Category Archives: Law

Hebephiles and Their Internet Sites

This is another in our series of posts about sick, disturbing, or fucked up websites and the twisted deviants and perverts who go to them!

First we need to describe some terms, mostly because almost everyone either has no idea what this word means or they have a completely wrong definition of it.

A hebephile is a man who has a sexual preference for girls around the age of puberty.  It usually means something like 11-14 or 12-15.

That’s all he likes. He doesn’t like anything else.

I have been to their forums just because I like to go to anything sick or weird on the Net. I found hebephile forums to be very disturbing, even worse than pedophile forums, and yes, I have been on those a couple of times too.

In case you are now certain that going to those forums a few times makes me a sex offender, let me inform you that only ~50% of the people on your typical pedophile or hebephile forum are actual pedophiles or hebephiles. The rest…pedophile and hebephile haters! Yes, there as many haters as deviants on those forums. The haters threaten these age-regressed folks, abuse them, call them every name in the book, tell them they are all going to prison, threaten to hurt or kill them, etc. It’s an ugly scene.

But there is something creepy about hebephile forums. The very idea that there are adult men out there who think 16 year old girls look like 90 year old grandmas is somehow deeply disturbing. In fact, for a couple of days after visiting that forum, I almost had minor PTSD from the experience and I had a hard time thinking straight. The forum was literally unnerving.

And in case you are wondering, there is none of the real nasty and ugly child porn on any of those aboveground pedophile-hebephile sites. There’s almost none of the real bad pedophilic child porn on the real Net anymore anyway.

There is some hebephilic porn out there involving pubertal young teenage girls posing naked in lascivious positions. Their bodies look like women’s bodies, so it’s not that disturbing. Nevertheless, it is illegal as Hell, and I would not advise anyone to look at that stuff or collect it. Even if you glance at it, there’s a record in your browser, so don’t even get curious. It is also extremely difficult to find, and there is no way to find it accidentally.

I understand that almost all of the real nasty CP is on the Darknet now.

On hebephile forums, you are not allowed to post girls older than 15. If you post a 16 year old girl, the hebephiles all start screaming, “Oh gross…Ewww… Disgusting…I think I’m going to puke…no Grandmas!

Yeah. That’s how hebephiles think. They think 16 year old girls are “grandmas.” 

I assure you that I am certainly the farthest thing form a hebephile.


Filed under Child Porn, Gender Studies, Girls, Heterosexuality, Jailbait, Law, Man World, Pedophilia, Pornography, Psychology, Sex, Sick, Weirdness

Crimes of the US-supported UN in Iraq and Haiti

The UN is also completely controlled by the US. Notice that they went into Iraq after our Nazi-like war of aggression and subsequent occupation and colonization of Iraq. They went in there to give the UN’s stamp of approval to this sickening and completely illegal war of conquest. I am so happy that Zarqawi bombed the UN building, killing the UN official assigned to give cover to the occupation of Iraq along with 41 other UN thugs.

Remember when the US staged a coup to over throw Aristide in Haiti? His crime? He raised the minimum wage. This even angered the Clintons, as the Clintons have assets in low-wage factories in Haiti. He also built more schools in eight years than had been built in the previous 200 years. Any country in our Monroe Doctrine backyard that tries to help its people in any way is usually called Communist and attacked by the gangsters in the Pentagon and CIA.

After Aristide was overthrown, the US put in a new government and formed a new military because “liberal Democrat” Bill Clinton had forbidden Aristide to have a military! With no military, this set him up for a coup cooked up by the CIA with a fascist army operating out of Trujillo-land, I mean the Dominican Republic.

The CIA helped reform the Tonton Macutes reformed, who soon set about murdering Aristide supporters. In a short period of time, the reformed Macutes murdered over 3,000 Aristide supporters. During this period, the criminal UN were called in to ratify the US coup. UN soldiers from three different countries stood by and did nothing while the Macutes death squads raged across the land. In fact, the UN army spent most of its time on the edges of the huge slums trying to keep the people from fighting back against the death squads. In this way, the UN army was actually part of the death squad apparatus, pacifying the slums and encircling them so the death squads could murder with greater impunity.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under Caribbean, Democrats, Dominican Republic, Geopolitics, Government, Haiti, Iraq War, Labor, Latin America, Law, Military Doctrine, Politics, Regional, US Politics, USA, War

The International Criminal Court Is Now Controlled by the US


Is there anything we do not control? This is really sick. The ICC is supposed to be an unbiased court based on principles of international law to prosecute actual war criminals. Instead, it’s a fraud and a joke, a kangaroo court set up by the US and NATO to prosecute everybody they don’t like on fake war crimes charges.

Screw it.

Let’s just dismantle it.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

Leave a comment

Filed under Geopolitics, Law, Regional, USA, War

Politico Magazine Advocates for the Reintroduction of Slavery in America


For those of you who don’t understand what the article is arguing for, it’s called indentured servitude. It was common in the past, but is now outlawed in most places that are not Third World ratholes, and it is now considered to be a form of slavery.

Unbelievable. I knew this country was getting more and more rightwing, but this is crazy. Are there any limits to how far right they go?

The piece was written by Eric Posner and Glen Weyl.

Weyl works at Microsoft Research and teaches at Yale. I know nothing about this person, but I assume they might be coming from a somewhat Silicon Valley Libertarian mindset

Posner is out of Harvard and Yale also. He is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago, a bastion of reaction in the Economics Department, which birthed the economic Rosemary’s Baby named Milton Friedman, a loathsome man who was part of the brain trust behind recent mass move to neoliberalism. Friedman was basically a Libertarian. He’s widely praised all over the corporate media, but make no mistake about it, the man was a literal monster.

It turns out that UoC’s Law School is just as bad as its execrable Economics Department. Both are known as bastions of conservative scholars of both law and economics. Posner’s father was Richard Posner, a federal judge. He was a Reagan appointee and was on George W. Bush’s short list for appointees to the Supreme Court. He must have been quite conservative to make it onto Shrub’s Supreme Court list.

He recently wrote an insane article in Slate called The Case Against Human Rights arguing that we need to get rid of our freedom of speech.

Although some say Posner is a liberal Democrat, others say he is generally viewed as a conservative legal scholar. However, he seems to hate Donald Trump.

Reviewing some of his publications, I found him hard to characterize.I felt that he came across as a rightwinger. He’s not a liberal, or if he is the word liberal needs to be tossed in a bonfire and burned up forever as meaningless. If he’s a Democrat, he’s a conservative Democrat. But keep in mind that the monsters in the Killary Clinton wing of the DNC type of nightmarish neoconservative warhawks bill themselves as liberal Democrats.

N.B. I just did some more research and it appears that Posner is best characterized as some sort of Libertarian.

With his colleague and partner in crime co-author, he has written a book about International Law that seems to state that there is no such thing and that every country can interpret international law in whatever way benefits it most. Which is what the United States has always done anyway. We’ve never followed international law. Show me one time when the US followed international law to do anything.

These are the people who are shaping our country!

The other man is out of Microsoft Research. He’s apparently another reactionary, this time the usual Silicon Valley Libertarian “liberal Democrat” type. It’s beyond me how these Libertarian Democraps in Silicon Valley are liberal in any way, shape, or form.

How? Because they bellow for the rights of silly millennials to categorize their sexuality and gender as 40% this, 30% that, and 30% some other weird thing? That’s what Silicon Valley Libertarian Democrats are all about. They’re Cultural Left Democrats, but in most other ways, they are just corporate Libertarian monsters like all the rest of the corporate goons. Libertarian philosophy is the cancer of the Generation X’ers. It’s their fatal flaw. Vast numbers of them have been infected with it. Even many Gen X’ers who call themselves liberals or even Leftists often call themselves Libertarians.

I would like to point out one other thing. Both authors are out of the Ivies – Harvard and Yale.

You are well aware that the Silicon Valley Dystopia is actually the ultimate utopia of Late Capitalism. This is literally their dream society, if you can fathom that. This is as good as Late Capitalism gets. This is the hideous model that everyone else in the world needs to emulate and strive for.

And it’s complete crap in so many ways.

I have been told that the creators and promoters of Silicon Valley as the ultimate capitalism Land of Oz are mostly out of the Ivy League schools such as Harvard and Yale.

I am not sure how true that is, but if it is, then the Ivy League types are prominent in shaping our country in this monstrous direction.

Presumably, they are all tied in with neoliberalism/Libertarianism, the mindset of Silicon Valley which is glossed over with a pretty liberal Democratic paint job. Don’t be fooled. Silicon Valley is simply the latest manifestation of the endlessly shapeshifting neoliberal beast. It’s particularly dangerous because with that faux liberal Democrat sheen, it has the potential to pull a lot of decent but naive liberal and even progressive people into its foul spider web.

These two have co-authored a book out recently titled Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society. It’s probably not about a just society at all, and I worry about their notion that uprooting democracy is a good thing even if that has always been the standard view of the ruling classes. I doubt if they are talking about uprooting capitalism at all. It’s probably about the promotion across of this cancer called the “gig economy” which, trust me, is a very bad thing. It’s just he latest groovy idea cooked up by Silicon Valley Libertarians. It sounds very appealing but upon analysis, it’s a catastrophe for workers. It amounts to all of us putting ourselves and everything we own on the open market for use or rental. This mirrors what Marx said workers do in capitalism anyway, but it’s never been so open, blatant and galling as this.

Here’s the blurb from the book. It’s looking bad already, and I haven’t even read one page.

It shows how the emancipatory force of genuinely open, free, and competitive markets can reawaken the dormant nineteenth-century spirit of liberal reform and lead to greater equality, prosperity, and cooperation.


They show how the principle of one person, one vote inhibits democracy, suggesting instead an ingenious way for voters to effectively influence the issues that matter most to them.

Here’s where the democracy hatred comes in. Well the bourgeois have hated democracy since the onset of suffrage, so this is nothing new. Remember how France revoked suffrage at the best of their ruling class in 1848 very soon after it was granted? It’s just now that the anti-democratic language is gussied up in groovy hipster talk. You won’t get to vote anymore, but that’s a good thing! How taking away your right to vote is actually a good thing for you. I can see the subheads already.

Only by radically expanding the scope of markets can we reduce inequality, restore robust economic growth, and resolve political conflicts. But to do that, we must replace our most sacred institutions with truly free and open competition.

Um, no. So the way to reduce inequality, stabilize the political system and make everybody rich is to go to a full-blown radical free market across all of society.

Forget it. This is more of the Libertarian swill they have been selling us for decades.

  • The free market is never the road to reduced inequality – in fact, the freer the markets, the more the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
  • The freer the markets, the more unstable the political system becomes as extreme inequality and market as politics gives rise to the Marxist prediction of the right going further right and the left going further left which the marketization of politics automatically produces breathtaking corruption in the state. Pretty soon you have the 1930’s in Europe with Hard Left and Hard Right thugs fighting in the streets. Wait. We have that in the US right now!
  • The freer the markets, the less rich most everyone is. The wealth shifts up to the top 1%, while the top 20% also makes out quite well. The bottom 80% gets completely screwed. The economy becomes a board game where the upper classes spend all their time transferring more and more money and stuff out of the hands of the lower 80% and the people at large represented in the state into their own grubby hands. Racial neoliberalism results in the wild enrichment of those at the top, the decimation of the middle classes and the reduction of huge segments of society to near pauperism via economic immiseration. Free markets don’t make everybody rich. All they do is turn your country into Latin America.

The book’s got a blurb from the Indian CEO of Microsoft:

I have always been motivated to find ways to unite the power of technology and markets with the goal of creating a more egalitarian society. This book offers the most intriguing vision I have seen to date in uniting these apparently contradictory strands.

–Satya Nadella, Chief Executive Officer, Microsoft

A blurb from the head of Microsoft. That should serve as a warning. You think this Indian goon cares one whit about egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is the antithesis of the corporate ethos. If you advocate it, your shareholders can fire you for violating your corporate charter. Nadella is probably some sort of a Libertarian is what I am thinking.

Perhaps the most ambitious attempt to rethink democracy and markets since Milton Friedman…

–Kenneth S. Rogoff, author of The Curse of Cash

That first sentence ought to be a giveaway for what this scam is probably really all about. Comparing these authors with Milton Friedman is probably intentional and should be a heads up to what these two sneaky chameleons are all about. I know nothing about Rogoff, but the seeming praise for the Friedmanstein human monster should be a giveaway. Rogoff is also probably some sort of Libertarian.

These two cretins recently wrote an article for the New Republic on how to reduce income inequality. I’m not far into it yet, but apparently the solution is…open borders! Now you see how Libertarian reactionary with fake neo-Centrist masks sell their poison. The New Republic is a liberal magazine. For quite some time, they went Clintonite DNC Centrist to the point where I could not bear to read them. The magazine was long run by Israel-firster (((Martin Peretz))) and ~20% of the articles were about (((you know who))). It gets annoying after a while. I am not sure where they are at now, but I am sure their politics is categorized as liberal. So a liberal magazine is running poisonous articles by two devious Libertarians deliberately designed to appeal to liberals.

See how this scam works. This is like what they did with the Council on Cultural Freedom in the Cold War. A number of magazines, often literary and political mags, were essentially set up by the CIA. A very prominent one was the Paris Review. These magazines were de facto run by the CIA for many years. The CIA used these quite liberal magazines to attack Communism during the Cold War. Many people who worked at these magazines were never even aware of how they were being turned in marionettes.

Here the ruling class – the capitalists, the corporations and the rich are trying to sell their class politics to liberals and progressives as part of a progressive project. The problem is that a lot of decent liberals are going to get fooled by this scam.

So Libertarians are arguing for the return of indentured servitude. What’s next? Out and out slavery? I suppose if two free individuals enter into a contract for indentured servitude, it’s a-ok with “No Harm Principle” Libertarians. Somehow such an agreement is not harmful to anyone involved.

Eric Posner is the 4th most cited Constitutional scholar in the US. And this is how he thinks. The ideologues who run our system are monsters.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, European, Government, History, Journalism, Labor, Law, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA

I Fired an Employee When I Learned She Voted for Trump. Is This Illegal?

Answered on Quora.

It is absolutely not illegal in most states of the United States, although a few states do have laws protecting political beliefs. But in general, political beliefs are not a protected class. In some countries in Europe, you cannot fire people for their politics, but in most of the world, of course you can be fired for your political beliefs. Especially in an at-will state like California, which is hire at will, fire at will, you can fire anyone for any legal reason or for no reason at all.

And they do just that. It’s happened to me a number of times. I’ve been fired more than once for what I could only conclude was the fact that the boss simply didn’t like me. And there didn’t seem to be much I could do about that fact, that is, there didn’t seem to be any way to change my behavior so this person would like me. They just hated me at my core essence self, and when someone hates you at that base level, they’re gone forever and there’s no retrieving them.

I have even been fired for refusing to go along with Labor Code violations. My time was increased from 8 to 16 hours a day. Actually one shift was fired, and two shifts’ work were piled on me. I was forced to work 8 hours a day overtime. Forced overtime is illegal in California. I would put in maybe 9–10 hours of the 16 hour shift and go home, as was my legal right since they were breaking the law. Didn’t take them long to fire me.

I have been studying people who get fired from jobs I worked at and my friends who got fired from jobs. In ~90% of cases, I concluded that the person was not being fired for just cause but they were only being fired because the boss or co-workers or often both simply did not like the person. I think maybe only 10% of firings are due to true egregious and inexcusable work performance.

They never say they are firing you because they don’t like you. Instead they just make up a bunch of lies about “poor performance.” It doesn’t matter how good your performance is, if they want to get rid of you, you always have “poor performance” no matter how well you do your job.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under California, Labor, Law, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA, West

One of the Hardest Jobs I Ever Had – Paralegal

I had a paralegal job once where they whole damn job was like that. I didn’t have a degree or certificate, but you don’t need one. One of my Mom’s friends worked next door to an attorney who said he needed a paralegal. She told my Mom and my Mom said, “I wonder if Bob could do that?” So she offered me this weird job that I had never done before. I told the lawyer that I had no degree or license but he just shrugged his shoulders and said you don’t need one.

I was summarizing documents and these attorneys just wrote this brain-shatteringly difficult documents. A lot of was they have invented their own language that no one else understands so they can get $300 an hour, but another part of it was just that the case was so so mindbendingly convoluted and confusing that it was worse than a Tolstoy novel. It was extremely difficult to keep up with who said or did what to whom, when, where, why and all of that.

I finally figured out that these lawyers when they were corresponding to each other were making their correspondence almost impossible to understand as some sort of gladiatorial technique against the other side. In other words, it was warfare. The competing sides in a civil case are basically at war with each other, and if you can make it so the other lawyers have no idea what you are talking about, I suppose it’s a good warfare technique for your side.

The problem was that the lawyers from the other side just wrote back the same impossible to understand correspondence as had just been shot at them, so while it was good warfare for one side, the other side simply adopted it too and now you had to defend yourself at your own weapons being fired at you. And paralegals like myself were sitting there getting shelled by both sides.

After a while, this started to make my cynical because it was obvious that these attorneys were writing this idiotically convoluted prose not only as a warfare technique against the other side but also as a way of creating their own language that no one else could understand so they could get paid $300/hour. That seemed pretty cynical and that along with some other things left me with a very cynical view of this “profession” which I think is mostly just getting paid by rich people to lie for them and help them get out of their scams and sleazy behavior.

I had to read sentences over and over until I could figure out what they Hell they even said. Nevertheless, I was able to do it and I was so good at it and that my boss, an attorney, was raving about me to the other lawyers in the office. He was also shaking his head and asking what my major was like he couldn’t believe I was that smart. He was told Journalism, and he said, “Journalism, huh?” And then he sort of shook his head and walked away.

The money was good ($23/hour in 1990 – not sure what that is now) but that job was just brainsmashingly difficult. I could do it and I did it, but I can’t say it was a lot of fun. It wasn’t really misery. Instead it was just so hard that it wasn’t a real barrel of fun if you catch my drift.

Leave a comment

Filed under Labor, Law

“Alligator Hunting,” by Alpha Unit

Tailgaters do it when the University of Tennessee plays the University of Florida. Georgia Bulldogs fans also do it when the Florida Gators are in town. Fans do it when LSU plays Florida and when Mississippi State plays Florida. They roast, grill, or barbecue whole alligators.

Alligator tail steaks are another favorite, the tail being the tenderloin. Harlon Pearce of Harlon’s Louisiana Seafood says that alligator tail has four cylindrical tubes of muscle, or four lobes, like tuna. “You slice that and pound it like veal, and you cannot tell the difference,” he told the Times-Picayune of New Orleans. “You can handle and treat that like a good piece of meat, even grill it.”

Donald Barkemeyer, whose renowned alligator sausage you can buy at Winn-Dixie, says he cooks alligator tail with just butter, lemon, and garlic, baking it at 350 for half an hour.

The rest of the alligator is red meat and is tougher than the tail. It’s better braised in a nice sauce, says chef Greg Sonnier.

Licensed alligator farms throughout the Southeast supply meat to grocery stores and restaurants and also ship alligator meat to various other parts of the world. And alligator hunting is legal in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. There is no typical way to catch alligators legally in this country.

In some places an alligator must be restrained before you shoot it; other places allow you to shoot free swimming alligators. Some places allow you to use a shotgun with #4 shot or smaller; other places prohibit shotguns altogether. In Texas you can’t use a firearm on an unrestrained alligator at all unless you’re on private property.

In Arkansas you must use a shotgun (or shotgun shell loaded bangstick) to kill the alligator, while in other places you can use a handgun of any caliber.

In Florida, once the alligator is attached to a restraining line, the only way you can shoot it is with a bangstick. Chris Eger has a tutorial on what that is:

To sketch out the broad strokes, it’s a pole with a stainless steel chamber attached to it that holds a live round of ammunition over a fixed firing pin. When you hit the dangerous end of this chamber with a good amount of oomph onto a target, it forces the round back onto the pin and out fires a projectile.

Most manufacturers use a simple cotter pin, hairpin, or braided wire thread as a physical safety so that the bangstick doesn’t go off until you really want it to. There is no trigger.

There are also no sights and no magazine or action as with other firearms. Chris Eger says even though bangsticks fire modern rimfire and centerfire rounds, the ATF does not consider them to be regulated firearms. (He cautions that if your bangstick is shorter than 26 inches and has a firing pin, you have an unregistered NFA firearm, which can land you right in the slammer.)

Unregulated alligator hunting from the nineteenth century to the 1940s nearly drove alligators in the US to extinction. In 1941 Alabama became the first state to pass legislation to protect them, and by 1967 the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) was put on the Endangered Species List. They rebounded to such an extent that they were removed from the Endangered Species List in 1987. They do remain federally protected.

In some areas, especially Florida, people see them as a nuisance.

There is also a demand for their skins and meat, so alligator hunting and farming are thriving. They do have their local ups and downs, of course. Some alligator hunters in Louisiana weren’t as enthusiastic last season as they had been in seasons past. They said that because of the overabundance of alligator skins and the economy being down, a lot of people just weren’t buying.

1 Comment

Filed under Alpha Unit, Animals, Endangered Species, Environmentalism, Florida, Guest Posts, Law, Louisiana, Regional, Reptiles, South, South Carolina, Sports, Texas, USA, West, Wild

Alt Left: “Why I am Not an MRA”

I continue to say that Ryan England is one of our finest Alt Left thinkers. I say that in part because I agree with him so much. I would put him up there with Brandon Adamson, who I also agree with a lot. And both Brandon and Ryan are two of the finest writers, as in prose stylists, in our movement.

I have reputation for being so radical and nuts that I am almost persona non grata in this movement. I know that posts linking to me have been removed from the Alternative Left that Ryan started. Apparently I am “raciss” or something. It takes almost nothing to get called that anymore. Just be a bit honest, and you’re done. I also have a reputation, via Lord Keynes, for being an extremist on the Cultural Left.

It is said that I have some extreme positions on the SJW Left. He is also rather astonished at how socially conservative I am. But I am not a social conservative at all. My views are Democratic Party’s Official Platform 1995. That these views are now seen as just as socially conservative as Roy Moore is quite astonishing, but it shows just how fast the runaway clown car train called the Cultural Left Freakshow has gone in just ~20 years. And indeed I am not just a conservative. I am also a reactionary. I want to roll back the clock – to Democratic Party 1995. That this is considered Troglodytism is one again a symptom of the disease.

Part of the controversy was that I supported Antifa. That makes you almost persona non grata on the Alt Left. It was said that I had moved to the extreme Left. That’s hardly possible as I have always been there. I was on the mailing list for the Weathermen for Chrissakes. After that, I was buying guns for the Marxist rebels in El Salvador. And I haven’t budged since.

The funny thing is that despite my supposed extremism, I find myself agreeing with Ryan England (who is actually himself quite a radical Left type on the Alt Left) a very good part of the time. This post could have been written by me, but I am not eloquent or disciplined enough to have done so, so Ryan had to do it. If you want to know where I stand on the issue of feminism, etc. (I am supposedly an MRA radical) just read this post. I am as MRA as Ryan is. That our mild views are now MRA shows just again just how insane the “normal” has gotten now. Yep, you read that right. Crazy is the new normal. Sane is new bigotry and reaction.

Not going to say much more about this except that I hope it spurs some comments. Like Ryan, I am also a feminist. I came out of the feminist movement back when it meant something. Once again the crazy train left me stranded at the station holding flowers and jilted once again. I still support liberal feminism, sex positive feminism (though if Jezebel is the definition, I have my worries) and equity feminism. I think Ryan might want to identify as a masculinist or Men’s Liberationist. These are the left wings of the MRA movement to the extent that they exist at all. One can be both a masculinist and a feminist and the demands of basic equality nearly mandate it.

I have scarcely seen an article that lays out the poison of modern feminism so eloquently and accurately. Once again, his words are mine. My principal beef with feminism is outlined here by my alter ego, Ryan.

Read and enjoy.

Why I am not an MRA

By Ryan England

Feminism 101

Doesn’t it want to make you swoon?


I know I’m going to catch flak for this, but I don’t care much for the men’s rights movement. I do think they make good points – I’ve read Warren Farrell for example and found his work quite profound. In fact, it really takes a wrecking ball to this idea that men have conspired to make the world a wonderful place at the expense of women. You can’t reasonably believe that after reading Farrell’s works.

Why I don’t really relate to the MRM is rooted in my overarching distrust of identity politics. I do think that there’s all kinds of room to criticize the excesses of feminism, and some points made by the MRM are valuable in that regard.  Decades of ideological protectionism has produced a very real feminist echo chamber with next to no external checks on its claims.  The MRM can by helpful in remedying that.  The MRM also brings our attention to real issues that men are confronted with.  Glaring disadvantage (to varying degrees depending on jurisdiction) in divorce settlements and child custody arrangements being the most obvious example.

The feminist demonization of male heterosexuality; this presumption underlying much of feminist theory that male sexual attraction towards women is somehow demeaning and objectifying of women is something else that needs to be challenged and the present taboo against disagreeing with feminism desperately needs to be broken here.  The MRM can help in that regard.  The equation of compliments and polite civil greetings on part of men towards women with harassment, objectification or even oppression, commonly seen on social media, is a manifestation of this.  If taken at all seriously, especially in any kind of public policy context, this kind of thinking could effectively close the door on prospects for male-female encounters of all but the most institutional kind.

The ever expanding definition of rape, and the ever narrowing definitions of consent, and the increasingly onerous requirements for obtaining legal consent – an express verbal “yes” given for every touch, kiss or caress, and even that be nullified if there’s any alcohol or mental illness or any factor that could in the slightest call into question the strict legal capacity to give consent, constitute another manifestation of this.  The end game here, I suspect, is to make legal intercourse, for all intents and purposes, impossible for men.

Although most feminists profess to disagree in principle with the notion that all things “boy meets girl” are inherently sexist or oppressive – and may even trot out their own relationship as proof of this, the restrictions imposed on gender dynamics by these kinds of very popular demands made by very widely circulated and credible media outlets that represent the mainstream of liberal opinion on gender issues, would make establishing even platonic, let along erotic relationships extremely difficult.

That many feminists choose to make exceptions to their own rules for themselves and the men they get the D from should not be taken as proof of feminism’s flexibility and open mindedness.  It should be taken as proof of moral hypocrisy on part of the feminists so doing, and a tacit admission on their part that their system of sexual morality and conduct is no more reasonable and in alignment with human nature than that of the religious conservatives they so smugly see themselves as superior to.

Compound that with inundation of  feminist perspectives casting heterosexual relationships in so consistently negative a light; as being about nothing other than unequal distribution of domestic labor, unequal pay, riven with male insecurity and unreasonable male behaviors contrasted to the relief women are expected to seek and experience in all-female spaces, as characterized by universally poor male sexual performance and an expectation of female preference for marital celibacy, dildos, lesbianism, asexuality, promiscuity, anything other than relational intimacy – all hermetically sealed by a propensity to yell “fragile male ego” at any dissention from any of the above on part of men – as if this kind of petty weaponized rejection is something we should just sit back and relish, and feminist gender dynamics become a mortal threat to healthy heterosexual relationships, even if it turns out to be death by a thousand cuts rather than a swift beheading.

A strong MRM could be a countervailing force for reason and love in gender relations.  On the other hand, groups like MGTOW could just up the ante and make things worse rather than better.  Don’t get me wrong: you, dear reader, be you male or female, have every right as far as I’m concerned to live your life as you see fit, and if that involves not having a significant other of the opposite sex, good luck to you.  I once wanted an unattached life myself.  May you succeed where I failed.

But to advocate widespread rejection of the opposite sex, as feminism often implicitly and, in the case of separatist feminism, explicitly does, and MGTOW likewise does, is to advocate for the infliction of protracted neurosis and frustration culminating in a demographic holocaust upon whichever population is to embrace this as a form of gender based political activism.  It would inflict incalculable and irreparable damage on the psychological fabric of such a society.

But even a less strident form of male activism than MGTOW could end up becoming a gender flipped version of the worst aspects of feminism.  I’ve noticed that in every debate I’ve ever read between feminists and MRAs – though flame war is a better description in just about ever case, since debate implies a reasoned exchange of views and that’s most definitely not what happens – the exchange always boils down to each side saying to the other, “you’re just ugly and can’t get laid” – with cats and mother’s basements figuring in there somehow. Inevitably, one side resigns in frustration over the strident unreasonableness of the other, and both remain more convinced than ever that the opposite sex is hopelessly screwed up.  There’s not much of a future in this.

Taken to their logical conclusions, demands upon heterosexual relationships would end up more closely resembling shari’a law than they would anything previous generations of liberal feminists struggled and fought for.

Wait a minute …

Of course,  feminism – in its more reasonable forms, is still needed to protect and safeguard the rights of women. Life is certainly not all wine and roses for all women at all times, and men are not blameless. This is especially true in communities where, for religious reasons, women still very much are second class citizens.

This is what I find both astounding and disturbing about What looks like an alliance of feminists and Islamists, particularly in opposition to the Trump presidency.  While I don’t condone the more boorish things Trump has said about women, you can’t compare the danger posed to women by macho locker room bluster with the danger posed to women by shari’a law.  Given the dour attitudes that both feminists and Islamists appear to have towards free and fun expression of happiness and attraction between the sexes, however, I can see the kinship the two might have with one another, though from where I sit, it promises to be a stormy relationship.

What I worry about regarding the MRM, though, is its own potential to become a kind of rank gender partisanship. That “Male good female bad” thinking could, and does, easily arise from it.

Because that, in its own way, is exactly what happened to feminism. What began as being “just about equality” or just about “the same treatment of women as for men” has become a blinding and fanatical form of gender partisanship. Motivated by dogmatic adherence to feminism, whole cohorts of young women (and their male sympathizers) have circled the wagons and harnessed collective groupthink to hermetically seal themselves away from any kind of criticism or dissent.

Driven by a sense of universal and historical mission, these women regard themselves as quite entitled to ceaselessly make unilateral demands of men with no countervailing concessions, tar all men with collective responsibility and guilt by association for the very real crimes and misdeeds of some men, and to effectively kill any prospect for intimacy and trust between the sexes by making militant confrontation the permanent and universal norm for gender relations. Backed by unilateral academic and media support and an arsenal of canned responses and copy pasta with which to respond to naysayers, the impact that this has had on gender dynamics is nothing short of devastating.

As an antidote to this, we need to step back from identity politics. We don’t need a male version of the same thing. Given what we should now know about ideological and identitarian polarization, feminism and the MRM will most likely feed off one another and each further radicalize in response to the other. This is certainly what I’ve seen in every single exchange between MRMs and feminists that I’ve ever seen. If that process becomes normalized, it could well mean the death of heterosexual love in its entirety. The prospect of this worries me greatly. I really hope people of both (yes, both) genders can learn to take a step back from their attachments to gender ideology and start reasoning honestly about these kinds of issues.


Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Islam, Law, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Masculinism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Republicans, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics

Men Are Afraid to Give CPR to Women Due to Fear of Sexual Harassment Lawsuits


Figures. I hope some women start dying from this. Maybe they will think twice about this  Puritanical-Victorian sexual harassment anti-male witch hunt.

1 Comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Health, Law, Man World, Radical Feminists, Scum, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

Alt Left: Gay Men’s and SJW Views on Statutory Rape: Shocking Revelations and Outrageous Bias

Gay culture even today is extremely protective of older man – teenage boy relationships. Forums for gay teenage boys are full of comments from the adults running the site saying, “We know a lot of you are in relationships with older men, and that’s just fine. Don’t worry. We won’t turn your boyfriend in.”

Part of the long-term gay agenda has been to lower the age of consent precisely for this reason – because so many gay men love those teenage boys. That is what is insidious about their devious Gay Agenda. Adult man – teenage boy relationships and sex go on all the time in the gay community. No one cares, and no one turns them in.

This is one more type of SJW hypocrisy. SJW’s hate straight men and are on a jihad against male heterosexual sexuality. This jihad is led by feminism. If you are a heterosexual adult man, and you say that 17 year old girls turn you on (all heterosexual men are maximally aroused by 17 year old girls in the lab), every SJW for miles around will bash you accusing you of being a pedophile and demanding you be arrested.

They will even call the police on you claiming you are a pedophile and try to convince the police to raid your home or investigate you. Apparently dozens of people have called the police on me to try to get me arrested for “pedophilia” because I write that it is normal for adult men to be turned on by teenage girls. Nothing came of it, but it is still scary.

The people doing this are feminists and “femiservatives.” Femiservatives are conservatives who are to all intents and purposes radical feminists in the way that they persecute and prosecute normal male heterosexual behavior. They are actually more dangerous than feminists because there are so many of them.

However, if you bring up gay men and teenage boys to these same feminists and SJW’s? Crickets! Silence. At the very least. That’s if they do not come right out and support it, which I am not sure of. All I know is they never mention it even one time.

100% of the “pedophiles” that SJW’s are hollering about are adult heterosexual men having consensual sex with 13-17 yr old teenage girls.

1 Comment

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Ephebephilia, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Law, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Political Science, Politics, Radical Feminists, Scum, Sex