A matter of power

Voting age, age of consent, drinking age, driving age.¬† What do they have in common? Well. They’re arbitrary. They are not made to prevent anything.

The age of consent is 12 in some places, 20 in others. And guess what? People under that age engage in sex anyway.

The voting age tends to be near 18, but most people won’t even vote.

Driving ages vary, sometimes as low as 14 or as high as 18. Still teenagers hijack vehicles and drive without a licence.

Drinking ages go between 16 to 23, and to no one’s surprise, people under those ages are actually more prone to get hammered. In fact in the US it is 21, yet still it is people between the ages of 15 to 20 who get hammered at nightclubs.

Then what is the purpose of age based laws? Power. In case anyone forgets, feminists, and in general social engineering advocates, are obsessed with power. Therefore they seek to build a system based on power.

Humans reach adulthood biologically at different points in time, and as such someone at age 14 might be an adult while someone at age 20 is still a child. However since what matters here is keeping young people safely away from “power”, they make sure people under an arbitrary age, often people who are not yet fully indoctrinated in the plan, have no influence in society.

Teenagers have their freedoms robbed, so do men, for the sake of an oligarchy which is focused around power even when it comes to emotional bonds.

Ironically this harms the ones it claims to protect.

Voting ages based on arbitrary numbers lead to complete adult children voting for some idiot who offered free cake monthly, and then get backstabbed.

An age of consent above the line of puberty won’t prevent 15 year old females from sleeping with men twice their age. Instead it will create a black market where they offer their virginity for big cash or where criminal organizations sell them as cattle.

Driving ages don’t prevent teenagers from driving. They just either pin the blame of their fuckups on their parents or make them fuck up big when they reach the legal age.

And finally drinking age, which is as retarded as the age of consent, set at an arbitrary number, just makes people ruin their lives via bootleg alcohol or, if they wait until they are “adults”, binge drinking.

These age based laws were not meant to prevent young adults from harming themselves. That was just the excuse. They were made to bar them from real life for longer, to keep them socially as children and arrest their development.

No wonder why the same people who advocate for such laws often advocate for using hormone blockers on “trans children”. They don’t want them¬† to figure out their way in life, they want to keep them as children for longer.

Because in this society children are powerless, adults make all choices for them, and since teenagers are not biologically children, they yearn that power, no, that freedom, adulthood grants them. They want to be adults and make choices in life.

By infantilizing teenagers, and then even preventing them from becoming biological adults, these people want to keep them away from the decision making process for as long as possible, and therefore control their lives.

Abolishing all age based laws, not just the age of consent, is in the best interest of young adults, and against the interests of feminism.


Who benefits from prohibition?

This question is crucial to anyone spending a single second in this blog.

I won’t make any specific case. It could be a teenaged female or a bottle of gin. What matters is it is considered illegal, somewhere, at some point in history.

And thus the question must be answered. Who benefits from prohibition? Who would be harmed if it was removed? Wouldn’t it make more sense to only mitigate damage instead of banning things?

I understand why someone would say opiates, for example, should never be legal, or at least not for recreational purposes.

However when I look at the painful fact that black markets and criminal organizations cover the requests of those who are affected by prohibition I wonder how useful it actually is.

Consider the following. In 1819 a man could ask for the hand of a woman age 14 in marriage and start a family with her if her parents approved. Turn to 2019 and we see high ranked public figures involved in human trafficking buying females under the age of 18 to satiate the natural male instinct they are forced to restrain.

In 1825 a man could go to any store and by a bottle of gin. In 1925 he would end up buying moonshine from some mobster who decided alcohol prohibition was the best thing to ever happen to him.

And all prohibitions have been performed for the sake of morality or the well being of “the people”.

Who actually benefits from keeping things forbidden though? I am pretty much sure it is not the people, since they are now subjected to criminal organizations exploiting them for profit.

But we know who does. Human traffickers, bootleggers, drug gangs. It is the criminals who gain from prohibition.

Guess what? I was never a pedophile!

And no. I am not backstabbing the male sexualist crowd, or even the anti feminist crowd.

I am just calling a spade a spade. Teenagers are not children. Only prepubescents are children. Therefore I am not a pedophile and never was. Probably you aren’t one either. And if you are, just refrain from having sex with prepubescents. I know that is physically possible. We are rational humans.

But back on topic. I am used to talk to psychology professionals, and recently I was talking with one on the topic of pedophilia.

This expert, which i will name Professor Crimson for privacy reasons, discusses some current social topics with me regularly. When I mentioned the matter about pedophilia Professor Crimson stated the term is used irresponsibly since pedophilic tendencies require a primary sexual attraction to prepubescents. Everything else is, as often agreed by many specialists, a variation of normal.

So no. Just because she is under 18 doesn’t mean you are a pedophile. If she is not prepubescent you are not a pedophile. So let us end the semantic abuse and make it clear. Pedophilia refers only to prepubescents.

I must repeat. If you are indeed a pedophile just refrain from sexual activity with prepubescents and that’s it. I do not approve persecution over thought crime. Your thought and fetish shouldn’t be criminalized, but having sex with prepubescents is not precisely a healthy thing to do from a reproductive standpoint.

Feminism is actually in favor of rape.

Sounds weird, right? Well. But it is the truth. Feminism wants more women to get raped.

They want that so much they actively distort and expand the definition of rape. Rape used to be forceful penetration in the case of a woman. Now we got things such as stare rape (Being seen by an ugly man), fart rape (Because if your husband farts he raped you), and birth rape (If your child is a boy, since he was inside your vagina it was rape).

Yes. All of these were feminist positions that extend the definition and concept of rape. In fact one of the most influential modern femihags, Andrea Dworkin (And yes, she was ugly), declared all heterosexual intercourse as rape.

But well, we know they want to extend the definition of rape, but why? Well. Because they need to extend their existence. Feminism justifies itself by claiming there are issues that affect women negatively which need to be solved. But most of the time either they fail to solve the issue, or it was already being handled by someone else.

For example, under the so called “patriarchy” rape was held as something unacceptable. Turns out men, even when in charge, tend to like women enough to want to protect them. Who would have imagined both gametes are instinctually driven to preserve each other?

Well. So rape was still a crime but was still happening, because as we all know not everyone is a law abiding citizen. But then there were more laws, harsher punishments, and a lot more police officers handling the issue. And no one really complained. Most people are not in favor of preventing what used to be defined as rape before feminism.

And so, even though rape was still an issue, it was an issue that had been handled long before feminism. Even in societies where women were seen as less worthy than men rape was often seen as wrong. And there is an instinctive reason for that, no man wants to raise they child of another man.

But so feminism had nothing to do with rape, they fixed nothing, and they knew it. Besides most things that had a negative effect on women (Except for those their corporate overlords wanted) were gone. In fact one could say women were far too sheltered from hardship. So feminism lost its meaning, again. And thus they needed a new thing to fight against.

Of course instead of seeking more freedom for women (Only Camille Paglia and a few other “feminists” want that, and they are seen as a heretics by other feminists), and therefore fighting their rich masters and investors, they wanted to take freedom away from men.

And so, without a true purpose, since they already took so many freedoms from men, they had to create something that could keep them alive. They extended rape because it was just about semantics, so they did with pedophilia.

And new freedoms to take away from men were available to their claws. With pedophilia extending past puberty they took full control over the sex market (They even want to extend pedophilia to full grown adults with large age gaps, such as a man in his 40s and a woman in her 20s dating), and by extending rape they extended their victim points and the demonization of men.

As such they want more women to get raped, in the most complex, non penetrative ways possible. Even without physical touch it is now possible to rape a woman thanks to feminism. No wonder why many male sexualists came up with the idea of “legalizing rape” since everything a man does is rape now.

So no. They do not want to decriminalize the forced penetration of women. They just want to be able to look at a woman on the street and not being charged with rape. Is that unreasonable?

As I said before, I do have a positive thing to say. Camille Paglia is one of the few feminists whose words are worthwhile. Hearing her words is different to hearing other feminists. She speaks of wanting women to be more free, and generally she is not against men gaining that freedom too. In fact she has often said teenaged women should be free to be with older men. There might be strong disagreements between her and I, but she is one of the only feminists I can feel an ounce of respect for. Naturally she is considered an enemy by other feminists.

Sticking to the plan.

As online censorship becomes stronger and the rights of all users are crushed by the most vile intentions I am remind why I fight and why I have been speaking up offline.

I might have not reached as many people offline as I do online, but I am certain of one thing. If I refuse to yield, no form of censorship can stop me.

What I speak is the truth I gathered after years of research, a truth hidden in plain sight and poorly buried by feminists who, like the most basal animals, couldn’t even bury their own shit and carry it on their feet instead.

I unearthed things most people do not care to find, but as long as I can speak, I will tell the truth to everyone, and nothing will stop me.

I am not in for “long term goals” neither am I in for “personal gain.” I am here to restore the sanity of everyone and expose the lies spread by feminism. And that is the most noble cause I could ever fight for.

I know many others among the ones I once called allies have either thrown the towel or lost any possible traction. But I won’t yield, even if I must take a literal soapbox and yell “The age of consent in this country is 14 and used to be lower!” in front of a crowd, I will not give in to fear nor give up. I will fight back against the lies made up by feminist propagandists.

Youth rights taken into account.

Even though the reform in consent laws is part of the male sexualist end goal, there is another faction which must discuss this matter.

Youth rights will benefit from such a reform. One of the reasons to set a high age of consent is controlling young people. It has nothing to do with protecting them, but rather infantilizing them.

An infantilized youth is easily manipulated and used for whatever agenda is held by the feminists and puritans in political places.

They consider youth freedom, and anyone who is no longer compliant to their will, a threat. Any teenager who is able to consent is also able to both refuse consent and reject ideologies.

If teenagers can consent they are capable of independent thought. As such they become anathema to the authoritarian puritan feminists. However if teenagers can’t consent, and are still held as children, they must comply and obey, and as such they won’t be allowed to display independent thought.

An example of their fear to teenage independence and freedom was seen recently, when a teenage public figure expressed opinions that are not compliant to the mainstream stance and narrative, and soe that person was targeted by smear campaigns, with claims of their stance being mere “4-chan brainwashing” and accusations of being a Nazi.

The powers that be fear youth rights and teenagers thinking for themselves. It is a slippery slope they can’t allow. They make sure teenagers are under the age of consent because that way they will be pushed into compliance and obedience, back to the indoctrination machine.

I won’t believe those people who say it is wrong for a man in his 30s to court a 15-17 year old woman, when they say they want to protect children. They are NOT interested in protecting children. They want to control teenagers and make them obedient to their agenda. Otherwise they would be protesting the disgusting glorification of prepubescent boys in drag doing sexual things on stage.

In fact they protest sinister pixels representing women ages 12-17 as if it was harmful to them if they performed on their own free will, while applauding an 11 year old boy in drag doing a stripshow in front of a bunch of old men.

I will write further on the later, but remember, as usual boylovers stand against male sexualism. And they are sided with mainstream media against youth rights and teenage independence.

It is time we unite for the freedom of young adults and adults on paper.

It’s all about advertising.

Once something becomes popular enough, you no longer need advertising, and the closer to your target audience, the less advertising you will ever need. That is evident on many media industries.

Then it is safely assumed that whenever we are bombarded with ads of something in particular for years without seeing an apparent improvement in sales, the odds are either the market is flooded or the product is garbage.

Now I want you to take a break and think, what are the erotic niches with more ads and apparently less sales. How often do you feel an erotic ad might interest you.

Well. Based on what I have observed there are two categories. “Mature women” that is human jerky, and “curvy women” that is landwhales. Of course I am not saying all older women are ruined, some managed to stop right before hitting the wall even though they are no longer fertile, and I am not saying all “curvy” women are disgusting, I do like girls that are somewhat plump (And youthful too). But what we are offered are the most fetishistic ends of that.

Compare that to the categories of “teen” and “Asian”. Back in the early 2000s and until the early 2010s, the aforementioned were advertised, and pretty much competing for ad space with “mature” and “chubby” (later renamed curvy to hide the truth). Nowadays however “teen” and “Asian” are a lot less advertised, and in fact also “curvy” is slowly being displaced by “black”.

The reason is evident. No matter what the blue pilled porn addicted blue knights say, the amount of advertising proves how desperate the porn industry is to persuade men to like what they instinctively don’t. That is old, and unattractive, women. Which would also explain why the “Asian” category is apparently gone from ad space for good.

What we see is the porn industry, which is part of the vile propaganda machine, attempting to reshape the minds of people. Attempting to hide the notion of what men like. Comically, however, if people observe the statistics of what people search, especially in periods with lower internet regulation, it is easily noticed that men, and perhaps lesbians, lean to seek teenagers under the age of 18.

This is a reminder of how hostile the porn industry is toheterosexual male sexuality, and how it stands against male sexualism.

I am not speaking of censoring or banning porn, nor against masturbation (You should focus as little as possible on that however). I am speaking of how harmful the California based Western porn industry is to the people.