of a chauvinistic relationship is when one or both parties involved believe that they are getting the better of the other.  In addition to describing many dating relationships, especially those that resemble bullfights, where the woman waves her red flag, and the man charges through it, only to find she was merely playing a game with him, this also describes prostitution perfectly.   The whore believes she is getting better of her johns because they are paying her to engage in an activity that most would consider recreational.  The patron believes he is getting the best of women because he is using his financial privilege to bypass the social customs normally required to get laid.  But it’s pure chauvinism whether outright prostitution or merely a superficial relationship based on game rather than real compatibility.  Brass tacks of the matter is: when you get older, these kinds of cheap flings have no appeal.

Some people say that prostitution is for someone who “can’t afford” a long-term relationship, as if marriage were a class privilege. The truth is that a serious relationship is usually a financial boon for both people involved… What most people can’t afford is to fuck around with a bunch of gold-digging, back-stabbing, nasty hos.  To have that shit in your background and reputation is the kind of baggage that will opportunity-cost you a healthy marriage in the future.


Bottom line: Prostitution exploits both men and women.  Prostitutes ruin their own lives, and frequently ruin the lives of their patrons as well.  All so the gears of capitalism can be lubricated with sexual coercion.

Finally, I have to note that the only real experience I have with these types of women is from living in a ‘non-confrontational’, ‘non-judgmental’ community… No one ever corrects anyone, and that’s why they are perpetually wrong together, in all of their various ways.  So there is a social liberal component to this as well, and it’s all these brainwashed feminists who refuse to call a whore a whore, or acknowledge that prostitution in all its forms is a serious social problem.  And because of communities like that, innocent men get suckered sometimes.  Which is exactly why they need to be warned.  This isn’t a problem that should be Panglossed over.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil2

30 Reasons Why You Should NOT Date Yet Another Feminist

Most women and even many men these days claim to be feminist, even though it’s a tired, worn-out label that carries an extremely negative connotation. A more gender-neutral term is Gender Egalitarianism, which is what classy intellectuals say. But let’s face it: most of the people, male or female, who use the word ‘feminism’ are not classy intellectuals. They are shitty people who use spurious, emotion-based ideologies to rationalize irresponsible behavior and utter lack of social conscience. The cold hard truth is that, whether you’re a hardcore feminist or a hardcore masculist, you probably belong in a loony bin.

Anyway, as an often liberal idealist, but sometimes conservative pessimist, I have dated a few feminist women, and I can pretty much tell you what you are in for if you choose to waste your time with that garbage. Their rhetoric is easy to spot. In fact, I’ve built up so many defense mechanisms against these personality types, you might even say that feminism is my trauma trigger.


1. They tend to be very biased

Think about it. The word ‘feminism’ is biased in itself. It carries a connotation of matriarchy, female chauvinism, female bias, and liberal special interest. Remember that special interests are less about egalitarian ideals, and more about ‘getting theirs’, often at the expense of a generation of white males who had nothing to do with slavery or patriarchy, and are far removed from any benefits thereof. You advocate for the power of the vagina, and you HAVE a vagina! How self-centered.

Feminists tend to see things in terms of women versus men, or how men have historically hurt women, thus, they are unlikely to recognize or value your plight and perspective as a man. And this will ultimately make your relationship with them very one-sided. They seem to have difficulty acknowledging that we are all victims, and how the unique weaknesses of both sexes are used to exploit and control them.

2. They will control you socially, behind your back

Women have a power that they don’t like to admit: social power. Many people, both male and female, admire them, and that will lead to people taking their word over yours, manipulating you on their behalf, offering them opportunities that you have never had, or helping them cover up their faults to your eyes. Women will interfere in your social and professional life by misrepresenting you to the rest of the world, via claiming to be the ultimate authority on you, by virtue of having an intimate relationship with you.

3. They will attribute any problem you have with them to your own deficiency

This is predictable via the way feminists interact with you in every day life. If you express resentment of their privilege at your expense, or their oppression of you via social powers, they will say, “Wow, you have issues.” But this is merely projection. They are the ones with issues. And when they say: “You need help”… More projection. They are the ones who need your help. They need you to shut the fuck up, unquestioningly pay their bills, and stop talking about social issues in a way that doesn’t apologetically pander to the feminist cause, because it makes them look bad. So in order to discredit your complaints, they reduce your thoughts and feelings to ‘whining’ and ‘abnormal psychology’, in the minds of your community.

4. They will blast you after the break-up

Women can be just as possessive and jealous of men as men are said to be of women. Thus, after a break-up, they will talk negatively of you, whether justified or not, for the sake of cock-blocking you from any other woman who might be interested. This is their way of crippling you, socially, via an abuse of gossip power, even while they get to ‘move on’ all over the place, often with your friends and family. Or maybe they don’t want you to be with anyone who is prettier, better off, or smarter than them! Remember that totalitarians rely upon misinformation to control the public mentality, even regarding yourself, and feminists can be extremely petty.

5. They will rationalize emotionally

Those who embrace the feminine nature wholly, in defiance of the masculine perspective, often throw logic, reason, and independent thought out the window. Expect your feminist girlfriend (or boyfriend) to be a victim of groupthink, and a slave to her community, as well as an impulsive, emotional thinker rather than a reasonable person.

6. They will hold you to many double-standards

I can’t even begin to go into feminist double-standards while maintaining a pretense of comprehensiveness. They will cheat even as you are monogamist, they will look down on your perspective even while ensconcing their own, they will expect you to contribute to privilege imbalance for their benefit, at your expense, they will hold you to traditional male gender roles even as they gleefully abandon their own.

7. They will cheat on you

Feminists consider infidelity their right. To expect fidelity from a feminist is a foolish hope. Some of them might try to justify it by offering you opportunities to screw around with other women, but most of them will go to great lengths to cover up their infidelity, in order to give you a false impression of monogamy, even as they enjoy a polysexual lifestyle without you, in order to keep you ‘clean’, while they get dirtier and dirtier.

8. They will secretly, chauvinistically, consider you inferior

Again, remember that ‘feminism’ connotates a female-centric perspective. Contrary to the doctrine which they propagate, they don’t care about the equality of the sexes. They mostly believe in dominance of the male by the female, not through explicit force, but via social subterfuge. Even if you are more competent than they in technical matters, they will laugh at and take advantage of your social ineptitude, having long since realized that social power is the power that underlies the deployment of all physical force.

9. They will socially and sexually monopolize you by making you feel as if you have no other options

Beware of false consensus effect, the projected idea that you aren’t going to find anything different out there, or that all jobs are the same, all communities are the same, all women are the same… Maybe there are better jobs, communities, and love interests out there, but you are being dragged down and held back from them, by the one you’ve trusted more than anyone else. But the truth is, there are plenty of women who aren’t feminists, and maybe you would be better off with them! Or maybe you would be better off alone than enduring yet another exploitative, abusive relationship with a woman who has a typical, cookie-cutter feminist mentality.

10. They will attempt to shift your existence and perspective to a more female one

Expect your feminist girlfriend to drag you to chick flicks, feminist activist group meetings, and yoga class, just to emasculate you, and inundate you with female perspective, often one which disrespects and defies your own. Make no mistake: your feminist girlfriend has an agenda for you, and they will push it via coercion and subterfuge, if necessary.

11. They will sell you out to other liberal special interests

You haven’t fucked a black girl? You must be racist. You haven’t considered homosexuality? You must be a homophobe. You haven’t donated enough to the poor? You must be classist. As a member of a liberal kommunity, expect your feminist girlfriend to pressure you to buy into other liberal special interests. This is the socio-political source of their power: making concessions to other special interests in order to obtain their accomplice. And if they don’t have their own resources to commit to this end, yours will suffice.

12. They will support the patriarchy even while denouncing it, and you

My ex was a self-styled ‘feminist’. She cheated on me with (among others) a veteran. So how can she ever admonish anyone for ‘supporting the patriarchy’? The military is the most patriarchal organization I know of, and the biggest whore-mongers in the world. It’s all about that ‘macho man’ sense of sexual entitlement. Don’t think your woman won’t feed into that, at your expense, just because she outwardly denounces it, and YOU, for supporting it, whether you do or not, whether you have suffered by its hands moreso than them or not. Don’t think she won’t value money, systemic authority, or popularity more than your love and devotion.

13. They will play chauvinistic ego games

Even as they admonish you for judging their baggage, they will judge yours. Even as they implore you not to judge their bodies, they will laugh at the size of your penis, or your love handles, or your receding hairline. This is all about making you insecure, desperate, and more dependent upon them for self-esteem. Or even hypocritically implying that you need a woman’s love to validate your own existence, which, if you did that to them, they would cry sexism.

14. They will victim-blame you

If something happens to you, it’s your own damn fault. Even as they admonish you for ever suggesting that a woman is the cause of her own problems, they will apply this same rhetoric to you, as a man. If you resist their playing of the victim card, they will call you a victim-blamer, even as they accuse you of having a victim complex for all the times you have resisted the expectation that you take personal responsibility for everything everyone has ever done to you.

15. They will go to great lengths to cover up their shortcomings

You see, in the mind of a politically aware and active feminist, everything is a socio-political battle for moral superiority. Thus, if she fails, she will see this failure as an invalidation of her feminist ideals, and she will try to cover up that failure the way a criminal defense attorney tries to suppress evidence of her client’s guilt in court. The lengths that women are prepared to go to in order to accomplish this cover-up is ridiculous, and often defies material sense.

16. They will imply your ignorance, even via an inferior education

You have a degree in human psychology? In their minds, it will never trump that community college class they took on women’s studies. Whether they know more or not, they will assume that they are more enlightened and sensitive than you, by virtue of being female, and nothing more.

17. Your relationship with them will always be adversarial

This betrays the ideology they were raised to believe in: that you are the attacker and they are the defender. They will never trust you completely, no matter how much you trust them. You are a man, and therefore, you are the enemy, even if you are an enemy who has something they need. If you want your relationship with your woman to be like the United States’ relationship with Saudi Arabia, go ahead and date a feminist!

18. They will always be more loyal to other women than to you

Sexually, socially, economically, and politically, feminists are members of the sisterhood first, and your significant other second. Realize that women of such loyalties are leveraged far beyond the loyalty that your relationship with them entails. And don’t take it for granted that they won’t cheat on you with OTHER WOMEN, emasculating and socially imprisoning you by doing so.

19. They will deceive you

Lacking the force of physical and analytical superiority, feminists will always fall back on social dishonesty and exploitation, in order to keep you under their thumb. They see this power as a check to your own, even if you abstain from using your powers against them, as a conscientious objector to the battle of the sexes. They consider it their right to lie to you about their history, identity, and intentions.

20. They will be over-privileged, relative to you, even as they accuse you of being over-privileged

You will be hard-pressed to find a feminist who has never been invited or attended an orgy, even if such privilege is far out of your reach. Women also have more social and employment opportunities than you, even if they are incapable of taking advantage of them. They have probably lead easier lives than you, with less hardship, less systemic oppression, and more social privilege. This won’t stop them from privilege-shaming you.

21. They will have a rose-colored outlook on life

Because feminists are over-privileged, they will perceive the world through rose-colored glasses, often admonishing you as ‘negative’ or ‘judgmental’ for holding a more realist perspective, born of hardship. And if another man comes along who is willing to tell them what they want to hear, instead of the truth, watch them run off with him, leaving you out in the cold!

22. They will blame you for the actions of other men

Whether it’s their fathers, the President, the CEO of British Petroleum, or whoever, you must share the blame in solidarity with the other men, whether you condone their actions or not. Remember, to a stereotypically-thinking feminist, you are ‘one of them’. Your masculine gender assignment over-rides any individualism you may have.

23. They will judge or rate you via petty materialistic standards

Even the most liberal of women expect you to make more money then them, drive a better car, be handsome, famous, or both, and live in fancier digs. If you don’t, there must be something wrong with you. If you have renounced such priorities as a matter of ideology, they won’t respect that.

24. They will lean on the system

All liberals are dependent upon the system. Many people agree that the poor need help. Many are even willing to pay a tax to pay for it. But no one actually wants to get their hands dirty by helping the poor. Instead, they consider themselves as having done their duty simply by voting for a detached, cold, and sterile government system to treat the lepers, so that they themselves don’t have to touch them.

And if there is ever a dispute between yourself and a feminist, watch how fast they get the law, the police, the courts, even the legislature involved! Liberals are all closet authoritarians, and often depend upon a hierarchical system to carry out their biased vision of social justice.

25. They will be leeches with delusions of independence

In a society, like America’s, that runs on privilege, independence is hard to define. Many wealthy heirs will describe themselves as ‘independently wealthy’. But they aren’t independent. They are totally dependent upon their family’s wealth. Many feminists are the same way. Thought they may parlay their sympathy privilege into a successful career or higher-than-average standard of living, they are still dependent upon the community that provides for them. Only the highly capable are truly independent. And even then, a master chef still depends upon sous chefs, busboys, waiters, and stakeholders to make their culinary visions reality. Very few people are totally self-sufficient. Most of us are just gears in a larger mechanism, even if we maintain delusions of independence from or superiority to society.

26. They will neglect their physical appearance

Shaved heads, hairy armpits, and no make-up. If that sounds attractive to you, then by all means, date a feminist! Don’t expect for them to let YOU get away with not grooming, though.

The ones that dress up, they seem to be doing it for everyone else but you. You’re the one they feel like they can be their worst around, so you see the worst of them and everyone else sees their best.

27. They will exploit you on way or another

Sexually, materially, emotionally, intellectually, and socially, feminists will take advantage of you, and take more than they give, leaving you that much more bitter and dissatisfied for the next love interest that comes along. They will take your ideas, take credit for your work, take your credibility and reputation, take your intellectual property, take your own ideals and turn them against you, take your money, take your friends, take your career, life’s ambition, destiny, take your soul. And then no one will want the hollowed-out remains of what once was a very fine young man.

28. They are mostly either sluts or teases

Which do you want: a girl who leads you on, wastes your time, energy, and money, having no intention of sleeping with you at any point, and ultimately leaving you high and dry? Or would you rather have a woman everyone has already had, and anyone can have? Because those are your options when you pull from the feminist pool.

29. They live in the past

Your past. Their past. The relationship’s past. A thousand years before either of you were born. Expect them to keep bringing it up, even as it becomes less and less relevant.

30. They are insecure

They failed to live up to the male ideal of what a female should be. They have bad karma. they have mental problems. They have physical defects. Whatever it is, they are insecure about it, and they will project that insecurity onto you, and over-compensate for their inferiority complex by dominating you somehow.


What does the female community do to men they perceive as ‘anti-social’ or ‘misogynist’? They ostracize them! Perhaps what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Don’t give these women the time of day. Maybe a little time out in the corner will change their perspective. As for male feminists, most of them are insincere, and their motivations are transparent, but their tactics are the same as the sisterhood’s.

‘Hopeless Romantic?’ False. You’re a rapist.

So, in case you’ve been living under a rock for the past week, it finally happened.  After an entire generation of emasculation and social suppression of men, some socially alienated, sexually frustrated douchebag finally snapped, and went postal, Columbine-style.  This was predicted by many, but, like all social problems in America, no one really cared until disaster struck.  And even then, most people didn’t really care, they just used it as a springboard to talk about whatever personal issue they have a stick up their ass to create public awareness of, from gun control, to women’s rights, to the horrors of involuntary male celibacy.

But of course, the underlying social and psychological causes of this tragedy are poorly understood by most, and as such, have not really been addressed.  Instead, there has been a whole lot of posturing, punditing, and proselytizing (especially on AlterNet, which I normally enjoy) from people who have no clue what they are talking about, and instead are merely passing off a photo-copied opinion as original thought.  I must say, this terrible crime has had a big effect on me personally, for many reasons.  1: I have been known to frequent some of the same sites and forums as the attacker (though not regularly or with the same fervor).  2: I sometimes feel subject to some of the same internal AND external pressures as the attacker (though obviously I have healthier ways of dealing with them).  3: I have published masculist writing of my own, if only as an emotional outlet for a middle-aged divorcee and social outcast (although my statements online have stopped short of advocating rape or violence against women, both of which I find totally unappealing).  And finally, 4: I am now aware, via news media, of a well-connected gang of feminists who probably want to commit me to a mental institution, simply because I am a socially alienated computer nerd.

I will spare you the details of Elliot Rodger’s heinous crime.  You can read about them elsewhere.  What fascinates me is the reaction to it, culturally and in the media.  This story has become a lightning rod for feminist radicals, gun control radicals, and even masculist radicals.  And the media chatter has damn near driven me insane, to hear so many flavors of intolerable ignorance and stupidity pollute the airwaves and internet at once.  But hopefully, as a single man who happens to be well-versed in human psychology, sociology, political science, AND, most importantly, internet discussion forums, I feel as though I can shed some light on the background of all this.

For one thing, it would be helpful to know that there has been an ideological war brewing in the dark underbelly of the internet for quite some time.  It is between feminists, men’s rights advocates, and pick-up artists.  Take an online discussion site like Reddit, for instance.  You have these three subforums, and a lot of cross-chatter between them:


Your basic Feminist discussion group where common topics are “Smashing the Patriarchy“, fabricating evidence that patriarchy exists as opposed to simply a generically oppressive system that tyrannizes people regardless of gender, whining that not all women are President of a small country or CEO of a large company, ignoring female privilege, playing up male privilege, and generally pretending that women are in the same position, socially, politically, and economically that they were in 100 years ago.  This forum was recently made a ‘default’ on Reddit, which means it is more accessible via the top banner headline, because Feminism is really in chic right now, and it would be totally unfashionable not to promote it.


The Red Pill is a discussion forum for man-whoring douchebags, plain and simple.  It’s a place for men to discuss their ‘sexual strategy’, or in other words, “how to score with as many chicks as possible without getting caught up in a bunch of female drama, aka a ‘healthy relationship'”.  The members of this forum tend to be sexist macho pigs who see women as objects, have a high sense of sexual entitlement, and generally advocate patriarchal control/domination of women, because they have rationalized to themselves that ‘this is what women truly want deep down’, or ‘this is the only way you will get anywhere with women’.  Evolutionary psychology and neuroscience are used, by the men who frequent this forum, to manipulate and sexually exploit women, often creating emotional scars that leave them incapable of trusting any subsequent men they meet in life, no matter how good their intentions may be.  I personally find this forum extremely distasteful, and the only reason I ever visit there is to antagonize the hard-core devotees, whom I consider total scumbags.


The Men’s Rights Advocacy forum is more of a place to discuss…  well, men’s rights.  And there’s actually a lot to discuss, such as: unfair court decisions regarding restraining orders, custody battles, and alimony/child support payments, the inequality of men under the law, men’s dwindling social capital and agency relative to women’s, and combatting the popular misconception that all men are violent, sexist villains.  Of the two men’s forums, r/mensrights tends to get along the best with r/feminism, mostly because r/mensrights is populated primarily by men who want things very similar to what traditional feminists want: gender equality, and the abolishment of obsolete traditional gender roles.  So there is actually a lot of overlap between the goals of r/mensrights and the goals of r/feminism, as r/mensrights seems to be populated mostly with ‘White Knights’ (egalitarian, chivalric, hopeless romantic types) as opposed to the PUA’s (Pick up Artists) of r/TheRedPill.

There are conflicts among these subreddits, and they are as follows:

Red Pillers believe that there is a female conspiracy to emasculate men, exploit men materially, and deprive men of a healthy sex life.  And in some cases, they are correct, as there are some women who seem to have these goals individually, or even as a radical faction, though probably not as a mass demographic.  But it’s really more complicated than that, and I’ll get into that later.  Feminists, naturally think that TheRedPill is full of douchebags who are borderline if not full-fledged psychopaths, and I really don’t blame them for having that perspective, with which I pretty much empathize, even if I don’t agree with much of radical feminism.  I do take issue with the common misuse of the term ‘psychopath’ by people with no education in psychology, which doesn’t necessarily describe a killer like Rodger, who I believe collapsed under the weight of his own emotion, rather than being an inherently emotionless psychopath.

Feminists tend to see MRA’s as encroaching upon their ideological territory, ie: “How dare you complain that your gender is under-privileged, that’s our schtick!”  And so on and so forth.  MRA’s often accuse Feminists of “Goal Post Moving” and “Creeping Matriarchy”.  Of course, the more seasoned veterans of both forums realize that gains made by a minority can often entail losses by a long-standing majority in a zero-sum game, both genders could easily be oppressed at the same time by an indifferent system or social trend, and often-times two people’s (or groups of peoples’) rights may conflict: in other words, my right to free speech might conflict with the person who is the subject of my writing’s right to privacy.  So those are sticky areas that are often fought about in court battles or legislative sessions, the results of which usually have more to do with who hired the right lawyer or bribed the right congressman than who was actually right.  Furthermore, men have privileges women don’t and women have privileges men don’t, and it is totally possible to be both the victim and the victimizer at once.  Sometimes it seems that everyone victimizing eachother is just another consequence of shit rolling downhill.

I’ve even heard men like Elliot Rodger be called ‘gay’ by both men and women, for various motivations, just because a guy like that can’t get laid.  This  prostitute’s rhetoric is merely yet another attempt at ego manipulation: “If you aren’t willing to pay to fuck a woman, you must be gay.  If you are being deliberately ostracized by women, you must be gay.”  And this is just victim blaming the poor guy who is the subject of both ‘keep away’ and ‘why are you hitting yourself’?  So, as all this discussion and name-calling and drama is going on on the internet 24/7, Elliot Rodger finally snapped, and the rest is history.  Now, the part I find fascinating: the media and the internet reacts.

And let me tell you, the feminists REALLY came out swinging on this one, I personally believe, to the detriment of their own cause’s credibility.  In the mainstream media, feminists used this tragic event as further evidence to depict men in general as progenitors and sustainers of an idea women have contrived called ‘Rape Culture’  What is rape culture, you ask?  Basically the idea that women have the right to assume that all men are potentially a threat, or that all heterosexual intercourse is necessarily rape.  Saying that if you have a penis, you must necessarily either be neutered or else you are a rapist is akin to saying that if you have a vagina you must be a baby murderer, because you could potentially be killing unborn babies.  Which is bad when you get into persecuting people not for what they HAVE done, but for what they MIGHT POTENTIALLY DO, because, by that logic, a PhD of chemistry, computer science, or physics should be incarcerated for making drugs, hacking into NORAD, or blowing up buildings, merely because he possesses the capability to do so.  Personally, I find this idea extremely offensive and hypocritical, especially coming from a movement that says, on one hand: “Women should never be questioned or judged”, but on the other hand says that “it’s totally OK to assume right off the bat that all men have a rapist mentality”, when in reality I can speak from a male perspective of saying that non-consensual sex under duress of violence or implied threat of violence is totally unappealing to me.  Not to mention the hypocrisy of demanding women never be shamed for their sexuality or forced to be celibate, but men should be shamed for their sexuality.  Or shamed for not getting any.  Depends on what day of the week it is.

I don’t even go to strip clubs, because I believe the dancers AND the patrons are being sexually AND materially exploited by way of a borderline fascist capitalism, which is inherently coercive, and the commodification of sex, female companionship, and affection.  I stopped watching porn because I wanted to stop supporting the seedy types who run the porn industry, plus I feel time wasted with porn really prevents you from relating with actual, real-life women.  However, I live in the kind of retarded backwoods town where it is considered an act of feminism, by some poor misguided people, to go to the strip club.  In fact, if you DON’T support a woman’s “right” (think ‘right to work state’) to get naked for the chickenfeed they throw at her, you MUST be some sort of misogynist.  Not like that fine young women’s rights activist who regularly trolls the strip club for booty even though he already has a girlfriend or two.  Clearly, that guy loves women.  And the Keep Austin Topless activists, right…  like there isn’t even a tiny bit of transparent douchery in all that.  Seems to me like people from LA are determined to turn all the local women into trashy models, and even using “progressive feminism” as a rationalization to do so…  “I’ll make you a star, baby.”  You know in the porn industry, someone always fucks the camera man?  It’s considered cruel not to.  So even Randroid sexploitation can be painted in a feminist light.  “I thought the female body was a beautiful work of art”, said the sleazy pornographer.

I don’t even like dating because it too closely resembles prostitution to me.  Most of my relationships have come out of the so-called “friend zone” believe it or not, and I don’t believe that friendship prevents romance with the right type of person, although lack of friends possibly could.  Relationships, to a certain extent, require communal support, and no one wants to see the “bad guy”, or the guy popularly perceived as “bad” to get the girl.

Going back to Freedom of Speech Vs Feminism, did you know that in many states, writing about violence is legally considered committing violence.  Seriously, check this out: GUN.  Aren’t you scared?  I just pulled a gun on you!  This is kind of like one of those deals where liberals say “it’s never OK to hate”, but then they hate the haters, so it’s like they’re total hippie-crits, you know?  A threat, or anything misconstrued by anyone as a threat of violence, basically IS violence.  This gets into some really hinky shit re: Freedom of Speech, because if you aren’t allowed to write about the state, and you aren’t allowed to write about violence, pretty soon, you won’t be allowed to write about the violence that the state has inflicted upon you. Personally, I’m a big proponent of the idea that my own right to Freedom of Speech will inevitably entail being offended, or even personally insulted by someone else’s exercise of Free Speech.  And that’s OK.  But in some ways, it certainly seems as though we have created a society where a woman is allowed to ruin a man’s reputation through baseless slander, but the man is not legally allowed to express anger or frustration over that.

Anyway, I hope the guys from Slayer don’t ever get taken to court by their exes, because they wrote a whole album about rape, necrophilia, and cannibalism of women a while back, which hasn’t prevented them from swimming in women, which, I believe, might have something to do with the fact that Slayer are millionaire rock stars in a world where fame and money are more important to women than any kind of fair-weather feminist ideology they may profess to have, for the sake of argument.  This same point could be made about almost every “gangster rapper” in the country, people who write songs about selling drugs, killing people, and mistreating women, but, because they are protected by high-powered record label attorneys, are allowed to speak freely in the name of “art”.

As I was debating a hippie over her radical feminist viewpoint of ‘Rape Culture’, she admonished me for using ‘aggressive language’, and I had to assure her that catching a rape case over a wookie wasn’t even remotely on my agenda.  It’s like, remember that shrivelled old lady in your neighborhood who was all like, “Everyone’s trying to look at my breasts!”  But in reality, no one was actually trying to look at her breasts at all?  That’s what the idea of ‘Rape Culture’ is trying to turn all women into.  Alarmist, to say the least, and being used as rationalization to further curtail personal freedoms which are already horribly eroded.

What many women don’t realize, is that they are not the only gender who lives under the constant threat of violence. The majority of violence committed is committed against men. Oppressive power structures hurt men too, because it is not simply rule by males, but rule by alpha males over women AND beta males.  And when alpha females team up with alpha males to oppress, exploit, or exclude those of lower social status, it ceases to be a gender issue and becomes a class warfare issue.  Most people don’t realize that ‘hierarchical class structure’ isn’t just about money, but there is an exclusionary social component to it as well.  The problem is that most people still exhibit the social behavior of chimps and bonobos, creating in-group out-group politics that create a class system. And then you get into women turning men against eachother, using the state to inflict violence upon men, kind of like when Hillary Clinton oversaw a resource war waged by the US Military so that some spoiled feminist Trustifarians could take a year off and have cheap enough gas to drive a bus cross-country.  Or like when women put men in jail.  To be raped.  Wow.  Maybe our whole standard of living is hopelessly dependent upon violence.  That could be part of the problem.

In addition to reactionary feminism in the media, there was all kinds of sycophantic male feminist sympathy, which I personally find to be transparently manipulative:

Men's Rights?  Who needs those?  Just lock me in a cage and fuck me in the ass!

Men’s Rights? Who needs those? Just lock me in a cage and fuck me in the ass!

Notice that every single man holding one of these male feminist signs has kind of a mischievous gleam in his eye.  That’s because it’s a pretense!  It’s a ruse.


This in turn, generated satirical reaction responses from the “Who Needs Feminism”?  crowd:



BTW, never trust celebrity hand-made signs.  You can use PhotoShop to put anything in there.  Look, here’s one I made:



What’s really sad is that people who have a flawed understanding of the conflicts I described above actually started blaming the Men’s Rights Advocates for this horrible crime, simply because Rodger was vaguely associated with the whole MRA/PUA/FEMDOM conflict.  This is akin to calling a group of genuine hopeless romantics rapists!  I was even told, in an online discussion regarding the matter, disparagingly, “You sound like a Male Rights Advocate!”  Why yes, I do.  I’m actually a HUMAN rights advocate, with the broad group of ‘humans’ including males as well as females.  ‘Masculism’ and ‘Feminism’ are both special interests.  Equality, I believe, is a general interest.  To everyone besides a small minority of over-privileged American Psycho-types, anyway.

What I don’t understand, actually, what I really would appreciate some enlightenment regarding:

What are the feminist media pundits suggesting should have been done to/for this guy?  Via what unconstitutional restriction of human rights could this have been prevented, specifically? Other than trying to infer a general climate of patriarchal evil, what social or systemic changes do they suggest should be enacted in order to prevent shit like this from happening in the future?

Should we take female sexual selection, no matter how superficially driven, to its logical conclusion, and just put all the sexually unpopular men in a death camp? Should we perceive all the isolated computer nerds as “threats” simply because they aren’t getting laid or don’t have any real friends? Should we assume, from an early age, that a child will be a problem for the community, later on in life, if he is the victim of bullying and social exclusion in Junior High? Should social alienation become an entry in the DSM-VI, something that we can rationalize hospitalizing someone for, because we have managed to convince ourselves somehow that social alienation is something someone does to themselves, rather than something the community does to an individual, often in a deliberate and organized boycott/black-list? Should anyone who says anything the female community disagrees with be jailed for terrorism? Should male low self-esteem or underconfidence be punished?

Such extreme measures suggested by some are reminiscent of the idiocy of the Bush Doctrine: which is to say, if you perceive me as a threat, that gives you the right to strike me preemptively.   It’s kind of like “The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf”, except it’s now called, “The Little Girl Who Cried Rape“.

It seems to me, rather than all these draconian, preventative counter-measures, it would simply be easier to teach little boys and little girls to get along instead of turning them into ideological adversaries at a young age. The change we need here is social, not systemic. But mutual respect is a two-way street. Women need to learn how to respect and understand men just as much as men need to learn how to respect and understand women. The burden of respect has to be shared between genders, as does the effort needed to fulfil the functions traditional gender roles used to fulfil.  And that I think, is primarily what the more level-headed patrons of both the Feminist and MRA camps really teach.

I don’t really believe this demonization of MRA’s is fair, and I actually have a lot of people/groups I would blame for this tragedy WAY BEFORE I would put any blame on the MRA’s.  Namely, chauvinists, classists, and the socially negligent and exclusionary.  Of both the male AND female variety.

My problem with overt male feminism is that it’s usually more about social politics than genuine concern for the cause.  Men repeat this feminist dogma because they hope it will eventually, by reputation, create the kind of social trust with women that will get the man laid.  90% of these socio-political group interactions go almost exactly like this:

Beautiful, Popular Woman: “Hey guys, I think men are over-privileged.”

Male sycophants: “We agree” (with crossed fingers behind their backs)

Loner who thinks for himself: “I disagree, and here is a concise, logical argument why you are wrong.”

At this point, the male sycophants will begin bashing the independent thinker in the name of getting female approval. Rather than attempting to contend with his argument, the woman will then use her social influence to alienate the independent thinker, until he is no longer part of her in-group. If this happens enough (and I’m sure in a super-liberal community such as Santa Barbara, it happens all the time), then eventually the dissenter is no longer a part of his own community, and that kind of social powerlessness will drive anyone to a state of insane detachment, eventually.  Here we see the matriarch keeps her male troops in line by creating a situation where dissent against femdom rhetoric is essentially sociopolitical suicide.

Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” is actually extremely relatable to this case, as the killer’s main social problem was the inability to obtain consent. The whole point of Chomsky’s work is that control isn’t always obtained via force, and there are ways of obtaining consent which are not necessarily ethical. Sometimes, control over a person or group of people can be socially engineered through information management, or even contrived situations that drive one to irrational decisions. The point of his book was that social influence and manipulation of public opinion is sometimes a more effective means of control than a gun in someone’s back, and this is a social power through exclusionary hierarchical structure that can be abused by both men AND women, the victims of which are primarily passive, benevolent people who do not believe or practice such nonsense.

The concept of ‘Femagoguery‘ was actually introduced to me by a female friend, who wrote about the subject.  Creating an ingroup/outgroup plays into alpha male patriarchy by fostering a competitive atmosphere among the male community for female approval. Women think that by eliminating from their ingroup all those who disagree, they are helping their cause, when in reality, they have merely changed the strategies of men who would manipulate and exploit them, socially and sexually.  Femagogues make men feel as if they are not part of their own community without female approval. They control men’s social lives by manipulating public opinion of us with their popularity. And that’s what creates monsters like Rodgers.  When we examine the Rodgers case, it drives us to the chicken-and-egg debate of “did this guy have a shitty social life because of psychological problems, or did he have psychological problems because of a shitty social life?”  Violence against women is a problem that needs to be addressed, as does all violence. But I don’t think women really understand the root cause, and so have ended up contributing to it by fueling adversarial gender relations with divisive rhetoric.

I know this first hand from being abandoned by a long-term, live-in lover in a strange liberal town where I had very few friends.  So, I was new in town, and the last thing I wanted was to be labelled a ‘misogynist’, because that would really make it hard to make friends and move on in a liberal community.  And yet, that’s exactly what the local men did to me: picking up on the natural pain I was feeling from just getting out of a shitty relationship, they labelled me a woman-hater simply as a means of eliminating me as competition for all the local women they wanted.  And it worked!  Most of the local woman, gullibly, predictably, bought this line of bullshit, mostly because they forgot the first rule of feminism: Most men are liars.  And ultimately, I think socially alienating someone like that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that is more the community’s fault than the individual victim’s.

In addition to this, I was fired from a pretty cool day job for, among other things, lightly, unseriously flirting with my female supervisor (I have a thing for women in authority), not because it bothered HER, but because it pissed off all the MEN in the office, who I believe were, quite frankly, jealous of my confidence and natural wittiness.  So, not only was this ridiculous socio-sexual ‘competition’ ruining my social life (what little of it there was), but it was also driving me to unemployment, financial ruin, and a whole lot of other bullshit I’m only now recovering from.  See, here’s where we get into some trickiness of patriarchy in disguise as female advocacy.  I’m personally very wary of any kind of hyperchivalric or male pseudofeministic attempt to “protect” women… because such efforts, while possibly well-intentioned, still carry the subtext of ownership or alpha male control of women. In other words, the attempt of alpha males to make social choices for women or eliminate unwanted male competition for available women. 

So what starts out as “We’re going to protect women from all those creepy psychos,” eventually becomes, “A girl like you shouldn’t be dating a guy like that,” or (to the guy): “Stay away from our uptown girls, scumbag.”  And I’ve even personally found out the hard way that big, butch bulldykes can play that ‘protectionist’ role as well.  Even in trying to teach men to be non-competitive, then it just ends up being a competition to see who can be the most non-competitive.  Also, what I’ve figured out, is that when men compete over a woman, the only party who ever wins is the woman.   And if you piss a woman off in this town, God help you, because her male relatives aren’t going to understand Social Capital Theory or any fancy mumbo-jumbo like that.  They’re just gonna whup your ass.

Meanwhile, you have a society of women who, increasingly, are insensitive, conceited, materialistic, and have ridiculously high standards.  As for me, I’m looking for an equal, no more, no less.  I’m not interested in a woman who is “out of my league” anymore than I am interested in someone less educated, intelligent, attractive, or lower-fidelity than I myself am.  And yet I find most of the women whom I consider my equal want someone who is better than them, and they demand to be pandered to, like a crooked dictator who only surrounds himself with yes-men.  I shouldn’t have to go into the insanity of relating to women: they play games, they play innocent, they play dumb.  But I refuse to disrespect their intellects by believing that they are anything but the most cunning of social manipulators.  The problem with that is, you can’t force everyone to play a game just to get close to you, and then complain you ‘got manipulated’ or ‘never meet anyone who is for real’.  Some people simply filter out reality by being intolerant of it.

The first year I was single, I was in withdrawal; I hated sleeping alone.  But it wasn’t just about the sex, I missed the companionship, intimacy, and emotional support.  I quickly learned that such obvious desperation would only be used by gold-digging working girls to exploit me.  I’m quite secure and happy on my own these days, and simply holding out for someone on my level, whom I believe are rare, as the glut of shitty people I have met so far have proven.

What’s even more annoying is that the attitude of women who have their own entitlement issues gets projected onto me, as if I’m the one whose standards are too high.  I don’t think my standards are too high, even though I have been alone for awhile, through no real fault of my own, but I do think there are many men who wish I would settle for less so that they could have more than they deserve.  Men who deliberately isolate me from my class.  And while most liberals try to propagate the idea that “everyone is equal”, and I do sincerely believe that we should all have equal rights and equal opportunity, we most certainly are not interchangeable.  I mean, we are all unique and we all have unique tastes and preferences.  But when the fight against rapist mentality includes propaganda that “women should never be held accountable” or “under no circumstance does a woman owe a man anything”, this actually creates a sense of female entitlement.

But I don’t think I have a sense of entitlement.  I was raised according to a very strict Zen Buddhist/Christian upbringing.  If anything, Eastern religion and progressive liberal brainwashing has completely destroyed my sense of entitlement, to a point where I have become completely socially immobilized.  And no one cares, because it’s exactly what they want.  In the old days, the Masters of the Buddhist Temples were the richest of the peasantry.  They told their followers to want nothing, so that they could have everything.  But as for me, I’ve seen beautiful women AND small fortunes come and go, and if I truly had any attachment to either, THEN I would go crazy.

If I have to hear one more thing about “male attitudes of sexual entitlement” from women who have fucked more people in the past year than I have in my entire life, I’m going to scream.  And they simply have no idea what social alienation is like, because they are inherently attractive. They won’t find out what it is like to be a man until later in life, when their looks have faded and they are no longer able to command male loyalty in numbers with their looks alone.  The truth is, statistically, women have more sex with more people than men.  And the only way that could possibly happen is that 20% of men have 80% of sex.  So it seems to me as if women in general have a sense of sexual AND material entitlement, and it drives them to give it up to the kind of guys who have a sense of sexual entitlement.  Then, they generalize that anecdotal experience, to infer that ALL MEN are like that, which simply isn’t true.  Most women just have bad taste and are terrible judges of character, and they would rather believe that men are the problem than acknowledge their own faults in the matter.

So I end up arguing about these types of things on the internet with feminist activists, many of whom appear to me to be shrill extremists from California.  You have to understand, in my home state of Texas, we are still fighting very elementary liberal battles, such as a woman’s right to choose, legalization of marijuana, and economic de-stratification.  But in California, those battles have been pretty well won, and so now their activists seem to be fighting for some pretty out there shit.  And I’m trying to talk some sense into those moonbats, whose bad examples discredit legitimate activists,  but they keep coming at me with straight up DOGMA, that has no basis in rationality, and here they are feeding me lines like:

“I don’t have to explain myself to you.” Really?  You don’t need to explain why you think I’m a rapist?  Have you ever heard the term “rights of the accused?”

“It’s not my job to educate you.” (mind you, this is something they say AFTER you’ve put up any resistance to their dogmatic ideology.  Before you display the wherewithal to defend yourself argumentatively, they want nothing more than to give you a long boring lecture about how much it sucks to be a woman, which is merely a tactic of playing the victim card in order to extract preferential treatment)

Jesus!  At this point, they are starting to sound like religious people!  The Church of Feminism.  “Do not question our doctrines which we have shoved down your throat, or there will be no communion, and the gates of Heaven will remain closed to you.”  LoL

What I really hate, is the assumption that men, in general, are over-privileged relative to women, in general.  And yet I have to deal with this BS assumption all the time!  Which totally supplants the discussion we should be having about Americans in general being over-privileged and -entitled,  materially AND experientially, relative to the rest of the world in general!



Do you really think that this man:



Is over-privileged, relative to this woman:

If you enjoy a certain amount of social privilege from your community, and you use all that love and support towards the end of getting ‘turnt’ and having a good time, instead of getting an education and starting a professional career, that doesn’t mean you are ‘under-privileged’. It just means you are a slacker, a squanderer of opportunity, and possibly even a exploiter of other people.  But just because that happens to describe a lot of the young ladies in my community, that doesn’t mean I would ever generalize by positing the wild conspiracy theory that they have developed a “Mooch Culture”.

Even as “disproportionately well” as men are doing relative to women (or so feminists lobbyists would have you believe), we are still killing ourselves four times more than women. So we can’t be that happy. I believe this is due to the breakdown in the Golden Rule created by the fact that everyone wants something different, men and women have different priorities for self-fulfilment.  One person’s privilege is another person’s unwanted obligation. Just because men and women might appear over-privileged to eachother, doesn’t mean they are. That might be coming from simple dissatisfaction with traditional gender roles. Maybe a male considers staying home, taking care of the kids, cooking, and cleaning to be privileges he has been denied by the expectations of his gender role that he be chained to an unfulfilling desk job, in the same way women view climbing the corporate ladder, fixing their own car, attaining public office, or anything else traditionally considered the male’s domain, as something they’ve been barred from, and their expected roles as socialites to be an unwanted burden.

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

Trying to explain the plight of a single man to a single woman is like trying to explain the plight of someone who is lost in the desert to someone who is drowning.  With our gender roles so different, how could we ever relate to eachother?  Privilege is relative. What is privilege to one is burden to another. The woman who is constantly harassed by unwanted advances will never be able to empathize with the guy who wishes that just once, someone would notice him and include him, socially.

The point is that gender relations are a source of dissatisfaction and disharmony for BOTH genders that needs to be addressed, and that should ultimately entail concessions and incentives on both sides. This isn’t just a female issue and they shouldn’t be able to monopolize it, after all, in the Rodger case, three of the victims (if you count the shooter himself) were MALE.  The killer wasn’t just mad at women, but men as well, and this was explicitly expressed in his writing. However, his hatred and violence towards men is being downplayed in the media by dogmatically leftist pundits who would rather portray this issue specifically as a feminist or gun control issue instead of addressing the much more broad root social causes, ie, the general break down of society, the ‘dog eat dog’ nature of modern human existence, and the very real beta male victims of the patriarchally-enforced social class hierarchy.  I think the killer was denied social capital, agency, and communal LOVE, and thus driven to this terrible crime by a community that deliberately alienated him.

So why isn’t this being viewed as a crime against the socially accommodated, committed by the socially excluded, out of jealousy and disenfranchisement, rather than a crime against women committed out of misogyny?  If you ask me, this is more about class warfare than the battle of the sexes.  At some point, someone called this guy a creep, and it stuck, and became repeated without thought, and then social alienation made whatever attitude problems the dude had about a million times worse.  Alienating someone, even someone who legitimately has serious problems, is never going to make those problems better, and most people don’t even pretend to themselves that it will.  It’s just a matter of out of sight, out of mind.   It seems to me as if this is a typical example of the consequences of liberal social negligence. People act as if ignoring a problem will make it go away, with some NIMBY rationalization thrown in there.  But social exclusion is always to the ultimate detriment to the community.  

I’m not trying to defend a killer or his actions, but come on.  Why are modern people so socially and sexually dysfunctional in general?  Look at this guy.  He’s a 23-year old virgin, for crying out loud.  And he’s not even that ugly.  Even I’m “doing better” than this guy, and I tend to play the game of romance more like golf than basketball, mostly because statistically, the more casual sex one has, the lower chance one has of having a happy marriage, which is my personal  social goal.  Of course, I grew up in a different era.  So why are we breeding these adversarial relationships between the genders, Hell, even between people of the SAME gender, to a point where it disrupts functionally healthy sex lives and tears apart the fabric of society by making us all competitors in some kind of cut-throat romance competition?  And why aren’t people compassionate towards eachother?  Why are they so negligent of eachother’s needs?  I’m tempted to say social alienation was predicted by Karl Marx as one of many consequences of late stage capitalism.  Suffice to say, I think what Elliot Rodger needed most wasn’t sex, it was love.  Family, real friends who actually gave a damn, you know, social support.  And people are going to try and blame the victim (for he was a victim of a suicidal mentality and probably some form of bullying, mental health malpractice, and character assassination, just as much as he was a sadistic murderer), and say he “alienated himself”.  Alienation is something done by the group to the individual, not vice versa.  And to think that alienating someone will help change their point of view as a form of “punishment” is just retarded.

The fact of the matter is, we can’t count on “the system” (psychiatric OR penal) to “fix” people like Elliot Rodger.  Those establishments only make matters worse, and I don’t know of anyone who has ever really benefitted from incarceration or commitment.  I sincerely believe that people like Elliot are society’s problem. They cannot be ignored or left to slip through the cracks, otherwise, they only fester, get worse, and it comes back on the whole community.   And I thoroughly believe that when a crime like this is committed, the entire community is at fault.  What do you tell a person like that? “Go see a shrink”? But that’s a facetious dismissal. And a shrink can’t restore your social agency, or fix a broken society. All a shrink can do is help you accept your fate, or possibly give you the confidence to attempt to change your social status. People tend to have this negligent way of thinking “it’s someone else’s problem to deal with”, or worst of all “it’s the system’s problem”.  But no system is a substitute for society.

To say a guy like this deserved to be alone is a transgression of the conerstone of basic liberal ideology: the all-inclusive society. It seems to me as though women these days have taken the right to say ‘fuck off’ to men so far, that they have denied basic social agency to guys like this, to a point where their snapping and lashing out is inevitable. I’m not saying the guy was entitled to a female sex partner, but someone should have at least talked to the guy and tried to include him in society. You know, the basic common courtesy most women have forgotten by being so caught up in petty sexual politics.  People will stop being chauvinistic like that when their communities stop laughing at their social problems and actually do something to help.  People like this should be addressed instead of shoved under the rug. Ignoring someone with an inflammatory viewpoint is not the way to change their opinion.

As for the long-term solution to keep free radicals from forming malignant cells like that in the future, I sincerely believe the solution is to teach people they are not in competition with the opposite sex or other members of their own gender, and that we are all in the same boat. Everyone deserves a place in society and for their needs to be met and their opinions to be heard, and that we should all be accountable to eachother.  Teach people that from a young age, and get them to live it, and all of these social problems will be solved in a generation.