Emotional coping mechanisms and the Spark of rebellion:

Female nude lowres

Illustration: «Female Nude», A3, 2019, Moiret Allegiere



Way back in the ticky-tacky days of late January or early February of 2019, something happened of a severely personal nature which caused a severe decline in my health and happiness – a rather significant double-barrelled shotgun shock to the solar plexus of my misfiring central nervous system, if you will allow me my poetic flights of fancy. Now, the nature of this happening and the circumstances surrounding it is something I aim to keep private and personal. Suffice it to say that it was directly related to my writings.

What I am interested in, is not so much exploring and explaining the severe emotional and physiological distress I found myself in as a result of this happening, but the coping tactics I employed in dealing with it. Of course, I will be explaining the pain and distress. But not in too much detail.

See, it has bothered me for quite some time this insistence that boys and men don’t deal with their emotions, or that when they do, they deal with their emotions in an inappropriate manner, whatever the hell that means. That we suppress our emotions and pretend we don’t have any. I find this to be both insulting and belittling, and more like than not, I can find several other words to use as proper descriptors for this nonsensical idea, each of these hypothetical words more inflammatory and pissed-off than the next.

The whole thing smells and reeks of social engineering, and that is a frightening prospect in and off itself.

See, back in the days of high-strung muscle-tension that is the ever trembling body of feminist “research”, it was decided that the one true way to properly express – and deal with – ones emotions is the feminine way of expressing – and dealing – with ones emotions.

Since the feminine way is deemed the only way, boys and men have needed to be re-structured and re-programmed on a societal level to express their emotions as women tend to do, and in so doing toss their own nature to the fires of Hades as the sinful parasite on society that it is. What else could one gather from this hopeless denial of biology and this shameless shaming of masculinity, than the attempted re-engineering of the nature of men, the biological truth of men mastering their emotions instead of being governed by them; than the tired old view of women as moral and emotional superiors to men, and so the only moral and emotional guidance needed?

If you, like me, have been a victim of this attempted re-engineering, a victim of this brainwashing which claims masculine identity to be wrong and feminine identity to be correct, despite both apparently being solely societal with no biological underpinnings at all, you might know what is coming up next. And that is very simple: our society do not wish to hear about men’s emotional pain. Or the pain of men at all, for that matter. For all the slack-jawed talk that men need to emote, need to open up and talk, there are sure as all hell few ears – if any – willing to listen. More often than not, a man is shamed and shunned should he dare to express his pain and his insecurities. By both men and women. That is to say: by society at large. Strange that this should happen in a society which claims that men, in order to be free from the constraints of traditional gender-roles, need to express their emotions with tears and valuable dialogues; how odd that this should happen in a society which claims that men are treated far better than women in all respects. When the same forces that claim this are the same forces that shame and ridicule men when men do what they claim men need to do, confusion and isolation creeps in.

On the one hand, this is said.

On the other hand, this is shown.

And both hands do nothing but shove a giant middle-finger right into the glazed-over eyes of confused men, trying the best they can to be heard above the hubbub and the constant background noise of women-worsting.

Men, being of course fairly practical by nature, goes by what is shown them. And what is shown, time and again, is that no-one will listen, no-one will offer support. Quite the contrary. People will go out of their way not to listen. People will derail, hijack the attempted conversation, ignore completely or completely miss the point of what is being said. Or they will, quite simply, state that women have it worse or that women experience this as well, and so the man should consider that before complaining. Because in this society in which women are hated ever-so-much(!), the happiness and well-being of women goes above all. Even on an individual level, when speaking of one-self and not having gender as a part of it, it will creep in. This, it seems to me and my perplexed and eternally confused mind, is due solely to the fact that our societies are completely obsessed with gender whilst claiming that gender does not matter. It is a strange level of discord and chaos; gender does not matter, so lets bring gender into everything, even where gender has nothing to do with it – as in the emotional or physiological distress of one individual.

I would dare to offer this one thought in regards to this; or to point out the elephant in the room, as it were: gender does matter. And in trying to not make gender matter, we are making gender matter even more by our insistence that it does not. The elephant can only be ignored for so long. Eventually, something or someone will be trampled.

What I mean by this should be self-evident. Men and women are different. We deal with things differently. We are wired differently. We are biologically different. In trying to erase these differences and claiming complete same-ness in body and mind, we are shooting ourselves in the foot whilst riding the elephant in the room straight over the cliffs, to tumble to the doom of both itself and ourselves. In trying to eliminate and disregard gender and gender-differences, we can not help but see them and in seeing them, we can not help but bring it up. Even when it should not matter.

The simple solution to this should be, in my humble opinion, to let people deal with their emotions and their pain the way that works best for them, regardless of their gender. To treat the pain of one individual and the way this pain is processed as both the pain of, and the path to healing, of that individual, not wrong or right, but his or hers way of dealing with it. Let be, and let others let you be, instead of forcing someone to do something that goes contrary to their core being.

If he would talk and cry about it instead of seeking action or solitude, as men are known to do, this should be treated the same as if he seeks action or solitude. There is no shame in either, and there should be no shame in either. Clearly, this is something I believe should apply to women as well. My focus, however, is on men.

And men, by and large, are drawn towards action or solitude as a way of dealing with their pain. The action, I find, is more often than not of a constructive and creative sort. And I can think of no better way to tackle difficulties than to turn what could easily be a destructive force – for instance depression or anger into something constructive. To create something out of that which would otherwise seek to destroy. To claim, as the feminist hive-mind do, that men suppress their emotions because they do not deal with their emotions as women do – and I am speaking broadly, of course – is to claim that one way is better than the other, instead of it just being different paths to take.

It is as insulting as it is stupid.

In particular when the experiences of men, by and large, who listen to and are suckered in by this attempted re-programming is that no-one listens when he attempts to speak about it. Or that he is shamed for it. By women as well as men. Now, imagine if the feminist hive-mind had not been so hell-bent on dismantling any and all male-only spaces, whilst, of course, keeping female-only spaces female-only. Men have always offered support to one another. It just takes a form different than the one women tend towards, and in dismantling male-only spaces, a whole hell of a lot of that support flew out the window. Just look to the men’s shed stuff in Australia. But more on that in a later ramble, I think.

From personal experience, anecdotal as it may well be, this holds true. I suffer from chronic pain and chronic fatigue, as well as being constantly in the grips of insomnia, which one would expect does not exactly benefit my emotional state. These three are fairly severe. Of course, it is all intertwined and interconnected, and when the mind is in distress, the body is in distress, and vice versa. Which makes the usual view that body and mind is somehow separated bother me immensely.

Those few times in the past where I have been so bold as to complain about this in writings or in social media posts, the resultant reactions have been interesting, to say the least. More often than not, it has been ignored. This, I think, is to be expected with posts on social media as a general rule. Other times, I have been shamed for it. With one instance in particular tickling my rage-boner something awful.

In short: I was sent a private message on Facebook by a woman who, of course, self-identified as a feminist, telling me in no uncertain terms that I was “not allowed to make myself out to be so pitiful”. A very interesting way of treating someone in severe pain, don’t you think? In particular considering it is the feminists claiming that men need to talk about their emotions and how they are doing. And that women are more empathetic than men!

Another very interesting observation I have made in regards to my declining health, is that the first instinct of people – and this goes for everyone – is to ask how my wife is doing whenever my health is declining. Her happiness is more important than mine, and the way in which my declining health impacts her is more important than how it impacts me. Now, of course, I am aware that this is a normal thing to ask of people. It has to do, in these instances, with context. And the context here is simple: I am/was in pain. And the first instinct of people was and is to ask how my wife was or is doing in regards to my pain. The first question asked. Not “How are you doing?” but “How is she doing?” In short: how is my pain affecting her?

As a result, and as my eyes have opened more and more to the reality of the world we live in, I have learned to process emotions and to deal with my pain in a manner far more creative and far better suited to me as I am. I have learned that all this talk that men need to open up and be more expressive in regards to their emotions and their health, be that mental health or physical health, is nothing but talk. Because the moment you – as a man – start to open up and talk, you realize that it will hurt you more than it will help. Telling men that they need to express their emotions in a more feminine way presupposes firstly that someone is willing to listen, and that is seldom – if ever – the case. Secondly, it presupposes that what men do and how men do it is harmful, whereas what women do and how women do it is not.

I would be so bold as to state, as I have done before, that neither is bad or good; that they are merely different, that different people have different needs and different methods and that to shame and ridicule and to un-learn, through force that which comes natural does far more harm than it does good. I would also be so bold as to state that it is only ever how men, generally, do or do not that is shamed and need to be un-learned. Yet again, something incredibly self-evident to anyone willing to see and to listen.

Why not create a movement telling women that they process and deal with their emotions all wrong? Well, that would be sexist. But it is quite alright to tell men that they process and deal with their emotions all wrong. That is not sexist. That is equality made manifest! Because, to these people, equality is whatever they say that it is at any given moment, as long as women can somehow be made to be better than men at something – preferably all the things. Or, as long as the feminine can be made to be better than the masculine, despite none of these, apparently, existing as anything but socialisation and as such could be written off as just as expendable and nonsensical as each other. So why, then, pray tell, is the feminine better and more natural than the masculine, when both are made-up cultural constructs, just as much as cultural construct is a made-up cultural construct which, of course, might just as well be dismissed alongside all the other cultural constructs? In short: why is one better than the other, if none of them are real anyway? Nihilism ho! They talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

This is not to say, of course, that I believe culture and society does not play a part in how we behave. It most certainly does! But to claim that biology plays no part in it is, to my bloodshot and near-catatonic eyes, nonsensical.

How I have learned to cope is fairly simple; I write, and I draw, or I retreat into solitude to mull things over, thinking on it and grinding on it until it is ground into dust and I have transcended it. Some things are of course far more difficult to transcend than others, as is the case with what happened in late January/early February, the results of which still manifest as a severe flare-up of my pain, fatigue and insomnia. Even in the midst of April, when I should be enjoying the early days of spring. Of course, I should give a big shout-out to the wonderful world of self-deprecating humour as well. Finding something to laugh about, even in the midst of severely debilitating pain, loosens the reigns of the thing. And that thing, that wonderful joy of finding something to laugh at, or about, even in the darkest moments of life, lifts the spirit immensely. It turns the whole thing on its head. So; I may be ill. But at the very least, I get to sit at home and get high on painkillers. And that ain’t all bad. Heh.

My writings and my drawings are, as a result of this being a big part of my coping mechanisms, subject to my emotional state at the moment of writing or drawing. As a general rule. Evidently so, considering the bleakness of the thing and things since February. For all my logic – or illusions of logic, depending on which way one sees it, I assume – my writing is highly emotional. And this does not bother me in the least. It may bother other people, of course, which, when one tries to get other people to listen or to read might prove itself to be a problem. The point of it is that it gives me a healthy outlet for anger, depression, anxiety or good old fashioned sarcastic snark. It’s either that, or self-loathing. And I have done enough self-loathing to last me a good dozen life-times or so.

See, in my darkest moments – in prior incarnations of my ever-evolving personality and barely contained psychosis – I was very much a prisoner of feminist indoctrination, and as such considered myself to be a fault and a flaw in and off the world around me. Growing up with the message that men are scum imprinted upon the plasticity that was and is my brain, I could not help but internalize the message. If one viewed it from the outside, one would not hesitate to label it as political indoctrination. For the very simple reason that this is exactly what it was, is and always will be. It was not until I was 28 years of age that I actually heard someone say anything positive about men in general. Prior to this, it had been nothing but shit; hardly a day going by without the message of men’s inherent wickedness and cruelty being fired into my subconscious mind with all the subtlety of a nuclear bomb.

When teachers, subtly or not-so-subtly, constantly and consistently hammered the message of the flaws of men into our immature and under-developed psyches, one could not help but embrace it as a part of ones own personal belief-system. Couple that with the media insisting the same, as well as relatives and everyone else in the social circles of days gone by, one is left with the resultant war-cry, echoing and reverberating within as well as without: “There is something wrong with boys and with men!”

How one can look to this constant message, this constant bombardment, this constant assault upon boys and upon men and upon masculinity as a force of pure good instead of the destructive force of pure chaos and hatred that it is, speaks volumes to the might of gynocentrism and of the manipulative powers of the immense fraud and sham that is feminism.

To look upon the way boys and men are constantly devalued, ridiculed and shamed by not only feminism, but by the society which we inhabit, and then claim that it is a force seeking equal treatment of the genders is absurd on its face. But that is the level of indoctrination, that is the level of manipulation, that is the level of our societal psychosis and the value women have in our society. How one can look upon the treatment of men and the treatment of women in our societies and claim, in unison, that women are oppressed and that men – all men everywhere – are guilty of oppression is as ridiculous as it is laugh-out-loud funny. We ought to howl with mocking laughter at this ridiculousness. But we can’t. The tears get in the way. A wondrous male privilege this; to be allowed to see my very nature dragged, kicking and screaming through the mud and ground-up glass all the way to the hang-womans noose, sentenced to death by our moral superiors!

For years, I believed it all. Swallowed it hook, line and sinker. To sacrifice myself and what I want for the betterment of women. To step down and shut up, not object, not even to the gravest trespasses upon my own personal space or to the devaluation of my mental well-being, were it done by a woman or someone claiming to do good for women. And as the self-loathing grew, so too did my natural expressions of my own masculinity diminish. To the point where I was but a shell, a flimsy transparent nothing. My previous ability to say what was on my mind in regards to any given subject was thrown into the abyss, alongside what was left of my self-respect. I had been, not only told, but shown time and again that any objection to the feminist rhetoric would be shot down, no matter what facts I had, no matter what the truth was. The objections were not shot down by facts, reason or logic, but by shame and ridicule from women, which, for a young man burdened by puberty, the insecurities of puberty as well as insecurities emanating from the feminist insistence that there was something wrong with me by my very nature, was and is absolutely horrible.

For years, I did not cope. I settled for disappearing instead. Isolation and a bleak and nihilistic outlook took precedence. I sought the void, and became a lost boy; not going anywhere, not staying anywhere, not being anything but an over-medicated mess of man forced into psychiatric help which did not wish to see the root cause of the issues I was facing, but chose to medicate the symptoms into oblivion instead, and in so doing medicating me into oblivion alongside the symptoms.

And so, when realisation dawned after years and years of this vast and empty nothing, it dawned with the crash and the bang of a thousand suns imploding and exploding, a constantly repeating pattern of implosion and explosion, immediate, immense, powerful, mighty, frightening and masculine as though the gates of hell were opened, unleashing the hounds of war!

I marched to war with what strengths I had, which was – and is – art and writing, wrote the piece “Remembering Rebellion”, not knowing whether or not I would keep writing about these topics. Turned out I would, even at great personal expense.

That, I think, is one of the great masculine virtues: being able to turn something severely destructive into something fantastically constructive, no matter how long it takes to get to that point; to transcend tragedy and despair, not through crying, not through talking, but through action, through creativity, through honestly translating pain and heartbreak, trauma and destruction into language, into symbols, into lines and scribbles aiming, always and ever to transcend, to overcome, to grow and then to follow the process and become stronger, better and even more suited to survive whichever difficulties life – with all its suffering – will throw at one self.

Through “Remembering Rebellion”, I found the rebellious spark which was present in my formative years. And I would urge others to re-find, regain, re-awaken that spark of rebellion, that force seeking to rebel against all that is, all that was, all that ever will be and capture it vividly, fantastically, glowingly, immediately within your minds and guts and balls. To explore it, expand it, explain it through what ever strength one has.

Teenage rebellion is one thing – an unfocused force of self-exploration and self-expression; a force designed to rip one-self loose from the looming authority figures of that time in ones life. Something deep inside which makes one pound ones chest with ones fists and roar primeval, primitive, primordial, beast-like, reptilian that “I am here, and don’t you dare challenge my right to be here or belong here!”

And now, in adult life, with the damage done by feminism so clear to all who are not indoctrinated, who are not clinically insane, who are not still caught in the grips of our dominant ideology, of our demand for ideological purity and conformity, that spark of rebellion seems to me to be more important than ever it was before.

And now, in adult life, with boys and men being beat and shamed and medicated into submission and subservient subjugation to the demands – not of women, but of feminism – an adult mind would be, should be, could be capable of focusing that spark of rebellion through a lens of reason, truth and a demand for consideration and compassion, to make that spark of rebellion so focused, in fact, that it tears through the feminist rhetoric; that it burns right through the skin of feminism and so exposes and utterly dismantles the core, showing it to be nothing but what it always has been; Marxist rhetoric of class and class-warfare re-clothed as gender and gender-warfare.

This is not a war of the sexes. It is a war of ideology against one sex, harming both sexes in the process. It is not men against women or women against men. It is feminism against men and against the very fabric of our societies and all common sense. It stuns me in how cleverly it has been implemented; how fantastically smart it has been in painting any opposition to feminism as an assault on women and on equality between the genders. And how sly and manipulative it has been in painting the abhorrent hatred of boys, men and masculinity as nothing but the actions of “a radical few”, even when the hatred of men evidently lie at the very core of feminism! In order to make people understand that feminism cares for nothing but feminism, fearless rebellion is necessary in exposing feminism for what it is.

It ain’t easy. But then, nothing worthwhile is.

Feminism employs terrorist tactics, terrorizing any opposition, creating fear and layers upon layers of fear in any who dare oppose and object to their ridiculous assertions. Don’t want to lose your job and livelihood, your place of study or your social life?

Better not object.

This is the means through which they maintain power and control. Total social domination under fear of total social death and annihilation of the self. Tyranny clothed in justice. The emperor has no clothes, and only a few are willing to point this out. When one does not show fear in pointing this out, their power diminishes. In the end, they will expose themselves to more and more people as having nothing but flimsy emotional manipulation and the threat of social death and ostracising on their side. They themselves are doing the non-and-anti-feminists the greatest service there is by behaving just as they do, and in not backing down, not showing fear, but countering and re-countering, they will be forced to expose themselves for the hateful pile of ideological serpents that they are.

Rebellion ain’t easy.

But: we have two things on our side. The truth, and the very simple fact – however silly it may sound – that everyone, whether they admit it or not, loves a rebel.

Please like, share and subscribe.

  • Moiret Allegiere, 13.04.2019



Visit my blog:


Check out my youtubechannel:


Check out my bitchutechannel:


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










On unfiltered thought-loops and “Read A Book”; A rant:

Awakening A3 lowres

Illustration: «Awakening», A3, 2019, Moiret Allegiere


Through unfiltered thought-loops, we are sullied. Immature minds bent in on themselves; noticing nothing outside the cataclysmic echo-chamber of their preconceived virtue-jerk-off. A blast-off hyper-speed ejaculate aimed squarely at the begging eyes of twitter-raiders, wide-and-wild-eyed, part chaotic, part vivid, part vicious, completely melting down.

Pride, the saying goes, goes before the fall. Too bad we lost the fall in our quest to alleviate the slightest imagined or straight-up manufactured ill. All that is left is vague varieties of pride going before the pride. Never falling, never falling, merely floating in the forefront of our collective hallucination where pride perceived as a thousand trembling gazes from a thousand trembling followers is of more importance than truth, than reason, than facts, than compassion, than intelligence.

Much too bad and much too sad that we – societally – are all so lost within our own safe-space virtue-rambling parody of conduct and humanity that we forgot humility and bravery, that we forgot compassion and duality, nuance and complexity. We traded it for pride, for vacuum and immediacy, gave it all away for virtue, vanity and superficiality, never thinking that we ourselves may be in the wrong. Such a complex organism is society, that our brilliance is being passed off as bigoted supremacy, that mere wishes to remain unsullied, thoughtful, contemplative and true is viewed through a light-bending prism of academic, over-complicated, over-thought and, essentially nonsensical gobble-de-gook, through guilt-laden late night drunken ramblings on social media hastily gobbled up by followers unerringly attempting not to stay out of the loop, and in so doing agreeing with everything as long as the possibility not to be perceived as bigoted and hateful is there; that is to say: not being perceived as bigoted or hateful towards the wrong kind of people.

Yes; we must hate, we must scream and rage and roar at the dying of the light at the coming of the night! We must fix the hollow burnt-out shelter that is our empty lives through mass-release of anger and hopeless frustration by pointing fingers squarely at what we perceive to be the grand enemy of our time, of our day, of our age and of our society, stagnant, dull and boring as it is, was, and always will be, consistently consistent, stable, safe and eternally boring as only a long and drawn-out dinner at grandmas house may be! Revolution. For the hell of it!

Yes we must hate! Yes we must scream and roar and rage and demand to be heard, hard and definitive! Frightened by our own shadows, maybe, yet that may be nothing but proof positive of our terrible oppression, maybe? And when we hate, we do not hate as others hate. We do not bring our passions from a common spring, but from a well of neuroticism boiling underneath our skin and in our sullen swollen hearts and tongues and eyelids plastered to our face with cheap reality-distorting reality-television and daytime television talk-shows telling us how pitiful we are, is, always will be, maybe baby!

They do not hate as others do; they hate immediately and with the unbridled passion of a one-night-stand, unhinged, unfeeling, un-calculated and freaky-deaky beneath the sweat-stained sheets and cobwebbed walls of their safe and comfortable gated communities where nothing ever touches them but the fractured fragments of their belated, sheltered, severed upbringing and the fantasies and phantasms this brings with it in lonely midnight-wanderings beneath the bloodstained moon of their narcissistic tendencies!

And there’s pride and there’s virtue and there’s prideful virtue and virtuous pride born from boredom and a swollen, septic need for validation gone mad, gone feverish, gone blind in an artificial reality concocted by ideologues with an axe to grind and a chip on their shoulders, sheltered from the real world and absolutely incapable of inhabiting a social space not made for them and them alone, and so demanding change so they shall feel safe and feel included in a world they do not care to understand through anything but tall tales read from books and dusty tomes written by the same sheltered arrogant bastards that read them.

A self-fuelling perpetual cycle of hate and mistrust trickling down from those who deem themselves to be our moral and intellectual superiors, hidden as equality, masked as altruism, painted as a virtuous, true and noble quest for good and decent goodness and decency so that all that see it shall be blinded by its light, and so be unable to read what the scriptures say, the dusty tomes, the fractured minds, the sheltered and the hateful ones.

And those that are blinded by this light take to social media to spread the light of the malaise, to show how dignified, justified, compassionate and virtuous they are, and do not for one moment stop to think or stop to look or stop to ponder and consider, as that would take away from the immediacy of the event, the knee-jerk emotional goodie-goodie sensation of being right, of being moral, just and justified in moral, righteous hate and anger.

Loaded to the brim with grim sensations of something vaguely unjust, they charge full-frontally and unblinkingly, unthinkingly, unknowingly into the fray, battle-ready and grim-faced, proud and perceivably strong and brave and courageous in speaking truth to power. And then, meeting resistance where they do not expect resistance, they falter, they fall, they shake and tremble vividly and tremendously as no-one has ever called them on their bullshit before, and they are loaded with nothing but emotive garbage and the feeding-force of their echo-chambers, their pre-conceived notions and expectations falling to rot when presented with facts and figures telling truth unspoken by mass-media which would rather mass-manufacture mass outrage than accurately report anything at all, as mass-manufactured mass outrage sells and money talks, even for hardened anti-capitalists selling branded merchandise to fight the power fantastic!

Fucking fantastic!

But it feels so good to be right, and so they must be right, right? Right. Double-right, triple-and-quadruple-right, comrade, don’t let these misogynists, these white supremacists, these homophobic neo-nazi troglodytes take you down.

Just tell them to read a book.

A nice retort.

That’ll show them.

That’ll give them what for.

It does not matter what book. It does not matter. Just say “read a book”, as if that sentence in itself brings with it shame and ridicule for the unwashed masses who can not read, who can barely walk and breathe at the same time.

Read a book.

How fucking arrogant, how god-damned stupid, how inconceivably rude.

Well, then, allow me to immediately bring to the forefront of your empty-headed cerebral cortex one iota of truth, as I have seen this “argument” from the synthetic tribes of the social justice warrior armada more than once, more than twice, more times than I care to count: this is not an argument. This means absolutely nothing. This is nonsensical.

Fucking “read a book”. As if this washes away anything said in contradiction to your claims, you filth-monger, you dong-merchant, you snake-oil salesperson of ill repute!

To enter the land of rants for a short segment of my rambling diatribe; we would read books if you and your ilk did not constantly attempt to get them banned, you fearful mongrel bastards of a honey-dripping life of luxury and overabundance. What; should I not make assumptions on your lives? Well, fuck off – don’t make assumptions of me based on my genitalia and the colour of my skin then. You judgemental, bigoted racist extra-terrestrial busybody snowflakes of vacuous virtue and unharnessed cancerous insanity clothed as muh equal something-or-other.

Through the wondrous magic of mass-manipulated propaganda, it is considered provocative and controversial to even mention that boys and men struggle in this fragmented dribble-and-drool society of ours, if not seen through the lens of feminism where boys and men are painted, not as a problem, not as having problems, but as the problem inherent in the system. No wonder boys and men are pissed off when they see, time and again, the same faulty statistics, the same lies and the same peddlers of lies peddling said lies about who has it worse and who suffers and how evil and vile men and masculinity are. And when objecting to this with clear facts instead of frail flights of fancy, it does not matter and they are not heard nor replied to with anything but arrogant holier-than-thou rudeness from people claiming they are the ones being attacked when attacking an entire gender!

No wonder boys and men get pissed off when they are constantly told either that their problems don’t matter at all, or that they are the problem by virtue of being themselves. Telling an entire segment of the population, for decades, that they are not themselves, that their sensations of being manly – of being masculine – is wrong, is not them, is but an act; that they are the cause of their problems as well as all other problems, that they have to change in order to save the world… ridiculing an entire segment of the population when they attempt to bring up their very real problems, shaming them into quite quiet submission… laughing at them when they are victimized or when they attempt to bring attention to the suicide rates or to the injustices faced by them in a system which, purportedly, are set up so only they shall succeed, even when they fall off the grid and drift away eternally and see no help coming their way from the might of the powers-that-be that be supposedly there for their benefit and their benefit only…

No wonder, the state of it all.

And then the forces claiming to work towards equality mock and ridicule when attempts to bring up problems faced by other human beings seeking equal treatment as human beings; not accepting facts and figures contrary to their claims, but refusing to listen and refusing to understand based on nothing but the gender and the colour of the skin of the people responding to their ridiculous and disproven claims of unequal treatment, washing it all away with incredible contempt and fantastic rudeness, painted as fighting the power and as being the kind warriors for justice for all! All, of course, meaning everyone but boys and men. One can only assume that, since boys and men don’t deserve human rights, these forces for good do not consider boys and men to be human beings. Why else would they be so pissed off and so torn apart by a loose-knit movement seeking human rights for human beings?

Boys and men, according to the feminist hive-mind, according to society, according to our politicians and our teachers and our everything, do not have feelings, and are not human beings, and as such are not deserving of basic human compassion and understanding.

Merely shame, blame, neglect and an incalculable amount of vile rudeness, time and again being told that our problems do not matter, that shining a spotlight on our issues detracts from the issues of women which are – clearly – more important than the issues facing boys and men. And, obviously, stating that boys and men are human beings and so also deserving of human compassion and consideration is hating women.

Because the feminist movement hate men, so it is only natural for them to project this hatred onto the broader men’s movement, telling us in no uncertain terms that a movement for women think like this about men, therefore a movement for men must necessarily think like this about women. Minds bent in on themselves, undoubtedly incapable of viewing anything from a point of view not immediately in front of their eyes or in the midst of their bellybutton!

For a movement claiming equality, they sure as hell do all they can so that equal treatment shall not come around, so that the issues affecting boys and men shall not be taken seriously.

I’ve spent the entirety of my life reading books. I grew up in books. I spent so much time at the library, I might as well have set up camp there. I had friends come visit me at the library. I still read books whenever I can, and always bring books with me, no matter where I’m going. So which book would that be, that I should read?

Would you vile cretins of phoney virtue and solipsist systems accept this as an argument from me? Would you accept me proposing that you read a book as a perfect and permanent solution to our argument, or would you consider this as nothing but the vague “I am smarter than you, you peasant” put-down and cop-out that it is?

Read a book, indeed.

How about viewing boys and men as human beings, and treating men and women equally?

Please like, share and subscribe.

  • Moiret Allegiere, 10.04.2019



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: ( http://www.suicide.org/international-suicide-statistics.html )

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):









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. ( https://www.ldo.no/globalassets/horingsuttalelser1/2011/91935_1_p.pdf ) 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:

( http://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/261 ) 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: ( https://www.mommyish.com/foreskin-skin-cream ).

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 ( https://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/circumcision-linked-to-sudden-infant-death-syndrome ). 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):









Stubborn Potato-headed Hopelessness:

unknown soldier Lowres

Ill: «Unknown Soldier», A3, 2019, Moiret Allegiere


On this bleak and desolate Thursday in mid-February, I woke with a potato for a head and a stuffy nose, some three hours ago. The potato is still in bed and my hastily assembled IKEA-body is manspreading majestically beneath the grey and overcast skies of this weird morning; a morning still clinging to winter as if wishing spring should never come. Some semblance of spring is found in small sprouting plants eagerly, perhaps too eagerly, poking their heads out of the ground and out of my flowerpots in anticipation of better days of less bleakness and of far less potato-headed heaviness and despair.

There is a sense of incredible weight resting on my shoulders and festering in my chest; a sudden and sobering sensation of hopelessness in regards to the whole human experiment and experience. It seems as if never a day goes by without some new manufactured outrage or some new blatant hypocrisy from the seekers of “equality”, constantly reminding us that some animals are far more equal than others, and thusly should be treated as such by the laws of the land – extending ever more privileges to the unfortunate underprivileged undesirables residing in the underworld of our altruistic confusion.

It seems not a day goes by without some frenzied assault aimed at boys, men and masculinity, imploring us to be better human beings and treat others better than we currently do. For only men do bad. For the whole of a man is evil incarnate; toxicity coursing through our shared masculine bloodlines, inherited violence and sexual assault and most definitively hatred of women, though they fail to point out where and how and whom and when and so and such with any clarity. The hammer falls, the sentence is passed, and the definition of sexual assault becomes so muddled and confused as to be practically anything – whenever it is a man doing something. The same rules do not apply to women, of course.

Remember: drunken hookups where both man and woman are drunk means the man is a rapist and the woman is a victim of rape, though logic should dictate that they are both equally guilty of raping one another. Or, maybe both are engaging in consensual sex. Imagine that. Clearly; the feminist hive-mind of virtue and sanctity do not consider women to be as responsible for their own actions as they consider men to be. Men are considered, when drunk, to take responsibility for their own actions as well as the actions of drunk women, whereas drunk women are not considered able to take responsibility even for their own actions. I wonder if this extends to drunk driving as well? Would a woman be considered responsible were she to beat someone to death with a hammer in a fit of drunken madness? After all – drunkenness implies lack of responsibility for the actions of a woman. How far are they willing to take these randomly sowed seeds of logic? Seeds sown in the dirty end of winter. Frazzled, puzzled, poking out and dying where they are strewn.

Of course; the man in the drunken hookup being the rapist and the woman being raped, despite both being drunk can not possibly be anything but proof that male sexuality is viewed as predatory, as a destructive and simplistic primal force, devoid of emotion, compassion and a longing for bonding which clearly characterizes female sexuality; clean and holy and unspoiled as it is. She is seduced by him, and by his seduction she falls from grace. In the eyes of the orthodox; in the eyes of feminism. The female, being infused with the essence of childlike innocence, can not possibly be expected to respond responsibly to the pressures of the powerful male, being infused with the essence of the primeval, the kill-or-be-killed, subdue-or-be-subdued, the reptilian primacy burning at the tail-end of his barely awakened consciousness. He is the snake in the tree; his primitive mating call being also a challenging call to arms and cry of war: to command, to conquer and to dominate!

Societal double standards are at the root cause of the hopelessness festering in my chest in these bleak mornings; so blatantly obvious and yet unseen. They are hidden in plain sight by the very same double standards – a horrible beast hiding in its own shadow, devouring the world around it and at the same time claiming to build the world around it.

Starting with the assumption that all men have oppressed all women throughout all of history, floating misogynist-like and toxic endlessly down the river of time, due cause and reason is given to the constant hostility levied at boys and men and masculinity; the unholy trinity of the church of the Grand Dragon Patriarch. Stemming from this nonsensical assumption, original sin is born and the name of the sin sprung forth from the tree of knowledge and the trembling hips of feminism is “men”, is “manhood”, is “masculinity”. Bringing this notion into the limelight, into the forefront of our barely conscious mass-media for decades, the wickedness at the heart of men is the reason given for the full frontal assault of hostility and hatred aimed squarely at the hearts and minds of boys and men and masculinity itself. And within this society which, we are told, so openly and clearly hates women; within this society in which women are viewed as inferior and in which women are in constant danger from the wicked hearts and groins of men, all buckle down and do all they can to help, to protect, to give aid to women no matter the truth, the facts, the cold hard logic of the scenarios depicted by fear-mongering propagandists masked as seekers of equality and truth and justice.

In a society which hates women as much as the claim is, one would believe that feminism would not have a stranglehold on the discourse and on the piss-lined streets of our societies. One would assume that feminism would not be listened to and would not be allowed to spew their contempt, their vitriolic hatred and constant shame of boys and men and masculinity in a society which so openly and clearly hates women.

But, of course – reason and logic have no place here. This is ideology. This is a set of ideas painting men as eternal oppressors of the eternally oppressed, and women as eternally oppressed by the eternal oppressors. And the oppressed have all the right in the world to hate their oppressors. Yeah. It is nice and it is grand and it is glorious to have a ready-made and pre-assembled excuse to explain away ones own vibrant contempt, hatred and bigotry as anything but contempt, hatred and bigotry. “No, no, it is not about hating men, it is about equality. We only hate the oppressors. As is our right.” Well then – painting all men as oppressors will then give them the goddess-given right to hate all men whilst denying the hatred at the same time. Their collective tongue is forked and their fangs are venomous.

Do our bidding, men, say the feminist hive-mind. Do our bidding, for you hate us. Disregarding facts running counter to their arguments, they claim the world to be a place of immense hostility and danger to women. Even when men are more at danger in any-and-all situations, being the main victims of homelessness, drug-addiction, alcoholism, violent assaults, death at work, death from illness, suicide, murder and so forth and so on. This does not matter. This is of no concern to feminism and it is of no concern to society at large. The plight of men and the mental health of men is disregarded and ignored in this society in which women are hated and treated as second class citizens by the very forces that cater to every whim and flight of fancy which the feminist ideologues conjure forth from their ancient, dusty and decaying grimoires. Do our bidding, but do not dare to tell women what to do. Women are free to do as they chose, and any judgement passed is evidence of misogyny. Excepting when it is the feminist finger-pointers telling women what to do or not to do with their bodies and with their lives, of course. One rule for thee, another for me.

And so we get the Gillette-ads, the “where have all the good men gone” articles, the toxic masculinity, the APA-guidelines for dealing with men and boys, the thriving domestic violence industry painting domestic violence as the violence of men and only men against women and women only, despite recent studies finding near parity regarding genders and domestic violence, despite Erin Pizzey saying this since the seventies, despite facts and despite reason. Men are evil, women are innocent and men must be fixed, changed and altered to suit the needs of women; that is: feminism.

Men must do for women.

And women must do for women.

And no one need do jack shit for men.

Because men must be on their own and expend all their energy in helping and aiding women.

Because all men are bad, and the men that are good are even worse, since they don’t even know that they are – at heart – bad.

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t, and don’t you dare complain because then you are the exact reason why our societies need feminism. Circular logic. The lack of faith in God show us why we need the church. The lack of faith in feminism show us why we need feminism. And the lack of focus on the well being of boys and men is clear-cut evidence of why we need feminism, because focusing on boys and men for one single second is proof undoubtedly of a society in which women are hated and men are privileged and pampered.

Now, in this climate, why in the world would so many boys and men have this unyielding sense of absolute hopelessness and despair? Why – after being told to step down, to shut up, that our issues don’t matter none at all – should we feel as though there is no hope left? Why, after being told by teachers at school and by politicians and by manipulative mass-media and by friends and by family, that we are the cosmic iceberg floating through space sinking every ship that comes our way, should we feel a loss of hope and faith and love and glory? Why should we not turn our backs on society, drop out and drift away when we have been told for years uncounted that we are not only not needed, but that we are evil incarnate and that our very nature is wrong and faulty, that our masculinity is toxic and that femininity is the only force of nature that is good and pure, and that which all should strive for?

Gender is, after all, a social construct. Or so we are told. And since gender is a social construct, it goes without saying that the social construct of femininity, with its nurturing nature and calm manners, is the true root of our humanity. Even if that is also a social construct. Even if everything is a social construct, even the theory of social constructivism, should we adhere to this construct and this only. Everything is relative. Except this. All else is toxic. Except when that toxic masculinity is called forth to protect and provide for girls and women; he for she, you know. Everything is a social construct and is not to be trusted. Excepting this social construct, which is a more natural social construct than the other social constructs which are not natural social constructs.

Our societies considered it a good idea to throw boys and men under the bus over and over again, to drown us in a sea of phoney victim-tears and lay the blame and lay the faults of the world on our shoulders, claiming that we ruined everything and demanding that we fix everything at the same time. Being considered a force of evil by nature and simultaneously being the force tasked to fix it. Mixed messages of such contempt and of such ludicrous demands, forgetting or throwing away our humanity as well as our inherent goodness, is enough to bring the strongest of us into dumbfounded confusion, despair and absolute hopelessness.

Men, you are evil.

Men, you are not needed.

Men, you need to show that you are good.

Men, you are needed to fix this.

And this is, for some strange reason, something we put up with. This is, for some strange reason, something we bow our necks and fall to our knees for. This is the reality of the world of boys and men, and no one is able or willing to see it excepting those who have been scarred – often deeply – by these forces of so-called good, or those that are able to tear the veil from their eyes and view the world from a place of reason, wondering why in the world are we not treating the genders the same?

And the hopelessness accumulates and the hopelessness grows, festering in the soul and in the soil, and people try talking about it and are shouted down, disrupted and dispersed by the forces of perceived equality. The very forces that proclaim loudly their allegiance to equality deny the voices of those who wish to see the notion of equality from a vantage-point not shaded by ideology and not shaded by hatred and blame-games based on arbitrary characteristics, but based on facts and based on reason and based on evidence.

And the ideology of feminism permeates everything, growing in power ever stronger and becoming immortal, growing and spreading quicker than the malicious tumour growing on my sanity when facing down these abhorrent pieces of absolutely gendered hate, bigotry and contempt.

  • Moiret Allegiere, 23.02.2019


Visit my blog:


Check out my youtubechannel:


Check out my bitchutechannel:


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









Communication Breakdown. Situation FUBAR:

Portarit of the artist with a small dog A4 lowres

Ill: «A Portrait of the Artist with a Small Dog», A4, 2019, Moiret Allegiere


It is easy to fall prey to an overwhelming sense of loneliness, hopelessness and despair. An entire generation of boys and young men have been brought up into self-loathing, shame and constant apologetics. This has gone unnoticed and unopposed for decades. Any attempt at opposition is met with rage, hatred, shaming and social ostracising. Because that is peak equality; viewing gender, the discussion on gender and any-and-all to do with sex, gender, sexual relations, violence and so forth and so on solely through the lens of feminism, whilst vilifying and attacking any views to the contrary. Feminism has wormed its way into the collective minds of society as the sole voice of equality, compassion and kindness. To such a degree that it is considered to have a monopoly on the concept of equality itself. Opposing feminism has come to mean opposing the concept of equality, through lies and falsehoods. This can not stand unchallenged.

My generation of boys and young men have been made to stare into the blackboard of revisionist history and have been told the tale of original male sin for which we must all apologize constantly, profusely and profoundly. We have been strapped into spiked seats of learning in classrooms surrounded by, and made to surrender to, the false idea that gender is a social construct solely and that the burdens of the worlds evil must be placed squarely on the shoulders of boys and young men who have done nothing wrong but be born in this time and in this space with this set of genitalia.

We have seen the influx of teachers infused and infected with the holy ghost of feminism; teachers who are incredibly gender biased as a result of this. To such an extent that our schools are made to teach in a manner most suitable for girls and young women whilst giving a split-down-the-middle middle finger to boys and young men who’s testosterone is such that they are bursting with energy boundless and explosive, making them unable to sit still and be quiet for extended periods of time, as opposed to girls. This results in the notion that boys are defective girls, and as such their very nature must be pathological or a symptom of a disease. Fair game, then, for the psycho-pharmaceuticals to be brought forth upon silver trays and delivered to the poor sufferer of testosterone; a holy communion-wafer in the shape of synthetic stimulants to ease the mind, numb the senses and subsequently drug the poor boys senseless so that they sit still, shut up and learn in a way suitable for both genders, social constructs as they of course are.

There is no admission that there is something wrong with the way the schools and teachers teach; that the way schools and teachers teach are heavily bent towards a feminine way of learning. Nope. Of course not. There is nothing wrong with the schools. There is something wrong with the boys. And the incredible wrongful act of being a boisterous boy must be dealt with so that the teachers do not have to deal with the boys, but can focus their energies on boosting the self-esteem and achievements of girls. Strange ideas float around: what if there were more, or lengthier, periods of recess in which boys could burn off all that energy and return to the classrooms fulfilled, calmer and more attentive? Or perhaps a more practical approach to teaching and learning? Seems incredible. Such a simple solution taking the place of dangerous prescription drugs.

Now, should it so happen that girls and women fall behind in some field of study, it is held forth as proof that there is something wrong with our systems of education. That the schools need to be fixed in order to cater to the needs of girls and women so that they do not lag behind the boys. Even when they already overwhelmingly are tailored to a feminine way of learning. Even when boys and men already lag behind in education. No mention there, of course, that there might be some lack of interest in certain fields due to differences in the male and female brain, that there might be differences in the way boys and girls learn. Clearly not. “Differences” have come to be a word that should not be uttered. Because differences infer that one is better than the other, to the minds that claim all things are equal. Instead of viewing differences as a set of both different strengths and different weaknesses, neither good nor bad, merely balanced and unifying, it is seen as a force of divisiveness and horrible, unnecessary competition. All are one and the same, a protoplasmic ooze later moulded solely by societal expectations or lack thereof.

Considering the lack of male teachers, there is little first-hand understanding of the plight of boys in schools. Most teachers are female. In-group preference dictate the behaviour of the teacher regarding both boys and girls. And the boys are taught that they are defective girls and they are told of their inherent privilege and wickedness by a teacher who, more likely than not, grades them worse than she grades the girls (https://mitili.mit.edu/sites/default/files/project-documents/SEII-Discussion-Paper-2016.07-Terrier.pdf) solely due to gender. Furthermore, this is not deemed an example of gendered discrimination, since it has been decided from up-high that you can not possibly discriminate against boys and men on the basis of gender. This is incredibly strange, seeing as gender does not mean women and girls, but encompasses both men and women. But there you have it. Gendered discrimination affects only women and girls. Because the feminists have decided that is the case. And their word is law.

Feminism dictates, the world nods in horrified agreement: gendered discrimination means discrimination against women. Because there exist only one gender – the base level consciousness in us all flowing from the immaculate misconception of our new-found religious path towards salvation – the original gender, O.G. of all human evolution and behaviour – womanhood – the true path towards virtue and proper human conduct – femininity – that which is sanctified and holy – the root of all that is good and true and proper – everything is a social construct, except femininity which is the foundation of all behaviour and humanity prior to the patriarchal designation of gender – of men and women being split squarely down the binary by some vengeful oppressive patriarch of ages past – and reason and dignity be damned.

Thus, one can not discriminate against boys and men on the basis of gender. Even when it is evidently done, time and again. And boys and men lag behind in education in numbers that are frightening to anyone with more than two braincells and the ability to think outside of feminisms frazzled box and smelly shoes. Still there are quotas for women and all manners of aid and help and scholarships and push and push and push to get women into this or that and that or this, at the expense of boys who are already a minority in higher education, or education at all. And yet there are frighteningly few, if any, programs aimed at boys or men to lessen their plight in education and help them make it through. No, no, instead of this, they are met with a barrage of hostility – sometimes covert, often overt, telling them how evil and wicked and tricksy and false they are. Over and over and over again.

Met with this hostility from the educational facilities which purport to give everyone an equal chance at learning, there is no wonder that boys and men fall behind and drop out. We have been told that there is no place for us, that there is no time for us, that our behaviour is wrong and that we – merely by existing – are a threat to women and girls and must do all we can so that women and girls do not feel threatened by our mere presence. We need to change. We need to better ourselves. Women and girls are good the way they are. But men and boys need to change. Men need to help. Men need to be better, get better, always strive to be better, no matter what.

We are told that we must step down, step aside and give women and girls a leg-up so that they are able to reach our level of privilege; that we must do all we can to rush to the aid of girls and women at the expense of ourselves. For the simple reason that we are supposedly given a leg-up already at birth. Odd, then, that we are lagging behind and dropping out and see girls and women be given preferential treatment which, were it aimed at helping boys and men, would be considered a sign of male privilege, a symptom of patriarchy and a product of toxic masculinity and a shining example of sexism by the dogmatic thinking of feminism, unopposed deity and all-natural force of good.

For the virtue of being born with a vagina, doors open which are closed to boys and men.

By the virtue of vulva, we grant thee scholarships and quotas. Verily, we say unto thee, that thou art neither privileged nor preferred, but that thou art oppressed and undesired by thy ailing and ageing pater. Even if thou should receive scholarships merely for thee and even if thou should be placed upon a pedestal and deemed untouchable and eternally clean by all who come within thy sight whom thou should have the power to smite at will, we say unto thee that thou art oppressed; that thou art made to walk in limbo in perpetuity and thusly need all the help thou could possibly receive by the powers that hate thee ever so much to get ahead on the stairway to heaven. Where the boys and the men must walk the regular stairs towards ascension and salvation, thou shall be granted an escalator or an elevator, depending upon thy own inherent privilege by virtue of skin colour. So spake we, the grand matriarchs of the glass-ceiling, we who are known as Thou Art!

One would assume that this incredible strangeness would be seen as the peculiarity that it is. One would assume that, the rules being equally applied since all are supposed to be treated equally, there would be a huge focus on, and effort to, help boys and young men in regards to education. That maybe we should have seen a paradigm-shift in how the schools operate in order to help boys from dropping out.

This is, of course, not the case. Any attempt to help boys suffering in schools are protested by feminists who march in rhythmic pulse-pounding hysterics, jackboot-stilettos and weaponized whining at the ready, in order to show us the error of our ways and tell us how it really is girls who are suffering and that boys need to shut up and step down and throw themselves into the abyss in order to give the girls their breathing space. (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/11/16/boys-left-fail-school-attempts-help-earn-wrath-feminists-says/)

And we are caught in their twisted warp-drive, speeding through time and space carried on the mighty wings of gynocentrism who’s evolutionary roots dig so deep into our mutual mud-and-shit-and-blood-spattered development that we do not see it or recognize it for what it is lest we swallow the very bitter red pill. We do not see or recognize it until the blindfolds sewn into our eyes are ripped away following the long and arduous path towards a nuanced and balanced perspective in regards to gendered issues.


The bingo wings of the holy ghost of feminism do flap. Every time the bingo wings flap, mighty storms rise and all tremble and all hide in storm shelters built by men, sacrificing all that they may on altars also built by men to appease the deity lest the bingo wings shall flap evermore and the storms never cease. Do you not wish to protect women? Do you not wish to do all you can to provide and protect? Open your eyes and your arms then, and lay down in the ditch at the side of the road so that the path is open to women. And, by women, we mean feminism. All roads shall be opened by force to the rampaging mob of feminist discourse, demonizing and diatribes – all fragrant pools shall be filled to the brim with male tears so that feminists may bathe in them and rub themselves clean of aeons of oppression brought unto them by the Supreme vice Chancellor Grand Dragon Patriarch of the fabled Patriarchy; majestic Oligarch of infinite praise and approval.

The only ones allowed to speak on behalf of gender and gendered issues is feminism. Because the feminists have decided that is the case. Communication breaks down. Any opposition is met with cries of hatred of all women. Even from the ones purporting to love you; friends and family will leave you in the throes of hysterics for daring to oppose feminism, who’s grand virtue is such that they are responsible for all the goods in our societies; who’s grand virtue is such that they invented the sun and the rain, the dew in the morning and the wondrous smell of flowers in full bloom.

All praise due to feminism – for they are the only ones who have brought any form of progress into the decaying and polluted mass-graves of our mutual western history. Oppose it not, lest you be opposed yourself with hysterical cries and misrepresentations of what you are actually saying. Oppose it not, lest you be judged by your peers to be of lesser worth than they are. Oppose it not, lest you be cast from your clan and treated as an unclean pariah for the rest of your days on earth for daring to hold views on gendered issues that are not pre-approved by the dogmatic holiness that is the ghost of feminist revisionist history past. Oppose it not lest you be infiltrated by mind-reading feminists who claim to know more of what opinions you hold than you yourself do. Oppose it not, lest you be stabbed in the heart and left to die by the ones who are supposed to love and support you, while they scream and roar and cry that you are hurting them there you lie, bleeding out on the desolate shores of the empathy-gap. All arrows point toward the holy ghost of feminism; untouchable and above criticism. Oppose it not, lest you trigger someone who’s inability to read and who’s inability to listen to what is actually being said and written takes the form of a vengeful spirit hell bent on your destruction for daring to oppose feminism in all its man-hating glory. Oppose it not, lest the full mad fury of the feminists shall come careening towards you and put words in your mouth which you have never uttered and thoughts in your mind which you have never thought.

Opposing the hatred of men; standing in defiant opposition to the #killallmen or the “Why can’t we hate men” or the #yesallmen, the #menaretrash or the newfound notion that masculinity is pathological is the gravest sin imaginable. Refusing to bend the knee to feminists who gloat about drinking male tears and who consider masculinity to be both incredibly toxic and ridiculously fragile; who consider all men to be rapists bring forth the scorn of society at large. Not surrendering to the notion that male sexuality is predatory and destructive by nature, and that all heterosexual sex is rape means that you hate women and want to chain them to the kitchen for all eternity, to breed children and make sandwiches and do nothing else. Refusing feminism and feminisms claim to be the only ones allowed to speak on behalf of equality between the genders has come to mean that you have no nuance. The only ones with the knowledge and ability, in the current cultural fever-dream, to speak on behalf of both men and women and the struggles they both face are feminists. And if you dare to oppose, you will be assaulted on all sides by rabid foaming-at-the-mouth feminists who have not listened to a word you have said, but have concocted their own meaning from your words and presented their own immediate knee-jerk reaction to your words as the absolute truth of what you are saying, even when you are saying the polar opposite of what they claim you are saying. Nuance is dead. Feminisms paradoxical circular reasoning is born. All hail to feminism; killers of nuance and bringers of immediate light and salvation, who’s words are truth and the only truth allowed to be told, lest you be stripped of any-and-all agency and self-determination. Nuance means nothing, if not viewed through the prism of feminism.

To make myself clear, since what I am saying seems to be impossible to comprehend to minds incapable of listening, reading or understanding: I absolutely believe both women and men face hardships in our faltering societies. I absolutely believe that these hardships are different depending on the gender of whoever is experiencing them. I absolutely believe that issues primarily affecting women should be addressed, just as much as I believe issues primarily affecting men should be addressed. This does not mean that issues primarily affecting women does not also affect men, and that the men affected by this should not be given consideration. Nor does it mean that issues primarily affecting men do not also affect women, and that women affected by it should not be given consideration. That is feminisms way of thinking. Not mine. I hold the contrarian and apparently controversial belief that it is not the job of feminism alone to address these issues as the sole harbingers of truth and justice which they demand to be viewed as. Their history is tainted with the absolute contempt for men so immediate and visceral as to be obscene, if only one were able to open ones eyes to it instead of hiding behind the rose-coloured lenses that show it as only being about equality between the sexes. I also believe that issues predominantly affecting men are tossed aside, to focus on issues predominantly affecting women. Time and again. Or that elected officials consider issues affecting men and boys to be worthy of nothing but a giggle in contempt: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRWUsn4yyJI&t=27s)

Feminists are not the authorities on equality. They are not the only voice in existence. Feminism do not own the discourse on gender. Feminism do not own the concept of equality. Feminism, just as much as any other ideology, may be critiqued, picked apart and shown as the horrid beast that it is, rotten at the core and so arrogant as to assume to be the only voice able to speak on behalf of gender, be that gender male or female. Any ideology purporting to be the only set of ideas upon which equality may be built shows itself as nothing but vile arrogant authoritarians. The moustache of Stalin is tainted with blood, and so is the braided armpit hair of feminism. I can not imagine our societies accepting any other group highlighting themselves as the only group to speak on a certain topic and not being attacked for the sheer unbridled ridiculous arrogance of their position. And yet, feminism is globally accepted as the sole voice of equality and the eternal saviours of humanity; in their own minds dying for our sins over and over again and repeatedly asking why we hate them so, all the while beating us into submission and telling us how evil we are.

I am not a fan of ideologies as a general rule. Chaining oneself to a pre-manufactured set of ideas claiming to know how the world works immediately sets alarms ringing in my head. It is a narrow and simplistic view of the world, immediately imprisoning oneself between the cast-iron sheets of ideological thinking from which it is difficult to stray without earning the ire and wrath of other followers of that ideology, that set of ideas, that unbridled arrogance claiming to speak on behalf of all, even the ones who do not follow that bundle of pre-approved ideas. Thinking for oneself is a far better alternative to ideological thinking. But then, one must also take responsibility for those thoughts and be prepared to face full frontal assaults as a result of straying from the trodden path of societal discourse.

I know with absolute certainty that nothing I have stated here matters, in the grand scheme and schism of things. I can explain why I oppose feminism. I can point to statistics and quotes, ideas and writings, the foundation upon which feminism rests. I can put all the reason and logic, or even emotional appeals, I want behind my opposition to this ideology. I can point to facts, to obvious injustice, to clear and utter contempt and hatred for boys, men and masculinity. I can showcase misandry in news, in writings, in state funded colleges, schools and universities. I can point out how masculinity is viewed as toxic and pathological, how professors of gender studies teach contempt and hatred for boys and men and masculinity to impressionable young minds in hallowed halls of academia. I can show how male sexuality is demonized and simplified, vilified and seen as impure. And it will not matter much. Because minds that are already made up due to the ideological group-think of feminism, who has deemed feminism the sole saviour of humankind, will only ever see in my writings and in my statements what they have already decided is there: hatred for women and contempt for the mere notion of equality, even when I state time and again that this is not at all what I am preaching, saying, meaning or thinking. And the reason is simple: feminism has decided that feminism is the only voice, the only authority, the only path towards equality. And the world bends its neck and its knees in submissive agreement to such an extent that opposition to feminism will have you whipped out into the deserts as a sacrificial goat to appease the hive-mind of feminism.

Someone in the wild deserts of the internet compiled a great list of links. I am linking to it here, in archived form: ( https://archive.is/Ik7z3 ). Take a look, when you get the time. It is sure to be eye-opening, if one have eyes willing to open.

What words and what messages are in my writings do not matter in the slightest to a mind that has decided to read what is already written in his or hers mind when met with opposition to feminism. Only the ideological lens matters, and both truth and the original message written, spoken or thought be damned.

All communication breaks down in the shadow of the holy ghost of feminism. Situation is Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition. Nuance is dead. And feminists are the ones who killed it, whilst claiming they hold the nuanced view as the only ones allowed to speak, do or think anything in regards to gender and gendered issues. The incredible spectre of nuance shown as a mirage of one-sidedness; both the shadow and the light emanating from the same source: two sides merging to become one side, claiming duality and showcasing singularity.

– Moiret Allegiere, 02.02.2019


Visit my blog:


Check out my youtubechannel:


Check out my bitchutechannel:


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









Eulogy for the lost boys

Eulogy for the lost boys Lowres A4

Ill: «Eulogy for the lost boys», A4, 2018, Moiret Allegiere


Starting from the bottom of lungs suffering a incredible infection of long-lasting and irrational hatred, we hear a roar bellowing forth. Twisting and turning and winding its way up and out, it is transformed through the larynx and trachea – moving from a roar to a screech, highpitched and fierce, as if driven by some latent demonic force. The screech spreads as spittle through industrial fog. It clings to every single droplet of dew, stained black with ash and smoke: spittle from a reverbarating echo of hatred blending with the dew of industrialized zones of spiritual decay. Upwards we are carried, clinging to the spittle still, until we mingle and blend with the clouds and get a full-on birdseye view of the world. Like eagles we soar and float above the world.

From this vantagepoint, much that is lost to us we may now see; strange echoes from a void of cloudy despair fill the air about us, charging it with tremenduos energy. Electricity is building up, and we find ourselves drawn apart from the updraft, drawn away from the clouds, separated from the spittle of irrational hate, we seek the void.

Gazing towards the void until the void is all we can see. And in the void; drifting and afloat from shipwreck to shipwreck we see the lost boys. Perpetually lost and stripped of meaning and direction. Cast adrift by forces beyond their control, beyond reason, beyond madness, beyond the void. Grey cliffs bend over the void, cliffs cast in concrete, in piss and blood; a eternal monument of paradise lost and never regained. A grey spectre of isolation cast it`s grim countenance upon their faces and their eyes. And their eyes in turn reflect nothing but a grim spectacle of a future chopped down and left to rot where it fell, meeting nothing but indifference for those who might see them lying there as they walk past under the scorching sun of summer eternal. There is no future in the void. Empty promises. Enormous, cavernous waiting rooms; rows upon rows of empty seats flashing golden rays of light mocking the lost boys for their absence, demanding at the same time access to their seats.

And we – soaring overhead – mock and laugh and ridicule. We wallow in their demise and urge it on. We pick at their flesh and at their bones with long beaks reenforced with metal and barbwire, asking in a mocking, sing-song voice: «Why aren`t you doing anything with your lives?».

They don`t respond. They drift further away. Deeper into the void. Shadows cast from the concrete cliffs of infallible madness fill their cranial chambers, bouncing from wall to wall, gaining speed, gaining momentum, faster, faster, back and forth, until it all becomes a blur and the cranial chamber, so pure at the beginning of time, turns into a chamber of excruciating hate in it`s own right. And we come full circle. Clouds close down. Rain pours. The ground is turning to mud. It don`t matter in the void. Rain or shine, the void stays the same. And we laugh and mock and frown; our collective faces turn into grimaces of pure disgust and disbelief at how grown men can behave as the lost boys do; clinging to chimes of the past with breakneck loneliness and escaping into that which seems familiar and, at the very least, shows no judgement – and to hell with the rest of the world, to hell with the void and the reason and the madness both. It don`t matter much, in the void.

And from the depths of catatonic despair come the deathparade; a marching gaggle of ghouls and monsters, each marching to their own beat, but all marching still to the same drum, out of rhytm, out of tune and out of touch, but still there, moving ever onwards towards the same goal: the void.

And from their mouths hiss the noise of ill intent, whispered at first but gaining in volume and intensity. Whom but the lost boys themselves know what words the lost boys hear at the peak of yet another sleepless night, or in the hollow tunes of yet another sleepless morning, lost in the perplexing horror that is the hour of the wolf; the long and dreary teatime of the soul? Wash it away then, with booze and pills. From despair shall freedom from despair be sought. Or, failing even that, a piece of despair be carved away, masked as loss-of-despair, but in reality nothing but a postponing of grander despair yet to come.

Through eyes clouded with numb sensations of free-form experimental poetry, come the grief. A great build-up of years wasted. A great build-up of wasted potential. A great failure to launch; turned away at the gates and trampled down into the very gravel coating the roads of misspent youth. Time and again in trouble. Drunk and derailed, faded into obscurity by the very same powers that claimed to work towards a greater good for all. All flowing to and from the same source. To bad the source was poisoned. To bad the source left them behind to float into the ether, and be lost. And then to be cemented as a permanent fixture in the void, and be lost. An entire generation of boys doomed to be lost at sea, clinging to whatever might fill the trembling void in the midst of their souls and in the midst of their manhood so that they do not wither and waste away completely. A generation ignored, forgotten and made out to be evil incarnate. A generation scorned and cursed and subject to the greatest betrayal ever bestowed upon anyone by the same hands and minds that purported to love and care about them. A great and world-encompassing lack of empathy and understanding. The fall of man. Paradise lost. Stuck in permanent purgatory to grow cynical. To grow resentful. To grow bitter. To grow into their own demise, either by their own hand or by someone elses. Either to take as many as they may with them into the abyss beyond the void, or to go fearlessly into the abyss beyond the void themselves.

An entire generation of boys and young men raised to walk gladly into their own death – to be born and to live and then to die in hatred – and to be told simultaneously that they are the lucky ones, and should be ashamed of and make amends for the rare privilege of being bestowed a cock upon birth. And we shake our heads and wonder why our boys are failing so, and we blame them for their own failures just as we blame them for the failures of the girls; and the rage and the riots and the shaming and the unfiltered hatred fill their minds and fill their bodies and fill their souls, and they fall. And as they fall, we are lessened. And we don`t see that we are lessened, and we don`t care, and we dont notice that we are lessened. For they are nothing but lost boys.