How Feminism is like fire and can be tackled in the same way.

Also covers Facebook’s capitulation to Feminist demands for censorship and how O2 and Norton/Symantec block men’s movement websites, which they classify as ‘hate’ sites.

Other Video Platform Links

Viddler – Fire, Feminism and Facebook

Share

I don’t give a damn about Facebook. It has no place in my life or general activities. I have a FB page for this site only to tick a social media box. If FB disappeared this instant, I wouldn’t notice until I perhaps, took note of hordes of wailing women wandering the streets not knowing what to do with themselves now that their 5000 friends have gone and Candy Crush is no more.

However, FB seems to matter to most other people including some people I respect and so this is a brief and small attempt to state the obvious.

Facebook censored this image because supporting the lie
makes women and advertisers happy.

Facebook is a phenomenon created and maintained by men. It could only exist because of men and it would cease to exist without men. It epitomizes the continuing genius of male endeavor and stands as example number 12-billion-and-1 of men’s achievements.

And now it takes the extraordinarily twisted knife that is Feminism and has stuck it into the belly of men without the slightest hesitation.

Courtesy of Paul Elam

It beggars belief that men can be so self-destructive to everything about themselves and their own experience. Is there a man anywhere, in any government, in any corporation, anywhere at all; is there a single man in a position that might make a difference, with the ability, self-respect and common sense to say ‘no’ to this behaviour?

Do they not realise, even faintly, what they do to themselves? Do they think this is about ‘other‘ men and not themselves? Have men enthusiastically stuck their heads so far up the nether recesses of gynocentrism that they can no longer see enough to read the writing on the wall?

And women, are you so accustomed to the absolute and unquestioning capitulation of men on the altar of your womanhood, that you fail to see how the toxic ideology of Feminism and the group of humans called women are becoming indistinguishable?

Is this sickening legacy how women of this time will be remembered? Was the White Feather campaign a mere entreé to test how despicably women could behave and still be served utterly by men?

Courtesy of JTO

The march of Feminism is rocket-propelled and I’ll give you one guess as to the sex who designed that rocket. The sex who maintains that rocket. The sex who is blissfully burning up in the flames of that rocket.

Good luck to the men who wish to fight Facebook and it’s fealty to Feminism. This coup is a symptom of the very large problem of men’s lack of ‘self’, contrasted with women’s obsession with ‘self’. In my opinion, FB should be rapidly regarded as yesterday’s news.

There needs to be a fall and quickly or slowly, that fall must come. What is happening now is unsustainable, of that much we can be assured.

Related Video

Fire, Feminism and Facebook

Share

“I have no doubt that, someday, the distortion of truth by the radical feminists of our time will be seen to have been the greatest intellectual crime of the second half of the twentieth century. At the present time, however, we still live under the aegis of that crime, and calling attention to it is an act of great moral courage.”
- Professor Howard S. Schwartz, Oakland University, Michigan.

A time at least 100 years from now…

Boy:  Sir, I just don’t get it.

The teacher looked up from his work to appraise the boy.

Teacher: Well, tell me what you mean.

The boy pointed to his screen.

Boy: I’ve been studying the history course and it just doesn’t make sense. So many things. I mean, look at this for example:

Feminists and women in general in 2013, were making the claim that something called a ‘rape culture’ existed which I think means that rape was considered to be OK by the society then. But a simple look at the laws and the way men accused of rape were treated in the media, makes it obvious that rape was regarded as essentially equal to murder. And men falsely accused were treated the same as men actually convicted, whereas the women who made the false accusations were rarely punished.

Why didn’t they call it ‘false rape culture’ when that was a more legitimate issue of the time?

Teacher: You need to keep in mind the first rule of historical analysis: you must study what was going on AS IT WAS for those living AT THAT TIME and not project TODAY’S VALUES on those times.

Today, we look at issues and see the effects as rationally as we can. But in Feminist times, all facts were at the mercy of female reinterpretation. In other words, the facts didn’t matter overly much; the truth was not very relevant and what mattered most is how women felt about the issues. Of course, men enabled this behaviour by walking in lockstep with women.

Because women felt that rape was serious and false rape was not, we all behaved accordingly and false rape became almost fashionable because women had little inhibition from utilising it. Indeed the famous adage that it was ‘a woman’s prerogative to change her mind’ took on a whole new relevance when it came to false rape; there were countless examples of regretted sex being turned into a rape accusation. It became epidemic.

Boy: But there’s another point. An actual rape and a false accusation of rape are separate crimes, why were they considered to be about the same thing? And why would punishment for women who lied deter genuine claims? Isn’t that like saying that fining someone for falsely reporting a house fire will deter people from calling to report a genuine house fire. How is this logical?

And also, women seemed fine with innocent men’s lives being ruined for the sake of genuine women victims of rape. Why wasn’t the innocent man regarded as a rape victim of sorts?

Teacher: He wasn’t regarded as a victim precisely because he was a man and it was considered – even by men themselves – that men could not suffer in such ways. Only women could suffer and only women needed protection. That’s why there was a Violence Against Women Act – the VAWA. All this is in the explanatory notes, boy.

Boy: I know, but I thought they must be inaccurate, or I’d misunderstood.

The teacher shook his head.

Boy: There are lots of other things I’m coming across which simply don’t make sense. Hillary Clinton, who became President of the USA in 2016, said that women were the ‘primary victims of war’ when there were no women fighting in the First World War and barely any in the Second World War. Or Korea. Or Vietnam. At the time she said it, women were not even fighting on the front lines. How could women claim to be ‘primary victims’ of war when their husbands or brothers were the ones who were killed?

Teacher: It’s difficult to understand now, and to be honest, I’ve never really understood how such a statement could stand, even then. I suppose we must remember that she was speaking to women and this is the way women understood tragedy; it befalls not the man killed or maimed, but the woman who grieves for him. There is no explanation for this pathology without a psychiatric perspective. Go and see Dr Jones about this and maybe he can explain why women thought like this.

Boy: And then there’s the Titanic disaster of 1917 where men died in order to save women, yet women claimed men valued themselves more highly than women at that time. How does this make sense?

The teacher shrugged a little and sighed.

Teacher: On a simple farm, a horse is very useful and very valuable for the ploughing it can do and the loads it can carry. But, of course, as useful as it is, it’s not worth as much as a human. If it ever came down to a choice between a farmer’s prize horse and the most useless and lazy farmers wife, the horse would lose every time.

But women have always failed to understand that, just like the horse, whilst we prize a man’s utility, we afford him little worth as a human being. Men were human doings, not human beings. It was only women we valued for being human. A man with two Nobel prizes, the cure for cancer in his back pocket and a halo above his head would still go down with the ship so that the woman of no merit next to him would be saved.

Women described this male disposability as ‘oppression against women’ and unfortunately, men agreed. Perhaps you should see Dr Jones to explain this other pathology which afflicted men as well.

Boy: And in education, females began to seriously outnumber males in universities in the 1990’s until it reached 80% women in 2025 in many parts of the Western world. Yet, only women had special resources on campus to attend to their needs. Nothing was ever said or done about this by Feminists, government or the universities themselves. How was this equality?

Teacher: Men were not wanted in education anymore after men had advanced civilisation to a point where anybody could run it. Women were the preferred sex to have in employment and so it made sense to exclude boys early-on in education and ensure that only women attained the required education for management and other leadership roles.

Boy: But why were women preferred?

Teacher: Look at it this way. If you’re walking a dog, do you prefer a dog that’s going to obey your every command or a dog that fights you every step of the way? Obedience and conformity became highly desirable by most institutions in those times, and women fitted the bill.

Boy: Is that what led to the fall? We had too few highly educated people who were men? I think the quote here said “We had a massive surplus of part-time psychologists, sociologists and gender studies graduates and too few engineers, scientists and architects.”

Teacher: It was one of many things which led to The Fall.

Boy: There was even legislation passed in the UK to grant women preferential treatment in employment applications. Businesses were legally allowed to choose women over men, yet it wasn’t really a choice because if they didn’t choose women, they were penalised by government.

Teacher: Not only that, there were all-women shortlists for politicians and senior government positions; special women’s entrepreneurs funds so that women could start companies with tax-payer money when their ideas merited no private funding – that’s how we had the famous Chocolate Teapot company started by a woman who, for the obvious reason couldn’t get private backers. She claimed it was sex discrimination and so she received £1 million pounds of government funding for her idea, but predictably failed to sell many chocolate teapots and the money was wasted. Even more famously, she went on to found the Biodegradable Brick company, again receiving public funds.

We even had a minister for women and a council for women and girls in the UK and US governments. It became a runaway train of legislative privilege for women at the expense of men. It was perverse, but nobody felt they could argue against it without being labelled a woman-hater.

Boy: And then there was health spending in the UK. In the year 2000 the British government was spending £44,000 pounds on research into prostate cancer, but £4.4 million into breast cancer research. That’s 100 times more.

Teacher: I can do the math boy.

Boy: Sorry sir, but the behaviour of the women doesn’t make sense. Despite the poor funding for men, women then went on fun-runs to raise even more money for breast cancer. In their millions.

Teacher: Well, the behaviour of women before the Fall was always something I found distasteful and couldn’t understand. For me, much more obscene than women campaigning for already over-resourced breast cancer, was the White Feather campaign 100 years before that.

This was where women handed feathers of cowardice to men who they thought should be in uniform and fighting during the first world war. The mentality which could lead a woman who was free from the requirement to fight in war and not subject to conscription, to call men cowards and attempt to shame men into battle is quite beyond me. But that’s what they did and in numbers large enough that we can’t pretend that it was some strange anomaly.

Perhaps the New Women’s Studies programme will come up with an answer to this sort of behaviour, but I’ve never managed it.

Boy: And then there was the ideology of Feminism itself. Almost all women were happy to be called Feminists or else were happy that Feminism existed. They thought in general, that it was a good thing to seek progress for women – and only for women – with absolute disregard for the position of men.

The mantras of ‘rape culture’, ‘the pay gap’, ‘the vote’, ‘the glass ceiling’, ‘violence against women’, ‘sexual harassment’ and the most famous  ’1 in 4′. These issues had so little foundation yet they lasted for decades and affected every aspect of society from education to legislation. They led to actual second-class status under the law for men. And Feminists still campaigned for more privilege for women.

Teacher: Well, Feminism had the government seal of approval and there were almost no women who didn’t feel they were benefitting from the spoils of Feminist effort. This was particularly true in divorce where women would almost without fail achieve full custody of children, the primary residence, the car, child support and alimony. The man was seen as simply an economic entity, a provider with no real standing as a person. Feminism claimed to fight for equality yet never sought to remove the stark inequalities in the legal system.

Boy: If Feminists wanted equality, why did they only ever want equal numbers of women in top jobs, but not the less glamorous and lower paid jobs?

Teacher: Ah, but Feminists did not want equality. This is the whole issue which played such a major part in The Fall.

Boy: So, is it fair to describe Feminism as not the pursuit of equality, like it used to say in the dictionary, but rather the pursuit of continual female advantage? Even female supremacy?

Teacher: Yes, that’s a fair description and is now part of the recognised historical record.

Boy: Why did men tolerate this state of affairs?

Teacher: For the same reason a hamster runs on a wheel. It doesn’t know what else to do.

Men back then didn’t exist for themselves in a way. They were death objects, financial objects, obligation objects responsibility objects. They mattered only in as much as how useful they were to others. Men followed women and when women turned to Feminism, men turned with them.

Put it this way, back then, if women had decided to walk on their knees and proclaimed that men were oppressing them by not doing the same, virtually all men would have would have also dropped to their knees to prove women wrong. It was the way men were.

Boy: All of this is making my head spin.

Men were 90% of the homeless, 75% of suicides, almost 100% of workplace deaths, 98% of military deaths and 75% of physical assaults. Men were even raped more often than women due to the victims who were prisoners added to the men who would never reveal it. Why was all this ignored in favour of women?

Teacher: Why is water wet? I can’t answer you boy, I can only tell you how it was then and how it is now. Those days are thankfully gone and we now must practice eternal vigilance to stop them returning.

Humans beings are flawed and those flaws reveal themselves in the same way every time. History has repeated more than once and we now seek to prevent the amnesia from descending and Feminism from arising again. It starts by rejecting every manifestation of gynocentrism and it’s the reason, for example, that you have never been taught by a female teacher and never will. It’s also the reason you are taught in all-male classes and why there is no financial support from the state whatsoever for single mothers . There are children who suffer for it no doubt, but far fewer than there would be under the ways which led to the Fall.

The boy looked over his notes.

Boy: But it gets even stranger. I came across several cases of men being moved away from children on aeroplanes because men were perceived as a threat and might sexually molest a child sitting next to him. But the airline has no idea of the criminal history of its passengers, so a stewardess might have unknowingly sat a convicted female abuser next to the child in preference to any man. It’s perverse.

Teacher: Of course it is, but it was far more perverse that men accepted it in the main.

Boy: So why did men accept it?

Teacher: For the same reason a trained dog sits when you tell him to sit. It doesn’t have it in him question the command. It just obeys. Men didn’t have that vital element of his psyche that we’re making sure you – and every other boy – has without even being aware of it. It’s a part of a man which has to be properly nurtured and grown or it will remain lifeless, shrivelled and inert in the brain. In a word, men lacked ‘self’. And those days are gone.

The boy looked at his teacher with consternation on his brow.

Boy: Domestic violence: This by most legitimate research at the time wasn’t a particularly large social problem, but the sheer number of references to it are astonishing. Even an internet search at the time for the word ‘violence’ brought domestic violence up as the most prevalent result. It seems that domestic violence against women along with rape were the primary things women talked about, yet the prevalence of both was relatively low. Much lower than the criminality of women committing forced-fatherhood, parental alienation and proxy violence against men. And what little there was of domestic violence was generally reciprocal and affected men just as much.

Teacher: Yes, but you must also keep in mind that back then, female-specific crimes like falsely claiming to be on contraception, paternity fraud and proxy violence, were not against the law. Crimes committed exclusively or near-exclusively by women were simply not regarded as crimes and those that were actual crimes, like false rape accusation or false accusation of child abuse, were rarely treated seriously.

So, for example, a woman was free to incite violence against men in any manner she chose, using the police or her friends or family, be it with physical violence or threats or with official restraining orders and police arrests based on her word alone: almost every form of proxy violence used by women was legal, and it wasn’t until after the fall that such behaviour by women was formally recognised as criminal.

Boy: Sir, you mentioned Paternity Fraud. What is that?

Teacher: Oh, of course, that was the old name and I’m showing my age! That crime was renamed to ‘Genetic Murder’ soon after The Fall to better describe the deliberate attempt to end a man’s genetic lineage. Only a few crimes carry a more severe sentence nowadays, but back then, women could commit it freely and countless numbers of men suffered the consequences.

Boy: Sir, and what was this thing called the ‘pussy-pass’?

The teacher burst out laughing at this language from the young boy before quickly catching himself.

Teacher: Watch yourself, lad. It’s a good job I know exactly what you’re talking about. Language like that is normally unacceptable, but it’s fair enough for this topic.

The pussy-pass was the unofficial term created to explain the phenomena of women committing equivalent crimes to men, but being sentenced less severely in the courts if they were even arrested by the police in the first place. It was a government mandated policy that women should be punished less severely than men for the same crime, particularly in murder cases where a woman killed a spouse. In such cases, the pussy-pass could be invoked by the woman claiming abuse of some kind from the man and this afforded the woman a high probability of lenient sentencing.

It culminated of course in 2018 in the UK when women’s prisons were formally closed in preference to community service orders and weekend house-arrest. Of course, this led to the explosion of vigilantism against female murderers and child abusers – particularly from other women, who could of course, no longer be suitably punished themselves – which had spiralled out-of-control by the time of The Fall. It was felt by the populace that this was a licence for women to be criminals and it was, but it was also, of course, a huge vote winner amongst women.

The boy had nearly reached the end of his notes.

Boy: Another thing women seemed exceedingly vexed about was the issue of voting and when all women could vote compared with all men. But even a cursory examination of the historical record showed that voting was not only overrated as a right, but that it almost nothing at all to do with sex and almost everything to do with responsibilities that only men had. And crucially, responsibilities which women had shown no interest in wanting.

For example, the Mines Act in England in 1842  stated that “no female and no boy under the age of 10 was allowed to be sent to work in coal mines”. That’s irrational. How could a woman be protected from mining, but not a 10 year-old boy? And how could women allow their boys to work in mines which they themselves were protected from? Women were complaining about other issues at that time, why not this?

The teacher just looked at the boy, his expression unchanging. The boy again referred to his notes.

Boy: Military service. I don’t see a single reference in any of my books to show even one woman who demanded the same right as men to be conscripted and that was one of the criteria in the lead up to universal suffrage. In fact, women got the vote without ever having had to earn it in the way men did. Why did women demand the vote, but not demand the responsibilities that went along with it? And why did they get it considering they sacrificed nothing to achieve it?

The teacher finally laughed and held up his hands.

Teacher: Boy, you have certainly done your research! Thankfully, our reforms mean that voting now makes a lot more sense than it used to. It was a compromised system where the vote of the stupid was worth not just the same as the vote of the clever, but worth more because there are many more idiots than bright people. Politics was about who could get the most idiots and women to vote for them.

As for women’s demands for rights without the concomitant demands for responsibilities, well, the saying goes that ‘women’s claims of oppression were as numerous as drops of water in the ocean. And just as wet.’ It is simply the way it was and it’s a way we will never capitulate to again.

Boy: But doesn’t history always repeat itself? You’ve said that yourself in class.

Teacher: Not quite, lad. What I’ve said is that when we forget history we’re doomed to repeat it. Which is why history is compulsory for you and which is why I’m here. There won’t be any forgetting on my watch, and there are a hundred thousand men like me who hold to the same standard.

In the past you’d be sharing a class with girls who do not learn in the same way you do and so the class would be at odds. You would be the loser, as would the other boys. Even the questions you’re asking now might have earned you a prescription for some drug to calm you down. You have no clue how much better you are doing than the boys before The Fall.

Those boys were lost. Abandoned by men who had forgotten what it meant to be a man; regarded as faulty by women who were more interested in themselves and their daughters.

There were even cases of 5 year old boys being suspended from school for sexual harassment. It wasn’t an easy time to be a boy and it’s my job to ensure that no time like that comes to pass again. And it’ll be your job too, in turn. It’s every man’s job.

The boy straightened his back and stood a little taller on hearing this. But he wasn’t yet done.

Boy: But what about Selective Service in the United States where women were excluded from registering for the draft, but every able man was required to do so?

Teacher: What about it?

Boy: Why didn’t Feminists complain to get this changed at the same time they complained about virtually everything else that was different for men?

Teacher: Well, Selective Service was not to women’s advantage and so Feminists were quiet about it. You see, women accepted and loved Feminism so long as it continued to bring them advantages over men. Selective Service equality was a loss of privilege, not a gain and so women didn’t take an interest.

Boy: Sir, are you not conflating Feminists with Women?

The Teacher raised an eyebrow.

Teacher: Conflating? You certainly have been looking into Feminism to pick up that little specimen of rhetoric!

In a way, yes, there is a conflation of women and Feminism, but it’s simply in the sense that Feminism could not exist without the wants of women, anymore than a fish could survive without water. Feminism and women were symbiotic to a degree which typically made them indistinguishable. Indeed, towards the end, there was no difference at all.

Boy: What happened at the end?

Teacher: Well, women found themselves elevated to such a height, held aloft by almost impossible legislation which granted women advantage over men in every way imaginable – from parking spots in preference to disabled men, to all-women shortlists for the supreme court and the senate, to the requirement that 80% of all university students and staff must be female, and 70% of CEO’s must be women etc – that for women to ever take even the tiniest step away from Feminism was to bring them crashing back down to the level of men.

Women refused to contemplate this fall from grace despite the unsupportable economic cost and so the folly continued until the Great Rebalance of 2027. What we now call ‘The Fall’.

Boy:  I haven’t read that far yet, sir; what exactly happened in 2027?

The Teacher paused for a moment, and sipped a drink that smelled vaguely of oranges.

Teacher: When you fly too close to the sun, you crash and burn. Women wanted to fly higher and higher without regard to consequence and men wanted what women wanted. The details are in your book.

Boy: I’m not sure I want to read about that.

Teacher: But read it you will. If you don’t read and understand, if we all don’t understand, then we’ll simply repeat our misbehaviour. And we can’t afford another time like that.

Boy: Yes, I know it has to be done. Thanks for your time sir.

Teacher: You’re welcome, boy.

The Boy paused as he was about to turn away.

Boy: Sir, there’s something you should probably know.

Teacher: And what is that?

Boy: Some of the girls in the female classes are avoiding the manual jobs. And they’re not studying history. Or engineering. They don’t want to and they’re getting some of the boys to do it for them.

The teacher felt an icy feeling in his veins. This is how it starts. This was how it had always started.

Teacher: Which girls?

The Boy paused as he counted in his head.

Boy: I think, all of them.

Share

Female Supremacy is the manifest purpose of Feminism. But what does it look like and how do we assess its progress? This film looks at a selection of 15 examples of insidious Female Supremacy.

Includes:

• University of Toronto Feminists
• Michele Elliott (Kidscape)
• Female child sexual abuse
• Donglegate
• Circumcision
• Education
• Feminist governance
• Women-only shortlists for parliament
• Domestic Abuse
• Wimbledon tennis
• Sheryl Sandberg

Acknowledgement and thanks to Youtube users ‘jmnzz’ and ’18upper’ for footage of UofT Feminists.

Other Video Platform Links

Viddler – ‘Female Supremacy’

Share

My video on the ‘Donglegate’ issue – ‘On Toxic Women and Stupid Men‘ – has been flagged and taken down by Youtube as being against it’s community guidelines.

Here is my brief video response to the false-flagging and further below are alternative means of obtaining the video in question.

N.B. The video in question has been reinstated after appeal.

Other Video Platform Links

Viddler – ‘On Toxic Women and Stupid Men’

File Sharing Links

Please re-share!

BitTorrent – ‘On Toxic Women and Stupid Men’ (wmv)

BitTorrent – ‘On Toxic Women and Stupid Men’ (mp4)

ed2k – ‘On Toxic Women and Stupid Men’ (wmv)

(N.B. the ed2k link is NOT a hyperlink, it is an ‘eDonkey’ link and will be interpreted by an ed2k client e.g. eMule, aMule etc.)

Share

The “Donglegate” issue where a man was sacked due to the actions of Adria Richards at PyCon reveals a stark problem with “women in technology” which few are willing to discuss. Female behavior in the work environment is too often toxic. Similarly, male behavior enables this toxicity to occur, and is too often stupid.

Other Video Platform Links

Viddler – ‘On Toxic Women and Stupid Men’

Share

How quickly would misandry and its chief architect Feminism be annihilated if men truly understood that the hatred is not directed at ‘other’ men, it’s directed at every man? It’s directed at you.

Share

A rebuttal to some of the excellent comments on a previous video called “Farewell UFC“.

When is a UFC fighter Ultimate and when is she less-than Ultimate? When should a UFC title bout NOT be the main event?

Indwell UFC, Unwell MWM (response to ‘Farewell UFC‘)

Share

Examination of what ‘equal’ prize money actually means at Wimbledon: higher pay for women for doing less work than men.

Female tennis players were already earning more money per game – a LOT more – even before equal prize money was introduced. Equal prize money simply gave women a big pay rise to further increase the pay gap. Gotta love equality.

Share

The UFC – Ultimate Fighting Championships – has decided not just to include lower-standard women in the sport, but to actually showcase them over and above far more worthy men.

It’s a sickening betrayal of what the UFC has stood for since its inception and I mourn its downfall. Another male space capitulates to female invasion, whilst men stand aside and look.

Share