The deepest evil that feminism commits is not the discrepancies in sentencing that men and women receive in the courts, manifold and heinous though these unquestionably are. Rather, it is the creation by feminists of the set of values and priorities that define the very essence of our ‘civilisation’ itself. Equal injustice is no justice for men, and the true rape of the male stems not from double standards and unfairness in the court room, but from the ability of feminism to shape even morality into its own selfish sexual image.

Consider the sex offender’s register, and the primacy we give as a society to sex crimes above all others. Why is there no violent offender’s register? Such a register would cover violent sex offenders as well as other violent criminals. Why is a sexually incompetent man caught exposing himself to an old lady in the park any more reprehensible and in need of branding than a man who mugs and beats that old lady for her purse? It is not because non-violent sex offenders are any more recidivist than a burglar or a mugger is (in fact, they are less likely to re-offend). No, it is because it is in the interests of women for a feminist society to reifie and strictly control something as natural as the male sexual urge, and to give moral primacy to sex rather than violence, just as all primitive societies do.

Feminists may occasionally call for domestic violence offender registers, and all feminists often use the supposed inherent male propensity for violence as a way to demonize men and promote the spiritual superiority of women, but when push comes to shove, feminists do not want to build a society in which violence as such is treated in the same taboo and hysterical way as sexual crime. After all, most male violence is performed for women, either to protect their honour or to win their favour. Only misguided, idealistic manginas, who misjudge what their feminist overlords really want, would really like to put an end to male violence completely.

Our present medieval demonisation of the ‘sex offender’ is a backward symptom of the atavistic, irrationalist, and nihilistic nature of a gynocratic society.  A society that has few moral standards left aside from those that relate, in a deceitful and hidden manner, to maintaining the sexual and economic value of the female.  An advanced high-tech society in which the fake mask thinly hiding ultimate evolutionary reproductive explanations behind ‘rational’ proximate ones is held up only by hysteria and political correctness – the secular forms of medieval witch-hunts and accusations of blasphemy and heresy. The focus upon ‘sex offenders’ is the feminists way of controlling male sexuality though a ‘liberal’ version of the Nazi’s pink triangle – a method that still allows feel good liberals to sleep at night…and to feel superior to the mob.

For further reading: “The Rape of Mankind“.

Originally published at The Anti-Feminist on March 17, 2011.

Alan Turing

This month, Brazil became the latest country to award gay couples the same legal status as married heterosexuals. The decision by the nation’s Supreme Court was met with widespread celebration, and was seen as a personal victory for the newly elected female President Dilma Roussef. Apparently, she sees gay marriage as a key element of her social policy reforms, and hopes that they will turn the emerging economic powerhouse of Brazil into a modern and sexually tolerant progressive society. Reforms which, no doubt, include plans to send any man who clicks on a youngish looking cartoon character to rot inside a rat infested prison cell.

Gay activists in Brazil are delighted. One claimed that “the degree of civilisation of a country can be measured by the way people in a nation treat their homosexual community”. It seems that Brazil can continue to have 12 million kids sleeping on the streets, hundreds of whom are killed and mutiliated by death squads each year, but so long as we pretend that gay men have as much innate desire as heterosexual women do to spend their entire lives monogamously with one partner, then Brazil can proudly claim a place amongst the 21st century liberal community of civilised nations.

Nor does the mark of a civilisation seemingly depend on the way in which ordinary heterosexuals are treated by society. Men are biologically programmed to find fertility and youth, as well as physical markers of virginity, sexually attractive in females. Girls increasingly begin puberty well before they are even into their teens, yet through feminist lobbying, conservative puritanism, and media hysteria, we have created a society that defines men who openly show attraction towards 16 and 17 year old females as the worst kind of subhuman sexual devient, and even pursuing an interest in young women aged between 18 and 25 now carries with it the risk of falling foul of ‘anti-paedophile’ legislation or social ostracisation.

And are gays themselves really treated much better by society than before? The supreme act of denial behind the progressive elite’s ‘tolerant’ treatment of gays is that the worship of youth and beauty has not been central to homosexual culture throughout all of history. I certainly don’t wish to denounce or degrade this love – after all, through the ancient Athenian thinkers and the Florentine Renaissance artists, it gave us our very civilisation…twice. But it is in an undeniable fact, and it would be harder to name a homosexual in history who wasn’t attracted to youth than it would be to reel off the great roll call of homosexual ephebophiles – from Socrates to Morrissey (celibate).

Recently, the out-going British Labour government awarded a state apology to the deceased Alan Turing, the inventor of the computer and arguably a man who did as much to save the world from the Nazis as Winston Churchill himself. A man who picked up and sodomized a teenage boy (he was 19, but I wonder if he asked him for his ID?) knowing full well the social attitude to such a crime (at the time) and the risks to himself if caught – which he was, and then chemically castrated and imprisoned, causing him to commit suicide soon after release. We are supposed to believe that if alive in one of our progressive civilised societies today, such a man would never once in his lifetime, likely spent largely at the computer which he invented, succumb to temptation and click on a picture of a boyish looking man in his underwear – a crime soon to be punished by a minimum of 2 years in prison throughout Europe under absurd and evil virtual child porn laws – created and lobbied for by feminists.

So why have gay men sold their souls to the feminist devil, and why does society pretend that homosexual men have been liberated, now that they can legally marry (which 99% of gay men probably have not the slightest inclination to do) and yet, just like heterosexual men, face a 5 am boot through the door if they so much as idly click once on a cartoon picture of a sexy manga ‘boy’?

The truth is as follows: feminists need to maintain the pretence that they are a civilising, progressive, and ‘sexually tolerant’ force, rather than the brutal anti-Enlightenment illiberal fascists that they are, conducting a brutal war upon ordinary and healthy male sexuality. They do this by ostensibly promoting the rights of gays and transsexuals, a tiny minority of the population, whilst criminilising as perverted monsters the vast majority of heterosexual men.

They have carefully engineered a situation whereby homosexuals have been granted escape from decades of formal and open prosecution, but only on condition that they renounce and disown their own culture and history – that of the love of youth. A love that twice inspired the dawn of Western civilisation. Thus, the feminist controlled United Nations only allowed homosexual lobby groups priviliged access when they agreed to denounce and reject any gay rights groups in their ranks that supported the lowering of the age of consent. The sexual trade union has expertly ensured that the success of gay rights is almost dependent upon the ever increasing hatred and savagery towards ‘paedophiles’, something only possible through collective amnesia towards the fact that virtually every great homosexual in history was such a ‘paedophile’.

This is a true Faustian pact with the devil on the part of homosexuals, but it is a short-sighted one. Already a gay Austrian man has been jailed for looking at pictures in the privacy of his own home which involved, in the admission of the court, not one person under the age of 20. The story of Jonathan King reminds us of the absurdity of believing that ever more savage paedohysteria can possibly be consistent with fairness towards gays – here was a 1960′s icon and gay man punished mercilessly by the courts and the media for allegedly having sex with boys in the free love era of the 60′s and 70′s – a time when every heterosexual pop star worth his name was banging every 14 year old groupie they could get their hands on (witness how Americans still worship Elvis Presley, despite his predilection for pink pantie clad 13 year old girls being well documented).

Not only will homosexual men increasingly face criminalization as a result of paedohysteria, but feminists will soon drop their gay allies of convenience as the power of Islam grows, and they are forced to choose between the two. This is already happening at the United Nations, where thanks to Islamic lobbying, reference to sexual persecution was dropped from the definitions of genocide.

Gay men have gone along with this Faustian pact in the manner of the granny muggers who spit on and beat the sex offenders in jail. Simple relief and a boost to their self-esteem that society has found somebody to hate even more than them. But it ignores the great history of homosexuality, and it ignores fundamental issues of real justness and true sexual tolerance. They would be wise to understand that, as Orwell observed, the object of the irrational mob’s torchbeam of hatred can be switched by the leaders at any moment. You cannot build a lasting sexual tolerance upon the most vile and savage sexual intolerance that the world has ever known. A hatred that would make the average medieval flat-Earther blush at its very ignorance and stupidity.

Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.

And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.

To feminists, and indeed, to the vast majority of the female sex who give feminists the power to speak on their behalf, morality is little more than ensuring the reproductive and sexual interests of a post-peak fertility female who relies on heavy parental investment from a committed male partner. The extent of female desire for involvement in the political process is directly proportionate to the threat that women feel in a free sexual market.

And as that threat grows, so the ostensible power of feminism grows.

The history of feminism is the history of a female sexual trade union, growing in political power in exact correspondence with the steady loss of female sexual power caused by the continual widening of the sexual market. The opening up of the sex market, the ever increasing opportunities for men to gain access to cheap and anonymous sex, is the result of constantly emerging new technology, and itself completely out of the hands of feminists, or anybody else, to control or put a stop to.

Recently, W.F.Price at the Spearhead revealed that proto-feminists were lobbying the British government as far back as the 17th century when their sexual interests were seen as threatened by the emergence of male frequented coffee houses. This was a prelude to the social purity movements of the 19th century, described above, which feminist academics have always acknowledged as the birth pangs of the campaign for the vote.

But the vote was always seen as a means to the end of controlling male sexuality. Industrialisation had brought men out of the countryside and into the cities, working in close contact with women and girls in the new factories – girls who were no longer married off as soon as they reached puberty. Those same factories mass produced cheap condoms (bitterly opposed by feminists at the time), and men no longer had to fear syphilis – and could now enjoy the hundreds of thousands of prostitutes who flocked to the new cities to take their share of the working man’s growing income.

The suffragettes achieved the vote as a result of violence and of male Enlightenment thinking which saw women’s enfranchisement as a natural progression of other civil rights movements.

But in fact, women did not exercise their newly won franchise very differently then their husbands, and when they did vote differently, it was to vote in fascist dictatorships throughout Europe. It was not until the 1960′s, and the second wave of feminism, that women began voting significantly differently from men…

The 1960′s saw the beginning of possibly the most remarkable event in human history – the end of ‘patriarchy.’ Within the space of a generation, a social system that had endured in every corner of the globe throughout recorded history had more or less crumbled.

In every corner of the globe…except the Islamic world.

In his book The Decline of the Male, anthropologist Lionel Tiger identifies the introduction of the contraceptive pill as the trigger for this unparalleled social revolution, the ‘second wave of feminism.’ For Lionel Tiger, the pill shifted reproductive power from men to women, for men could no longer be sure as to the paternity of their offspring.

I don’t accept all of the details of Tiger’s thesis, but I agree wholeheartedly that the pill was a catalyst for the second wave of feminism. An unforeseen technological innovation had revolutionised sexual relations and, in a blind and uncontrollable way, had transformed society almost overnight.

According to most feminist thinkers (and many MRAs), the pill gave women power over men. I disagree. In fact, it was male sexuality that was liberated by the pill, and women – or at least older/unattractive women – were left dangerously exposed in the free sexual market that had suddenly been created.

Suddenly, women became active in politics. Suddenly, women demanded (and won) the right to university education, to a career, to easy divorce, to an abortion. Suddenly male politicians had to legislate according to the female vote.

The pill did not give women power over men.

The pill forced women to take power from men.

But, of course, this did not happen in the majority of Muslim societies. Under Islam, there is still no free sexual market, and thus unattractive Muslim women have no need for feminism.

The astonishing and sudden representation of women at all levels of government over the last decade may fairly be described as the Third Wave of Feminism. In just one or two decades, from having virtually zero representation in high government, the female sex has come to near dominate many of the leading democracies of the West, even in South America.

Alongside formal governmental representation, largely female dominated non-governmental pressure groups have suddenly come to hold massive sway over an increasingly powerful United Nations, as well as other international bodies such as the European Union.

Why has this astonishing Third Wave, no less extraordinary than the Second, suddenly come about? That this is the first generation of women raised as feminists no doubt has played a part but it cannot alone explain the sheer rapidity of change. Like the first and second waves of feminism, the third has been propelled by technological progress threatening the sexual interests of ordinary women.

The globalisation of society and of communications has threatened to further open up the free sexual market to an extent as great as the pill itself did.

Suddenly men had before them a whole new array of alternatives to a ‘real’ sexual relationship, from the cheap Polish hooker at the street corner, to the nubile young slut showing herself on cam from her bedroom half way across the world.

This was a brave new sexual world that an already politicised generation of middle-aged women could not tolerate for long…and certainly not entrust to men to control or put an end to.

The Future of Feminism

The future of feminism will be dictated by the same forces that have shaped its history – blind and largely uncontrollable economic and technological changes continuing to widen the free sexual market.

The further increase in mass global communications, advances in robotics, 3D and holographic porn, virtual sex, and the growing realism and popularity of male sex toys, are all rapidly coalescing into a perfect storm that will either achieve sexual and emotional independence for men…or a fourth wave of feminism even more terrible and damaging than the rest.