Alt Left: Janice Fiamengo, “The TERF War”

Another absolutely superb video from Janice. Sadly, she identifies with the Right and hates the Left, while really she should only despise the Cultural Left, yet no one seems to be able to do that. Hate the Cultural Left? Ok, that means you hate the Left because the Cultural Left is the Left.

While both the Right and the Left insist that the Cultural Left is indeed the Left, and one cannot be a part of the Left while rejecting the Cultural Left, the Alt Left begs to differ. After all, that’s why we were created in the first place as the Anti-SJW Left or Anti-PC Left. But we are not down with most anti-SJW’s and anti-PC folks because almost all of them are stock conservatives or reactionaries, even the widely heralded but extremely flawed Jordan Peterson.

Our argument is that just because you hate the Cultural Left, you don’t have to go over to the Right. Nope, there’s an alternative – us! And also, just because you oppose Cultural Left boneheads doesn’t mean that the only way to oppose them is via Social Conservative Republicanism, which is arguably just as bad if not worse than SJW’s.

Nope, you can oppose both of these blind irrational or backwards ideologues in favor of a philosophy that opposes the Cultural Left on the simple grounds that it is against common sense, facts, truth, and science.

Of course you can still be on the Left! What was the Marxists’ insistence that their philosophy was a science and their belief in materialism and opposition to superstition, backwardness and obscurantism but a decision by the Marxists to place scientific truth at the forefront of human political theory and behavior?

Anyway, check out the video. Of course, Janice shows, as she always does, how feminism is inherently irrational, self-contradictory and opposed to not only science but truth and common sense themselves. The TERF Wars show once again how irrational feminism is and how it is based simply on reflexive man-hating without examination or criticism of its own theories.

Feminism is not science. It’s not even political science. It’s Politics, sure, but so what? A lot of utterly irrational ideologies fall under the category of Politics. Politics is inherently dirty, low-down, pathologically dishonest, and utterly emotional and irrational: that is its very nature. Saying that feminism is not a science but is instead a Politics is no compliment. Sorry, ladies. Back to the drawing board?

Alt Left: Feminism, Defined, and the Proper Response to It

Feminism is simply a marker of “hostility/rage/vengeance towards men. The extent to which a woman is a feminist is simply the extent to which she has anger, rage, hatred, desire for vengeance,  etc. towards men. That’s all  feminism is: a hate movement against men.

As such, I don’t see why on Earth the Alt Left, as a progressive movement, should support a hate movement against men.  Why should any man on the Left support a hate movement against men? I mean unless you are a cuck or a little bitch who’s gone over to the enemy and is a traitor to his brothers.

However, the Alt Left absolutely supports equal rights for women. I mean why not? The problem with the MRA or anti-feminist movement is that in general it is opposed to equal rights for women. That’s no good. That’s a hate movement against women.

The proper response to a hate movement against men is not a hate movement against women. All you’ve done now is start a war. The proper response is a peace movement that opposes both the feminists’ War on Men and the anti-feminists’ War on Women. In that sense, the Alt Left is a Gender Peace movement.

Alt Left: The Extreme Abuse of Sex Trafficking Laws

Here.

A Florida man was convicted of “sex trafficking” for buying the services of a 14 year old girl prostitute. He apparently knew she was 14, as she was advertised as being that age in the ads. Well, buying an underage whore is illegal. Especially if you know she’s underage.

If you don’t know and you think she’s over 18, the pigs may well prosecute you for buying her anyway, which is garbage. Now you know why I hate cops so much. I don’t even call them cops. I call them pigs most of the time.

What is happening here is that radical feminism, an insane philosophy pushed by people who appear psychotic, is now the ruling mentality of the US on prostitution. Here we have an alliance because feminist nutcases and the socially conservative Right around the issue of prostitution. MRA’s are right when they attack what they call the Feminist-Conservative Alliance which is waging war on men in so many ways.

Radical feminists make the insane case that all prostitutes are somehow victims of human trafficking. Ever buy a prostitute? Well, you not only bought a whore but you actually sex-trafficked that woman by doing that! The phrase sex trafficking itself is being radically abused so much that every time I read it I have read further to make sure this is real sex trafficking and not something else.

Jeffrey Epstein was said to be “trafficking” his little teen whores that he employed, apparently by having them come to his house and have sex with him for $300. Afterwards they were free to leave. When they got home they could go anywhere they wanted to.

Victims of sex trafficking are in a sense being kidnapped. They’re not free to leave. Sometimes they are literally enslaved but most of the time they are simply under the control of a pimp who is forcing them to prostitute themselves under the threat that if they leave the pimp, he will assault them violently or even kill them.

Sex trafficking is basically pimping and it’s all about women being prisoners forced to have sex with men by their captors.

Epstein was a pimp? Not most of the time he wasn’t. Epstein recruited teenage prostitutes, often from the bad sides of towns. Their families had little money and they were often in desperate straits.

All of these girls leapt at the thought of making $300 for the simple act of giving Epstein a handjob, something most of these teenies were probably already giving boys anyway.

News stories describe these little teen whores as “victims.” That’s laughable. It was their choice to come over or not. If Epstein called and she didn’t want to come over, all she had to do was say no. If she kept turning him down, she  got no more calls and hence, no more visits to Epstein.

Epstein could not have cared less. He’s just find a new little teenie whore. After all, Epstein was such a monstrous abuser that he was being deluged with requests from teenage girls dying at a chance to suffer horrible abuse by him.

Yet some of these poor, scarred womanchildren “victims” (actually just a bunch of crybabies), were so horribly damaged and ruined by this silly teenage whoring that they kept coming back for more. Many voluntarily returned to Epstein to  make another $300 for a handie. Some returned 20 or more times.

They must have been being horribly abused if they kept coming for more 20 or more times, huh? Poor girls!  Poor women! Women are crying! Others were so devastated by this horrible sexual abuse that they went out and recruited many new  girls to serve as little teen whores to be horribly abused for Epstein just like they were. Wow!

The abuse was so horrific that they came back more than 20 times for more and they even went out recruiting new girls for the money-train. My heart bleeds for those girls!

In a few cases, Epstein did appear to traffic women, as there were a few women who felt that they were stuck and could not leave. Many had their passports confiscated by Epstein’s partner in crime Ghislaine Maxwell after being flown here from Europe. One girl tried to swim away from Epstein’s island only to be caught and forcibly brought back to shore where Epstein and Maxwell verbally abused her and threatened her about what would happen if she tried to run away again.

Ok, that counts as trafficking or pimping. She’s being trafficked if she cannot leave any time she wants. Everything else, no matter what it might be, is not sex trafficking.

Alt Left: All [Hetero]Sex Is Harmful – Janice Fiamengo

Janice Fiamengo, a fantastic anti-feminist Youtuber, doing a great episode on #metoo culture and its roots in radical feminism.

I had started down that road in my thinking in that I recognized that the whole theory of sexual harassment was dreamed up by two evil feminist bitches mentioned in this video – Katharine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin.

Dworkin was a fat, ugly Jewish dyke, but McKinnon has always been an attractive or even hot straight women, an extreme manhater nevertheless. What do these women do for sex anyway if they hate men so much? Invest in nice dildos?

The original sexual harassment was all about the workplace only, and it focused only on quid pro quo harassment, which actually made sense. Later, Dworkin and McKinnon brilliantly tied “hostile workplace” theory on to the original theory, and now we have a still workplace-dominated civil law with two prongs – “quid pro quo” and “hostile workplace.”

By throwing in hostile workplace these two bitches opened up a can of worms that is still overflowing at the top in the Current Year. And the #metoo thing went right back to McKinnon and Dworkin, two near-psychotic manhating bitches, and the hostile workplace theory that they concocted.

So I knew that the roots of #metoo were deep in radical feminist manhating dyke theory, and I thought it was important to point out that this was the foul seed from which this diseased vine sprouted and continues to wind its way across our land, with the infestation only getting worse as time goes by.

But Fiamengo takes my idea and goes much further with it into some very new interesting places along the same lines. She also points out some recent developments in #metoo theory which bode very ill for the future in that they are predicated on extending #metoo and rape theory into some very dystopian places.

Great stuff!

Alt Left: Banned from Alternet Again

Actually not banned but a lot of my posts got removed. I think I set it off with a post about the Brock Turner rape case along the lines of my post earlier. Then the commenter went through and vindictively removed every single comment I had made that way no matter what I said.

I have a hard time imaging a liberal man being so emotional, but liberal-Left “men” are hardly even real men anymore. They’re humans with male bodies who think and feel like women. They’re actually much worse than women themselves because at least women and nice to look, you can fuck them, and the sensible ones can be quite a bit of fun. There’s no benefit to the male feminist at all. He’s a pussy, a cuck and a gender traitor all at once. Hang ’em high!

On the other hand it may well have been a woman because that emo vindictiveness – removing every post I made just to be a cunt – is classic female behavior. An enraged woman is as good as blind. And the last time I got banned was for criticizing the Epstein case and calling the “victims” things like “little teen whores” which is precisely what those junior strumpets were.

Moderator is probably a feminist woman.

I’m trying real hard to decide who I hate more – American conservatives or American liberals. I really want to like the liberals because I basically am one from back before the movement got body-snatched, but they keep punching me in the face! And you hit a man enough times, and he might just start hitting back, you know. That’s just human nature.

Conservatives are fairly friendly but American conservatives are like…let me think of a good description…”retarded howling apes on PCP.” How’s that?

Blocked you, jackass. If you can’t figure out that “finger-banging” a woman when she has passed out and thus cannot give consent is rape, I don’t know what to say.

I never said he didn’t rape her. I just said it was difficult case. This guy is a flaming SJW faggot with his gay rainbow colors flying high for everyone to see and cheer on his glorious career in sodomy. I’m not against gay men if they were born that; in fact, I cheer them on. But I really hate SJW fags. They’re as bad as feminists or BLM or any of the rest of the Cultural Left scum.

A friend of mine is a bit of an Alt Left gay man. He’s my age. He calls himself a conservative but he’s actually a Marxist! He’s just a conservative Left type like me, left on economics but somewhat right on social issues. He calls these types “gay libbers” the old name for gay liberationists, the first name of the pro-gay movement in the West.

He also hates faggoty pride parades and all the rest of the in your face Gay IP disgusting nonsense. He says, “We gays all just need to get married and move to the suburbs and live just like all the regular normal people there.”

I cannot agree more with that statement.

Alt Left: The Serious Logical Lapses in the Enforcement of Rape Cases under Female Rule (with an Emphasis on Campus Craziness)

The If She Was Intoxicated, It’s Rape Bullshit

An examination of the insanity of what Female Rule has done to the enforcement of rape laws is in order. First of all, almost all women state that sex with an intoxicated woman is always rape. Well, what if she smoked some weed? What if she did some lines of coke? What if she shot some heroin? Why if she was flying on acid? What is intoxicated? One drink? Three drinks? Six drinks?

Lot of questions, huh?

Oh you silly person! You’re probably a man. What’s up with all this crazy logic stuff, anyway?

As usual this crazy law under Female Rule is vague, and in general you have no idea how to avoid breaking the law because you can’t even make sense of what the law even means and what the line is between legal and illegal behavior.

Fortunately Male Rule is still preponderant in most police departments, attorney general’s offices, and courts of law, and the legal system has decided “intoxicated” means in the case of alcohol that she is so drunk that she’s either passed on cold or she’s passing in and out of consciousness.

So boys, if you are even being sexual with a drunken woman and she fades into this sort of quasi-consciousness, it’s best to end the sex when she starts passing out. Just stop.  Because whatever it was before, now it’s rape, and even a pig like me approves of that definition.

The They Were Raping Each Other Bullshit, or Something, or Whatever

For the sake of the idiot feminist version of this law, let’s say a man and  a woman are both blasted on alcohol. He’s wasted so he can’t consent, right? So she’s raping him, right? Legally that’s correct.

But she’s totalled too, no? She sure is. This poor damsel in distress can’t consent either now that she’s a typical female who lacks agency. So he’s raping her, right? Legally that is indeed so.

So what makes sense?  Arrest one and not the other? Which one and why? Arrest them both and idiotically charge these two lushes with raping each other both at the same time?

See how insane Female Rule is?

In the case of the above, rest assured that feminists confidently inform us that it’s always only the man ever raping the female, who is always a childlike helpless maiden with no agency, and the man, no matter how plastered, is always the rapist because men are evil or something. Or whatever. Or bla bla.

Don’t bother confusing feminists or any riled up woman about anything to do with logic or sense because their aroused emotional state will blind them to such things. Which is why most feminist theory is nonsense and why most of what feminists say is not even true.

The Drunken Female Sexual Aggressors Who Attack Men Are Actually Getting Raped Themselves Somehow in some  Alternate Universe Bullshit

There was actually a case at a university recently of a totally plastered female student who more or less ripped the clothes off a sober male student she was with and thereupon gave him a blowjob. Nevertheless, this poor helpless female creature experienced regret rape when she woke up with a hangover and probably a sore jaw, so she screamed rape.

The Kafkaesque Feminist Kangaroo Rape Tribunals on Campus Bullshit

The man was tried before a feminist kangaroo court rape tribunal with the Kafkaesque madness that typifies these proceedings.

He had no right to presumption of innocence because females think presumption of innocence in rape cases is “unfair”.

He also had no right to attorney or an advocate to represent his side, and he even had no right to present his side of the story at all! Once again because women say that in rape cases, it would be “unfair” for the man to have such rights.

He also had no right to confront his accuser on the stand or even to see her at all in court. Once again because women think that in rape cases, this is “only fair.”

Furthermore in the latter matter, women are hot and bothered by the fact that we are subjecting this poor womanchild “rape victim” to a traumatic experience on the stand confronting  her accuser because she might PTSD out, and nothing that harms a precious but extremely fragile female can be allowed.

Some sane people, probably men, have suggested that the poor forever child female “rape victims” could be allowed in court via video, and the accused could confront his accuser in that manner. But no go. Females are such fragile wildflower-type creatures that even showing up in court via video would wilt and traumatize them and cause them to PTSD out again as they wont to do for various reasons or probably even for no reasons.

Anyway, of course the feminist kangaroo court found him guilty of rape and decided to throw this poor shmuck out of the university. The case later became a bit of a cause celebre when sane people pointed out just how lunatic Female Rule actually is.

The Regret Rape Bullshit

Females experience “regret rape” all the time. Th regret rape realization usually hits the next hungover morning, but it can be up to two years later, or for females with exceptionally fine memories, now 17 years later in the latest Matt Lauer case.

Many rape cases the police investigate of women against men are just regret rape nonsense where she consents at the time but then wakes up guilty with a bad memory the next morning and decides that the consensual sex she had the night before was actually rape now that she’s (mis)remembering it correctly. So she retroactively withdraws her consent that she freely gave that previous rollicking night.

Feminists claim that women reserve to right to yell regret rape anytime they want, presumably even on their deathbeds when you would think they had better things to worry about.

Feminists also say that regret rape is real rape when any sane person, like a typical male, knows that all regret rape is garbage, but we’re not ruled by sane people anymore. We are ruled by women, and women are frankly not sane. Not sane enough to write and enforce laws at any rate.

Now maybe you can understand my issues with Female Rule and why I talk about it a lot.

Alt Left: Identity Politics, the Working Class, and the Left

If a gay man were to come up to me and say, “I’m a gay worker!”

I would answer him this: “Pick one.”

Either your identity is gay or your identity is worker. Not both. It’s fine and dandy to fight for your rights and all of that, but silly things like gender, race and sexual orientation shouldn’t take precedence over true hard realities of political economy like whether someone is a worker, a capitalist, or an entrepreneur.

Suppose instead or in addition to identifying as a worker, I ID’d as “straight.” Well, I am straight, so why not ID as straight. I could go join some straight rights groups and fight for me people. Actually I would only ever join any group like that to get laid, but that’s another matter.

I would get all worked up about how put upon we poor straights are and how teh geyz and the trannies are hogging all the rights. I would probably start to get quite angry at the gays and he-she’s oppressing us poor cis straights.

Why on Earth is me being straight of all things an important matter? It’s not.

I could ID as a male instead of IDing as a worker. I could get all wrapped up in fake victimhood and wound-nursing and get all hopping mad at women and how they are oppressing us bepenised ones. Why should I do that? That’s just going to make me all angry and miserable and I’m going to get quite mad at women. How is any of that going to help me. Besides, is the most important thing about me that I am a man? Are you kidding?

I could go join some White rights group and fight for my fellow palefaces. I would end up constructing a big narrative of endless victimhood and a sense of being picked on, bullied, attacked and oppressed by those bad non-Whites. Obviously I would end up getting very mad at non-Whites because that’s what White IP does – it makes you mad at non-Whites.

Have you noticed something? Straight IP makes straights hate gays and trannies. Male IP or Men’s Rights makes men hate women. White IP without fail makes Whites hate non-Whites.

IP always ends up making you hate the group that is supposedly picking on you.

Hence:

Black IP makes Black people hate Whites. That ought to be obvious by now but this is  continually impressed upon me.

Women’s IP or Feminism makes women hate men. That’s way more than obvious by now, proven so many times we don’t even need to discuss it.

Gay IP has a tendency to make gays hate straights.

Tranny IP definitely makes trannies hate us “cis scum.”

Have you ever noticed something else?

None of these people are happy.

Blacks into Black IP seem miserable.

Feminists always look angry and unhappy.

The Gay IP crowd acts like they have a wild hair up their ass. No wait.

Straight IP people (straight pride marches) don’t seem very happy. Their “pride” parades are more like hatefests.

Men’s IP or Men’s Rights people seem pretty damn unhappy. MRA’s always seem to have a sour look on their faces, then when they are not actually raging and shouting threats at women.

If there’s one thing that impressed me about the White IP crowd or White nationalists, it’s that they are not real happy. These are very angry and often mean people. They’re not happy campers. Many of them positively seethe and rage with pure hate. They don’t seem to be having a good one.

All Identity Politics divides the working class, and it all makes classes of people who ought to work together, such as workers, to divide into hateful tribes and declare war on each other. All Identity Politics focuses not on rights for the group but more on hatred for the supposed oppressor.

Alt Left: Male Rule and Female Rule: Some Misunderstandings

According to my theory, you could have a government composed of 100% women who chose to impose Male Rule. You could have a government of 100% men who chose to impose Female Rule. Do you follow? You can fill the whole government up with women for all I care as long as they are sensible and don’t impose Feminism. It’s unlikely but it’s certainly possible in the right culture.

Male Rule means ruling according to the norms, values, and laws of men. It has nothing to do with the number or percentage of males actually in power in the state.

Female Rule means ruling according to the norms, values, and laws of women. This also has nothing to do with the numbers or percentages of women in actual ruling positions in government.

Alt Left: The Teenage Girl Bullshit

Bumface and I having a conversation in the comments section. I don’t normally like to talk about girls that young because that’s way too young for me to even want to look at, but Bumface is our resident hebephile, so I will indulge him.

Bumface: Eva Ionesco is the youngest model ever to appear in a Playboy nude pictorial, since she was featured at age 11 in the October 1976 issue of the Italian edition of the magazine in a set by Bourboulon. In that picture, she was at a beach posing in nude exposing all female anatomy.

Another of her nude pictorials in the November 1978 issue of the Spanish edition of Penthouse, was a selection of her mother’s photographs. She made also appeared on the cover page of Der Spiegel at the age of 12 completely nude.The issue was later expunged from the magazine’s records.

What was it like living in such sexually liberal times?

RL: LOL no one cared. I can’t even remember any sort of furor about any of this BS. I can’t remember if there was any discussion at all of what this girl did, much less a furor. A Cream album had a topless 11 year old girl on it and it was actually allowed to be sold because no one cared and who gets turned on by a topless 11 year old human female anyway?

It was another era. Basically feminism, Female Rule, #metoo, rape/sexual assault paranoia, and all of the feminist insanity of the Current Year for all intents and purposes didn’t even exist.

And believe it or not, everyone was happy. Women never complained about any of this BS. People mostly just thought it was funny. Men and women liked each other and liked to fuck each other.

Totally unlike this insane Feminist Hell we live in now! As far as sex with children, most people were very much against it, but there was a huge firewall between little children and teenage girls which has been torn down by a bunch of drooling lunatics in the Current Year.

Bumface: Do you think it can ever happen again?

Things have gone so far downhill. I do not think that the mores of the 1970’s will ever come back.  Society has been too damaged by this puritanical feminist sex-hatred that even if the disease goes away (dubious) scars will remain for a long time.

Maybe 15 years ago, hundreds of millions of deranged, drooling, moronic pin-headed human beings got it in their head that anyone having sex with a teenage girl was a PETAFILEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

I am not sure how this mass insanity and nonsense started. Some say it was with the Internet. It also might have started with Sex Offender Lists, which began about 30 years ago after a few very serious cases in which young girls were murdered by sex offenders.

In the Current Year, the Teenage Girl Bullshit is being promoted by almost all women to their eternal discredit, a large % of the Christian Right, a lot of completely cucked married men who may in fact be eunuchs, and almost all liberal men, since a vast percentage of liberal men are PC nowadays. A friend calls it the Fundamentalist Feminist Alliance. There are a lot of complete dingbats, often married women, who are best called femiservitives.

I guess PETAFILE!!!!!! includes the teenage boys who do them too. Any man, even one aged 18-20, who has sex with an underage teenage girl is also a PETAFILLLLEEEE!!! I am a PETAFILLLLLEEEE!!! myself because I had tons of sex with underage teenage girls from age 16-20. That was 40 years ago when everyone did such things matters not. I am still a PETAFILLLLLEEE!!! for the rest of my life.

Back then, 40 years ago, it was nothing. No one really cared about this sort of thing. It was considered normal for teenage boys to fuck teenage girls (which is basically the only reason they even exist at all – so we males can fuck them) and vast numbers of young men continued to fuck girls aged 14-17 when they were 18-20.

Yes, some went beyond that, and not much happened to them. I could tell you a number of stories of my friends having sex with 14-16 year old girls at ages 23-30.

But after age 21, the word was out that you really had to watch it or knock it off or you might go to jail. All this Current Year Teenage Girl Bullshit was called “statutory rape,” and it was the subject of much giggling, laughing, and joking.

Everyone knew that teenage girls were horny as rabbits and that it was impossible to keep them from fucking males. So most Moms just slipped their teenage daughters birth control pills. Almost all sexually active high school girls were on the Pill, and most of them got them from their own mothers. Fathers tried to stop it but they were ineffectual like they always are.

The whole idea was that it was a well-known fact that teenage girls were as horny as women if not moreso, and teenage boys were as horny or even hornier than most men. The idea was that teenagers fucking was just fine, just don’t get pregnant. And if you get pregnant, get an abortion. So that is what happened.

It was also recognized that teenage girls, in addition to being horny as cats in heat, looked exactly like women and hence were attractive to not only all boys but to all men who were not gay or dead. People actually used to say that, “The only men not turned on by teenage girls are gay men and dead men.”

The attraction was acknowledged but men were urged to restrain themselves or they might get a statutory rape charge. No one thought statutory rape was really rape. Everyone just thought it was illegal intercourse, which is exactly what it is. Absolutely no human beings anywhere on Earth thought that fucking teenage girls was PETAFILLLLLEEEEE!!!!!!!!! or CHIILD MALESTABATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The very idea that anyone would think that “statutory” was real rape or pedophilia or child molestation was laughable. No one said anything that retarded and if anyone ever did, I assume that everyone just laughed in their face, called them a prude, and told them they needed to get laid.

Teachers were periodically caught with girls and would for the most part just get fired. A very popular Black teacher, the only one at the school, got caught fucking a 15 year old student. I believe he was simply fired. It was a longstanding joke at the school and everyone just laughed about.

Generally not much was done to the men if they were still fairly young. Of course the girls always refused to prosecute the man as they do to this very day. This shows the absurdity of the crime – the victim herself even states that she is not a victim!

In many to most cases, the girl seduced the man, as these things usually unfold. I am not justifying these men falling into these girls spiderwebs. Instead I am pointing out that it takes two to tango and the girls are usually more instigators than victims in these cases.

Of course people had a low opinion of actual pedophiles and child molesters but those terms were reserved for men who had sex with children under the age of 13.

In other words, back then, everyone was sane. The world was sane. Most humans you met were sane people instead of the dangerous wild-eyed retards of the Current Year. You could wake up in the morning, look up at the ceiling and smile, knowing that you lived in a world that was run and populated by sane people.

There were lots of jokes about jailbait and whatnot with the recognition that this is exactly what these girls were – a very tempting bait that if men fell for it, could land them in jail.

I do remember one case of a man in my area in his 50’s who lived alone. He had pot and cocaine and he had teenage girls from the neighborhood coming around all the time. He would give them free pot and coke if they fucked him. So of course teenage temptresses came from next door all the way to Timbuktu to fuck this guy and get their free dope. I believe this went on for some time.

Well, he got caught and I remember that he got three years in prison for fucking some 15 year old girls. I remember reading about it in the paper and talking to my family about it, but everyone mostly just starting laughing because the whole idea of jailbaits and statutory was considered hilarious, which of course it is.

But this guy went down though because of the huge age discrepancy. He was 53 years old so society reacted rather harshly. It would have been different if he was 33 and if he was 23, most people might just say leave the poor alone, dammit. Because back then people believed in the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Male thinking, not female thinking, ruled society, and both sexes were better off for it.

Alt Left: The Truth Is That Even Women Would Rather Be Ruled by Men

Everywhere on Earth you allow women to take power, they will always, without fail, impose Female Rule or Feminist Rule.

I don’t just blame women for this. This is simply the way that women and naturally and normally are. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

Just as women will always impose Female Rule without fail, likewise, everywhere on Earth, it will be the same catastrophic clusterfuck of chaos and drama, which are the handmaidens of the Feminine Spirit.

So women think like women and that happens to be messed up in some ways, but under Patriarchy, men maintained enough control over women to keep women out of power. There was a recognition that women in power would impose female mores and that this would royally screw up everything, which is exactly what it does.

So patriarchy saved men from women’s nonsense and it saved women from themselves because…get this…even women, deep down inside, do not want to live under the constant drama, turmoil, chaos and irrationality of a culture of rules and laws that are based on people’s feelings (Female Rule) instead of logic, reason, and sense (Male Rule).

Even women hate Female Rule or Feminist Rule, but they are too dense to do anything about it.

I think most women just assume we men will at some point say we’ve had enough of the idiocy of Female Rule and simply take back power. Women will scream and yell and carry on like the grown up children they are, but deep down inside, I think most of them will welcome the an order and reason based society instead of one based on the violent mood swings of women.

Yes.

Women secretly want us men to save them from themselves because they know deep down inside that there are a lot of things that are simply better done by a man.

The problem is that under Female Rule you start to get all these rules, laws and mores that have pretty much no definition whatsoever. Or no reasonable definition. Often the definition, if interpreted rationally, makes no sense at all and is simply an insane rule, law, or more.

More and more of society starts being taken over by, “How does it make women feel?” Under Female Rule, if a man makes a woman feel bad, he is arrested or punished outside of the penal system, for instance by firing.

The definitions of Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault and Rape if read by the pure intent of their words themselves would outlaw all flirting, dating and probably most sex.

Most flirting would be considered harassment (and it currently is), most dating would be considered sexual assault (this is the current status of dating) and quite a bit of regular sex would go over to rape.

Flirting would be harassment if it made a women feel bad.

Touching would be sexual assault if it made a woman feel bad.

And of course any sex that made a woman feel bad would obviously be rape. Katharine McKinnon, of the most vicious manhaters of the 20th Century, has actually stated that any time a woman has sex when she doesn’t want to, it’s rape. And she and her lunatic ilk have actually tried to put codes and even laws along more or these lines in effect.

Well, if it’s rape every time she does it but she doesn’t want to, you just made about half of marital sex rape.

Alt Left: It’s Hard to Believe We Have Gotten More Repressed and Anti-Sex in the Last 40 Years

Jason: Just a Theory

In the old days, if a guy was too horny around women that he didn’t know were single, it could be dangerous BECAUSE you didn’t know if she had a husband or boyfriend.

Exactly. Back in the day if you were coming onto some guy’s wife or girlfriend, that guy might give first give you some dirty looks. Then if that didn’t work, he would have an word or two with you. Then if that didn’t work, you’re going to get a punch in the face.

And not only that but after you get hit, no one will call the cops. If you tried to press charges, the cops would laugh and say we don’t make arrests on this bullshit. Your job, career, and life didn’t get ruined because it was more or less normal for men to go after other’s men’s women. No one cared.

I should  rephrase that. People did care. They just didn’t care enough to make a big fuss over it and ruin some guy’s job, career and life, for the most part because this was often considered private behavior that other people had no business butting into.

If the woman he was chasing was happily married, it was not a very nice thing to do. You might get some frowns and a few harsh words. Chasing other men’s women was often regarded as SOB behavior at worst and dangerous behavior on the man’s part at best.

If you had an office job, and it went around that one of the guys in the office chased other men’s women, everyone would laugh, and a couple of the women would probably ask him for his number. Mostly people would say, “Why is this important? We don’t care what people do in bed. It’s none of our business!” Some might say, “Mind your own business, dammit!”

This was back around 1975-1985, you know, back in the days of Sexual Liberation and the Sexual Revolution? Back before the feminists and femiservatives tried to stop straight men from having sex?

I can’t believe how repressed and anti-sex we have become. I place most of the blame on Sex-Negative Feminism. Of course we are only repressed and anti-sex when it comes to straight men, who society is trying to stop from getting laid for some insane reason. Straight women, gays, and lesbians get to do whatever the Hell they want. The only sexual harassers, sexual assaulters, and rapists are straight men, I guess because we’re just plain evil or something.

At any rate, thanks a lot, feminists! Thanks for nothing!

Alt Left: Joe Biden and the Wuss Left

The Sissy Left leftwing radio station I listed to has some “male” announcer who was talking about problems with Biden’s candidacy with some other leftwing wuss. “Yes we are hearing a lot of things about Joe Biden now. It’s not looking good. He touches women!” That was the first I heard of this stupid BS. And I thought WTF. Listen to what this leftwing girly station just said! They said Biden is having a real big problem with his candidacy because he touches women!

That’s literally what they said. Who cares what they meant? What’s the message that’s getting sent? It’s the simple age old feminist message that touching women is wrong and evil. Not only that but mainstream feminism has always held that touching women (ie sexual harassment) is a form of aggression and violence!

Joe Biden puts his hands on your shoulders, and that’s violence! Damn! Did she have to go to the emergency room? I sure hope she didn’t get hurt too bad! Can you imagine that? Putting your hands on a woman’s shoulders? What an evil misogynistic psycho! That’s almost as bad as Ted Bundy!

Think about it again. What’s the message?

Touching women is evil. Men who touch women are evil sexist misogynist abusers who must be fired from their jobs and have their careers destroyed.

You think that sounds nuts? It is, but that is exactly what they said, right? And that’s been the message of #metoo all along. Touching women is evil. Kissing women is rape. Making a pass at a woman is assault. Asking a woman for her phone number is sexual misconduct.

Solution? Easy. Quit touching women. Quit kissing women. Quit making those evil passes at women. Quit abusing them by asking them for their numbers, for Chrissake! That’s so gross and creepy!

I am proud to say that the Alt Left is one of the only political movements to take a stand against this folly. Both political parties are completely cucked. The men are all sissies and the women are all feminist harridans. We on the Alt Left are absolutely, resolutely pro-sex!

When both the Left and the Right have taken up sissiness and Puritanism, we are the movement for real men and real women, for free love, for doing it in the streets! We are the movement against all forms of Puritanism, Victorianism, censoriousness, Comstockery, sex-hatred, repression, and priggishness.

The Alt Left supports men touching women! Hell yeah! Do it all you want or can get away with lol. The Alt Left supports men kissing women! We love that. Do it all the time if you can get away with it.

We support asking women on dates and for their numbers! Go for it! Don’t be a pussy. Ask them out, boys! We support making passes and sexual advances, both wanted and unwanted. Go for it! Flirt away!

The Alt Left is the movement that values heterosexual flirting above most other things in life. If she doesn’t like it or tells you to stop, you need to stop now or soon. As long as you do that, there’s no such thing as sexual harassment, and #metoo doesn’t exist.

There’s nothing wrong with making women uncomfortable! The Alt Left fully supports the right of men to make women uncomfortable, and the other way around for that matter! You are going to make people uncomfortable in life. It can’t be avoided.

Love sex and getting tired of all this petty, bitchy, girly, fussy, sexually uptight repressive Victorian bullshit? Tired of both the Sex-Hating Left and the Sex-Hating Right? Join the Alt Left! The only pro-sex movement remaining on the Left.

Alt Left: The Left Hates Me Far More than the Right Does

SHI: Funny thing I am hated by the Hindutvadi morons more than they do Muslims. Something about me sets a TRIGGER and they react crazily.

They probably think you’re a traitor. You used to be one of them and now you went over to the other side. Few of them will admit it, but a lot of the hatred towards me is coming from that same point of view. Some of them are almost heartbroken. Heartbroken that this good liberal man has turned into such a vicious, evil, racist brute. Except I’m not really racist at all.

The Left hates me for more than the Right does. Most rightwingers are actually quite pleasant. The Left on the other hand has been vicious, destructive, and even evil, waging a campaign of personal destruction and character assassination against me. The take-down of my blog has been only part of that.

I’m lucky I don’t have an academic job, or any job, that these psychos could connect me with because they have openly stated that they will find out my job and try to get me fired on some SJW bullshit charge (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.).

It might be nice if there were a few employers in this country who reacted to this garbage with, “So what! So my employee is a racist, sexist, homophobe, whatever! In your highly subjective opinion, that is. I got some news for you. I don’t care! People like that are more than welcome to work for me!”

But no one has the balls to do that. I know you would though, SHI, if you were an employer. That’s why I like you.

On the other hand though that employer might get a boycott against him. But if we had enough employers doing that they might stop boycotting because how can you boycott thousands of businesses at once. It’s boy who cried wolf and people would just throw up their hands and say, “Forget it! I’m buying whatever I’m buying!”

I must say though that the liberal-Left is not alone in this insane, destructive, fanatical hate.

I got the exact same thing from the Bigfooters (some of the most vicious and downright wicked and sociopathic freaks I have ever encountered) and the true crime crowd, where a group of people, mostly women waged an all out war on me for  some things I wrote when I was reporting a crime.

From the True Crime Crowd it was basically coming from a total feminist POV, but it also picked up a lot of retarded Middle American monkeys from the Midwest, fundamentalist Christian redneck Trump-lovers.

A friend of mine refers to the enemy of the men as femiservatives. There are many conservatives out there who hate us men just as much as the feminists do. He uses some word like Feminist/Conservatives – I forget the actual terminology. A lot of this enemy is made up of conservative Republican fundamentalist Christian White women, part of the Trump coalition.

They’re the worst enemy I ever met. They tried very hard to dox me, and they reported me to the police probably 50 times. I even got a call from a detective who told me I was a suspect in a terrible crime because so many people had called me in.

Before that it was Jews, mostly super-Jews and Zionist Israel-reporters.  They doxed all of their enemies and contacted their employers and tried to get them fired as “anti-Semites.” Utterly vicious people with a black hole where their heart should be.

Is it something about the Internet and the anonymity of it that brings out the Secret Psychopath in so many people? Is it Snark Culture on the Net, exemplified by Reddit?

In fact, recently I found that people on Breitbart of all places were far more open-minded about US foreign policy, government lying, and media lying and bias. A lot of them are very cynical and they hardly believed anything the state or media said about anything anymore, which is a good idea because 50% of what they say is either lying or biased anyway.

One Brietbart commenter said that whenever the government says anything, your first assumption should be that they are lying. I’m not sure about that but on foreign policy it is absolutely. Disinformation, outright lying and blatant propaganda have essential tools of US foreign policy forever now, going back to the Spanish Civil War and the yellow journalism and state-sponsored hate campaigns that accompanied it.

I was shocked at how antiwar (in an isolationist way) they were. Half of those Brietbart commenters sounded exactly like me!

Then I went over to Daily Kos (the left wing base Democratic Party) headquarters, and they had swallowed all of the media and state lies about that refinery attack whole.

I will say that the Left (Alternet) has a very open mind, except on SJW crap, but a lot of the Alternet crowd are open-minded about that too, and a lot of them are starting to rebel against SJWism which they see as puritanical, prudish, uptight, priggish, party-pooping no-fun people. Others just think it is a silly and petty distraction.

Actually over on Daily Kos (liberals) the SJWism is vastly worse. That’s a brainwashed horde over there. And on the actual Hard Left (actual Communists and antifa anarchists) is where you will find the worst SJWism of all.

I think it is because both the Breitbart crowd and the Alternet Left have gone over to a “conspiracy theory” view of the world for some time now. At times this is quite wrong, but at other times, it is flat out true.

The Democratic Party though says that every time you question the media or state on anything foreign policy or some other things, it’s “conspiracy theory.” All “conspiracy theory” is banned on Daily Kos, for instance. Ok, now right off the bat you can’t talk about 50% of what the media or state is telling you because those are lies that can only be explained by,  frankly, conspiracy theory.

On the other hand though, even Kosnicks have come a long way. The early articles on the refinery attack were very skeptical, with 80% of them saying the government is lying. Now they are all saying the government is telling the truth.

It’s really pathetic when liberals of all people (we came out of the Vietnam War era, remember?) buy the foreign policy lies of the state and media far more than conservatives do, as conservatives have always been more likely to believe this propaganda crap.

Modern liberal Democrats are utterly pathetic. They’re better than they used to be, but they are still a huge clusterfuck.

One thing that particularly galls me is that conservatives are far friendlier, nicer, and more decent to me than the Left is. And I am a Leftist! I am supposed to be one of their sworn enemies! They are supposedly full of hate, viciousness and outright evil, but when you meet them, they’re so nice and pleasant, even to an out and out Leftist!

On the other hand though the SJW Left are utter monsters – savage, destructive,, and vindictive freaks. I always thought we on the liberal-Left were the nice and compassionate ones and the Right was where al the haters and hate was. Now it’s the other way around.

It’s so discouraging and disappointing. In a way, it breaks my heart. I have been a man of the Left my whole life, and now it feels, just as I feel about my country, that the love of my life (the Left) has ripped out my heart and crushed it on the ground like a bug. So I’m also heartbroken. Heartbroken at both my country and the liberal-Left, two things I once held near and dear to my heart.

Alt Left: Female Rule Always Fails – the Best Society Is a Benign Patriarchy

There are two different types of Masculism, a sort of male version of feminism without all the baggage and misogyny of the MRA’s.

From Wikipedia:

Christensen differentiates between “progressive masculism” and an “extremist version”. The former welcomes many of the societal changes promoted by feminists, while regretting that some measures reducing sexism against women have increased it against men.

The extremist version promotes male supremacy to some degree and is generally based on a belief in women’s inferiority. Nicholas Davidson, in his book The Failure of Feminism, describes an extremist version of masculism which he termed “virism”: “What ails society is ‘effeminacy’. The improvement of society requires that the influence of female values be decreased and the influence of male values increased….”

I do not like the extreme version’s belief in female inferiority, as I refuse to see women as inferior. I do not think the problem with society is effeminacy.

It is just that the Female Imperative has taken over, and women are imposing their feminized society and their Female Rule on us via laws and courts. That’s not acceptable at all. Women or at least their female values, rules, and mores cannot rule countries.

Women can serve as President, in Congress, anywhere in society and help us men run society, but society should not privilege the views, values, and mores of women over those of men. Female Rule imposes female emotionalism and irrationalism on society. This is how females work and that’s ok, as their brains work this way, and they can’t help it. But they shouldn’t impose their emotionally-driven, irrational female views on society via rules and laws.

Men believe in objectivity, hard rules, and cold logic. This is the best way to run society in terms of its laws, rules, and mores, especially in terms of courts and laws. We can call this Male Rule or Patriarchy.

A Benign Patriarchy, the only good kind, would emphasize logic, common sense, objectivity, un-emotionalism, and rationalism as the basis for the rules, mores, and especially laws of society. If imposed by good men in a benign way so as not to privilege men and oppress women, this is the best form of society.

We’ve already seen what happens in Female Rule. We are living it right now. What do you think all this PC and SJW madness is. It’s nothing less than Female Rule itself. This is what it looks like.

With Female Rule, you just get endless chaos, and eventually people will start clamoring for order and saneness to rule society again. They will clamor to bring back a form of Patriarchy, hopefully a benign one which would not resemble the type of Patriarchy that feminists complain about (an Oppressive Patriarchy).

Good, fair minded women can certainly help us men to implement this Benign Patriarchy and in fact the presence of many women at the upper rungs of this society will assure that the rule of logic and sense does not turn into men lording it over and oppressing women, which it often does.

Alt Left: Feminists Don’t Want Equality; They Want to Defeat and Dominate Men

We men have been lording it over women for at least 12,000 and probably far longer than that. Patriarchy was usually the only way to be for any society.

However, in recent years in the West, patriarchy has started to crumble, mostly due to the assaults of the feminists. This is a good thing in most ways. However there are still quite a few battlements in the bombarded fortress which are active and not good for women.

And women have started to institute a matriarchy over men too in some ways. Like the #metoo nonsense. It was inevitable. Most groups fighting for their rights don’t really want equal rights. They want to defeat the people dominating them and turn the tables to where the dominated are now dominators.

So the remains of patriarchy continue to oppress women while the newfound matriarchy now oppresses men. Both sexes are both oppressed and oppressors now.

PUA/Game: Nice Guys and Bad Boys: The Final World

RL: LOL I dunno man. Women say they hate liars but they themselves lie their fool heads off all day long. And they love to hook up with extremely dishonest bad boys who cheat on them all the time.

Jason: But why are these guys stuck with “bad girls”? It’s because they have no integrity! And now the bad girls are hypocritically demanding integrity from these “losers in life”(sarcasm).

Bad boys can get any woman they want, pretty much. They get the hottest women of all. And they don’t care if they get bad girls or nice girls for the most part. Why would they care about that? They’re jerks. Why would jerks care about the integrity of the women they are with? Only decent men care about things like that. Bad boys probably like bad girls because they realize that bad girls are somewhat sociopathic just like they are. Peas in a pod.

Honestly, I think women are sick. There’s something wrong with them. They’re masochists. They actually want to be treated like crap by bad boys.

I don’t necessarily blame them for this, as I think that they can’t help it. Actually I do not blame women for most of the things I complain about them because I think they can’t help being bad like this. I think the badness is hardwired in.

Women are too decent to go out of their way and choose to be wicked. I mean sure, there are females who are anywhere from somewhat to completely psychopathic, and I do blame them for being pond scum. But face it. Women are the gentle sex, the sensitive sex. They’re basically kind-hearted and compassionate, and we men sure as Hell are not.

Instead I think it’s got to be wired in from caveman days. If you think about it, only 40% of men bred back in those days. So 60% of men had no kids. And almost all women bred. So back then there were harems just like in tribal Sub-Saharan Africa.

These arrangements typically mean that the worst, baddest, cruelest, and most evil men defeat all the other guys and rule over the defeated by terror while keeping as many women as possible for themselves. The rest of the guys are standing around with their dicks in their hands saying, “Duhhhh.”

So back then, the mean and sociopathic cavemen had these harems of women, and they were so mean and nasty that the rest of the men, possibly being less aggressive, were kept from taking these guys’ women by sheer force.

Look at Elephant Seals for an analogy in the animal world. Actually in much of the animal world, only a subset of males breed, and most males do not breed.

You can see that a setup like this might not only select for sociopathy and bad boys in men, but it might also select for the women liking these cavemen bad boy sociopaths and even putting up with being mistreated, as these caveman psychos were probably pretty mean to their women. So women who were not into being treated like crap by some maniac simply never bred and died out. It’s a just-so story but it’s as good as any.

Anyone got a better theory?

There isn’t any better theory.

The only alternate theory is the feminist theory. The feminist theory as usual is a complete lie because everything feminists say is a lie. Feminists simply say that it is a big lie that women prefer bad boys, are basically masochists, and hate nice guys.

Instead they say that women hate nice guys because deep down inside, nice guys aren’t very nice! They’re actually mean! As usual this makes no sense at all, since why would women pass up the nice guys for being hidden mean guys while flocking to the jerks who by all measures are not only openly vicious but are dramatically more mean and bad than any nice guy.

Feminist liars also say that women reject nice guys because nice guys are just being nice and hanging around women pretending to be their friends in hopes that the woman will eventually have sex with them. Oh noes! That’s terrible! Those evil men! How dare they try to get laid! Those poor virginal damsels in distress! Feminists come rescue them!

So nice guys are actually evil harassing, assaulting, raping scum! #Metoo! And the bad boys who are far more harassing, assaulting, and even raping than any nice guy are the ones they pick! That makes no sense at all, like anything any feminist ever said about anything.

It’s pretty simple. Women like masculine man. They go for bad boys because bad boys are masculine. The caveman residue alluded to above might also factor in. Nice guys? Well, they seem like wimps, and women hate wimps because they’re not masculine. Wimps are too feminine and most straight women are not into dating male lesbians, except the ones who go out with me.

And this is coming from a guy who has dated maybe 200 females in my life, so I’m not some loser whining, “Women only like bad boys! They don’t like nice guys like me!”

Plus I am a bit of a bad boy myself. But why do you think I do this? Part of it is I am just a rebellious motherfucker who doesn’t believe in fathers, bosses, rules, or laws (especially the first and all the subsequent ones follow from that one). But also I have been running Bad Boy Game my whole life because I know women love it. It’s all just a way to get women.

Women don’t like nice guys because they think they are wimps, pussies, and fags! That’s the truth of it. However, when they grab a Beta Provider to settle down, marry, and have a kid, it seems like a lot of the time they want a nice guy for a husband and father as long as he is not too much of a pussy.

It seems like back in the Day I was a pretty nice guy though, although I have always been a hardcore inveterate cheater. But I have usually had open relationships with women. I used to just lay it out right away that this was an open relationship, and I would say, “I don’t care what you do. I don’t care if you date other guys. I just don’t want to hear about it. What I don’t know won’t hurt me. And vice versa.”

This was back in the 70’s and 80’s when people were promiscuous, and crabs was about the worst STD you could get. It was groovy and cool to be polyamorous although no one ever called it that. A lot of the women and girls back then seemed like they liked being in open relationships because it made them groovy, cool, hip people.

I had girls who would go around bragging to our friends that we had an open relationship. I had a girlfriend recently put on her Facebook page that she was in an Open Relationship (with me). She acted like she was proud of it.

A lot of females want to be bad girls and break the rules, so to speak. A man granting them the status of an open relationship on their end is very empowering, and females love to be empowered because typically they are not allowed to have much power or agency in this world where they have to spend most of their time fending off the advances of annoying and uninteresting men.

They especially like being given power over the Sex Game because like I said, they are always playing defense, and it gets old after a bit.

But back when I supposedly had the Looks, being a nice guy was not much of a hindrance because I figure Chad can be a nice guy, and no one really cares.

I mean sometimes women would bitch me out right to my face, insult my masculinity, etc. I would just sit there and take it like an idiot and feel terribly hurt, whereas nowadays I would probably throw an object across the room at any woman who talked like that to me.

But soon enough they would go back to fucking me four, five, or six hours a day, so obviously they weren’t too disgusted by my lack of manliness. Looks pretty much trumps everything else when it comes to women. Chad breaks all the rules because the rules simply don’t apply to Chad.

Alt Left: Hey Feminists: Men Don’t Actually Hate Women

It is a feminist article of faith that all or most all men hate women. This statement is repeated endlessly and has been stated over and over by all of their biggest heroes and scholars. On feminist sites, the notion that most all men hate women is repeated ad nauseum on a daily basis.

I always found this view odd because I know men pretty well. And over six decades, I have not commonly met men who objectively hate women.

On the other hand, I have met many sexist females who think that men are quite inferior to women. In fact, this is exactly what almost all feminists believe. Feminism is simply female sexism against men. They’re female chauvinist pigs, they’ve been this way from the start, and they’re this way to this very day. I don’t think they’ll ever change because the very notion of feminism is predicated on notions like all men hating women and men being quite inferior to women.

If we men really hated women, you would hear it all the time. I would have been hearing it my whole life. I know this because men don’t hide things like this. If men hate hate something or someone or some group, they just come right out and say it. Men are not embarrassed or ashamed to admit that they hate this or that person(s) or thing(s).

In fact, hating is a very masculine behavior and it is quite encouraged in male society, provided you hate the right things. Men who are incapable of hate are regarded as wimps and pussies who will not stand up and fight for themselves. Cowards, in other words. We think they are pathetic.

Most men absolutely do not hate women. I should know. I’m a man. Now whether we treat them as we should is another matter.

Of course, there are men who hate women, and I have met some of them. It’s not cool in male society to say you hate women. People will call you gay if you do that. In other words, straight men are supposed to love women. If you hate them instead, this means you must be homosexual.

What you do hear is men saying they are done with women, they are over them, women are too much trouble, etc. But that’s not hate. And most of them are not serious because you meet the same guy later on and he’s dating or he’s got a girlfriend or wife. And many women say the same thing about men. You often hear this from members of both sexes after the age of 40. You don’t hear it much before that.

What many men are though is sexist. Sexism is not hate. It’s completely different.

It’s this idea that women are a somewhat inferior form of human. They’re not really on our level. Sure, you love them, but they’re just not on the same level as we are. Sort of like how we feel about kids and our pets. Your cat and your young child are in a sense below you, right? They’re just not on the same level. And in a lot of ways, they your cat and your kid are inferior, at least at the moment. But that’s not hate.

All of these feminist women who insist that men hate women are completely out of their minds. It’s been a mass delusion of feminists ever since day one that men hate women. Feminists want to believe this. They want to believe that we hate them because it’s necessary for their crazy, victim-addicted point of view. It’s the biggest lie of them all.

Another big fat lie is Patriarchy. Yes, men have lorded it over women and kept them down for thousands of years, and even for most of American history. But that’s lifting now. Feminism has succeeded in more or less dismantling patriarchy in the US, and they have instead assembled a Matriarchy in its place which of course oppresses men.

There are still some of the remains of the fortress of Patriarchy left, but a lot of the fortifications have been destroyed by the feminists, to their credit. Get off the paranoid “Patriarchy is out to get you” trip, women! It’s crazy nonsense.

These are just two of the insane lies that feminism peddles. Go study feminism sometime. It’s constructed on a house of cards made up of mostly flat out, straight up lies. Feminists are hostile to science, truth, and facts because it doesn’t back up their stupid lies that they have constructed their entire ideology on.

Say no to feminism. If you’re a woman and you love men, it’s time to stand up and say no to feminism.

Alt Left: No, Feminists, the Three Recent Mass Shootings Had Nothing to Do With Misogyny

Of course, the feminists are on full rant, blaming misogyny for all three recent mass shootings. The Gilroy shooter was supposedly motivated by misogyny because he praised an old Social Darwinist tract  that is full racist and misogynistic writing. Nevertheless, there’s no evidence that the shooting was motivated by hatred of women, and in fact, this man said little or nothing about women one way or the other. Nor did he target women in his shooting. He shot at anyone.

The moronic Left media state that the Gilroy shooter’s manifesto, which was basically apolitical and if anything an argument against unchecked population growth, contained  racist and misogynistic statements. He lamented that “Latinos and Silicon Valley twats” were flooding into his town. Sounds like he was upset about rampant population growth in his town.

Yes, he mentions Latinos, but he also mentions Silicon Valley types, and they tend to be either White, Asians, or South Indians. So either he hated Whites, Latinos, Asians, and South Indians equally (or just about everybody), or race had nothing to do with the shooting.

The FBI has since found a hit list of possible targets this man had composed including all sorts of government offices, churches, and organizations from all over the political spectrum. The more you look at this shooting, the more it seems to have not had any politics at all.

The moron feminist media claimed that “Silicon Valley twats” was a misogynistic phrase, apparently implying that he hated female Silicon Valley workers. Yes, twat can refer to female genitalia, though it’s not often used that way. Yes, you can call a woman a twat just as you can call her a bitch or a cunt, and it can be an insult when used this way.

But the way twat is most frequently used in the US simply means something like idiots, fools, morons, dumbasses, etc. So the comment was not misogynistic at all.

Instead he commented on “Silicon Valley clowns,” which isn’t bigotry at all except that our modern bigotry hunters, determined to excavate every bit of hate lurking in the caverns of even the most innocent of sentences, will probably dig some up. After all,  when you go looking for a certain thing, you have a way of finding it, even if it’s via hallucination.

The El Paso mass shooter is also somehow a misogynist in addition to being an “incel,” though no one knows his sex life, and he wasn’t complaining anyway. This is because he was a White Supremacist (fact), and White Supremacists are all automagically linked to misogyny via links with MRA’s, incels, PUA’s, etc. Or so say the serial liars at the SPLC, but they lie half the time their mouths are open, so they aren’t a good source about anything.

First of all, half of incels are non-White. Yes, some White incels are White Supremacists, but many more are not, and most incel boards now have polices against race-bait posting.

In general PUA ideology says nothing about race, leaving aside that clowns like Roissy and Roosh have adopted racialist ideology. PUA ideology is about heterosexual men getting laid by women. There’s no racialism inherent in such a philosophy of seduction unless I missed that lecture in Pick-Up class.

MRA’s are notoriously for being non-racist or anti-racist, and racism has never been a part of the MRA scene to my knowledge.

Yes, many White Supremacist men are quite sexist, and fascism often has strong links to sexism. But fascists never made a habit of murdering women. They just wanted them at home, in the kitchen, or in church (or the German translation of such), taking care of kids, cooking meals, and gaining spiritual sustenance. Kinder kuchen kirch.

A number of the more hardcore White Supremacists do seem to hate women or at least have a very low opinion of them. The crowd around The Daily Stormer and Vanguard News Network (though the latter is more sexist than misogynistic) is a good example of that. But the quietist aspect of the movement as seen in the American Renaissance site is not misogynistic or sexist at all. Neither is Greg Johnson’s more hardcore Countercurrents site.

It’s true there are few women in the White Supremacist scene, but that is probably because hardcore racism and fascism appeal a lot more to men than to women. In fact, fascism is actually designed to appeal to men.

Nevertheless, many White Supremacists and White racists of any type do not hate women at all, and nor are they sexist. If anything, from my depraved dope, booze, and sex-drenched point of view, I find them squares, fuddy-duddies, and party-poopers. They talk a lot about protecting their women, and they seem to mean it. They probably pedestalize women more than anything else.

So of the three mass shooters, only one has misogyny issues, and his shooting had nothing to do with his issues with women. So the feminists are 0-3 on their theory, which is about how they score on every bit of their fact-free ideology.

Alt Left: Egolitarianism – the Core Disease of the Left

Egolitarianism – the Core Disease of the Left

by Ernest Everhard

But we did, Nathan. And that’s precisely the problem.

In the unlikely event that Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs magazine and I were ever to sit down and discuss policy we’d like to see implemented, I’m sure we’d agree on a great deal. We Need to Revive the Fight for Overtime Pay, reads a July 9, 2019 headline.

No argument here.  Doubtlessly Robinson is an advocate of universal single payer health care, preferably with basic dental and eye care included. Probably an advocate of renewed vigor in the union movement. Probably for ending neoconservative petrodollar warfare in the middle east. Probably for overturning Citizens United and getting money out of politics. You get the picture.

At times his enlightenment goes beyond that: Discipline, Strategy and Morality, or why beating up unarmed writers is a poor way to advance left-wing ideas… reads another article, regarding antifa’s recent violent assault on right leaning author Andy Ngo.

While Robinson has no kind words for Ngo, he rightly condemns antifa’s assault on him: “The attack on Andy Ngo does not, to me, meet the criteria for justified violence. A Quillette writer with a GoPro is a nuisance. Punching him might be satisfying (to some, not me). But it is gratuitous and unjustified. It’s wrong. It does nothing helpful, and actually harms the cause of the left.”

Agreed, though to be fair and in the interests of equal time, it’s worth pointing out that there are those who claim that Ngo is no innocent angel or martyr here either.

But I digress. As far as left wing pundits are concerned, expect good stuff from Nathan Robinson. Most of the time.

However, in a recent piece in Current Affairs, Don’t Believe What They Tell You About the Left, he drops the ball, and does so in a manner that reveals the heart of what’s wrong with so much leftism, both past and present. The article criticizes Intellectual Dark Web pundit Bret Weinstein for asserting that the left’s ongoing demonization of White people will drive more and more of them to the embrace of White Nationalism.

I am not naturally sympathetic to the “Black Studies made me become a Nazi” position. Partly this is because, as a straight white male myself (and a college Black Studies major), I have no idea what these guys are even talking about. I’ve never been told “fuck you for being a straight white man.” Nothing of the kind.

The closest thing I’ve ever gotten is “perhaps as a straight white male you should exercise a bit of caution and restraint before loudly giving your opinion on matters that other people may have somewhat more personal experience with.”

But when people insist they “won’t apologize for being white,” I still wonder who has been asking them, because nobody has ever asked me to do anything but show respect for marginalized people’s perspective and critically examine my own assumptions and advantages. Which seems a fairly modest ask. 

Robinson goes on to insist that there are no such voices on the left condemning white males categorically, and that these claims come exclusively from right wing sources. The article favorably quotes one Sam Adler Bell:

These people are not getting the message “everyone hates white straight males” from left wing media. They’re not watching left wing media!! It’s absurd. They’re getting that message from right wing media *interpreting* left wing media for them.

He then goes on to suggest:

Don’t get your understanding of left concepts from Prager University videos. Get them from books! Or from leftists. Go to a DSA meeting and meet some people and listen to what they have to say.

Okay. I like the idea of going to the source. Get your views on the left from right wing sources, and what you’ll get is a telling glimpse of the private obsessions of the right wing mind. The vast majority of the time, these have little to do with the obsessions of the left.

What you’ll get instead is a Shapiroesque gish gallop or a Petersonian word salad, wherein you can count on one hand the number of inhalations the speaker takes before getting into the evils of communism, government intervention in the economy, the need for high income tax cuts and deregulation, one hundred million dead in the 20th century, and no small number of mentions of Venezuela and of course endless hosannas exalting endless private wealth accumulation and concentration.

Whatever the Koch Bro’s pay them to say, basically.

And that hasn’t changed in decades now. Listen to the right wing on any format, and what you’ll get is the clear sense that the western world reached its absolute satori around 1981 or so, when Maggie and Ronnie were slashing taxes, privatizing and deregulating left and right, and sticking it to the unions at home and the commies abroad.

From there, what we have to look forward to is a millennium of glory, as outlined in the gospels of Rand, Mises, Friedman and Hayek. If this actually sounds pretty lame, that’s because it is. An endless future of sweatshops, indebtedness and boom and bust cycles doesn’t sound that exciting to me. Sorry guys.

Plus, I should hope that we’re all smart enough not to be enticed into White Nationalism, no matter how shrill and stupid the anti-White rhetoric on the left gets. Too wrongs don’t make a right, after all.

And let’s especially give Adolf Hitler’s resurgent fan club a pass. Let’s not forget that he did start a war that got tens of millions of Europeans and white males killed, that devastated the nations of Europe and permanently ended their global hegemony. With friends like Adolf, White guys certainly don’t need enemies. Fortunately, this groundswell of neo-fascist reaction against social justice culture doesn’t seem to be a huge big thing.

And no, Trumpism doesn’t count. Neither does the Tea Party. Reactionary politics tap into impulses in the American (and European) body politic that are decades, centuries even, old. It reincarnates on a decade, maybe a generational cycle, but there’s nothing here that hasn’t been here in numerous different forms for ages now. So a surge of White supremacism as a response to social justice excess isn’t a thing, in any event.

So if you want to see what’s going on on the left, check out leftist sources. Agreed, and the reverse is true. Don’t just believe that Jordan Peterson is a Nazi and that Sam Harris is a genocidal neocon. See for yourself (said no leftist ever). Unfortunately for Nathan J. Robinson, doing precisely that actually damns his basic claim.

Frustration with the Left of the kind he’s criticizing isn’t coming from the Heritage Foundation or Liberty University. It comes from people like myself and many others who’ve had countless encounters with left wing people online and in real life and report having very similarly frustrating experiences. Common themes include:

  • Robinson has had good luck with Leftists if the only anti-White, anti-male hatred he’s encountered is strictly tongue in cheek, or hyperbolic expressions of frustration with White and male privilege. If such expressions abound, that should tell us something about the character of the Left in the social media age, and that something isn’t good. If expressions of hate for anyone (except the legitimately horrible; Hitler etc) have become acceptable on the Left, that’s a pretty clear indicator that we’ve lost the plot. Remember when we hated racism, not White people? When we hated sexism, not men? This was the cant on even the radical left as recently as the 1990s. If you don’t think the Left has a White hatred problem and a misandry problem, you’re not paying attention to a host of sources: Twitter, Tumblr, a host of woke blogs, r/socialism, most of Leftbook, a good portion of Breadtube, most online feminism, etc etc. It takes a glaring dose of willful blindness not to see that the Left has become about flagrant racial and gender partisanship. It shouldn’t be.
  • Leftists are too often not direct and honest in conversation. One wonders if protest is the only way they actually have of communicating with other people. In encounters with ideological rivals, the tendency online is to post vague expressions of disapproval in a scolding and parental tone, intended to gaslight their target into assuming a purely rational, “what did I do wrong?” kind of stance. And then eat them alive. Another is a “whew boys, look at this” sort of post, followed by mocking laughter. This is the entire format of The Majority Report with Sam Seder on YouTube. You know, the channel with the cackling asshole in the background at all times. Chapo Trap House is largely about this as well. While satirizing the right is fun and easy, if that’s all they do, one starts to come away from media like this with the impression that what leftists stand for is how smart, clever and funny they think they are. Are actual ideological and policy positions expressed on these shows? Or is it ALL gaslighting? I don’t honestly know. We’d do well to learn from the brilliant Kyle Kulinski, who always lets you know exactly what this is – or should be – about policy wise.
  • Leftists have a love of sloganeering, thought stopping rhetorical tricks, witty portmanteaus and reciting, sometimes word for word, official dogmas. I’ve read the same copy-pasta, word for word, on gender related subjects I don’t know how many times now. And as bad as the intersectional feminists are for this, they have nothing on the classical Marxist-Leninists and (worst of all) the Maoists. Now these are a thankfully small minority on the Left, but do show how we’re not immune to the ills of flagrantly cult like thinking.
  • Closed ideological systems, which contain within themselves easy means to dismiss any and all criticism of themselves. Critics are simply White males defending their privilege, reactionary capitalist roaders, kulaks, etc. They all have a stake in the maintenance of the present “oppressive” system. That the cherished dogmas of the Left, like Marxist-Leninism once upon a time and intersectional feminism today, could be flawed (while still making some correct observations) is inconceivable.
  • Related to this is a tendency to display “moral relativism in monstrous incarnation.”  Which refers to the tendency of Leftists to judge actions on the basis of the “classes” of people who perform them, or whether they belong to a “marginalized” vs a “privileged” group. Leftist hating of White males isn’t really hatred because hatred is “power plus prejudice” and since feminists and minorities have no power (according to their own self referencing dogmas) they can’t be bigots. Violent actions visited upon the kulaks or other enemies of the people are okay. Kto Kovo, right?
  • Frequent expression, or at least implication, of truly bizarre and extreme views. Consider, for instance, the occasionally cited Schrödinger’s Rapist, which implies that all women everywhere should at all times avoid all men, because they have no way of knowing which men are the rapists and which are not. This has clearly not been thought through, and doesn’t reflect the way that virtually all progressives and feminists live their lives in the real world. Gee, I wonder why? Yet even if such ideas are not meant to be taken at face value, what does their popularity among Leftists and feminists say about their underlying mindset? Most of them may not all really hate all men and white people, but their doctrines certainly open the door to legitimizing such hatred, and anti white male exacerbation is a recurring motif in Leftist spaces in a way that would not be tolerated (and rightly so) were the racial and gender identities switched. Are we to believe that only White males have flaws in their character that require self reflection and repentance? At what point do “power” and “privilege” simply become legitimizing rationalizations for why it’s okay when the Left’s charmed circle of preferred identities hate?  I guess the idea that we should not be discriminated against based on our race or gender isn’t really the idea after all. This all says something, whether the Nathan J. Robinsons of this world want it to or not. If men, White men especially, are put off by this ongoing pandering to female moral vanity, can we really blame them?
  • Fragility. Put up serious arguments against Leftist dogmas and watch their adherents fall to pieces or go into full on attack mode. You’ve caused them personal injury, and they’re damn well going to let you – or your employers or people you do business with – know it. They sure the Hell let Andy Ngo know it, among others. Of course, they’re the first to accuse their opponents of likewise being fragile, with “White fragility” being a common thought stopping slogan among critical race theorists to denounce the tendency among whites to dislike being held collectively responsible for historical mistreatment of minorities.

I should like to point out that I, and many others, were not told about any of the above second hand by Bret Weinstein or Dave Rubin. We weren’t all good, dutiful socialists until Stefan Molyneux or Carl Benjamin somehow brainwashed us into falsely believing all of this. They are experiences that I and countless others, including some of these very “rightwing” YouTubers have had, and they aren’t isolated occurrences. They are the rule and not the exception, I’m afraid.

And I hate to say all of this, because I am a Leftist at heart. I don’t even completely disagree with the tenets of today’s Left: intersectionality and so on. Robinson is right in that we’d do well to listen to those with more experience with particular kinds of discrimination, and not be so quick to get defensive.

The problem is the weaponization of intersectionality and the inflation of standpoint theory into claims for full-blown infallibility. Plus, we can reasonably question just who the intersectional ideologues are speaking for, and how representative professional journalists and academics really are of the downtrodden and marginalized?

We’re not stupid, Nathan. We know when these ideas are being manipulated so as to establish social dominance. We’ve been through it with hip, politically correct ideologues time and time again, and the fact our frustration with it gets chalked up to the “alt right” simply compounds the problem.

Where Robinson gives himself, and the mainstream Left away, however, is in this pair of quotes:

I am not naturally sympathetic to the “Black Studies made me become a Nazi” position. Partly this is because, as a straight White male myself (and a college Black Studies major), I have no idea what these guys are even talking about. I’ve never been told “fuck you for being a straight White man.” Nothing of the kind.

One of my colleagues, for instance, has a tendency to joke that all men should be fired into the sun. (At least, I believe she is joking.) Men sometimes email to complain, saying they do not feel “welcomed” into the Left and that these jokes are hurtful because they imply that all men are bad.

I am not very sympathetic to the men who write these notes, because I am of their gender, and I do not feel wounded about remarks advising that men be fired into the sun.

In short, Nathan J. Robinson has not himself ever been told to fuck off for being a straight White man, so we’re to assume that never happens. Nathan J. Robinson himself doesn’t feel wounded by remarks advising that men be fired into the sun. Therefore, such remarks are well and good.

Well, I hate to have to say this, Nathan, but it isn’t all about you. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not wise for Leftists to countenance White male bashing in their ranks because doing so drives away a huge potential base for support. Support the Left needs to actually win elections, take power and actually implement policy that can really help poor and marginalized minorities.

Maybe that support and the politics it can achieve is more important to the broader cause than professional educated professional activists getting to be right and dumb Rightists being wrong about a cherished point of dogma, such as ‘power plus prejudice or of the ego stroking satisfaction of displaying their unbound feminist wittiness in the face of yet another neanderthal male.

But many Leftists will never consider this, and thus the core of the problem on the Left reveals itself, and why self-reflection (except a vain sort of self criticism of one’s own ideological shortcomings, itself a very totalitarian and cultish concept) seems never to be on the table with most Leftists:

The Left Has an Egocentrism Problem

Too many Leftists are caught up in a kind of narcissism wherein their projected self-concepts as warriors fighting on behalf of the underdog (the precise origin of the derisive use of the phrase social justice warrior) must be shielded at all times from any kind of doubt or criticism.

Thus, their reactions to disagreement are always ones of emotionalism, hostility and defensiveness. Never due consideration of what their opponents actually have to say, even if the end result of such consideration would reveal the critics being incorrect and the Left’s position vindicated by the facts.

One gets the sense that, like the religious fundamentalist, many Leftists demand blind faith, and the very notion of fact checking thus offends them. To doubt is to be racist, misogynist etc.

It’s so much easier just to handwave any and all dissent as the shrill hysteria of this or that rightwing pundit, and maybe even call for their deplatforming, milkshaking or the like.

So much easier than meeting the challenge head on. The bubble of self satisfaction doesn’t get burst that way. Not to say that rightwing pundits on YouTube or elsewhere are correct in their own world views. The Right has its own problems. However, the lack of self awareness among so many on the Left is simply breathtaking.

Perhaps this is why most of the intellectual and activist vigor on the Left is poured into digging in their heels over metapolitical dogmas aimed at asserting a kind of ideological infallibility: standpoint theory, power plus prejudice, white male fragility, dissension from feminist and race theory equating to racist and sexist oppression, and “hate” speech as a form of actual violence (justifying censorship).

As opposed to fighting the good fight for actual policies that will help real people in the real world: universal health care, free education, a living wage, ending petrodollar warfare, a new new deal, getting money out of politics and so on.

Witty Leftists so love their portmanteaus, so I have one of my own: too many Leftists are egolitarians. Its meaning should be obvious. So if you are reading this, Nathan J. Robinson, or whoever else on the Left who’s reading this, let’s work at not being egolitarian.

Let’s make this about the policies we all know we need, that Kyle Kulinski and Bernie Sanders so love to repeat so often. I’m not calling for perfection, purity testing or vigorous tone policing. Rather, let’s try to make this about ourselves and our self concepts a little less and about achieving good political results for the most needy and the most marginalized a little more, if we could?

Alt Left: Insane SJW Definition Creep and the Cultural Left’s Grotesque Abuse of Language

Both Pharos and Eidolon have become the main portals for digital public scholarship on the Internet for White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. These sites are using words taken from the Greco-Roman world.

It’s an association that Bond and other scholars say they simply cannot abide, not least because far-right extremists have committed nearly three times as many acts of fatal terrorism in the United States over the previous 15 years as Islamist terrorists.

White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. Let’s look at the modern definition of those terms.

White supremacists: Someone who says “It’s ok to be White”, “I like my race, my White race”, “At the moment, Whites are more intelligent than Blacks”, “Whites commit 6X less crime than Blacks”, “The reason for a lot of anti-Black racism is the outsized amount of crime that Blacks cause.”

Those are all arguably true and a couple are simply justifiable opinions. Sentences 3, 4, and 5, although being true, are not particularly very nice things to say, so most decent people don’t talk about that.

I don’t like to talk about those things too much because I don’t think there is much we can do about any of them and they’re not likely to change. All talking about that stuff does is rile up non-Blacks and bring out a lot of hidden racism in them.

Also the non-Blacks who harp on those truths over and over are not motivated by scientific inquiry. Almost all of them are motivated by deep animus towards Black people. That’s why they keep harping on negative stuff about Blacks! Facts aren’t hate, but haters and racists can definitely abuse facts as part of their racist BS. But since when did observing facts become racist!?

Misogynists: “Women aren’t perfect.” Any criticism of women in any way, shape, or form means that you hate women. Supporting men’s rights. Disliking women who hate men which is what most feminists are. Using words like bitch and whore.

Anti-Semites: “Jews have a lot of power”, “Jews have a lot of money,” Jews have a lot of money and power and like to throw their weight around”, Jews like to play hardball and fight dirty”, “Jews are a lot more aggressive than most other ethnicities”, “A lot of Jews don’t like Gentiles”, “Israel is a shitty little country”, “I hate Israel”,

“A fair percentage of Jews have a dual loyalty issue, and this has always been a problem”. “Jews lead movements, particularly movements for social change”, “Israel is a racist country”, “Israel controls the entire US government when it comes to US Middle East foreign policy. It does this via massive campaign donations by US Jews to Congressional candidates”.

“Jews have a lot of power and control in Hollywood”, “Jews have a lot of power and control in the media.” And on and on.

Ethnonationalists: People who wish for the US to retain a White majority, as is their complete right. Furthermore, it is a legitimate political position, and it is not necessarily racist at all. While I don’t necessarily support this position, as I don’t care that the US is becoming increasingly non-White or even regard it as as good thing, it’s certainly not racist per se to have that view.

Your nation is like your home. You decide what the interior of your nation or home looks like, and you decide who gets to come into your nation or home to visit or stay.

Granted most folks with this position are openly and extremely racist, but you don’t have to be a racist to have this view. Just saying.

Oh by the way, Jews get to have an ethnonationalist state, and you’re an anti-Semite for objecting, but Whites can’t have a similar state that ensures a White majority? Israelis and White nationalists both want the same thing. They are both ethnic nationalists who wish to live in ethnonationalist states that guarantee a majority for a certain ethnicity.

By the way, I am not keen on ethnonationalism. It’s pretty horrible everywhere it rears its grotesque head, it seems to be invariably intertwined with some pretty serious racism, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to disentangle the hardcore racism from the ethnonationalism. The racism is a feature, not a bug.

Xenophobes: Anyone who wants any sort of immigration controls at our border at all, thinks illegal immigrants should be deported, believes in a points scheme for legal immigration, or thinks legal immigration is too high and wants to lower it.

Now I am not real wild about xenophobia, and true xenophobes tend to act pretty horrible towards anyone who’s not one of “the people”, but I don’t believe that merely wanting some immigration restrictions and opposing de facto Open Borders makes one a xenophobe.

I support all of the immigration restrictions listed above and I’m not xenophobe. Considering that I interact with non-Whites all day long every single day where I live, my life would be pretty unpleasant if I hadn’t made some sort of peace with non-White people.

I’m also okay with  legal immigrants. If you have a green card, good for you. If you are a naturalized citizen born overseas, good for you. I have known many good people in both categories recently.

What we see the SJW’s doing here is what I call the abuse of language. The Cultural Left has become expert at this and the correlating definition creep. For instance the definition of rape used to be fairly clear (“use of force of the threat of force” as my Mom used to sternly remind me).

Now the definition of rape expands by the day to the point where now it’s about as big as the Atlantic Ocean. You almost need to get updates on a daily basis to see how much the definition of rape expanded yesterday.

Rape is a serious matter. The feminized weaponization of the term as a nuclear weapon to shoot at the men they hate so much along with their concomitant trivialization of the term is grotesque in the former and profoundly unfair to the victims of the real deal rape in the latter, such real thing rape being unfortunately not rare.

The modern feminist definition of rape appears to be “any time a woman has sex when she doesn’t want to.”

This was precisely the definition of rape given by one of the doyens of modern feminism, Katharine McKinnon, the ultra-prude and manhater extreme who invented the concept of sexual harassment with her aider and abettor Andrea Dworkin, a hideous monstrous slug of a woman and one of the worst manhating feminist dykes that ever slithered upon the Earth and befouled its surface with her slime.

Alt Left: Modern Feminism as a Psychopathic Movement?

I am starting to think feminists are psychopaths or at least modern feminism is a psychopathic movement. All feminists have told me flat out that women have a right to hit us men all the want to. In fact, they take delight in hitting us. There have been many articles in feminist press about hitting men. These are filled with comments from gleeful feminists talking about the men they have hit or assaulted and how fun it was. The rest of the comments are, “You go, girl. Hit those men! Beat those men! LOL!”

I asked every feminist I know if we ever had a right to hit them back, and they all said no. Ok, that’s psychopathic. They get to hit us all they want to, but it’s illegal for us to hit back. That’s how a psychopath thinks.

When women are unrepresented in like anything but even 1% they scream and yell and carry on and demand equality of outcome at all costs. In a number of cases now though, women are beating men. More women in college, more women getting degrees, more women in all sorts of high paying professions.

So men are now underrepresented in all sorts of fields, in school, etc. Response of feminists? Crickets! Women can’t be underrepresented 1% in anything and we have to force equal representation for women, but women get to beat men and over-represent them in anything, and that’s wonderful.

Incidentally, there have been many gloating articles in the feminist press about how women are kicking men’s asses in some field or other or in school, and the women are all cheering it on. They’re chortling and carrying on like it’s a party. “Beat those men!”, they scream with delight. They get to beat us in everything, and we can’t beat them in one thing. That’s psychopathy. That’s how a psychopath thinks.

I sincerely believe that feminism is a psychopathic movement.

Alt Left: 80% of US Women Refuse to Identify As Feminists

Studies of millennial women appear to show that 20% of them identify as feminists. Not sure if that’s a good figure, as it was hard to find the actual survey, and I averaged together the rates for the different races of women, Asian, Hispanic, Black, and White. When I averaged together the rates of the four races, I got 20%. The link for those figures was to a page doing surveys on millenials. An article saying 20% of women identify as feminists linked to a page doing surveys on millenials.

In addition, an average of only 27% of European women identify as feminists. So 73% of European women reject modern feminism.

On the other hand, most said that they were full equal rights for women, maybe 80% support that. So you can argue that they support feminist goals while rejecting identification with the modern feminist movement.

In surveys, young women say that they associate feminism with lesbianism, man-hatred, and attacks on femininity. Bottom line: feminism has a bad name. Why? They’re fanatics. Case in point: your average feminist, wild eyes, danger hair and the rest.

The 3rd wave sites I have been on are not so dykey and anti-feminine as the truly insane radical feminist sites where the women are nearly diagnostically psychotic, but the man-hating BS is definitely still there, though quite a bit toned down.

Plus a lot of 3rd wavers are heterosexual, really like to have sex with men, and are often horny as Hell. Feminist men almost get mobbed on those sites.

Alt Left: The Single Factor that Moderates Feminist Man-hatred

Love of dick.

There’s one thing that moderates a feminist. Does she still like dick? Is she strictly dickly? As long as they still like cock, the man-hatred never gets ramped up to extreme levels.

The worst manhaters of all are lesbians, either biological or straight women who turned lez due to extreme man-hatred. Many of the extreme manhaters are straight women who have simply given up on men to become cat ladies and marry their vibrators.

As long as they’re still fucking us, they just can’t hate us too much. At some point  they run into a wall and can’t hate us anymore. The cock-love serves to block the man-hatred at some point.

I hear that there are misogynists who have a lot of sex with women, but it doesn’t seem to work that way with women. You don’t hear about a lot of man-haters who have lots of sex with men other than prostitutes, where this is quite common.

Yes, many prostitutes are extreme manhaters. Many have turned lesbian due to their extreme man-hatred. How they can stand to keep having sex with us all the time is beyond me. Much worse are former prostitutes, many of whom have a near-psychotic hatred of men. Former prostitutes now vicious manhaters are extremely common in the radfem movement.

Granted, prostitutes no doubt see the very worst of men, but then so do players and womanizers. Which may be why so many womanizers are misogynists. Womanizers and prostitutes both know the opposite sex too well. Familiarity breeds contempt. They’ve both seen the bad side of the opposite sex in spades, whereas most of us are spared the worst and remain dreamy-eyed, swooning, and addicted to the opposite sex far into middle age.

Ignorance is bliss, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and too much knowledge can be downright fatal. That’s called a reality overdose, something most of us spend our lives downing Pretty Lie Pills to avoid. Being lie-addicted seems silly, but if it keeps you above the ground, so be it. You do what it takes in life and damn the rest.

Alt Left: Radical Feminism Is Not a Tiny Fringe Movement in Feminism

In surveys, young women say that they associate feminism with lesbianism, man-hatred, and attacks on femininity.

Having spent a lot of time on feminist boards, I would definitely say that those associations are reality based, in particular on radical feminist forums. Radfems are 22% of all feminists. That means that there are 4-5 million radical feminist women in the US.

SJW liars say that radical feminists are a tiny fringe group in feminism. That’s not true at all. It’s a huge movement. And most of the big names in feminism were radical feminists, including Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, Robin Morgan, Sheila Jeffries, Julie Bindel, Andrea Dworkin, Katharine McKinnon.

The entire #metoo movement and the very concept of sexual harassment itself, especially the pernicious hostile workplace environment amendment to the theory, came straight out of radical feminism. Sexual harassment theory was birthed by Andrea Dworkin and Katharine McKinnon, two of the most deranged manhating bitches that ever lived. These are the intellectual braintrusts behind metoo.

Come November, You Go, Girls!

DpG_iI5UcAAT66D.jpg large
Go for it, ladies! Get out there and kick some ass. Women have good reason to be upset. I mean from what I can tell, Kavanaugh was simply a rapist as a young man. Whatever that means legally, there’s no way he should be on the Supreme Court. This is no #metoo crap with women freaking out over men flirting with them, asking for their number or asking them for date, or freaking out and screaming sexual assault when some man is testing the waters on a date. This is the real deal, real, legal rape. Not the bullshit feminist rape that has 1,000 different definitions and now has a meaning as wide as the Atlantic Ocean. Not the nonsense that no one even knows what it is. Not the nonsense that says you raped her because you couldn’t read her mind. Not the BS that says every time a woman has sex when she doesn’t really want to, it’s rape. None of that feminist manhating lunacy. We are talking about the real deal here. Real, criminal rape, violations of the law against rape, the kind that can get you arrested and thrown in in jail or prison. Kavanaugh and the Original Night Stalker have a lot more in common than you think.

Are Men Really Entitled to Women's Bodies?

It is a feminist article of faith that men are either entitled to women’s bodies or we think we are entitled to women’s bodies.
This notion strikes me as so absurd.
The average woman has three sex partners in a lifetime. Your average man has sex with six women in a lifetime. If men were actually entitled to women’s bodies or even if they thought they were, they would literally go grab sex anytime they wanted, and those figures would be far higher.
The idea that we men have or think we have a right to female bodies is absurd. Don’t these feminists realize that even men who are very good with women can go weeks, months, or even years without sex because, well, no woman seems like she wants to out with them? Including yours truly. If I am actually entitled to women’s bodies, I assure you that I would go grab me one real soon.
If it’s this bad for the players, think of the sexless nightmare the incels go through. Feminists say, “Incels think they have a right to female bodies!” Well, if incels feel that way, why don’t they go grab one, then?

Alt Left: Whither the Alt Left?

Sami: Robert, every single counterpoint you make brings us back, full circle, to the ultimate question concerning what the Alt-Left is really about:
Does it aspire, truly, to become a genuine, mass-based political movement with a clearly-articulated platform, that can change this country for the better from the ground up? Or is it a mere, irrelevant intellectual exercise on a few blogs?

 
There were 18,000 members of Alt Left groups on Facebook recently. It has now dropped down to ~6,000.
Also the existing Alt Left seems to have been colonized by regular Democratic Party people pushing anti-Republican partisan politics along with typical SJW stuff. The best analysis of the Alt Left right now is that it has been co-opted by Democratic Party liberal entryists.
And then the movement itself died down for some unknown reason. We had a terrible problem with being swamped by rightwingers and Libertarians the whole time we were popular on Facebook. It was a never-ending nightmare keeping the rightwingers out.
The problem is that nowadays when you go anti-SJW, you get swamped by rightwingers. And everyone on the liberal-Left is pretty much automatically an SJW.
And there is an odd process whereby as leftwing people get more and more anti-SJW, they start moving more and more away from left economics towards more openly promoting capitalism. This makes no sense to me. Why on Earth would capitalism be opposed to anti-SJWism? Feminism is just a group of women to sell women-oriented products to. Capitalists would love to cater to Blacks to sell them stuff. Capitalists will fall over backwards to cater to and suck up to gay people if only to get them to buy stuff. Why should capitalists care about Muslims? Capitalists would love to cater to this group and sell products especially for them. There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever for capitalists to be anti-SJW. It makes no sense. And it makes a lot more sense for them to go full SJW if only to sell more stuff to new groups.
It makes somewhat more sense that left economics be tied in with SJWism, as both are about equality, but there’s no reason left economics should hate or oppose heterosexuals, Whites, or men. Why should it? None of those three groups have anything to do with economics. Also the Left has always been sexual liberationist, but now that feminism has taken over the Left, the Left has become as prudish, Victorian and sex-hating as the Christian Right. Puritanism has no logical connection with the left or left economics. Why do Left economics have to do with sex and fucking? Nothing.
The Alt Left was an attempt to sever this horrible intertwining of left economics with SJWism and rightwing economics with anti-SJWism, but we haven’t had much success at that. When liberal Left people go anti-SJW, they abandon Left economics too. And no one subscribing to Left economics wants to go against SJWism. So economics and the culture war are still horribly tied together, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to disentangle them. It’s so frustrating.
There are several online magazines which people are referring to as Alt Left. There are some folks on Youtube calling themselves Alt Left, and there are others who are being referred to as Alt Left. I would say that it’s a very small movement, but it definitely exists.
Part of the problem is that people like me are too lazy to promote it. I have my own Alt Left group on Facebook, and I encountered quite a bit of interest in the subject. I was also on some of the other Alt Left groups, and there were a lot of interested and curious folks. The problem is mostly just laziness. It’s incredibly hard work to grow these movements, and I for one am just too lazy to do the hard work. But there are others still working on this project.
There is also the Realist Left, another small project that definitely exists.
A political scientist in Poland got interested in us and wrote a couple of pieces about us in political journals. A couple of other political journals over there also wrote us up. Mostly no one has the faintest idea of who we are, so first of all, we need publicity more than anything else.

Update: Alt Left: The Sexual Misconduct Charges Against Brett Kavanaugh

Updated post on the rape and sexual assault charges against Brett Kavanaugh. New information is in italic.
My personal opinion is that Brett Kavanaugh is or was a serial rapist who raped women at least 14 times, sexually assaulted women three times, and tried to rape women at least once between ages 17-24, mostly between ages 17-21. His friend Mark Judge assisted in most of these rapes and attempted rapes.
The scorecard on Brett Kavanaugh. Between 1982-88, Kavanaugh, aged 17-24, committed:

  • 14 rapes
  • 3 sexual assaults
  • 1 attempted rape

Conclusion: Brett Kavanaugh is a serial rapist.
1. The first charge stems from 1982. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who was 15 years old at the time, was at a party at a home with several other people. At least one other girl was there in addition to several boys. They were drinking alcohol. Ford went upstairs to go to the bathroom. Brett Kavanaugh, age 17, grabbed her in the hallway and dragged her into a bedroom where his friend Mark Judge was waiting.
Kavanaugh and Judge turned the music up loud so the others could not hear their planned rape of Ford. Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed, got on top of her, and tried to tear her swimsuit off. She screamed and he put his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming. She fought him off the whole time, and after a bit of a struggle, managed to get out from under him. Judge laughed as Kavanaugh did this. This was a misdemeanor, 2nd Degree Sexual Assault, and it carried a sentence of 1-3 years. The statute of limitations ran out on this charge in 1985, 33 years ago. I believe that this act occurred.
2. The second charge occurred in 1983 when Kavanaugh was 18 years old and a freshman at Yale University. A woman named Deborah Ramirez, also 18, went to a drinking party in the dorms. She was the only woman there with 4-5 young men about her age. Kavanaugh was one of the men. They engaged in drinking games and got quite drunk. Ramirez was sitting on the floor when several of the men stood over her and began playing games with a fake penis, asking her to touch it. Brett Kavanaugh then stood up and pulled out his penis and waved it in front of her face, daring her to touch it. He then forced her to touch his penis. She was a good Catholic girl at the time, and she had never touched a penis before.
Word got around that Kavanaugh did this, and people were shocked because that was considered extreme behavior even by the standards of the sexual hijinks going on at the time. This was technically a sexual assault, but no DA would take such a hokey charge. Nevertheless in Man World this is called a dick move, and the punishment for dick moves in Man World is a punch in the face. I believe this act occurred.
3. The third charge involved a woman named Julie Swetnick. Julie charges that when she was 19 and 20 years old in 1982, she went to ten parties that were thrown by Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh. Swetnick said that Kavanaugh would get very drunk at these parties and grope, grind up against, and try to disrobe girls so that sexual parts of their bodies could be revealed. In general, this behavior was done against the girls’ will. She also said that he did not know how to take no for an answer.
She said that Judge and Kavanaugh would target one girl and spike her punch with either grain alcohol or a drug of some sort, probably Quaaludes. This girl would then become so intoxicated that she was incapacitated. The boys would then get her into a bedroom and “pull a train” on her. That means that the boys would line up outside the room and go in one at a time to have sex with her.
There was quite a bit of this when I was in high school, but I understand that it was all consensual. On the other hand, no one was spiking girls’ drinks at those parties. At one of the parties, Swetnick had her punch spiked and ended up in a bedroom while boys lined up outside and had sex with her one at a time as part of a train. She thought she was dosed with a drug, possibly a Quaalude. She was so incapacitated that she was unable to stop these boys from having sex with her.
Kavanaugh was 17 and 18 years old at the time these parties were going on. As far as the groping and grinding up against girls and pulling their clothes aside to reveal parts of their bodies, technically this is sexual assault, but no one is ever going to do down for something that hokey and petty. However, the drugging of girls and pulling trains on them is much more serious.
This absolutely qualifies as rape or even gang rape. I believe that all of these events occurred, and I think Kavanaugh and Judge not only spiked Swetnick’s punch, but they probably took turns having sex with her too. The problem is that there is no way to prove that Kavanaugh and Judge had sex with her because Swetnick was too out of it to figure out who was raping her. If Kavanaugh committed this act, this qualifies as rape. However, no DA would take a rape case from 36 years ago.
4. The fourth charge stems from 1988 and was outlined in a letter to the Kavanaugh committee. A woman who knew Kavanaugh well charged that a mixed group had gone out drinking in a bar at a named location. As they were leaving the bar, a drunken Kavanaugh grabbed the woman and threw her up against a wall in a sexual way. The woman and the others in the crowd were shocked at this behavior. Kavanaugh was 24 years old at the time. This event may well have occurred since the woman provided a detailed statement about it, but as the woman wants to remain anonymous, there is no way to prove it. This would be a sexual assault charge, but no DA would take such a BS case like this.
5. The fifth charge involves a boat in a Rhode Island harbor at a named location in the summer of 1985. A woman charged that one night in this harbor, Kavanaugh, age 21, and Judge sexually assaulted her in a boat that the two men were living in. Details of what exactly happened here are not available. She left and the next morning told two of her male friends what happened. Her male friends went down to the boat where Kavanaugh and Judge were living, and her friends beat up the two men.
The woman remains anonymous. She made this charge in a letter to Senator Whitehouse. It would not surprise me if this case was true too, but as the woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine if this happened or not. The statute of limitations in Rhode Island for sexual assault is not known. The charge here would be sexual assault, but no DA would take a 33 year old sexual assault case.
6. The sixth charge involves a woman who charges that Kavanaugh and a friend raped her in a vehicle. The woman is anonymous and no date is given. The charge was made in a letter to California Senator Kamala Harris by a schoolteacher in Oceanside, California. The woman charges that she was at a party with a girlfriend. The girlfriend left with a male and the woman had no way to get home.
Kavanaugh and a friend offered to give her a ride home. Kavanaugh and the girl were in the front seat, and Kavanaugh’s friend was in the back seat. At some point along the way, Kavanaugh stopped the car and forcefully kissed the woman against her will. The woman objected and said she did not want to do that and that she just wanted to go home.
Kavanaugh then started forcibly disrobing her, taking off her top and bra and trying to remove her pants. She was yelling and telling him to stop. Kavanaugh slapped her face and told her to shut up. Then he told her to perform oral sex on him. She did this and he came in her mouth. Then they took off the rest of her clothes, put here in the backseat, and both men had sex with her 2-3 times each.
This woman’s charges are very detailed and it would not surprise me if there was something to these charges. What is particularly interesting is that Kavanaugh’s friend put his hand over the girl’s mouth when she was yelling. This is exactly what Ford charges that Kavanaugh did to her in 1982 in the bedroom – he put his hand over her mouth as he attempted to disrobe her to silence her screaming. This is good evidence because it suggests that Kavanaugh and his rape buddies had an MO when they went about raping women that involved covering the woman’s mouth to quiet her cries as they tried to disrobe her.
However, as this woman is anonymous, there is no way to determine the veracity of her claims. If this charge is true then it involves at least three counts of rape against Kavanaugh. As we do not know when or where this event happened, we don’t know the statute of limitations on the crime. It seems have taken place between 1982-1985. However, no DA would take a 33-36 year old rape case, even one as serious as this one.
Conclusion. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. If I was going through this process, there is no way that a number of women would come forward saying that I sexually assaulted or raped them because I simply don’t do such things. Since I don’t do things like that, there is no way that a string of women from my past would come forward and all lie about me raping and assaulting them. Life doesn’t work that way. And while it is true that a high percentage of recent rape charges are false, I very much doubt if any reasonable woman is going to make a false rape claim about something that happened 30-36 years ago.
In particular, the three women who have come forward have been vilified, had their lives turned upside down and gone over with a fine toothcomb looking for anything bad they might have done, been accused of being crazy and liars, had their jobs and careers disrupted, and in Ford’s case, had to go into hiding due to receiving many death threats. It’s hard to imagine why any sane woman would put herself through all of that to make up some false sexual assault charge about something that happened 30-36 years ago. Why would any sane person do that?
Although feminist idiots claim that most or all men are rapists, like most things feminists say, this is not true. Careful surveys have found that only 10% of men admit to committing a sexual assault. Men are either rapey or they’re not. Non-rapey men don’t generally do rapey things. They live their whole lives without ever doing things like that.
Rapey men typically don’t do it only once. Usually the rapeyness is part of a pattern of general rapeyness, sexual assault, and out and out rape that they have usually done on more than one occasion. In other words, it tends to be a pattern of behavior that doesn’t happen just one time. All of this fits together with the suggestion that Kavanaugh is a rapey guy due to the repeated charges of sexual assault and rape against him over a period of years by different women.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: Feminist Retards: We Will Keep Screaming Until Rape, Sexual Assault, and Child Molestation Are Ended Once and for All!

Feminists actually believe that there will come a time when no man will ever rape or sexually assault a woman and no man will ever molest a child. God, feminists are stupid! Feminists think that men commit sexual crimes because they are taught to be some ridiculous rape culture. So you, me, and all of the rest of us men grew up in a “rape culture” that taught us to rape women!
Look feminist morons.
From the very beginning of recorded time, men have raped and sexually assaulted women and other men, and they have probably molested children. These behaviors are found in all societies that have ever been studied by anthropologists. There will always be crime and criminals. I will die in 20-30 years, and there will still be lots of crime and plenty of criminals. As long as there is crime and there are criminals, you will have rapists, sexual assaulters, child molesters.
Trying to eliminate human criminality and human evil is a fool’s errand. No sane person thinks we will ever be rid of these things.  With crime, all you can hope for is to reduce the rate of it. With criminals, all you can wish for is that there will be fewer of them. For the crimes of rape, sexual assault, and child molestation, all we can ever wish for is to reduce the rate of it. Intellectually handicapped feminists can scream all they want that they will not stop screeching until rape, assault and molestation are wiped off the planet, but that doesn’t mean that  the rest of us have to listen to their foolishness.
According to feminist pinheads, every society on Earth must have a rape culture then because feminists say if there is one rape in your culture, then you have a rape culture!
It’s not a matter of excusing this behavior by saying “boys will be boys” but instead it is a recognition that human violence against other humans and the human potential for evil will never end. It has always been a part of our legacy as a species.
Feminists have this idea that they will create this utopia where males will have it drummed into their heads not to rape and molest, as if we don’t get that drummed into our heads a million times as it is.
Supposedly the rape culture BS goes back to the toxic masculinity garbage. Toxic masculinity (which is just normal masculinity really) apparently causes men to rape, assault and molest! So if we wage war on toxic masculinity and get rid of it, we will get rid of rape, assault and molestation! Idiocy. In this stupid utopian vision, all men will be feminist mangina cucks who are shedding off all their masculinity, toxic or not.
Part of this agenda says that all men have to be called out. You, me,  and all  other men have to be called out for this brain-dead campaign. Even if we don’t rape, assault or molest ourselves, we need to police other men constantly. Every time we hear a man say a sexist remark, we need to stand up and call him out. Now I don’t even know what a sexist remark even is. I don’t even know what sexism is. Like racism, it’s one more word that’s been MOAB’d by feminist and SJW ridiculous abuse of the term that it doesn’t mean much of anything anymore. What’s the definition of racism? If it makes some idiot Black person mad, it’s racism! Well, how will we know if we are making racist remarks? We won’t! We will only find out when your Black overlords loom over our heads  with hammers, informing us that we just said something racist and to take it back or else.
What is a sexist remark? Nobody knows! Apparently it’s whatever some fool woman says it is! If you said something that made some female dingbat mad, it was sexist! How do we know not to say sexist things? We don’t! We have to wait until some feminist harpie  appears with a meat cleaver, threatening to chop our penises off for uttering something sexist, demanding that we take it back or they take a penile scalp.
I hate all of these stupid words and in general, words like this are banned on my website. You can’t run around screaming fool words like racist, sexist, homophobe, antisemite, transphobe, etc. here. Yes you can call people racist, but they have to be pretty egregious. The word sexist is permanently banned on this site because it has no meaning other than a knife feminists use to castrate us men.
I agree that the world misogynist has a meaning. Feminists scream “Misogyny!” about every other sentence. 95% of the time some feminist bonehead yells, “misogynist” it’s a false alarm. On the other hand, misogyny does exist. You can see quite a bit of open misogyny in the Manosphere. PUA sites are cesspools of misogyny. MGTOW’s wrote the book on misogyny. Incels are steeped in some truly dangerous misogyny. And MRA’s engage in a fair amount of misogyny themselves. Outside of those places, I don’t see much of it.
The only sane definition of sexism is if a man thinks men are superior to women.  However, women are just as sexist as men in my opinion. I meet a lot more sexist women than sexist men. The number of female chauvinists out there who think that men are inferior to women is very high. I know a couple of them very well. Having been abused by female sexists and chauvinists who cackle with glee in their smug superiority of us men while radiating contempt for us men as inferiors, I can tell you right now that sexism feels pretty bad when it’s coming from women and directed at men.
If it feels that bad for us, think how it must make women feel. It must make them feel as bad as it makes me feel. I would not want to subject any woman to the feelings that I experienced from experiencing sexist abuse. If we don’t like it when they do it to us, we should not do it to them. We men should not act like we are superior to women and treat them as if they are some inferior breed of human. That’s the only definition of sexism that makes sense.  As long as you don’t feel that way,  you’re not a sexist no matter how many times some Down’s Syndrome feminist accuses you of being one. If you feel that women and men are equal and men are not better than women, then your conscience is clear.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: What's Up with Toxic Masculinity?

The feminists and SJWtards have been tossing this concept around for a long time. First of all, we need to recognize that feminists wish to wipe masculinity off the face of the Earth. They don’t want any of us men to be masculine anymore. Only when we have renounced all of our masculinity, will we finally be free and will they finally be satisfied. For the record, the feminists also wish to abolish femininity because they hate that too. They want to get rid of every last bit of femininity in women.
Now these desires are most prominently seen in Radical Feminism. I am not sure how prominent they are among Third Wave Feminists. 3rd Wavers have been well know for saying that it is ok for feminists to wear dresses, heels, spandex, and makeup and to act as feminine as they wish. Women can wear this stuff and act this way and still be feminine!
However, Gloria Steinem is not a Radical Feminist and in a recent interview, she said her goal was to eliminate gender. I asked my mother what that meant and she said Steinem wants to get rid of masculinity and femininity because she thinks femininity oppresses women and holds them back.
Feminists have always hated femininity. It just dawned on me that this is why feminists cut their hair short, wear men’s clothes, refuse to shave their armpits or legs or use makeup and generally dress and act as much like men as possible, the end result being that most feminists have deliberately made themselves very ugly. This attempt to look like males is part of feminism’s war against the Beauty Industry, which they say oppresses women, and it is also a big middle finger to femininity.
All feminists, 2nd and 3rd wave, all believe that gender is a social construct. It is an article of faith among all modern feminists that there are no biological differences between men and women at all  other than the obvious and that there are no differences in our brains. Neither masculinity nor femininity have any biological basis at all. In spite of the fact that this seems ludicrous on its face, there has been quite a bit of good, hard research coming out in psychology journals involving studies with very young children which prove that masculinity in males and femininity in females have a biological basis.
Although radical feminists hate masculinity period (this can be observed by the fact that the only male radical feminists are gay men or very wimpy, feminine or even effeminate  straight men), 3rd Wavers seem to mostly wage war against Toxic Masculinity while supposedly arguing that there is some healthy type of masculinity that is not toxic.
I have done some research, and I still can’t figure out what toxic masculinity is. If you mean the hypermasculine strutting, swaggering, bragging, asshat, super-aggressive, dick-measuring contests and fistfights in the comments section you see on your typical horrific PUA site, then I would agree that that’s pretty toxic stuff. The thing is that the most toxically aggressive men, the most hostile, belligerent and unpleasant men of all, men who fight all of the other men around them, get the most women. So women love toxic masculinity. In fact, a recent study showed that women preferred toxically masculine men over men who lacked toxic masculinity.
Toxic masculinity seems to involves a reduced range of emotions with anger being the only prominent emotion allowed, a fear and hatred of softness or weakness, high aggression, violence, competition, oneupmanship, objectification of women, and bragging about sexual conquests.
A lot of these things are just normal male behavior. All men objectify women in the sense that they check out goodlooking women. They only men who  don’t do that are gay men or straight men who might as well be gay. And yes, the definition of objectifying women is to look at women in a sexual way.
All or most all men brag about their sexual prowess or conquests. That’s just normal guy behavior.
The problem with being an emotional man or showing a lot of weakness is that society including both women and men, will beat the crap out of you for doing this. I used to do both of these things quite a bit but I got my butt kicked so many times by both women and men over this that I said the Hell with it, shut down my feelings and turned hard as a rock. I don’t know if it’s healthy, but society seems to demand it and I’m tired of getting beat up for not going along.
Most men are not particularly violent, nor do they love violence. You see this in boys or young men more than among older men.
As a terminally laid back man, I despise highly aggressive males, but I wonder where society would be without them. Face it, these guys kick ass, take names, and get stuff done.
Same with competitiveness. I am too laid back to be a competitive man, but it is that male competitive drive that drives a lot of mankind’s highest achievements.
More and more I am thinking that “toxic masculinity” is nothing more than normative masculinity in American society. If a man appears to behave in a normative American masculine way I would assume he is engaging in toxic masculinity. No one has shown me what healthy masculinity would look like as compared to the toxic stuff. So the war on toxic masculinity just seems to be one more end run to attack masculinity itself.
If you all have any thoughts on masculinity or toxic masculinity, let us know in the comments.