Sunday, February 11, 2018
Men's rights, general discussion
I don't have a new proper blog post ready, but I am opening a new thread for general discussion because the old one got too big. We don't have a good forum-style site for male sexualists, and most venues would ban us anyway, but our blogs are serving pretty well, I think. For fresh content, check out the Daily Antifeminist who is doing an amazing job at it. Here we can discuss anything with some more continuity in the discussion since I am not updating the top post so often.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
219 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 219 of 219I’m Doing It Because Thus Far We’ve Only Lost, Not Won a Single Thing On Even One Damn Front
So far, the situation has been catastrophic, from our perspective. We have only been losing and losing and losing, all the time. If your purpose in life is “lose everything everywhere,” perhaps this is not the blog for you. My position is that “lose everything everywhere” makes for some crappy life. It’s not my kind of fun.
If we’ve been winning, you might have been justified in responding to me with “stop doing what you’re doing, so as not to ruin our achievements.” But that’s the thing – there are no achievements. Nothing. #MeToo is the ideology of the entire 21st century. “AOC violations” are treated as an atrocity, like a crime against humanity on par with genocide. Men rot in jail for possessing CP. Men rot in jail for being falsely accused of “rape,” or due to “rape” now being such a broad category that almost all sex is potentially “rape.” (the latter is exactly what the Puritan-Feminists intended, by the way) Let me give you an example: a woman in Australia had sex with a man — perhaps her husband; I don’t remember — and plotted to accuse him of “rape.” So, just before he climaxed during intercourse, she told him to stop. Since he could not biologically stop, that was “rape.” I don’t know/remember if the man ended up behind bars, but anyway that’s a real case that happened, and yes, it was actually a scheme by the woman against the man, not that it even matters. Call it 5-seconds-rape. Horror! Horror! This is what rape-hysteria has come down to. Going to the courtroom, or even to prison, for the involuntary movements of your body during coitus that all along the way had been consensual. Need another example? A man in his 70s was taken to court for fucking his wife, who had Alzheimer’s, because according to the modern Feminist definition of rape, she “could not consent.” In this case, he did not go to jail. But still, this is absolute madness.
You had no tools to fight against this madness, because you accepted the Puritan-Feminist “frame” (to use some PUA jargon) regarding rape. Well, I’m telling you that this entire “frame” has to be rejected, wholly. Hopefully, by the end of this article you’ll see the logic behind my own position on the matter.
Good Cop and Bad Cop Dynamic
Now look, you need not be as extreme as I am. By being the “bad cop,” I’m making you into the “good cop.” I see: legalize rape. You say: well, we don’t have to do that, but there are some very dramatic changes that need to be made, immediately. This is calculated extremism that I engaged in. It’s calculated to help the movement. By being the bad guy who openly admits to having watched CP, who calls rape a pro-social thing, who posts pictures of Bangladeshi teenage prostitutes captioned with “I’d fuck her,” I’m automatically making you into “the sane, responsible adult in the room.” Yes, you, the evil frightening pedophile, have become the “moderate.”
This is also known as “Mutt and Jeff.” The Neoreactionary thinker Curtis Yarvin compared the behavior of some Muslims to that dynamic. My intention here is not to foster Islamophobia, just keep an open mind and try to grasp what’s going on in this example. So, you’ve got Islamic extremists who vow to cut your head off for drawing a picture of Prophet Muhammad. Next to them, there are those “moderate Muslims” who are “absolutely” against head-cutting, but they too ask you, politely, to stop drawing pictures of Muhammad – because, after all, you don’t want to piss off those extremists, now, do you? Also, those extremists and moderates are actually on quite friendly terms. What you see in this example is what we should be doing. I’ll be the extremist, saying out loud “I WANT TO RAPE KIDS!” You, say whatever other things you want to say, and explain that if people don’t want my views to gain hold, it’s your “moderate” views that should be embraced.
We must take the fight to their territory.
“Rape” is The Central Concept of the Puritan-Feminist Worldview
Once you no longer consider “rape” to be an issue, say, because it’s become legal, the Puritan-Feminist war against sexuality is over. Our side will have won it, in that scenario. And it’s a lasting victory. Rape-hysteria is used by the Feminist agitators to stir women against men. If it becomes officially legal to rape, and that situation remains permanently, the Feminist agitation will be finished. I know that it sounds like a paradox, but the more rape is normalized, the less powerful is the Feminist agitation surrounding it. That’s because in such a situation, women learn to live with the reality as it is, and if men would be determined to keep it that way, women — being the “fluid” sex, as people keep saying — will adjust to the new reality. Not that they would have a choice, but psychologically they’d accept “rape” as part of life, something that just happens sometimes. In old times women were able to accept this reality, and biologically there has been no change since those times.
Which reminds me: we’re all the descendants of rapists. Rapist genes are in the blood of all of us, as rapists reproduced more so than non-rapists. Just to keep the historical (and pre-historical) record straight.
Anyway, where was I? Yes – hysteria about rape was and is used by Feminist agitators to stir women against men, and it was used by the Puritans as part of their anti-sex (or ‘anti-sin’) ideology. Taking “rape” away from them is like taking away WMDs from a genocidal dictator who wants to conquer the entire world. Feminists, when in trouble, always cry “rape.” Puritans, when they want to agitate for more and more restrictions against sexuality, always bring up “rape.” By destroying this weapon of the Puritan-Feminist monster, it can no longer breathe fire at us. By disregarding “rape” altogether, we can render those who seek to destroy us completely impotent. “Rape” (and its lesser forms, such as “molestation” and “sexual harassment”) is the sharpest tool in the Puritan-Feminist toolbox. Or, to make a slightly different analogy, it’s the key to their toolbox. Without this focal idea, they’ve got nothing. Their whole “concern for the plight of women” is null and void if they can no longer use “rape” to tell the world about how “miserable” women are. The modernist morality that has been imposed on us has “rape” at its center. Legalization of rape does away with the modernist morality.
“Consent” is a Bullshit Concept, and You Can’t Separate “Regular” Rape and “Child Abuse” Rape – It is Really The Same Notion
(Before I continue explaining my position, there is something that I want to ask you to memorize: that sometimes, in order to win, one has no choice but to push as hard as one can in the other direction)
What you need to understand is that the Puritan-Feminists seek to illegalize as much of male sexuality as they can. The concept of “rape” is so useful to them precisely because it can mean whatever they want it to mean; it can be defined however they want it to be defined, and it can always be broadened to include more and more sexual behaviors on the part of men, or generally more and more sexual things. You cannot separate their war against “rape” and their war against teenage sex, because this is one and the same war, and it is fought with one and the same weapon: the concept of “rape.” How do they call ‘underage sex,’ if not “rape”? Exactly – they call it “rape.” You can’t square this circle. They get to define what “rape” is just as surely as they get to define what “consent” is. And according to their definitions, ‘underage sex’ cannot be ‘consensual,’ therefore they consider it “rape.” You can’t run away from this reality, my friends. Up until 200 years ago or so, nobody gave a shit about “consent,” and in many countries this notion was entirely unfamiliar. Whether or not a woman consented to something had no relevance to the act of sex being (or not being) proper.
These twin concepts of “consent” and “rape” were used to build the Puritan-Feminist system of sexual morality. The people who shoved “consent” down your throat also shoved “rape” down your throat – and vice versa. You cannot do away with one idea without also doing away with the other idea. And the arguments used by Blue Knights are taken verbatim from the notebook of the White Knights – and, again, vice versa. As long as we play by the Puritan-Feminist rules, we lose.
The Puritan-Feminists tell us that “children” and women are basically “pure angels,” and that lust is an exclusively “adult male” thing. And while I strongly believe that men really are hornier than women, the fact remains that “children” and women are horny as fuck. “Rape” was invented by White/Blue Knights to “defend” these groups from sex, due to the Knights’ protective instinct, which is insanely overactive.
Consistency is Key
By trolling you into considering these propositions, I intend to make it easier for you to accept my consistent worldview. And the focus here is really on young people. A blog that becomes popular with young people, where they are made to reconsider what they think about “rape,” is the perfect place to legitimize pedophilia. If I can convince people who are young, and thus have likely not made up their minds yet about these issues, to accept that “rape should be legal,” it then becomes infinitely easier for me to convince them to accept pedophilia. By using shock humor and trolling, I will make my readers accept pedophilia. This again brings us back to desensitization. So let me give you some examples of it.
First, videos games. Many people have noted that video games are a great manner of desensitization. If you spend hours upon hours playing a video game where you shoot subjects, your minds becomes used to this “mode of operation.” At least, to an extent. So if you will, consider this platform to be like a video game. By constantly, consistently promoting the idea that rape is normal, I can get the readers of this blog to open up their minds about the subject of pedophilia, because they’ll already be very desensitized about the issue of “sex crimes.” I want to de-legitimize the very concept of “sex-crimes.” The entire concept should vanish. If “sex crimes” are not an issue, because there is no law in the book of laws forbidding “sex crimes,” then we have achieved our purpose. In that scenario, we can come up with other concepts to regulate human behavior. Concepts devoid of White Knightism and Blue Knightism. Concepts that serve us, men. That’s the purpose.
Another example: gangsta rap. For some reason, even though gangsta rap is way more “hardcore” than what I am advocating for, as it actively calls for committing the heaviest of crimes, I don’t see you being particularly mad about it. Okay, well, think about what I’m doing as “gangsta rap.” I’m legitimizing things that are otherwise not considered legitimate, in order to create a subversive counter-culture against the Puritan-Feminist mainstream, which counter-culture may eventually end up establishing an island of liberty in this oppressive world. Point is: gangsta rap is pretty desensitizing, in its own way.
Sexlessness is The Real Problem in Our World
Whatever you think about “rape,” I want you to realize that our world is plagued with sexlessness. Sexlessness is much worse than “rape.” Rape serves an evolutionary end. Sexlessness is evolutionary death. It’s the opposite of being alive. A sexless person is one who is buried alive. “Rape” is just a temporary inconvenience, at least in most cases. When rape is legal, and society embraces patriarchal monogamy, the problem of sexlessness will be no more. That’s what I want to see happening.
And legalization of “rape” will free all men who’ve ever been falsely accused of “rape.” Most rape accusations are false. The more you consider the merits of rape legalization, the more you’ll realize that I am not actually such a “horrible person.” I am full of empathy – and I’m using my logical brain to direct my empathy where it should be directed, which is towards my fellow men who genuinely suffer in our world: the men who are buried alive as they live with sexlessness, and the men rotting in jail either because they were falsely accused of “rape,” or because the definition of “rape” has been broadened to include situations that in any sane world would not seem immoral at all. I want to help them all, and if I can do my part by running a blog that is like “sex-criminal (thought-criminal) Onion,” that’s what I’m gonna do.
(Speaking of morality: what is really immoral is women flaunting their sexuality and expecting not to be raped. I’ll write a post about that in the future, probably titling it: “Supporting Female Modesty Doesn’t Make Me a Puritan.” For preliminary reading, read this. It’s not about rape, actually. But you’ll see where I’m going with this)
It’s Time to Win The Sex War
What you have to realize is that, being a pedophile/manospherian, lots of women want to exterminate you. They want you dead. And they’ve been pushing for more and more Puritan-Feminist laws to make your life as miserable and as short possible. Rape is the counter-strike. Rape, as I wrote recently, put women back in their place. They want to kill us; we just want to legalize the resistance to the gynocentric tyranny.
And by the way, here’s an example of me being a moderate: there are plenty of those who actually do support a wholesale extermination of women. I am not one of these people, but believe me, I understand where they’re coming from. While I think that there should be a debate about whether or not all women deserve to be exterminated, my personal view is that they shouldn’t. Rather, we should use women for our own purposes. To do that, Blue Knightism and White Knightism have to be rejected. When men gain access to young women — I believe that females should be married off at 10 or a few years earlier, and give birth to a child no later than at 13 — then the reproductive telos of humanity will come into fulfillment. That’s the vision I envision for humanity, in an ideal world, which may never come to pass. But perhaps at some point, in some place, we’ll again have preteen and teen marriage as existed (and even today still exists, though Puritan-Feminists are trying to change that) throughout most history.
Right now, there are millions of incels all over the world. As more and more men reach the age of clear horniness, they, too, will look for answers to their misery. I want them, these GenZers and GenAlphas, to find our movement and join us. As Nathan Larson would say: they have “nothing to lose bu their virginity.” (I really liked that line)(I really wish more pedos had such a great sense of humor) But seriously, this reality of male sexlessness is shameful, and requires a solution. One of the solutions is legalization of rape. Now the ball is in your court to explain why this position is “wrong.”
One Last Thing (Different Subject): Infantilization is The Dumbest Thing a Pedophile Can Engage In
I’ve already written about it, and may write some more about it. Suffice it to say here that the position of this blog is that infantilization in all its forms is inherently a negative thing, and de-infantilization in all its forms is inherently a positive thing. You’d think that, of all people, pedos would be the first to realize it, but alas, that’s not the case. Now that’s just a subject I wanted to bring up, because it’s crucial that all of us understand that this project has a logic behind it, and that those who act illogically are, well, counterproductive. But more on that at another time.
You should start using steemit
Thanks for sharing those Daily Antifeminist posts, and keep 'em coming if you have more.
By the way, here is another example of something that shouldn't be legal in the same world where the slightest sexualized image of a minor is criminalized:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/07/europe/denmark-submarine-death-trial-intl/index.html
"Amongst other things, police found films showing torture and real-life executions of women on his computer."
But all of this material is completely legal to possess. As it should be, but then so should child porn. Peter Madsen does seem to be a pervert in the worst sense of the word, and if his fantasies aren't criminal before he acts on them, then nobody else's should be either.
Title: Manosphere 1.0 Collapsed Because It Refused to Earnestly Discuss Teenage Sexuality
In 2012 and 2013 I used to visit Viva La Manosphere regularly to check out
what’s new in the sphere. Having assiduously read the No Ma’am blog, and
having been exposed to what was known as the three Rs of the manosphere
— Roissy, Rollo, and Roosh — I was hooked. I wanted to read more and
more, to learn what it’s like to view the world from a manospherian
perspective. All of those wild and unfamiliar ideas where floating around –
Game, Alpha/Beta, MGTOW, Feminine Imperative, etc., and I really wanted to
know as much as there was to know.
Before I came across the manosphere I used to read Feminist sites, and
while I tried to somehow incorporate what they were saying into a coherent
worldview, it just viscerally as well as logically did not sit well with me, at
any point. It actually made me feel sick and disoriented reading the
Feminist diarrhea (I couldn’t, however, explain just why it was that reading
things that ostensibly I agreed with made me feel physically unwell), which
is why — in a state of great confusion and angst — I went looking for a
“different perspective,” whatever it could be. And man, what a breath of
fresh air it was to come across the manosphere!
The first manosphere site I came across was The Spearhead, which is gone
now. But damn, it was the shit. It was good. The Spearhead linked to
Heartiste and to other sites, and from there it took me about 2 weeks to go
from “someone who really tries to swallow the Feminist brainwashing but
for some reason keeps vomiting it out in revulsion” to “absolute
antifeminist.” I thought about MRA, PUA, MGTOW, and various other
positions that were not squarely within any one of those categories. Being
pretty obsessive (some would say autistic), I spend my whole free time
reading that stuff.
Before I started taking any interest at all in sexual politics, I had other issues
that I had been obsessively preoccupied with: “UFOlogy” (age 13) and the Bible
(ages 14-15), among other things. At age 16 I was really into the “counter-
Jihad” movement and read a lot of things about Islam from an antithetical
perspective; at age 17 I read left-wing and Marxist stuff and some Feminist
bullshit; and shortly thereafter came the manosphere. So, it’s been about 6
years since I’ve been red-pilled. Needless to say, in the meanwhile I’ve been
exposed to plenty of things outside the manosphere, things that may have
been “more radical.” Yet, here I am – I came back to the manosphere.
Why? That’s what I’ll try to explain here.
In the years 2014-2016, all the knowledge gathered by the manosphere was
transferred to other groups, as the manosphere slowly fizzled out. One of
them was the unpopular and unsuccessful Neoreaction; the other was —
nay, is — the popular and successful alt-right. What these right-wing groups
were and are doing is incorporating some bits and pieces of insight from the
manosphere into an explicitly Traditional Conservative Radical Right-Wing
Worldview. The idea being that the manosphere has completed its purpose,
and now it’s time to take what’s good in it and move on with it to the “next
level,” be it Monarchism or Nazism.
But the truth of the matter is that the manosphere has not completed its
task. Far from it. And its unwillingness to go about trying to actually bring
about a genuine re-thinking of sexuality was rooted in its complete
disregard for the issue of teenage sexuality. You can talk a big talk about the
“Feminine Imperative” or “Hypergamy” or whatever other concepts, but if
you refuse to address the burning-hot issues that the ‘pedosphere’ discusses,
you basically miss on one of the core aspects of the modern “sex war.” After
all, is it not the purpose of the manosphere to give guidance to men, young
and old, about all aspects pertaining to male-female relations? And if so,
and if the issue of young sexuality stands at the center of the battle over the
shape of these relations, is it not grossly neglectful on the manosphere’s part
when it shirks from examining the matter?
Listen. If you want true radicalism, pedophilia it is. Nazism gets boring,
eventually. I’m not saying that because I’m biased against Nazism, being
Jewish myself; I gave the ideology a lot of thought, and read more material
relevant to National Socialism than at least 99% of those who identify with
it nowadays – and my conclusion is that, while it may take a long while,
nevertheless, if you’re truly perceptive, you eventually grow out of it. On the
other hand, Monarchism — at least the way NRx used to argue for it — is
more intellectually challenging, and certainly more interesting than
Nazism. But these two worldviews don’t actually solve the task that the
manosphere has in front of it – providing a realistic, comprehensive, and
truly novel understanding of male-female relations.
Pedophilia is the new radicalism. It’s the most radical of all radical causes. I
mean, you can come up with ideas more radical than that, but these will not
be serious ideas, merely thought-experiments. But pedophilia is a real gamechanger
and a real eye-opener. If you realize that there is an entire world of
severely criminalized male sexuality and a whole reality pertaining to
humans that one is not allowed to acknowledge in polite society, you will
realize the necessity of exposing this issue and investigating it – that was
what the “once radical” manosphere was supposed to do, but did not do. By
refusing to examine the issue of young sexuality, the manosphere rendered
itself irrelevant compared to the competing ideologies of Nazism and
Monarchism.
Manosphere 1.0 halfheartedly painted for you an incomplete and blurry
painting; it left many integral pieces of the puzzle out of its frame.
Unsurprisingly, other groups with more comprehensive worldviews
managed to convert all the manospherians to their respective worldviews.
Had the manosphere took on the issue of young sexuality in earnest — had
the manosphere joined forces with the pedosphere — it would have become
a truly radical ideology, that would have made the Nazis and the
Monarchists unable to successfully co-opt it for their own respective
purposes. A manosphere that talks about the reality of young sexuality could
have started a new sexual revolution, and instead of manosphereians
joining the Nazis, we would have seen Nazis converting to
manospherianism.
Manosphere 1.0 died as a result of it having a much larger “blind spot” than
the competing worldviews. The worldview that offers you — whether or not
the offer is genuine — a more comprehensive conception of the world, will
win you over. Take a look at people like Fidelbogen; is it any surprise that
the manosphere has become so irrelevant? But what I’m saying is that it did
not have to be this way. Had manosphere 1.0 tried to amalgamate with the
pedosphere to form a new worldview, it would have become a force to be
reckoned with. Imagine that the three Rs of the manosphere circa 2014 had
started writing at length about young sexuality, sweeping the rest of the
manosphere with them; would it not have jumpstarted the manosphere,
propelling it to reach new heights? Yeah, I think my idea is clear enough to
you.
What, then, is manosphere 2.0? Manosphere 2.0 is — or will be — the
correction of manosphere 1.0’s grave mistake. If the original writers lost the
meme-war because they would not talk about one of the most (if not the
most) central issues to male sexuality, manosphere 2.0 is going to focus all
the more on exactly that issue; it will combine the knowledge assembled by
the manosphere and the insights of the pedopshere into a new ideology,
whose name is Male Sexualism, and which gives the full picture of malefemale
relations in all their manifold aspects. What manosphere 2.0 seeks
to do in the long-term is to commence a true sexual revolution; in the shortterm,
it should give young people, men in their teens, the knowledge
relevant to the situation of young sexuality.
The awakening to the reality of young sexuality is the “ultimate redpill.” You
don’t get any more redpilled than being pro-pedo and being absolutely
against any criminalization of male sexuality aka being pro-rape. This right
here was the missing piece of the puzzle, all along. As AmericanRifleman09
says here in a comment, the other issues have been “done to death.” It really
is true. The issue of young sexuality is the single most revolutionary idea
that one can support in this day and age. It’s the kryptonite that obliterates
all the competing ideologies, because it’s more real than whatever the
competing ideologies have to offer. From now on, if our competitors in the
meme-war will want to co-opt manospherian ideas, they’ll have to combine
Male Sexualism with their own respective worldviews. If that happens, guess
what? We sill have won.
That’s what this is about. Due to cowardice and incompetence, even
provocative trolls like Matt Forney did not dare examine the complete
aspects of young sexuality. But the age of cowardice and incompetence is
over now. We now understand the mistake of the previous generation, and
we know what must be done to fix it.
I only copied the text of one of his articles, unfortunately. I hope he is o.k. and that he comes back, if only as a commentator. Assuming he was genuine, of course - which I still have my doubts about.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The reason we men, despite being vastly superior to women mentally and physically, have miserably failed in trying to secure our interests is that we haven’t tried to secure our interests.
Men aren’t only creators; we’re also givers. (In contrast, women are takers, by nature) Being the sole creators and givers, it follows that everything women have is due to us creating it and giving it to them. Think about anything women “have”: was it not created by us and given to them by us?
For example, the abstract concepts of “universal suffrage” and “human rights” were both invented by various male thinkers throughout the ages, then eventually given to women almost like a heavenly gift – altruistically, free of charge. And what’s true of abstract concepts is true as well when it comes to technology, science, and everything in the concrete realm. We gave them civilization; they gave us nothing.
Because “sperm is cheap and eggs are precious,” we never cease giving women more and more things, and they never cease taking the things we give them. One theory used to describe this constant state of affairs is the “Gynocentrism Theory,” which shows how everything in society is centered around servicing women and female interests. Rollo Tomassi of the “Rational Male” has his own way of putting this idea into words, and those who haven’t already are advised to check out his blog.
Whatever you choose to call it, the fact of the matter is that, in all affairs without exception, it is the well-being of women that is promoted, at the expense of our own. War, for instance, disproportionately harms men, who are always the overwhelming majority of the slain and the maimed. (That did not stop Hillary Clinton from once saying that “women are the primary victims of war, because women lose husbands, sons, fathers, and brothers” – a sentence memorable for its extreme solipsism) (Hillary is a worthless cunt and I hope she descends into the grave before Bill, though that’s unlikely because currently female life-expectancy is longer)
Going beyond the rule that “sperm is cheap and eggs are precious” to examine the specific bio-psychological mechanism that works to make Gynocentrism a reality, we find that men have an innate protective instinct that is activated at all times, an instinct (or perhaps impulse) driving men to seek out and destroy anything that may potentially “endanger” women and children. This overactive protective instinct stands at the heart of every law passed to elevate women or “defend” kids and teenagers from the undoubtedly scary menace known as the “sex life.”
The reason why Feminists keep winning every battle, and why the Age of Consent exists in the first place, is unreasonably high (any AOC higher than 10 is unreasonably high), and is forever rising, is that we’re PWNED by our own protective instinct, which, as I said, is overactive.
While considering the issue of genetic engineering applied to humans, we may want, among other things (like making women hornier), to curb our own excessive protective instinct. The paradox, of course, is that in order to convince men as a collective that we should genetically engineer ourselves to have a more constrained protective instinct (and that women should be made hornier), we must overcome… the protective instinct. That’s the problem right there.
The human brain is flawed.
It seems strange to put in so intense work and then just abandon it, so I am not so sure he is ok. Even if it was pure trolling or a false flag operation (which I don't think, because the bulk of it was too serious and accurately reflecting our ideology), why end on such an anticlimax?
There is a lot of odd things about it. For me there are three red flags that might point to him being a persona created by some group trying to discredit Jews/Israel rather than our movement.
1/ That he emphasized that he was Jewish.
2/ That despite this he was very pro-Islam, and even claimed to reside in 'Jewish occupied Palestine'.
3/ That the right-wing anti-semitic blogs became aware of him so quickly.
Anyway, I almost want this to be true (that he was fake) rather than believe, as you say, that something bad must have happened to him.
Perhaps they discovered that being a male sexualist is not a way to discredit anybody, because it is a positive philosophy that reflects wisdom and compassion, so they gave up :)
Yes, he was strangely pro-Islam for a Jew, but then again he wasn't into any sort of bigotry, so it fits in with the rest of his personality that he pointed out the tolerant sides of Islam. Let's just hope he's ok.
Hello all.well on Twitter I WAS @malesexualist until super cunt feminist found out I was on there and immediately threatened to call the police on me AGAIN.so,I immediately deactivated the account.she runs Twitter, the cops believe every lie she utters and the cops rule me,so it's goodbye forever as an activist online or anywhere in fact.she freely admits that she goaded and instigated another user until he insulted her,she was looking and hoping for an actual threat, she she was disappointed there but! Great news!she reported him calling her a bitch and his account was suspended.awesome huh? And she does this DAILY.it would be been nice if say a few mras and well,anyone would report her for this ongoing psychotic behavior.but trying to get an mra to report a feminist pig? That's asking wayyyyyyyyyyy too much.so,she stays,and I'm DONE.now if enough ppl complain about her activities and Twitter gets rid of her I'll come back on.which means so long.
Post a Comment