There is no “war on men.” We are merely collateral damage. The primary victims are women.

Synopsis: The forces of Social Justice are escalating the Gender War, but they didn’t strike the first blow. Men did, and radicalized women’s anger against us is largely justified. Not only are men to blame for the gender apocalypse, but we also fail to understand it. Men aren’t the primary target. The enemy’s ultimate goal is to destroy women. If they succeed, society itself will collapse.

Reprinted from the Author’s blog, Reading Junkie. See the original post here.

A new interpretation of the Gender War, blow by blow

In this article and future entries, I offer the interested reader an alternative perspective on what is arguably the single most significant conflict in American culture. Growing animosity between men and women has exploded into open warfare. Battles rage in virtually every space in our society. The two sexes have almost completely lost the ability to work together or even coexist at all in any context. Both sides tend to assume the worst about one another and are usually right.

The usual position adapted by ring leaders and foot soldiers in the male battle lines is that this is a “war on men.” It’s not. To understand what this escalating conflict is truly about and what caused it, we have to understand the following points, which I have broken into two volumes to be presented sequentially. Let’s start with the first volume. With these points established, I will introduce the second volume.

Uncontrolled education is dangerous. People might begin to ask “why do a million men need to work from cradle to grave so one man doesn’t have to work at all?” Rather than try to crush education, the capitalists did something much smarter. They hijacked it. “Knowledge is useless unless it makes someone else money!” they said. Literature? Philosophy? Garbage! Learn to code! Capitalists had commodified education; now they could sell it at greatly inflated costs. And so began the greatest scam in human history. Pay a capitalist for the right to work for him, then spend years working to pay off the debt you accumulated from earning the right to work for him. The process isn’t over yet. Education products aren’t perfect until there are repeat customers. Next on the agenda: make the labor market so volatile, the wage-slave has to learn trade after trade, accumulating more debt each time he comes back for the privilege.

Volume 1: The Information Battlefield from war propaganda to Mickey Mouse.

Following this introductory post, there will be a three-part explanation of the neoliberal war on women that is currently raging in the information realm:

1. We don’t need guesswork to identify women as the true target of the neoliberal campaign of social engineering. We don’t need enigma machines or magic decoder rings to figure it out either. Neoliberals told us themselves, and in plain English. All future points in this series hang on an understanding of this, so will be addressed first and foremost.

2. Young girls are led on a quest for the false holy land of male privilege. The liberal media heralds the absolute worst aspects of men’s lives as emancipation. This trend started early in the women’s suffragette movement as an alliance between the men who controlled the Western world and feminist extremists willing to do anything to establish a foothold for their movement, even if that meant praising war crimes and slavery.

3. The increasingly militant waves of feminist neoliberalism are an equal and opposite reaction to the objectification of women in the preceding decades. Capitalists started to run out of things to commoditized, so commodified women. The most influential and proportionally guilty capitalist responsible for this was, as strange as this might sound at face value, Walt Disney. The objectification of women in modern films of women as absurd masculine action figures is an extreme yet logical reaction to Disney’s objectification of them as passive dolls.

Take to the streets and join the other broken souls. Ask them what the people want. No, not what the corporate technocrats that rule us want… what do you want? Deep down, everyone, man or woman, wants the same thing. Just one little, simple thing. We all want to be happy. We want that feeling so desperately, we follow lie after lie like a trail of bread crumbs. But that sad path of labor, consumption, dopamine rushes, tears, and loneliness doesn’t lead to happiness. It leads to nowhere. Then we die.

The Gender Jihad is winning, and it deserves to win. There is no coherent resistance.

Liberal Culture Warriors are accelerating their campaign to flip gender roles, even the concept of gender itself, upside down. Many want to destroy it completely. Despite the strength and severity of the threat, opposition against this new vanguard of fanatics is weak, fragmented, and incapable of adapting. For some reason, the various factions of old conservatives, men’s rights activists (MRA), the grossly exaggerated forces of the “alt-right,” homosexual men, minority (especially black) men, and Christian patriarchs can’t mount anything remotely resembling an effective counter-narrative. They’re incapable of even working together. Lack of unity means certain defeat. Many male leaders and male-dominated institutions don’t even attempt to fight at all. They preemptively surrender, which ends with predictably pitiful results of emasculation.

Perhaps the most foolish men of all, the liberal elites in Hollywood and Academia, have tried to use feminist warriors as shock troops against their conservative enemies, and with hilariously predictable results. Like a pack of starving wolves, fanatics who hate men will first feast on the bones of the men closest to them. As suicidal as this strategy was, it wasn’t a total waste. Maybe we should give these misguided liberals a medal for their noble, though completely unintentional sacrifice. If nothing else, Weinstein and his fellow clowns bought the rest of us time while the female mob picks their bones clean. But that time is up and we’re the next dish on the menu.

As alarming as the Gender War is, we shouldn’t be surprised. It was predictable and a long time coming. Us men started it, and in some cosmic sense, we deserve it.

To call men the “losers” of the raging culture war implies that women are the winners. But are they really?

Up Next: Men and boys are collateral damage of the Social Justice Jihad, but girls are the primary target

The only thing the squabbling tribes of men can agree on is that the hordes of social justice are waging a war on men and masculinity. I find this assertion interesting and for a while believed it myself. However, it isn’t true. Men and boys are casualties in this holy war, but we’re merely collateral damage. The primary target is girls.

While the old saying “the pen is mightier than the sword” is a self-refuting over-simplification, its intended message is based on truth. The information battlefield is of equal importance to the physical one. The upcoming chapter will analyze the history of propaganda from two different cultures. One strain of propaganda aimed to educate, encourage, comfort, and embolden women. The other strain, our strain, was conceived with an early goal to simply use and discard women. Today’s propaganda, which is at least in part a hostile reaction to the first wave of propaganda, is much worse. It aims to utterly destroy women in every sense of the word, and society along with them.

For anyone thinking that’s hyperbole, well… it isn’t. Break down women so relentlessly that they live their lives alone, hopeless, angry, without a future, and mortal enemies of their male counterparts, that has an obvious and immediate consequence. Their children will be broken and feral right from the start, without the need for intervention from the neoliberal establishment at all. How many generations of feral children can our society survive? Three? Four? It might not survive one.

Recommended Reading

Medieval Feudalism
Carl Stephenson paints a beautiful and easy to digest picture of life in a traditional feudal society during the Early and High Middle Eages. That’s what makes this book so important. To understand the hiearchy and power structure of the modern capitalist world, it is important to understand feudalism. This actually isn’t as difficult as it sounds, because the two systems are basically identical.

In the past thousand years, the world has changed tremendously. Thanks to the tireless work and sacrifices of past generations, we’ve gained so much, from running water, modern medicine, and many other things too numerous to list. And yet, in some ways, perhaps the most important ways, the world has hardly changed at all. The hierarchy that dictates the social station of every man, woman, and child has shifted less than Stone Hedge. Interestingly, feudal leaders were very progressive and had a modern grasp of freedom exactly the same as today. A medieval serf was “free” because he owned a strip of land the size of a driveway and a cow. A modern American is “free” because he owns a condo the size of a driveway and a car. The serf’s rulers might take his cow and ruin his life. Our rulers might decide to take the American’s car and ruin his life. Progress.

Interestingly, there was one key difference between feudal knights and modern corporate leaders. Knights liked to fight and kill each other a lot. This sounds like a wonderful tradition and it should be reinstated, effective immediately.

Even the institutions haven’t changed much. Enamored by the promise of eternal riches, people went to mass and threw coins, often the only coins they had, into the collection plate. Today, a thousand years later, we still have a church. It’s called a “stock market,” and priests are called “economists.” Will our God the squiggly line be pleased, or will he be angry? Nobody knows because it’s more random than throwing chips at the roulette table while blindfolded. However, it’s still important to guess best as we can, because the squiggly line is literally the only deciding factor for if we make lots of money today, or if we have to fight each other and kill millions. It might not make sense to the common soldier why we have to kill millions today, but there is no why. We just have to. The squiggly line commands it. And it’s also wrong to suggest it’s pointless. You see, if we kill more people than the enemy, our squiggly line goes up and theirs goes down. Such is the wisdom of the squiggly line. About five or six people make hundreds of billions of dollars from the war, but we assure you that there is no ulterior motive for this blood sacrifice.

Other things have improved too. Medieval Kings based their currencies on gold. Today, we are wiser and base our currency on the promise that we could exchange it for gold if asked. Of course we wouldn’t, but we could. Also, if we run out of money we can just make more. Why not just always make more money? Because we first have to borrow the money from ourselves and then make it. If it’s so easy then why do we still have poor people? It’s too complicated for you to understand. What if we run out of the magic printed money, or accidentally make too much of it? That’s not a problem. No one panics, everyone remains perfectly calm, then we elect Hitler.

Now back to work before the Amazon predator drone notices you haven’t moved any boxes for 32.5 seconds. (Yes, I did just advertise an Amazon book for commission and in the same breath joke that they murder their own employees with hellfire missiles. The irony isn’t lost on me.)

About the Author

 I worked in the Army’s Public Affairs program as a multi-media “correspondent,” if you will, for eight years, producing news articles, video, and photography in around the United States as well as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait.

My current creative endeavors include Tales From Venus, the Night Witches Project, and The Man With No Heart. A full list of my published work on Fabius Maximus can be found here. My portfolio of military work and publications is located here. I have the attention span of a squirrel, so none of these are quite finished yet. I’m excited to have launched Reading Junkie, and hope it is a platform that other creators enjoy and find useful. See my full bio here.

Subscribe to the newsletter for more updates!

Connect with me on social media
YouTube Channel

44 thoughts on “There is no “war on men.” We are merely collateral damage. The primary victims are women.”

  1. Comment posted on Facebook about this post by Eric…


    “Rather than try to crush education, the capitalists did something much smarter. They hijacked it. ‘Knowledge is useless unless it makes someone else money!’ they said. Literature? Philosophy? Garbage! Learn to code!”

    In fact, this has been presented as science, even in the context of primary school education being used to prepare kids for factory life — although the causality within the claim is a bit fuzzy (quoting the underlying journal article):

    “While the subjects included in the secular school curriculum (stretching from elements of natural sciences and mathematics to more practical applications) were clearly important for accumulation of ‘economically useful’ knowledge, I do not argue that the hours spent studying these topics turned schoolchildren into skilled workers. Children usually entered a profession after finishing primary school and they still needed to learn their exact tasks on the factory floor. However, the ‘economically useful’ knowledge they acquired could have prepared them to better learn the extra knowledge needed in their specific profession. At the same time, it is not easy to assess whether religious schooling was harmful or simply useless, and the differences between Catholic and secular schools were likely not restricted to the subjects studied but comprised broader attitudes that were (or were not) beneficial to the accumulation of ‘economically useful’ human capital. Accordingly, I emphasize a broad concept of the Catholic school curriculum, but one clearly distinct from what children learned in secular schools….

    “In this period [1870-1914], technology became skill-intensive, leading to the introduction of technical education in primary schools. At the same time, the Catholic Church was promoting a particularly antiscientific program and opposed the adoption of this technical curriculum…. I find that more religious areas adopted the new curriculum more slowly, pushing instead for religious education. Religious education, in turn, was negatively associated with industrial development about a decade later, when school-age children entered the labor market, and this negative relationship was particularly pronounced in skill-intensive sectors.” (p. 3487)

  2. I think the author confuses progressives and socialists, and other useful idiots, as liberals. Miltron Friedman was a liberal. Tim Pool can be considered a liberal.

    These “creatures” are authoritarian scum that infects everything it touches. They may wear a mask of a liberal or a conservative but it doesn´t mean they uphold the values of these groups/ideas.

    As for “women being the target”. No, it´s not correct. Their targets are Western values and the West itself. Both women and men are just a means to an end.

    MRA tried to fight the wave. The failed, miserably. Why? Because no one gives two cents about other men.

    Just like the famous expression says: “Men die, women most affected”. I think the author should re-read what he wrote and think long and hard about the meaning of this expression. Because right now the gist of this article does sound like that. These “poor, innocent women” embraced everything themselves. And if they are to be equal to men, they´d be better start fixing stuff instead of playing the victim card.

  3. 1) liberal, or more precisely in this context, a neoliberal is someone who embraces capitalism and all the horrors and problems that go with it, and is endlessly pursuing the latest “woke” cause of social justice. A perfect example of a neoliberal is AOC. She blabbers about socialism but is a neolibedal. She cares about IDPOL and little else. I am in no danger of being a fan of Milton Friedman, or any other capitalist.

    2) Women are the target, and I agree this is likely a means to an end. However, this series isn’t speculation on what that end is. If you are corrext… than this is the perfect strategy. Destroy femininity, society itself collapses with it. Not maybe. Inevitably.

    3) It is true that men haven’t presented any effective counter narrative, which is a key point I made.

    4) I will examine that expression in an upcoming article in this series.

    5) People “embrace” whatever ideology they were taught from birth. Condemning women as a whole is just as silly as condemning Christians or Muslims. This is what they were taught to believe by virtually every adult authority figure. This is not their fault. They are the victims. Not to say boys aren’t, they absolutely are victimized as well. But the goal is to destroy femininity.

    1. Hello again,

      1) I´ve just looked up the meaning of liberalism and neoliberalism to see if your definition is correct. It is not. Saying AOC is neoliberal is like comparing any authoritarian leader to a one favouring democracy. She was one of the many who pushed The Green New Deal. This legislation would have destroyed the US economy causing massive economic stagnation if not complete regression.
      She also did cost 25 000 jobs in New York. So how is it neoliberal? And if I remember correclty she also favours censorship and equality of outcome, as well as, welfare state and the distribution of wealth. Again, how is this in any way neoliberal?

      2)Honestly, I don´t believe in this magic “femininity”. Women of the past were very similar to present women. The difference is that the society/culture/religion/economy/technology dictated how they should have behaved. But why was it important? Female nature is not something innocent, worthy to be worshipped. It is a cruel, opportunistic tool of biology only existing to make sure she survives and continues her lineage. I don´t know why but many traditional conservatives and feminists disregard human biology like it´s something completely irrelevant. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution just dissappear like that and with them all our instincts, desires and impulses… Yeah, no.

      Modern science has a pretty good grasp on how both men and women behave. Religious texts also have good examples of how men and women behaved back then. There are plenty of sources of information but for some reason people still want to believe in such naive fairytales.

      3)Even if they presented, no one would have listened. Because no one cares about men nor benefits from helping men (in the short term). The current system benefits nearly everyone, with one exception, you might already guess what that exception is. Government gets its tax money, women can get everything they want and more, politicians get elected based on idiotic, unrealistic promises. Not so long ago they would have been hanged if they didn´t deliver on their promises but we live in a democracy.

      When you follow the money it all becomes clear. Female promiscuity is a great thing for all parties except family oriented men. Welfare checks, family courts, child support, politicians getting elected.

      Business thrive on female promiscuity. Twitch female “players”, widespread use of porn (btw female pornstars get a lot more money than male pornstars, where´s the outrage from feminists?), sites like OnlyFans exploding from all those prostitutes. Women not only get all the attention they want but also a huge pile of money. And when they are older, jaded and want to find a stable man, now big pharma comes to the rescue with all these magnificent drugs. Of course, there´s also alcohol and other types of less legal drugs. No matter how you look at it, it´s a win-win. The best part is, women just love it (up until certain age). In the long term, the results of all this will be catastrophic for society but who cares, as long as plebs are happy, right?

      4)That would be great.

      5)This is partially correct. Brainwashing from the very young age is surely a thing. But why so many women continue on this path of self-destuction? Why not many of them just stop and self-reflect? Why they don´t think about long term consequences? Are they completely different from men?

      I tend to think it´s similar to a “cheater´s psychology/nature”. If the conditions are met and the fear of punishment is low, people will act on their most primal, basic instincts. That is why the West is such a great example of unconstrained female nature (notice how I only highlight women here). So much freedom, support, money and so little consequences for their actions, very little responsibility.

      It is very different from the life of an ordinary man.

      1. “Honestly, I don´t believe in this magic “femininity”. Women of the past were very similar to present women. The difference is that the society/culture/religion/economy/technology dictated how they should have behaved. But why was it important? Female nature is not something innocent, worthy to be worshipped. It is a cruel, opportunistic tool of biology only existing to make sure she survives and continues her lineage. I don´t know why but many traditional conservatives and feminists disregard human biology like it´s something completely irrelevant. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution just dissappear like that and with them all our instincts, desires and impulses… Yeah, no.

        Modern science has a pretty good grasp on how both men and women behave. Religious texts also have good examples of how men and women behaved back then. There are plenty of sources of information but for some reason people still want to believe in such naive fairytales.”

        I’d get rid of “cruel” to describe biological female nature–the word is too loaded–but otherwise this graph is dead on. Folks like Ian Michael simply can’t bring themselves to see female nature for what it is and always has been. He looks young enough to know better but obviously doesn’t—-I’m guessing he was raised by bog standard Boomer Conservatives and hasn’t taken the red pill on this yet.

      2. Hi Pork!

        Sorry haven’t checked in for a while, but good feedback as always.

        1) I wouldn’t say you’re wrong, however I do think you’re splitting hairs. When we get into what’s “good or bad” for the economy you can find examples of both on the Democrat and Republican sides of the aisle. However, it is pretty clear t hat both sides are capitalist – and this is why I tend to favor using different terminology for Democrats than “leftist” – they stopped being about the labor movement a long time ago. As for the Green New Deal – I also agree with you here that this whole project is pure cancer, but wouldn’t describe this as leftist either. If anything, it screws the American worker. I think the GND is simply an exercise in authoritarianism, not “leftist” or even liberal. Just pure power grab that transcends left/right terminology.

        2) Well sure, no debate there. Modern humans have existed for 200 thousand years. I’m not claiming that we are biologically different in any meaningful sense than we were in the 1940s. That said, I don’t think it is fair to demand that women “self reflect” – yes, you’re right, this is something that all individual people should strive to do and be willing to challenge the ideologies we were spoon-fed from early childhood. But most people don’t.

        And – I am going to go out on a limb here and many people would no doubt accuse me of being “sexist” for saying this but I think I have the data to back this statement…men are simply more capable of self reflecting and challenging their indoctrinated belief systems than women. Which makes women an even more ripe target for agitprop like I argue in the article.

        3) I agree wholeheartedly. Men have definitely suffered. As a man, I’m under no delusion that the current system exists for my benefit. But my purpose in writing this was to challenge the idea that many (myself included) held as true… that men are the main target. I argue that we’re a secondary target, or even a chain reaction, of targeting women. Wreck women’s stability, mental health, and place in the traditional family structure, you in turn wreck the status quo for men, and wreck a good upbringing for children. THAT is the crux of my argument here.

        Also… I think you need to reevaulate your position on Onlyfans and Twitch. Yes, maybe the top 0.1% of women in these schemes make a fortune. The majority don’t. Women are net losers in the current system (again, so are men, I am not disputing that.). Even women who have successful careers and attain that “Feminist paradise” tend to wind up unhappy.

        5) I think I addressed this one already in the paragraphs above.

      3. Dragnet,

        Eh, trust me bud, I choked on the red pill (doesn’t taste good) quite a while ago. Right now I got some angry women trying to “cancel” me on my writer’s page on Facebook. I’m familiar with irrational feminine rage. What I’m doing here is attempting to be in the other person’s shoes. If I was subjected to the sheer amount of propaganda that women in my generation (Millennials ) have been, I’m not under the illusion that I have the intellectual magnificence to have overcome it.

        Also note that women are in a more precarious biological position than men. As men, we can typically clean ourselves up and go back to living happy lives (with exceptions, like brain damage from drug use, HIV, etc.) – but for the most part it isn’t hard for us, even if we don’t get cleaned up until our 30s. For women… very different story. If a woman doesn’t get her shit together FAST, she’s probably hosed. Also… pregnancy.

  4. The Gender War is over and everyone has lost:

    The Social Contract is dead;
    Complementarianism is done for; and
    Commensalism has perished.

    Larry Kummer has written extensively on this subject, and Ian Michael’s attempt to argue that “the primary victims are women” is either very ill-informed or very disingenuous.

    Equality is exactly what the women of west have wished for, and now they deserve to get it (equality) good and hard, and all of their piety, tears and wit shall not cancel half a line or reverse a single consequence of it.

    A thot is not a virgin bride; a trad-thot is still a thot; and, over burnt bridges, there’s just no possibility of being ‘revirginized’, going backwards or retreating back towards traditionalism & innocence.

    1. You are misconstruing what I said. What you are describing are EFFECTS of a deliberate and multi-generation social engineering campaign. In this series I am attempting to get to the root causes of it, not deny the symptoms (such as women being encouraged to have high body counts rather than waiting for marriage).

  5. Dimitrios Papagiannopoulos

    If there is a war then women have advanced deeper than the bridgeheads. They are winning. We haven’t been overrun yet, but we will soon be.
    Humanity did not start in the Middle Ages and social institutions -male domination was one of them- for our survival and progress, started hundreds of thousands year ago, before H.Sapiens.
    So, I suggest that the author puts K. Marx aside for now and acquaint himself with Darwinism before coming back to the subject: it is way too deep for his competence.
    (SS. Posts in this blog are generally top notch.)

    1. Darwinism is a form of reductivist analysis, and in this case the wrong kind. Darwinism is natural selection. I’m here to draw connections between long term social engineering and the resultant gender war, which by definition is NOT natural selection. If anything, what we are seeing is the opposite of Darwinism as deliberately destructive traits are being propped up – though I suppose an a society-level, this could be a case of Darwinism where an entire culture just commits suicide and there is compelling evidence to suggest this might be exactly what is happening… however, that’s not the topic I’m driving at here.

  6. As usual, Larry is aware of certain things and selected Eric’s comment to amplify.

    The demands of technology drive the curriculum of public school. In 1917, my grandma attended pie-baking classes that gave students no time for careful craftsmanship, equipping her for work in a food-factory. In the 1940s, my dad went to a shining star of an inner-city school with fully-equipped chemistry labs. I went to a rural school that churned out an astronaut, dozens of Merit Scholars and kids who got college credit for Calculus and Analytical Geometry (“12X”). By 1980, it was equipped with 3 terminals to serve the 50 kids who learned Basic and Fortran that year! In my Junior year, we lost one European History teacher to suicide, our American History teacher took leave to continue a romance with my classmate, and I survived an explosive incident outside the cafeteria that blasted a hole near my anklebone. We are products of time and place.

    Our teachers presented Orwell and Huxley, and quietly left CS Lewis to find for ourselves on the library shelves. Two different silos, for three authors who were products of same time and place: all were in alarm when they saw the new-style curriculum foisted upon the upcoming generation, in schools they attended. In America, we conveniently forget these authors were human beings, men of a certain time and place. Just as we forget that Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange was inspired by a real event: the rape of Burgess’ wife by a gang on a spree. Alex and his droogies were actually Greatest-Generation American soldiers.

    Gurdijieff wisely ignored femininity and instead discussed polarity, waxing and waning in response to demand. The urban Chinese now wear chic, expensive eyewear to adapt to staring all day at monitors in air conditioned offices. Fashionable men now wear my old power suit blazers, the ones nipped in to accentuate my girlish curves. I thought they were incinerated by Goodwill two decades ago, but I guess I was wrong.

    Readers of Fabius Maximus would do well to remember that it is not women, but Mother Nature herself that is the Cruel Mistress. It is technical revolution that helps feed the young yet renders generations obsolete, and forces migrations which tear apart the family units upon which traditional polar relationships depend. The scholarly papers of the early 1970s – whether Milton Friedman’s definition of corporate social responsibility or John Hamilton Tanton’s environmental dystopia – defined the fashions of the last half-century. Those ideas have been extrapolated to the point of intellectual dead ends. Recognize this.

    As Larry can tell you, understand that there are a few ideas that transcend the inflection-points of history: “A man may be born, but in order to be born he must first die, and in order to die he must first awake.” – George Gurdijieff, as well as a few other Remarkable Men

    PS It’s a strange feeling to recognize the ladies whose images Ian Michael used. Ian: I assure you, there is little economic profit for the models, who are stuck in the same economy as you.

  7. The woman voter was the chink in the armor of Western Democracy. Even a casual historian can go back and quickly observe that moral degeneracy takes flight time and time again once women are allowed to vote. Cater to their ego, inflate it and train them to believe they don’t need a man, put in place a lot women-friendly family courts … and you predictably get a LOT of single ladies/moms. This is intentional b/c married women are much harder to manipulate. These single women however, make excellent & consistent voters for socialism. They also scare easily (ie: 2001 twin towers, 2008 housing bailout, 2020 covid, etc) which leads to large payouts to our globalist rulers courtesy of the tax base. Democracy will absolutely die unless morality is restored in the voter base … and that won’t happen unless the 19th is repealed. Not going to happen w/o CW3 or a total collapse I’m afraid.

  8. Philosophy Extract

    I have been reading FM, for many years. I rarely comment, but I must say, I respect your rebuttals.

  9. There is war on men
    I don’t have a good English level so it will be in French.

    Vous avez eu les premières lois pour la parité dans les conseils d’administration en Californie, les forces armées les entreprises Américaines comme Française mettent en place des politiques féministes par exemple Raytheon, American express sans oublier des initiative comme girls who code, Solar Preparatory School for Girls. Le féministe en France comme aux Etats-Unis utilisent les mêmes méthodes c’est le pourcentage de femme ou leur nombre qui est ou qui fait l’égalité et elle n’ont pas de limite en France avec le Women Forum de l’année dernière on sait qu’il devrait-il avoir une loi sur l’émancipation économique des femmes qui devrait mettre en place des quotas dans les comités exécutifs soit disant en 2014 avec la fameuse loi du 4 août il ne devait pas il avoir de loi dans ce domaine car c’était des entreprises privées,…

    Deux exemples rapide quand il a fallut interviewé le candidat Emmanuel Macron pour la présidentiel en 2017 deux hommes ce n’est pas l’égalité donc refuser une femme et un homme sa passe mais le top c’est deux femmes. Ensuite quand il a fallut élire les député il n’y avait pas encore de loi pour les 50 % de femmes seulement il a était décidé d’appliquer cette règle plus de 70 % des candidats était des hommes.

    Dans tous ces points énumérés rare sont les femmes qui dénoncent ces méthodes au contraire maintenant elles les ont adoptées plus plusieurs raisons.
    Le plus grand désaccord avec cet article et ceci “A third would be to increases the number of men in certain professions such as elementary education, nursing, physicians assistant, and other traditional female occupations as women continue to gain access into nontraditional occupations.”

    Avec cette approche nous rentrons totalement dans la vision féministe de la société et sa volonté de répartition sexuée. Le monde économique et éducatif et complètement soumis au politique féministe via les quotas, la parité et les mesures compensatoires spécifiques pour les filles et les femmes depuis plus de trente ans maintenant.

    Je pense que les femmes et les filles seront toujours protégées, cependant on peut regretter qu’il n’y est pas d’autre personne qui s’occupe des normes sociétales que le féministe à la fois pour les femmes mais aussi pour les hommes je pense qu’il existe d’autres modèle de société que la vision féministe enfin j’espère

  10. If women are victims, then why did a female doctor at a Toronto university direct police in her community to oppress a man named Steve Katsikaris?

    Writing criticism of women on a blog is a crime in Canada?

    1. When you suffer from PTSD like that Canadian veteran, the last thing that democracy would anticipate is for a dumb, feminist broad to hire police and oppress the man as if he were a criminal.

      How did Dr. Brooke Hogarth become a medical doctor? In my opinion, she isn’t fit to deal with adult patients if she is easily offended at war vets having nightmares and PTSD. She should find another field in medicine, such as becoming a mental health doctor for rapefugees while they rape her inside a refugee camp.

  11. If women are the victims, then why are men 80% of the homeless population and 96% of the prison population in the developed countries?

    In Canada, boys are discriminated through affirmative action programs designed for dumb blonde broads to get doctorate degrees while moonlghhting as an escort on OnlyFans.

    In Toronto, Canada, whebever a female teacher is accused of molesting her minor students, the first thing that most Toronto Police Detectives do is to ask the female teacher if she was criminally harassed by the parents or the student.

    1. Why does it have to be either-or? Yes, these are ways men are victimized by the system. Fortunately these two specific problems don’t affect all or even most men (unless you are unlucky enough to be black in America). I believe the author’s point is that far more women are being harmed by this. For every veteran with PTSD, how many women have the 1000 cock stare?

      And he’s right when he says “The Gender Jihad is winning, and it deserves to win. There is no coherent resistance.” I have friends who will tell you privately over a pint that this is crazy, but will nonetheless go along with it at work and on twitter because they’re afraid of getting cancelled. I understand where they’re coming from; they have families to feed. But like my boy Ben Franklin allegedly said, “We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

      1. Maybe because men are screwed considerably more by the society compared to women? And they also have become the victims of the same feminist (or whichever name you prefer) propaganda, women have.

        They also die more, live less and pay for pretty much everything you see. Is it fair? No. Life was never fair but it doesn´t mean we should create systems where men are completely destroyed by idiotic courts, laws and programs which are encouraged (and hailed as “progressive”) by society´s delusions.

        There will be no resistance unless the groovy train stops and the money start to run out. Strong family units (-s) are no longer profitable. Degeneracy is encouraged and promoted on every corner, so why not enjoy the decline with a beverage of your choosing?

      2. I for one am terrified for my daughter’s future. If I had a son, I doubt I’d be nearly as concerned. We’ll just have to disagree on who exactly is getting hurt more.

        However, I take issue with

        There will be no resistance unless the groovy train stops and the money start to run out. Strong family units (-s) are no longer profitable. Degeneracy is encouraged and promoted on every corner, so why not enjoy the decline with a beverage of your choosing?

        Saying we can’t do anything until the wheels come off is so unbelievably lazy. Thankfully, the people that built America didn’t share this attitude. The people building The New America certainly don’t.

        Anyway, If you’re enjoying it so much, why complain on the internet?

      3. I’ve just watched that YouTube video of that Canadian guy being arrested for having nightmares, and you equate army vets with feminazi whores who chose to ride the Alpha males and get 1,000 cock stares?

        If America (or Canada) was a real democracy, army vets would not be arrested and treated like terrorists for having nightmares of police.

  12. Saying we can’t do anything until the wheels come off is so unbelievably lazy. Thankfully, the people that built America didn’t share this attitude. The people building The New America certainly don’t.

    The people who built America didn’t have to deal with military weapons and feminist cancel culture mobs. There wasn’t unlimited printing of money to fund feminist nude marches and gay prides for the useful idiots either.

    Do you want to end up like Peter Schiff’s father, or Aaron Russo or Roosh V who is already marked for death by the Toronto elite for hosting MRA speeches in Toronto and Montreal?

    1. lmao… no, they just had to deal with he most powerful empire the world had ever seen. Here we are quaking in our boots over some women and a few gays, when all that’s needed is a light spanking and “I’m not paying for that university.” Would you look at the state of you?

      1. Yea, like this veteran from Canada had a chance to “resist” the Canadian Trudeaustan feminazi new world order:

        Arrested on campus for having nightmares of the feminist Gestapo, and the doctor hired cops in her town to arrest the fella in Toronto for the same incident.

      2. Woosh. Once again you’re missing the point. If we stood as men together and said NO – instead of ‘enjoying the decline with a beverage of your choosing’ while whinging on the internet – this nonsense would end shortly thereafter.

        BTW you know that you’re not supposed to stay in the anger phase forever right?

      3. This isn’t 1776 where man and the army had weapons of the same caliber. We’re dealing with local town police using bulletproof tanks, submachine weapons and weapons used in the Iraq and Afghan wars.

        Roosh tried to hold a speech in Canada, and the Toronto elites went to smear that man’s name and they vilified anyone in agreement as “pro-rape” without evidence or proof. It’s funny because Canada doesn’t have a public sex offender register and most Toronto elite are always rumored to have child sex orgies inside their Bridle Path mansions.

        The average Joe doesn’t have billions of dollars in backing, or $500 million a year funding from Justin Trudeau or Biden to promote their causes.

        The best that the average Joe can do is enjoy the decline. Why put yourself in the crossfire and become a martyr of a feminist empire that doesn’t seem to be holding back on clown world?

  13. It is inevitable that the economies of the USA, Canada and the G7 collapse. It’s not sustainable to keep on printing to fund the Prides and SW marches on the taxpayer dime.

  14. I certainly wouldn’t say that women are the primary victims, and I am a woman. However, the point that if you’ve been explicitly taught nonsense from childhood and you only have until age 30 to figure it out and the only people trying to explain how it’s all nonsense also continually mock you to scorn and condemn and despise you, then yeah, it is hard as hell to figure it all out in time to avoid ruining your life.

    The problem with men is they so seldom look in the mirror.

  15. I’m sorry but the article was too complex and the writing style to dense for me. But I’ll add this. The problem is womens perception. Women perceive equality as hostile sexism. Another way, women now have equality but they perceive it to be the victims of a culture war. There is a research paper out there that proves this. Amy Yeung is the author.

  16. Actually, no, the war is on men. I don’t know how you think the target is women, but it’s not working.

  17. It’s amazing how this feminazi scum didn’t get shot in the head or beheaded for oppressing men in Cuckada!

  18. Where the Islamists and mass shooders at? Jesus should send a meteor in Commiefornia and burn down the sloots!

    Amber Rose Slutwalk in LA.

  19. Ian Michael did a great job with his fiction novel ‘Ultra Violence’. I impatiently waited for every chapter to be released. Now reading over this synopsis for some future work I can see he is about to write more fiction again… less interesting though.

    To your points:

    “We don’t need guesswork to identify women as the true target of the neoliberal campaign of social engineering.”

    Agreed. I want proof and lots of it! I have a mountain of proof that they were the targets of targeted feminist propaganda. If you have proof to the contrary I’ll need to see a lot of it.

    “Young girls are led on a quest for the false holy land of male privilege.”

    Not true. Feminists want to remain firmly at the bottom of their ‘privilege hierarchy’ to justify their rage against male achievement. Victim status is power. They don’t want privilege, they want power.

    “The increasingly militant waves of feminist neoliberalism are an equal and opposite reaction to the objectification of women in the preceding decades.”

    Feminist neoliberalism?? Good god man feminism is rooted in Marxism! Do some homework before you post! As for the “objectification of women”…. a feminist talking point… is not a reaction to anything. It’s simply a vehicle to used to claim victim status. Both men and women have always objectified each other… feminists exploit it relentlessly because it works. Militant feminism is not a by product of this.

    You should do a little research on Emmeline Pankhurst and the early suffragettes. They are in fact terrorists and started their violent activities after 1903.

    Your last point about the Gender Jihad and it’s winning…. yeah ok, but it’s the feminists who are ascendant and men are in full retreat. Society is indeed being feminized by a group of man-hating zealots and yes it will lead to it’s ultimate destruction.

    “As alarming as the Gender War is, we shouldn’t be surprised. It was predictable and a long time coming. Us men started it, and in some cosmic sense, we deserve it.”

    The ‘gender war’ formally started with the Declaration of Sentiments in 1848. (The Communist Manifesto was just published slightly earlier…) The first salvo was fired by women, not men. “Us men”??? Who do you mean, you and I?? I didn’t do a damn thing. I also don’t deserve a damn thing. Please spare me this use of the imperial “we” and speak for yourself.

    As much as I enjoyed Ultra Violence, and I think Ian Michael has some real talent. He comes across as another millennial who’s been sucking at the teet of identity politics and see’s everyone as a class. Ultimately a product of his generation and like most of them unable to navigate the box they find themselves in.

    1. I am extremely late for this trip I was supposed to leave on… yesterday. So I can’t respond properly to all your points here except to say you do make a logical coherent argument and I want to get back around to it when able and adequately address everything you said. Thanks for that long and structured comment!

      Also glad you liked Ultra Violence – you probably noticed there’s an Amazon listing for it now, and I greatly appreciate all the folks who read it in its series format to drop by and give it a rating… for whatever reason I’ve been grabbing at air for the last few days and have exactly one review to show for it. And I thought I was a marketing professional. I might need to consider another line of work at this point lol.

      Again, I’ll circle around to this when I’m able. Thanks for commenting on my post, pleasure as always!

      1. Mr. Michael,

        I was very serious when I said I enjoyed reading your book. I think the world you created on Venus is great vehicle for a lot of future story telling. (Much like Middle Earth did for LoTR sparking a whole genre of literature). Another epic feat of imagination was the ‘Wool’ series by Hugh Howey… once again creating a world and then crafting great story lines within it. (There are many, many other authors… I could go on forever…) I would sincerely look forward to a sequel should you write it.

        I also look forward to your reply to my original post. I don’t mean any disrespect but personally, (and probably a few other posters), think you are out of your depth. The moment you utter the word “feminism” you are opening a can of worms which is not only centuries old but currently destroying society. Tread carefully!

  20. An interesting read. I would agree that capitalism facilitates some of this, much like it facilitates grand scale thieves over the pickpockets, but any modern economic system would do the same. The difference is that capitalism creates a larger and more dynamic economy so you get a more pronounced effect.

    I disagree that objectification was a firestarter. Objectification is spoken of as some sort of discrete sin, but it seems to me it is a descriptor of an orientation; a scale ranging from warm-thing-with-boobs-that-gives-me-milk to Goddess. It describes something you have a relation to but don’t or in most cases cannot, truly know. Far too varied and steeped in everything human to fill the role you seem to be assigning it.

    My wife describes herself as a former feminist but she is a capable person and still has vestiges of the equality narrative hanging around. Someone at her work gave her a mousepad that read “Women belong in every place decisions are being made”. Oh really? I asked; How about the inspection chamber of a sewer line during an ice storm? I usually bring that sort of duty up (and there are many) when she starts you-go-girling to bring some perspective and it generally does.

    Because it brings home what I think often gets missed in these discussions and that is the role that technology and civilization play in these issues. Women’s groups sometimes talk as if men would not have been glad to let them go find the other tribes scouts or bust rocks or fall off a dam or climb a scaffold in a thunderstorm. The fact is that women didn’t do a lot of men’s work because they didn’t want to, and who could blame them? The world of men at work didn’t start with “Mad Men”. It was preceded by millennia of poor schmucks getting gored and trampled and ground up by gears and put to the sword. The idea of a career is a very modern one.

  21. I am going to go out on a limb here and many people would no doubt accuse me of being “sexist” for saying this but I think I have the data to back this statement…men are simply more capable of self reflecting and challenging their indoctrinated belief systems than women.

    Show your data then.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: