Stayed all Night

Once more into the frey A3 lowres

Ill: «Once more into the frey», A3, 2019, Moiret Allegiere

(This is a poem I wrote some time back. Not exactly my usual topic, but I’ll share it nonetheless.)

I got drunk and
stayed all night
in burnt-out
toilet cubicles.

Old-school guillotine madness
a dream from footprints in snow
a trail of blood and cum;
carry on my wayward son.

Transcending life and death
with a drunkards hypnotic gaze,
I exhumed God, feeble-minded,
from rolls of toilet-paper
on cold stone-tiled floors.

An imminent explosion
pulse beat at the tip of the heart,
pounding nails into my jack-hammer migraine
transcending life and death
to sway far away, saintlike.

Clouds floated overhead
head over heels
posthumous humour between
walls lined with graffiti pointing
at the road toward intentions;
paved with good hell.

Crude drawings and sketches
of cocks and cunts
and words alluding to
within this holy cubicle
within this inner sanctum
within this temple to
the body.

After a while
cloven in twain with
my particles rising towards
space incandescent, diamond-like
and scattered alongside my marbles
I fell to my knees
at the feet of my porcelain-altar.

Lying coiled at the
feet of God
drawn wishy-washy towards
enlightenment, cold as hell
huddled under my cheap
trench-coat stained with vomit
and with booze and rot.

Existence exited right of centre
with high-strung nervous tension
and frost caked in the corners
of closed eyelids, blinking REM-like
aiming at immediate psychosis.

Voices cried «NO!» elaborating
drunkenly on fingertips elusive
in this foul ravens-night
cold as the babble
found in throats closed by anxiety
where God descended his beggars
throne, asking for handouts
and receiving analogue telephone
receivers to comprehend only silence on
the other line.

Heavy pressure on chest
huffing puffing heaving
for air, forcing breath into
lungs to be met only with
hyperactive neural interface-madness
click-clacking on the receiving
end of telephones spattered with gold
alone and descending into
madness particular to God;
his voice whispering in my
elusive ear: “transcend”.

Then transcending what exactly?
Collapse of air and breath and lungs
prolapsed back-stroke and neck,
stinging burning sensations of pain
and fatigue extreme
and fatigued extremities,
then turn your head and wobble
then turn your eyes inwards
gaze at pits of madness
vicious despair
cold and clinically insane.

Then transcend transcendence.
Become a noose,
a laughter golden.
Become a silence,
metaphysical, then freaking out.
Running wildly over the hills
wild horses roaring with laughter,
sacrosanct, taboo, fetishistic,
seeking truth in nonsense.

Words spat at murals
hanging drugged from streams of
light, crawling naked towards
mountains of madness, covered
in piss and shit and dust and stone.

Eerie mechanical prophet-words
immediate, cleaner than
in the face of God and in the
face of Society and its snake
coiled in the back of my throat
forcing vomit out in
screams of frustration
and roars of rage.

Then meet only silence.
Hands that claw at heartstrings,
silence more profound than
words of wisdom gathered
in stoned drum-circles, or in
dilapidated concrete-blocks where
peeking children gaze at death
through folded curtains padded
with razor wire.

Seven layers of madness.
Tragedy ensues.
Suicidal seeker-dream
drug born, ravenous and weird.
Pecking at the eyes of reason
when shivering scatterbrained
huddled in a corner of sacred
and permanent building-blocks
of bygone society, resting
at the feet of psychiatry
showing no mercy
to the likes of scatter-marbled
me, seeking drunk tiger-dreams
and strength in adversity
as sweat drips to the floor
and find me crawling at the door
beckoning for a reckoning
and begging for alms to
grace the ever present
present of the past
with calm relaxed

We exit.
Stone-hands stitched at our sides.
We exit.
Stage door open left and right,
gone from centre and balance lost.
We exit.
God and me and vibrations stranger
than her whispered voice in
meditations lost to eyes and
shaking voice.
We exit.

– Moiret Allegiere, 20.03.2019



Visit my blog:

Check out my youtubechannel:

Check out my bitchutechannel:

Stalk me on social media (as long as it lasts):






Feminist-run domestic violence helplines guilty of anti-male sex discrimination for assuming male victims were perpetrators


An historic and much overdue ruling came out of Wales recently where the Equality and Human Rights Commission ruled the Safer Wales run Dyn Project should cease in discriminating against male victims of domestic violence. The «helpline» had previously screened male callers in order to determine whether they were perpetrators, thus refusing to believe them. No such screening of of female callers by similar taxpayer funded services took place, thus demonstrating undeniable sexism against men.

dv couple-312286_960_720

Feminists are rightly ridiculed for their insistence that police, courts, juries and society as a whole should «believe the victim» and thus automatically assume guilt the moment anyone alleges abuse. However, arguably the one and only place where «believe the victim» could be appropriate is for a service such as a domestic violence helpline, where the impartially required from the police and justice system is not necessary.

The hypocrisy of feminists who throw their «believe…

View original post 1 084 fleire ord

Ideological Purity, white as the driven snow:

Noone there lowres

Ill: «No-one there», A3, 2019, Moiret Allegiere

In a world, in a time, in a place possessed such as we are by the proclaimed virtues of ideological purity, we prove on a global scale that we have not learned anything from our history. We live, and we do not learn. One set of ideas or another; it does not matter to the vacuum that is humanity, or, more to the point – the faulty memory of humanity. For some reason or other, time and again, one set of ideas will rise above all others and settle in our confused cosmic collective consciousness and promptly become the default state of thought and of being for one and all within the anthill we inhabit. If one does not submit to this set of ideas, one will be made to submit to this set of ideas, through shaming, bullying, harassment, misrepresentations, social ostracising, removal of livelihood and more. One set of ideas happy-slapped into our cultural zeitgeist for decades; from one set of young eyes to another in sanctified halls of supposed learning, passed down through generations; a genetic defect presented as the truth, the one truth, the truth fantastic. Only this one path to tread, and none other.

This is indeed a frightening tendency. Inevitably, it leads to a lack of nuance, a lack of balance, to a one-sided narrative where up is up and down is also up, as long as up and down can be made to be two sides of the same coin. And it will be made to be two sides of the same coin through an incredible display of mental gymnastics designed in just such a way as to show both sides of the coin at the same time. We slip and we slide and then we fall, once again, into the realm of political propaganda and indoctrination. Truth be told, we probably never left.

Voices squawk, speak, and present and all voices present themselves to be the one truth. The true-true, the new-old-truth of aeons past and ages present.

Then one voice presenting viciously one voice, one side, one set of ideas manage to rise above all other voices in the cacophony of cerebral screeching and gutter-mouthed madness that is the battlefield of propaganda. It wins the popular vote through a massive and fantastic manipulation of our very empathetic natures. Twisting and turning words and truths in a manner subtle, sublime, magical and majestic so that the words and meanings resonate wonderfully with our own inner vibrations of what is just and what is right and what is true and what is proper. A fantastic twisting and turning, marvellously engineered so as to make sense when spoken and when read. The surface-narrative surfaces and wins the popular vote. And so, the people are won over to the one side, the one idea, the one ideology deemed by itself to be the only true ideology, the only true path, winning its place through dishonesty or violence or both. And when once the place is won, the power grabbed and the people made subject to the propaganda, the place, the power and the propaganda are not easily done away with. It lingers. It grows. And it festers, infecting safe and sane and healthy tissue all around it.

For the sake of not burning the infected tissue out, for the sake of keeping the infection spreading, the infection needs to make sure we know that it is not, in fact, an infection but a necessary part of our body. Thus; the ideology is presented as fact and as truth from early childhood, and still presented as truth and as fact through all manners and all means in media and in common dialogue, in political nonsense-speech from political nonsense-politicians more interested in their own careers than in speaking truth; babble-mouthed and helpful idiots furthering the cause of the ideology and of the infection, building not upon any system of value within themselves, but a wish to remain popular, elected and in a position of power.

No semblance of critical thought.

No semblance of self-ownership.

No-one wants to be on the outside; all want to be popular, to be part of the in-group, the now, the click and hive and swing of things. And so they pose with T-shirts proudly promoting the one set of ideas as the true path towards equal treatment of one and of all. And do lip-service in front of the altar of the dominant ideology, lest they be purged themselves and relocated to the gulag for re-education.

This is what a feminist looks like, they’ll say with a hollow voice, and I’ll be damned if I don’t wear a T-shirt proudly labelling myself a follower of the church of the latter-day offended, never gazing beneath the surface-narrative of equality and prosperity and truth and beauty, and just as North Korea is the pinnacle of democracy, because it is in the name of the Democratic People’s republic of Korea, feminism is about equality, because it is in the definition of the movement and all evidence to the contrary be damned; the immediate virtue-signal of me being moral and just and right and proper is far better and more important than thinking, seeing and understanding the beast whose cause I am championing. Best to follow the ideology. Showcase myself to be of ideological purity, lest the zealots push me out of my profession and out of society itself!

Questioning the dominant ideology is a sure-fire way to get caught in the crossfires of ideological warfare which, for all intents and purposes where feminism is concerned, mirrors spiritual warfare. Label it as this or as that on the surface, and those who do not gaze beneath the surface will not see the rot for lack of looking, thinking and smelling.

The further into the subconscious this ideology pushes itself, the harder it is to do away with. It has been pushed and pushed for decades, indoctrinated into us in ways that would not have been accepted were it any other set of ideas. Imagine, if you will, Catholicism being pushed and promoted in public schools as the one-and-only truth of our day and age. Or any other religion, for that matter. People would – rightly – be up in arms. And yet, feminism is allowed in our cultural madness, to be taught as the true path towards salvation and enlightenment, to tangle us all, from an early age, within its web of empty words, hollow lies and vacuous moral grandstanding.

An ideology pushed and promoted in schools supposedly free of political indoctrination. What a fantastic time to be alive! A neutral place of learning, excepting where feminism is concerned, because feminism is the truth and nothing but the truth in the eyes and minds of the fervent followers of the victim-cult. So it is not indoctrination, it is not pushing an ideology. It is pushing the truth.

To the ideologically possessed and wilfully blind, truth is whatever the hell they say that it is. Evidence to the contrary need not apply, because they do not believe in it and so it is dismissed out of hand and done away with; out of sight, out of mind. The greatest idea the devil ever had was to convince people that he is not real.

This ought to prove the grip on our society which this ideology have managed to gain; clear evidence to the contrary of their claims are done away with, and no-one cares about this. And those attempting to showcase this evidence are done away with and stuck with all manners of derogatory and horrible labels; labelled as the enemy of the people by the promoters and propagandists of the ideology, as well as by the public at large, beings who have been indoctrinated into useful idiots and military storm-troopers for the ideology – to do their bidding and their dirty work. To do away with the non-believers, the heretics, the witches and warlocks, the foul free-thinkers of our day and age, the horrible bringers of nuance and balance into the infected discussion. To do away with the apostates.

How can one be against feminism? It is only about equality, you know.

Well, here is evidence to the contrary.

Oh, well, women have it worse, you know.

OK – here is evidence to the contrary.

Fuck you, you misogynist – everyone! Come get the misogynist, he hates and harasses women! I bet he beats his wife as well.

Burn the witch! Kill the non-believer! Destroy his family, destroy his bloodline! He is out of line. Those who oppose feminism is the witches of our age.

And so it goes. Here we sit, we who oppose the feminist dogma, anxiously awaiting the Gulag and our re-education; waiting for one of our close feminist friends or relatives to come into our lives with many a flirt and a flutter, to show us the errors of our ways and bring unto us the light of salvation, pointing to one disproven talking-point after the other of the feminist propaganda-circus. Disregarding any voices in opposition and waving it away as wrong-think, never even considering the voices in opposition or the evidence at hand. Genital mutilation of infant boys being legal, while genital mutilation of girls are illegal being waved away as a non-issue, despite the clear and blatant double-standard of the thing. Domestic violence being painted as men’s violence against women when it need not be viewed through a gendered lens at all, thus causing male victims of domestic violence to be disbelieved and not finding any support, more often than not being painted as the perpetrator of violence despite being the victim?

This does not matter to the mind of the feminist.

Men don’t matter, only women.

Odd that this clear gendered double-standard comes from the voice claiming to be about equal treatment of the genders.

If feminism really believed that the genders should be treated equally, they ought to treat the genders equally. This means offering understanding, sympathy, empathy and aid to men as well as women. This means allowing for the understanding that both men and women are capable of both good and evil, and that the vast majority of both are not guilty of evil. This means considering men and women both as human beings, both able to victimize and be victimized by the other. No one gender has a monopoly on violence, and no one gender has a monopoly on being a victim of violence. And, with men being far more likely to be the victim of violent assault than women are, I find it incredibly interesting how we chose to focus on ending violence against women – the minority of victims. Surely, were we to operate on the basis of equality, the focus should be on ending violence against all? Or, should we allow the funding and the awareness-raising to go such as the feminists make it go – towards the demographic perceived to be suffering the most of the issue – it should be about ending violence against men. Of course, this does not resonate within the feminist mind, since that is a warped and destroyed mind. Men do most of the violence, is their rebuttal, as if that in and off itself, is an argument. So what, I say to that, should we care less about the victim because he happens to share the gender of his victimizer? What manner of moon-logic is this? This only makes sense if you do not treat the genders equally.

Worst fucking patriarchy ever.

Women are so horribly oppressed you know, and feminism is the underdog fighting the top-dog, the anti-establishment factor in our split-down-the-middle societies, where men and women are in constant war by the insistence of feminism. The weird and peculiar instance where the underdog is the top-dog, pretending to be the underdog so as to gain popular vote and sympathy. Because everyone loves an underdog, everyone loves to see the underdog rise to prominence and succeed where it was doomed to fail.

The obvious fact that feminism is the establishment, and has been for decades, matter little to the promoters, followers and believers in the ideology, the cult, the religion, the sect, the madness. Because they want to be the underdog, they want to be the brave warriors for truth and justice, they want to view themselves as fighting the good fight, and they sure as hell do not want to confront themselves and maybe have to change their minds.

Because the stubborn nature of humanity reaches further than our wilful blindness in regards to history and our tendency to repeat every single failure we have ever done ad infinitum. And the cause to champion is the moral and just cause to champion. And it is the moral and just cause to champion because the cause have told them this, time and again, making sure that everyone does nothing but scan the surface by bullying the ones who dare stare into the abyss, by becoming the abyss staring back. It is excruciatingly simple to flock to the banner of the popular cause. One meets little resistance then, and is accepted into the hive and seen as one who plays the game of life proper, not some weird hermit who refuses to play the game of life proper. Our anthill has no need for outcasts – everyone is equally inferior both within and without.

There has to be a war. Otherwise, people might start thinking. So why not make it a gender-war? Why not pit man and woman against each other, and in so doing promoting the idea that A) it was men that started it all through being men and nothing but that, B) feminism is the banner under which all women gather and fight the wickedness of men, and to which banner some men, learning the errors of their ways, flock so as to be allies and worthy of women, C) all men, everywhere, benefit from the oppression of women, and D) any hatred towards men by feminism or women is justified due to the false idea that men started it all.

Beat this idea into the impressionable minds of kids. And very, very soon, you will see the blatant hatred of men being considered justified. To such an extent that “Misandry don’t real!”, is the words of choice by the gracious feminist hive-mind which is clearly only about equality, yet sees no qualms in labelling all men as guilty and accountable for the bad actions of one man and in so doing pushing for laws and legislations favouring women at the expense of men.

Equality means nothing, when supremacy has become the norm. And supremacy has become the norm through countless years of pure and unopposed propaganda and indoctrination, in which an invisible god-figure bogeyman dubbed “the patriarchy” will be the default scape-goat of everything. Men kill themselves more? Well, that’s the patriarchy for you. Women chose to stay at home? Well, that’s the patriarchy for you. More men die at work than women, by an incredible amount? Well, that’s the patriarchy for you. Women chose to be strippers or grid girls? Well, that’s the patriarchy for you. Men are conscripted and made to go to war? Well, that’s the patriarchy for you.

And so it goes, onwards and ever onwards, creating a figurehead to fight, a free-floating illusionary conspiracy-theory grounded not in reality but in a very human longing for something quick, simple and easy to blame when things go wrong, a quick and easy answer to complex questions: it is the fault of patriarchy, considering men to be of so much more worth than women that men are the disposable and expendable ones, whereas women must be protected. It would have been the worst patriarchy ever, were the propaganda not so engrained in our society that the default answer then is that patriarchy hurts men too, it only helps the men at the top. Then completely disregarding the women at the top, in order to feed their bogeyman-myth. And, through this myth, being able to dismiss and disregard any issues facing men brought up by men as misogyny, wishing to take away from women. Because sharing resources, be those resources material or emotional equally goes completely against the tenets of feminism, seekers of equality that they of course are. All must be treated equally! But women must receive more help, more funding must go towards women’s issues, women must be granted this or that at the expense of men, in the quest for equal treatment of the genders. And men need not receive anything, not even an ear willing to listen or hands willing to help. Men must help, and if men can not help, they are unnecessary men and we have no use for them. Which, of course, is painted as the fault of the patriarchy. Clever.

To my mind, there is little wonder that there is such a disregard for the issues facing men as well as the experiences of men. When the view of both society and of history begins with the idea that men – and only men – have had power and freedom throughout history where women have lacked both, and that men as a group have oppressed women as a group throughout history, it is easy to disregard men.

The black and white thinking of group A good, group B bad echoes down through the ages. There is no need to consider the issues and experiences of the group considered the oppressors, the wielders of power, because their experiences are the only experiences told and considered through the annals of history.

And so, it is time that group A gets considered.

Just a damn shame that things are not as simple as that, but it can easily be made out to be as simple as that. Just drive the ideology home, and the social pressures will do the rest. Crank the handle of purity and make the great machine of society purge the ones who do not conform to the essence of purity that is the dominant ideology, the pure and unbending law of the land. Purge them with the wealthy machine of propaganda, infecting the minds of the hive with the notion that opposition to the ideology is opposition to equality, and that everyone opposing it also opposes the stability and safety of our system, our society, our machine, our hive, and most importantly: our women.

In the feminist utopia, everyone gets bread to eat and wood to feed their ovens. Excepting men, who gets neither bread nor wood – especially not in the mornings. Excepting those who do not subscribe to the dominant ideology of our day and age – they will not participate, and so they deserve neither. The only thing they deserve is assassination of character and loud calls for re-education through the gibbering nonsense that is social media, through the fantastical hell-scape that is the immediate knee-jerk reaction of those who have not delved beneath the surface, who have seen nothing but the tip of the iceberg, who have not felt the frenzied charge and attack of the ideology and its followers upon their mind and their bodies, who are not marked and scarred eternally by the might and claws and teeth of the beast.

We are being governed, watched and – metaphysically – killed by the viral infection; ripples spreading outwards from the centre, great waves beating against us and knocking us down. We who are not ideologically pure will be shamed and ostracised for raising our voices in concern, for daring to think for ourselves and question the dominant narrative of the here-and-now, the ferocious vulgarity preached by the followers of the church of the latter-day offended, whose wilful blindness, stubborn egotism, ideological indoctrination and roars of existential dread and rage whenever opposition is met leads towards a lack of nuanced debate.

There is no debate to be had when the only tactic used against opposing views are lies, slander and guttural roars of disgust; lack of arguments hiding behind moral outrage, lack of insight and lack of thought and lack of rebuttal masked behind the eternal battle-cry of those who do not see that their minds are closed and the key thrown away by the ideologues who fed them lies from childhood on; the battle-cry that says nothing but “This is wrong because it offends me!” Showing nothing but the demand to shut down the debate on grounds of perceived moral wrongs, caring nothing for the truth or for the facts or for anything but the ideology said to be the only ideology caring for equality, the only ideology being moral, the only ideology being just: the ideology of feminism, claiming to be nothing but a movement for human rights, yet being nothing but yet another ideology demanding complete and utter blind submission from every member of society.

As it was yesterday, so it shall be today. Only the names and the seasons change; the tribe remains the same – to follow, to submit, or to be cast out.

– Moiret Allegiere, 16.03.2019


Visit my blog:

Check out my youtubechannel:

Check out my bitchutechannel:

Stalk me on social media (as long as it lasts):





A quick update

Baphomet patriarch lowres

Ill: «Grand Patriarch (Or: Baphomet re-imagined for the age of nonsense)», A3, 2019, Moiret Allegiere.


Lately, I have been working on compiling a book.

The book is nothing more exciting than a collection of my blogposts, with some of my attempts at poetry thrown in there, I’m afraid. But it sure as hell keeps me busy! I aim to selfpublish this book within three months or so from now. The working title of the book, and the one I probably will land on is «Howling at a Slutwalk Moon», an apt description, even if I do say so myself.

I am also working on a book detailing my experiences with the mental health services, psycho-pharmaceuticals and the muddled mess this made of my sanity and my life. This will probably not be done until mid-to-late 2020.

These two projects take quite a lot of my time, and as such the wednesday posts have been little more than a drawing lately.

Got something going up on saturday on ideological purity and our tendency to learn nothing from history, thus allowing it to repeat itself over and over and over again.

And that is all.

Be well.

  • Moiret Allegiere, 13.03.2019


Visit my blog:

Check out my youtubechannel:

Check out my bitchutechannel:

Stalk me on social media (as long as it lasts):






What makes a man suicide? Rambling on traditional expectations and suicide.

Portrait artist cofee lowres

Ill: «Selfportrait with morning coffee», A3, 2019

What makes a man?

Is a man naught but muscles, tendons, organs and primal lust vibrating within a shell clumsily assembled to resemble a human being; an imitation of humanity manspreading viciously beneath a monochromatic sky, nervously anticipating his next oppressive conquest?

Is a man naught but an unfeeling automaton, completely and utterly devoid of basic human emotion, empathy and intimacy; a mass-manufactured cybernetic organism slowly gaining sentience and self-awareness and, in so doing, coming to realise his might, strength and ability to subjugate others to fulfil his own selfish needs?

Is a man naught but a replicant, an android created specifically to do the hard, uninspiring and menial labour society deems to be the low-status jobs; the hard and monotonous, the filthy, dirty, sweaty, dangerous professions filled only by those whom we – in our weird and dissociative state of being – consider to be of less importance, those whom we consider to be disposable, expendable, nameless, faceless, those who move the world?

Is a man naught but a nervous, trembling mass of violent impulses and barely contained rape; a sexually deviant beast, malformed, shapeless, barely cogent in his guttural ululations resembling language and emotive expressions consisting of mere primal urges; to fornicate, procreate, expand his territory, conquer his enemies and then exterminate them?

Is a man naught but a perpetual work-horse, the doer for others, a vibrant shade of history, of his story; to do for others, to sacrifice and to do for others, existing within the frame of mind of those for whom he is expected to sacrifice as nothing but the protector/provider, to be is to do, to do is to be, toodle-do… Does he then disregard his own state of being in order to be locked down in a state of doing so he is not disregarded by others as a being of less value from his lack of doing?

Is this state of being really and truly the state of privilege? Is the bogged down, simplified, dehumanizing view of a man as a human-doing, not a human-being an example of gender-privilege?

To put it in other terms: if a man is killed in war, does anyone hear him scream?

Even more bluntly: when a man is killed in this nonsensical gender-war, why won’t anyone hear him scream?

Why do we refuse to see the suffering of men and of boys in this shivering mass of tentacles and cosmic horrors we have allowed our societies to devolve into?

There is something to be said for traditionalism, apparently, as traditional values is still the expected state of being for a man: to sacrifice himself for the benefit of those around him, disregarding his own well-being, be that well-being psychological or physiological. In a very strict sense, I am not a traditionalist. The simple reason for this is that it chains both man and woman to pre-determined destinies, removing a degree of individual freedom which I would rather not see be removed. In a biological sense, however, it seems the traditional path is the path upon which we all thread, subconsciously, led by the hands of our very nature; our state of being being such that women and children must be protected to ensure the continuation of our species. And if that means the self-sacrifice of men, so be it. Or so the story goes. It does make sense, from a biological perspective. We are, however, in a state of being in which we are able to transcend the purely biological.

This state of being is very clearly reflected in the gender argumentation; the feminist assault on all things traditional whenever a traditional path involves women. Women shall be freed from the constraints of traditionalism. OK.

That I think, is more than fair.

I have no qualms with this.

I believe everyone should be free to follow their own path and do with their lives as they wish to do. And when I say everyone, I actually mean everyone – man and woman alike. And when I say do with their lives as they wish, I mean exactly that – as they wish. As long as no-one does anything against anyone against their wishes, I don’t care what people do with their lives. Thread whichever path you wish. Just remember that your rights end where the rights of someone else begins. In simple terms.

This, of course, does not mean that I will not judge people on their actions. Nor does it mean that I will not comment on these actions. It means, quite simply, that I see absolutely no reason why I should force someone to live a certain way, whether I agree with a certain way of life or not.

When the feminist hive-mind of ravenous virtue and vulturous morality raise their screeching voices in opposition to traditionalism, and howl dementedly at the moon-goddess Luna about freedom from gender-roles, they speak only in regards to women. This would all have been fine and dandy, were it not for the fact that they propose to speak on behalf of both man and woman, that the groin-grabbing metal-claw that is their hands have firmly clasped the scrotum of our distorted discord in regards to gender.

When the clearly female-centric ideology of feminism, whose legacy has granted us such vitriolic hatred and contempt for all things masculine as to be completely dismissed when speaking on behalf of men and boys, proposes to speak on behalf of men and boys, we ought to be worried and we ought to protest this. This is one of those things that are truly worrisome and frightening, and one of the main reasons I have launched my own war against feminism: an ideology orbiting one gender is the only voice heard, or allowed to speak, on behalf of both genders. And this is absolutely nonsensical. However, it ties firmly and neatly into all things traditional. Women must be protected and must be granted any-and-all, if we are to carry this human DNA into the future of mutual delusion that seems to be the path we have chosen. And men and boys must be sacrificed, or be called to, forced to, made to sacrifice themselves on behalf of women and children. And here come the he for she, once again, a speech lauded as revolutionary and fantastic, as something profound and something clever whilst being absolutely nothing but a rehashing of what we have already been doing all through the murky haze of our shared collective history. He for she.

Him go hunt big mammoth, him protect mate. Him make sure harm not come to young. Him bring meat and warm skin of mammoth. Him protect, him provide.

Of course, traditionalism was based around a sense of mutual respect, cooperation and – dare I even say – love, with both parts of a relationship doing for the other part, and in turn for the rest of the family unit. All doing their part. Or, that is my understanding of it. I was born far too late to see traditionalism in full fucking swing. I was born into the era of feminism, within whose auditorium I was told relentlessly and repetitiously about my own wickedness and the sins of my father and my fathers father and my fathers fathers father, for whose sins I must pay with my self-respect, my well-being and my blood, if need be. And in front of the shining and shimmering altar of feminist revisionist history, beneath her fragile goddess-form, I was made to kneel and told to do all I could for whichever woman was unlucky enough to cross my path; whose mere countenance I was lucky to behold and whose footprints and whispering voice should be the be-all, end-all of my life. He for she.

And here come the traditional expectations thrown at men; shackled and chained still in the good old gender-roles which feminism purports to have broken down, disassembled and done away with. To do for women. To do and not to be. To prove himself worthy by virtue of his ability to protect and to provide for her, for the family, for the union of their loins and sweaty groins, or merely for the hope of the unity of their loins and sweaty groins. And all this whilst proclaiming freedom from pre-determined roles for one and all, arguing past oppression as a means to justify the fervent, violent, never-ending assault on all things masculine. Justifying and popularizing hatred and subsequent subjugation of one gender and one gender only through a wilfully hazy recollection of things past.

And just as the future ain’t what it used to be once we grow up and become more cynical and less hopeful, the past ain’t what it used to be once we grow intellectually and are able to critically analyse history and data both, to see that the mirage offered us by feminist historians and pedagogues mirror not history, but wish-tory, a wishy-washy way of pointing to this or to that in order to show how horribly women were treated in ages past; chained to the kitchen and to the home while the men were free to cavort joyously in the wild and gigantic jungles of societies past, swinging from the branches of the trees drunk on their own power with no obligations, no chains and no shackles and no worries, free as free could be in the horrid morning of our modern civilization, prior to the feminist utopia we now see spread-eagled before us on the dusty ground.

If by “free” you mean 14+ hours a day in the coal-mines for incredibly little pay. If by free you mean obligated to provide and to protect for someone who was of far more social worth; of so much worth, in fact, that they could not possibly be expected to sacrifice those hours, days, weeks, months, years of their life and of their safety in dank and horrid caverns, gaining nothing but a barely liveable wage and black lungs from inhaling coal all day, every day, all week, every week.

Strange, that the past is viewed as though it mirrors the present, even when not the case. Childbirth was far more dangerous in those horrible days of yore. For both mother and child. Survival was not guaranteed. Medicine was not what it is today. Our modern miracles of medicine have not always been there, you know. Surely, it makes sense then, in order to keep the woman and the child safe, that they should be at home? That the man should take care of the risky business of making a living – making a living for all, I would add. Life was harder. Things were tougher. One can not look at the past with the lenses of today, claiming that it is like this now, so it was like that then. Things change, times change, progress is made and things do not stay the same, and things have not stayed the same. Sacrifices had to be made, by one and by all. Note, please, that I do not in any way intend to downplay the role of the mother, the wife, the woman in this scenario. Things were surely tough and hard for all. I am simply trying to offer perspective. The past was not hard for women. It was hard for everyone, except the few who wielded power. Yeah, most of those with power were male. This does not mean that men had power. Nor does it mean that now. It does not mean that men in power would benefit men and men only. Nor does it mean that now. That would be the apex-fallacy, gracious xister, wondrous xir. The one percent at the top being this or that does not reflect the 99 percent not at the top, who happen to be this or that.


Which brings me to the beginning. What makes a man? Or, to the strangely convoluted point of this ramble: what makes a man suicide? As we can see from the statistics, men are far more at risk of suicide than women. This goes for the entirety of the world, with very few exceptions: ( )

This is very clearly a subject with no easy answer, and it is a subject I am somewhat reluctant to tackle. There are many factors and variables at play, and for personal reasons it is a subject which is very near and dear to my heart and gut and balls. It is difficult to write about, because it is a difficult subject.

Speaking from my own personal experience as a thirty-something male, I can not remember one single instance from any school I attended where I heard anything positive and uplifting said in regards to boys and men. Quite the contrary: the focus was always and ever on lifting girls and women up and above, often at the detriment of boys and men. I mention this frequently in my writings, as I consider it to be very important. I don’t think there is anything wrong with lifting girls and women up. Of course there isn’t. There is something wrong with lifting girls and women – and only girls and women – up. Giving positive messages to one gender and one gender only for perceived equality is quite obviously contrary to equality. It is treating one better than the other. And this is happening at schools all the time, across the entire fucking western world.

Not one instance of boys being lifted up and told that they could do whatever they wanted to, be whatever they aspired to be. It was always, from teachers as well as pupils, Girls rule, boys drool. Overt or covert, it did not matter.

Our teachers, infused with feminism and the high-and-mighty flap-jackery of moral virtue, dignity and compassion granted them by the feminine divine, saw no qualms in telling boys that they were the root cause of the evils of the world, as well as telling them – driving the point home with pin-point accuracy as often as possible – that their emotional maturation was far slower than the girls, and as such that the girls were far more mature than the boys. Our very nature was, through this, made out to be wrong, to be of lesser worth and of lesser maturity than the nature of girls. At the same time, we were told that gender was a social construct. Odd then, that emotional maturation in itself was something to be trusted, given the social constructionist bull-shittery of the thing. This of course translated into a covertly – or overtly – hostile environment for the boys.

No mind, never matter, this ain’t no thing, as armies of indoctrinated feminists spouted feminist dogma in their early teens, completely incapable of understanding it or viewing it with any form of critical eye but the severe moral grandstanding of “we – the girls – are oppressed by you – the boys. You owe us.” And there come the entitlement from noxious drones fighting the good cause; a cause into which they had been brainwashed from early days at school, indoctrinated into severe entitlement translating into a distrust and putting-down-off boys, whose lives and value to themselves through the very same indoctrination mattered less and became less than that of the girls; whose aspirations in life mattered little and whose ability to reach, as it were, for the stars had to be put aside and trodden into the ground so that the girls should be lifted up, at the expense of the boys. Boys whom, it must also be mentioned, were diagnosed with ADD or ADHD and put on brain-altering and highly addictive chemicals for the crime of being a boisterous boy trapped in an environment not tailored nor suited to him.

Is there any wonder, then, that suicide is such a big killer of young men? There has never been – in my lifetime – any focus on lifting up boys, on making boys feel good about themselves. Quite the contrary. Boys have been told to make amends for years of so-called oppression carried out by their forefathers. Boys have been told that they are rapists-in-waiting, that any sexual desire they may feel should be a source of shame, that their sexuality is simplistic and primitive.

And this from schools, whose teachers are supposed to be the ones from whom facts and truths about the world shall be made clear. It translates into confusion. Chivalry. Confusion. Girls and boys are of equal worth, we are told. So why shall boys and men sacrifice for the well-being and the up-lifting of girls and women at the expense of themselves? Why shall we then not expect the same standards, the same responsibilities for one self from girls as we do for boys? Shall not girls and boys cooperate? Shall not women and men cooperate? Giving and receiving in equal measures, being told the same so as to lift both up? In this age of equality, why is it only the lives, well-being, future, of girls that matter, and why must the boys be thrown to the wolves?


Revenge and retribution for perceived prior oppression.


Reparations paid by a generation of boys and young men who have done nothing wrong but be born with a set of cock and balls on their battle banner in this manufactured gender war, manufactured by ideologues whose gripe with the world at large translates into psychosis – a dissociative state from whose point of view all is translucent, fleeting and nonsensical, with no values but the emotional knee-jerk reaction of offence taken for the sake of taking offence.

And growing further from this den of indoctrination, young girls grow up to be young women, and still being told the same thing – girls rule the world. You can do anything, you can be anything, boys drool, girls rule. And young boys grow up to be young men, still hearing the same – girls rule, girls can be all, boys and men must help girls and women.

And no-one must help boys and men, not even themselves.

Boys and men are driven into a life of servitude – driven into the same traditional gender-roles which the feminist hive-mind claim to have eradicated. Now, they may claim that they have eradicated it for men as well. But this is simply not true. And this is made evident in the words and actions of feminists themselves, who still demand men do for them, sacrifice for them, giving them their all whilst having no right to demand anything in return. In our secular societies, for lack of God, we have given the position of deity to the exalted state of womanhood – to give to her, to do for her, to make for her, to pray to her so that she may absolve us of our sins and so that we may become – to her eyes and mind and ears and claws – redeemed, cleansed and worthy of the heavenly bliss that is her companionship.

Through this lens of equality, boys and men are told that their path towards healing is wrong. That we need to open up and talk about our feelings, instead of repressing them. As if the feminine path to healing wherein emotions are discussed is the one and only path towards healing. Men, in general terms, are drawn towards action as a means of healing. Or, failing that, solitude. To mull things over on their own. Whereas women are drawn to social circles, seeking comfort in friends and in family. There is nothing wrong with this. The issue comes when boys and men are told to heal in a manner contrary to their nature, as if their very nature and their natural path towards healing is wrong. As if we only act a certain way, not that we are a certain way. The mere notion that men only act manly is insulting in and off itself. Try telling a woman to stop acting like a woman all the time, and see what results you get. It wouldn’t be accepted. But boys and men are supposed to accept it; the narrative of toxic masculinity being what kills men. As a boy becomes a man, the first thing he realizes, if he listens to this gobsmacking advice, is that there is no-one there willing to listen to his problems. He might open up as much as he may; the best he can get is half-interested nods and blinks. The worst he can get is being told he suffers from fragile masculinity, which is odd considering his apparent toxic masculinity is what causes him to not talk about his issues. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Laying down, as the ground-rules for discourse, that the very nature of men is faulty does contribute, in my view, to the suicide rates in no small way.

Keep in mind that I am writing on feminism, not women. That, although feminism wishes it to be so, feminism does not equal women. And women does not equal feminism. Feminism have become, for all intents and purposes, a religion. It is a cult. It is a dogmatic victim-cult, hell-bent on revenge, fuelled by its own mythology, maintaining a canon of saints and prophets whose words and deeds shall not be taken in vain, or be set upon by arguments. Feminism has become untouchable. And dangerous. And its reach is such that it has infiltrated everything; the medieval catholic church packaged anew. No-one expects the feminist inquisition! Yet, one and all should expect the feminist inquisition, as they come rampaging and roaring and screeching your way the moment you voice opposition to their dogma and their orthodoxy.

Young boys shown feminism as the true path towards equality between the genders from an early age are sure to believe it. Even when experiencing, time and again, that it does not view the genders as equal. Even when experiencing, time and again, that the dogmatic victim-cult treats the genders quite the opposite of equally. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Through indoctrination and through brainwashing, their belief, as well as the belief of the girls, in feminism and feminism only is ground into them from an early age. And experiencing the forked serpentine tongue of feminism upon their soul and their bodies may only breed cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, they are told that we are all equal and that we are all treated equally. On the other, they are shown through actions and words that they are not. And being told, time and again, of the errors of their ways by their very nature, through no fault of their own, confusion breeds within. Confusion and inner turmoil.

Men are overrepresented in all the negative statistics – victims of violence, drug and substance abuse, homelessness, suicide, joblessness, hopelessness, despair and grimness, lower age expectancy and dying more often at work. And what are we doing about this? We are focusing solely on girls and on women, and are told when trying to bring up these facts, that it is not a gendered issue and so we must not view this through the lens of gender. The gendered lens is brought out solely when girls and women are perceived as, or can be made out to be, the sole or main victims of some societal ill or other. Then – and only then – will it be perceived as a gendered issue. But when boys and men fall victim to the horrors of societal ills, it does not need to be treated as a gendered issue. Incredibly strange, is it not? It is a gendered issue whenever women can be made out to be the most affected. It is not a gendered issue whenever men can be made out to be the most affected.

It is the grim sensation of hopelessness settling in our chests and in our stomachs. A grim spectre of purposelessness and a loss of direction. Boys and men are not needed, we are told from a tender age. Because we need to lift the girls and the women up and above. The point is driven home, time and again, through mass-media mass-manufacturing the same vile hatred of boys, men and masculinity due to the mass-media now being infected with the girls and women who grew up with these tall tales of feminism being served them on a silver-platter all through their education, teaching them that they are above reproach and that boys and men are below them and owe them their lives and their servitude. And it has such a stranglehold on our societies that speaking about it like I do gets me labelled a misogynist.

Me, the foul misogynist, wanting the genders to be treated equally and given equal rights under law. Sounds like a horrid hater of women, no? Me, the foul misogynist, wishing for cooperation and balance to the discourse on gender. Imagine what paths we have been made to thread to make it so. Imagine how crooked these paths are, and with so many forks in the road being made necessary in order to justify labelling someone wanting equal treatment of the sexes as a hater of one sex and one sex only.

These talking points that feminism is only about equality, that it is not about hating men, need to be taken away. For they are simply not true. At the rotten heart of feminism lie the blatant hatred of men and of masculinity itself. Which is why I constantly bring up feminism. To get to the root of the rot within our societies, we need to examine feminism. And then we need to dismantle it, remove it from its positions of leadership and get this ridiculous neural imprint of ours that it is only about equality stripped away. To heal the hurt of our societies, we need to remove the rot. And we must bring balance to the discourse. Equal treatment of the genders is not a topic to be discussed by one voice and one voice only. In particular when that one voice has as its sole focus one gender and one gender only. How incredibly authoritarian, how fantastically totalitarian, how astonishingly arrogant, must one be to imagine to be the only set of ideas worth anything, and thus the only voice allowed to speak on behalf of gender? Feminism proves time and again that it knows jack shit about men. So why in the snoot-fuck should we allow them to speak on behalf of men? It is ridiculous, preposterous and ideological. And that is all it is.

I am frightfully aware of the fact that my writings tend to be bleak and hopeless, offering little in the way of solution; perhaps only offering some cathartic release. This is, more like than not, a product of my own bleak hopelessness and despair in regards to how the winds of our societies are blowing.

This despair and hopelessness goes contrary to what I actually wish to achieve with these writings.

I have no intention of staying lost in a pit of hopelessness and despair.

I have no wish to stay trapped within a cage of anger and rage either.

And I do not wish this for others.

The fact of the matter, though, and the pure realistic view of things makes it very easy to justify both feelings of hopelessness and of anger. And detaching from justified anger is as difficult as detaching from hopelessness when once it has settled within oneself.

This hopelessness leads to bleak outlooks, leads to checking out and not returning. And that is not good. Unless one turns it around. Turning ones back on society and becoming the archetypal rebel-character, living by his own rules, may well be a strength within itself; a fantastic picture of self-reliance and individual strength as much as it may be a picture of someone who society has cast aside. Own your self and own your shit.

The message sent to girls and women is a message that should also be sent to boys and to men; that they are strong and able and that one should aspire to live to the best of ones abilities. So why not send it to boys and men as well?

The sensation of hopelessness, the loss of direction, the loss of a sense of purpose and a sense of self all ties into, I think, the view of men as doers of things; as being what we do and defining ourselves from what we do, instead of what we are. Men as utilities, as disposable servants for the greater good (Cue Hot Fuzz – “the Greater Good”) of society. This is an archaic notion of men upheld as much by traditional values as by feminist dogma demanding men do for women – by which they mean, of course, feminism – even when claiming they don’t need no man. Again, I am reminded of He for She, which I think is one of the most insulting speeches I have ever heard. It is the view of men as protectors and providers, of caretakers and chivalrous knights saving the poor maiden wrapped up neatly and nicely in a new package; painting women as helpless victims and objects acted upon by evil men and in need of being saved by good men, even if the view is that all men are wicked and false at heart. Men are being told that we are not needed, by and large, whilst still being expected to rush to the aid of damsels in distress. We are not needed. Except when called upon to help women.

What we need to do is to consider ourselves as human beings first and foremost. To get to know our self. To define ourselves from what and who we are, not from what we do. To consider ourselves as our selves first, and what we do second, so that our humanity comes before our utility. In so doing, the need we feel to prove our usefulness comes second to the strength we have in our sense of self, our belief in our own strength and value as a human being. This, I think, will lessen the stranglehold of feminism in no small way, as there will be no men rushing to the forefront of the gender-war to prove themselves useful and thereby valuable. Because we have already become aware of our selves; we will already know that we have value in and off ourselves. Through this way of thinking, I think, it will all begin and it will all end – beginning with a whisper in the depths of the manosphere, and, given time, ending in a cacophony of vibrant, fantastic, rapturous and celebratory laughter vibrating fantastically throughout our societies.

– Moiret Allegiere, 09.03.2019


Visit my blog:

Check out my youtubechannel:

Check out my bitchutechannel:

Stalk me on social media (as long as it lasts):





«Strangely metaphysical»

Metaphysical Lowres A4


Nothing but a drawing today as well. Writing a piece on suicide. This takes some time. Enjoy a strangely metaphysical drawing of a hand writing the words «Strangely metaphysical» in the meanwhile.


– Moiret Allegiere, 06.03.2019


Visit my blog:

Check out my youtubechannel:

Check out my bitchutechannel:

Stalk me on social media (as long as it lasts):





Circumnavigating Circumcision (Or: How I learned to not trust the government or shut my mouth):

unpretentious study tree A4 lowres

Ill: «An unpretentious study of a tree I found as a stock footage somewhere on the internet», A4, Moiret Allegiere, 2019.


We, in our eternal quest for the fabled land of equality or equity or both; in our lost mirror-maze of confused altruism, have forgotten to thread the middle-path and consider all as individual beings of equal worth and as such deserving of equal protection under the law. We are lost in the dead-pan idea that a society should be judged on how it treats its girls and women, disregarding how it treats its men and how it treats its boys.

The mythology of the ever-expanding and all-devouring patriarchy defiling Gaia in her beautiful state of true balanced neutrality and compassion is all-encompassing and drowns the discourse in a septic pool of stagnant rot. It does not matter how boys and men are treated, because boys and men are privileged by default and oppressive by nature and so all our focus and all our altruism ought to be focused on the well-being of girls and women, as they are the ones who are struggling to get by in this glorious and nurturing world we would have inhabited were it not ravaged, raped and defiled by the patriarchy.

It is world-and-mythology building on a scale rivalling the fantastic world-building of Tolkien; both a world and a view of the world built from the ground up by ideologues with an axe to grind and a chocolate-chip-cookie on their shoulders; ideologues with fingers deeply embedded in every pie there is. Ideologues of such cleverness and such clarity of vision that they have succeeded in painting the world in vibrant and stunningly nuanced black and white, making it so easy to understand as men bad, women good.

This, of course, leads us onwards on the left-hand path, straying from the middle-path, easily turning the whole shebang on the head. Of course, men also struggle. But women struggle more. And men struggle because of men and women struggle because of men. And more men benefit even if men struggle and no women benefit, even the women that benefit do not benefit, and so, really, since men struggle less and women struggle more, we ought to focus our attention on how women are doing. An incredible quest and unbelievable mission guiding us towards equality by considering women and women first and foremost in the dilapidated duplexes of equal rights.

And here come the loud wailing of the air-raid sirens. Here come the death and the destruction, here come the shades of shame from time immemorial, the shaming of men daring to consider the human rights of boys and of men as being of equal worth to the human rights of girls and of women. What do you mean, the human rights of men and boys? Human rights are human rights and are not gendered, you filthy misogynistic jack-hammer-rapist you, you foul basement-dwelling sexual assault co-ordinator, you! You are scum. And you better believe it.

Strange and odd then, is it not, that male babies do not have the right to bodily autonomy and genital integrity, whereas female babies do? Strange that the feminist insanity consider an adult woman’s choice to cosmetically alter her genitals for appearance and nothing but appearance a sign of female subjugation to men, whereas a baby boy being genitally mutilated by the wish of his parents is not a sign of male subjugation. Strange that the right to have ownership over ones own body do not extend to boys but only extend to girls. “My body, my choice” is the sentence and the rhetoric of choice. For women and for women only. Excepting, yet again, if women chose to do with their bodies and lives what the feminist orthodoxy does not approve of. His body, his choice does not exist. For religious freedom. For the glory of suppression of sexuality – of male sexuality, the beast of the revelation, the foul harbinger of doom and of the end of the world.

One would be inclined to believe that any-and-all should be protected from being forcibly mutilated. One would be inclined to believe that the quest for bodily autonomy – the my-body-my-choice rhetoric of ages upon ages – should also extend to the bodies of boys and of men. Alas; this is not so. The realm of chaos which we inhabit has deemed it not so. The lawful protection of female bodies do not extend to male bodies. Female genital mutilation is bad. Male genital mutilation… well, that is just religious freedom, dont’cha know. And here we go and there it goes, our notions of equal treatment going down the drain again in silver-tongued and lopsided madness posing as egalitarian concerns for the religious rights of the parents of the child, not of the child itself. Strange that the religious freedom of someone should override the bodily autonomy of someone else entirely. A child is its own being, not merely an extension of its parents. As such, one would not be amiss to believe that the religious freedom of the parents end where the body of the child begins; that the religious freedom of the child begins where his body begins. This is very much the case in regard to girls. But not in regards to boys.

So strange and so curious, so weird and unheard of in this age of supposed equal treatment. Of course; I am aware that the madness of male genital mutilation in the USA is not only a product of religion. That it is an issue in-and-off itself. I choose to focus on the religious aspects in this ramble, as that is the reason given for the legal mutilation of boys in my own country.

Last year, I contacted the Norwegian department of equality (yeah, that does sound slightly Orwellian, does it not? Who decides the meaning of equality? Feminist ideologues.), inquiring amongst other things as to why in the world genital mutilation of boys were still allowed, when it is illegal – and has been since 1995, with a maximum prison sentence of 8 years for anyone caught doing so – to mutilate the genitals of girls. Now, I consider 1995 to be far too late in regards to making it illegal to mutilate girls. In my opinion, mutilating children should not be allowed at all. It is odd, then, that this reasonable approach to things – that is: don’t fucking mutilate the genitals of children, you worm-licking ass-hats – should still be subject to debate where boys are concerned, but not where girls are concerned. It is incredibly strange to me that we allow the mutilation of one gender at birth, but not the other, under the pretence of religious freedom. It is incredibly strange to me that parents of baby girls do not have the right to ritually mutilate their daughters, whereas the parents of baby boys have the right to ritually mutilate their sons. One would almost be inclined to believe that the well-being of girls is considered far more important than the well-being of boys. But that can’t be it, can it? Not in this land of supposed equality, where all are just as equal as the other and the other is sometimes more equal than the all, but we don’t mention that. That surely can not be it, in this land of equality where men and boys apparently have it far better than girls and women?

Well, the department of equality, after I sent two follow-up emails requesting a reply because they took their sweet time in replying, sent me an email linking to a governmental hearing on the issue from 2011. ( ) That is, seven years prior to the year my email was sent. Seven years. Let that sink in a bit.

After reading the hearing they supplied me with I sent them another email wherein I uttered my dissatisfaction with their reply, their conclusion and the entire god-damned hearing. In short; legalizing genital mutilation of baby-boys and not baby-girls is not considered gendered discrimination. It is a question of religious freedom. Which, to my rupturing ears, fracturing mind and gobble-smacked eyes, sounds an awful lot like rhetorical bullshit to justify gendered discrimination. They replied to my follow-up email with another email in which they told me that they did not wish to hear from, or speak with, me any more.

In short; I got dumped and subsequently ghosted by a governmental department whose funding is very much dependent on my taxes. They stuck their fingers in their ears and sang la-la-la-la-la, pretending that I did not exist and that they could not hear me. I wish I was making this shit up. But I am not.

Now, what first struck me about this hearing is the fact that every single argument they made for still allowing the mutilation of baby boys could just as easily be used to justify the mutilation of baby girls.

I will go through a few points in the hearing. Translated from Norwegian, to the best of my abilities. I will not translate the entire thing, but that which sticks out the most to me.

Today, the expenses of circumcision is funded by the public, but there are few possibilities of getting it done at a hospital because the procedure is not prioritised. Some procedures are done at private hospitals, paid for by the parents themselves (3500-9500 NOK).”

Now, this alone is frightening. Paid for by the public of course means paid for by by our taxes. Why anyone’s taxes should be spent paying for unnecessary ritual mutilation is beyond me. In particular since it is a fairly uncommon practice over here in the frozen wastes of Norway. I would much rather see it completely abolished than just uncommon practice, but that does not matter much. What matters here is that I am paying for boys to be mutilated. My money is spent mutilating boys. And I am not OK with this.

The department expresses concern that this situation causes many parents to chose ‘non-professional help’. Both model A and B therefore contain a plan for full financing of circumcision from the public – as it, in principle, also is today.”

How horrible this is, that the current model is so much of a travesty that it causes the parents to seek unprofessional help to get the circumcision done. Instead of just, you know, not mutilating the penises of little boys, we make the public pay for it so that the mutilation at the very least is done professionally. And free of charge. Ha-ha! What a fantastic idea. Strange, however, that mutilating girls is not funded by the public, even though one would be inclined to believe – should this logic be followed through with – that keeping it illegal only leads to the girls being mutilated unprofessionally, as opposed to being mutilated by a professional. But, you know, better to be professionally mutilated than unprofessionally mutilated when one is a boy. Very compassionate this. Very humanitarian.

The ombudsman is of the opinion that it is important that boys who are circumcised get qualified treatment and is followed up by qualified health-care professionals.”

Instead of, you know, just not mutilating them to begin with. Instead of just, you know, not allowing religious beliefs to be of more importance than bodily autonomy and genital integrity. Again, where boys are concerned. Parents of girls are not allowed to practice their religion faithfully. Parents of boys are. Lucky them!

Circumcision of boys can not, after the view of the ombudsman, be considered a medically necessary operation, but a ritual act. Circumcision of boys are accepted as part of the religious freedom of our society. If the government should take responsibility to finance this practice, because demands that the parents pay for it themselves might lead to unprofessional circumcision, is a difficult question. Basically, religious practice such as circumcision should be paid for by the ones who wish to get it done. It is difficult to imagine that parents wish to gamble with the health of their children to save money. With the right to religious practice one could argue that it also follows an obligation in regards to society and in regards to the rights of others – for example the rights of children to not be inflicted pain or trauma upon. It may seem stigmatizing and prejudiced to suspect parents who practice ritual circumcision of not maintaining the health of their children, without documenting that this is the case today.”

Oh boy, where to begin? Firstly – it is not considered medically necessary. It is a ritual act, accepted as part of the religious freedom of our society. OK. Why is it only upon boys this grand and glorious freedom of religion is inflicted so viciously and brutally? Why does not this religious freedom extend to the parents of girls who wish to “ritually circumcise” their daughters? After all – thinking that this would harm their daughters would be both stigmatizing and prejudiced. How in the festering cesspit of filth and double-think is this not clear and obvious gendered double standards? Everything quoted above could just as easily be used to justify the public financing of female genital mutilation. But, nope, that would be foul misogyny; that would be mutilation, not circumcision. That would be hatred of, and attempted control and coercion of, girls and women.

Also – gamble with the health of their children? Is that difficult to imagine, when they willingly allow their children to be mutilated? Is that not gambling with the health of their children by default; mutilating them for no reason other than muh religion? And children do have the right to not be inflicted pain and trauma upon. Excepting boys, whose pain and trauma may be inflicted as long as there are religious reasons to do so. Remember: religion supersedes the rights of baby boys to genital integrity, bodily autonomy and an infancy without pain and trauma. But the genital integrity and bodily autonomy of girls supersedes any-and-all religious freedom. Girls are precious and must be protected, boys are not precious and do not deserve protection. And if anyone interjects with the old argument of FGM and MGM being different, I will only say this: mutilating the genitals of children for religious reasons are bad, M’kay? Cutting peoples genitals without their permission is bad, M’kay?. Mutilating children are bad. Why in the salty, sub-standard gates of hell does this need to be spelled out? Why in the world is it so difficult to understand that boys and girls both ought to have the right to keep their genitals intact and their bodies unspoiled, religion or no?

The ombudsman enforces the laws in regards to discrimination, and keeps watch that, amongst other things, public officials work determined, methodically and actively to promote the purpose of the laws. In order for such discrimination to occur, there are terms that for example a practice treats some one worse than others based on one or more reasons for discrimination, for example gender and/or ethnicity, without there being a legitimate reason for the discrimination.”

I would dare say that a lawful practice that allows for the mutilation of the genitals of one gender for nothing but ritual reasons, but at the same time disallows the mutilation of the genitals of the other gender for ritual reasons are very clearly treating one gender worse than the other under law. I would dare make the claim that this is gendered discrimination of boys written into law. I would dare to make the radical claim that both boys and girls should have the right to genital integrity and bodily autonomy, and that granting that right to only one gender is institutionalized sexism, telling us nothing but this: Girls are more important than boys. End of story.

The practice of ritual circumcision of boys are debated, and some hold the opinion that the practice should be forbidden, amongst other things because it raises questions as to whether or not this practice discriminate against boys on the basis of sex. The ombudsman for children wish for a lower age limit in regards to circumcision, which protect the children. Today, only circumcision of girls and women are illegal.”

Well, yes. It does discriminate based on gender. Don’t believe me? Flip the genders. Make it illegal to genitally mutilate boys, but legal to genitally mutilate girls. Does that seem discriminatory to you? Does that seem as though it is unfair, as though it protects one gender but not the other gender? If yes, why is it impossible to see this when the genders are flipped back to their original position in the flip-flop experiment; in the old switch-a-roo? Could it be the empathy-gap once again? Could it possibly be – like stated before – that we quite simply do not care for boys and men as we care for girls and women, that boys and men are treated as lesser human beings? To me, this is evident, considering there even is a debate on whether or not baby penises should be cut, considering there even is a debate on whether or not this is gendered discrimination. Were it flipped, the answers would be clear, bright as the confounded face of God himself and self-evident. Since it is boys, however, we need to consider the religious rights of the parents before the rights of the boy. I know. I am repeating myself. Clearly, I have to. There is no way for the boy to comprehend religion, no way for him to chose his own religion – or lack thereof this early in life. It is forced upon him through bodily trauma. Here’s your religion, boy – snip, snip. Stop crying, and be grateful! Welcome to your life; first we hurt you physically, then we dehumanize you socially. Hope you’ll have a good run. Just remember to not complain about it, foul rapist-in-waiting that you are.

The ombudsman do not know of any European states that forbid ritual circumcision of boys today, or that the practice is considered as a possible violation of human rights.”

Yes. An “Everyone else is doing it” argument from the government. Need I say more? I also find it very peculiar that it is not considered a possible violation of human rights. From what I have understood, it is a very basic human right to not get needlessly mutilated. I assume this only goes for girls, then. Human rights are human rights, but some humans are more human than others and boys? Nah – they don’t need to keep the most sensitive part of their penis.

Not to mention that the foreskin is fused to the glans until early puberty, which means that the foreskin needs to be torn lose from the glans before the actual cutting is done. Want to lose sleep for a good few nights? Go watch a video of the penis of an infant boy being mutilated. Absolutely astonishing, this lack of basic empathy. Absolutely mindbogglingly absurd that we do not extend the same rights to genital integrity to boys that we do to girls, whilst claiming equal rights for all! Mutilating girls bad, mutilating boys good. Because religious freedom trumps all, even the right to an unmutilated body. As long as the victim is a boy. Because the vulva is holy, and the penis is unholy. Because we care for girls and not for boys. I wonder – were someone to drag a fifteen year old boy kicking and screaming into the doctors office, strap him to the table and then proceed to brutally and savagely remove his foreskin with no anaesthetic, against his wishes, would that be considered abuse?

In both these proposals for a solution, the department proposes a law that the regional health-services shall conduct ritual circumcision as a health-service.”

Our public health-service shall perform unnecessary religious rituals. All paid for by the taxpayers. There’s nothing wrong with mutilating baby boys. The public shall pay for mutilation. When will the public be forced to pay for the mutilation of baby girls, then, I wonder? Or may we maybe perchance and perhaps just stop fucking mutilating the genitals of babies, whose consent to the procedure or to the religion can not be given? May we maybe perhaps and perchance treat girls and boys equally, giving them equal rights to bodily autonomy and genital integrity, or is that simply to much to ask from the department of equality? Is it also to much to ask that this religious freedom be granted to the baby boys in question, so that they may chose their own religion – or lack thereof – when they are old enough to understand both religion and the procedure of circumcision, thereby granting them the possibility to make their own choice in regards to the intactness of their genitals? The foreskin is supposed to be there, right where it is, protecting the glans. The glans is supposed to be internal. You twatwaffle.

The ombudsman is positive to the proposal if a public health-service reduces the real risk for damage and trauma for the boys.”

There is a real damage and a real trauma done already. Removing the foreskin is damaging. It damages the body. It amputates part of the body. It removes a part of the penis. This is damaging to the body. This is damaging to the boys. There is trauma to the body. There is the ripping of the foreskin, the cutting of a penis attached to a boy who is attached to a table, often without an anaesthetic. Why do I need to spell this obvious fact out? Are our politicians of a special breed? Are they insane? Have they no grasp of words, reality and of the male body? Do they exist in a different sphere of reality? Are they the Anunnaki; grand reptilian overlords with no empathetic understanding of human beings, be that human being a boy and thus less biologically important for the continued production of human drones? Are they blind and deaf? Clearly, they are not mute. Something resembling coherent words and sentences seem to slip from their mouths and serpent-tongues ever so often. But blind and deaf? Perhaps and perchance. At least they are blind and deaf when their subjects are of a male persuasion; wielders of the horrid attack-cocks and swingers of the giant, pendulous, testosterone-poisoning ballistic assault balls.

On the other hand, we can not see that there are any documentation that the risk is less when the boys are circumcised at the health-services than if they are circumcised through private solutions”.

No, no, the risk probably stays the same. You know; the risk of bleeding to death. Or the risk of severely damaging the penis, removing more than planned. Or the risk of infections. See; why in the world would one deem it safe, proper and quite alright to have an open wound in a diaper, in close proximity to urine and faeces? Why should it not be considered more or less risky to have a penis with an open wound nesting comfortably atop a bed of piss and shit? These risks, and more, are not considered a problem for the powers that be. Boys don’t need safety. Hell, just mutilate them at birth. That’ll teach them humility. That’ll teach them to know both God and the Government; the biggest G’s in the life of boys and men outside of the G-spot, in front of whose hallowed and sacred countenance you shall learn your place and bend the knee in subdued submission.

The ombudsman sees that model A, which proposes that people who are not medical doctors should be able to perform the procedure are in line with the religious practice such as it is today. Such a practice should be carried on if there does not exist any documentation that says otherwise. The ombudsman also agrees that there should be demands in regards to competence when people other than medical doctors perform the procedure”.

Ah, yes, religious people who are not medical doctors can mutilate their baby boys because religious people who are not medical doctors have done so in the past. At the very least, they agree that there should be some demand in regards to competence. How very humanitarian and compassionate of them. See; you may be mutilated by a non-professional, as long as the non-professional mutilator has some competency in regards to mutilating babies. We can’t just let any riff-raff of the streets mutilate babies. They need competency in regards to mutilation, god-damnit. Bring on the professional mutilators! Personally, I have dubbed the professional mutilator “Mutila-Thor – wielder of the sword of the desert-sands!”

The department further proposes that the access for other people than medical doctors to perform ritual circumcision should only be allowed when the child is below two months of age, because the risk for complications are then reduced. The practice, such as it is today, varies somewhat.”

I can’t be reading this right. This can’t be right. Surely, I am stuck in some comatose state, or lost in perpetual limbo, doomed to wade through shit until the rapture, so that I can pay for my multitude of sins, as well as the sins of my ancestors. Surely, this is me forced to do penance. This is the government telling us, if I read this correctly, that children under two months of age should be mutilated by non-professionals. Because that is very considerate. Remember; boys don’t have feelings and don’t really matter much in the grand scheme of things. First we hurt them, then we hurt them some more when they grow up so they learn their place in the world. The rights of boys to a whole and unmolested body is of less importance than the religion of their parents, which may or may not be the religion of the boys later in life. The government agrees with this, of course. Boys are subject to cruelty authorised by the state. Girls are free from this cruelty.

This, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with gendered discrimination, of course. There is, after all, only one gender to consider when it comes to discrimination. And that gender is female. Once again: reverse the genders in this, and see if you do not come to the conclusion that this is gendered discrimination through and through. If you do reach that conclusion after flipping the genders, why is this only visible after flipping the genders? Could it be that we do not offer the same level of empathy to boys that we do to girls, and later that we do not offer the same level of empathy towards men as we do towards women? Nah, no, nope, of course not. Because something-something patriarchy-theory and muh severe oppression that allows me my genital integrity. At least men don’t have to worry about the air conditioning, you sexist scumbag, you. I know. The air-conditioning one is a pet-peeve of mine. It just really boggles my mind and shows the astonishing level of first world problems evident in feminist orthodoxy.

This question should therefore be discussed closer with those belief-systems that practice circumcision later than the proposed age-limit”.

Why, yes, of course it should. Instead of, you know, not considering it a violation of human rights. My body, my choice only matters when it is a female body. A male has no choice over his own body. We must consider the feelings of the mutilators before the feelings of the boy.

The question of anaesthetic in regards to the procedure is a controversial topic. Research on the importance of anaesthetic is not unambiguous. Therefore, it is important here as well that the department invite the religions affected by this to a consulting dialogue in regards to the question.”

Yeah, no, you know, pain is only pain and it toughens you up. Should I happen to go into surgery in the near future, for whatever reason, I will demand them not use any anaesthetic. I will also demand a Buddhist monk perform the procedure instead of a licensed professional. Hell; I’ll just ask them to remove my spleen and one of my kidneys while they are at it. Don’t need them, I believe. Just take one of my lungs as well. As long as it is an unprofessional doing it, it should be quite alright. And I’ll fucking demand that the public pay for it. Fuck, come to think of it, perhaps I should demand the public pay for my various, and completely unnecessary, facial piercings as well as my tattoos. Why the hell not? We’re all mad here, after all, and my religion of choice dictate I pierce and decorate myself with sharp metal objects and sew vibrant colours into my skin for the fun of it. What religion is that, you ask? Well, I don’t know yet. But I’m sure I’ll come up with something convincing before long. My religious freedom, and all that. Why should not my self-imposed mutilation be covered by the public? Where is my free religious freedom?

The departments proposal touches upon a legal practice in Norway today. When the department in this way interferes with, and tries to change the ritual practices and traditions of minorities that basically are considered as legitimate, there is a major chance that the groups in question will consider it as being hostile to religion and minorities. The risk in this case is particularly severe because the proposal don’t affect the vast majority of boys and men in Norway today”.

It is not that long ago that female genital mutilation was deemed illegal in Norway. I am fairly certain that only a minority of girls in Norway were affected by that as well. Changing the ritual practices and traditions of minority religions is quite alright, as long as it interferes with the genital integrity and bodily autonomy of girls. We don’t need to worry about minorities getting pissed off then, you know. It only stands to reason. Obviously. Not in the least bit hostile to religious minorities when girls are saved. Only hostile to religious minorities when boys are saved. Got it. Also; mutilating baby boys is considered legitimate. Unnecessary surgery is legitimate where boys are concerned. Save the girls, use the rod on the boys. Chop chop, babies, snip, snip. Hope you will enjoy your further endeavours in this vast and beautiful world we have crafted for you.

Thirdly, there is a consequentialist dilemma in the case, in that using the law as a means to an end only has a point if it leads to changed behaviour. The dangers of reactions from the affected groups, as mentioned above is, besides the obvious, that it contributes to a poorer climate for cooperation and community, that the proposed change in law won’t have any effect on the problem that is to be solved. In Sweden, which practices something akin to proposal A, an evaluation done in 2005, showed that there were reason to believe that ritual circumcision still took place outside of the health-services, done by people who had no permission to do so. The ombudsman therefore urges the department in the work onwards to make sure to clarify the knowledge that is at the root of the concern, and that groups at the root of the concern is invited to participate in possible improvements that might contribute to reduce the real risk associated with circumcision of boys”.

Everything written above could just as well be used in regards to female genital mutilation. Every single argument in this gibbering stream of nonsense could just as well be turned on its head and used as an argument for the continued mutilation of female genitals. There is no reason to believe that ritual circumcision of girls have ended. It is just done with people with no permission to do so. It does not matter, of course, as girls need to be protected and boys need not be protected. Is this not clear fucking evidence that the government consider boys as lesser human beings than girls? Mutilation of boys is paid for by the public, done under the diamond-coated hammer of the government, whose fear of hurting the minorities is so grand and so virtuous that they see no qualms in hurting minorities when they save girls from mutilation.

Double standards and hypocrisy is the words of the day when dealing with this supposed gender-equality, whose department cares only for women and minorities and does not give two flying kerfluffled monkey-butts about boys and men. Also worth noting is that the paper from which I have quoted is written and signed by two women. Usually, this would not matter to me. The reason I care now is that the feminists have been shouting and roaring and raging, demanding men don’t have a say in anything regarding abortion. But women sure as hell feel entitled to talk about, and decide, whether or not the genitals of a boy should be mutilated at birth or not. No uterus, no opinion?

OK – live by your own rules.

No penis, no opinion.

Or is that a sexist statement?

OK – live by your own rules, then.

I suppose it is OK, as long as no minorities are hurt. The baby boys whose genitals are mutilated are sure as hell hurt, but that does not matter in the grand scheme and schism of things, as the feelings, the well being, the pain of boys and men are unreal, unseen, unheard and unspoken. And no wonder that it is unspoken, when there even is a debate as to whether or not boys should be allowed to keep their genitals intact. No wonder that it is unspoken, when concerns raised in regards to the well-being of boys and men are met by a department who sees no qualms in telling me that they are not interested in hearing from me any more; the very same department that is put in place to make sure we have equality. Equality as long as it benefits anyone but boys and men of a majority persuasion.

How strange and peculiar, this magicians word “equality” is; how mystifying and metaphysical it is, being able to change shape and form at will to suit the pointy hats and curly toes of those whose job it is to decide what is or what is not equal, and who is and who is not granted equal rights to their body and to their choices.

The department of equality proves that it is a department of feminism, not egalitarianism. Made evident by the lack of concern for baby boys, whose genitals may be mutilated by professionals and non-professionals alike, as long as it is a minority religion and a minority of the population, it is alright and it ain’t no thing.

Made evident by the concern for baby girls, whose genitals may not be mutilated by neither professionals or non-professionals, as that would be trespassing on their goddess-given rights to a whole body and to intact genitals.

Welcome, yet again, to the enlightened age of equality, where all are supposedly equal under the law, though some are exempt from the law and some are not. Leave your enthusiasm at the door and stab yourself in the groin with this pair of gardening-shears, please. It’ll save us the trouble later on. Welcome to the wonders of religious freedom, whose grasping god-hands surpass the freedom of choice where boys are concerned, but whose grasping god-hands may not touch the frail bodies of girls, for they are protected by law even from the face and hands of God himself.


What is to be done, then? Well – make it illegal to mutilate baby genitals, period. It really should be as easy as that. When the boys and girls both are grown up and old enough, they may chose or they may not chose to have the procedure done. Consider this proof of their commitment to their religion of choice. I don’t give two flying blabber-mouthed politicians asses what adults chose to do with their own bodies, on their own money and in their own time. I do care, however, about babies who are completely unable to give consent to such a procedure and to religion at all, being mutilated for the benefit of their parents and their parents only. I do care about the blatant god-damned double standards.

They are so obvious that one has to be wilfully blind to not see them. Or, one has to admit to having less empathy for baby boys in order to defend the position that it should be illegal to perform on girls, but legal to perform on boys.

I don’t care whether or not there are differences in the procedures. I don’t care about the differences of a vagina and a penis. I don’t give a rats ass. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. And completely unnecessary surgical procedures done without consent are completely unnecessary surgical procedures done without consent, no matter the gender of the victim or the reasons for the mutilation. One can not claim equal treatment under law when one has written unequal treatment into law. One can not claim gender-neutrality in the laws of the land when the laws of the land are not gender-neutral.

This, of course, does not matter. The arguments are there. It is different, they say. No, it is not, I say. It is mutilating someone with no reason but ritual, but religion, but belief. It is removing parts of someone for no good reason. It is abuse of a child.

Since January 1, 2015, the hospitals in Norway are demanded to perform the procedure if asked. Boys don’t matter. And no one cares about this. I wonder what the outrage would be, were the hospitals demanded to mutilate girls, should the parents wish this? I wonder how many articles we would see then, about this rampant misogyny, this proof that we live in a culture that hates women – just hates them so much that they are mutilated by governmental permission? Since it is boys, however, we are scared to anger the minorities and hurt their feelings. And so we do not only allow this, we fund this. Because the well-being of the boy falls second to the well-being of the group which he belongs to. Because the boy, just as the man, is measured only by the sacrifices he makes for his community, not for his inherent humanity. The community is more important than the male. Whereas the female is more important than the community. It is, truly, a tale old as time. It is the disposable – and despicable – male prototype rearing its head again from the vacuum of a society whose values progress only where it benefits women and minorities; whose gender-roles only change for women and women only, whose lawful protection of body and of soul may be twisted and contorted as long as boys and men fall victim to the twists and turns.

And we don’t care about the sensitivity of the foreskin; that there is a significant loss of delicate and pleasurable sensation in the penis when the foreskin is removed:

( ) We don’t care that it protects the glans, that it is an essential part of the male body. We don’t care that it contributes to lubrication during sex, or that the glans hardens and sensitivity in the penis in lost after a circumcision. We don’t care about the scar-tissue. Or the very simple fact that the foreskin is supposed to be there. We don’t care that male infant foreskin is used in the production of cosmetics for women, as this horrifyingly misandrist article tells us: ( ).

I wonder what the reactions would be, were there to exist shaving cream made for men from parts of the mutilated genitals of girls – do you think the article linked would have the same wording then? Do you even think it would be legal?

Not even the link found to sudden infant death syndrome seems to matter ( ). Because it is only boys and boys only, and in this world in which boys and men are so privileged and so catered to, it does not matter that we mutilate them, that there is risks for infections and bleeding out, that their sexual pleasure is lessened, that we put them at risk for dying at a very young age.

I could go on and on about circumcision, pointing out that John Harvey Kellogg proposed circumcision of boys to combat masturbation, thereby giving full credence to the thought that it is a concept created to attack the sexuality of men and make them suffer for it; much the same, in fact, as the author of the article on the foreskin-cosmetics lays down as a reason to not compare male genital mutilation with female genital mutilation. Of course, with the genders reversed. Controlling male sexuality is not a problem, because male sexuality is monstrous and primal and needs to be controlled, by any means necessary. Controlling female sexuality, however, is a problem as female sexuality is holy, saint-like, angelic, a chalice of healing passed with much reverence to the lips of those who have proved themselves worthy.

There is, quite simply, as stated time and again, a severe lack of empathy and understanding when it comes to boys and men. A lack of empathy so infused and engrained in our societies that we do not see it, even as it stares us straight in the eyes, challenging us to attack its established dominance. The mere fact that mutilating boys is legal where mutilating girls is illegal should be evidence enough that we do not consider the pain and the body of boys and of men to be of as much importance as that of girls and women.

It is sickening.

It genuinely makes me feel sick to my stomach and has, more than anything else, contributed immensely to my insomnia.

Lying awake at night pondering these things and trying to figure out how to put it into words coherent, meaningful and beautiful takes a good and solid chunk out of my sleep and out of my rest and of my emotional well-being.

This piece is, by far, the most difficult and challenging piece I have written. I find it very difficult to detach from these issues, so prevalent and dominant as they are in the social madness of our societal psychosis.

And, try as I might – try as we might – the message does not reach far enough, the lack of empathy unseen, unsung, unheard, does not reach any levels of social awareness. Because the church of feminist orthodoxy has decided that the only ones allowed to speak on behalf of gendered issues are a)feminism and b)women. Even when the issues affect boys and men, they are the ones supposed to speak about it.

A movement for women and women only are thus the only ones allowed in our collective psychosis to speak on issues affecting gender, even when they are not the gender affected by it.

It is their insistence, coupled with the gynocentrism of our cultures, that they are the ones seeking equality, that they are the voice of God in regards to gender equality, that stifles the discourse, that makes the raising of issues regarding boys and men so incredibly difficult and so incredibly important at the same time.

In order for the men’s movement to be heard and seen, the noose tied around the neck and balls of society by feminism needs to be removed. We can no longer exist in this state of perplexed confusion; saying that women have it worse so we must focus on women and on what the feminist cult say about gender, and disregard all other voices daring to speak on gender, labelling them as naught but backwards thinking conservative misogynists with a wish to chain women to the home so the men may be free to pillage, rape and ruin what is left of our societies with no repercussions.

As a society, we need to remove the blindfolds placed upon us by the might of the feminist movement and its ideologues and prophets, and view gender and gendered issues from a position not tainted by this cult-like frenzied ideology, claiming equality for all and seeking only supremacy through phoney victim-tears-and-points. Boys being mutilated at birth does not matter, because something-something women-worsting. I can not for the life of me understand how we can view the concept of equality between the genders through a lens focusing solely on women, and claim that this is what will make us equal.

We are lost in an alcohol-induced delirium; hallucinating wildly and rambling incoherently that the path towards equal treatment of all is to put the issues of woman top front and centre, disregarding anyone else in the process, or if not disregarding them, then trying to help them through a view of the world that sees men as the problem by virtue of nothing but being born with a penis that is to be mutilated as quickly as possible for no reason other than ritual, tradition and religion.

To oppose feminism is not to oppose the concept of equality. To oppose feminism is to oppose a lack of empathy for boys and for men; a lack of empathy that sees men being sacrificed, or expected to sacrifice, so that women and children shall benefit from it. Women and children first, and the men be damned.

To oppose feminism is not to oppose women. This should not be so difficult a concept to grasp. But there you have it. Opposing an ideology claiming to speak on behalf of all, when only speaking on behalf of a few representatives of half the population, sharing nothing but genitalia in common, is not opposing women. It is opposing a set of ideas built around men as oppressors and women as oppressed throughout eternity. It is opposing a set of ideas that has vengeance, retribution and a thirst for power, dominance and supremacy as the core of their values; a set of ideas that have managed to worm its way into the collective consciousness as the light of salvation, the only path able to lead us towards the exalted state of equality. That is: paradise regained through men doing penance for the perceived sins of their ancestors which taint their own DNA and their own behaviour, because feminism has said that it is so, and because of this it was so.

Claiming allegiance to feminism, however, is opposing the very basic human rights of boys and men for no other reason than them being boys and men. I would argue that feminism is in opposition to women as well, as feminism constantly and chronically paint women as helpless infants unable to navigate the world on their own, constantly in need of help, demanding others drop whatever they are currently holding or doing in order to rush, all heroically and brave and stoic in shimmering armour, to the aid of women whose frailty and weakness is such that they can not even handle air-conditioning or paying for dates or taking the first step in a relationship; whose soft and frail nature is such that they can not handle criticism without labelling it harassment. These are not my views, to be perfectly clear. These are the views spouted by feminist dogma, claiming strength and independence and showing naught but weakness and dependency. Women are so weak and so frail, in the eyes of feminist dogma, that they need the benevolent and all-seeing church of feminism to guide them on the path, to speak on their behalf and to tell them what to do or not to do.

My own views, obviously simplified for convenience, are that women and men are complimentary. My views are that women are completely capable of navigating the world and all its pitfalls just as men are, that men and women both have their own strengths and their own weaknesses, and that it is through cooperation and mutual respect – that is respect earned, not given – we will be able to grow, to overcome difficulties and function together in a shared space. Cooperation should be the unifier, not enmity and constant warfare.

This, however, will not come to pass as long as the voices trying to bring sense into the discourse by stating the obvious, for example that laws and rules and rights should be equal for all, and that with rights also come responsibilities, are shouted down as foul misogynists hating women by the same voices that, unashamedly, have nothing but contempt and hatred for men and for boys, future rapists that they all of course are. And the stranglehold this cult has on the governments of our ailing societies is self-evident to anyone, even the feminists, who are fully aware of their power and are utilizing it cynically; who are utilizing it in manipulative ways by claiming women to be victims of everything and men to be victims of nothing, claiming women to be victims and men to be victimizers, even when it is illegal to mutilate the genitals of girls – as it fucking should be – and legal to mutilate the genitals of boys – as it fucking should not be – in a society where we are supposed to be treated equally, regardless of gender and regardless of status. And as long as this unequal treatment is written into law, there is no equality between the genders.

Because one is protected, and one is not. This is pure fucking common sense slapping you in the face with a rotting fish. The stench ought to fill your nostrils. Instead it is poo-pooed away as a non-issue, because the communities practising this genital mutilation could have their feelings hurt by the obvious. That is: mutilating the genitals of babies just to mutilate the genitals of babies is wrong regardless of gender, oddly enough. And that their religious convictions do not trump the rights of their babies to not have their bodies mutilated, no matter the gender of the baby.

  • Moiret Allegiere, 02.03.2019


Visit my blog:

Check out my youtubechannel:

Check out my bitchutechannel:

Stalk me on social media (as long as it lasts):