masculinity

Attention All Men: Everything You Do Is Wrong No Matter What

Get a load of this headline:

Screen Shot 2019-09-07 at 3.16.44 PM.png

You men are all too broke to be worthy of marriage!

But I thought we lived in the era of #FemaleEmpowerment, where all women are strong, independent and don’t need no man.

Also, I thought we lived in an Evil Patriarchy where men hoard all the money and are responsible for a nefarious Gender Pay Gap rendering all women broke and destitute?

What the hell?

Do women require financially stable men in order to live decent lives, or are men hoarding all the money and holding women down?

Should I be outraged about the (nonexistent) Gender Pay Gap, or about the fact that it’s hard out here for a gold-digger?

The answer is: both.

Just hate men unconditionally.

When men make more than women, they’re WRONG AND BAD.

When men make less than women, they’re also WRONG AND BAD.

You can’t win.

And that’s the point.

2016 Was a Warm-Up: The 2020 Election Between Trump and Kamala Harris will be the REAL Battle of the Sexes

The 2016 election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton can be seen as a battle of the sexes, with Hillary Clinton representing (or, more accurately, cynically co-opting) the feminist sentiment (manifested post-2016 in the angry Pussy Hats of the Women’s March), and Trump, epitomizing the braggadocious, domineering alpha male always being surrounded by beautiful women.

Hillary Clinton came of age in the 1960s wave of feminism, and represented Feminism 1.0, i.e. Aging Boomer Feminism. Her candidacy and presumed easy victory was painted as the moment every feminist since the late 1960s was working toward.

Trump, on the other hand, was an unapologetically masculine throwback to a time when men felt no shame in being, well, men. He was clearly the most masculine and alpha Republican candidate in the field, humiliating his rivals for being “weak” and “low energy.” Trump was basically calling all his Republican competitors beta males, i.e. lesser men, the whole time. Obviously the voters preferred the alpha male.

Trump has never spent a second pondering his supposed “toxic masculinity.” He doesn’t feel like he owes women anything. He doesn’t pander to women and feminist talking points, and as 2016 showed, he was not at all reluctant to savage Hillary Clinton in the same manner he humiliated his mostly-male Republican primary opponents. While other candidates would have balked at truly taking off the gloves against Hillary out of fear of being called a sexist, Trump had no such reluctance. He pulled no punches and felt no inherent need to roll over for her due to guilt over having Male Privilege.

Hillary on the other hand had traditionally been a smug, cynical, conniving, entitled shapeshifter, who would trash her husbands mistresses as bimbos and skanks while simultaneously claiming to be a champion of women. But by 2016 Hillary had come to represent the shrill, nagging, angry, sexless hag. Either way, she represented the type of woman that most men either resent or fear.

Trump was the wild card the feminists and the Uniparty were not expecting. They were expecting Hillary to make short work of some cowed, politically correct Establishment Republican pussy like Jeb Bush who wouldn’t have the audacity to try to truly win the 2016 election. Again, 2016 was Hillary’s Moment and everyone knew it. As the Uniparty-anointed Embodiment of Feminism, Hillary was entitled to winning the presidency in 2016, because men were said to be obligated to step aside and let women take over the reins of power in this country. That was what Hillary’s victory was to represent: a landmark cultural changing of the guard, a sweeping away of the last vestiges of the “old America” of the Patriarchy and traditional gender roles.

In short the two candidates can plausibly be seen as stand-ins for the competing ideals of the Patriarchy and the Matriarchy. Trump was the embodiment of the powerful alpha male that traditionally ran this country, while Hillary was supposed to embody the dawning of a New Age of Feminism In reality, Hillary was merely a grating, off-putting reminder of what it looks like when women try to be powerful.

But while we’re told endlessly that this country is a Patriarchy that oppresses women brutally and systematically, Hillary was actually the one who was supposed to win. She was anointed as the Uniparty Establishment’s chosen candidate, even though her candidacy was supposedly a repudiation of the ruling Patriarchy. (The fact that many prominent Republicans supported her over Trump makes sense only if you view them not as actual Republicans, but instead as members of the Uniparty, which is the Democrats and the the Republicans-in-name-only who pretend to oppose the Democrats in order to maintain the illusion that the American people actually have a say in government.)

So to recap: Hillary, the woman, was said to be the great threat to the Patriarchy that supposedly controls this country, yet Hillary was also the chosen candidate of the political elite, the media, Wall Street, big business, Silicon Valley, academia and the military industrial complex. Please tell me how a country’s power Establishment that is said to be a Patriarchy anoints a woman as its choice for President. 🤔🤔🤔

In reality, Hillary’s campaign was not a grassroots, countercultural revolution against the dominant Patriarchy. That was all a facade to trick NPC voters into getting excited to support the same old Uniparty Globalism they’d had forced on them for the past several decades prior.

There is no longer a Patriarchy in this country, but the Uniparty finds it useful to invoke it as a bogeyman to keep the feminists angry and energized.

And that’s why 2016 wasn’t a true “battle of the sexes.” Hillary was not a legitimate, paradigm-shaking feminist: she was a power-hungry politician who played the part when it was politically advantageous to do so.

Ultimately, 2016 was a repudiation of the ruling Uniparty and its globalist policies which have destroyed American manufacturing and are transforming this country demographically. It wasn’t a battle of the sexes.

2020 will be the real battle of the sexes.

The 2020 presidential campaign is already underway, with nearly half a dozen Democrats announcing their candidacies for the party’s nomination. While there are still many more names out there that will eventually join the race, the Democratic establishment seems to have already decided that Sen. Kamala Harris of California will be the one who wins the nomination in the end.

Today’s Democratic Party is the party of women and nonwhites, and Kamala Harris is both. This makes her basically entitled to the party’s nomination by default. In simple terms, Harris can claim to be the most oppressed of all the candidates in a party where being oppressed is everything. Being both nonwhite and female, Kamala Harris is “doubly oppressed.”

She will be the 2020 Democratic nominee. No male candidate can credibly claim to be more deserving of the party’s nomination over her, nor can any white woman.

If the other Democratic candidates do indeed buy into the grievance-mongering intersectional bullshit they’ve been selling for the past several years, none of them even have a right to challenge her for the party’s nomination. The party that has been insistent that identity is everything cannot now turn around and say, “Well, no, actually: don’t focus on my skin color and gender, listen to my ideas.”

Anyway, future 2020 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris also represents the second iteration of feminism, and this feminism is far more dangerous than anything posed by the first wave.

This is Donald Trump’s greatest challenge. In 2016 it was the Uniparty Establishment, in 2020 it will be Empowerment Feminism (and the Uniparty Establishment).

While Hillary Clinton got married and stayed dutifully by her husband’s side even as he cheated on her left and right, Kamala Harris is the Gen X #empowered feminist who stayed single until she was 50, using her “freedom” to sleep her way up the ranks of California politics and eventually into the US Senate.

Both Hillary and Harris, of course, only got to where they are due to the men in their life. Hillary Clinton would be nothing without Bill, and Kamala Harris’s career was launched in large part by her carrying on an affair with former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown.

Hillary Clinton used her gender for sympathy, Kamala Harris used her vagina to get what she wanted out of men in her pursuit of power.

But the real difference between Equality Feminism (Hillary) and Empowerment Feminism, (Harris), is that the latter actively encourages women to forgo marriage and motherhood in favor of sleeping around and career advancement. This is devastating for the country. Empowerment Feminism is far more dangerous than Equality Feminism.

Hillary didn’t represent a massive upending of the traditional American social order. Kamala Harris does.

Despite being the most successful and unencumbered generation of women in human history, Empowerment Feminists still consider themselves oppressed. They have the highest levels of educational attainment of any generation of American women, the highest incomes, the most options professionally, sexually and financially–and, not coincidentally, they also have the most support from and representation in America’s power Establishment. Additionally, women today can ruin men’s lives with made-up rape or domestic violence accusations and face no consequences at all, Because #BelieveWomen. Men are 10x more likely than women to be killed at work, and men comprise the vast majority of the most dangerous jobs. And yet Empowerment Feminism is much angrier and more obviously hateful toward men.

Equality Feminism was primarily focused on obtaining abortion rights and more favorable divorce and domestic violence laws. It represented somewhat of a threat to the traditional American social order, but not a dire threat.

Equality Feminism wanted women to somewhat level the playing field within the Patriarchal American society, while Empowerment Feminism wants to completely upend the whole system and turn it into a full-fledged Matriarchy.

Empowerment Feminism is about surpassing–and, if necessary, destroying–men. It takes a zero-sum view of men and women: when a man succeeds, it must necessarily be at the expense of a woman. And so in order for women to succeed, it must necessarily come at the expense of men as a group. This is why they sleep around and focus on their careers instead of settle down, get married and become mothers.

Right now, Harris’s core constituency is the single, white 30-something urbanite cat lady. Basically the blue check feminists on Twitter, many of whom just got laid off by either Huff Post or BuzzFeed. In other words, while there are many American women who have chosen the career-focused whore path in life, it has not yet become the “default” path for women. But if Harris is elected President, it will be.

That’s what Kamala Harris represents. She represents the “career-oriented” #empowered whores who are destroying this country.

She represents the legitimization of the thot, the amoral female who sleeps around, rejecting marriage and motherhood in favor of her career.

Now, I know the obvious response will be that I’m only saying all this because I want to “Keep Women Down” and send them back to the kitchen, but that’s not what this is about. Honestly. It’s not base sexism or misogyny.

It’s not that I envy or fear Kamala Harris because she represents #independent women who don’t need no men. The problem is that women like her encourage other women to live destructive and toxic lives that will result in their unhappiness and the ruin of American dating and sex.

The nuclear family is the foundation of a healthy, thriving America. Unavoidably. Empowerment Feminism is the greatest threat to the nuclear family since the welfare programs of the 1960s, which have already done a number on nuclear families.

If all women come to believe the best way to live is to sleep around until they become rich and powerful, we are screwed. Women will never settle for decent, even moderately successful men because they’ll all be looking for a Willie Brown of their own to put them on the fast track to becoming a Senator.

The problem is, this will never happen for 99% of women.

These women have to stop believing being a whore is empowering. Having 40 different sex partners is not empowering.

But these women will not realize it until they’re well into their 30s and single, when no half-decent guy will want anything to do with them.

At the end of the day, it’s about rejecting destructive, whorish behavior.

“Then why is not bad when men sleep around?!?!” they’ll retort.

Because men were made to sleep around. That’s how we’re wired biologically.

Women are wired to attach themselves to a strong, successful man for protection and financial stability.

See, the cold hard truth is that men don’t hit The Wall after 30. Men over 30, even into their 50s and 60s, can still attract young beautiful women.

But women basically have to find a guy by the time they’re in their early 30s or else they’re in big trouble. Older women are not nearly as desirable as younger ones.

Women in their 20s are wasting their sexual primes whoring themselves out and sleeping with dozens of guys because they’ve been told that it’s “empowering” to do so.

In reality they should be spending their 20s trying to find the right man–while their sexual market values are highest.

Just because being a whore for 30 years enabled Kamala Harris to sleep her way into power doesn’t mean it’s how every woman ought to live. It won’t work for every woman; in fact, it won’t work for the vast majority of them.

Plus, why does it seem like feminism is not driven by any natural, internal desires and biological tendencies but simply out of envy of men?

The reason men build businesses and empires and seek power is because of our natural tendency to conquer and dominate. We’re biologically driven. Women don’t have that innate biological drive to build and conquer and rule.

Women may think seeking power Just Like Men Do will satisfy them or provide meaning in their lives, but it won’t. A life driven by envy is neither meaningful nor satisfying. Envy is not fulfilling.

Same with women sleeping around: they’re not doing it because they are naturally driven to spread their seed far and wide, but rather Because Men Do It So Why Shouldn’t I Be Allowed To, Huh? HUH!?

It’s childish and silly.

It’s driven completely by envy.

Women don’t really want power. They don’t want to spread their seed–and at any rate that’s not even possible for them.

They’ve just been told that their lives are totally meaningless unless they try their hardest to live like men.

Another thing women do that’s motivated entirely by envy: bodybuilding.

I’m not talking about women who go to the gym and get toned and in shape–Lord knows I love a girl who’s in shape. I’m talking about the girls who get big and ripped.

Deadlift.jpg

Why do they do it? It’s not because it makes them more attractive to men. The vast majority of guys are disgusted by women who are ripped.

News flash: men like boobs, not pecs. And there is nothing hot about a girl having a firm, muscley ass and ripped, bulging quads.

Men work out to get big and strong because that’s what women are attracted to.

Women work out to get big and strong because. . . why, exactly?

It’s not to attract men.

Instead it’s out of envy; this If Men Do It, I Want To Do It, Too! attitude.

Again, it’s childish and ridiculous.

Oh, you need to be able to defend yourself, Ripped Girl? Maybe if you spent your time trying to attract a strong, alpha male you wouldn’t have to worry about that in the first place. And, news flash, no matter how big and ripped you get, you still won’t be able to overpower a man trying to rob or rape you. You’re better off buying a gun or a taser.

Anyway, all this is to say that Empowerment Feminism as represented by Kamala Harris must be defeated in 2020. It cannot be validated and rewarded with the Presidency, or it will be the end of this country.

Fortunately, we have the ultimate alpha male in Donald Trump standing in the way.

***

Finally, which way Western women?

There is No War on Masculinity, Move Along

Wherever would you get the idea that masculinity is going through an existential crisis in the West? I mean, that’s just totally absurd!

The Daily Mail reports that Britain is becoming the cuckoldry capital of the West:

“Sales of ‘secret’ paternity tests are surging, according to suppliers of DIY home kits.

The DNA tests, which can be carried out with simple cheek swabs, are leading to growing numbers of men discovering they are not the biological father of children they had been led to believe were theirs.

AlphaBiolabs, the leading British home test supplier, says up to 30,000 paternity tests are being performed in this country every year – and that the figures are rising by ten per cent per year.

‘Of these, around 20 per cent of men will learn they are not the father of the child they are testing,’ says the company’s director, David Thomas. He added that in some regions the figure is higher, including the North East, where it is 30 per cent.”

If there’s not a war on men and masculinity, then explain this.

The only reason men get cucked is because they are weak and cannot satisfy their women. That’s the only reason.

Weak men get cucked by stronger men.

Western men are now as weak as they have ever been, while Western women now have more options–socially, professionally, sexually–than they ever have.

This is not a good mixture.

If we are to have #Strong #Independent women, then men have to be stronger than ever as well. But they’re not. In fact, they’re weaker than ever.

No matter what women say, the reality is they want strong, assertive men. They are hardwired to be attracted to alpha males. It’s biology.

At some point in the past few decades, women said they no longer wanted strong men and instead preferred weak men who are “in touch with their feelings.” Plus, traditional masculinity was deemed “toxic” and incompatible with modern society, and oppressive to women to boot.

So lots of Western men got “in touch with their feelings” and grew weak. And they felt bad about oppressing women with their “Toxic Masculinity” and mansplaining and manspreading on the subway.

Part of this isn’t entirely the men’s fault. Part of it is they’ve been brainwashed by popular culture to want to become Weak Beta Males:

1_bteztrcwwm_2qda-grirqq

And, on top of this, a record number of boys are being raised in feminine environments, between the disastrously-high number of single-parent households and the female dominance of public education:

https://twitter.com/PoliticalKathy/status/1083912113519767554

It’s no wonder there’s such an abundance of weak men.

But the bottom line is, women never actually wanted weak, submissive beta males.

They just wanted less competition for high-paying jobs.

Now, our #Strong #Independent Western women resent their weak beta male boyfriends and husbands, and so they have affairs and get impregnated by strong alpha males behind their beta men’s backs.

On top of this, they get their beta men to unknowingly raise their alpha lovers’ children.

This will ruin us if we don’t turn it around.

Why is GQ Encouraging Men to Watch More Porn?

By now it’s a well-established truth that porn is devastating young men’s sex lives. This piece from New York Magazine dating back to early 2011 lays out pretty clearly that men’s brains are not wired to be able to comprehend porn. It turns out that the ability to view a nearly infinite number of beautiful naked women on a screen at a moment’s notice has seriously distorted mens’ attraction to real-life women.

Men are beginning to lose the ability to be aroused by real women because they’ve inadvertently trained their brains to be aroused only by pornography.

And yet here we have British GQ’s Eva Wiseman recommending more porn watching for young men:

“Eva Wiseman explores why disaffected young men need more pornography: more nuance, more perspective and, crucially, more truth.”

Even though she admits this:

“At art college I picked up Andrea Dworkin’s Pornography, because I thought it might have rude bits. I was disappointed, but inadvertently learned about what Dworkin and her fellow Eighties activists threatened would happen if porn was not controlled: that men would begin to objectify women the way pornography did, encouraging incidents of rape and assault and inequality to rise. Then the internet happened and the prospect of limiting porn became an impossibility. But while unlimited free porn did change the world – and the world of desire in particular – it didn’t turn men into grabbing, rutting beasts. It did the opposite.

In 2003, Naomi Wolf visited campuses across the US to talk to students about sex. Women told her that in a “pornographised” world, rather than having all the sex, all the time, they found themselves unable to form sexual relationships with men. “For how can a real woman… possibly compete with a cybervision of perfection, downloadable and extinguishable at will?” Instead of encouraging sexual mayhem, as Dworkin predicted, Wolf concluded, The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women.” Last year, Ronson reported a 1,000 per cent rise in erectile dysfunction in young men since 2007, the advent of free porn. Has online porn replaced sex itself?

For a lot of men, it has.

It’s worth considering, isn’t it? And not just the effect of porn, but the digitalisation of all our sexual relationships, from gamified dating on Tinder to the advance of sex robots – a phrase I can’t type without also saying out loud in a movie trailer voice. Cultural analyst Sherry Turkle warns that we’re rapidly approaching a point where, “We may actually prefer the kinship of machines to relationships with real people.” A study by Stanford University says this might be because, as Newsweek put it, “Our brains aren’t necessarily hardwired for life in the 21st century.” Which is, well, a shame.”

Even while admitting all this, GQ still says men need to watch more porn.

Do they want to render widely men impotent?

Americans watch soooo much porn, too:

“According to the research approximately 64 percent, or two thirds, of U.S. men admit to viewing porn at least monthly, with the number of Christian men nearly equaling the national average. When divided by age “eight out of ten (79%) men between the ages of 18 and 30 view pornography at least monthly, and two thirds (67%) of men between the ages of 31 and 49 view pornography at least monthly. One half of men between 50 and 68 looks at porn monthly.” 

The study claims three out of every 10 men between the ages of 18 and 30 are daily viewers of porn; three percent of women in the same age group purportedly access pornography daily.”

It’s a major problem and nobody talks about it. Because it’s “lame” and you’re an uptight fundamentalist Christian weirdo if you do.

Pornography has totally changed in the past 20 years, too. It’s unprecedented.

Up until the advent of the internet, pornography was little more than skin mags like Playboy and Hustler, none of which featured hardcore sex scenes, and which were not nearly as widely available as online porn is today.

In order to view hardcore sex scenes, you used to have to order an actual porn tape or buy one from a sex shop. It was way more than a click away, and it definitely wasn’t free. Up until about the late 1990s, you really had to go out of your way to watch hardcore porn. Going back further in time, pornography prior to the modern era was a joke.  You can have a look at “Fanny Hill,” the first English pornographic book written and illustrated in 1748, here. It’s not even in the same ballpark as modern online porn. And it probably wasn’t easy to acquire, either.

But now watching porn is the easiest thing in the world. And ease of access–not to mention the fact that it’s free–has caused porn to proliferate wildly.

Pornhub is the 29th most visited site on the planet and the 17th most visited site in the United States:Screen Shot 2018-11-16 at 2.07.24 PM

This is a major problem.

And it’s not exactly a secret, either, especially to the author of the GQ piece. She knows full well that pornography is turning young men into a generation of impotent losers. Want to know why men are putting off marriage and why birthrates are falling all across the developed world (read: places with widespread hi-speed internet access)? Porn has a lot to do with it. Porn has radically changed modern sex.

Which then leads to the inevitable conclusion: is this what GQ magazine, and the larger Western liberal cultural/societal establishment GQ represents, wants?