Metoo is Going Exactly According to Plan

Andrew Anglin

Daily Stormer
February 4, 2018

Everything we’d hoped for when we began the Metooist journey is coming to fruition.

This is more than we ever could have hoped for.

There are two angles in this golden triangle:

  1. Jews are getting destroyed at a much higher rate than anyone else
  2. It is making feminism totally non-viable as a system, given that the implications of “any woman can say anything and be believed” means that no man is willing to be around women, and women are thus less desirable as employees or colleagues

This is liberal lupus: the body is attacking itself.

And the thing about this train is: it’s like an Amtrak – it has no brakes!

They can’t somehow walk this back or say that a time is coming when men won’t be mobbed and fired for touching a woman’s leg. They have committed themselves to giving women the right to destroy the life and career of any man they wish to target, and there is no path to take away that power within the liberal system. This is very similar to the way that when they triggered blacks and Antifa to attack Confederate heroes, there was no way to stop them from going after Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

The liberal Jewish system can only go forward, never backward.

And how can sustained metoo possibly be compatible with the modern mutlti-sexual workplace?

Kyle Smith (of the National Review) writes for New York Post:

Consider what’s happening in the capital of Florida. Female staffers and lobbyists have found “many male legislators will no longer meet with them privately,” reported The Miami Herald. “I had a senator say, ‘I need my aide here in the room because I need a chaperone,’ ” lobbyist Jennifer Green told the paper. “I said, ‘Senator, why do you need a chaperone? . . . Do you feel uncomfortable around me?’ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘anyone can say anything with the door shut.’ ”

“I’m getting the feeling that we’re going back 20 years as female professionals,” said Green, who owns her company. “I fully anticipate I’m going to be competing with another firm that is currently owned by some male, and the deciding factor is going to be: ‘You don’t want to hire a female lobbying firm in this environment.’ ”

So this is now a thing that is going to become absolutely standard.

Women can then try and say it is sexist to not want to be alone in a room with a woman – but is that a viable claim, given that the man’s desire to not be in the room alone with them is so plain and plainly reasonable?

Probably not. But if the idea that it is abuse of women to not be alone with them takes hold, men will start quitting the jobs that require this and companies will begin putting protections in place that allow for men to avoid situations where they are alone with women.

This drastically downgrades women’s ability to perform a whole entire number of jobs, while also putting companies in an extremely uncomfortable – and expensive – position.

This kind of thinking is catching on in aggressively P.C. Silicon Valley, where men are taking to message boards like Reddit to express interest in sex segregation — sometimes labeled “Men Going Their Own Way,” or the “Man-o-Sphere.” How will that work out for women in the tech industry, where they already face substantial challenges?

Probably not very well.

Because this would mean that you would have to have tech teams that are entirely made-up of women. Women are incapable of doing tech, and are already simply leeching off the work of men on their teams. So Silicon Valley companies will be forced to subsidize entire female teams which fail to accomplish anything at all. There is also the issue that if a workplace is entirely made-up of women, all they do is gossip about one another and engage in little cat-fights.

It’s going to be expensive AND hilarious.

And again: how can men be denied this?

If the request is: “I don’t want to be around women because I’m afraid of being accused of sexual harassment,” how can the company deny them?

Across industries, “Several major companies have told us they are now limiting travel between the genders,” Johnny Taylor, president of the Society for Human Resource Management, told the Chicago Tribune, citing execs who tell men not to go on business trips or share rental cars with women co-workers. UCLA psychologist Kim Elsesser, the author of “Sex and the Office,” sees a nascent “sex partition.” If men start to back away from women, at least in professional settings, it’s difficult to see how that will aid the feminist cause.

It certainly would aid the feminist cause if the Jews were right about the nature of women. Just like a 100% black Detroit would aid the black cause if Jews were right about the nature of blacks.

However, the Jews have been lying about all of this. Women need the work of their male co-workers in order to succeed in the workplace, just like blacks need the work of whites to keep their living spaces from becoming shitholes.

We are finally introduced to a Jew woman who is arguing that women actually BENEFITED from a situation where men with power over them were sexually aggressive.

Writing in The American Interest, Claire Berlinski calls the #MeToo movement “a frenzied extrajudicial warlock hunt that does not pause to parse the difference between rape and stupidity” and “a classic moral panic, one that is ultimately as dangerous to women as to men.” She tells a story about how she just discovered she has a new power: the power to ruin the career of a professor she knew at Oxford who grabbed her butt 20 years ago while drunk at a party. “I was amused and flattered,” she writes, saying, “I knew full well he’d been dying to do that. Our tutorials — which took place one-on-one with no chaperones — were livelier intellectually for that sublimated undercurrent. He was an Oxford don and so had power over me . . . But I also had power over him — power sufficient to cause a venerable don to make a perfect fool of himself at a Christmas party. Unsurprisingly, I loved having that power.”

This is of course all true – women obviously enjoy sexual attention from powerful men. But while obviously true, it is also the opposite of what Jews have been telling all of us for the last I don’t know how many decades.

The Jew feminist Berlinski has the motivation to stop metooism because it is targeting Jews so disproportionately, but she also presumably just understands that this is all going nowhere good. What we are going to see – what we are already seeing – is a massive backlash against feminism itself, first from men and then also from women.

The feminist idea was forced on society by Jews. It is unnatural. And its ultimate end is obviously sex segregation, which is the thing that it was initially designed to oppose.

Again, this is similar to the way blacks are now demanding racial segregation at universities and elsewhere.

The natural order will always assert itself. Everything works toward that end. The only way to keep the natural order at bay is to constantly be applying force against it, as the Jews have done. But the longer you do that, the more force is necessary as the pressure builds.

This is why this super-authoritarianism has emerged from the J-left, where everything is about shutting down speech and punishing people for any small disagreement with the system while also attempting to bury white people under a mountain of brown third world sludge. But that mindset is what created Donald Trump. And the pressure that is being applied to Donald Trump will ultimately create an even more aggressive right-wing force.

The tides of the universe itself are now turning in our favor, friends. All we need to do is continue the sabotage of the social order.

Fact: Millennial Women Cheat More Than Millennial Men


The science is in, according to the gold standard of social science research, the General Social Survey:

When it comes to cheating, you may not think it happens that often, but according to new findings by the Institute for Family Studies, based on data was from the General Social Survey, Millennial women have higher rates of infidelity. The survey found that 11 percent of married women from 18 to 29 state they are guilty of infidelity versus 10 percent of married men.

You read that right: now, the mainstream cliche has reversed itself, officially. Women are the cheaters, not the men, at least among American millennials.

What could have happened to have changed this pattern? A few theories.

1. Feminism

Feminism, at its heart, is about empowering female sexuality while limiting male sexuality (as our friend Heartiste argues constantly). With the feminist mindset dominating the U.S. of A, it thus makes sense that women feel increasingly sexually empowered, enough so that it rolls over into all aspects of life, including marriage.

2. The Decline Of Traditional Patriarchal Values

This is a corollary to feminism. Traditionally, men would romp around while women stayed home and took care of the kids, often turning a blind eye to their man’s romping. But when men and women romp around equally, of course it makes sense that the women’s cheating would skyrocket.

3. Women Are More Obsessed With Sex Than Men

The third culprit, related to the previous ones, is a fact underappreciated by those who haven’t swallowed the red or black pills: women are the sexually voracious sex—probably more so then men, on average.

Most men are content and fulfilled with having a mission, a calling, or a passion in life and obsessing deeply over it. But women don’t have this drive, and their primary fixation is sex and whether men find them attractive. Just think about the stereotypes: how they dress (to look sexy), what they talk about (men, relationships, sex), what they do with their time (hair dressers, manicures etc. to look good).

Traditional society previously kept females’ sexual nature under wraps, but as these traditions are shed, the sexual flower blossoms.

But the news gets more interesting. According to the same study, it’s not only millennial women who cheat more but also… Democrats.

This may be a given due to their overall more liberal natures, but Democrats were more likely to cheat than Republicans… but not by much: 18 percent versus 14 percent, respectively.

This fact is probably a self-evident truism: those with a deep belief that certain things are morally evil (and they will go to hell if they commit them) are both much more likely to be Republican and to not cheat. This is as close to a tautology as you can get here!

According to this study, other groups more likely to cheat are:

  • Those who grew up in broken homes, with only one parent.
  • Those who don’t regularly to go church.
  • Those who started college but didn’t finish it it.

All these are consistent with the worldview that we here at Return of Kings advocate: science is increasingly realizing that our worldview is much more consistent with reality than the mainstream media worldview.

Growing up in a broken home is much more likely to make you immoral—as is not going to Church—and not finishing college is a sign of a lack of discipline, and a lack of discipline is one of the substantial underlying causes of cheating. Not cheating is hard for someone who is attractive, which is why deep self-control and internal discipline is correlated to the likelihood of not cheating.

We can’t fight statistics. Taken together, what these statistics tell us is that the person most likely to cheat is a millennial woman who is a Democrat, not religious, grew up with only one parent, and started college but didn’t finish it. That describes almost perfectly almost every women I’ve had a one-night stand or a relationship that ended badly with. The lesson in here is that to reduce your chance of being a cuckold, you should marry a women who is in as few of these categories as possible. Or better yet, in none of them.


Why Men Need The Same Reproductive Rights As Women – Let’s Talk About Reproductive Rights And Why Men Should Have Them Too

In the West, when a couple finds out they are going to have a baby, they—or should I say she—have three options, keeping the baby, giving it up for adoption, or getting an abortion. How many options does the man have? You know the answer: zero. He has absolutely no rights, no say in this case, at least not in front of the court.

This has led to a de-dramatization of the act of abortion, leading to an increased number of voluntary terminations. In some cases (most cases?), women may not even tell their partner about their pregnancy and get an abortion anyway.

The white population is decreasing. Do you want to save it? Forget about it until we have true reproductive rights. Today, men are nothing more than witnesses to sinking ships that women are captaining.

“No Means No”: No Abortion If One Of The Parents Says So

Abortion has a huge impact on the personal life of men. For all three main Abrahamic religions, abortion is considered a sin and a crime and it has always been forbidden. As a religious person, I personally agree with the fact that a fetus is already a human being and that it should be treated as such. But even for atheists, abortion is a very painful experience. A child—or at least the possibility of one—is being killed and that doesn’t leave you without some grief.

We have been told relentlessly about how women suffer after having abortions. But what about men?

Such a serious act can have very important and deep health consequences afterwards, such as depression, guilt, and possibly suicide. This is what emerges from research done by Dr. Kaeleen Dingle, who presented a study on the connection between young mens’ depression and abortion. Corrine Barraclough, a journalist for the Daily Telegraph, says she was absolutely “stunned” by this discovery. Really? Was it so surprising to discover that men have feelings? Surely yes when it is all about women.

However, she doesn’t forget to conclude with, “Of course, this isn’t a blame game. And, of course, this has nothing to do with pointing a finger at women who, rightly, have control over their bodies.” Of course…

I am sorry to disagree with you, Corrine, but I am going to point the finger at women. Firstly, women do not have control over their bodies. Even here in France, abortion is illegal after three months, and a woman who has passed this point is required to keep the baby. Secondly, if a woman wants to keep the baby, nobody can force her to have an abortion. So, if a man wants to keep the baby, he should be able to do so, regardless of the woman’s opinion. That’s basic equality.

My Story

I experienced this scenario when I was 26 years old and my girlfriend was 23. We were living in Paris and had been together for five years when she got pregnant accidentally. I will not comment on the reliability of contraceptives, but after a fairly long period of dating and the large number of sexual relations that come with it, the chances of pregnancy are no longer negligible.

However, everything seemed to be going fairly well in our relationship and I thought we were ready for a stable family life. After all, we’d spent five long years together and we’d talked about having children several times before. So, when she announced the big news, I didn’t hesitate long before telling her that I thought we should keep the baby.

I was very excited by the perspective of a small child coming into our life, one that we would be raising and teaching to have his way in the world, the normal joys of normal parents. Also, coming from a Christian background, life was sacred to me and abortion was not really an option. At first, she agreed with me—or at least that’s what I thought—because she looked pretty happy about it too. I couldn’t have been further from the truth.

Some days later, she told me without tears nor trembling that she had decided not to keep the baby. I argued with her, trying as best I could to convince her to change her mind, but to no avail. No way she was going to sacrifice her youth and body, no way she was going to commit to a steady situation so early in her life. Damn, how did I fool myself so much for so long!? I was blind, I should have understood, I should have seen that she still had countries to visit, people to meet, and dicks to fuck.

Actually, she was always worried about her fertility wondering whether or not she could have children, and I guess this news quite reassured her about her womanhood. That was the only reason she was so happy, not because of the kid that was going to come into this world, not because of the perspective of a family life, but the confirmation that her uterus was working well.

She didn’t give a fuck about the baby, she didn’t give a fuck about me, all that mattered was herself. I could not imagine anything more selfish.

From the day she told me she was getting an abortion, my world turned black. I was over-thinking what was going to happen. Was I letting my own child be killed? What could I do to save him?

After one week, she had her abortion simply by going to a physician and taking two pills. Did the doctor ask what the opinion of the father was? No way. Did he even ask whether she told him? Absolutely not. That’s how easy it is today. No questions, no problems.

The pills were taken and the pregnancy terminated. The baby was five weeks old.

I regret it each day of my life.

Want to know the cherry on top? She was Irish, and in Ireland, abortion is illegal. Too bad she didn’t stay there; in France, the degeneracy had begun long long ago. Thank you, Miss ((((((Simone Weil)))))).

Reproductive Rights For Men

When it comes to the life of your own baby, your opinion should always be taken into account. That is a fundamental right that is not granted to us today. Whether or not you think that a fetus is already a human being, your voice should count.

Aborting a baby is a very tough experience for both parents, who might regret it for the rest of their lives. For that reason, it should require the consent of both of them.

Let’s Talk About Reproductive Rights And Why Men Should Have Them Too

The World Health Organization defines reproductive rights as “rest[ing] on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing, and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion, and violence.

The right to make decisions regarding reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence. No one in their right mind, surely, would ever argue that women should be coerced into parenthood simply by virtue of the fact that they are women, nor would anyone argue that women who refuse to accept parenthood should be arrested and jailed or otherwise treated with any kind of violence, state-sanctioned or otherwise. But that is exactly what happens to men.

I am a staunch defender of women’s right to bodily autonomy, including the right to discontinue any pregnancy that is happening in her body. I don’t particularly require the sophistry of fetus or clump of cells or potential human being to support abortion rights. I have no problem accepting that abortion is killing a human baby. I don’t think that’s a relevant fact, and it is certainly not one that trumps a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. That human baby cannot exist without her body, and her body belongs to her full stop. I do not believe any person, man or woman, should be able to force a woman to carry through with a pregnancy, so obviously, I do not accept any arguments that men should have a say over abortion as valid.

I’m a lot more interested in what happens when a woman decides that yes, the pregnancy will continue and a live child will be produced. At that point, what options does a woman have if she prefers not to parent that child?

Let’s start with legal parental surrender, normally identified as Safe Haven laws. These laws allow women of infants of varying ages (it depends on the state) to leave an otherwise unharmed infant in a designated spot, at which point she is absolved of all social, legal, financial and moral responsibility. The laws were enacted to prevent women from simply abandoning infants they did not want. Four states are very explicit that only women may take advantage of haven laws (Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota and Tennessee) but the rest use the word “parent”, which is obviously gender neutral. But in practice, no father can surrender his infant without the mother’s explicit permission, so these laws are de facto only available to women.

Women are also under no legal requirement to identify the father of their child and if the father is not listed on the birth certificate, he has no legal rights at all. Certainly men can pursue legal rights by establishing paternity, but it is up to men to enforce their rights. Women can, and do, surrender infants for adoption without notifying or identifying the father of the child. These are very high risk adoptions for the adopting couple, because there is always a chance the father will appear and attempt to assert his rights, but the fact remains that women can, once again, relieve themselves of all social, legal, financial and moral responsibility for a child they do not want.

Men cannot do any of those things. They have no say in abortion, which is correct and right. But once a living, breathing child exists, only the mother can legally absolve herself of all responsibility for that child.

The most common argument against men having reproductive rights is the old “keep it in your pants” one, which we would never accept as an argument for why women should be forced into parenthood. Having sex is not consent to parenthood for women, so why should it be for men? The next level of argument is that “only women can get pregnant” but there is no direct relationship between pregnancy and parenthood, as all the step, foster and adoptive mothers can tell you. We could, theoretically, allow women abortions, so they can avoid pregnancy, but still require them to legally adopt a child from the foster care system, for example, for every abortion they have. This is rather like the situation men find themselves in. Would we ever in a million years suggest this is a rational or sane thing to do?

The fact is that birth control fails. It also gets sabotaged. Condoms break. Vasectomies don’t work. There is no 100% way to prevent pregnancy for either men or women, other than complete celibacy. When those failures happen, women have at least three different ways to reject the responsibility of parenthood and men have none. There is a word for forcing men to accept responsibility for a child they did not intend and do not want: coercion. The WHO says reproductive rights require that no person be coerced into parenthood, meaning that men do not have reproductive rights, as long as that coercion exists.

So what is the solution? What would reproductive rights look like for men? Well, rather similar to what they look like for women. When an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy occurs, the woman, and only the woman will decide if her body will host that pregnancy to term. But even after the child is born, she may opt out of parenting that child by surrendering it for adoption. If men had the same rights, they too would be able to legally surrender their rights and allow the mother or any other individual to assume legal responsibility for the child.

It’s not even that hard to administer. Do you or do you not wish to assume responsibility for this child? But it hits on an uncomfortable truth. Culturally, we seem to think that men are utilities and that children belong to their mothers and are entitled by birth to male resources. Men are not allowed to choose parenthood, but will instead have their rights trampled in the “best interests of the child”, a condition that does not apply to women. It’s hardly in the “best interests of the child” to be aborted before birth, and we do not hold women to that standard because their bodily autonomy trumps the best interests of the child.

If our goal as a society is to move towards one in which every child is wanted by both parents, then granting men reproductive rights would be a huge step in that direction. Knowing that men can and will surrender parental rights will likely motivate both parents to carefully consider the ramifications of bringing children into this world. Of course, reproductive rights for men must be accompanied by reproductive rights for women, including access to safe, affordable reliable abortion services.

If the pro-choice community really wanted to see a huge leap in support for abortion and reproductive services for women, they would throw their weight behind reproductive rights for men.

As usual, when everyone has equal rights, we all come out ahead.

These Bitches are Fucking Dogs Now

Roy Batty

Daily Stormer
January 17, 2018

There is an epidemic of White girl dog-fucking that has gone largely unnoticed and unreported by the mainstream media.

But occasionally we get a glimpse into the underground world of dog fucking with stories like this.

Fox News:

A woman in Scotland who shot cellphone video of herself in a sex act involving her pet dog and whipped cream has pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing pornography.

Cairns copped to possessing the “extreme pornographic images depicting in an explicit way a female engaging in sexual activity with a dog,” according to officials.

Prosecutor Jim Robertson said during Cairns’ court appearance this week that the video “appeared to be self-generated involving the accused and her pet dog,” the Edinburgh Evening News reported. Robertson added the dog, a yellow Labrador retriever, was present at Cairns’ home during last March’s raid.

The poor dog.

White women have become such fat whores that no decent man wants them. As a result, many are resorting to dog-fucking to get their fix of sexual attention. Animal rights organizations like PETA have remained completely silent on this shocking trend of abuse.

Shame on them.

The problem is hard to accurately calculate because these thots are keeping it going on the down low. Just like all those teachers secretely fucking their students, lots of these thots are doing the same with the pets that have been entrusted to them.

And they use a secret code to communicate that they are in the market, looking for dogs to bang.

But it can be cracked.

Whenever you see a girl using the dog filter on snap chat, it’s actually a code signal.

It means, “I’m looking to fuck dogs.”

In general, a good rule of thumb is that any single woman with a large dog is actually probably fucking the poor thing.

There’s no other reason for a woman to want a large male dog as a companion otherwise. Only men take an interest in dogs like that because they’re cool, fun to play with, great protection and our best friends…not our fuck buddies.

Be careful out there, Stormers.

Without White Sharia, these women are literally going crazy. We already knew they were capable of fucking animals when they started fucking niggers, but this is a new low…or an improvement, I’m not sure.

At least dogs are loyal, serve a function in society and are good around children.

Not sure what niggers have going for them when compared to niggers now that I think about it. Regardless, we opened the doors to all this madness when we repealed White Sharia and allowed mixed-race relationships.

It was only a small step to bestiality from there.

We need to do something though. Think of the poor doggos out there forced to copulate with these disgusting women.

The Mainstream Embrace Of #MeToo Puts Us One Step Closer Towards The Enslavement Of Men


The progenitors of the #MeToo meme have been elevated to that dubious plinth of social endorsement, the cover of Time magazine.


These women did not “launch a movement.” However, the current wreaths-to-laurels victimhood craze does bear out the completion of an important cultural cycle.

Free Love Wasn’t Free

A core premise of our sexual dystopia is:

‘My body my choice.’

Within the bounds of legality, we are supposed to believe that neither sex is more damaged by their coital decisions than the other. The retro-active outrage now mounted by women at men on account of mutually consensual sexual intercourse (and calls for the bounds of legality to be shifted accordingly), reiterates that this is not actually the case.

The struggle of many a post-prime girl for exclusivity with a series of increasingly inferior suitors, must be a brutal way to discover that it is still impossible to raise a joyridden car back to its factory-new price.

Men are checking out of monogamous commitment, leaving two generations of women wandering a widening bimbo-limbo between settled life either as a housewife or denizen of the increasingly cash-strapped welfare state (the overwhelmingly administrative sector jobs provided to ‘career women’ being a manifestation of the latter).

As an institution, marriage is only debased further by social and legal efforts to enforce commitment from men to polygamous women who spent their bloom years in promiscuity. Although such an iniquitous contract could be excused by a myriad of exceptional circumstances, the unprecedented glut of women beneath the male investment threshold turn the exceptions into clichés.

The Gynocentric Interpretation

A defining characteristic of corporate and clickbait discourse is the effort to sublimate readers’ frustration into outrage while bypassing the question of accountability. Time and others are now under huge pressure to find mythologies to both explain the dissatisfaction of their female readership and serve as the basis for corrective political action. Someone must be to blame for their problems; anyone but themselves.

What Time has produced is a fairy tail without a prince. It begins:

‘Movie stars are more like you and me than we ever knew.’

We are then introduced to a wide range of women who were:

‘brought together by a common experience.’

They were actually brought together by Time, at great expense, to confirm the biased premise of their leading article. Time then chews over each of these women’s testimonies, droning on and on and on in a tantric, mantric, incuntation of its utterly banal and predictable conclusion:

Time have revealed their straw man – and he’s called Donald Trump.

I suspect that the feminist Trump-tantrum is not caused by Trump per se, but by the part of American society which voted him into office. It’s an important distinction because it means that, as a political instrument, Trump is needed the most by the very people who like him least. Without Trump, the outrage would be revealed for what it truly is: a million personal vendettas against a million brash, powerful and wealthy American men who these women consentingly gave their bodies to.

Trump’s appeal to the free market and private capital (as well as the string of hot women who have let him ‘grab ‘em by the poosy’), is more than just a refusal to push the envelope on welfare policies which enable sexual liberation—it is an exposition of the gulf between what is conventionally true and what is actually true about modern female sexual opportunism.

The self-deception may be genuine, but was revealed nonetheless when #metoo was triggered by the loss of societal contingency plans to ensure female sexual freedom (alpha fucks and beta bucks), by constraining that of men. The fat child screams not while it is happily eating itself to death but when the cookies are taken away.

Feminism’s Finale

The premise of #metoo has now been twisted by various degrees to its own complete inversion. Nearly a year ago, I was told by a County Court in Britain that I owed money to a woman whose sexual advances I had gently rebuffed some years before. Neither I nor the court had any idea why I owed her money or what her claim was, but I still had to defend myself.

A case that would never have come to trial twenty years ago dragged out for months as she gradually patched together a claim (without evidence), which gradually escalated to an allegation of sexual abuse.

My trial was the direct result of her assumption that society would stand behind her in extracting resources from the man of her choosing. I was lucky that she had a legal history of ‘choosing’ other men before me, and the judge sent her howling from the courtroom.

But what if I had been her first shot? What if she’d gone to the Crown Prosecution Service?

I add, for the sake of completeness, that I am a strict adherent of pre-marital abstinence and, in the case of this particular woman, had never kissed, hit on, made a pass at, nor been in any form of romantic relationship with her. #Iwouldnt—and that is precisely what enraged her.

Let the irony of this case serve as an illustration of the extent to which feminine imperatives can now be exercised to strong-arm men into compliance. If you have earned a #metoo assertion like I did, you’re probably doing something right.

What for men in 2018?

The dregs of women will always preen their sexual worthiness in a sensational light by announcing that a man once made an unwanted pass at them, just as feminist Phrynes like Emma Watson will always lend a pretty face to their ugly cause (phoney outrage is her profession’s prerogative. I bear her no grudge).

The trial of Phryne – who was vindicated on account of her beauty

Our toxic tributary of sexual realism to the mainstream discussion sees the feminist victimbragging for what it really is: another attempt to circumvent rational analysis and keep society plugging the feminist narrative. Soon, #metoo will become as passé as ‘Trump Bedroom Backlash,’ but these phenomena are mere symptoms of a deeper social condition.

As private debt piles up and resources cease to flow, society will have to find new ways of demanding that men judiciously restrain their own behaviour on behalf of the unfettered dualistic sexual strategy of women—sexy badboys and stable providers stepping up and down as and when women demand it. The contradictory messages that this sends to men are now compounded by the constant possibility of being criminalised for making a faux pas.

Today, as trials move from the courtroom to the press and to Twitter and Facebook, the degree of kafkaesque reassurance that I had—the basic certainty that I was on trial—is starting to ebb away. A lot of men who don’t grasp the underlying biomechanics behind the sexual victimhood phenomenon are doomed to be spirited on a windowless train of THOT thought from false premise to final solution: their enslavement to women, either directly or via the state.

The chaotic disconnect between the claim and the truth is not a means to an end but the end itself. This climate of fear is the West’s way of forcing the marriage of mankind to womankind, joylessly mandating social responsibilities without providing any privilege. The carrot has gone from the sexual contract and only the stick remains.

It can still be a beautiful life for men who don’t answer to society. Careful though, the beta version of this man is Smeagol Gollum.

The harder men try to opt out of commitment to women, the stronger the social effort will be to drive them back, until escape from women will turn into escape from society itself.


News: Women Are Children Confirmed (TFM 42O)

THIS Is The Sick Reason Female Teachers Prey On Our Children!

The Sick Reason Teachers Continue To Have Sex With Students

… And sadly, the number is only growing at a disturbing rate.

There has been a series of news stories about female teachers having sex with their students over the decades, from Mary Kay Letourneau to the most recent (publicized case). Almost every state in the United States is reporting similar cases, and everyone is asking the same question: Why? The United States Department of Education’s most recent study (in 2004) on sexual predators, revealed that 40 percent of perpetrators of unwanted sexual attention toward children were women and that number has steadily risen over the past nine years. 

To understand why a female teacher would become sexually involved with one of her students, you have to understand what is going on in her head. Most of these women seem as though they’re vibrant, normal, healthy adult women, but they, themselves, may feel like teenagers inside. Many of them have arrested emotional development; they giggle and carry on very much as a teenager. What’s strange is that they choose one aspect of the student they focus on and they idealize that aspect into being one of honesty, integrity, and innocence — separate from the jaded views of the adult world.

Soon they see this teenager as being their age … like a peer. In psychology, this is frequently seen and typically referred to as “counter-transference.” The teacher focuses on one aspect of the child and idealizes it romantically; she then projects that onto her distorted reality. No one else realistically sees what the teacher has created in her mind. It becomes so bizarre that soon the teacher is planning her married life, with kids, after her student finishes high school.

One thing to consider is that we — as the public — tend to focus on the sex part of this relationship because that’s what ultimately leads to the arrest of the teacher. However, an emotional relationship usually develops long before sex take places. That is, the grooming, the meeting up, the numerous texts, the cute hand-written love letters, and the sleepless nights. If you create a safe environment for an intervention now, you can end the relationship before sex takes place — getting help for the child and taking legal action against the teacher.

The emotional part isn’t usually caught and the reasons are many. First of all, the child usually doesn’t say anything. Perhaps he’s afraid of a poor grade, he may like the extra attention or he may feel guilty and/or fearful. Secondly, parents aren’t usually immediately (if ever) alert to it, because they may brush it off with thoughts that the teacher’s extra attention is an effort to help their child. Lastly, if other kids do hear about it, they usually feel confused, concerned with who to tell and, often times, say they didn’t believe it.

Our teens’ lives revolve around school. For the most part, females working in the school are mentors for our children and help them become successful well-adjusted adults. When sexual abuse happens to any child the experience is a horrendous one, but when it happens at school with a teacher, the end result is sometimes tragic. As parents, there are signs that can alert you to something going on with your child. As with all things, it begins with open discussion, both, talking and listening to your child. You cannot begin a conversation about sexual boundaries if you aren’t engaged with your child on a day-to-day basis. Keep communication open and talk frequently to your child about their school life.

Most abuse begins with a process called “grooming.” If you notice your child engaged with any of these activities and you feel uncomfortable, it’s time to talk to your child:

  • Your child’s teacher wants a friendship with your child, including outings.
  • Your child’s teacher begins giving your child gifts that seem odd to you.
  • Your child’s teacher begins complimenting them on specific shirts or clothes.
  • Your child’s teacher begins to work at getting unusually close to you (the parent).
  • Your child’s teacher begins eroding boundaries, such as hugging, touching or rubbing your child’s back.
  • Your child’s teacher begins telling your child confidential, secretive or personal things.

As a parent, if you notice these behaviors, begin limiting your child’s time with their teacher. Talk to your child in a safe and supportive environment about their relationship with their teacher. Sexual abuse is a crime and if it is happening to your child, they are (without a doubt) being victimized.

You can expect them to feel afraid, evasive, and nervous. Reassuring them that it is NOT their fault and that you will help them is the most important thing to convey.

For more information or your free monthly relationship tips reach Mary Jo Rapini @ or join her weekday mornings for “Mind, Body, Soul with Mary Jo” on Fox 26 Houston at 9 A.M, by podcasts, Facebook, or Twitter  @ MaryJoRapini.