An Example Of Intersectional Feminist/Trans Activist Gatekeeping of Wikipedia.

 

Screenshot_2018-11-12_at_5.22.43_PM

Feminists gatekeep wikipedia, and control all the articles they want to control. Feminists are expert entryists. Passive reactive men are the perfect victims for feminists, any public spaces, men will be reduced to second class citizens once feminists get involved.

I want to talk about what trans activist are doing, as I find it interesting. Transexuals do not change sex, this is a biological fact, telling them this truth is considered hate speech and transphobia.  A man who takes hormones and has surgery is still a man.

What transexual men are trying to is gain female privilege by having a sex change, also transexuals activists are copying feminist female tactics, they are in fact trying to bully low status men, and gain female privilege for themselves.

Females will call men misogynists losers, if they want to shut down the discourse. Transsexuals will call you a transphobe. Transsexuals seem to be using the same tactics that feminists and females use. They will ban low status men and stop them from speaking. They will call you a transphobe even if you are not one, feminists will call you a misogynist even if you are not one.

Transexuals feel entitled to disparage, silence and bully low status men, they are no different to the average female. Transsexuals are no ally of low status men. Every transsexual I have encountered in the Men’s rights movement has turned out to be a hijacker. If there are any exceptions that prove me wrong, I am fine with that. Any deal breaker for me, is them insisting that i call them she, or being told that denying their delussions of sex is transphobia. I do not hate transsexuals, I wish them no ill will or harm, i do not find them scary. They should be honest enough to admit they are still men, biological sex is not a social construct after all.

Men love to shitg on other men and do them down, silence them and disparage them, men who take hormones and have surgery seem to want to do the same thing, while trying to take female privilege for themselves.

Frankly we have to start banning feminists and transactivists lackeys of the feminist movement from public spaces. We need to gatekeep them out of online spaces, as they will hijack themselves and distort them.

Advertisements

Pat The NES Punk, Craps On His Male Audience.

Pat the NES punk proceeds to rant and abuse male gamers in this video.

I don’t want to deconstruct what he says, as it is just mindless anti male dribble. When men attack other gamers for being nerds, and man-babies it is of course an attack on other men who are seen as low status.

What I want to focus on and find interesting is the mindset and motives of the people who rant like this, particularly  the ones who have big youtube channels, ones built off the support. of male subscribers. Pat is a clear nerd, and is very lucky to be able to make a living off his hobby, yet he attacks other men as nerds.

He has built a niche off a male geek audience, but his contempt for his fellow man is clear. I think a type of Briffault’s law can be said to exist for men. Low status men who gain in status, always seem turn on men. Even if these men have made a success of themselves with the support of other nerdy low status men. these men seem compelled to attack nerdy men, to try and set themselves apart and make themselves seem better than other men.

Men who gain status seem to have zero gratitude towards any men who have helped them and supported them. I can imagine men of Pats mindset in the past, living in a tribe gaining help from other men, and then discarding the men who have helped them when convenient.

To deny men support, resources and sympathy, you first got to dehumanize them as whiners. Pat is behaving like the typical resource hoarding male, he has his niche, and other nerdy men are whiners and need to shut up. Women discard and use men, but it seems to me men are just as bad, if not worse than women for doing this.

This is why i am careful who I sub to now. To be frank I am resentful towards men who build up youtube channels with male support, and then turn on them when convenient . Gaming channels like Angry Joe, and Jim Sterling have done this as well. I have noticed nerdy geeky men are very bad at this, and will support the  feminist line and attack other nerdy men for being man baby misogynistic.

Do not sub to anti male geeky channels, use ad block, do not watch their videos. Spread the word about anti male channels, make sure other men know not to support anti male men.

Thankfully pat the Nes Punk has loads of down votes, and a lot of backlash against his crappy anti male video

Right Wing Female Journalist, Pro Baby Dick Cutting. (List of Shame 03)

I found this disgusting article by By Andrea Peyser

https://nypost.com/2016/01/25/circumcision-intactivists-dont-want-you-or-your-kids-to-get-snipped/

The entire article is dribble, and evidence of the male empathy gap. I will just look at the end paragraph.

“I can’t help but agree with the babe characters on the TV show “Sex and the City” who, with the exception of slutty Samantha, enthused that shafts devoid of hoods were more pleasant to gaze upon and touch than intact ones.”

So because some women like mutilated dicks better than none intact ones, babies boys should be tortured and bit at risk of losing their penis and even death? Could you imagine if a man said. “Tight female pussy chaffs my big dick, females who have me circumcised feel better to fuck, and their pussies feel nicer”  Any man saying that would be rightfully condemned. Wanting baby penis to be mutilated due to female preference is super creepy and disgusting.

“I just hope that guys who spend their lives feeling wounded by circumcision, and the women who enable them, find new hobbies.”

These guys do not feel wounded, they are wounded, your attempt to invalidate their emotions doesn’t change reality, Circumcised men have been mutilated and are defacto victims of child abuse.

Lets gender swap what this journalist wrote.

“I just hope that women who spend their lives feeling wounded by rape, and the men who enable them, find new hobbies.”

See how disparaging and dehumanizing that is? if someone published that in a mainstream article about female rape victims they would be fired, and most likely never able to work in the mainstream media ever again. Male pain is dismissed, their concerns are dismissed. Men are truly sub human. Men’s human rights activism is dismissed as a mere hobby.  Men who have concern over the human rights of baby boys are seen as obsessed losers who need to get over themselves. The same women who tell men this, will then scream at you to pay attention to the plight of women, and tell you how important their suffering is.
I would like to note Andrea Peyser is right wing, and a lot of her articles bang on about how stupid left wingers are.

Right wingers are just as anti male as the left, right wing women are just as “feminist” as left wing women. No one on the left or right would ever dimiss female victims so callously as was done in this newspaper article

Anyway Andrea Peyser belongs on the list of shame. She is a pro baby torturing degenerate.

Why do men seek to scapegoat other men?

trad con nut

 

I have seen this meme repeated a lot in the circles of the alt right. “Hard times create hard men, hard men create good times, good times create soft men, and soft men create hard times” Is just a false right wing historical narrative.

Hard men create good times? There are lots of assumptions there, what is meant by hard men? How do they create good times? For example, the Mafia is full of hard men, are they create good times, when they murder and steal to acquire wealth? How do weak men create bad times? Do they create them by just existing and being weak? By not working hard enough, or are weak men to blame when society is unjust? If society is unjust isn’t it hard men who enforce the unjust laws?

There is no point trying to figure the meme out, it is better instead to deconstruct the movies of the men who spread it.  A lot of men want to attack and disparage other men, these men will not attack men with power and status, as that is too risky, so instead they will d disparage and attack other men seen as weak.

Also these men want  other men to suffer, “good times lead to weak men, bad times lead to hard men” the implication is obvious. Weak men must be abused to toughen them up. The men who repeat this meme are just venting their hostility and are in  fact subtly implying the need for violence against “weak men.” These men are hostile and have malicious intentions against other men, they create a narrative about a false historical cycle as a pretext to vent their hostility towards other men.

Also it is telling that these right wing men are not talking about weak women, because of course blaming women for anything is seen as something beyond the pale.

Men are getting attacked on all levels, from babies getting genitally mutilated at birth, to fathers getting alienated from their kids, and then enslaved via child support. These right wing cowards want to blame and vent against “weak men”. These men are the real weak men, because misplaced aggression is a clear sign of someone feeling powerless, and is therefore venting their emotions by scapegoating.

Right-wing nuclear family fetishism

I saw a comment on Youtube the other day, that I planned to reply to. I lost the link, and forgot to screencap it. I thankfully did remember to copy the text. This comment is a good example of the average right winger with a nuclear family fetish. If I find the comment again on Youtube, I will link to it.

Let’s take a look at this masterpiece in self-contradiction:

“Where do you people get the idea from that libertarianism is about social issues? Libertarianism at it’s core is about private property rights and everything that comes from those property rights. You can’t have libertarianism without social conservatism because social conservatism promotes the creation of self governing units in the form of the nuclear family, without families people won’t be able to take care of themselves and will support the expansion of government power in order to ‘help’ people. Libertarianism is also opposed to anti-discrimination laws.”

Firstly, libertarianism is supposedly about economics, not social matters, but it nevertheless requires nuclear families, and this is not a social matter at all of course. Secondly, the only way self-reliance can be achieved has to involve families apparently. So, people relying on each other in families is how “self-reliance” is achieved? In other words, humans are a highly social species. We are not very self-reliant. Right-wingers just twist the words and relabel the form of social organisation they approve of as self-reliance.

Then we arrive at a very fundamental problem with right-wing ideology. Right-wingers seem to think that the welfare state and nuclear families are somehow mutually exclusive. They’re not. The nuclear family model requires a welfare state to function reasonably well. The nuclear family does not serve as an adequate replacement for a welfare state. It doesn’t provide pensions for example, unless you live in a country like China where old parents can sue their sons (but not daughters) for financial support. This Chinese law is by the way an attempt at enforcing extended family responsibilities on men who dont’t actually live in extended families, in the same way child support is an attempt at enforcing nuclear family responsibilities on men who don’t live in nuclear families.

If right-wingers were truly conservative, whatever that would mean, and more importantly actually wanted to do away with the welfare state and replace it with what they find more sustainable, they should push for a return to an extended family model, but they know it’s a lost cause, so they won’t. Instead they fetishise the last remaining shard of it, the nuclear family.

The Male Apathy Collapse Cycle

I was talking to some right winger on discord about feminists invading male spaces and taking them over. When I brought up the point of Starwars being taken over by feminists, the right winger replied. “I do not care about Starwars. Starwars has been rubbish since the prequels”  I brought up more examples like the mainstream media being taken over, the right winger replied. “Old media is dying, and doesn’t matter anymore.”

Every single example I brought up, the right winger would rationalize it away. As long as he felt like it didn’t affect him personally, he didn’t give a shit. The problem is it doesn’t matter what space feminists hijack, from dungeons and dragons geek subculture, to mainstream print media, the fact feminists hijack these spaces and take them over, shows you the social dominance women have over men, and how submissiveness and weak men are as a collective, females take spaces over is a problem in of itself.

If there is any important spaces feminists want, feminists always tend to take them over. Feminists only fail in a few marginal spaces, that they are not really interested in. Only spaces full of really low status men fail to get taken over. Failing to take over right wing spaces full of sexually frustrated low status men, is of no importance to feminists. Right wing men can serve their function as a scapegoat for the problems feminists point to. Feminists failing to take over the men’s rights movement, full of divorced trad con men is not of any concern to  feminists either.

Feminists have taken over wikipeda, Look at the gamergate article. Feminist controlled wikipedia article on gamergate The article is complete garbage, and doesn’t even pretend to be impartial.  The article is locked from edits, so the  feminists can control the narrative. Wikipedia even encourages feminists to edit Wikipedia articles, and pays them to do so. That is the equivalent of encouraging the KKK and funding them to edit wiki articles. A defacto hate movement is mainstream, and is very powerful.

I object to feminist incursion of any space, online or offline. I do not care if i am personally interested in the space feminists are invading. I object to their invasion of any space on principle alone. Feminist is a reactionary hate movement, that spits over low status men and dehumanizes them.

Until men wake up and realize how harmful feminism is, feminist will run rampant all over society. Men will will not be safe at work from feminism. Boys will not be safe at schools, men will not even be allowed to have their hobbies in peace.

Feminists do not care about the spaces they destroy, they will just move onto another one and destroy that. Male spaces will keep on collapsing. Men are a lower caste compared to women, not allowed their own spaces, their own culture.

The Marriage Tax Break Is Discrimination Against Singles

Right wingers may want to frame the marriage tax break as “keeping more of my money” What the tax break is about is just dumping more burdens onto single men. Single men in employment will have to make up for the tax shortfall by paying more, they are discriminated against for their lifestyle choice.

I believe the marriage tax cut is done to not only encourage more people to get married, but to encourage more women to stay at home as housewives. The tax cut is meant to go to the married woman. The marriage tax cut is not only meant to encourage marriage, but also the trad con lifestyle.

If both partners pulled their weight in a marriage, and worked equally no tax break would be needed, because both parties could pool their resources and make cost efficiency savings. Women are not interested in this though, they would rather put more burdens on their married partners.

Right wingers will shamelessly pocket the marriage tax break, then call you a communist for objecting to their free ride. Married people have children and send them to schools, who pays for that? The single people who do not get a tax break that is who.  These right wingers will shamelessly put more burdens onto single men, then cry about the none aggression principle and how taxes are theft. Then they will reverse victim and deny offensive and accuse you of wanting to steal their hard earned money from them. Right wingers are just as shameless as the average feminist.

Also if the woman is not working, that means she is not contributing taxes, and will have to take out the pension pot. If the woman gets divorced she will use the state funded divorce court system. If she alienates the father that means she is damaging her kids, and causing more chaos to society. There are all sorts of costs associated with marriage that are unseen. Married people pass all sort of externalities onto society. Remember the costs and damage divorce inflicts on society is part of the institution of marriage.

Right wingers whine about the state being evil, but will shamelessly use the state to get their state enforced marriage contract.  The institution of marriage is the state interfering in peoples lives, yet somehow marriage is natural and part of the human condition.

A lot of married men know the risks of marriage, but they want that marriage tax break so they can gain more resources to bribe women with, they are taking a gamble. Therefore I will not longer advocate for the rights of married or divorced men. Married men choose to scab other men out, they choose to take that tax break, they choose to keep the anti male institution of marriage alive by buying into a marriage slavery contract.

Fixing marriage should not be a men’s rights position, a functional men’s rights movement would only focus on getting rid of the marriage tax break. If the marriage tax break was gotten rid of, I believe marriage rates would decline sharply. Less men would take the gamble,  and without the tax break less women would get married, as men without the tax break would have less to offer women.

Marriage is an outdated anti male institution kept on life support. Marriage is not a natural foundation of western civilization, but merely a byproduct, what is the point of marriage? Does it guarantee men paternity?? Does it allow men to hand an inheritance down to  his kids? No it is merely a transfer of resources to women. The woman can gobble all the resources up, neglect the kids, boot them out, get another man get married again if she is lucky, and gain even more resources from her new partner. Her kids could be homeless and on the streets once they are too old to get child support. No one is forcing the mother to look after the kids properly Marriage is an incentive for selfish anti social female behavior, at the cost of desperate men.

I rejected marriage on every single principle, there is no reforming or redeeming such a disgusting institution.  I reject the MGTOW marriage strike, I want marriage completely abolished. If pro male men can not abolish it, then I will settle for getting rid of all the tax breaks and subsidies married couples get. If anti male trad con men want to get married, let them take on the risks of divorce, but they should not  get any incentives for doing so. They should not put any any burdens on other men, and make them pay more taxes. If married men pay less taxes, single men pay more. single men are getting fucked over, it is that simple.