Saturday, 21 October 2017

Why Don’t MGTOWs just GTOW? Because the Anglo-Feminist Matrix won’t Let them!

'Cuba Dave' Sprecker with some of his Conquests

A common question among Anglo feminists and their apologists such as David Futrelle is this: Why Don’t MGTOWS just GTOW? Why not get on with it instead of just blogging about it? In some cases, this is a valid criticism: many MGTOWers (possibly most) are indeed just squalling in the vain hope that some two hundred pounder will take them on. But not all, by any means: ‘Cuba Dave’ Sprecker, for example, washed his hands of Anglo women completely. Knowing their rapacious hypergamy meant little or no action for a humble labourer like himself, he preferred to roam the legal brothels of South America, banging warm and willing whores. A preferable lifestyle to the perma-celibacy he would have doubtless experienced in the States; also, whoring doubtless provided a better life for the girls than forced marriage to a local Pedro. And Sprecker can’t have done much harm to the South American economy, either.

'Cuba Dave' Sprecker in action
But Cuba Dave’s happy days came to an abrupt end in 2015 when a controversial Hillary Clinton-inspired ‘anti-trafficking’ law was brought into play. In no time Dave found himself serving a five-year prison term in a Costa Rican jail for ‘promoting sex tourism’ (posting a few pictures of legal hookers on Facebook). Fortunately a local attorney took up his case free of charge and Sprecker was happily acquitted in August 2017.

Cuba Dave’s case offers a robust answer to the feminist question: why won’t MGTOWs or gender dissidents just GTOW? Simple: because feminists won’t let them. The Anglo-Feminist Matrix led by vicious harridans like Hillary Clinton and Emma Watson is on a global crusade to prevent men glimpsing – and experiencing – the sexual wonders of lands beyond the Anglosphere. What they want is millions of sexually disenfranchised Anglo males begging for pussy from insolent land whales and toiling on the corporate Plantation for that dubious privilege. Or trapped in Sexual False Consciousness, pretending they are banging models every night. Like the Bounty’s Captain Bligh, the Matrix want its ‘crew’ pulling ropes on a harsh, joyless ship, not enjoying soft kisses on tropic shores. In sum, the last thing they want is men going their own way.

This is yours, American Men... or else

The Clinton Crusade has two prongs. First, it wants to stifle the sexual freedom non-Anglosphere nations enjoy, in order to lock Anglo-American men onto the Plantation. Second, it wants to hide misandrist agendas at home (male school failure, depression, suicide) by focusing on gender-relations in Mozambique, or some other irrelevant issue.

Why are they doing this? Simple: it suits their economic interests. Men toiling away on the corporate Plantation are, like slaves, lucrative assets for the Anglo-American Matrix. If they are trapped by marriage, divorce or children, so much the better. Slave owners in the Antebellum South were not going to free their slaves without a fight, just as slave traders in the British Isles were never going to give up their vile trade without financial compensation. Similarly, the Matrix cannot afford to let guys like Cuba Dave flee the Anglo-American plantation for Latin America’s boundless sexual freedom, because his example would inspire too many men with dreams of escape. No: they had to make an example of him, not unlike a hobbled slave in Antebellum Alabama. 
Dave Sprecker with two warm and willing friends

So it is quite obvious that feminists and their apologists don’t really want men going their own way at all, and have even taken decisive legal steps to prevent it. That makes sense: the last thing they want is Anglo-American men shunning entitled land whales (like themselves) for no-strings sex with nubile foreign women. I know various military and police forces monitor this (and other manosphere blogs) almost continuously; if they did not feel threatened by our message, they would simply ignore us. While Anglo-American feminists are always prattling on about separatism and ‘freedom from the patriarchy’, we invariably find them living in houses and cities built by men, using electricity and water provided by men, and ranting against 'the patriarchy' on electronic devices created and devised by men. What they clearly want is to retain those aspects of ‘patriarchy’ they approve of (male divorce slavery, marriage, the Pedestal) while offloading the rest (responsibility, genuine equality and male sexual freedom).

Why don’t they just go their own way, as they have always promised

Thursday, 21 September 2017

Choose Enlightenment: Don’t Die Defending Mud

Porus at the Hydaspes

In the battle of the Hydaspes in 326 BC, Alexander the Great took victory with a brilliant and daring manoeuvre. King Porus’ left wing was lined up on a muddy river bank, expecting the Macedonian right to attack their positions. Instead, Alexander ordered his cavalry to switch flanks in mid-charge, falling instead on the beleaguered Indian right. The Indian left were instantly cut out of the battle, standing like fools while Alexander crushed their right and centre.

Their fatal mistake was in assuming that their muddy patch of river bank had enormous military value. Alexander saw it for what it was – a patch of mud – and not worth fighting for. The crumbling Indian right was a far more valuable military target, a fact which Alexander exploited to full effect. 

Ignoring mud, Alexander triumps

The vast majority of Anglo-American men make exactly the same mistake as Porus’ army: they think their lives are of incredible value, something others want to possess. Blue collar Anglo-chumps are strongest in this conviction, which is fuelled by the lamestream media and sheer stupidity. And nowhere is their self-delusion strongest than on the issue of sexual freedom; dumb schlubs getting no sex from Anglo women will still rush to their defence without a moment’s thought. In short, they are defending mud; standing proud upon a patch of shit of no value to anybody, least of all themselves.

Indeed, such morons will actually lay down their lives for women who consider them expendable chumps. Consider the fate of this young fool from the UK:

Owen Jenkins, 12, died trying to save friend from Nottingham River

A 12-year-old boy "who couldn't swim much" has died after he went into the River Trent to help a struggling friend. Owen Jenkins was described by his family as a "hero" after it came to light he was attempting to help a girl who was having difficulties at Beeston Marina in Nottingham.

Owen's great aunt, Liz Ryan, said he was playing with friends when "he went in the water to save a girl and help her get out".

Explaining that "he couldn't swim much himself", she went on: "We don't know the full story but all we know is that he is a hero. He didn't think of himself."

She added: "They were told not to go - 'don't go playing down the weir' - and obviously that's what they do."

Nottingham Police were called to the lock off Riverside Road at around 6pm on Monday night when Oliver was reported missing. Police divers, three search boats, a helicopter, a drone and more than 30 firefighters from Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire were involved in the search. Hundreds of members of the public also came out, searching until dark when helicopters with infrared cameras were sent out. The body was discovered in the water at around 10pm. Owen's grandmother and her husband said the boy's father spent the whole night sitting by the weir where the tragedy happened.

Lynda Fletcher said: "He was like a giraffe, he was nearly 6ft tall. He was just a friendly giant. Everybody loved him because he was so nice. They loved him because he was so kind and polite."

Sky News, 11 July 2017

And utterly stupid. Predictably, the girl survived while Sir Lancelot perished.

Anglo-American males are also encouraged to defend women’s rights in a more abstract sense (misandrist feminism is an integral part of Anglo-American democracy, after all). Despite equalist rhetoric, it is men who sign up for UN-backed crusades to ‘free’ women from ‘oppressive’ regimes or ideologies. This is the ultimate expression of defending mud: low status men with desultory SMV (Sexual Market Value) risking life and limb for women who wouldn’t give them free sex in a thousand years. Of course, these clowns have been gulled into believing they are banging models every night via the mass hypnosis of Sexual False Consciousness; and that they are defending these (imaginary) pleasures by supporting such escapades. In the final analysis, they are fighting for pipe-dreams no less than their vilified opponents. And long may their folly continue; they would not thank us for enlightenment, anyway.
But defending mud afflicts far more men than the Average Frustrated Anglo-Chump. After all, old style MRAs have made defending mud the backbone of their movement. Unfortunately, the post-War beta-stooge lifestyle they extol has simply vanished: socio-economic change means blue collar men can no longer support families or attract even the ugliest women. The result? These old style MRAs are standing proudly on their patches of mud, Bible and spanner in hand, while the few remaining sexualized and attractive Anglo females inundate Death Row killers and gangsters with erotic love letters. Go figure.

Is this really worth dying for?

In some ways, the contemporary male underclass is now the smartest demographic. With no memories of post-war prosperity to cling to, their high-risk/high-reward lifestyle fits the new ‘low trust’ Brazilified Anglosphere perfectly. Unlike the high-prole beta suckers clinging to their Post-War folk memories, the underclass male has chosen a lifestyle relevant to his situation. He knows – or intuits – that women want ‘dangerous’, ‘exciting’ men, not bores clutching spanners and Bibles. He also knows that social conformity offers slim returns to low status males in Anglosphere societies at best, some dumb kids with a low-quality woman. Above all, he grasps that reward does not match investment for any male in a gynocentric society: a shrewish wife can reduce even a billionaire to penury on a whim.

The enlightened man is defined by his steadfast refusal to defend mud in any situation. He is secure in his knowledge that mud is mud, and nothing more. He does not rush to the defence of women who consider him an expendable utility. He does not lose blood advancing Anglo-American gynocentric misandry in foreign lands. He knows blue collar Anglo-chumps are not banging models every night. He knows foreign women are thinner, better-looking and more personable than their Anglosphere counterparts. In sum, he is totally self-aware.

He values himself, not mud.

Would you die for this?

Monday, 31 July 2017

Salman Abedi Update: A Sexually Disenfranchised Killer

Salman Abedi: The Truth is Out

In the immediate aftermath of the Ariana Grande bombing atrocity in Manchester, I made several predictions about the killer:

  • He would be single and sexually disenfranchised 
  • He would have retreated into religion to cope with his sexual disenfranchisement. 
  • He would hold a grudge against ‘liberated’ white girls for not having sex with him.

All the evidence suggests that Salman Abedi was self-motivated, having planned and executed his attack with little external help. He chose the venue himself, for his own reasons, and was certainly no ISIL puppet. Despite their best attempts to frame the crime in religious terms and deny the killer’s real agenda, the authorities and their lackeys in the ‘elite’ lamestream media have been unable to do so:

The Manchester suicide bomber mostly acted alone in the days before the attack, police have said. Salman Abedi is thought to have purchased the main components for the bomb and assembled it himself before blowing himself up and killing 22 others at the Manchester Arena last week. Greater Manchester Police said they were still working to establish if he was part of a wider network, but believe he was acting alone in the four days leading up to the atrocity.

Daily Telegraph, 31 May 2017

However, an interesting article in the populist Daily Star just before the MSM pulled down the shutters on serious discussion of Abedi’s motivation, revealed the following uncomfortable truths:

Sex-starved Manchester bomber 'wanted revenge against Western girls who rejected him'

JUG-EARED terrorist Salman Abedi targeted an Ariana Grande concert in a twisted revenge attack on pop-mad Western girls who rejected his advances, ex-school pals believe. The gangly killer could not land a girlfriend because of his giant lugs which earned him the nickname 'Dumbo’ after the Disney elephant.

Instead he told pals he paid prostitutes for sex. Rejected by scores of girls in his home city of Manchester he ditched his booze-swigging, pot-smoking student lifestyle and devoted himself to militant Islamism – even confronting an Imam who tried to lecture him on anti-extremism.

Schoolpals reckon his grudge against Western girls could explain why he targeted a gig by US pop star Ariana. Abedi, 22, who was himself a fan of gangsta rap, knew the audience would be packed with legions of the 23-year-old singer’s young girl fans when he detonated his suicide bomb. Seven of his 22 victims were 18 or under – one just eight.

One former pal of Abedi’s from Stretford Grammar School in Manchester – where the killer got nine GCSEs including chemistry – said he was known for the size of his ears and his bad luck with girls.

''They called him Dumbo after the elephant in the Disney film,’’ his pal said. ''He was useless with the girls, man. He just couldn’t get a woman. It used to really wind him up. He always claimed he wasn’t a virgin because he said he’d been with prostitutes in Libya where his family came from. We all thought he was talking c**p. It really got to him that he could never get a girlfriend.

“He was surrounded by all these teens wearing next to nothing on nights out but none of them would look at him twice. He tried to impress by turning up with cider or vodka and crisps and that which he said he’d 'taxed’ from the supermarket - meaning they were stolen. But looking back he probably bought them to try and show off to us.

''In the end he started to pull away from our group and became really withdrawn. He became more religious and said he didn’t like the Western ways any more. We all reckoned it was because he wasn’t having anything like the fun the rest of us were.

''Donald Trump called him a loser this week and that really is what he was. But we never imagined he’d do anything as evil as this. It has left all of us numb. The girls who knew him back in school reckon he picked on Ariana’s fans to get some kind of revenge for all the rejections he got over the years. Why else would he target kids like that?

Daily Star, 27 May 2017

'Dumbo' Abedi: Incel for life
The usual Anglo-Saxon fiction that men are all having sex with models every night runs through this article like a thread of shit. In truth, most of Abedi’s erstwhile ‘friends’ were probably just as incel as he was, not ‘having fun’ at all. Such fools seriously think divas like Ariana Grande want sex with low SMV nobodies like themselves, when she actually sees them as disposable pond-life.

However, the story indicates the lengths the pro-feminist MSM will go to quash all perspectives that refute their outmoded narratives. Indeed, we have now reached a stage where only the MSM aimed at a lumpen-proletarian audience (and thus not truly MSM) dare express anything remotely resembling the truth about gender-related issues in the Anglosphere.

Even still, the Daily Star article shunned any serious exploration of Anglo women’s ethnic hypergamy, a telling omission. Speaking bluntly, giving out the absolute truth would simply create too many 'waves' in a feminist dictatorship governed by secular Puritanism. Instead, the Anglosphere prefers to duck reality while the bodies keep piling up and male sexual alienation reaches epidemic proportions. 

Ariana pretending she wants sex with everybody

Sunday, 2 July 2017

Why MRAs Are Old News - and why Pan-Anglosphere Dissidence is the New Men’s Movement

Misandry is encoded in the Anglosphere's Cultural DNA

The 'old school' or 'first wave' MRAs who believed the Anglosphere could be reformed and remoulded along less misandrist lines are looking so dated. Yes, a lot of what of A Voice for Men, Warren Farrell and Angry Harry talked about is essentially right (and they deserve respect for that): but so what? For all their efforts, these guys did not change a single thing in the lives of real-world men. Men still get ass-raped in the divorce courts, the lamestream media still set women atop pedestals and men are still ten times more likely to get a custodial sentence for a criminal offence.

The great problem with those ‘first wave’ Manosphere writers is that they failed to see what we Pan-Anglosphere Dissidents see all too clearly: that Anglo-Saxon culture is inherently misandrist and, as such, is inherently impervious to pro-male reform. In a nutshell, that is the big difference between us second-wave Manosphere writers and the ‘old school’ MRAs already alluded to. They believed reforming the system was possible, while we (in our various ways) have concluded that it is not. Essentially, the Anglosphere is built on gynocentric, misandrist foundations and, barring a complete cultural overthrow, that is how it is going to stay. An enlightened male can either remain as a malcontent within the Anglo-Feminist Matrix; he can exploit the Matrix to fund an alternative lifestyle; or he can leave it altogether. Those are the real choices available to red-pilled males; reform is an ‘old school’ pipe dream.

In the farewell post on his Men-Factor Blog, Richard Scarecrow drove right to the core of the ineradicable Anglo-American problem - hatred of men:
The core issue that is not addressed often - is HATRED OF MEN.
Get ready for a long-ass rant. One that you've heard before if you read my blog.
When I was in college, my friends and I had the typical attitude, "Don't hit a women, Scold any scum man that hits his wife/girlfriend" etc...(sound philosophy to be sure - one I still uphold today - I will not hit a woman unless my life depended on it).  Then, Lorena Bobbitt happened.  We all noticed how radically different women thought than men - they all had a "You Go Girl!" attitude towards the incident.  This stumped all of us.  We despised any man who engaged in physical violence against a woman.  Women were applauding a woman who sexually mutilated her husband - and knew NOTHING about the situation...  That is when we started realizing how deep this hatred ran. 

We were all beaten (metaphorically) over the head with "be nice to girls" talk growing up.  When we were in our twenties we were all scratching our heads wondering why women were so malicious, callous, and sadistic towards men, while men were the opposite towards women.  Quite a wake up call.  Once divorces started happening, the hatred of men (insane rage, relentless baseless vindictiveness, and sadism) became more apparent.  More of my friends got divorced, and more of my friends got into drugs and liquor to sedate themselves from the insanely hate-filled women in their lives (and to think - for a while - I felt left out!!!).  Of course, this happened all over again with the Katherine Kieu Becker incident - a "superior" Asian woman (but one raised and living in an Anglo context – RK) who doesn't hate sexually mutilated her husband.

You can change divorce laws all you want.  You can bias them in favor of women - it takes evil sadistic women to exercise those laws.  The problem is not any laws on the books.  The problem is the sadistic women who enjoy the privilege of those laws (99.999999%).  Women who have the doors held open for them - Women who have 30-40 guys pining for them - Women who can get sex anytime they want for free - Women who can treat a lot of men like crap and get away with it - Women who get gifts and money showered on them in some misguided attempt to get laid - Women who are in fact privileged and pedestalized.  NOT NOT NOT women who are abused (verbally or physically), raped, tortured, insulted every 5 minutes, cussed at etc...  No - those things are reserved for men.
The MRM is a complete miss.  It is geared to changing laws (futile).  Anti-Feminism is less of a miss, but still a miss (the WikiPedia definition).  MGTOW is embarrassing, MHRM is a bunch of faggots.
Various "man-o-sphere" blogs talk about sex and whatnot - yawn.  Some have a whore/virgin attitude - old argument - yawn.  Some force feminism into a body shape - fat - yawn.  Some force feminism into "right-wing Christian women" - i.e. they are trying to separate feminism from the left wing - yawn - fail - fuck off.  Some re-enforce the fact that feminism was a "left-wing anti-Christian" movement - yawn - fail - fuck off.  Few of them address the issue of HATE - specifically - how thick and mindlessly vindictive the hatred of men is in women today - not just one political party - and certainly not just fat women.

What can be done to combat the hate - well - nothing.  Myself, I fail to care for women (except immediate family).  I do not need to care about a murdered woman who made a bad mating choice and ended up dead for it.  I do not need to care when a woman gets arrested for hitting a police officer because she is used to hitting men and suffering no consequences.  I do not need to feel any compassion for these people - they are a cancer in society.  They make bad mating choices and end up dead, single whatever - Why should I care - I don't.  Do I mock them - ABSOLUTELY!  Is it because they are "having sex with everybody but me"?  NOPE!  Their bad choices in mating leads their predicament - a predicament I have to pay higher taxes for - be it for abortions - insurance - higher taxes - welfare for single moms etc...  I end up paying for their careless behaviour all while I am the enemy to them (a white heterosexual male). 

Well said, Scarecrow - for that is the cock and balls of it. AVfM and the Old School Men’s Rights writers always assumed that if only they highlighted the iniquities of an anti-male judiciary, education system and mass media then – as if by magic – reform would inevitably follow. In reality, Anglo-American civilization has just carried on in the same old misandrist way because misandry and gynocentrism are embedded in its socio-cultural DNA. And that is why the old school MRAs could no more reform the Anglosphere than they could hold back the tides of the sea; and why their efforts to do so were doomed from the very beginning

Old school MRAs are like King Cnut: Powerless

MGTOWS are deluded in a different way - they claim to shun Anglo women who already view them with utter contempt: not much of a protest. In truth, with their rampant misandry, fridigity and hypergamy, entitled Anglo-American females positively welcome the self-removal of such low-status 'losers' from their lives (if they even notice their absence at all).

Entitled Anglo women despise MGTOWS anyway!

When I began this project – if it may be considered such – I was a fairly marginalized figure in the Manosphere. The old school reformists held sway. At first, I even had to call myself an MRA; a decade ago, no terminology existed to properly describe my unique vision. Gradually, though, a coherent terminology began to emerge through ceaseless argument and discussion, through mimesis and mutation. And so the Pan-Anglosphere Male Resistance Movement, with its distinctive terminologies and modes of thought, came to be. And here we are.

In sum, the Anglosphere is just one cultural bloc among many cultural blocs and should be seen and criticized as such; there is nothing ‘special’ about it. The Anglosphere’s era of dominance in the late twentieth century was more the result of historical accident than anything else; and its future decline looks assured. The motor of this decline is misandrist Anglo-American feminism and the social dysfunction – not to mention male alienation – it leaves in its wake. But this decline cannot be arrested, nor should it be; it is the inevitable fulfilment of the Anglosphere’s misandrist destiny. Low trust relationships, political alienation, a costly underclass and educational failure already blight the Anglo-American bloc, and will only worsen; but this is to be celebrated. Men cannot arrest the slide into barbarism, even if they wanted to; no, they must look to foreign shores for fulfilment, peace and pleasure. A single mercenary male without social ties has the Anglo-Feminist Matrix at his mercy; he is untouchable, boundless, almost a god.

That is our movement’s unique insight.

The Anglosphere's Institutional Misandry is Beyond Reform