In no small way, silence helped #MeToo come into being

This is an original piece of writing by yours truly, hence no link. It is a realization I have had. Please comment if you are so moved.

The #MeToo campaign is the implementation of the feminist agenda to get resources from men to use against us. As Sun Tzu said, bring supplies to get you to the enemy's border. Thereafter your men can get what they need by plundering the enemy.

This is what feminists are doing. Not wanting to work for a living they want to plunder successful men by extorting them for money via actual or threatened accusations. This isn't to say some accusations against some men are not true. It is to say that most are likely not. It's also to say that converting a quid pro quo agreement retroactively to an act of sexual assault is not unlike a prohibited ex post facto law being passed. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US. #MeToo is a perfect example of the ex post facto principle in effect. Now you see why they are unconstitutional.

One reason #MeToo has been successful at all is because men have not been challenging the anti-male bigotry coming not from strangers on the Internet but from actual friends/relatives/lovers. Ask yourself: when you hear a patently misandrist/racist/both thing said against men/white men, do you just laugh it off? Stay silent? Or do you refute whatever the assertion is? Strangers will use foul language and assail you on-line if you do of course. But what of gfs, wives, friends? Will they? Not nearly as likely.

#MeToo could maybe have been avoided had men been more assertive fighting back these past 20 years or so. The feminist agenda would never have gotten to #MeToo once faced down with open resistance to the vilification of men. I feel it is time, past time, men stopped acting like shrinking violets when they hear or read something from a friend, etc., posted on-line or said in person that attacks and denigrates men/white men merely for their sex/sex and color.

Recently I had a close female friend (well, used to be lover, but whatever) post something on a social media site about how it was time to re-name certain things that had been named by or after nasty old dead white males. The reasoning wasn't actually anything like reasoning. It was more like "They had no right to do that so we should change the names they gave these things." Basically if it had been named by anyone other than a white guy, it would be fine. She indicated that this was not such a bad idea.

It was at this point I decided that as fond as I am of her I do not need or want such a toxic character in my life. I posted that the idea was ludicrous, that things are named after those who invent or discover them as a matter of course in human history, and to re-name things because you are averse to the race and sex of the inventor, etc., is itself racist and sexist. I then MANsplained that much of modern civilization is the product of dead white male ingenuity and if you don't like it, too bad. But you can thank God or whatever you believe in for them because most of us are alive today because of their inventions and discoveries.

I received no reply. Of course, she can't make one. I'm right.

What is important is that when dealing with a "woke"-like friend/lover/etc., and they start spouting out racist and sexist anti-white, anti-male drivel, you must at that point resolve that to lose such a person from your life is on the table. They get a chance to say nothing in reply after you correct them, accepting the reality of things, or they get a chance to say Yes, you're right, that was wrong of me. Then keep an eye on them. If they re-offend, be done with them.

No one needs people who are antithetical to your interests in their life. If I have anyone in my life I have to know they got my back. People who are racist and sexist against my race and sex are unreliable and not to be trusted. I have to assume they would betray me at the first opportunity using my race and sex as the rationale for doing so regardless of anything else they say or do. I need not take such a chance and am better off without them in life in the same way that Jews are better off not having Nazi sympathizers in their lives.

Critical here is this: warrior spirit. The warrior embraces death and loss. He isn't afraid of it. He goes toward it. To go willingly into battle you must accept that you will die that day and be good with it. Likewise when standing up to these racist and sexist bullies you may have in your life you must be ready to cut them loose and have nothing further to do with them. Yes that includes people you are even married to. Were I married to a woman who suddenly started spouting her "woke" ways against evil awful dead white males, or living ones, I would give her one chance to reconsider her vile ways, explaining why: how can I trust a person who despises people of my class in general? I can't. If I cannot do that I sure cannot be married to them. Call the lawyer. Get away ASAP. Likewise if you have friends, lovers, etc. who revile men or whites or white men in particular, and if indeed you who reads this fits that bill, I suggest you consider strongly how much you want an asshat like that anywhere in your life. Give them a chance to get un-woke. If they don't, jettison them permanently and do not entertain their return to your life. They have shown their cards and for that reason cannot be trusted. They may decide to faux-repent and do something to betray you. Once gone from your life, people identified as toxic to you must be kept out permanently. Nature is like this: No second chances. You either elude the tiger or kill or wound him so you get away, or you die in his jaws. There is no second chance. You are either lunch or you eat lunch. Life here in civilization is no different.

#MeToo is like this: The accused are guilty. No repentance or forgiveness. Accused = guilty = no forgiveness. As a man in a badly-polluted society that is misandrist and racist against whites, we are forced by our enemies to take rather drastic action. Make no mistake: we have enemies. They are the leaders and champions of #MeToo and the feminist movement, and their followers. First thing we must do is stop consorting with them. No more sleeping with the enemy.

Hey it worked in the 1970s for women. No reason terminating toxic anti-male people from our lives can make us any worse off. I mean, really, we have NOTHING to lose except being around people who secretly despise us. Good riddance.

Still want to fuck something? Like I always say: cheap hookers or McDonald's girls. There are ALWAYS alternatives in life. If you mistakenly believe that one vagina is superior to all others and no other will do for you, trust me, you are deluded. A man cannot these days afford to live in a state of idealism or out of touch with reality. You must be ruthlessly pragmatic to achieve any kind of success, be it in business, politics, or dealing with others in any way.

Read The Prince and The Art of War for inspiration. :)

Like0 Dislike0


Thanks for these thoughtful comments. It seems that at least weekly the news serves up some reminder of just how gelded we've become. Serena Williams' tantrum was bad enough, but when she followed it with an accusation of sexism, claiming that by a double standard a man would not be penalized for the same violation, they interviewed feminists on CNN to back up her claim, and a lot of people bought it. Too large a segment of the population just reflexively accepts any feminist claim of discrimination. But on further inspection, the opposite turned out to be the case: Men are penalized much more than women. So, will CNN do a retraction? How many people will be made aware of the facts? Or will Serena's specious claim just continue to reverberate in the feminist echo chamber, since it supports the Narrative? My guess is that the facts will be largely ignored.

Like0 Dislike0

Well, I hadn't read earlier posts, and didn't notice that Serena Williams' caterwaul had already been covered on this site. Well, anyway I think that initial reaction to it is a good illustration of what Matt is talking about.

Like0 Dislike0

... doesn't reflect or represent popular sentiment. This is bc it isn't funded by viewers or readers. It is funded now by advertisers who only care abt pageviews and Neilson ratings. Consequently the MSM is basically free to put anything out there it wants to. They run anything that attracts site or news show visitors/viewers.

In short, you can ignore what CNN or any other MSM outfit comes out with as a reflection of the popular zeitgeist.

One barometer of sentiment that cannot be ignored: election results. Watch those.

Like0 Dislike0

SJW-neo-Marxists are not kidding. They want to destory civilization and build up a new one. I mean, destory it. They have no idea of course what the Hell they are doing but they know that to attack anything and everything is good because it is all part of civilization.

What "better" civilization has she proposed get built from the ruins of the current one? Will it actually include any kind of modern technology or will it be stone- or bronze-age living?

Say good-bye to toilet paper and anti-biotics?

Further, what world in terms of sexuality will it suggest. Nothing considered anything? Or will it be "homo-normative" a la the Spartans? I'd like to refer you all to Sparta. Interesting human experiment, that. Their founder was a gay man who made himself king of a new land. In that land, people would learn to be gay by being subjected to sexual behavior (child sex abuse by today's standards) at around age 12 lasting until 18. Boys would have sex with men and girls with each other and with women. However Spartans were expected to be married to one another crossing sexes by age 35. Spartan men unmarried by then were aggressively ridiculed and publicly shamed. Few Spartan women if any were unmarried by 35 since many were married shortly after age 18.

There was a problem: fecundity. By their 20s the sexes had indeed learned to be gay, whether or not being gay was their natural inclination. As a result, Spartan men notoriously had trouble being sexual with their wives. They went to great lengths to make ways to make the women attractive to them: shaving their heads, banging them doggy-style in a dark box, etc. So used to violating boys anally were they that they had trouble getting erect for women. Dressing women up as boys was something they reportedly had to do. (I can't make this shit up:

As to Spartan women, they had girlfriends of the sexual kind all their lives. They found it a lot easier to have sex with men when necessary because of their anatomy but by and large had learned by that time to get their sexual needs met with girls and women. Consequently they saw having sex with their husbands or men generally as a duty. It was all about making babies.

Despite their noted devotion to duty, the Spartan people had a very hard time maintaining their numbers. Fecundity was very low and to maintain numbers, Spartans had to resort to importing people as slaves then training them to be Spartans, when possible. Many such captives however could not adapt to the homosexuality-as-SOP protocol and so did not fit in. In addition, the Spartans had physical fitness standards for their citizens in good standing that were very hard to meet unless you had been training since childhood to be physically extraordinary.

This now is the lesson. While reducing human pop'n is a laudable goal, how you go about it has to be practical. To get people in such a new society where perhaps being gay is considered SOP, you need to do what the Spartans did, ie, start their kids to having sex with adults and other kids of their own sex at a young age. This was gross as means go, but effective. TBH I doubt any other approach would work.

So Anne, just how DO you propose to create this New World Order?

Like1 Dislike0