The double standard.

Recently I was reading an article in which a man from Spain expressed deep concern over how feminism was harming society and creating division and double standards between men and women.

One of the things he mentioned was that men were socially shunned if they courted younger women, but if younger women decided to approach older men with sexual intent in mind, the man became a “sugar daddy” and sort of a trophy husband.

Then he went on to point at the fact that women who pursued younger men were called “cougars” and depicted as empowered, even if the younger men in question were not pleased with the interaction. And even went further to point at the fact that men were convinced of searching “MILF” in porn while women would actively search “DILF”, and while women were protesting sexual violence, they turned 50 Shades of Grey into a best seller.

He made it sound more like a rant, but the concern and cognitive dissonance is real. In particular it is worth noting that women do look for older males when socially allowed. They objectively prefer older, stable partners. Why? Because they need stability, especially since many of them have none.

I am not against women seeking younger partners. Especially since some younger men could benefit from learning the ropes of love with an older woman so that they could eventually marry a younger one. But I do consider it is time to end the double standard and make men seeking younger women the norm again, unless we want to create cultures that can’t reach replacement level reproduction.

Alone again… Naturally.

Well. As it was bound to happen, most male sexualists and anti feminists on the sector I side with (That of defending natural male sexual preferences) have gone dormant or are fully dead right now.

What does that mean for mankind is yet to know. It seems the feminist narrative is stronger. But I got an advantage. I am small.

Being small is an advantage here. I remembered that when an ant got into my pants and bit me near the crotch. That reminded me the importance of being small when facing a big target.

As such I guess I will fight alone at least for a few days. And I will not stop fighting. I will make sure people know the truth. I will share whatever set of info I come by regarding pertinent topics, and spread the word of the centenary lie that is the whole age of consent reform.

Of course I am not entirely alone. Despite the controversial nature of my stance, people around me support me. They side with me. And that will give me an advantage. I won’t die inside like my predecessors, for there is nothing to kill anymore.

The futility of being faceless.

As many know. I partake in conversations on controversial topics, and I am somewhat vocal about my words. But I never hide behind anonymity in order to express myself.

I rarely even bother hiding my controversial activities, and generally speaking, everyone I know who I am fond of knows my views on the most controversial topics. Curiously enough, they accept me, and the fact that they see me as valuable makes them understand my views better than if they dealt with an anonymous figure.

I have managed to crimson pill, or make people speak up, in regards to the most controversial topics I speak of. On the other hand, speaking the same topics to a complete stranger, especially on an anonymous environment, often leads to the same end result. People have knee jerk reaction and make a fuss. Eventually it ends up in polarizing them even further and making false statements about one.

I know there is some risk in going naked in one’s controversial views, especially when dealing with people whose mind is narrow or twisted. After all I already faced quite a lot of harassment for my own views and how outspoken I am of them in public. However, I am not afraid of speaking up. Because if we stay shut, or faceless, the femihags and marxists out there will win.

The myth of childhood innocence.

The entire concept of childhood innocence and its inherent extension to pubescent people under the age of 18 has created a wave of idiocy that threatens with the destruction of Western civilization.

This nonsense, which restricts the lives of many individuals ages 10 and up is a fallacious concept based on Rousseau’s statements that all children are born good and innocent and society makes them bad and sinful.

To begin with sin is associated with most adult activities since Western civilization is extremely puritanical. To worsen the matter this means children must be protected from “sin”. While it is true that children should be protected from harm, this extends to people who are NOT children and activities that are NOT harmful.

Why? Because to this puritanical and infantilized society anything under 18, or 20 for that matter, is a child, identical to a baby. And as such, the “child” must be protected from harm, that is “sin”.

Ironically enough the child is sometimes vicious and “sinful” in nature. And that is the core of this small essay. Children are NOT all innocent. They are ignorant. And ignorance combined with evil leads to dangerous people who will worsen if not stopped.

A few weeks ago a relative of mine told me her stories about how she dealt with a class of third graders. She confided me those spoiled brats she worked with were “inhuman spawn from hell”, using her own words.

Her class was a problem class, and despite her pupils being children no older than 9 years old, that didn’t mean they were not awful. These children were by no means innocent.

She mentioned they engaged in both physical and verbal abuse to both students and teachers, the later were unable to defend themselves because of how rules were rigged against them. As such she was the target of both complaints from parents who opposed her discipline methods and children who constantly insulted her.

She was by no means the most affected, and in fact she was probably the least affected. According to what her pupils bragged about, they made her predecessor fall into tears and abandon the school due to an emotional breakdown.

We are talking about third graders ages 7-9 who break teachers emotionally. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not innocence, and is also not healthy.

Someone else I know once mentioned me he worked with a troublesome class of middle schoolers which was so horrible they drove another teacher to suicide. He teaches to middle school students which are extremely hostile, one of them in fact broke his leg during the first week.

As it is evident these “children” and “teenagers” are not innocent, they are sociopathic and violent. But you might wonder why I showcase the monstrous behavior of these individuals.

As previously stated. One of the core arguments of those who infantilize pubescent humans is that they are “innocent children” who “must be protected from sin and vice”. But the experiences of these two school teachers prove them wrong.

One of the arguments against normal male sexuality is that pubescent women under the age of 18 are not mature enough and are innocent. As such it is important to point at the fact that humans are not born innocent and good. We are not blank slates.

Some of us are born predisposed to be good and prosocial, others are predisposed to be scum. And one needs to guide individuals so that the ons predisposed to good stay in track and the ones predisposed to evil are not a threat to everyone. Children are no exception.

Children are not innocent, and teenagers are not even children. Childhood ends in puberty, and the only things children are which demand them to be protected are ignorant, inexperienced, and physically weaker. Once you hit puberty most of that is over, and in fact ignorance and lack of experience in life could stay with you until you die.

So stop using the argument of “Muh innocent children” every time someone brings biological arguments to declare the abolition of the age of consent instead of making consent based on both physical development and knowledge of facts.

To make it clear. Anyone who believes the stork delivers babies or has not hit puberty is better off out of sexual environments (Since STDs could ruin their lives), but anyone who has reach puberty and is well informed on how to avoid self harm during, or after, sexual activities should consent.

The idea that children can not consent because they are innocent is retarded because children are not always innocent, and sincerely I don’t even understand why an actual pedophile likes them.

The reason children, actual, prepubescent, single digit aged children should not be allowed to have sex is because some of them are way too fucked up already and need to be guided before they become one of those Californian bastards who intentionally infect people with AIDS. Not because they are innocent, but because some are born vicious and vicious people engaging in sexual activity become a threat to others.

Censorship is never right.

Censorship, a concept we all hear about. Nowadays the ones in charge of it are mostly feminists and leftists, in the past religious organizations had more influence on it.

And just like back then, nowadays censorship serves only a single purpose. Preventing people from knowing or discussing information.

An example of this would be the talk on “pedophilia”. Pedophilia, to anyone with a bit of independent though refers to being sexually attractive mostly to prepubescent people. Therefore anything but that is NOT pedophilia. And even then there is no harm in one’s sexual attraction.

Studies prove the following elements. Biological maturity and legal adulthood are separate elements. Age gap in relationships is not harmful. Early sexual experiences are only harmful if society says so and instills that fear in people. There is nothing harmful in relationships with age gaps between 10-20 years of difference, and in fact they are more desirable for long term relationships.

However the ones who control media consider the relationship between a 27 year old man and a 17 year old woman pedophilic and illegal. Or at least brand it as such to the general public.

The true purpose of this is merely control. It has always been such, just as in the “dark ages” when it was forbidden to study biology and anyone who practice scientific research in conflict with Vatican’s views was executed as heretic.

We live a new inquisition nowadays, a sexual one in which men are all heretics if they express their natural and healthy tastes for pubescent women under the age of 18, even if the legal age of consent in their country is under 16. And the elites, infected by ideologies such as feminism and Marxism, push for this inquisition, just as corrupt kings in the past supported the Vatican.

Anyone who exposes the truth is hunted and targeted. It is not about preventing lies from spreading, since lies are easily refuted by anyone with intellectual capabilities. It is all about preventing information to even entering any debate. Be it truth or lie, censorship prevents the flow of information to control the public opinion. And as such is unacceptable in any healthy society.

The futility of self made labels.

One thing the left is mocked for is that they claim to reject labels yet they will make new ones. They claim labels are outdated yet they go on calling themselves “demiamorouspancocksuckingfemoidasscrack”. This retarded behavior reminds us why labels are actually useless, especially when self imposed.

Labels exist for the sake of description, a form of nominal reference when lacking one. For example, labeling someone as a provocateur is a way to inform other people of what one thinks of the subject in question, but labeling oneself as provocateur is simply stupid, unless you prove it.

Labels have the sole purpose of describing, either in a positive or negative light. Ever since I took the red pill I slowly began to set aside any self imposed label as a means to making sure people knew me as the man I am and not as “that MRA” or “That GamerGater.”

I openly speak my support for some groups, but never call myself a label unless intending to use that to further my goals. With that in mind, while I avoid labels, I am often labeled by many.

I have been called MRA, even though I am against the current blueknight MRA movement. I have been called an incel, but honestly I never found myself in a situation where my lack of sexual activity was against my will, and those who label me such don’t even know me. I have been labeled a male sexualist, something I won’t protest, but the label is there only because I support them. I have of course been labeled an anti feminist, both as praise and insult, and just like male sexualist, it is a label I won’t reject. And obviously I have been called a pedophile despite my lack of interest in prepubescents.

I have been labeled many things by people who don’t know me or who welcome me into their label. The first I refuse to allow. No one will label me with ill intent without me protesting, and as such I will protest any slanderous label. The later I welcome. If you label me as one of your team, unless I blatantly oppose them, I will welcome the label.

As such I welcome the label of male sexualist, even if I am not one, of anti feminist, even if I don’t even know if I am one, of incel, only out of solidarity to actual incels, and lastly of pedophile, just to spite those who think a teenager is still a child. These labels are honestly not me, but I sure love wagging them in the face of wall hitters and femoids as a way to make them foam in ager. It works everytime.

In the end I won’t burden myself with labels. The only label I place on myself is “Individual”. That is the only label I need, the only label most people need. That is what differ us from those “progressives” who burden themselves with thousands of agglutinant labels. In the end we don’t burden ourselves with labels and as such are free to associate with others regardless of such.