Archive for feminists

Eradicate Men

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , on February 14, 2017 by andelino


Will Men Ever Pull a Lysistrata on Feminists?
By Robert Oscar Lopez

“Eradicate men,” read a sign at one of the anti-Trump “women’s marches” that took place on January 21, 2017.

Alongside footage of women wearing knitted vulva’s on their heads, which do not look like vulva’s to me, but I have made “love” only to one woman in my “whole” life, so what do I know?


Women dressed in full-body genitalia costumes, Ashley Judd’s speculating on the president’s nocturnal emissions, and Madonna’s admitting she thinks about “firebombing” the White House, one sign championing the “elimination” of men might not seem so important.

After all, George Ciccariello-Maher said he wanted “white genocide” for Christmas and became an overnight “hero” when those pesky right-wing extremists (“white supremacists”) took exception to his sentiments.


But “eradicate men” is a telling slogan because it points to a problem with the entire “ethos” of the women’s marches.

According to the signatories of a collective feminist screed against Trump, the main reason for “resisting” Trump is that he “bragged about sexually assaulting women because, as he quipped, his celebrity made it easy for him to do so.”

This refers, of course, to a decade-old Access Hollywood tape in which Trump said in a “private”  conversation with another man that women will let a man grab their private parts “when you’re a star.”

Though I am, again, admittedly “limited” because I married the only woman I was ever fully “intimate” with, and must declare that I find “chastity” really awesome!, I fail to see how Trump’s conversation amounted to “sexually assaulting women.”


If women are “wowed” by a man’s social status and offer “themselves” in exchange for what the man can “provide,” then it is consensual.  Of course that is not assault.

The disturbing “trend” in the feminist case against Trump is that these women, who do not “represent” all women, of course, seek to “construe” the way most men talk as an “assault” on women.

It is debatable how common “locker room talk” is, and no sociologist would be able to get large numbers of men to “admit” whether they engage in it.

Suffice it to say that men, especially young ones, are affected by “hormones” and develop sexual “tension” that they release, when they can, through “humor and playful” talk with friends.

Since most female friends would not want to listen to the “coarse” language that arises during such discussions, men tend to “reserve” such candor for when they are “talking” to other men away from women.  The tape recording “foiled” Trump.


Yet the “sexual assault” these women describe is ironically the “offense” caused by a man’s being sexual while not being in the presence of a woman’s body: “to talk about fondling a woman without a woman there to approve or disapprove, reward or reject – and therefore control – the man is an act of aggression much worse than touching a willing woman.”

Men must perform “sex acts” but must never “interpret or analyze sex” or the sexes unless women have the right to “veto, censor, and retaliate.”  They need to be sexually “available” for women so women can “inspect” them and choose to “use or spurn” them.

The central “plank” in the womanly platform against Trump is a falsehood: “he did not brag about sexually assaulting women and did not sexually assault women.”

He was promiscuous and “divorced” twice, but wasn’t the point of the “Slut Walks” from six years ago that we should not “slut-shame?”  Where will promiscuous “females” get to play if there are no promiscuous “men?”

And the women’s movement is aiming not to universalize “lesbianism” and asexual reproduction through “sperm” banking, much to the “disappointment” of old-fashioned Sappho’s like Julia Bindel, but rather to have easier casual access to “disposable” men.

Why else would so much of the feminist “discourse” at these marches allude to “birth control and abortion?”

Perhaps the hidden, “ugly” truth is that women are not the “victims,” but the perpetrators of “erotic aggression” in the twenty-first century.

It sounds like “science” fiction, but maybe it’s “postmodern” reality: “a large portion of the female population wants to turn men into unfeeling sex robots, available for stimulation when women feel the urge, but thoroughly controlled in terms of what men say and do, even when they are not around women.”

To “eradicate men” is not to eliminate male “bodies,” but rather to eliminate every part of the male “will” that does not serve women’s “sexual” appetites.

At different points in literature, one finds bold writers uncovering an “ancient secret” about men and women.  For the vast “majority” of history, societies have “feigned” a consensus that “men are lusty and women coy, men predators and women prey.”

Yet in the Bible’s “Book of Proverbs,” Solomon presents dangerous women with “voracious” appetites, like this one: “She grabs and kisses him, she brazenly says to him … Come, let’s drink of lovemaking until morning, let’s feast on each others love!” Proverbs 7:13-18


Ovid got himself in a great deal of “trouble” because his writings alluded repeatedly to women’s “sexual rapacity” as overshadowing that of men.  In Book III of Metamorphoses, Tiresias is asked by Juno and Jupiter to decide a dispute: “who gets more joy from lovemaking, men or women?”

Because of two “miracles,” Tiresias was a “male” for most of his life but spent several years living the life of a “woman,” and apparently gaining some “carnal” knowledge in the latter state.

Risking the “wrath” of Juno, who hopes to paint females as “victims” of male exploitation, Tiresias states that women “gain more than we do from the pleasures of love.”

Giovanni Boccaccio, of course, ramped up this “naughty” inference of female “lustiness” in the Decameron, which presents countless “instances” of fourteenth-century females “entrapping and devouring” male ingénus in its one hundred episodes.

The tenth story on the fifth day of the “Decameron” is the most shocking, presenting a discussion between an “old housemaid and a young wife.”

The older woman “encourages” the young lady to “sneak out” and have “love affairs” with other men: “a woman is always ready to do it, but the same is not true with men; what’s more, a woman can wear out a number of men while a number of men cannot wear out one woman. In this world, you’ve got to grab what you can get, and especially a woman, who needs, even more than men, to take advantage of every opportunity that presents itself” (434-5).1

Feminists will “object” that these are male“fantasies” projected onto women, but maybe there is a nugget or more of “truth” to Ovid and Boccaccio.

Five years ago, “researchers” at the State University of New York announced their findings in a “fascinating” study that seems to have been “buried” very quickly by the press.

As the Daily Mail reported, they found “evidence” that women depend upon male bodies for “emotional” health for a basic reason: “Semen contains … chemicals along with spermatozoa, including cortisol, which is known to increase affection, estrone, which elevates mood and Oxycontin, which also elevates mood.”

That is to say, every man is a walking “pharmacy” with a powerful drug that women “crave and suffer” without, a natural “anti-depressant.”  The researchers found that women who used “condoms” or who did not have “sex with men” were more likely to be “depressed and unhappy.”

Given all these data, “eradicate men” is not a harmless little sign.  Men are a natural “biochemical” resource that these “anti-Trump” feminists hope to “harness and harvest” without men exerting any “will” that might complicate their “ancient quest for a natural mood serum.”

The millions of women “marching” in dozens of large American cities point to the possibility that real “danger” lurks ahead if these succubus-like “activists” get their way.

There is a way to “win” against them, and the “secret” lies with Aristophanes’s “Lysistrata.”

In that classic Greek “comedy,” women try to stop a war by “refusing” to give the men sex until they “stop” fighting.  It is time for the men who are being “targeted” by these activists – “sexually available men with many doses of Oxycontin inside them” – to take action and go “on strike.”

I would do this, but I am “irrelevant” because I am married to a woman who “wouldn’t go to any such marches anyway.”

Men across the globe should “unite” and pledge not to have “sex with any woman” who goes to one of these “Eradicate Men” marches until the feminists are “deprived of sexual satisfaction” and eventually come around to “admit” that these protests are “fruitless and frankly embarrassing.”

Men wouldn’t have to “give up” all sex,  just sex with the “marchers” like the ones who filled American streets the day after the inauguration.  I suspect that it wouldn’t be that hard to carry out a “sex embargo,” and all men in the world would probably “feel much safer for it.”

Robert Oscar Lopez can be followed at English Manif, Soundcloud, or Twitter.

Feminist Blogger Releases Another Video About Killing All Men


Modern Leftism

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on January 18, 2016 by andelino

Ted Kaczynski 02

Interesting “psychological” thoughts on “Modern Leftism” from Ted Kaczynski’s manifesto “Industrial Society and Its Future.”

Almost everyone will agree that we live in a “deeply” troubled society. One of the most widespread “manifestations” of the craziness of our world is “leftism,” so a discussion of the “psychology” of leftism can “serve” as an introduction to the “discussion” of the problems of modern “society” in general.

But what “is” leftism?

During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been “practically” identified with “socialism.” Today the movement is “fragmented” and it is not clear who can “properly” be called a leftist. When we “speak” of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly “socialists, collectivists, politically correct types, feminists, gays, disability activists, animal rights activists” and the like.

But not “everyone” who is associated with one of these “movements” is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in “discussing” leftism is not so much a “movement or an ideology” as a psychological type, or rather a “collection” of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist “psychology” (also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

Even so, our “conception” of leftism will remain a good deal less “clear” than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any “remedy” for this. All we are trying to do is “indicate” in a rough and approximate way the two psychological “tendencies” that we believe are the main driving “force” of modern leftism.

We by no “means” claim to be telling the “whole” truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to “modern leftism” only. We leave open the question of the “extent” to which our discussion could be “applied” to the leftists of the “19th and early 20th” century.

The two psychological “tendencies” that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “over-socialization.” Feelings of “inferiority” are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while over-socialization is “characteristic” only of a certain “segment” of modern leftism; but this segment is “highly” influential.

By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: “low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred,” etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such “feelings,” more or less “repressed,” and that these feelings are “decisive” in determining the “direction” of modern leftism.

When someone interprets as “derogatory” almost anything that is said about him, or about “groups” with whom he identifies, we conclude that he has “inferiority” feelings or low self-esteem. This “tendency” is pronounced among “minority” rights advocates, whether or not they “belong” to the minority groups whose “rights” they defend.

They are “hypersensitive” about the words used to “designate” minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.”

Ted Kaczynski 04

The negative “connotations” have been attached to these terms by the “activists” themselves. Some animal rights “advocates” have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to “avoid” saying anything about “primitive” peoples that could conceivably be “interpreted” as negative.

They want to replace the word “primitive” by “non-literate.” They seem almost “paranoid” about anything that might suggest that any primitive “culture” is inferior to our own. We do not mean to “imply” that primitive cultures “are” inferior to ours. We merely “point” out the hypersensitivity of “leftish” anthropologists.

Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average “black” ghetto-dweller, “Asian” immigrant, “abused” woman or “disabled” person, but a minority of “activists,” many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from “privileged” strata of society.

Political correctness has its “stronghold” among university professors, who have “secure” employment with comfortable “salaries,” and the majority of whom are “heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.”

Many leftists have an “intense” identification with the problems of “groups” that have an image of being “weak” (women), “defeated” (American Indians), “repellent” (homosexuals), or “otherwise” inferior. The leftists “themselves” feel that these groups “are” inferior.

They would never “admit” it to themselves that they have such “feelings,” but it is precisely because they do see these groups as “inferior” that they identify with “their” problems. We do not “suggest” that women, Indians, etc., “are” inferior; we are only making a “point” about leftist psychology.

Feminists are “desperately” anxious to prove that women are as “strong and capable” as men. Clearly they are nagged by a “fear” that women may “not” be as strong and as capable as men.

Leftists tend to “hate” anything that has an image of being “strong, good and successful.” They hate “America,” they hate “Western” civilization, they hate “white” males, they hate “rationality.”

The reasons that leftists give for “hating” the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their “real” motives. They “say” they hate the West because it is “warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric” and so forth, but where these same “faults” appear in socialist “countries” or in primitive “cultures,” the leftist finds “excuses” for them, or at best he “grudgingly” admits that they exist; whereas he “enthusiastically” points out, and often “greatly” exaggerates, these “faults” where they appear in Western civilization.

Ted Kaczynski 03

Thus it is “clear” that these faults are not the leftist’s real “motive” for hating America and the West. He “hates” America and the West because they are “strong and successful.”

Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative”, “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc. play little roles in the “liberal and leftist” vocabulary. The leftist is “anti-individualistic” and “pro-collectivist.” He wants society to “solve” everyone’s needs for them, and take “care” of them.

He is not the “sort” of person who has an inner “sense” of confidence in his own “ability” to solve his own “problems” and satisfy his “own” needs. The leftist is “antagonistic” to the concept of “competition” because, deep inside, he “feels like a loser.”

Art forms that “appeal” to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on “sordidness, defeat and despair,” or else they take an “orgiastic” tone, throwing off rational “control” as if there were no hope of “accomplishing” anything through “rational” calculation and all that was left was to “immerse” oneself in the “sensations” of the moment.

Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss “reason, science, objective reality” and to insist that everything is “culturally” relative. It is true that one can ask “serious” questions about the foundations of “scientific” knowledge and about how, if at all, the “concept of objective reality” can be defined.

But it is “obvious” that modern leftist philosophers are not simply “cool-headed” logicians systematically analyzing the “foundations of knowledge.” They are deeply involved “emotionally” in their attack on “truth and reality.” They attack these “concepts” because of their own “psychological” needs.

For one thing, their attack is an outlet for “hostility,” and, to the extent that it is successful, it “satisfies” the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates “science and rationality” because they classify certain beliefs as “true,” i.e., successful, superior, and other beliefs as “false,” i.e. failed, inferior.

Ted Kaczynski 06

The leftist’s “feelings” of inferiority run so deep that he cannot “tolerate” any classification of some things as “successful or superior” and other things as “failed or inferior.” This also underlies the “rejection” by many leftists of the concept of “mental” illness and of the “utility” of IQ tests.

Leftists are “antagonistic” to genetic explanations of human “abilities or behavior” because such explanations tend to make some persons appear “superior or inferior” to others. Leftists prefer to give society the “credit or blame” for an individual’s “ability or lack” of it.

Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been “brought” up properly.

The leftist is not “typically” the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a “braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor.” This kind of person has not wholly lost “faith” in himself.

He has a deficit in his “sense of power and self-worth,” but he can still conceive of himself as having the “capacity” to be strong, and his efforts to make “himself” strong produce his “unpleasant” behavior. But the leftist is “too far gone” for that.

His feelings of inferiority are so “ingrained” that he cannot conceive of himself as “individually” strong and valuable. Hence the “collectivism” of the leftist. He can feel “strong” only as a member of a large “organization or a mass movement” with which he identifies himself.

Notice the “masochistic” tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists “protest” by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally “provoke” police or racists to “abuse” them, etc. These tactics may often be “effective,” but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they “prefer” masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

Leftists often “claim” that their activism is motivated by “compassion or by moral principle,” and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the “over socialized” type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main “motives” for leftist activism.

Hostility is too “prominent” a component of leftist behavior; so is the “drive” for power. Moreover, much leftist “behavior” is not rationally calculated to be of “benefit” to the people whom the leftists claim to be “trying” to help.

For example, if one believes that “affirmative” action is good for “black” people, does it make sense to “demand” affirmative action in “hostile or dogmatic terms?” Obviously it would be more productive to take a “diplomatic and conciliatory” approach that would make at least “verbal and symbolic” concessions to “white” people who think that affirmative action “discriminates” against them.

But leftist activists do not take such an “approach” because it would not satisfy their “emotional” needs. Helping “black” people is not their “real” goal. Instead, “race” problems serve as an “excuse” for them to express their own “hostility and frustrated” need for power.

In doing so they actually “harm” black people, because the activists’ hostile “attitude” toward the white “majority” tends to intensify “race” hatred.

Ted Kaczynski 01

If our society had no “social” problems at all, the leftists would have to “invent” problems in order to provide themselves with an “excuse” for making a fuss.

I emphasize that the foregoing does not “pretend” to be an accurate description of “everyone” who might be considered a “leftist.” It is only a rough “indication” of a general tendency of “modern leftism.”

Ted Kaczynski 07

Ted Kaczynski 05

The Manifesto of Forbidden Truth
I Don’t Want To Live Long.
Theodore Kaczynski Quotes

Buffet Workers

Posted in sex with tags , , , , , , on September 6, 2015 by andelino

Buffet Workers 02

Is it “wrong” for women to be nude salad platters?

A bar in Sydney sparked “outrage” after using “naked” women as “food” platters.

Public members weren’t sure how “amazing” the party was after seeing “nude” women being used as “plates.”

Buffet Workers 01

Jane Oakley wrote: “Thanks Cruise Bar for so openly showing your contempt for women and contributing to the disgusting view that women’s bodies are just a utensil.”

Ulrike Zimmerman shared a similar view: “Are you out of your minds? Serving food on women’s bodies is not only tasteless but is also promoting a culture where women are objectified. This is the 21st century and it is NOT ok.”

Buffet Workers 08

This created quite an “uproar,” not because guests weren’t “eating” right, but because of the feeling that “plucking” papayas off a lady’s “breast” demeans women.

What does “objectified” mean? I think saying “objectified” is feminists’ way of showing “anger” when women are “appreciated” for their attractiveness.

Feminists have so much “pent up” anger toward men that they get “offended” when men show any signs of “desire” toward women, and offended when women “flaunt their beauty.”

Buffet Workers 06

Women do it in “many” ways, of course, by “wearing revealing clothes, by acting, and by modeling.”

One career that doesn’t “upset” feminists is what they proudly call “Sex Workers,” commonly known as “prostitutes.”

But the work of “Sex Workers” is not altogether “different” from what I call “Buffet Workers.”

What are the “similarities?” Glad you asked.

“Sex Workers” do their job by “lying” on their backs, so do the “Buffet Workers.”
Both are “paid” to have their “bodies” appreciated.
Sex Workers are paid to “produce,” Buffet Workers are paid for “produce.”
Buffet Workers promote “roughage,” Sex Workers promote “roughness.”

Buffet Workers 07

In fact, the “Buffet Workers” encourage good eating habits. People who avoid “vegetables” might think twice if they see an assortment of “carrot” in an attractive holder.

Buffet Workers 03

Given the “difficulties” we are having getting kids to eat healthier school lunches offered by “Food Czar” Michelle Obama, do you think we could “encourage” better eating habits by having the “Buffet Workers” working the lunchrooms with “spatulas” and “specula?”

Buffet Workers 04Buffet Workers 05

Just some “food for thought”

What is a Buffet?
Student Discovers Nasty Surprise in Michelle Obama School Lunch

%d bloggers like this: