In Defense of Tribalism

Like you, I have spent a lifetime living under a withering attack from the multi-culturalists. It is hard to see the forest for the trees when everyone around you has an ax (and a heavy dose of indoctrination during their childhood) and are hyper-focused on cutting down any tree or truth that stands in their way, completely unconcerned about who might get crushed these loonies don't even have the courtesy to scream, "Timber!"

I have had the pleasure of spending time with people who, for all intents and purposes, have walled themselves off from others to one degree or another—I am talking about in-your-face tribalism. Of course, I thought they were nuts, even as I could admire their obvious success. After all, as a member of the poly-whatever: recovering from Catholicism, matrilineal Jew, philosophical (and secular) Quaker raised in the multi-cultural center of the world, and married to someone from a different "race," I am the very definition of ENLIGHTENED. And tribalism is not. But my fairly unique experience of living a long life, much of it in close proximity with Orthodox Jews, Old Order Mennonites, Muslims, Schwarzentruber Amish, and Fundamentalist Mormons flies in the face of all of my formative indoctrination, not to mention all of the nonsense I subject myself to on the internet.

It is and has been my consistent observation that the tribalists have more children, longer marriages, suffer far less addiction/suicide/fatal car crashes/self-destructive behaviors—and in short are just plain happier—than the multiculturalist busybodies and the officious and intermeddling progressives. (If you doubt this, I invite you to attend an Orthodox Jewish wedding and a Feminist political rally and compare these experiences both in the moment and the results over a lifetime. To LIFE!) And to add insult to injury, they appear to me to be better off financially (with the notable exception of the Silicon Valley folks. See? Life is not fair and it's still okay!).

I watch, with extreme sadness, as the French take to the streets in protest. Hurting people and destroying private property won't solve the problems that they seem to have identified. Going home and making love, having babies, and reestablishing economic freedom by dismantling the regulatory state would. But THAT would require recognizing the individual as the political unit, the family as the social unit, and the community as the social safety net. You know, living like a—gasp!—tribalist. Perhaps the French can stop burning cars and look to a working solution that is staring them right in the face in the form of Israel. We never see the Israelis rioting in the street. They are too busy raising children and continuing their culture. Envy does nothing to help the intergenerational survival of a culture, but producing well-adjusted children and forming them into functioning adults does. And the French don't even have to like Israel! You can learn lots of neat stuff from people you don't like.

Multiculturalism on this side of the pond seems to manifest itself by holding guns to people's heads to bake cakes they don't want to bake and to join cultures and belief systems they don't want to join. Of course, that this use of "violence by proxy" (original to me, but feel free to use it early and often) is inherently evil and has the uncanny penchant of turning on those who wield it is of little consequence to those who know they occupy the moral high ground with Truth, Beauty, and Justice by their side. That's the thing about Authoritarianism, Feminism, and Collectivism. They are "always one execution away from Utopia."

I have a new book coming, tentatively "Stones in the Garden," the second in the series that began with "Seven Years of Famine." It is jolly good fun as the (near) end of the world could ever be as it critically examines all the things we are not supposed to talk about. Dystopian, but without the roving hordes and gang violence favored by Hollywood. With good people trying not to repeat the mistakes of the past as they reconstruct civilization from the ground up.

The Evolution of Third Wave Feminism and the Role of Disgust in Man-Hating

My take-no-prisoners assessment of Radical Feminism, Stones in the Garden, is available now on Amazon in paperback and e-reader formats, and free for Kindle Unlimited subscribers.==========>

*****

The following is an adaption from my upcoming book tentatively titled, "Me Neither: The Nobility of Man Amidst the Feminist Mass Hysteria."

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the people of North America and Europe found themselves in the grip of mass hysteria. A political special-interest group—“Third Wave Feminists”—evolved and promulgated this hysteria and their movement “Third Wave Feminism,” and now just “Feminism,” dominates our media and politics (the result of a conspiracy between the mainstream media and the Clinton political machine). Today's Feminism or women’s movement has little or no philosophical commonality with the Suffrage movement or the Women’s Liberation movement, though it does have a great deal in common with the Temperance movement to ban alcohol in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 

Third Wave Feminism emerged from lesbian political activism during the counterculture movement of the 1960s, gained a severe foothold in 1973 with the publication of the book, “Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution,” by radical lesbian and feminist, Jill Johnston, consisting of a collection of truly bizarre, vicious, and emotionally distraught essays that Johnston published in the late ’60s and early ’70s in the New York City progressive newspaper, The Village Voice. But it was the advent of widespread heterosexual pornography that galvanized the lesbian movement and launched “Anti-Pornography Feminism,” and that morphed into the profoundly strident man-hating philosophy of today’s Third Wave Feminism. Several grassroots organizations—Women Against Violence Against Women (Los Angeles);  Women Against Violence in Pornography and Media (San Francisco); and Women Against Pornography (New York)—popped up to vehemently oppose heterosexual pornography (male homosexual pornography did not seem to trouble them) in the late 1970s and early 1980s, though the movement was well entrenched by that time and the founders of these groups were almost exclusively comprised of women who defined themselves—in their speaking and writing—as “confirmed” lesbians.  

“The conflicts began on the West Coast, pitting a community of Bay Area lesbian sadomasochists against members of the newly emerging feminist anti-pornography movement.  These women disagreed as to whether sexual behavior that seemed to involve violence could be practiced or depicted in ways that did not foster oppression.  Their debates over potential social harm were so hotly contested that the National Organization for Women (NOW) stepped into the fray.  Siding with anti-pornography feminists, the organization declared in 1980 that sadomasochism and pornography constituted violence, not sex, and were inherently dangerous.” – Carolyn Bronstein, author of “Battling Pornography.” DePaul University Press, June 2011

Of course, political lesbianism existed long before the Village Voice essays. Simone de Beauvoir, A French Feminist and, like her life-long lover, Paul Sartre, a deeply flawed Existentialist philosopher, published “Le Deuxième Sexe”—"The Second Sex”— in 1949. I say “flawed” because both Sartre and de Beauvoir’s philosophical position on the freedom of man was just that—profoundly flawed; almost childlike. de Beauvoir and Sartre were both childless, self-indulgent, and self-destructive individuals who left the burdens of children, family, and the future of mankind to others, seemingly unable to grasp the responsibility inherent in liberty. Without the maturation process that comes of parenting children, their post-modernist, collectivist, and Marxist philosophies—philosophies that led to the slaughter of millions of human beings by Communist regimes around the world—remained dangerously callow and unfledged, which they camouflaged in a dense and turbid writing style that, in Sartre’s case, successfully fooled the Nobel committee. And with that, it is appropriate that I bring up the human emotion of disgust.

The role of disgust in lesbian sexuality and politics

The emotion of “disgust” plays a vital role in keeping us safe. Disgust elicitors such as spoiled meat, feces, bugs, snakes, corpses, et al. produce a forceful disgust and fear response in well-adjusted people (but which prevents "Feminist" procreation), and this response keeps us healthy and alive and able to pass our genes onto the next generation (Radical Feminists do not have a significant "next generation").

“Disgust is a sensation rather more distinct in its nature and refers to something revolting, primarily in relation to the sense of taste, as actually perceived or vividly imagined; and secondarily to anything which causes a similar feeling, through the sense of smell, touch, and even of eyesight.” Charles Darwin, “The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals.” Emphasis added. 

The Feminist mass hysteria is a gross misstatement and miscategorization—or perhaps self-serving aggrandizement to cover for a sense of self-loathing might be a better description—of the phenomenon of sexual deviation. In short, Third Wave Feminists are deviants—this is not a moral judgment on their sexuality—in that the adherents of this belief system generally suffer from heterosexual dysphoria. Their belief system (and other mental challenges) stems from the deviant emotional response of “disgust” they experience in response to men and maleness—half of all of humanity—and their self-inflicted exposure to heterosexual video pornography.

While we can argue over whether pornography is “deviant” or not, there is little evidence that pornography interferes with human procreation—and procreation is a non-negotiable element for society and mankind. An existential rejection of reproduction is deviancy. Someone has to have children, or there is no reason to engage in political or philosophical debate because humanity would have no future. It then follows that the people who reject the human nature of heterosexuality—with all of its quirks as they might be perceived—are pathological and antisocial. And for reasons that defy explanation, some people experience a neurosis that manifests itself as a disgust response to (perfectly normal and healthy) stimuli in their environment that interferes with their ability to engage in heterosexual activity and achieve reproductive success. In short, they die childless.

I assert that human females suffering from heterosexual dysphoria experience an ongoing disgust response to human males in general and the nature of male heterosexuality in particular. But where would such women come into contact with the male heterosexuality that would elicit a disgust response? From pop culture media in general and by watching heterosexual pornography in particular. Why would an individual seek out and observe behavior they find offensive and disgusting? And why would groups of these individuals coalesce as voyeurs watching behavior that they collectively find offensive and disgusting? Well, the short answer is that they are sociopaths, a condition in which a human being experiences an enhanced ability to feel hate, fear, and loathing, and a diminished capacity to feel empathy. How millions of individuals arrived at that unhappy place is impossible to know, and that knowledge is not crucial to make the observations I am describing here. Women, in general, seem to have a lower tolerance threshold for disgust elicitors than men, and it appears to me that the demographic of women suffering from heterosexual dysphoria have a disgust threshold so low that they cannot socialize effectively with men and suffer terrible rates of reproductive failure as a result. Worse, this demographic seems intent on spreading their reproductive failure to others in the form of their support for abortion. 

From Science Daily, taken from a study dated June 24, 2015, from the University of Portsmouth; Science Daily Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Dr. Diana Fleischman, of the University of Portsmouth's Department of Psychology, carried out the research when she was working at a North American university. She found that the more disgusted a woman was, the less sexually aroused she was likely to be. 

Disgust is thought to be a protective emotion because it encourages humans to shun anything which could transmit disease, such as another person's blood or body fluids.
Dr. Fleischman, an evolutionary psychologist, said: "Sex includes increased contact with body odours [sic] and fluids which, in other contexts, strongly suggest disease and would elicit disgust. Women are more vulnerable to contracting diseases through sex than men and show worse outcomes once infected so we should expect that women will be especially turned off when they are disgusted. 

"It makes sense that sexual arousal and disgust would affect one another. Sexual arousal motivates us toward closeness with others and their bodies while disgust motivates us away. Given these competing motivations, every one of our ancestors had to overcome disgust in order to have sexual contact and reproduce.”  

It then follows—if we take the mirror image of the above assertion—that it is the male’s ability to overcome most disgust elicitors and achieve a serviceable erection and orgasm that allowed mankind to survive war, famine, blights, and pestilence of biblical proportion—or would Feminists have preferred that the European population extinguished itself during the Black Plague? In the midst of death and disease, Life—via the male’s existential interest in heterosexual activity—went on.

Third Wave Feminists took on print pornography, and that medium became the rallying point for “women suffering from heterosexual dysphoria” (“WHD”). The men’s magazines “Playboy,” “Penthouse,” and especially “Hustler,” were targeted, though these now seem quaint and tame by today’s standards. The motivated WHD associated with these anti-pornography Feminist groups powerfully agitated for censoring the images of naked women in these publications under the rubric of “exploitation.” The “sexual violence” moniker was rendered retroactively with help from NOW’s unilateral pronunciation. But in the final analysis, it was the advent of popular and widespread film and later video heterosexual pornography that energized and motivated Third Wave Feminism to attempt to bring down Western culture. For radical lesbian feminists, all heterosexual activity is rape.

Of course, neurotic disgust is not unique to women. I think that a disgust response that prevents a human being from reproducing is self-destructive irrespective of gender. And self-destruction is a reasonable marker of mental illness. Of course, if you adhere to a belief system that asserts that the rejection of reproduction is a virtue, or that reproduction is somehow evil or selfish, or that people who have children are harming the planet, well, then perhaps you would argue that a disgust response that prevents you from projecting your DNA and your family line into the future is not indicative of mental illness but virtue. You might even assert that your disgust response is part and parcel of an enlightened worldview and the superior nature of your moral code when compared to people who have produced children. But it has been my consistent observation that the parents of these childless neurotics invariably see things very differently. It has further been my consistent observation that these childless neurotics have attenuated relationships with their parents, most of whom wished for the Life-milestone of grandchildren and were denied this by their disturbed offspring.

Here I must digress and distinguish between the chiefly lesbian, authoritarian, and man-hating Third Wave Feminists spawned by the anti-pornography groups et al. and the primarily heterosexual sex-positive “Second Wave Feminism” that evolved out of the “Women’s Liberation Movement.” Women like Naomi Wolf, author of “The Beauty Myth,” and Germaine Greer, author of “The Female Eunuch.” And while I have seen other Feminists place these women in the Third Wave Feminism camp, I reject that. Third Wave Feminism evolved out of the “Second Sex”/“Lesbian Nation”/anti-pornography movement of radical lesbians suffering from an existential disgust response to men. Wolf and Greer and many other women in the sex-positive and anti-censorship camp are not, to my mind, part and parcel of the current Feminist hysteria. Wolf, unlike all of the other women mentioned, is a mother who gave birth to two children the old-fashioned way. I must quickly add that the excesses of this philosophy were extremely damaging to society in general and men and children in particular, but the antisocial elements of this brand of “Feminism” just cannot hold a candle to the abject evil of Third Wave Feminism and has faded into relative obscurity. 

Available on Amazon

#ThirdWaveFeminism, #Disgust, #Deviancy, #Procreation, #Fertility, #Sociopath, #PathologicalFeminism, #MeNeither

It is Bare Knuckles from this Day Forward

The following is an adaption from my forthcoming non-fiction book, tentatively titled, "Me Neither: The Nobility of Man Amidst the Feminist Mass Hysteria."

*****

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius 

At a time when mankind should be celebrating in gratitude for the incredible benefits of the advances, inventions, and services brought to us by the innovations unleased since the dawn of the industrial revolution many Americans live a life of resentment and rage. In a world where intellectualism is ill, hardened in its opinions, and engaged in meritless judgment while worshiping inherently violent belief systems it is Reason that must fight its way to the center of the debate to be heard. We, as individuals, know so very little, and yet many of us seem willing to engage in the use of force and coercion to bring about the social environment of our uninformed imaginations—and are ready and willing to delegate this responsibility to the sort of people who enjoy the use of power and coercion. And while perhaps half of the body politic of the English-speaking world—America, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia—and much of Western Europe gnashes its teeth in anger, desiring complete control over the individual, these people cannot even control themselves. Obesity, addiction, depression, and medications just to cope—even suicide—are the order of their day. And while these poor souls have my sympathy, I cannot give their antisocial pathology a pass as they clamor for control and accuse their fellow man of wrongdoing in the furtherance of their poorly defined agenda. 

Our institutions of higher learning have gone mad, and the control freaks and deviants heading the departments of the college cartel and university-industrial complex have lost it. Of course, they will pass from existence, just as we all shall, but since these people rarely produce children, they must recruit the next generation of violent oppressors from the children of the very people they hate—as well as from the pool of immigrants—through the public schools and university-industrial complex. And it is this recruitment process, and the creation, nay manufacture, of wedge issues to influence impressionable young minds that is most destructive to our culture and to Reason itself. Most of this is accomplished via the indoctrination that takes place in our public institutions—our schools and universities—but is also taking place in corporate and government employment and especially in the media. Independent thought and analysis are not acceptable in this era, and anything that strays from the accepted narrative is “hate speech.” One must abide by the morbid philosophies of those in control of our institutions, and only thoroughly indoctrinated “true believers” are considered competent to express an opinion or thought, and the great thinker’s credentials must follow each public utterance—lest we dare to question the Emperor’s New Clothes—ostensibly providing proof for the idea expressed. 

One wonders what credentials Socrates or Pythagoras claimed. 

Our Western culture and way of life are circling the drain in the same circuitous motion as the thoughts and ideas demanded by the institutional group think of our day. The top cites the “wisdom” of the side that quotes the “sense” of the bottom that praises the “knowledge” of the other side which points back to the "wisdom" of the top, and round and round we go.

Studies receive funding for predetermined outcomes, and they maintain all that supports that which the sociopaths in the humanities professoriate seek to assert as they discard everything that detracts. Our best and brightest often spend their youth and beauty in this vortex and dare not swim away from the whirl for fear of having to make a living by their wits rather than the comfort of drawing from the extorted and debt-fueled largesse that finances the parasite’s lifestyle. Most of these people fully recognize that in the mart of competitive commerce they would be reduced to picking through garbage cans and dumpsters, such is the market value of their education, skills, and knowledge.

Marcus Aurelius said, “The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are.” Well, when I look this in the face and know them for what they are, I see the Authoritarian, Feminist/LGBT, and Collectivist Left (“AFCL”). And we are in the final battle with this cohort for the survival of Western Culture. On one side are the people who respect and regard the male's Life-Giving-Force that has brought forth Noble Man for what and who he is, and; on the other are the deranged people of the AFCL, intent on snuffing out our existence with the notion that they possess a better way, despite their abject terror of the stuff that our future consists of and the path that we must tread to get there—the passion and desire that men hold for women and the love for our children that provides the way forward for humanity in the form of the next generation. For we are mortal, and we will all soon return to the earth. 

Do Feminists and people suffering from heterosexual dysphoria intend to reproduce, parent, and provide for the next generation? It has been my consistent observation that this cohort struggles to provide for themselves (it is not a coincidence that childless people are so enamored with the idea of socialism and despise the idea of private property and inheritance). And despite this simple fact—that people who do not bear children cannot prevail in an intergenerational philosophical dispute—the AFCL is willing to scorch the very earth in their quest for vengeance upon Creation itself to assuage the anger and self-loathing they feel about the defects in their nature. And I think this manifests itself in the manner in which they seek demographic advantage via the murder of the unborn of the people they perceive as their oppressors and enemies (not to mention the slaughter of innocents around the world in the never-ending “War on Terror” as a way of leveling the demographic playing field between the childless LGBT and fecund Muslims). For it is the hatred of men and the product of heterosexual men—children—that unite these defective personalities into the political special interest group we see in news clips wearing black masks as they commit property crimes and visit violence on their fellow man. 

I don’t deny the humanity of the AFCL, and I wish them no harm! I merely point out the critical defects in their understanding that are inherently violent and evil. They are still human and hold the spark of the Devine within them—and distant and difficult to see as it is, it is still there. And while there is Life, there is hope—even if many of these poor souls will prove to be beyond redemption. As Epictetus famously said, “You are a little soul carrying around a corpse.” People who have had the life-changing experience of watching their children come into this world and who put in the extreme and strenuous efforts of parenthood understand this concept without the need for philosophical instruction. Unfortunately, the AFCL more often than not does not have the benefit of the maturation process of parenthood. And when they do, it is often so late in life that they are incapable of benefiting intellectually from experience. 

The AFCL and their pathological sycophants running the indoctrination centers of the college cartel despise cognitive generalization and categorization. We can see that demonstrated clearly in their assertions regarding gender and the concept of human nature. But the basis of all cognition is categorization. Ideas must be recognized and differentiated if they are to be understood. Generalization is necessary for classification because human perception cannot function with an infinite set of categories. Keep that in mind the next time someone criticizes you. "Generalize much?" is a typical response (and dead give away as to the maturity and intellectual capacity of the responder) in discussions on social media.

Stay with me as I categorize and generalize the philosophy and personality traits dominating the people of the Authoritarian, Feminist/LGBT, and Collectivist Left, and lay bare the inherent violence of their irrational belief system and their willingness to use force and coercion to impose their moral, political, and personal agendas on the rest of us. We are suffering through incredible mass hysteria. We need time to get over it, but we also need intellectual ammunition to fight back. I hope that this book will provide people with a narrative that might help them bring a lost soul, perhaps even their own, back into the fold of humanity. 

"I have come to realize that men are not born to be free. Liberty is a need felt by a small class of people who nature endowed with minds higher than the mass of men." Napoleon Bonaparte

Dear American Men Part 2

Dear American Men (Part 2) (and the women who love their men):

The Feminist War on Men and Boys has reached a new and desperate level of brutality and despicability. Men—and the Women who love and value the humanity of their fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons—must stand up to the disgraceful “useful idiots” and Feminist bullies championing this war.

To sum up the legal situation of the Feminist ideation of “sexual assault,” which—unlike rape—can mean anything to any woman at any time, I would assert that every woman who makes a criminal charge is either:

A victim of a serious violent crime against her person (think Ted Bundy).

-or-

A Perpetrator of a serious crime against a person (think Duke false "rape" case).

Though I tend to see the world in a thousand shades of grey there just isn’t much wiggle room here. If the woman is a victim of violence, the perpetrator must be brought to justice and punished accordingly. If the woman is a perpetrator and has attempted to murder, kidnap, and impoverish another human being using the criminal justice system as her weapon of choice, she must be brought to justice and punished accordingly. This is finally starting to happen but without much enthusiasm. We need to do something about that. But this is where due process comes in and what makes us a civilized society.

Of course, this is all very reasonable—but Feminists are not reasonable. We have solid data from the “college campus sexual assault insurance industry” that the vast majority of payouts do not go to women who were assaulted. NO! The majority of payouts (in $) (over 70%) go to men who were falsely accused by female perpetrators and who survived the onslaught of the Title IX empowered college administrators, the criminal justice system, and not a small amount of hero status seeking by Left-leaning low testosterone virtue-signaling males. This is not an attempt to provide cover for men who commit crimes against women. They must be dealt with harshly—but they must receive due process.

“The higher education insurance group United Educators did a study of the 262 insurance claims it paid to students between 2006 and 2010 because of campus sexual assault, at a cost to the group of $36 million,” she wrote. “The vast majority of the payouts, 72 percent, went to the accused — young men who protested their treatment by universities.”

This data is empirical, it is unassailable, and it is accurate—and it won’t change a single Feminist mind. It won’t change a thing because of the immutable personality traits that afflict the majority (of the minority) of women self-defining as “Feminists.”

I am a writer. I observe the human condition. I generalize what I observe. And then I write about my observations, generalizations, and conclusions. I am also a voracious reader and world traveler and I have lived a long life. I read everything that interests me—and these subjects interest me—and I do it on my own volition—not because I seek approval in the form of a credential from the college cartel or to cooperate with the occupational licensing industrial complex. I am free to arrive at my conclusions unconcerned with the politics or optics of it all, and I am not trying to bill your insurance carrier or convince someone who is not accessible to reason. Consider that for a moment. I have a great deal of faith in people. When we see a broad consensus on social observations, you know we are getting close to the Truth—or at least an accurate description of the issue.

My observations inform me that female political “Feminists” are primarily (not exclusively!) comprised of two ill-fitted subsets of women (I will get to the pathetic and primarily childless men who support Feminism shortly):

1: Women suffering from what I have termed “heterosexual dysphoria” (“HD”). This includes confirmed “Lesbians” but is not limited to confirmed “Lesbians.” (Anyone reading this who is old enough to remember the term “frigid” to describe the sexual sensibilities of some women might understand immediately.) In short, the demographic spectrum of women who—existentially—do not value men, especially socially or sexually (men are okay for commercial fishing, logging, car repair, et al). And in no way, shape, or form am I suggesting that such women should not be free to decide who they will (or will not) socialize or have sex with. (If I may digress: My observations and research tell me that women from certain regions of the world—Europe, Asia, Africa—experience different rates of heterosexual dysphoria. If you doubt this, search for a dyke bar in Tokyo. If you find one, go inside and count the number of women there. Then fly to New York City or London and conduct the same research. Let’s compare notes when you have completed the task.)

2: Women suffering from Cluster B personality disorders. Of course, there is no “cluster” of personality disorders—Borderline, Histrionic, High-Conflict, Narcistic, et al. The false gods of the mental health profession have sought to have their name immortalized with a separate diagnosis. I assert it would be better to scrap them all and simply call this suite of elusive and difficult to define conditions what it is: Female Variant Anti-Social Personality Disorder (my sense of it all informs me that there are fewer Male Variant Sociopaths ("MVS") walking around but they (obviously) commit far more serious violent crime).

Female Variant Sociopaths (“FVS”) suffer a terrible and ongoing internal emotional storm, and that storm manifests itself in many ways, but the raging emotional swings these women externalize between the idealization and devaluation of the people in their lives —especially the man they are sexually involved with—could move rivers and mountains. I emphasize that this emotional storm, or struggle, is internal—but the sufferer invariably seeks external factors to blame for what they are feeling. The FVS' expression of this emotional storm is external—they act out in mind-bending ways. One afternoon, the FVS is the most loving, caring, sexually compatible lover a man could imagine, and the next morning she is quite capable of accusing her lover of rape. 

FVS usually do not use guns or knives or vehicles the way MVS do. No, they use manipulation, character assignation, and social bullying via the criminal justice system, family and divorce courts, and social media/gossip. My primary assertion here is that this is the source of these false accusations—and one of the consequences has been the over 70% insurance payouts by university insurance companies to the men who were falsely accused of sexual assault by the FVS women defined in category 2 above, with the assistance and encouragement of the HD women defined in category 1 to support their political agenda.

For many years, I did not fully understand the mechanism, or perhaps the commonality, that bound these groups together—until I started to read the available literature on the human emotional expression of “empathy.” Or, perhaps I already understood it but used different jargon. I have concluded that women suffering from FVS and HD have much lower—and in some cases nonexistent—ability to feel empathy—especially towards men and the product of men: CHILDREN—when compared to heterosexual and non-sociopathic women. This seems to manifest itself primarily in the abortion issue. Women suffering from FVS and HD do not feel empathy towards children—unborn or born—or men but seem to be empathetic to women who support abortion and not empathetic to women who oppose abortion.  

Censorship—another expression of low empathy—is at the very heart of Feminism. Feminism cannot continue to exist in a world where people can speak freely and openly while engaging in a rational co-examination of a set of facts. Feminists will happily censor photos of what happens to (the millions) human beings during an abortion while waving around the (hundreds of) photos of women they claim died from “unsafe” illegal abortions. There seems to be a high correlation between low empathy and the inability to grasp scale.

In my book, “Seven Years of Famine,” there is a passage where I lay waste to Feminism in general and the Feminist argument supporting the ethics of abortion in particular. Several Pro-Life organizations have used my writings and ideas before... but after reading "Famine," one of the national organizations said it was the most profound argument on the subject ever—but they felt it was too hot to handle. 

But abortion can never be extinguished using government force and violence. The ideas of Life and our humanity must be won one heart at a time. And some people just don’t have a heart—or the ability to feel empathy. And while I am not denying their humanity, I do not feel that it is inconsistent to say that such people are pathological, anti-social, and somewhat less than human. Such people are more than capable, nay willing, to convict and imprison a man on the mere word of a woman—despite all of the available evidence that false accusations appear to be, at least on college campuses, the case in most circumstances—in the morning and then head off to an abortion clinic and dismember a human being in the afternoon. But while there is Life there is hope. We can only try to reason with our fellow man. We must not allow such people to come to power and we must strip them of power where they are now entrenched.

People, you and me, cannot “know” anything beyond our immediate experiences—and even then we get much of it wrong. We take in information—and in the current construct, that information comes primarily from purveyors of propaganda—and then reach conclusions that support the biases we already have. Some people are accessible to reason and can take in new information and change their minds; reach different conclusions. People who are not accessible to reason simply cannot do this. They are stuck in the intellectual cement of the propagandists.

We are living through one of the worst mass-hysteria in history. Let's hope it doesn't top the worst. But there is a good reason for hope. The vast majority of people—men and women—are not sociopaths. The vast majority of women do not hate their fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons. Good, rational, and reasonable people must protect ourselves, each other, and especially our sons from these pathological belief systems and these hateful, disturbed people who, through no fault of their own, were stripped of the ability to feel the kind of love that parents have for their children. I feel empathy for them—a human emotion it seems they will never know.

Please get out an vote this November. The future of our sons is at stake.



("Dear American Men" (Part 1) can be found by clicking here.)

#Feminism, #Blasey-Ford, #sexual-assault, #war-on-men, #Kavanaugh

#MeNeither: The Nobility of Man Amidst the Feminist Mass Hysteria

An excerpt from my forthcoming book, "#MeNeither: The Nobility of Man Amidst the Feminist Mass Hysteria":

In the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries, the people of North America and Europe found themselves in the grip of an incredibly destructive phenomenon—the Feminist mass hysteria. A philosophy or school of thought can only be judged on its major works—the books, essays, articles, and speeches of its founders and leaders. The Feminist mass hysteria was born of the ideas of several deeply disturbed Gay Women/Feminist activists of the 1960’s and 70’s—women like Valerie Solanas, author of the "SCUM Manifesto" and convicted attempted murderer who shot Andy Warhol several times with a .38 revolver, destroying his health for the remainder of his life, and; Andrea Dworkin, author of “Intercourse” and “Pornography: Men Possessing Women”. It was Dworkin, in her effort to destroy “Second Wave Feminism” and the sexual liberation movement, who uttered the famous words:

“Yea, I’m a radical Feminist. Not the fun kind.”

I won't give much more publicity to the Radical/Lesbian Feminists of that era (except to use their own words to counter any of their objections or criticisms). Those people were filled with hate—that is their Raison d'être. Feminists hate men. They hate hetero-male sexuality. But most of all, Feminists hate the product of men: Children. And they have been enormously effective in exerting influence from their power base within the Humanities/Social "Studies" (I would assert Indoctrination) Professoriate and in the Media.

But Feminism has a fatal flaw. Feminists themselves are human beings and as such are the product of the human sexual experience, an experience that is promulgated by Man. So Feminists must censor Man's role and contribution to Life and insist that Life begins at birth.

Why do Feminists insist that life begins at birth? The answer is that Feminists must deny that life begins at conception. To say otherwise would be to acknowledge the male’s role in creating Life, and because childbirth is the province of women. It is Conception that is the province of the male, and it is the male’s active role of arousal, subsequent penile erection, and finally orgasm that delivers a path to the future of Humanity. If the future of Mankind depended on the passions and desires and contributions of Feminists/Gay Women then Mankind would vanish within a single generation. 

Feminists’ war on the Unborn begins with and is part and parcel of their war on, and hatred of, the penile erection. Their strategy is to negate the male role in procreation altogether. 

To a Feminist, only Woman, the Sacred Female, can give Life! Noble Man has no part in the Creation of Life! 

Feminism seeks to deny Man’s place in Creation and Life and assert that the miraculous odyssey of Man’s Life-Giving force is evil—and that all of the physiological and psychological responses that our Creator has given Man to ensure a path to the future for Mankind must be abjured—shouted down—papered over.

Feminists have coined their own political verb, “to objectify”, a term of derision directed at the Life-Giving force of passion and desire that a Man has for a Woman. It then follows that what Feminists are insisting on is that the manner in which Man achieves and maintains an erection—a phenomenon that has sustained Mankind by filling Woman with Life since the dawn of Mankind—must change. Feminists, that is people who have never had an erection, who have never filled a woman with Life, and who do not possess the will to sustain and provide for that Life and the life of the Mother at the most vulnerable time of their lives—the long period of the human childhood and the several years of human lactation—allege that they have a better way. If only Man will change to fit and meet their ideal. And they are going to scorch and salt the very earth and poison the water in the wells with their propaganda in an effort to accomplish their agenda.

Of course, Feminism will eventually be crushed out of existence by the Life-Giving force of Man but not before murdering hundreds of millions of unborn children and imprisoning and impoverishing thousands of men who did not engage in coercion.

It must be noble Man, the men who will father children and protect and care for his offspring to project his seed into the future, a future that Humanity depends on, who puts a stop to this.

#MeNeither