Equalism as Patriarchy

The great conspiratorialist myth of The Patriarchy has an easy-to-digest twin brother, which is all too easy for me to lampoon. It is the “virtue-signalling” on one hand, and paternalistic braggadocio on the other of owning (via her heart) a superior, that is “Equal” female partner.

She pulls her physical and intellectual weight in “the partnership”.

She earns the same or more as he does, is incredibly physically fit, and never gets old.

She’s logical, brilliant even, and a veritable superwoman in terms of her ability to hold onto a professional career and raise perfect kids and nurture a loving relationship, all at the same time.

Because he’s a perfect, loving Dad of course.

She initiates sex as often as she receives it and does so while expending equal energy as her lucky male partner.

She’s the prize, the goal even for all men jumping on the “Equalist” bandwagon.

I don’t think I even need to say that she’s probably an Atheist, and why shouldn’t she be. Clearly she is herself a Goddess. What an amazing guy to have bagged her.

The Socialist Dreamgirl.

Sorry. I don’t buy it. Why is she with you? Wouldn’t she be happier with a woman as a partner who will take care of all that demeaning housework, homecooking, gardening stuff that sensible effete intellectuals so rightly disdain?

When she orgasms does she have to go to Atheist confession afterwards because, briefly, for a fleeting moment, she felt like a sex object? Of course not.

It’s just a vibrator. Nothing to see there.

Perfectly sensible equal intimacy in defiance of biology.

Now, gentlemen, if you listen well and heed this amazingly deserving man’s advice, you too may one day earn for yourself this incredibly happy equal woman who will not only not look up to you, but will be looking over your shoulder at this guy.

Because you’re a sap.

Sorry. But that’s how I see it.


Rational Arguments

Rational arguments are largely the domain of men. Some women are good at them too. However, the notion that rational arguments are themselves the collective mark of “intelligence” is tunnel vision.

I think that the reason that so many men think that they want an “intelligent” woman has to do with the irrational arguments of Leftists choking out all other competing narratives. When a rational man has had enough of this, he probably thinks that an “intelligent” woman is the peaceful antidote or even comes to fetishize such a concept in terms of an “intelligent woman” being entertaining and arousal-inducing.

While meanwhile such men are shunning the company of other men.

First of all, rational thought is a journey not a destination such that rational thought is under degrees of competition from the irrational. Secondly, every man has his nemesis in terms of the intuitive or “feminine” archetype which causes him to lose his own head.

All of us have vulnerabilities when it comes to our rational arguments being “hijacked” by our irrational feelings.

For what it’s worth, if I’m overly invested in the rational or intellectual aspects of a thought or conversation, I am not turned on. Therefore men who believe that they can flatter me by appeals to my intellect such as to arouse me insult me by this appeal to intellectual narcissism. I’m not that kind of girl.

I’m an intellectual because this part of my brain was trained to be this way. It’s an obstacle not an assistance in terms of my own sexual arousal. Men who allow themselves to be so distracted by my writing, thoughts, arguments, etc., have failed my “shit test”. If he falls into my tender trap, he’s spider food.

On the other hand, if he utterly fails to heed what I say, in terms of my own self-actualization, beliefs, honest appraisal of myself, etc., he is also a fool, or otherwise unfortunately over-conditioned by female solipsism to ignore what I say at his peril.

The biggest loser however in terms of this particular paradox is me. I’m not quite hot enough for most men to bother with the patient, thoughtful, intuitive penetration of my defenses in such a way that will actually work rather than terrify me into noncompliance, rebellion, or escape-artistry. It therefore defines my “Alpha Widowhood.”

Fortunately, I find these sorts of intellectual and rhetorical exercises, on one hand, and terribly inconsiderate flirting, on the other, suitable compensation for a celibate lifestyle.

At the same time, I admonish men who overly pedestalize Athena over Aphrodite, or who otherwise assume that Aphrodite is not clever.

Meanwhile, there is nothing particularly rational about otherwise sane men fawning over an adorable virgin savant while meanwhile neglecting their own masculine sacred identity in themselves or even their own sons.


Making a Better World

If I believe that the U.S. ought to roll back the entire Progressive Era of Amendments, throw away the notion of monogamy, normalize prostitution, and other regressive notions to include male superiority within most civic, social, sexual, and spiritual venues, what role do I see for myself in this imaginary paradise?

Well, first of all, it’s “imaginary,” albeit may well occur in my lifetime barring total societal collapse (also a high possibility), and besides, I’m a product of a dysfunctional family in a dysfunctional era, so how can I possibly say?

Besides, in my heart of hearts, I prefer to be directed rather than to have full choice in even my own outcome, having less faith in my own wisdom than that of a probably impossible standard of male given my experiences with Axel. More than likely, in the event of the two possible mega-scenarios hinted at above, someone who I do not particularly admire would likely have that say. Oh well. With any luck I’ll either love the outcome or won’t live much longer than to see it realized. It’s not all about me. It’s a journey, not a destination.

Ultimately, how I may feel about it is largely within my own control. I realize this is a radical notion to many today.

However, I do at times imagine myself living in a long ago era under several possible scenarios. That’s not a crime yet is it?

Let’s just say that I wasn’t the product of a dysfunctional family in a dysfunctional era, perhaps I would be one of a small group of wives to one admirable sort of man, with my preference of course that I be his absolute favorite, or at least have a unique roll for him among the others. Alternatively, if I can’t stand the others, then I could be his kept mistress/courtesan/hostess in some faraway outpost, on call. Or a prostitute or madame in a dream bordello (in terms of the options I’ve known, I’d just assume pass on such an employment offer given the choice today). The major enjoyment I receive out of life would be masculine attention, which, of course, I’d be obliged to earn and continue to renew that merit. It would be nice if my responsibilities would continue to increase in terms of depth and intellectual challenge or more toward the pastoral and artistic—I could go either way. Naturally, I would engage in whatever domestic pursuits required for purposes of domestic harmony.

Perhaps in a less dysfunctional society, women wouldn’t repulse me by and large and I could even have more friendships with them than I do today.

Being overcrowded by people relative to opportunity would be the least possible desirable outcome; however of course, that’s not something that any sort of social engineering scheme can ever wholly eliminate as a possibility, unless one lives on an island, alone.

Since I live in the here and now however, I honestly don’t know what I want other than to have a man’s attention of some sort. I would hope that upon meeting such a man, my role would develop and otherwise crystallize. I can’t be expected to have that all worked out beforehand, can I?

Likely as not, in my imaginary paradise, I would probably not be as intellectually invested as I am now. That would doubtless result in more happiness, the closer I would be toward the level of intellectuality desired by a hypothetical male of “Alpha” bent. Failing to land such, however, then I guess prostitution or the convent would be second choice.

Whoever told women that they should desire to be front-and-center as civic and social decision-makers probably did not have their best interests at heart.

I am not even certain that allowing women full domestic reign in terms of home decor, maintenance, and food, has been an unbridled success. So long as these areas are controlled by the feminine hive mind under the aegis of consumerism or government diktat, then the result was to be inevitably a disaster.

Adios AVFM

Update: I am now officially blocked from AVFM:

If you’ve come here via disqus and wondering why I haven’t responded to your comment directed to me at AVFM here’s the takeaway:



For further details, please see below:

I reproduce herewith the Disqus comments which, collectively, have resulted in my voluntary self-expulsion from AVFM, after one “Strike”.

These comments were copied from my Disqus pages on February 23, 2016. I am aware that writers can edit their comments and am prepared to address challenges in the event that there are any inconsistencies. However, I hope that AVFM will be so honorable and technologically proficient such as to preserve the original thread and otherwise honorably adjudicate such challenges.

It would appear that AVFM is cleaning house with regard to alliances that no longer serve them, and I laud them their efforts, albeit tempered by criticism.

In no way could it be said that AVFM has any sort of alliance with me. After these events there is even less of a reason for anyone to presume an alliance between us. That may well be all for the best in terms of both the concerns of AVFM and my own objectives.

Moreover, ironically, in my quest to criticize a false accusation made within the AVFM pages, I was falsely accused of impure motives. I will render those accusations herein.

I will also attempt to defend myself against a portion of these false accusations here for the record, not because I wish to be subject to another round of them within AVFM. However, should the occasion arise, I will not shrink from any further challenges to my integrity on neutral grounds.

What AVFM fails to realize is that, unlike Roosh or AVFM, my voluntary contributions are not at risk because I do not receive any, and my book sales result in a minuscule return to me (which I would be happy to reveal in the proper venue), such that the loss of which will not injure me.

People in glass houses should not throw stones! I hope that for the sake of the legitimate issues which AVFM addresses that they will divert from their current course rather than implode. In any case, they can do so without my comments. Adios AVFM.

The article in question where the comments appeared: The truth about Christina Hoff Sommers

I “Recommended” the article through the Disqus interface, upvoted the video therein, and then commented as follows:

I’m delighted to see Christina Hoff-Sommers and Second Wave Feminism taken down here, even knowing that my head might too one day meet the MHRM guillotine, such as was recently accorded Roosh whose views it would seem intersect more with my own than do those of the anti-PUA’s (which is a group which includes Feminists and chivalrous gynocentrists—quite the MHRA bedfellows).

I hope that one day Mr. Elam puts a magnifying glass to Bill Baird, father of birth control rights, who was thrown under the bus by Second Wave Feminists. According to Wikipedia he is 83. Please don’t delay. Birth control and abortion are men’s rights issues with birth control a far easier topic to discuss without divisiveness. Bill Baird is responsible for three Supreme Court victories. Right to Privacy is a men’s rights issue. Roe vs. Wade used Bill’s victories as precedents; he was not only not directly involved but vilified and marginalized by that legal team. Of course, I’ve written about him on my blog, but, perhaps, my views aren’t in accordance with those of the MHRM, and therefore, a political slant more in accordance with the MHRM is warranted.

By the way, the only organization to welcome association with this hero in the ’90’s, was the American Humanist Association, which sponsored the event where I was to finally meet him, shake his hand, and thank him.

I am not a MHRA but I support men’s rights, while calling myself anti-feminist. It’s no skin off my back if the MHRA’s want to throw me under the bus, or, for that matter the inimitable Karen Straughan or Janet Bloomfield who I admire with somewhat of a religious passion in terms of the insight and courage they represent.

I desire a reverse of the political and economic and social ascendancy of women, and it would seem, Ms. Bloomfield is gradually coming around to my views given her vantage point in the midst of the vicious PSYOPS catfight in which she battles.

Of course, non-egalitarianism is not politically pragmatic for the MHRA, but since I have no financial support from any sociopolitical movement, I’ll take my lumps. I don’t care.

I am motivated by the personal stories of men who were and are very important to me (not all are living today), as well as women who are unhappy with the “empowerment” and “ascendancy” of women and otherwise do not appreciate the pedestal.

These sorts of women are a marginalized group with no particular unity amongst ourselves because we prefer the leadership of men over power-hungry, hypocritical gynocentrists. If during that battle we should appear at all strident or domineering it is due to the duality of women who on one hand must remain appealing to her protectors and yet fearsome and fierce toward the harpies, termagants, and shrews who attack us, and the PUA’s, at every turn.

I will caution the MHRA however, that those who don’t remember history are destined to repeat it. Egalitarianism such as promoted by Maximilien Robespierre generally has the same outcome throughout history.

Speaking of throwing men under the bus, please do not throw the PUA’s under the bus. Not all anti-feminist gynocentric philosophies are completely opposed to men’s rights. Thank you!


My first response was promising (and I upvoted it):

“I’m delighted to see Christina Hoff-Sommers and Second Wave Feminism taken down here, even knowing that my head might too one day meet the MHRM guillotine, such as was recently accorded Roosh whose views it would seem intersect more with my own than do those of the anti-PUA’s (which is a group which includes Feminists and chivalrous gynocentrists–quite the MHRA bedfellows).”

Roosh was always under the bus/without a head…. So how could he be taken down from a position he never held?

Myself and others always thought CHS was gynocentric – nothing new here, it is just that this has hit mainstream.


My response:

Thank you for your civil response. I also have been highly suspicious of Hoff-Sommers, in particular, her Feminist Imperialism such as to promote that First World Feminists ought to “empower” Third World Women. I regret that Camille Paglia, who, on balance, I admire more than criticize, takes that same stance. It is tunnel vision which may be another term for gynocentrism.

I am far less familiar with the works and history of Roosh than I am Hoff-Sommers and Paglia. However, that which I have become acquainted with in regards to Roosh and ROK and Rationalmale and many others, would put me into more of the “neomasculinist” camp than the MHRM on most issues. That said, the MRM gave Roosh his rhetorical coronation now, thankfully, back-pedalled. The MHRM response, however, I believe is overblown. That said, distancing oneself from him…or Me…is perfectly understandable. However, resorting to a false accusation of Roosh is, in my view, worthy of criticism.


Ooops. Freudian Typo: I meant to say “MSM” (Mainstream Media) not “MRM.” I guess I was rattled given that I responded in reverse chronological order, given that Disqus reports notifications in reverse chronological order. My bad. (I’ll just leave that comment as is rather than issuing a correction.) I do not pretend to be either perfect or dispassionate.

Perhaps I was rattled given that the next response (and the first one to appear to me) to my initial comment was not so civil:

What a passive/aggressive load of old shit.

Why do you expect MHRAs to embrace and support anyone who opposes men’s rights at all, “completely” or otherwise? The only way you can throw anyone under a bus is if you were walking alongside them at the time – that’s what the phrase implies – and the MHRM has never walked alongside PUAs.
They’ve been too preoccupied trying to piss on us from across the street.
The only thing MHRAs have ever asked of PUAs is that they zip it up and continue on their way, preferably in the opposite direction.

You characterize yourself as one of a “marginalized group of women” who prefer male leadership. Nice way to dump all of the obligations and responsibilities that leadership entails onto the shoulders of men, who are, quite frankly, becoming fed up with holding up the sky for women like you. Why not step up and do your bit, as Suzanne McCarley, Karen Straughan and Janet Bloomfield have done?

It’s hardly surprising that you knock egalitarianism. Its principles demand that men and women share both rights and responsibilities, and you seem to be highly selective about which ones you want and which ones you don’t. History does not always repeat itself. In fact, it rarely repeats itself, but this hackneyed phrase has long been convenient with agenda pushers too lazy or disinterested to actually study history in any depth. AVfM’s egalitarianism goes way beyond political pragmatism – it is a fundamental principle which underpins many of its goals.

I agree that you are not a MHRA, despite being an anti-feminist, but your comment casts serious doubt on whether you support any men’s rights that conflict with your own interests. As I have stated before, the MHRM isn’t an ideological free-for-all for anyone who opposes feminism. It’s a movement that advocates for the rights and welfare of men and boys – all of them, not just the ones that affect or interest you.

I don’t know what others read into your comment, but I read a whopping sense of entitlement mixed with a set of demands from someone who doesn’t even identify as a MHRA. Perhaps it’s time for you to come clean about why you’re really here, and clarify which men’s rights you don’t “completely” support – just as a matter of interest..


My response:

Before I begin to address your concerns, I wish to preface my remarks as follows: My desire for men to be restored their rights and imperatives under British Common Law, among other precedents does not imply that I am my giving your arguments here any credence.

Since you accuse me of blowing “a passive/aggressive load of old shit” and if I were to return in kind, I may be banned, I will instead choose to request specifics on how you personally are “stepping up”.

As for my own “stepping up,” perhaps you’re not familiar with my disqus profile, my blog, my book, or my other Internet presences since Caprizchka was created in 2011. In what other manner would you request that I “step up”? For your ideology of egalitarianism? Pass.

As for my “highly selective” stance, would you care to quote me in order to prove that allegation?

“History does not always repeat itself. In fact, it rarely repeats itself…”

Nothing I can add there. Do go on.

I discuss how intellectual devolution, of which you are an excellent specimen, arises in response to unquestioning ideological adherence here: https://caprizchka.wordpress.c…

“…your comment casts serious doubt on whether you support any men’s rights that conflict with your own interests.” I return that allegation in kind.

“It’s a movement that advocates for the rights and welfare of men and boys – all of them, not just the ones that affect or interest you.”

Even the rights of PUA’s ? Do go on.

In order for the evolution of the species to address improvement of character such as to allow men to be returned their rights and imperatives, then all men will need to be so empowered, including you. I’ll take my chances.

I come entirely clean in my blog. It is highly non-politically-incorrect and probably not politically expedient to publicly align with me, regardless of which ideology you personally espouse while representing yourself as representative of the MHRM.

The purpose of my comment is to espouse anti-feminism such as to laud this exposé of Hoff-Sommers while decrying the false accusation made within these pages about Roosh and other PUA’s as being inimical to men’s rights.

Thank you for having the courage to respond to my comment.


In response to my own typo, rather than editing under these conditions, I simply replied to myself:

Edit: “non-politically-correct” rather than “non-politically-incorrect”.


I also found another typo of mine. Oh well. It’ll stand.

The response from the same commenter:

Where did you get the idea that I, or anyone at AVfM, have ever promoted the idea that PUAs like Roosh should be denied their rights? That is exactly the kind of mischaracterization of AVfM’s position on Roosh that PUAs have insisted on making. It is a complete fabrication. Since you have made the allegation, it’s up to you to prove it.

I refuse to engage in a ‘who’s done more to oppose feminism’ pissing match with you, and I would have thought that you were above that sort of thing. You pass on egalitarianism in favour of “restoring” men’s “rights and imperatives”, which, according to you, includes leadership roles which places the onus of all responsibility and obligations back on to the shoulders of men. Don’t you think you might want to check with men if that’s ok with them? Rather important point don’t you think?

“In order for the evolution of the species to address improvement of character such as to allow men to be returned their rights and imperatives, then all men will need to be so empowered, including you.”

So, for men to return to leadership roles, they’ll have to learn how to be ‘real men’ again. Typical PUA bullshit and trying to spin it here at AVfM only proves that you don’t really get what the MHRM is about. Men don’t need to be reassigned roles by you, or by anyone. We can do that for ourselves. Your approval of our choices is neither sought nor anticipated.

The man-up challenge implied in my ‘courage’ to respond to you has not gone unnoticed, but it has made it very clear exactly where you’re coming from. Where do you think you are, Return of Kings? You can’t get away with that sort of thing here. You’ve been around long enough to know better.


Rather than address what was essentially in my view an entrapment to violate AVFM Comment Policy, a backpedal from his challenge to me to “step up,” given that he hasn’t, masked as a diversionary tactic, and a strawman, I responded thus:

So many questions that I have already answered and no answers to mine.


Meanwhile, I was the beneficiary of the following moderator comment, to include a warning and a response to my answering the prior challenge to “step up”:

Strike 1:

This is a friendly reminder that this is an activist site, not a discussion board. Please read this important announcement for a better understanding of this environment. Please also reread our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about misandry and misogyny, general attack and trolling.

Thank you. [Ref: 7848]

Additional remarks:

Has your account been hacked? Or are you merely trying to use this forum to sell books to Rooshtards? Andybob’s analysis of your dishonest and manipulative comments is dead on. If you were a new commenter you’d be insta-banned as a troll.
Knock that shit off.


My response, which is to be the canned response I will issue to any further comments within AVFM directed to me, pending disposition from an AVFM moderator, (for which, I will not be holding my breath):

Thank you. If you’ll reassure me that your questions are sincere then I’ll be glad to address them. Otherwise, I presume that they are not and that any answers I may proffer in response to any question addressed to me will be misinterpreted. No need to Strike me again. I’ll leave without further warning. Adios.


Rather than focus on the hypocrisy represented herein, I will leave it up to the readers of this blog to make their own conclusions.

Meanwhile, I shall address this AVFM Moderator concerns directed to me personally herein:

Has your account been hacked?


Or are you merely trying to use this forum to sell books to Rooshtards?

No. I do not rely on the minuscule income I receive as a portion of the total retail book price, exclusive of shipping and handling, a price which is discounted at the majority of the outlets in which it appears, thereby reducing my net royalty. My mission concerns integrity to my beliefs, regardless of whether such integrity results in my marginalization. Such is the mission of my blog. There is nothing that any human can do to me that exceeds what has already been done. Nothing. I fear no man nor woman. Bring it on.

Andybob’s analysis of your dishonest and manipulative comments is dead on.

This analysis doesn’t portend well for the future of AVFM. Where was I dishonest? As for “manipulative” that is subject to interpretation. Of course simply pummeling me with insults as bait to reveal my bona fides as a set up to attempt to discredit my motives or to have me banned is not considered “manipulative” by this moderator, apparently, nor in opposition to AVFM Comment Policy, as interpreted by this moderator.

I respect the issues that this moderator regularly deals with, and, without revealing my own bona fides, know that it is a difficult and often thankless task. Therefore, rather than continuing in this rhetorical brawl unnecessarily expending AVFM energies, I withdraw.

Adios AVFM.

You know where to find me.

Postscript. The Moderator continues to attempt to bait me into violating the Comment Policy by flinging at me her own shortcomings:

You should know by now that if your questions were intellectually honest, you’d get answers here. Shame on you.


Should I desire to give her a reason to ban me, then I would respond as follows:

Likewise. I hereby accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. Even so, I address all of your questions in my blog. You know where to find me.


Roosh Falsely Accused

It is not only women who make false accusations. Sometimes it is anonymously run websites like this one: https://daryushvalizadeh.wordpress.com

Sometimes it is a BBS puff piece where the narrator repeatedly tells us that Roosh is a bad person, without establishing why:

And sometimes it is men’s rights activists:

Media creates phony narrative to dub RooshV an “MRA” #GamerGate #ReturnOfKings #MRA #MRAs

Men’s right’s activists and anyone else fighting against Feminism are perfectly entitled to distance themselves from Roosh for any reason, but calling him a “confessed rapist” doesn’t make sense to me.

Here’s some of the “confessed rapes” within the anonymous website that the above article links to:

(Painstakingly transcribed from a “Social Media” screen capture that cannot be selected from: Few of the atrocious rapes that RooshV admits to )

“Her tiny size really hit me when she took off her heels. I asked her how much she weighed. “Thirty-five kilograms” (77 pounds). Besides her surprisingly round ass, she had the body of a gymnast who didn’t quite make it past puberty. I got down her bra and panties, but she kept saying “No! No!”

I was so turned on by her beauty and petite figure that I told myself she’s not walking out my door without getting fucked. At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen.

I put her on her stomach and I went deep, pounding her pussy like a pedophile.”

Roosh V – Bang Poland

“It took four hours and at least thirty repetitions of “No, Roosh, No!” until my penis entered her vagina.

The sex was painful for her. I was only the second guy she’s ever had sex with… She whimpered like a wounded puppy dog the entire time, but I really wanted to have an orgasm, so I was “almost there” for about ten minutes. After sex she sobbed for a good while, talking about how this was a sin in the eyes of God.” Roosh V – Bank Poland

“While walking to my place, I realized how dead drunk she was.

In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she legally couldn’t give her consent. I was sober, but I can’t say I cared or even hesitated.

I won’t rationalize my actions, but having sex is what I do.” Roosh V. – Bang Iceland

“6 Qualities Of A Good Rape

I just saw the movie 200, which had an awful rape scene–it didn’t arouse me at all.

Here is what makes a good rape. The key to a good rape is seeing the girl change from hating it to loving it. She has to want to be raped again.

I did not get aroused during that scene, like I normally do when watching rape.”

by Roosh V – from his blog

Three more admissions of rapes done by Daryush Roosh Valizadeh

OK. Let’s hear them. Where are they?

The above incidents this blog chose to feature are not rape. Let me explain.

“Her tiny size really hit me when she took off her heels. I asked her how much she weighed. “Thirty-five kilograms” (77 pounds).

Mighty conversational isn’t she? What other questions did Roosh ask and she voluntarily answered?

Besides her surprisingly round ass, she had the body of a gymnast who didn’t quite make it past puberty.

He is aroused by her body like any normal heterosexual male. In her case, because her body is so undeveloped, his arousal has a taste of “the forbidden”. That makes it hotter. It is not a crime for a man to be so aroused. To a Feminist however it is a thought crime.

I got down her bra and panties, but she kept saying “No! No!”

How did Roosh get her bra and panties down? What was the woman thinking as he removed them? What was Roosh thinking as he removed them? We don’t know. Did she wiggle around such as to make it easier? more difficult? We don’t know.

When a woman says, “No! No!” this is not universally known as non-consent. It has only been painted this way by modern U.S. and Western European Feminists, and the whole “Yes Means Yes” movement. What is she saying “No” to? Let’s find out.

I was so turned on by her beauty and petite figure that I told myself she’s not walking out my door without getting fucked. At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen.

Roosh is aroused and is giving himself a pep talk using hyperbole. This is, we know, a difficult concept for Feminists to grasp in that every thought a heterosexual man has about sex where he dominates the female is considered rape to a Feminist. Basically, to a Feminist, domination by a man of a woman, but not of a woman of a man, or a woman by a woman is considered “rape” even when the woman voluntarily, animalistically, submits, even while her Super Ego is telling her that this is a bad thing to do.

To a feminist, domination of a man by a man is also considered rape, unless they are both flaming egalitarian queers. In other words, during sex, only egalitarian or female superiority thoughts are correct. Male authority or male sexual domination is the enemy to Feminists, unless accompanied by State-Approved “Yes Means Yes,” verbiage and thoughts or is merely masturbatory play-acting such as represented in BDSM erotica. In Feminist-approved BDSM, the submissive is effectively both in charge and an agent of the state, or the scene is entirely play-acting or fictional.

Male authority is rape to a Feminist.

I put her on her stomach and I went deep, pounding her pussy like a pedophile.”

Roosh is using descriptive language to describe the position he put her in, given that he is presumably capable of moving her body into position using his masculine strength, and then how he thrusted into her. Hot! “…like a pedophile” can be translated to “I was looking at her body and noticing how undeveloped it was and imagined that she was much younger than she was while I fucked her.”

Manhandling during sex and sexual fantasies by a dominant man are “rape” to a Feminist.

“It took four hours and at least thirty repetitions of “No, Roosh, No!” until my penis entered her vagina.

It took four hours before Roosh was able to overpower a 77 pound woman? What took so long? Perhaps it was because Roosh was persuading her, not overpowering her. Is persuasion by a heterosexual man rape?

Why did it take her so long to be persuaded?

The sex was painful for her. I was only the second guy she’s ever had sex with… She whimpered like a wounded puppy dog the entire time…

Pain during sex is rape to a Feminist, because BDSM doesn’t exist to a Feminist unless it is under the Feminist aegis. The very sounds a woman makes must be pre-approved by the Feminist Hive Mind.

…but I really wanted to have an orgasm, so I was “almost there” for about ten minutes.

Roosh’s desires are verboten to a Feminist. Thought crime! Only the woman’s pleasure matters to a Feminist.

After sex she sobbed for a good while, talking about how this was a sin in the eyes of God.” Roosh V – Bank Poland

Oh! So that’s why it took Roosh so long to persuade her. She had feelings of ambivalence or a conflict between her desire and her guilt.

Not rape.

“While walking to my place, I realized how dead drunk she was.

In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she legally couldn’t give her consent. I was sober, but I can’t say I cared or even hesitated.

American Feminists insist on universal laws of consent. This is a paternalistic or even imperialistic mindset adopted by Feminists! Fortunately, for Roosh, he was not in America. In Iceland, women are allowed to make their own decisions as to whether they can allow themselves to get drunk and then be seduced or put into a position where they will hopefully be seduced, but if not, then, there are numerous ways to make one’s stealthy escape. I should know! I don’t get dead drunk unless I do not want to have agency. If I’m drinking but unsure as to the company I’m keeping, I am capable of managing my own intake well enough to keep my wits about me such as to retain the level of agency I desire in myself.

To American Feminists, are all women alcoholics or otherwise incapable of managing their own intake and where to be when they drink? It would seem so.

American Feminist sadly don’t have the abilities expected of mature women in the rest of the world. They’re like children. Calling all pedophile fantasists! Come to America where you can fuck women who think that they are children!

Icelandic women have their own agency without getting permission from the Feminist Hive Mind. At least for now. Drink up and fuck, ladies, if that’s your thing, while you can!

Not rape.

“6 Qualities Of A Good Rape

I just saw the movie 200, which had an awful rape scene–it didn’t arouse me at all.

Here is what makes a good rape. The key to a good rape is seeing the girl change from hating it to loving it. She has to want to be raped again.

I did not get aroused during that scene, like I normally do when watching rape.”

by Roosh V – from his blog

It’s a movie. He’s talking about a movie. He was not aroused because the actress did not appear to be enjoying it. Not a rape. Not a rapist. Rapists don’t necessarily have such standards. Roosh’s standard for his own enjoyment is that the actress appears to be enjoying the movie rape.

Movies aren’t real. This is a difficult concept for a Feminist. To a Feminist, a rape fantasy is a thought crime, but only when it is a man who is having the fantasy.

Three more admissions of rapes done by Daryush Roosh Valizadeh

Really? Let’s see them.














I am Jealous of Anita Sarkeesian

I admit it. I confess.

Sarkeesian is a puppet, and a good one, being used in service to make money and promote an ideology which causes divisiveness, punishes men and boys, and her puppetmaster is a man.

Sounds like a great gig to me. Way better than my present, oppressive, and frankly terrifying circumstances.

The life of a puppet is not necessarily pleasant or unpleasant, it all depends on the puppetmaster.

I love to be productive and appreciated, and I already have a host of well-honed skills. However, I do not like being operated and manipulated by a monster. No monsters. Especially no female monsters!

Monster. A person so damaged by this world that he or she is psychotic and presumes that I too mean to damage him or her and therefore attempts to create a monster out of me.

The differences between the two types of puppeteers of my past are best described here: Two Men.

My lifetime “puppeteers” are not limited to these two men.

Of course, I would prefer to be promoting an ideology or rather an anti-ideology that I believe in and that I believe does the greatest good for our time. In my view, the ideologies worth obliterating like a video game that blows shit up are these:

Climate Alarmism
Racism Paranoia
Forced Multiculturalism
Universalism in terms of economics, politics, or morality

Lately, I am concerned that racial tensions are being used to discredit the Trump campaign, when bringing jobs back to the United States of America and halting illegal immigration would help all U.S. citizens, especially the marginalized and disenfranchised.

I quote my own Disqus comments to a recent hatchet-job on Kanye West here:

My comment: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/takismag/kanye_west_is_retarded_takis_magazine/#comment-2523539930

“The military and the countless white volunteers were consistently thwarted by black looters and criminals taking advantage of the chaos.” I’m going to have to see numbers on “countless” and which of these countless white volunteers were then officially debriefed.

I’ve known two white male volunteers who were greeted warmly and that’s not a joke. One was working for the American Red Cross.

Why was removing the railroad tracks such a high priority?

Kanye West may be retarded or his brains scrambled but he is perfectly correct that neither Bush nor Condoleeza rice cared about anyone hurt by Katrina to include White people. And why was the recorded path of Katrina altered so many times?

Remember Mr. Heck-of-Job Brownie, a Horse show judge?

Since when is Bush not a Big Government advocate? Hello?

They wouldn’t let cameras near some of the stadiums, gymnasiums, etc., so we’re never going to know what happened in there. Could well have been rapes. Could have been all sorts of things. Running out of toilet paper in some situations can be its own crisis. A plumbing crisis is a crisis. It all depends on how many people were in there and whether supply lines were cut. Sound familiar? How many donations were turned back? How about White Christians on boats carrying donations turned back?

Since we don’t know what happened because the press was kept at bay, people are going to invent stuff. Now, what do we have but another Holocaust narrative that can’t be questioned? Don’t tell me that this wasn’t by design. Swing Right/Swing Left/Swing Right/Swing Left. Whose heads will be swinging this time?

As for Bush’s comment: A few bad words were his all time low? What’s Bush’s IQ? When the Twin Towers fell, that was just ducky?

“West complains that charities are building schools in Africa without helping black Americans get out of debt to the tune of 17 times what their debt is.” How about we help all U.S. citizens rather than breeding rapefugees?

I agree that West is a wack job but Mr. McInnes doesn’t make the case here. This is a hatchet job. By design?

My comment with regard to this song: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/takismag/kanye_west_is_retarded_takis_magazine/#comment-2524981436

Here’s the thing, I’m going to be playing closer attention to what McInnes writes in terms of inciting Trump supporters to make anti-Black comments on Taki Mag. This whole, entirely unrealistic Kanye “campaign” could be designed by either the Bushes or the Clintons to drive away Black supporters of Trump.

As for what this celebrity or that celebrity says, I don’t really care. I love the song. I think that Feminism and Parental Rights are larger issues than Racism, but Racism and Feminism are both being used to create divisiveness, generations of fatherless children, and here comes Big Government to the “rescue”. Oh great.

I’m not asking you to LOVE BLACK PEOPLE because that’s infantile. Everyone is entitled to their standards of association or non-association or who they have sex with etc.

But be f-ing civil to BLACK CONSERVATIVES. ARE TRUMP SUPPORTERS F-ING NUTS? Or are there Provocateurs in our midst who are working for Clinton or Bush?

I would prefer also to be protected and sheltered in my puppetry, because I do not crave any more attention than I already garner, just walking down the street. What’s more, I don’t even need to ever be on stage as I could be a puppet behind the scenes. That’s probably a better gig for me, particularly given that I am, in real life, somewhat notorious in the BDSM scene, and already had my time on stage (you can probably picture it).

Personally, I would be very cool if someone invented an Anti-Immigration Burkha.

Speaking of fatherless children. I reproduce my own Disqus comment to this brilliant piece by the incomparable Janet Bloomfield:

My comment: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/judgybitch/paul_elam_gives_amanda_marcotte_a_gift/#comment-2523230402

I’ve been delaying my reading of this article because I’m tired of the abortion debate such that I understand that I hold a minority view and don’t feel the need to defend it ad nauseum nor respond to shaming tactics by ideologues. However, to my surprise (I shouldn’t be surprised as Janet Bloomfield is brilliant) this article is very reasonable.

One of my discus friends (you know who you are if you want attribution here please tell me) made a lyrical slogan:

“For every lovely on the dole mandatory birth control.”

In my view, “dole” ought to be extended to those who require the force of the state (and thereby taxpayer money) in order to extract money from the parent who the state calls the “responsible party” which of course is going to be the father 99.999 % of the time (I don’t know the exact percentage but I feel this and that is all that matters).

And “birth control” ought to be fool proof that is incapable of failure, sort of like a steering wheel lock that the municipality installs on cars that have too many unpaid parking citations. Although of course if the “lady” doesn’t “wike” it, then surgery. I want it 99.999% incapable of failure.

I understand that many women believe that their ova are like a bucket full of quarters that she can stick in a slot machine while she’s wearing a pair of diapers, and drinking liquids (one would hope), such that she never even need leave the slot machine until she’s out of quarters…but…I don’t care. These creatures are not human. They never developed the mammalian brain that distinguishes them from a mommy scorpion.

When mommy scorpion gets hungry and there’s nothing around to eat, guess what’s for dinner?

By the way, since scorpions cannot see, hear, or smell, they navigate the world solely by feel.

The Hateful Slut

I’ve long been a Quentin Tarantino fan. Right up until his last. I thought Inglorious Basterds was a brilliant wartime propaganda film parody to include its obvious tribute to Mel Brooks’ To Be or Not to Be. I was even rooting for Denzel Washington (Edit: Jamie Foxx because somebody cared enough to say something—thanks—see comments) in Django Unchained as a brilliant parody of an anti-slave propaganda film. I like Samuel Jackson particularly as a villain. I don’t want to do him I just admire his craft even if I appreciate it all the more when he gets himself shot.

Jackie Brown is one of my favorite movies of all time such that I credit this movie greatly for assisting me in developing the mindset and courage for my final escape from Venezuela. I didn’t have a gun but just about everyone else did. I needed to motivate myself and I had a DVD and a place to watch it. And so I did whenever I had a spare moment unobserved.

Sometimes a gal has to trick a whole lot of good boys and bad boys, all at the same time.

I used to have the serious hots for Kurt Russell as Snake Plisskin and other roles, however, I have a hard time watching him now. For one, he’s hideous and otherwise sports the facial deformities I am currently seeing among Leftists of all races. For two, I don’t quite understand how financially desperate he must be in order to typecast himself as a sadistic misogynist killer (Tarantino’s Death Proof comes to mind). (Unless of course, Goldie and her kids are really that craven, which of course is entirely possible.) How this typecasting could be framed as somehow redeemable when operating as an independent contractor for the Federalism agenda, such as in Hateful Eight, boggles the mind. For three, I am sympathetic to the views of this guy.

I am not a White Supremacist even if I recognize that what I enjoy about Europe is because of White Christians, and believe that Europe and White Christians go together. Encouraging self-immolation and masochism among White Christian men is a multi-factored issue, and I don’t believe that a single conspirator is responsible. Of course there are and were conspiracies. A whole lot of them.

It isn’t just The Jews. It isn’t just The Fabians et al. It isn’t just the Saudi Royal Family. The Quakers, Presbyterians, and even The Shakers all had or have a role. Even the Japanese and the Chinese want a piece of the action. So does The Vatican. Big Oil. The Bush/Walkers. The Clintons. Everyone wants a piece.

Telling women want they want and then giving it to them is a problem. This problem is not going to be solved definitively for all womankind. There are too many impure agendas muddying the field. However, each local, geographic coordinate, intersected with time, genetics, resources, generational memory, microbes, demographics, and everything else that creates a universe, is going to have to come up with their own solutions adequate for their time, and those solutions must be continuously readdressed when it comes to the competing ideologies and forces determined to crush these efforts.

It is not going to be easy. It is in God’s hands.

One of the necessary things that men are going to have to learn to do is to protect their women. If the grotesque cult of Universalism is to succeed in crushing all independent thought, then violent men will need to be recruited to disarm and kill the protectors of women who are loyal to men. Other violent men disarm these loyal women of their beauty, wiles, and arms, and are immune to their words. In my view, Hateful Eight is an instructional video on how to do just that in terms of the archetypes to recruit as mercenaries, and how to motivate them. If there is anything redeeming about the film, it is that weak decent men are sacrificed right along with the “hateful” ones, and thereby the martyr concept may inspire more women to be loyal; however such women are to be the obvious targets of these Federal and Universalist mercenaries, once their men are completely castrated.

Making a “hero” out of Samuel Jackson is eerily similar to allowing the Black male characters of Do The Right Thing to triumph. This movie eerily preceded the L.A. Riot, as if it was a training video. Note that “the rioters” who were overwhelmingly just looters required assistance from trained operatives in order to effect real damage such as blowing up gas stations. Since these operatives wore ski masks, they could have been White. Yes. I was there.

I don’t know about you, Dear Reader, but the only National Guard who I saw in L.A. at the time were White. Anyone see any Black National Guard? Just curious.

The Black characters of Do The Right Thing are not sympathetic by all reasonable metrics except that they were underclass and Black. Whereas Samuel Jackson’s character has military revenge to motivate —him and a great big “Johnson”. In other words, he’s a “hero” to Black underclass women, on both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist side, for not falling for the dubious charms of the villainess who is about as sympathetic as the slut Nicole Simpson. He is a rapist in the manner of a prison inmate, the last bastion of legal slavery.

Is he going to be the Jamie Foxx hero to Black female prison inmates? Sorry ladies but probably not. His taste it would seem is more toward the Quentin Tarantino physical archetype. Eat your hearts out girls. Quentin often appears in his movies a la Alfred Hitchcock. I didn’t get a close look at the man Samuel Jackson “raped…” but Craig Stark barely has a presence on the internet, and behind that beard, who knows, it could have been Quentin. Prove to me it wasn’t.

If it inflames Black/White racial tensions, so much the better, because, in my view the Universalist agenda is to advance Feminism by means of breaking the hearts of men, and encouraging catfighting among women. In my view Hateful Eight promotes the notion that Universalism is the cure for catfighting such that only women who are loyal to their men catfight. However, the movie itself is a catfight using violent men as the proxy.

Offstage, however, I have no doubt that Quentin Tarantino is getting treated to all the dark and lovely ladies’ feet he desires with his particular preference happening to be that of Dark Asian women. Sorry Black American Women. He’s just not that into you.

Come on Quentin, you know it’s true. Perhaps if you’re extra good though, the real Samuel Jackson will let you suck his big black Johnson before you die of exposure. I just exposed you. Now, get down on your knees, slut.


Oedipus and Rape

While we all know that most women have rape fantasies, feminists have “rape culture” fantasies, Islam promotes rape as Jihad, rape may well be an act of war or invasion, and both rape and false rape accusations exist, from men to women, women to men, men to men, and women to women, with the actual numbers being highly subject to bias, and even the definition of “rape” and “consent” being subject to bias, lately, I’ve been thinking about Oedipus, the man and the complex.

I’ve been reading up on the Oedipus Myth lately, not the least because Axel was born with horribly deformed and swollen feet and ankles, and this strikes me as an odd synchronicity. Like Oedipus, Axel was a brilliant and heroic individual with both brains and brawn made of legends.

Kissing and massaging those feet, shopping for just the right socks, and clipping those toenails were some of my great joys in life.

As described in the myth in the link above, “rape” is also subject to statutory deception, bad luck, and the intervention of ill-meaning and well-meaning parties. Cheating death is its own paradox especially when it is a rapist to have done so, temporarily.

As far as I know, Axel’s father never raped any princes, I’m positively certain Axel neither killed his father nor had sex with his mother. Axel had both of his crystal blue eyes intact.

However, Axel’s mother seemed to have no compunctions about dragging Axel under the bus for her own ambitions, and Axel had come closer to killing his own father than most people I have known, twice.

Perhaps Axel’s mother had some sort of misdirected Jocasta Complex.

Perhaps it was Axel’s paternal grandmother who had it.

Axel was practically plagued by women throwing themselves at him desiring some form of sexual or spiritual attention from him. According to Axel, as a boy, he treated females with caution and suspicion, and this caused the exact opposite behavior in them than he expected. His first sexual experience wasn’t entirely because he desired it, and might even be called rape. She was persistent and somewhat overwhelmed him. He didn’t tell anyone but was determined to have the upper hand in these sorts of exchanges thereafter.

He also successfully fought off a male sexual assailant when he was a boy—a policeman in fact.

As far as I know, the only false rape accusation ever promoted by rumor about him was for purposes of extorting money from some of the exotic dancers who worked at his club, but not for long.

There was a woman, another dancer, who would recruit dancers into the club under her aegis, and for a percentage of their proceeds, as a means of “protecting” them from Axel who she asserted required sexual favors from all dancers except for those under her “protection” (and thereby delivering Axel’s cut of their proceeds as a bundle, subject to her own representation, of course). That lie began to fall apart when dancers who rejected her agency complained that Axel wasn’t trying to obtain sexual favors from them in exchange for allowing them to dance! I mean come on! Weren’t they sexy enough? What’s a girl have to do to get strong-armed into sexual favors around here? There were tears!

“You can try making him lunch…” is what I would have suggested. This all happened before my time, but yes, that worked!

The first woman, the agent, was thereby rejected by all of her stable, took her act on the road, and must have tried to fool the wrong person, because she ended up in a dumpster.

Axel didn’t go around bullying or supplicating, when he would look at a woman, he wouldn’t disguise it but wouldn’t go into a trance either, unless he was watching porn (safer). If he happened to slap a girl on the ass, she would giggle and smile, like she had been touched by an angel—rather than say an infant who wants to nurse, wants a sammich, wants a this, wants a that…Waaaaa. When he did want a sandwich, they would fight it out between them who would have the honor of obtaining and delivering it. Other homemade treats of one kind and another were brought to work like apples for the teacher.

Other men called him the “luckiest man in the world.”

He would look at them and shake his head. It wasn’t all roses, of course. Ever try to break up a catfight?

I’ve put together this story not just from Axel’s accounts, but from my own observations, and the reminiscences of some of his friends.

It wasn’t a joke, roll play, or game, and yet the only fear Axel invoked was fear of not being sufficiently pleasing to him and thereby not being asked to serve again. Sorry. No “rape”. “Rape” wasn’t a scene he liked to enact or role play especially. So, he didn’t. Not as a game. If he were to act out some sort of entrapment it was done psychologically, with her enthusiastic consent that she was to be putty in his hands beforehand.

When it comes to challenging scenarios between adults, I do believe that enthusiastic consent is better form, which is not to say that it is “rape” without it. Rather all men are to be expected to have to go through some sort of learning curve in terms of how to make a woman want them, or to at least be a good sport about the whole thing. As for getting women to crave them, well, I think I just answered that in terms of one possible method.

Speaking of men undergoing a learning curve with regard to women. Please listen up: I’m not interested in being anyone’s “bitch” or “whore”.

Apparently some women are, or otherwise, these ploys wouldn’t be tried on me so frequently, I assume, by men of means no less.

What sort of whores and bitches are ruining these men? Is it the Jocasta complex?

A “bitch” in my view, in this context, is a dog who shakes off her teething puppies because she’s had enough! That would be withholding Jocasta. Or it could be a cougar who’s had her fill.

A “whore” in my view, in this context, pretends to enjoy hamhanded, infantile sex, for purposes of getting money. That would be compliant Jocasta. Or she might like the humiliation, and I get that, but for me that’s not accurate. I’m a lousy whore. I’m not even all that excited about things like flowers and jewelry.

As for me, I’m just trying to find a man who doesn’t expect me to be Jocasta or to submit to her.

Lately, I have been in some discussions with regard to certain rapes I managed to avoid, but decline to neutralize those defensive scenarios by promoting them here. Suffice it to say, I determine intuitively which brand of Oedipus Complex the aspiring rapist is harboring and counteract it intuitively according to my own means and opportunity. Just like sex is all in the mind and thereby doesn’t require a playbook or recipe except for the hopelessly obsessive fetishist, foiling the playbook of a rapist and thereby making it “not fun,” can cause infantile frustration and confusion. Sometimes, strangely however, my diversion from his plan results in the assailant snapping out of his trance. 

It’s like fooling a cat. Careful, but, it can be done.

I wonder how many rapists were merely poorly weaned?

Since my own maternal impulses as pertains toward strangers or near-strangers are sorely lacking, this sort of thing comes naturally to me. I don’t care whether a near-rapist likes me afterward. (He ought to as I have just improved his chances at improving his own character but I won’t stick around for whatever expression of gratitude he might have in mind.)

The new thing however which surprises me lately is just how quickly men are willing to reveal to me their “tells”. To me, that’s a sign of some form of hypnosis which I am inadvertently triggering with my mere presence. I know better than to get so shit-faced as to be defenseless when certain and rare monstrous men react when it turns out they don’t get a cookie or even a pat on the head from me. Part of that learning came the hard way.

Most, however, thankfully, are “Good boys”.

Neither bad boys nor good boys do it for me.




Some Men are Inadequate

Some people assume that just because I’m a male supremacist, on certain romantic, civic, and moral issues, that means that I’ve never experienced the worst of men, or that I believe that all women must be submissive to all men at all times, or that all people are happier in a male-dominated heterosexual relationship. Those suppositions are just not true.

Meanwhile, I’ve had all manner of horrible things befall me, with the majority of the actors being male, albeit with women always having some sort of role even if that role is not immediately apparent. I therefore look after myself the best that I can even though I prefer life as the submissive under protection of a man who I Love, respect, and admire. However, until I willingly make such a choice under a man who will have me, I am my own agent.

It is an uncomfortable situation which I attempt to make the best of by, at the least, making a record, of sorts, of my revelations.

In a perfect world I would have parents, family, and community who would look after me before, during, and after such a choice to commit to and submit to a man, with “after” representing a case of abandonment or his death. Similarly, I understand that a man requires support systems of his own in various capacities.

No man is an island and certainly no woman.

In our dystopia, government performs the function of parents, family, and community, and dysfunctionally so. Moreover, associations not approved by our government/monopoly “partnership” are forbidden in one way or another, with the smoking bans one way of discouraging even conversation.

In my case, I have today nearly no one but family—who I cannot trust nor rely on—and friends who I can rely on only situationally. That last is no fault of my friends, but rather a consequence of my being removed from society by The Han for 13 years, and returned to it socially alienated and misfiring, and then largely but voluntarily sheltered by Axel for another four years to include a move away from his own friends and family who he had already largely voluntarily abandoned for his own reasons.

We returned to a portion of his BDSM and swinger acquaintances as a measure of a form of “social life” such as I was denied by The Han in The Andes. He bore this as a favor to me. I do not and still do not readily meld into what passes as “society” among vanillas, except for limited superficial duration. Certainly not as a matter of choice. However, being that the BDSM “community” is now thoroughly poisoned by SJW’s, I am now forced to negotiate vanilla life among aliens. It is awkward, particularly when I am suddenly conferred authority I do not wish to possess.

I would rather rely on one mortal man, and take my chances at survival after his death than to be married to the government or entrenched within a community who I cannot relate to or vice versa. At the same time, a life with such a man on whom I can rely and vice versa is worth more to me than prioritizing my survival after the fact, as evidenced by my current predicament. I made my bed and am lying in it but at least I have my integrity.

However when it comes to men in general, I don’t hold them blameless in terms of the outcomes of the pathology that is Feminism. Far from it. When I was growing up, it was mostly men who were urging me to a) be promiscuous, b) be a career woman, c) not have children, d) be independent. Of those four, I’m glad I didn’t have children, but as for the other items, I didn’t have much of a choice in terms of my own survival. I am not sure that most women within my demographic did or do.

However, power-mongering via government and Feminism by that demographic—my demographic—isn’t merited. By definition we are the offspring of demographic dupes themselves.

I was not confronted with tons of options when it came to marriage. Those few proposals I did receive were bad moves—not so much because of insufficient hypergamy but rather too many areas of incompatibility or not enough in the way of sheer practical game plans. I’ve largely been uninterested in egalitarian relationships but it somewhat surprised me to find out that so many men who were interested in me earned so much less than I did, had worse credit ratings, were less responsible, etc., and otherwise wanted me to pick up the slack. One could say that I didn’t have the best of taste but it was also true that I had poor defenses or sense of boundaries as a consequence of very poor upbringing to include sexual abuse. Moreover various demographic realities that were ultimately a consequence of the entire Progressive Era of amendments to the U.S. Constitution resulted in fewer choices for a woman of my age, a “Baby Buster,” on the tail end of the “Baby Boom”.

The number of men destroyed by the prevailing trends of my era to include the Vietnam War, the Great Society, the Drug Wars, and Counterculture cannot be overestimated. I also diverge from many so-called “traditionalists,” when it comes to the supposed bliss of the “Nuclear Family,” in terms of suburban and consumerist Hell and lack of ability for self-actualization in terms of both the commuter husband and the consumerist wife. The “traditional” Socialism of an imposed egalitarianism within a manufactured community of the 1950’s and 1960’s was a logical step toward today’s dystopia even if the former may have appeared more homogeneous prior to forced multiculturalism and thereby can easily be seen as an improvement over today.

Prior to marrying for the one and only time, there was a particular Nisei with whom I was very much in love, but he didn’t believe in marriage. He was not handsome by conventional standards and with more than a passing resemblance to this guy (albeit anatomically correct and then some):


I worshiped that great big warm face of his, those short little stout legs, great big round belly, his long black hair, and you know what else. We had pleasant companionship including during extensive travel together, and I appreciated his mechanical ability, creativity, strength, beautifully deeply resonant voice, and our high sexual compatibility.

I was relieved that he was not a drinker or drug user except for a tobacco habit, as I tend to gravitate toward smokers, as is my choice, even though I was not myself smoking at the time.

His career in movie production was also admirable albeit somewhat problematic in that it would appear he worked extra hard to cushion nepotistic slackers around him, and those same types were part and parcel of our social life together.

I therefore made an effort to expand our social life within the BDSM community into which I was already well-entrenched, until it became apparent that we were both cushioning pathetic and dysfunctional slackers around us and otherwise adding more than what we were gaining by the association.

On the negative side of a more serious note however were political and spiritual incompatibility, and then there was his daughter.

It was the daughter who eventually succeeded in driving me away, which was her intention all along. This goal was doubtlessly encouraged by her girlfriends who it would seem all wanted to sleep with her father but recognized her as an ally who could, at the least, drive me out of the picture. Although we had an open relationship, apparently the energy he wished to expend on me was considered to be contrary to their ends of his complete subservience to their ambitions. The daughter was a college student with a steady boyfriend who, in my view, was being psychologically abused by her as well.

When I broke up with her father, she was pregnant, to abandon the father of the child soon afterward, as I was so apprised by the grapevine, while my then fiancé still allowed me some access to it. Meanwhile, daughter already had her father at her beck and call, and with a grandchild, so much the more so, and therefore apparently saw no need to keep the baby’s father around, except for financial support.

She was only 10 years or so younger than I was but considered herself my superior, so it seemed. Her mother was very pleasant and agreeable and was surprisingly sympathetic to me in terms of her daughter’s controlling behavior and desire to see her ex-lover/ex-husband happy, even though she was more than ten years older than I was, Ashkenazi Jewish, unmarried, and had become a lesbian. The Nisei was twenty years older.

Perhaps she was aware that I had had my tubes tied and therefore had no ambitions in terms of dynasty.

The father’s political and spiritual views were all a part of the negative dynamic. It was ironic that he was such a chivalrous feminist, for instance, giving his daughter so much control over his life along with female friends who flat out expected him to wait on them, while meanwhile I was his submissive and adored him even if he also spoiled me, as was his volition.

In those days, I was a Liberal and a Democrat, but not nearly as far Left as he was, and I believed in a superior being, as I do now. While it was true that he would spoil me with fancy restaurants, travel, and gifts. I didn’t think those things necessary, but I enjoyed them, while mostly enjoying the obvious attention and affection they represented. However, I would have been happier with commitment from him and a less extravagant lifestyle to involve significant financial contribution from me as my own career in technical writing was advancing as a buffer in the event that the volatile egos that he catered to in the movie business should self-destruct. Since he had gotten his start with corporate and advertising video production, I could keep a channel open for him for similar endeavors within my own contacts. All of this of course contributed to my threat level in terms of the show business coven within which he was entrenched.

I believe now that in his opposition to marriage, he was compensating for a deep insecurity which he kept tightly concealed to include his own guilt for his own masculine sexuality—a shame given how sexually and dynamically gifted he was. I certainly did my best to assure him of how appreciated he was by me. Ironically, I find the current state-sanctioned definition of marriage to be problematic myself; however, lacking a decent alternative I certainly do not condemn the practice for others even if I advise undertaking less-state-sanctioned methods of protection from a predatory spouse or other family members.

Of course, the daughter did me a favor in revealing to me just how shallow was that dominance of her father’s over me, without complete ownership of me, ability to stand up to his daughter, or negotiate the brainwashing of Leftism and Atheism. But that doesn’t mean that the depth of my feelings for him weren’t real, and perhaps contributed to my vulnerability when The Han came a-courting. At last a man who I could submit to who wanted to keep me around! An MD, PhD who had lived around the world! A sophisticate! He wanted me!

Finally I was able to shed myself of The Nisei without remorse. I had tried to break up with him twice before but would melt when he would call me or show up at my door and it was during such a break up that the possibility of reconciliation was foiled by The Han in similarly underhanded fashion as employed by the female Sansei. (I’ve decided not to reveal details that others might imitate.)

I was so relieved not to remain unmarried forever even if in hindsight it was the worst mistake of my life. Meanwhile, I would not be missing that daughter, for sure, albeit retained melancholy feelings for the man I was never to see again but with no regrets in leaving him. I merely wish an alternative branch had presented itself.

(Found the Nisei on Facebook, still alive, kicking, pumping iron, and a Bernie Sanders supporter. Fare thee well. I’m glad that he is far away in a State I wouldn’t consider, as I’m sure that the political arguments would be as explosive as the sex was when I believed in him.)

It would seem to me that as much as I admire the character and wisdom of men overall when compared to women, the Achilles Heel of men is always women. That first glance at mother in infancy creates an irrational bond that cannot be dissolved by mere rhetoric or even maturity entirely, even if she was highly inadequate and perhaps especially when she was highly inadequate. For some men, like the aforementioned, that hypnotic power is eclipsed by the power of their daughters. In all cases, it would seem that the more dysfunctional the relationship, the stronger the influence. Therefore, the burgeoning State has an investment in keeping maternal bonds dysfunctional.

Similarly, vain, narcissistic, immature men would not have been able to survive and reproduce if they weren’t enabled by women to do so. This doesn’t say a lot for those women who are that gullible to believe that their own empowerment is better than submitting to a superior man. I mean, who cares if a man does housework, dishes, and childcare? Who cares if he is an obedient corporate clotheshorse? Who cares that he is so obsessed with trappings of class that he forgets that he is a man? Why is a man capable of those things considered by feminists to be superior to one who disdains such acts as a matter of course unless absolutely necessary?

(Why do men I meet seem to expect that I want these things? Why is this sort of supplication considered foreplay that will cause me to be sexually aroused? Vanilla dating is difficult! How has the species survived!)

What is so wrong with waiting on a man who one loves and admires, and deferring to him, rather than some impersonal employer or customer? How would it be that putting me on a pedestal is supposed to result in my arousal! What? Does it work on anyone?

That said, considering my intellectual and world achievement, combined with my own dysfunctional childhood and poor role models, I knew it was never going to be easy for me to find someone who not only could I look up to and admire but he would be confident that he could be “enough of a man” for me. It hasn’t gotten easier despite my inclinations for spreading my reach internationally.

I don’t personally believe that it is doing women a favor to overly emphasize their achievement or celebrity at the expense of men, and children. As for the appropriate solution to a situation where there is an overabundance of unmarriageable women in a generation? I tend to lean toward voluntary lesbian colonies, but without undue influence on political discourse, and therefore isolated.

Suffice to say, I would rather have death than to be such an inmate myself. I’ll settle for a used RV while I am a caretaker on a modest farm. That’s the extent of my lonely ambitions today. I think that I am recovered well enough from my experiences to care for certain livestock. Oh joy. Survival. Alone. How empowering.

Because of my complicated sexual persona, I naturally have to be very careful as to what sort of man I would trust enough to become intimate with, and my standards are very high in terms of scarcity. When women condescend to me as well, however, I bristle. I have rejected the female hive mind and reject men overly deferential to it.

Although I don’t really have a culture, myself, because of all the moves throughout my life, and necessary alienation from my immediate family, I don’t think culture and values are superficial at all, and like it or not, such things tend to be associated with geography, race, class, and religion or belief system. Flattening out those differences superficially will simply result in less excellence while meanwhile entrenching those with the least character in positions of authority, to include the movie business.

Everybody’s a critic.


Ideological Punishment of Character

One of the pernicious effects of the nexus between Feminism and various forms of Christianity is the presumption that women are of higher character than men and that therefore men should obey women. This tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy on the surface.

The more women insist on controlling public discourse, relationships, politics, etc., the more men are punished for authentic behavior and rewarded for passive-aggressive behavior, with “reward” being of a fashion which in the end is of course damaging.

On the other side of the spectrum are men who are so damaged by the degrading society that they come to fulfill the role of “boogeymen,” with poor impulse control, narcissism, etc.

Sane men, in obvious reaction, withdraw from society altogether.

Of course the character of women suffers in these scenarios even if the delusion that they are merely long-suffering victims of the evil menz might obscure that fact to many. Otherwise reasonable men might begin to assume that these evil menz who women speak of are the majority, or that their own masculine sexuality makes them evil (i.e., “objectification” of women), and therefore they eagerly allow other men to be further suppressed such that passive aggressiveness becomes the normal discourse.

This further cements the misapprehension. Meanwhile, of course, women of poor character relish and crave power, but it is never enough. Misguided men crave the ability to protect women from what they see as the evil of their own masculinity, and women of poor character and duped women defy them at every turn, with the result being more damaged women, more frustrated men, and therefore, the prescription is more of the same.

All failures of socialism are blamed on “not enough socialism.”

Meanwhile, protecting women from other women becomes nearly impossible. Therefore, women are forced to perform their own protection, making them harder and meaner and otherwise less able to garner protection from men by men in terms of feminine attractiveness, like some sort of prison social dynamic. The State apparatus of course unevenly protects the worst of women while offering little protection to the best of women and nearly no protection to men at all except for the worst panderers and “magic minority” currently in favor.

Meanwhile, women of good character are effectively forced or duped to take leadership roles that they don’t necessarily even want while meanwhile having little or no protection from villains at every juncture of both the feminine and masculine varieties. All the while, their problems are blamed in the public discourse as “not enough feminism”.

In a demographic situation where a disproportionate number of the fighting men have been killed or injured, and male property owners are also in short supply such as after a war, I can see the utility of extending suffrage to women. However, such a situation, in my view, ought to be temporary, until the population of property-owning men from 35 to 65 is restored.

Therefore, it would seem that The U.S. Civil War effectively killed masculinity in the U.S., even if the patient was still breathing at the time, with World War I, II, and the Vietnam War providing further demographic imbalance insults. I say this, even though, as a backlash to the feminine imperative of Prohibition, there was a period there prior to “second wave feminism” where masculinity was in full swing, thereby setting it up for a fall by means of an over-correcting socially-engineered “pendulum” of social trends. For details on this process, please see Steve Sailer’s pieces: The Ultimate Minority Right and Prohibition: Twin Sister of Women’s Suffrage.

(Those men who haven’t been effectively castrated are advised to lay low.)

Similarly, by means of swinging the Pendulum to the extreme, Prohibition both caused and killed the ability for men to organize productively outside of hereditary power or The State. “Organized Crime” today is only permitted by State-sanctioned players. “Disorganized Crime” however is doing just fine.

Men who organize outside of the state purview are the population from which masculinity arises. This is my own exposure. No wonder my standards are higher than I can attract. I’ve had it way too good. One of my readers has pointed out to me privately that perhaps I am an “Alpha Widow” in that I’ve already peaked. If such is the case, I’m obviously either going to have to relax my standards, “train,” transform my sexuality, or forego it altogether. I’m currently leading toward option 1 and 2.

Sharing him, however he should come into my life, would seem to be a given. I can live with that if I don’t have to defer to some “Alpha Submissive,” in person, because I have not yet met one who I can trust not to betray me somehow. Similarly, I maintained a hand’s off attitude with Axel’s other play partners unless one was clearly negatively impacting him personally, in which case I would offer my opinion as solicited. It was still his prerogative of course however to decide whether to keep at arm’s length or forgo contact with such a toxic creature. I don’t regret that stance even though I lost big because of it.

However, I have some cause for hope in the future in that I’ve seen young men with new and greater awareness than most of my peers. It is unfortunate for me that I am no cougar. I’m happy for those young women who learn to appreciate them. At least I can have ideological satisfaction, perhaps, one day, and otherwise live in a superior society than I am now.

Fathers of sons and grandsons are also in my radar for this reason.

At some point, even the jaded, nepotistic journalists with no skills but repeating the narrative, such as described by Roosh to Karen Straughan (and I went to school with some of these creatures) have got to realize that there’s no one in charge. Surely.

Not even importing “rapefugees” will fill the gap in society, because, as always, violent criminals do not exemplify masculinity but rather the damage that society inflicts on it.