war on men

All-Female Terminator Reboot Fails Spectacularly at Box Office, Projected to Lose $120 Million

I don’t really pay attention to Hollywood anymore because nearly every movie they’ve churned out over the past half-decade has been awful, so I don’t know much about this new “Terminator” movie other than that it’s supposed to be an all-female “reboot” of the franchise. Once I heard that was the case I was even less interested in the movie than I otherwise would’ve been for any other new Hollywood release–which is to say already very uninterested.

Apparently Ahhnuld is in the movie, but he’s not the main hero of the story. The heroes of the story are a trio of #Empowered and #Badass women.

However, in a development that anyone with a functioning brain could see coming, this all-female Terminator movie completely bombed at the box office and is now projected to lose Paramount Studios $120 million:

“Sorry for fans of the Terminator franchise, but it may not be back again for a long time. “

Okay, but this is not “the Terminator franchise” anymore. It’s just a film that happens to share the name of the once-proud franchise.

Terminator: Dark Fate opened at the U.S. box office this weekend and the results were nothing shy of abysmal for a massive budget blockbuster. The movie is guaranteed to be a big flop at this point. The only real question is, just how bad is it going to flop? Based on some new industry estimates, the sci-fi sequel could lose $120 million or more during its theatrical run.

According to a new report, Skydance Media, Paramount Pictures and 20th Century Fox stand to lose around $120 million in total, given the long-term prospects of Terminator: Dark Fate bombing at the box office. The movie, directed by Tim Miller (Deadpool) and produced by franchise creator James Cameron, made just $29 million in its domestic debut, which was far below industry estimates, which had it taking in around $40 million. Even that number wasn’t great, but it gave Sarah Connor and the gang a fighting chance.”

Now, will this financial disaster cause Hollywood to stop making all-female “reboots” of popular action franchises?

Of course not. Because the point wasn’t really to make money: the broader goal is to culturally disenfranchise men (specifically white men) by replacing them with with women wherever possible. And I’m not just talking about in movies–I’m talking about in politics, in the boardroom–in basically every high-profile position of power and every high-paying job. (They’re most certainly not trying to move men out of “dirty jobs” like garbage collecting, construction and logging. Only the well-paying white collar jobs.)

The point is to culturally appropriate all male-dominated sectors of society and shift them over to women. Hollywood is doing its part by taking popular movies that in the past starred male actors and “rebooting” them with all-female casts. The Ghostbusters movie (which also bombed), and “Oceans 8” are more examples. You’ve also got Disney shoehorning Captain Marvel in as the Most Badassest and Most Powerful Avenger.

The fact that these all-female “reboots” consistently lose money and yet Hollywood consistently keeps making them should tell you that making money is a secondary concern behind culturally disenfranchising men and re-shaping traditional gender roles in America.

Still, it’s nice to see that Americans are rejecting Hollywood’s forced cultural revolution by not going to see these terrible movies. Thankfully there remains a wide disconnect between the values of the degenerate elite and everyday Americans.

State-Enforced Transgenderism

A jury in Texas recently told a man that his 7-year-old son (both pictured above) is going to be transitioned into a girl and there’s not a damn thing he can do about it:

“A jury in Dallas, Texas has ruled against Jeffrey Younger, the father who is trying to protect his seven-year-old son, James, from chemical castration via a gender “transition.” This means James’ mother, Dr. Anne Georgulas, will be able to continue “transitioning” him into “Luna,” and now has full authority to start him on puberty blockers and eventually cross-sex hormones.

The jury’s decision likely means that Mr. Younger will be required to “affirm” James as a girl, despite his religious and moral objections, and will also be forced to take a class on transgenderism.”

This is pure humiliation for the dad. As if he is the one who needs to be enlightened about Transgenderism. He’s just an angry, ignorant white male conservative who’s stuck in the past and afraid of all this wonderful Change and Progress.

“With a consensus of 11 of the 12 jurors, the jury decided not to grant Mr. Younger Sole Managing Conservatorship over his twin boys. They voted that the current Joint Managing Conservatorship should be replaced by a Sole Managing Conservatorship, but that Mr. Younger should not be that person.

Mr. Younger and Dr. Georgulas were in court last week fighting over custody and decision-making abilities for James and his twin, Jude. Mr. Younger argues his ex-wife is “transitioning” James against the boy’s will.”

This man’s insane liberal wife wants to make their son transgender so she can be like the Cool Celebrities and their #trendy transgender kids. The insane liberal wife also refers to James as “Luna,” a Hispanic name for the virtue signaling double-whammy, because apparently you get double the Woke Points for being both transgender and trans-racial. And white names are just so boring, aren’t they?

She does not care that she is already doing serious psychological damage to the boy by telling him he’s a girl. And that’s to say nothing of the serious physical damage she’s about to inflict on this poor boy by forcing him to take medications that will turn him into a female. The human body was not designed to literally change its sex, and any attempt to do so is unnatural, in addition to being immoral, and will inevitably lead to serious medical and psychological problems.

But the Affluent Female Liberal need to virtue signal trumps all of this. Poor James’ mother WILL have a transgender child at any cost.

I remember not so long ago there was a time in this country where Affluent Women’s status seeking could be satisfied with a nice car and an expensive purse, maybe some breast implants. Now in 2019 they’re giving their 7-year-old sons hormone blockers to turn them into girls.

The term “child abuse” is appropriate here, but in my opinion it is not strong enough to fully convey the wickedness of what this woman is attempting to do to poor James. It’s more like child torture.

We are truly living in upside-down clown world when a jury decides a custody battle in favor of the parent that wants to torture the child.

Just four years after gay marriage was legalized, we now officially have state-enforced transgenderism.



Update: Thankfully, a judge has overruled the jury’s ridiculous decision and Jeff Younger will be granted partial custody of James. Hopefully this means the poor boy will not have to be pumped full of chemicals and hormone blockers.

Still, the fact that this almost happened is worrying because it shows just how bad the state of this country is when a jury of a man’s peers rules that he has to allow his insane ex-wife to chemically castrate his son.

The fact that it was a jury of everyday people making that decision is evidence that degenerate liberal propaganda and brainwashing has been devastatingly effective.

Feminists Accuse Google of Underpaying Women, Google’s Internal Study Discovers it Underpays *Men*

We need to close the wage gap now:

“Google is the subject of both a Labor Department investigation into gender pay inequality, and a potential class-action lawsuit covering roughly 8,300 current and former female employees who say the company pays women less than men who do similar work.

When Google conducted a study recently to determine whether the company was underpaying women and members of minority groups, it found that more men than women were receiving less money for doing similar work.

In response to the finding, Google gave $9.7 million in additional compensation to 10,677 employees for this year. Men account for about 69 percent of the company’s work force, but they received a disproportionately higher percentage of the money.

That last paragraph is kind of confusing in the way it is written. It means that Google gave out compensation pay to over 10,000 employees who were wrongly paid too little, and the majority of the recipients of that compensation pay were male.

Somebody tell Brie Larson.

I have been trying to say this for a while: whatever the “conventional wisdom” says about our society, the opposite is more likely than not to be true.

It’s not women who are mistreated, it’s men.

Society is not racist against minorities, it’s racist against white people.

We do not live in a Christian Country, we live in an aggressively atheist country that disparages and ridicules Christians at every opportunity while glorifying Muslims.

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.


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?

President Whore

Will America elect a whore as its president in 2020? That’s the question to keep in mind as Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) kicks off her candidacy.

Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown recently confirmed long-running rumors that he carried on an affair with Harris in the 1990s and helped her move up the ranks of San Francisco politics:

“Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown addressed his past extramarital relationship with U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris in his weekly column Saturday, saying he may have boosted the presidential hopeful’s career.

“Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago,” Brown wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle.

“Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was [California] Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco.”

This woman fucked her way up the ranks of California politics and eventually into the US Senate, and now she has her eyes on the White House.

“Brown appointed Harris — about 30 years younger than Brown and just a few years out of law school – to two well-paid state commission assignments on the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

The former mayor also connected Harris with campaign donors, which helped her outraise her opponent for San Francisco district attorney, Business Insider reported. Brown’s involvement in her election raised questions as to how Harris would remain impartial, given his enormous political clout.”

What an #Empowered and #Independent woman Kamala Harris is. Truly an inspiration for young girls everywhere.

Girls, you can be anything you want to be! All you have to do is seek out powerful men 30 years older than you are and spread your legs open for them!

Willie Brown is a notorious lothario, but has been married to his first wife since 1958, and was married during his affair with Harris.

Kamala Harris is not only an ambitious whore, but a conniving one as well. Look at what Brown had to say about how Harris treated him after she got what she wanted:

“The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I ‘so much as jaywalked’ while she was D.A.,” Brown wrote. “That’s politics for ya.”

What a cold, conniving, ungrateful bitch.

There’s a name for this kind of thing, where a female not only discards a man after sex, but tries to kill or destroy him. It’s called “Sexual cannibalism” and it is observed in nature mostly in spiders and other arachnids. It’s how the black widow spider got its name. Kamala Harris tried to do the same thing to Willie Brown.

So now one of the early front runners for the 2020 Democratic nomination for President is a conniving, back-stabbing thot.

That’s what’s at stake in America.

Now, I am under no illusions that the White House is a Sacred And Hallowed Place which has only ever been occupied by individuals of impeccable character and honor. Lord knows our man Trump has done some shit in his life. We’ve had depraved presidents.

There are rumors that Obama is secretly a gay man and his wife is a tranny. Bill Clinton is a sexual predator who rented out the Lincoln Bedroom to donors and left a long trail of dead bodies in his wake.

Let’s not pretend our presidents have all been demigods incapable of err and sin. They’re all human beings just like you and me.

We’ve had some decent men in the White House, and we’ve had some very bad men in the White House.

But we’ve never had a whore in the White House.

Can you imagine how many other men Harris banged in her quest for power?

Harris didn’t get married until she was 50, in 2014. Probably the reason behind this is she didn’t want to be encumbered by a husband and kids as she fucked her way up the ranks of California politics.

Kamala Harris is the #Empowered, amoral modern feminist par excellence. Forgoing marriage and motherhood to “focus on her career” and fucking her way up the political ladder while pretending to be a #Strong, #Independent woman.

The stakes are clear: the Democratic Party intends to disgrace the White House and the nation by making a thot our President.

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves knowing that Kamala Harris, who has been plowed more times than a Kansas corn field, might become President.

This is truly a sign of Western Civilization’s terminal decline. The alpha male is pathologized and vilified, while a whore can be rewarded with the Presidency.

Trump 2020: Patrol This Thot.

Get Woke, Go Broke: Gillette Edition

Gillette Razors: Men (Mainly the White Ones) Fucking Suck and Need to Stop Sucking So Much. So buy our overpriced razors and Shave Off All That Toxic Masculinity, or something.

Brilliant marketing strategy by Gillette.

The company literally exists to sell razors to men. Their motto used to be, “The Best A Man Can Get.”

And now they’re like, “Actually, fuck men.”

I’m sure that’s going to work out tremendously.

Here’s the new video they put out:

Be sure to go to the actual YouTube page and give it a downvote. Right now it’s sitting at a beautiful ratio of 270k upvotes to 653k downvotes. We can do better than that.

By far the worst conclusion to be opportunistically drawn from the #MeToo movement by the cultural elite was that sexual assault wasn’t just a Hollywood problem, but in fact a general male problem.

Harvey Weinstein wasn’t a product of a corrupt movie industry which has a long and dark history of preying on and discarding beautiful young women like objects–no, Harvey Weinstein was proof that men in general are the problem.

Harvey Weinstein is a sexual predator because he’s a man, and there’s a Harvey Weinstein side to all men.

That’s the message this Gillette commercial is pushing. Michael Walsh elaborates on this:

“The Me Too movement didn’t “change” anything for most of us. It is obviously insulting, not to mention absurd, to suggest that men, as a whole, experienced some sort of great awakening when Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Kevin Spacey got in trouble. We already knew that it’s wrong to rape. We were already well aware that harassment is not okay. There is not a single man on Earth who watched a news report about Weinstein, slapped his forehead, and said, “Oh! So we’re not supposed to do that? Alright then! My mistake!” Even the men who do those things already knew they weren’t supposed to do them. They do the things anyway because they are evil, and that’s what evil people do.

But the vast majority of men are not rapists or harassers and were, prior to this past year, already staunchly opposed to both activities. There was nothing epiphanic or revolutionary about Me Too for us.”

The only thing #MeToo taught us–well, confirmed to those of us whose lives don’t revolve around Celebrity Culture–was that Hollywood is a depraved cesspit full of heinous perverts and predators.

We normal guys already knew rape was bad. Because we were raised by good parents in Christian homes.

We didn’t learn that Rape Is Bad only after a bunch of Democrats got exposed.

We’ve always known. Democrats in Hollywood were the ones who didn’t. Quit grouping us in with them.

But there’s another message in the video beyond just Gillette’s shameless piggybacking off of the #MeToo movement.

Gillette, of course, is not condemning all men in their video. Only certain ones. If you watch the video, you can see they were clearly focusing on a specific subset of men.

All the bad guys are white. I’m sure this is just a huge coincidence and not due to Gillette trying to push a political message that WHITE MEN BAD, BROWN MEN GOOD. The rapey Businessman boss placing his hand uncomfortably on a female employee’s shoulder: white. All those outrageous white dudes barbecuin’ and getting their Dead Animal Smoke everywhere: white. The TV actor pretending to grope the black woman character: white.

Virtually all the good guys are nonwhite. I’m sure this is a huge coincidence, too. You’ve got popular Hollywood actor Terry Crews saying “men need to hold other men accountable.” Bravo. Then you’ve got the black guy at the party who steps in to save those women from the douchey white guy hitting on them. Then another black guy stops a white guy from aggressively going after a hot chick on the street. A black father is seen being loving and encouraging with his young daughter. The last good guy is a white dad who stops a kid from hitting another. They threw him in there to make it less obvious what they were trying to do.

A Reddit user made a tally: “43 males exhibit “undesirable” behavior, 42 white, 1 black. 7 males exhibit “desirable” behavior, 5 black, 2 white.”

I’d like to be able to ignore the fact that Gillette went out of its way to portray white men as particularly evil, and simply focus on the fact that Gillette went out of its way to insult its core market of men in general, but I can’t.

Just like it’s not telling the whole story to say Gillette’s ad attacks men in general, it’s also not telling the whole story to say there’s a greater cultural war against men in general.

There’s a war on white men, specifically.

Most people bashing the Gillette ad are too afraid of being called “alt-right” or “white nationalist” or “white supremacist” to point out this rather obvious fact, but it’s true. Call me what you want; I’m only pointing out an objective truth.

The narrator of the commercial never used the word “white” and was speaking about men in general, but the images Gillette used made it abundantly clear who they were really going after.

Of course, none of Gillette’s “White Men Are The Problem” nonsense is actually borne out by reality. According to the FBI, in 2016, there were over 18 million arrests made for rape. Of those arrests, 67% were white, 29% black. However, the “white” category also includes Hispanics. Hispanics are considered as “white” in terms of race, but a separate “ethnicity,” and the share of rape arrests by Hispanics is 27%.

So: 40% non-Hispanic white, 29% black, 27% Hispanic. Of course, America overall is 61% non-Hispanic white, 13% black and 16% Hispanic, meaning whites are far less likely to rape than blacks or Hispanics, according to FBI statistics.

I hate that I have to bring up these stats and compare the races to see which is the “rapiest,” but I didn’t start this fight.

Gillette and the Uniparty Establishment it represents started it.

They’re the ones who singled white men out as uniquely dangerous, even though the statistics don’t bear that out.

But of course, the statistics (i.e. reality) don’t matter to Gillette: White men are the enemy because they don’t vote Democrat.

Fuck you, Gillette.


Men defeated the Nazis, went to the moon, built the railroads and the interstates, brought the world out of darkness with electricity, connected it with the internet and the telephone, and police the streets to keep you safe at night. We carry people out of burning buildings; raise, harvest, slaughter and deliver your food; extract your oil from the earth, and make sure your homes are warm in the winter.

Without “toxic masculinity,” the man-hating feminists and soyboy betas would all be dead in a week.

Gillette is owned by Procter & Gamble, so be sure to boycott not only Gillette razors but these other brands as well:


Get woke, go broke.

PS: Boys will be boys, alright.


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:


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:


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.

The American Psychological Association: Traditional Masculinity is “Harmful” and We Now Treat it as a Mental Disorder

Rod Dreher writes “Manhood as Mental Disorder.” He quotes the American Psychological Association’s latest announcement:

“For the first time ever, APA is releasing guidelines to help psychologists work with men and boys.

At first blush, this may seem unnecessary. For decades, psychology focused on men (particularly white men), to the exclusion of all others. And men still dominate professionally and politically: As of 2018, 95.2 percent of chief operating officers at Fortune 500 companies were men. According to a 2017 analysis by Fortune, in 16 of the top companies, 80 percent of all high-ranking executives were male. Meanwhile, the 115th Congress, which began in 2017, was 81 percent male.

But something is amiss for men as well. Men commit 90 percent of homicides in the United States and represent 77 percent of homicide victims. They’re the demographic group most at risk of being victimized by violent crime. They are 3.5 times more likely than women to die by suicide, and their life expectancy is 4.9 years shorter than women’s. Boys are far more likely to be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder than girls, and they face harsher punishments in school—especially boys of color.

APA’s new Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men strive to recognize and address these problems in boys and men while remaining sensitive to the field’s androcentric past. Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.”

For the sake of fairness, it’s Dreher, not the APA, who asserts that the APA has declared traditional masculinity a “mental disorder.” But Dreher is simply reading between the lines. APA doesn’t come out and say it explicitly, but we all understand what they’re getting at.

The APA’s new official position as of January 2019 is that “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful.”

Please take a moment and allow that to sink in.

The official position of America’s psychology field is that “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful.”

Here’s more:

“Once psychologists began studying the experiences of women through a gender lens, it became increasingly clear that the study of men needed the same gender-aware approach, says Levant.

The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful. Men socialized in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors.”

“Traditional masculinity is, on the whole, harmful.”

Yes, in fact, focusing on only the potentially destructive aspects of masculinity would give one the impression that men are all ticking time bombs.

Women, of course, are perfect and have no negative aspects at all. They’re not conniving, passive-aggressive and emotionally unstable. Not at all!

Now the APA claims this is based on data, but let’s take a look at the prominent stat they cite: “Men commit 90% of homicides.”

Rod Dreher points out the glaring problem with this:

“To be fair, it’s not all PC codswallop, but given the social justice warrior jargon throughout, I suspect this is mostly about psychologizing the gelding of American males. I do not trust Ryon McDermott, PhD, to decide what is and is not healthy masculinity.

Me neither.

Plus, I don’t trust the spin. For example, this line: “Men commit 90 percent of homicides in the United States and represent 77 percent of homicide victims.”

True, but misleading. Homicides in the US are disproportionately committed by black menThe American Council on Science and Health reported in 2017:

The CDC confirms that, following an extended period of general decline, the overall homicide rate — as well as the homicide rate within each racial group — has increased from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, the homicide rates were (per 100,000 population): 20.9 for blacks (non-Hispanic), 4.9 for Hispanics, 2.6 for whites (non-Hispanic), 5.7 for all races.

Compared to the national average, the homicide rate was 54% lower for whites, 14% lower for Hispanics, and 267% higher for blacks. Put another way, the homicide rate among African-Americans is nearly quadruple that of the national average.

On the other hand, the white male suicide rate is six times higher for white men than for black men.

I bring this up only to point out that it’s not just “men” committing murders, but overwhelmingly it’s black men. This suggests that there is something particular going on within black male society. And the suicide rate being so unusually high among working-class, middle-aged white males tells us that something is going on with their own social psychology. That black and Hispanic working-class middle-aged men who suffer from the same hardships as whites are not killing themselves suggests that their social psychology has certain strengths that whites lack.

Of course, you’re never going to get this sort of nuance and highlighting of Inconvenient Truths from a thoroughly partisan organization like the APA.

They’ve got a message to push–“MEN BAD”–and they’re going to do it at all costs.

This is what I mean when I talk about “the Deep State” and the idea that the left is in control of our major institutions.

It’s everything.

Many Americans know the media is the Democrats’ propaganda organ. Some are even wise to the fact that the public education system is designed to indoctrinate students with leftism from an early age.

But how many Americans are aware that the American Psychological Association is a front for the Democratic Party? How many are aware that when they read the Supremely Authoritative pronouncements of the APA, and consult its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as the final authority on what is a mental disorder and what is not, that they are reading Democratic Party propaganda?

I’d guess the number is far fewer than the number of people who realize CNN and the New York Times are Democratic propaganda organs.

This is the larger problem. The left’s dominance of this country is so absolute, so far-reaching and deep-rooted that sometimes it’s overwhelming to take account of just how many institutions and organizations they have infested and corrupted.

We now have the APA, pretending to be a non-partisan authority, proclaiming that “traditional masculinity is, on the whole, harmful” and pretending it’s nothing but #Science and facts rather than political propaganda.

There most certainly is a War on Men and it is being waged against us by the most powerful organizations and institutions in America. They are all in lock-step unison in their mission to castrate us and turn us all into Democrat-voting, soyboy beta pussies who care most about being In Touch With Our Feeeelingz and weeping over our Mean, Nasty Border Patrol using tear gas on “migrants” trying to storm the border.

They want men to be as easily emotionally manipulated as women are, because that makes us more susceptible to Democratic Propaganda efforts.

They want us to be passive betas because assertive alpha males are the ones who stand up and fight their malevolent schemes to “fundamentally transform” this country.

Make no mistake about this: they are launching a full-scale assault on traditional masculinity because it is the single greatest impediment to Democrats obtaining power.

Oh, and if all this is not enough to emphasize what’s going on in this country, consider that in 2013 the APA released a 5th edition of its DSM and among the changes made were to reclassify transgenderism from a “disorder” to “gender dysphoria.” This was done in part to “remove the stigma” from transgenderism.

Not only did APA reclassify transgenderism as not a mental illness, but in the summer of 2018, the World Health Organization, another supposedly non-partisan international institution, announced that it would no longer be considering transgenderism as a mental illness.

So: traditional masculinity is a mental disorder, transgenderism is not. This is the direction we’re moving in–at least the direction our elite institutions are moving.

That’s the country we live in today. That’s America in 2019.

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?