Dark Age of Misandry

Technology to Extend Modern Way of Life for a While Longer

2012-04-16T15:01:00.000-07:00

"How much longer can things continue like this?" is a common question asked by exasperated people who see all the red flags of this dying culture, economy, and civilization. It's a great question, but, unfortunately, it is not so easy to answer. There are plenty of factors that can affect the time remaining for civilization. No one knows the day nor the hour of the coming collapse. But what we can be certain of in these times is that technology is a powerful force that is easy to both underestimate and overestimate. And despite all the "band-aid and paperclip" approaches the powers that be apply that will obviously not hold forever, technology often steps in and pushes back the eventual, inevitable reckoning.

Thomas Malthus predicted a population crisis. He rightly observed in his own time how human population increased by multiplication while agricultural expansion increased by addition. In other words, population growth was greater than the ability of the earth to feed everyone. Once the Oil Age hit a little over a century later, people scoffed at the ideas of Malthus. Technology had saved the day! Thanks to oil, agriculture could expand much more, sustaining a much larger global population.

And oil is really the lifeblood of the current global civilization. It is the magic elixir that allows the modern world to exist and function. It allows globalization, greatly increased agricultural ability, consumerism, police states/bloated governments, feminism...many things not inherently part of human existence - the proverbial bells and whistles, good or bad.

In the past few years, the concept of "Peak Oil" emerged. Oil Production follows a bell curve - oil production rises, and it must inevitably fall. This idea was not too widely known until fairly recently, perhaps the last 3-5 years. And it was met by plenty of scoffers, who, predictably, always seem to fall back on the religion-esque notion of "technology will save us!"

But they are only right in the short term. Oil has become increasingly difficult to recover. The old oil fields are almost done for. But techonology has once again stepped in - not to save us per se, but it has apparently put some more time onto the clock. Alternative oil sources such as oil shale, oil sands, artic oil, and deep-water are now being used, along with techniques like hydraulic fracturing.

It's not exactly technology saving us though. It's temporary. These new sources of oil are dirtier, harder to obtain, and much more toxic than traditional sources. Developing countries, like China, are increasing oil consumption. So problems haven't really been solved. An untenable way of life is being extended. All the while, new problems are being created. And now it won't be so easy to fix anything.

I'm certain that the governments of the world will continue on a ruinous path, spending themselves into the oblivion of debt as long as the oil is flowing. This way of life will continue up until the very moment it cannot any longer.

Keep your eyes on the clock.

The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin's Story: Drawing A Parallel to Media Misandry

2012-04-06T20:52:00.000-07:00

If you are like most people, you probably had a strong initial reaction to the killing of Trayvon Martin. One way or another, taking one side or another, within seconds or minutes, you probably had a strong opinion formed very quickly. As time has gone on and bits and pieces have unfolded about Martin's killing, you may have changed your opinion. Furthermore, you may think, as I do, that the media played a powerful role in trying to influence peoples' opinions on this story and inflame emotions about it.

A central element of this story is the racial distrust that the media has apparently been trying to fan the flames of. Immediately, the racial aspect came up. The media certainly decided to prod at this aspect and took advantage of the story of a "white"(?) man killing a black man (or child?). Using this, exploring the racial aspect must certainly have been good for ratings and sales. But beyond the easy tactics, the media also distorted certain things to heavily influence people to form a certain opinion. (I know how shocking, simply shocking it must be, to hear that the media does such things.)

I had heard or read Zimmerman described as white, latino, and white-latino. I had heard/read that Zimmerman was injured. Other sources said he was not injured, one source I heard saying that a video of Zimmerman in custody showed him having no injuries. Some said Trayvon could be heard yelling on a recording; others said it was Zimmerman. Pictures of Martin shown on the news have reportedly been younger photos of Martin - obviously intended to make certain that Martin is definitely perceived as younger and innocent.

The details became so many and so obscured by media influence that I realized I couldn't form an accurate enough opinion of what happened unless I had witnessed this first-hand. But I realized a parallel that deserved to be written about here.

For readers here, it is no secret how misandrist the media is, and how heavily to one side it leans. In matters of a story involving violence between a man and woman, the man is almost always going to be the "perpetrator" and the woman is almost always going to be the "victim," regardless of facts. Heavy-handed tactics will be used to influence peoples' views of what happened, regardless of what the story is. But some stories are easier to use nefariously than others.

Just as the media desires to fan the flames of distrust between races, the media also desires to fan the flames of distrust between the sexes. Misandry, of course, is a result of that. And the media is very good at creating tension, anger (at only the "appropriate" targets of course), and distrust among groups, especially along racial and gender lines.

Seeing a controversial story unfold in the media, and jumping to conclusions (after having every "fact" fed to you by the media) is tantamount to a fish biting biting the bait. No matter how certain one is of the facts, it's an easy trap to fall into. Forming an opinion based off of media influence is ubiquitous, invasive, and is easily used to influence people to absorb any idea the media desires, at the whims of the media.

The stories may be different, but the aims of the media in feeding them to us in its distorted way remains the same. So the next time a controversial story appears in the news, and you see people getting riled up, angry, and indignant, consider how controlled and scripted it really is.

Watching the Clock for a Dying Society

2012-03-30T21:51:00.000-07:00

They've been around since the Dawn of Man: societies. Wherever two or more human beings are gathered, there it is. It's too easy to think of ancient societies as if they were extremely vulnerable, while at the same time, regarding the current one as indestructible. Perhaps that is because of how humans perceive time. Societies come about and dissipate so slowly in relation to a single human lifetime that perhaps this error is unavoidable. I know it is true for me: I have often remarked to myself how amazing it seems that this society still stands. But this is short-sighted of course. We have but to look at logical consequences of present actions, that, if not changed, will cause a society to collapse and splinter.

Ancient civilizations were vulnerable to collapse from loosening values/morality splintering human connection and trust apart (including but not limited to feminism), warfare, economic collapse, natural disasters, decadence, and so on and so forth. The current world is no different with these vulnerabilities; these risks are always present or at least possible. A few differences I can think of immediately though are the massive amounts of energy sunk into this civilization, the size of it (considering the global reach of it, if not direct and total control of the entire globe, at least not yet), and entrenched powers that keep certain ideas powerful (feminism, consumerism) while keeping certain ideas taboo and despised (masculinity, patriarchy).

These things, which I will call "safety nets for bad ideas" are very good at propping up things like feminism. But how much longer can the beast be propped up? And that is a huge question once all the illusions of this way of life are stripped away and examined.

I think this is one of the great ironies of good societies: it takes a good society to result in a really rotten society. A society of good moral values, trust among people and classes of people, that values work-ethic, creativity, wealth-building, etc. has a lot that can be corrupted after all. And one of the tragedies is that a society going bad must use the resources that it previously built up when it was on the straight and narrow path.

Here's a useful simplification: Good societies are creative, moral, and desire to create all kinds of wealth, from cultural kinds of wealth to literal treasures. Bad societies desire to destroy, take things from those who have created and built these forms of wealth, are distrustful, self-centered, and feel entitled to the fruits of decadence.

Feminism has been about destruction, entitlement, theft, and decadence. As bad societies must do, it takes from what a good society has created and sours it.

So here's a logical - although imprecise - test for how much time a society has left:

How much goodness is left? How are its' values and morals and trust holding up? How much opportunity, ingenuity, and creativity does it have left? How much wealth remains?

Is everything good about the society dead or dying? If so, time is probably running out for it very quickly.

The Decline and Fall of Marriage, Family, and Home - American Civilization on the Way

2012-03-22T15:24:00.000-07:00

It's no news that Marriage and Family Structure are foundations for any civilization, and for decades at least, these things have been in decline in the United States and the Western societies in general. In more recent times, the decline of marriage and the two parent household have sped up. Marriage rates are down, but out-of-wedlock births are increasing. Not only that, but the women having out-of-wedlock babies are increasing in age. In decades past, it was much more often teenage girls who became pregnant outside of marriage. And now, the stigmas are gone, marriage has declined from easy divorce and misandrist laws, and besides those factors, men have been priced out of the marriage market anyway. It's damn hard to find a decent job nowadays, especially for a man.

The culture has been eroded so severely that the stigma of illegitimate births is now absent. We're so fully into the "you go grrrl, so in-duh-pen-dent, I don't need a man" stage of feminism that the culture apparently has nothing left to hold it back. We're in the train heading toward the cliff. And there's no indication anyone is going to save the train.

Consider also another part in the erosion of society: the rise of single occupant households. Along with single-mom households, single person ones are increasing as well. So a large portion of American households are chaotic producers of future thugs, and another large portion are isolation boxes. Great.

But there are still traditional households. Two parent families. A few multi-generational homes.

Fast forward to 2030 for a moment. Those kinds of homes will be all but eliminated then. I'm not being an alarmist. I would write with lots of exclamation points if I was. I see the end game of feminism, misandry, and the destruction of marriage, family, trust, and all those good things which feel so distant.

Society will change for the worse and I am powerless to affect it. So be it.

Some have asked how marriage can be saved. How can society be restored? How can we put right what has been done wrong? And even if one could...

...is there anything worth saving left?

What Does The MRM Need?

2012-03-01T22:08:00.000-08:00

In the resistence to feminism, the Men's Right's Movement (MRM) does very poorly when judged by the big picture, away from the "man-o-sphere" of the internet. It lacks any real political and social power, the kinds that feminism had little problem gaining and harnessing and controlling society with. I do not think that the MRM is truly incapable of gaining real power in society, but I do not see the rise of the MRM in the future. (Rather, I see the decline of feminism, and thus a chance for a return to traditionalism of sorts, or at least society being forced to try something other than feminism.)

But what could the MRM make use of that would allow it to gain real social traction?

(I was originally going to write, "what could empower the MRM?" but did not for the bitterness that feminism has forced upon the word.)

Here I will present a few things I think the MRM would need to become influential and powerful:

1. Unification
I think that without unification, the MRM will remain stratified enough that accomplishing anything will be improbable at best. Feminism had essentially one real camp: the unity of the entire gender. Feminism had lots of branches, "theories," and variations, but it was, at heart, a unification of females. Feminism of all stripes was and is a preference for the female always, a deferment to women in all matters, and a favoring of women in all things. Unity was easy for feminism for some reasons. Before too long, there were either feminists or non-feminists. By contrast, I can see a major reason why the MRM is still unsuccessful: there are lots of camps, lots of branches, lots of variations. This itself is not a problem, so did feminism. However, the MRM's camps do not agree like feminism's camps did. The MRM has Men Going Their Own Way, Traditionalists, PUAs, and such, but they are often mutually exclusive: they each desire different things for society. The differences can be vast, not to mention ironic. A post I made recently called much of the MRM feminism for men. Traditionalists want Marriage 1.0, traditional gender roles, etc. PUAs just want to game sluts for as much sex as possible. MGTOWs just do whatever they want. There is no unity. And without unity, the MRM will largely be an internet club for men to vent and discuss.

2. A Hero/Mouthpiece
Feminism had its prominent women. The MRM needs prominent men. The MRM needs a face, or, perhaps, faces. Society needs to see real men working for real justice for real men. Good stories need good heroes. A likely candidate would likely be someone who has a legal background, a career in media, or someone in a high place (or relatively high place) politically. These would be the most helpful, but a man in any of these fields would probably be committing career suicide. So, alternatively, I think a good religious leader would be a good candidate. And because feminist would try to shout down this man from speaking, or even threaten him, it would be good to have multiple Heroes. A support network of MRM heroes. It needs to be shown that the MRM has strength, unity, and real men who are working for the just causes of mens' rights. One man could easily be shouted down, but many would be much more resilient. Any movement needs leaders and heroes, and the MRM is no exception.

3. Facts, Reason, Morality, Justice, Goodness
It's not just playing around, and the lives of men are at stake. Though feminists find facts, logic, morality, and others to be abhorrent, the MRM should rely on such principles. There needs to be goodness at the core of the movement. Merely going for revenge (so to speak) would be a disservice when the lives of real men are constantly being chewed up and destroyed by the feminist machine. Feminists had and have tons of influence on the government, corporations, the media, and religion. The MRM would have to gain influence in those areas. It would need commercials about how feminism hurts men and society, laws that protect men from feminist abuses, corporations which would endorse and support menss' causes, churches that would be courageous enough to stop telling women what they want to hear and preach Biblical gender roles, marriages, and the like. These are merely a few ideas. It would take so much.

But first the MRM has much to come to agreement with.

Feminism for Men

2012-02-24T23:01:00.000-08:00

I have long realized what cleaves Mens' Issues apart. It is essentially a disagreement over how a man in a misandrist society should live. Because men in Western nations live in matriarchal, misandrist societies, the issue is of tantamount importance. Small mistakes a man makes can ruin his life in such a society. And understandably, this creates a fearful mindset. Why take on responsibility? Why try to change anything? Why do anything that could help a society that hates you? Even if what you would do is work towards Patriarchy, for example. Such an effort places the Western man at great risk. Even a group effort at Patriarchy would be fraught with risk for the men involved.

And so the first, increasingly common "solution" for men is to drop out. Stop doing things that can help society, and live selfishly. After all, a man is likely to be oppressed or punished if he takes on responsibility and attempts to live what used to be a man's life. Any prodding for the man to do anything more is instantly decried as shaming language. (And let me be clear: a lot of it is shaming language, particularly when said by Western women.) Even other men who support Patriarchy, for example, are often perceived as offering nothing but shaming language, if not ideas that are horribly risky. After all, why try to find a good woman and start a family in a misandrist society? At any time, it can end in disaster for a man. This is a legitimate concern, of course. Even those young men who desire Patriarchy don't know what the solution is. Why sacrifice yourself for a society that despises you? Why take even the slightest risk?

However, what is the end result of this kind of thinking? It's something I regard as feminism for men.

Under feminism, men are relegated to being useless and objects of hatred, promiscuity is rampant and desirable, the breakdown of family is unavoidable, and men become infantile, withdrawing into themselves and living as selfishly as possible, and so on and so forth.

And under the mindset of much of the MRA world, the results are essentially the same. Thus I regard it as being like feminism for men. The primary difference is that it is pro-male, at least superficially. It is not a solution. It is a self-defense method against misandrist society. It doesn't try to bring about Patriarchy. It doesn't promote trust and understanding and peace between the sexes. It's just withdrawing into a defensive position.

And so MRA and such ideas are likely never going be properly opposed to feminism, at least as long as they can't break away from being under the thumb of feminism. And even if they do, they must promote Patriarchal values, rejecting the results that feminism brings. Otherwise, we'll end up with the same result: men made useless and infantile.

As long as feminism keeps a stranglehold on society, though, how do men rise above MRAish defensive tactics? How do men fight the fight feminism together and create an environment where Patriarchy can return? How does Patriarchy gain a foothold?

Thus far, these questions lack a solid answer in the West.

There Are No Feminists on Sinking Ships, but there are Men Going Their Own Way

2012-01-20T23:46:00.000-08:00

As soon as I read about the recent cruise ship crash that happened off the coast of Italy, the thought of women trying to get off the ship first while men being told to wait until the women were safe immediately came to mind. And of course, upon reading about the story and comments about it online, I found mention that men rushed past women in order to get to safety. Cue the shaming language. Equality apparently only applies selectively.

Obviously, female entitlement requires that men risk their lives for women they don't even know, and plenty of women will post angry comments online about men failing to acquiesce to female entitlement. What made me grin, though, was that I saw a great counter of lots of male posters calling out the feminist entitlement. And so I see this as evidence of the awakening to the feminist illusion of female entitlement and superiority. Something that was once difficult to discuss openly - even on the internet - is now easier to find. Men have started to voice their questioning of feminist domination.

And in this case of the sinking cruise ship, the simple logic of "Why should I risk my life for women just because I am a man?" was acted upon, and rightfully so. No doubt this could be twisted by feminist "logic" as being callous, but this is not so. I'm certain that most men would be willing to risk their lives for their mother or grandmother, for example. However, why should a man risk his life for a woman simply because she is a woman? Many more men are now asking that question and answering it with "he shouldn't."

There are no feminists on sinking ships. But there may be men going their own way, or at least those unwilling to potentially sacrifice their life for women on sinking ships.
It's now every man - and woman! - for themselves.

The Trouble with Game

2012-01-13T20:22:00.000-08:00

A tactic or method that some men suggest for dealing with women (at least women they want to have sex with) is to employ "game." Supposedly, game allows the typical man to get laid by putting in some effort at employing tactics to attract women. These tactics are used to appeal to womens' unconscious desires so that they are attracted to the man and will date and/or sleep with him. Some argue that game is good because it gives men access to some women, whereas otherwise they may have access to none. Superficially, this may seem like a good idea, but it is a superficial solution. It's like giving band-aids to the mortally wounded.

For most men, game does not work, and game is definitely not a threat to feminism! Instead, game subtly plays into feminism's hand.

In a sane society, men will have a sexual outlet. This sexual outlet will be perfectly legal and will be easily accessible for men. Of course, I am referring to prostitution. Women ultimately control sexual access, and prostitution evens the playing field. Some women will always turn to prostitution, so in the absence of feminist control of the state, men will have an adequate sexual outlet. Feminist societies tend to outlaw prostitution, criminalizing it and forcing men to suffer.

And along comes game, which claims to be a solution to this mess. But game is a tactic for desperate men in a feminist society. It doesn't solve anything. It's merely attempting tricks to get around the problems. It does nothing to fix the problems themselves! This is why I say game plays into feminism's hand. Game doesn't question feminism or the idea that women must be "gamed" in order to date or sleep with them. It accepts it as normal and okay. For this, I see game as being a tool of manginas.

The other main problem I have with game is that it simply won't work for most guys. I've noticed a very simple pattern when it comes to how women choose guys: hot guys get picked, and ugly or just 'non-hot' guys get rejected. Game does not appear to affect this. Women choose guys who are tall, slim, with good faces. It is true that women also choose guys with certain traits such as narcissism and a massive ego, and guys with money. However, I recognize a difference between men who are picked for relationships and guys who are picked for sex. Resources are the criteria for dating/marriage, and looks and traits are the basis of picking a guy to reproduce with. (Guys who have no particular advantage are just left out entirely.) The men who get the most sex are the attractive ones. I don't see variations to this, aside from perhaps the odd exception which doesn't prove anything conclusive.

Desperate men can easily be scammed into seminars or lessons for learning game. If the outlet of prostitution existed in this society, it would cease to be an issue. But in the current societal climate, a man must acquiesce to the wishes of the feminism if he wants to have any access whatsoever to women. And that means game. A solution would be to legalize prostitution. Game is simply a tool used to fleece desperate, sexually starved men. It's a tool of feminists and manginas.

Benjamin Barnes: Another Needless Horror Story Ending in Violence

2012-01-05T21:39:00.000-08:00

I heard about Benjamin Barnes the day the story broke, and although I did not read a news story or watch a segment on television about his killing of a park ranger, I immediately suspected that he is another man who was driven over the edge of sanity. Obviously, mainstream news stories about him depict him as mad, suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or some other hand-wave. Digging for details - especially from articles from the "man-o-sphere" led me to the conclusion that Barnes is the latest example of a man needlessly driven to violence.

It is possible that Barnes suffered from PTSD, and that this played a part in the violence. If PTSD was the primary cause, it was needless that his story ended in violence and death. Barnes was an Iraq War veteran. Soldiers are trained to kill. Reintegration into society is a process for a soldier, or it can be a longer process. Soldiers are trained to react to situations with violence, as per the job. The presence of PTSD can make this reintegration extremely difficult. How does any soldier slip through the cracks in that regard? How is any soldier released from duty back to civilian life without being identified as having PTSD? There are symptoms. This alone could indicate misandry in the form of society and the military discarding soldiers once they have completed service, and not helping them reintegrate into a society that soldiers should immediately return to.

What struck me even more, though, came when I dug a little deeper. Barnes had been put through custody issues regarding his daughter, and had been accused of domestic violence by his girlfriend. He had also had a troubled past, doing some things he should have done. I'm not attempting to present him as blameless; however, I see the downward spiral his life must have become. Facing a misandrist court system with its exorbitant demands and extortion against men is enough to drive any normal man mad - for a soldier who may or may not have PTSD, I can see how difficult it could become to not simply see red every moment. And we know how the story ended. He killed a park ranger, fled into the forest, and was found dead a day later. And all of this was needless. Not every man who is forced to deal with the misandrist courts will end up like Barnes, although I am certain all men forced into such a situation deal with the same undying rage at a system that hates them. Barnes' scenario was perhaps more severe all in all, but men have snapped who have dealt with less in their lives.

This should be a lesson, although I'm sure the mainstream will forever ignore these details in the background of Barnes' story. This kind of violence is needless, and is completely preventable. Furthermore, there are causes originating from misandry. Ignoring that men who end up doing what Barnes did often had their children taken away and accusations made against them ignores major reasons why a man - a normal working "joe" all the way to a war veteran - may snap and commit violence. The system's blindness to its own misandry guarantees that such violence could happen anytime.

A man does not kill a park ranger and flee into the forest for no reason, randomly, by accident. I doubt only PTSD would cause it either. But a man whose life is in a downward spiral, and whose downward spiral is helped along by misandry, could do this anytime.

The Last Great Hope for Leadership in America: Ron Paul

2011-12-29T03:16:00.000-08:00

As things continue in their downward spiral, it is painfully clear that our leadership in America is essentially non-existent. As History bears out, civilizations lack a political response to crises and other difficulties or issues that precede a collapse, a dissipation of a society. Social norms are twisted and perverted, like in this misandrist society. Our present society is certainly no exception to the danger of dissipation, and the time of collapse draws nearer.

The only issue to me is: how long will it take? I am convinced that this civilization is either at the point of no return or extremely close to that point. Perhaps if nothing is changed, if nothing is done, the next five years will be way past too late for salvation. But perhaps we have a final chance. Things will be painful from here on out, but perhaps this society could be pulled back from the cliff it is so dangerously close to leaping off of.

Leadership in America is now thoroughly a fantasy. Politics is now only about preserving power. And really, politics is the business of maintaining and/or creating problems. After all, if politicians didn't keep problems around, why would people keep voting them back in to "solve" those problems? (Not to mention people want a free lunch as well, which vote-hungry politicians are more than eager to provide for voters.)

As cynical as I am now about the lack of leadership in America, I do see one last great hope for this country. And the name of that hope is Ron Paul. He's had two unsuccessful attempts at the presidency and is despised by the media, but he is still here. And he represents the last hope for leadership in America.

If there is any hope of putting an end to the over-bearing Big Brother, and the feminist driven misandry of society, it is him. Feminism is all about big government at the expense of weakening men and families, and as a libertarian, Dr. Paul is opposed to all of this. I have not heard Dr. Paul speak of feminism, yet by nature his libertarian way of thought is opposed to it. He is opposed to big government, so by extension, the misandrist social policies of feminism are opposed to his libertarian philosophy as well.

However, I do not think Ron Paul has a real chance at the presidency. He sticks to his values of liberty and constitutionalism unabashedly and faces the other candidates - all statists (i.e., they believe we need big government, including the feminist/misandry complex) - unflinchingly. He is unashamed to profess positions based in constitutionality, non-aggression, ethics and morality. And this makes him down right heroic in that being such a man, he can be anywhere near politics. I think these values will mean that the system will never let him near the presidency. We can easily see how the media attempts to downplay or ignore Ron Paul. But those who agree with what he is saying are strong in their support. And come next year, the people can vote in another Big Brother lover like they've done in the past, or they can elect the one who will say that we've had enough of that, and that it is time for ethics and sanity.

I am certain that either Ron Paul will be our next President, or the other guy will be the last.

The Three Camps

2011-12-17T11:31:00.000-08:00

When it comes to mens' ideologies, there are three camps that I observe in society. Although it is certainly possible to divide mens' ideologies into many divisions and subdivisions and factions, I observe that there are really only three essential groups. I want to discuss these here, showing the essentials and bare forms of each one.
In no particular order:

1. MGTOW
Men Going Their Own Way, just as it implies, is men doing whatever they want. This can be anything from living a life of hedonism to just trying to live a peaceful life. This is a very individualistic camp, although this is not to say that there is not lots of camaraderie as well. But the core of MGTOW is going your own way, in other words, you make your own meaning. Within moments of looking into MGTOW, you are sure to see this acronym: AWALT. It means "All Women Are Like That" and is a core piece of the MGTOW movement. It is the belief that women are the same everywhere, and that feminism is less a cultural, societal, economic result than just simply what women are regardless of anything. The way that feminized Western women are is how all women are - if given the chance. This is the belief that all women are feminists at their cores, and therefore none can be trusted. Therefore, many MGTOWs avoid women as much as possible.

Within MGTOW, I see two splinters: those who view MGTOW as a solution, and those who view it as a tactic. In the former, the goal is to avoid all women period. In the latter, the goal is to avoid feminized Western women and perhaps escape the femisphere. The latter also tends to lead into the next camp I will discuss...

2. Traditionalists - They want a stable, peaceful society that relies on traditional family values and in which qualities such as trust, honesty, and loyalty are highly valued. Just as in MGTOW, there is the despising and hatred of feminism. Unlike many MGTOW, this group does want women. Specifically, the primary traditionalist goal is to find a traditional woman to have a family with. Obviously, here in the West (the femisphere, or feminist sphere of influence) this is extraordinarily difficult if not outright impossible in most areas. Therefore, many traditionalists often turn to foreign dating, searching for a wife outside the femisphere.

There is often a focus on creating a community as well. This is considered important for personal reasons of course, but also to sustain good values, being apart from corrupt modern culture. Traditionalists have the most difficult goals in many ways because the cultural rottenness is so widespread, so it is difficult often to find many traditionalists, much less have a traditional community without the intrusion of modern culture and feminism.

3. Manginas - Not really a camp in the sense that the others are. MGTOW and Traditionalism entail things like ideological solidarity and trust. This third "camp" has neither. Manginas (a portmanteau of "man" and vagina") are mainstream Western men, essentially. They are the ones who do not see anything wrong with society, particularly the relations between the sexes, and who are thoroughly brainwashed with and accepting of feminist thinking. There is no trust among them, nor is there any reason for it. Conversely, there is an emphasis on being cutthroat with each other in order to get women. The idea of "game" for getting women is a tool for manginas. The essence of game being a man changing himself for a woman, changing (or rather, pretending to change) who and what he is in order to have access to women. Another term for mangina is "white knight," a man who will rush to a woman's defense no matter what.

This camp does not see itself as a group, but it is mainstream and it has the greatest numbers. In other words, this is the group that is all about "business as usual" inside the feminist world.

Why Men's Rights Will Always Be Intertwined with Size of the Government

2011-12-08T22:20:00.000-08:00

it's obvious to anyone who doesn't live under a rock that the tree of liberty is greatly withered and probably on its death knell if something doesn't change soon. I speak of rights and liberties in general, but the rights of men are first and foremost always at stake, whereas women in America rely upon privilige primarily. (Obviously, they have rights as well, but women in a totalitarian state can "prosper" from big government,whereas men cannot.) I use the word privilege intentionally. I once looked up the etymology of the word, finding that privilige comes from Latin words meaning "private law." Thus I am saying that big government creates privilige, women being among the primary benefactors, at least in the modern world, although in past socieites as well. That is, privilige is inherently unjust, being applied most often by the State to only certain groups. It is one thing for an individual to apply preference to a friend or family or a certain religion or philosophy; it is quite another matter entirely for the government to apply preference for certain groups. This is leads to a decay of rights. For one group to gain privilige from the government, another must be robbed of...something. This typically includes liberties and money, among other important things.

(Thus the group with privilege now votes for those so called leaders who grant more privilege to them, hence big government is the result. I'll assume that most reading this take this as a foregone conclusion.)

Therefore, men's rights are inherently intertwined with the size of the government. A big government is not to men's benefit. A healthy masculine portion cannot exist in a society in which Big Brother is, well...big. A small government doesn't have the resources to do much harm. A big government has all the resources it needs to do great harm.

And how many rights do men have in this society? Many of those rights either do not exist or are small.

Consider a man's right to defend himself. As a man, do you feel confident in your right to defend yourself if someone broke into your home? Or would you fear such a scenario because you are much more afraid of Big Brother punishing you for defending yourself?

I recall the story of Rayon McIntosh. He was the man who defended himself after being attacked by two women. Fortunately, he was cleared by a grand jury, but many in the man-o-sphere doubted this would happen, and rightfully so. Do you think mainstream society and the legal system would have had such a problem with this case if two men had attacked McIntosh instead of two women? It wouldn't have been a story. This is an excellent example of female privilege in this society. In a free and fair society, the initiation of force is a immoral regardless of who initiates it. In a saner world, it would be the violation of the principle that would be considered horrible, not the violation of privilege. No doubt many would have expected McIntosh to just take a beating, perhaps even be willing to die so that female privilege was not violated. I suspect that the two women who assaulted him were so egregious in their attack that McIntosh was eventually cleared of wrongdoing.

The other absent right I wish to speak of is the absence of men's reproductive rights. There is a severe double standard. Men's sperm is essentially regarded as not their own. It is de facto property of women. Ask yourself this, if a woman raped a man, or in some other way forcibly took his sperm, and used it to impregnate herself, birthing a child in the process.....would the man have any recourse? Would he have to pay child support? These are of course retorical questions for most reading this. It is, again, female privilege...that permits this - privilege that originates in a large government.

Lack of reproductive rights and lack of rights to defend himself are the two most egregious examples that men have virtually no rights in this society. The size of the government is inextricably connected to men's rights (or lack thereof.) If you are concerned about men's rights, you of course need to recognize the source of the problem and not the synmptoms. Even if many more like Rayon McIntosh are cleared of wrongdoing when they exercise their inalienable, inborn rights, this would only alleviate the symptoms of the problem. The problem is the system that punishes men for exercising rights.

A big government will inevitably result in a lack of men's rights. These two are not only correlated, there is causation with the large government stripping rights away. Therefore, any men's rights issue will inevitably lead to a critical eye being cast towards the state.

The Coming Collapse of the Economy, Misandry, and Feminism

2011-12-01T19:08:00.000-08:00

Civilizations have a period when they rise followed by a period when they collapse. This is true for ancient civilizations, but also true for the modern world. The height of a civilization is often considered in terms of its economy. This includes the value of its money, the amount of resources the civilization can produce and utilize, how much the civilization can trade, what it produces, and so on. Looking back to a civilization like the Roman Empire, it is easy to see a rise and fall. A bad economy precedes a fall. There is nothing coincidental about this. The modern day United States is currently going through what I think are the initial stages of collapse. Economic troubles have been with us for a while; I think they will be with us until the end of our civilization.

There are two aspects I want to focus on in this article: collapse from economic reasons and collapse from cultural reasons. The collapse of the economy, misandry, and feminism will be economic and cultural.

Something that has been in the news lately is the need for the U.S. government to cut spending. One of the biggest culprits for government spending is social programs, i.e., welfare and entitlement spending. Indeed, the government cannot continue borrowing and spending forever. One obvious idea is to balance the budget and pay off the national debt. Although I do not believe the debt can ever be paid off, cutting spending (and not increasing debt) would keep us afloat for a while. If not, collapse will hit faster. However, many people do not want spending for social programs to be cut. Even minor proposed cuts are frowned upon. The U.S. government borrows money (aka being in debt) and spends like crazy. And it has no desire to cut back on either of these things. One (horrible) solution is to print money more and more to keep things afloat. This will lead to inflation, meaning money is worth less. (And it already is worth less because it is not backed up by anything real, i.e., precious metals or resources.) This is currently being done. Eventually, the system will collapse from this, if this is continued. It doesn't work for a loaf of bread to cost a $1000.

And this is a good starting point because many of those social programs have to do with feminism. In other words, this is an economic "issue" because of something cultural. Part of the reason the U.S. will not cut spending and pay off debt is to maintain its social programs and policies. You can probably think of so many programs for women, brought about by feminist lobbying and policy-making. And welfare and other entitlements (much of which goes to single moms who have broken apart families.)

And it isn't a matter of not being able to cut; it is a matter of refusing to cut. Voters vote in politicians who will give them entitlements. So politicians don't want to cut because they would be voted out for someone who will keep granting entitlements. So the political aspect is part of the collapse too, which I will classify under cultural reasons.

The United States used to (before feminism) have a strong patriarchal society, strong family structure, and was a producer of useful goods and services, which made it a strong economy. Employment and opportunity abounded. Of course, much has changed over the last couple hundred or so years. The U.S. did become industrialized and this contributed to our current problems. This meant that we would eventually use up the resources of this land, that traditional society would breakdown, and that various social maladies would arise, like consumerism and isolation. Not to mention feminism, which greatly harmed the economy, as well as social mores and family structure. Before feminism, there were fewer entitlements. Families stayed together much more often. Divorce was not granted for bullshit reasons like it is now. So people were able to take care of each other much better. Women tended to stay home and care for the children and home. This helped the common man because there were more jobs to go around. After feminism, women had to work. They had no choice. Once enough women started to work, prices were raised because it was recognized that households were having two incomes. Once families were broken apart, more money and resources were required to keep up a "family." (Not to mention the legal system benefited tremendously with the breakdown of family structure.) So feminism added tons of strain to the economic system without any real benefit to the economy. Unless you are the government or a large company. Then you reap benefits by extracting more resources. And extract them from who? Ah! Men of course. Misandry, feminism, and the economy go together so well, don't they?

Our industry has largely left our land and moved overseas. The U.S. produces relatively few useful goods. It is largely a services economy (general services and financial.) The family structure has been made a joke: divorce rates and one-parent "families" (read: single mom led households) are ubiquitous. Ideas like strong marriages and fidelity have been ridiculed and largely done away with. Natural resources (primarily fossil fuels) have peaked in production, meaning that prices will rise and supply diminishes and demand rises. Unemployment is high and will climb. Most of the good things about America are either dead or dying.

All of these things happen together, and I think all of these inter-connected. Now, I do not think industrial civilization could be sustained forever. Resources on earth are finite, and the expansion and maintenance of it would require an infinte amount. That said, I think cultures can be sustained indefinitely. (After all, there were successful cultures long before industrialization - ones with strong family structure, values, etc.) However, the modern day U.S. is very weak socially. I think much of the blame for this belongs to feminism and misandry. Although I would class the U.S. as a successful culture at one time, I no longer think it is. As a result, it is committed to an unchangeable course which will culminate in collapse. It will be depleted of resources, of social values, of family structure, of wealth in general. And once the tipping point is reached, it will be too late. I think we are almost to that point.

It's entirely possible to prevent the coming collapse. It always has been. But the system (including but not limited to feminism, misandry, the legal system, government, greed, politics, and plain bad decision making) has made an economic salvation extremely difficult. We might as well say it is impossible now. If you are a man in Western society, why should you care to try to save or change anything? Society is clear that it wants to use you, and hates you for your gender. If you're one of the many young women, why would you want to change anything? You're benefitting! So there is no one, no group, no plan...to save us. The collapse is coming and society has resigned itself to letting the train speed over the cliff instead of trying to stop the train before it is too late.

Thanksgiving and Black Friday for Single Men: Something to Be Thankful for

2011-11-24T15:46:00.000-08:00

Despite the bad economy, and abounding financial troubles, it looks like commercialism and materialism are more powerful than ever this holiday season. Lots of businesses are opening earlier than usual for their Black Friday sales, plenty of them opening while it is still Thanksgiving! If you're a married man who has family obligations for the holidays, this probably drives you crazy. I have never met a man who really enjoyed things like Black Friday. Most guys would rather sit back at home and watch football.

If you're a single man though, you get a free pass on it. With no wife or girlfriend to shop for - who will probably be very materialistic anyway - and no other family to have holidays obligations for, you get a free pass. And that's a great thing. You can stay home and watch football, or stay in and watch the hilarity ensue on television once the shoppers are set free insides the stores. You can just sleep through it. (Highly recommended!)

If you're a single guy who finds the crass, brutish commercialism of the holidays, and the hollow materialism in general in society to be disgusting and revolting, then you have it made because you have no one else to nudge you into partaking of it! You can choose one way or the other. (I'm guessing most of you don't want to take part...) Freedom is your best Christmas present at this point. You've saved time and money, not to mention the stress that would result from being in that disaster called Black Friday.

And for Thanksgiving and Christmas, you get to relax, enjoy family and great food, but get to skip out on the stress. And if you feel a strong aversion to the materialism so apparent during the holidays, you can act in line with your values by avoiding it, and do something for yourself, your family, or someone less fortunate than you.

So for Thanksgiving, if you're a single man, you indeed have something extra to be thankful for!

3 Ways to Guard Yourself from Misandry

2011-11-16T01:13:00.000-08:00

If you are an American male in your 20s (or even teens or 30s) then this is for you. Chances are, you know something isn't right with society. Perhaps you notice overt and subtle indicators that society is against men. You see sitcoms depict husbands as stupid and brutish. You notice how absurdly difficult and fruitless the dating scene is. And you probably have some male friends and family members who have been dragged through the hell of divorce court.

And if you are reading this, you are probably astute and aware of misandry, and you are determined not to fall into the same traps and make the same mistakes that ruin many men. The cost of making these mistakes is high, and they can ruin your life - forever! Here I will present three ways you can guard yourself from misandry in society while building yourself up and living a decent life.

1. DO NOT GO INTO DEBT! This is useful advice in general, but for a man, it is essential. Men are not valued in the workplace, or in academia. The economy has thrown you overboard a long time ago. It doesn't need you nowadays, except as a debt slave. The main way that most young people go into debt is by taking out loans to go to college. And when they graduate, they have racked up large debt and can find no decent jobs so that they can pay off these debts. This is, in practice, very much like slavery. If you are indebted with student loans, your options for removing the debt are either, a)Pay them off, or b)Die. That's it. And with the economy worsening each moment, don't expect your degree to reward you with a decent job. Tons of people go to college. This decreases the value of each degree. And good jobs (and jobs at all) are scarce. So it's a trap you must avoid. If you must go to college, you should a)Have someone else foot the bill (scholarship, grant, saving up money to go) and b)Get a harder degree that's more useful. Don't go major in History or English - such a degree is worthless for getting a decent job. (But DO educate yourself in such things. An education is valuable - schooling is overpriced or worthless.) But regardless of what you do in regards to your education, DO NOT GO INTO DEBT!

2. BECOME SELF SUFFICIENT! Again, something that is useful in general. But in the present age, especially useful for a man. Because outside of your family and a few good friends, if you are fortunate, you can't expect outside help. Women get all the help in the world - shelters, financial assistance, easier to get scholarships and jobs, etc. Mens' hardships and problems don't matter to society. So it is best to become as self-sufficient as possible! That means you want to educate yourself as much as possible in any useful thing you come across and need. Learn how to fix things, grow food, solve problems, survive. Collect books with the knowledge you need. If you followed the first thing, being debt free, then you should be at much greater liberty to work on becoming self-sufficient. Although you need to be self-sufficient, you also need to have good people in your life. Family and friends are wonderful things. But you need to rely on yourself as much as possible.

3. DO NOT GET MARRIED IN THE WEST! And now for something more specific. Western society has taken the original concept of marriage - what some call "Marriage 1.0" and turned it into a damning hell for men. If you live in the U.S., or any other Western nation, avoid marriage at all costs. A man has almost nothing to gain from it, and literally everything to lose - his money, assets, resources, home, job, health, peace, and of course, his children. Here in the U.S., divorce is rampant, adultery is ubiquitous, custody of children almost always goes to the mother, the father is typically alienated from his children, child support is forced, there is alimony for the wife, and the ex-wife can typically take half or more of the man's assets, and will usually get the house. Marriage in the West is nothing but a mockery, and a hell for men. As I mentioned before, you probably know men who have been raped by the divorce and family courts. It is certainly something you should avoid. The pain is not worth the potential pleasure (which will likely be short lived anyway.)

Is Unemployment a Form of Misandry?

2011-11-11T01:02:00.000-08:00

Times are indeed tough, and for men with hopes and dream, even more so.

To me, the first, most obvious of ways society has stunted a man's ability to develop is the unemployment rate. Perhaps it is not targeting men directly, but giving young men little or no way to begin a career and work himself up the ladder is socially risky. Men need an aim in life. Goals. Dreams. For most, a satisfying career is one of the most essential things in a man's life. This isn't to say that there are not other ways to build up one's life, but for most, it is a first step, and essential.

One complaint you hear nowadays is that men aren't getting jobs and are sitting around playing video games all day living at home. (Notice how, when you hear such a complaint, it is the men who are blamed - a good example of misandry.) Now, there ARE guys who decide to sit around being lazy bums who have no greater desire that to just sit around all day, every day. However! I submit to you that this is not true for most young men. I think most desire to start a career and build a life, and yet are unable to do so.

So many guys are searching for meaning, looking for a job, just trying to start somewhere.....but they cannot start! And even when they fail due to something out of their control, they get blamed for it most times. I am a good example of this. Last year, I had graduated from college, and began applying for jobs right away. A month passed with no calls or emails from potential employers. I stepped it up. I began sending emails and making calls instead of just sending in applications. Typically, I was either told no when I asked for interviews, or told they would call me if they wanted to interview me.

I think you can see where this is going.

This persisted for months. At the worst point, I had applied for at least 300 jobs, had 7 unsuccessful interviews. (A little over a 2% success rate.....only for getting interviews! Wow!) This was after 8 months of job searching. By this point, I was in the midst of the deepest depression of my life. I could see no way out, and could see no future. I had internalized that it was my fault. It was my failure completely. And apparently even applying for hundreds of jobs meant I was a bum even if no one gave me an offer. Not to mention that the American Dream itself was as far away as it could possibly be. I think had things continued like this too much longer, I may have started to entertain thoughts of suicide. And no doubt that many young men have, all because of the apparent inability to get life started.

(Fortunately, I found a job after 8 months, and life has improved a lot for me, and I am trying to draw closer to accomplishing my dreams.)

And what was I doing when not job searching? Playing video games. And of course I lived at home. I would often go apply for jobs online, send some emails, or make a call or two, go to a job fair if there was one somewhere close. And then go play Call of Duty. I could at least live vicariously through fictional characters in those games.

Last year's experience still leaves me with a little bitterness when I think of it. And I hope to never be in such a situation again. But for many young men, this situation is ongoing. And there's no end in sight. A few have escaped perhaps. Perhaps a decent career begins, and they can run with it. Many more of us have not escaped the nightmare entirely: many men are underemployed, and will likely never get ahead. (I include myself here.)

The unemployment rate COULD be fixed. The tragedy is that it won't be. When a society throws young men by the wayside and offers them no hope of building a life and advancing, it harms itself. I will even go so far to say that it dooms itself. I think it is safe to assume that if you are reading this, you probably agree that misandry is rampant in society. Men are essentially the hardest hit when unemployment and economic turmoil comes.

(After all, who has to save up money to start a family? To buy a home? To become stable and prosper? To live the American dream?)

Is unemployment a form of misandry? Is it in any way linked to misandry, even if not directly or overtly?

Post a comment and tell us your thoughts!

Why Misandry?

2011-11-07T19:02:00.000-08:00

Why focus on misandry? It probably looks to many as a superfluous social issue. But I assure you it is anything but that. And it is essentially important to Western civilization. Why?

First think of who created the tools of civilization:

Who built houses, palaces, public buildings? Men.
Who created roads and bridges? Men.
Who wrote books so that traditions could be preserved and knowledge could be passed down? Men.
Who tilled the fields so that populations could eat? Men.
Who created the tools and inventions needed to progress with technology? Men.

I hope you are seeing a pattern here. And before anyone sends me hate mail, consider that I am not saying that women are useless or even that women are incapable of doing any of these things. But historically, and even in our present feminist and misandrist age, men are still doing the much larger part of the labor. So whether we speak of ancient history or the present day, it isn't a case of "women being held back by patriarchy" or "gender roles being enforced." There are some innate differences between men and women, and History speaks to this.

Simply put: the work and creations of man that create and sustain civilization. The whole reason humanity has civilization in the first place had to with the fact that men had to be goaded into producing more than just what they alone needed to get by day to day. How did this happen? Imagine a time, many thousands of years before civilization begun. Our ancestors had already come down from the trees, but they were still more like our other hominid cousins than like modern humans. Men hunted for what they needed. Women could gather fruit, nuts, roots, and all the edible plants around. If they weren't pregnant, they could hunt small, non-lethal game.

And this is how it was for a very long time. There was a huge excess of leisure time because once you got what you needed (and helped get what your tribe needed) you were done for the day.

Consider the relationships and family aspect as well: A small unit of human beings living together - a tribe. Everyone knows everyone else and there aren't that many people. And no family structure as civilized people know it today. The tribe is your family. And for being so small, it needed one leader: the alpha. And he called the shots. And took as many women as he pleased. If you weren't the alpha, then your chances of getting to reproduce were fairly poor. You either kissed his ass for a little access to women, or you had to secretly seduce the alpha's women. So men had no reason to produce anything other than what they and the tribe needed just to maintain existence. And why would they produce more? No purpose in doing so.

But somewhere down the line, probably around 6,000-10,000 years ago, civilization exploded onto the planet. As if out of nowhere (on a scale of human history and prehistory) there were now buildings, roads, bridges, written language.....men were now producing great things, and fairly quickly also.

I'm not going to pin this down to one reason and one reason alone. But I do want to discuss one major reason this happened.

Another major thing created was not tangible, but was an idea: the idea of family structure. Almost every man could have one woman - for life - and she would bear only his children and be faithful to him. Likewise, the man became a producer, creating more than what he needed for the day. He was to take care as best he was able the wife and children of his. It was a social and economic wonder! Now he had a reason to produce more than what he needed for the day. He now had a stake in the future! Give a man reproduction, and he will give you his production.

And this idea of family structure was a crucial part of every successful, high power civilization that I am aware of.

Therefore misandry is much more than a simple social issue. It is a matter of life and death for civilizations. Punish the ones (men) who produced the good in society, and you will at some point see your society splinter apart if things do not change.

[Note: This is only a partial logical explanation of how civilization began. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or a simple explanation meant to be the only explanation. Indeed, the are many other factors of civilization that I did not discuss in order to focus on this one monumental aspect.]

A Bad Time to be a Man

2011-10-31T18:58:00.000-07:00

You've probably noticed something is wrong. You might not quite be able to explain it, can't quite put your finger on it. But if you're an American guy, you probably see that something's wrong. And I'm here to tell you what it is. There's a word for it, too: misandry.

There's a good chance you've never heard this word and don't know what it means. If you type it, a red line will probably show up under the word, as if it isn't really a word.

But it is a word...

Misandry is the hatred of men.

And it is one of the driving social forces in the Western world. You are probably an upstanding guy. You work hard, you've studied hard in school and college, you treat people well, and you may be a provider to a family that you love.

And many guys are like that, more or less. But how often do you see these qualities of men presented. No doubt you see them represented in the media some, but much more often you see the opposite. Consider the typical family sitcom:

-A dumb, ugly guy married to a hot, 'smart' wife who knows it all and is right about everything
-His kids don't appreciate him
-He's berated and unappreciated even at his job
-He can't seem to do anything right

That's the typical presentation of men in entertainment, but this is neither fair nor accurate for most average men. This isn't the cause of misandry, media, it is just an example, and it reflects society.

Consider other forms of misandry. The legal system is probably the biggest misandry machine in the land. With the advent of no-fault divorce, essentially guaranteed custody of children going to the mother, child support, alimony, and the ex-wife's ability to take half (or more!) of the man's assets and possessions and income.....the very legal system itself has been made to destroy the lives of men in order to enrich ex-wives, divorce lawyers, corporations (think of how many products and services are marketed to moms/single moms), and the government. Society takes such things as normal, as if this is the way things are supposed to be.

But you, your heart, know that the way things are, are not the ways things should be.

This comes down to nothing less than the fates of men, families, and Western civilization.

We live in a dark age for men. A dark age of misandry, of the hatred of men.

This blog will lay out of the foundations of this premise, and within it will be discussions and stories of misandry in society, as well as solutions and tactics for dealing with misandry in this society.