Why I am an Anti-feminist, part 5

«2019, Eggshell-frail Enlightenment»

Back in 2016, a video made the rounds through the commentator-communities of YouTube. And beyond.

This would be the ridiculous, god-damned awful, horribly brain-dead, superficial-as-a-valley-girl video “36 Questions Women Have for Men”. If you have not seen it yet, you should. Go watch it now. I’ll have coffee, wine and strange and exotic pharmaceuticals waiting for you when you come back.

It is safe to say that, if this video was a child, it would be referred to as having a face that only a mother could love. It would be caught trying to smoke its own socks in the one and only gender-neutral toilet in its school, because the cool kids told it that this is what the cool kids do. It is that one kid that everyone knows should really be getting special education, but who does not, for some reason or other. Mainly to do with its parents.

In other words: it is ridiculous, stupid, mentally and emotionally challenged. It should be locked up for its own protection, in a padded cell with a straight-jacket and a bottle of finely aged antipsychotics, its tongue tied down so it did not accidentally swallow it and subsequently choke to death.

Of course; this child would have already choked on its own sense of self-importance, slipped on its own dribble and landed straight on its arse. Which is to say – it would slip on its pride, and land on its honour.

I really and truly enjoyed watching it being torn to shreds by everything and everyone able to get their wonderful hands and biting tongues on it.

Though it is, without a doubt, low-hanging fruit.

Sometimes, that is just exactly what one needs. I am not going to beat a dead horse and respond to that video. We should really leave it alone. It is already dead.

And, oh the humanity, oh the woe and oh the torture never ends!

I’m just using it as a necessary tool; an introduction to this part of my cruel and unusual rambling.

It is incredibly funny to me – bordering on hilarious – that the supposedly oppressed class can speak to their supposed oppressors like the women in that video did. That is – with impunity.

It is almost as though women are most definitely not oppressed and men are certainly not their oppressors. That these nincompoops are unable to see this is something I am absolutely unwilling to believe. No-one can be that stupid, that lacking in self-awareness, and still be able to breathe and stand at the same time.

They know they are not being oppressed.

They are riding the gravy-train of self-important smugness, arrogance and the incredible sensation that their shit don’t stink. High on their own fumes of moral indignation and self-righteous imbecility, they know themselves and their ideology to be considered untouchable by the culture at large.

Were women as oppressed as these fools claim, they would never have dared to make this video for fear of the bogeyman Patriarchy smashing down on them with all the fascist jackboots and cruel whips it could muster.

Strange how that did not happen.

Of course; cue the inevitable calls and cries of misogynist harassment and patriarchal interference for people responding to their video in which they do nothing but insult, condescend, stereotype and belittle men in the name of holy feminism and her cohort gynocentrism. The self-perpetuating and self-fulfilling prophecy has come full circle. Women can say whatever the hell they like about men in general, and if men dare respond – well now, that is an outrage and absolute proof that what they are saying is true as well as the necessity of the movement. Add to this the chronic case of the one rule for me, another for thee sickness, and you’ve got yourself feminism 101.

Though I am not going to respond to the video, I will take one quote from the video as a starting point, paraphrasing it a bit: “Why do you make women talk about men in movies when you can sit around and talk about boobs for hours?”

Men are – just as women are – not a grey homogeneous ooze. The actions of one man are not the actions of every man in existence. It is also incredibly funny that this is, in fact, a video where women do nothing but talk about men. Or talk down to men. Whatever you want to call it. Which kind of disproves that point a little.

Which only makes me think that anything a feminist claims that men do is something she does herself. It is psychological projection from someone who is incapable of understanding that other people act differently to herself.

Now, to be fair, I believe we are all guilty of psychological projection in some way or other. The only reference-point we have are, after all, our self. So it would be fairly natural to assume other people react or act in a manner similar to us. More so for people who have problems with empathy, if I understand correctly. It is, however, something that one can learn not to do. This involves introspection and an understanding that oneself is not the blueprint for humanity, though, and this is clearly something that does not come easily to the feminist hive-mind in the garden of voluptuous hysteria… or aboard the gravy-train of grace and hubris.

For my own sake, I can not remember the last time I discussed boobs with any one of my friends. Granted, I discuss boobs with my wife from time to time, but that tend to be because she brought it up after seeing boobs in the Bada-bing scenes from the Sopranos and commenting on the terrible boob jobs. And, yeah, they are fairly terrible.

You know, boobs may be great and all… but it really is not an interesting topic of discussion.

Sorry ladies.

Besides, I have always been more a fan of legs than I have ever been of boobs. Legs are far better than boobs, and I will happily fight anyone who says otherwise. Or I will offer them a pint of my finest home-brew and make them see the error of their ways. Whichever may come first. I can only assume that what women – in particular feminist women – do when they are alone, is talk about men and nothing but that. Either that, or they are terrified that men do not talk about women when men are alone together. There can be no other topics of importance or interest for men than women, right?

Cockadoodledo.

You know, I have received unsolicited tit-pics on Snapchat, back in the days when I was dumb enough to use it. To which I responded that I have always enjoyed legs far better than I have ever enjoyed tits. This did not get me any response. Probably should have called the cops on them for sexual harassment, come to think of it. But, oh well.

T & A aside, what I am rambling my way towards is this: feminism often make the claim that men oppose feminism because feminism focuses on women.

…To which I would dare say that it is quite the contrary. The main point of contention is that feminism focuses so very much on the perceived evil of men. So much so that it borders on obsession; a grotesque display of obsession. Like some frenzied, mad ex-girlfriend that can not understand the meaning of the words “leave me alone, you crazy person!”, feminism lays the burden of blame and shame on men for being men. It does so all the time. It has the worst, the lowest opinion of men. Painting us all as terrible oppressors, misogynistic bastards and so forth and so on. For nothing but being born as boys, for growing up and becoming men. At the same time, feminism tend to call on men to rise up and do all we can to make the world a better place. For women.

Men must give and sacrifice so that women shall feel safe. From other men. And if men do not do that, men are shamed by feminism. And by society at large. Men are disposable tools to be used for the betterment of society, for the safety of women and for the safety of children. Chivalry is not dead. And feminism, with all its claims of equal treatment, are the ones keeping it alive. Whenever it suits them.

Traditional expectations where gender-roles are concerned is still a thing when it comes to the expectations we put on men – to protect, and to provide. And most men, I am willing to bet, do this quite willingly. It gives a sense of purpose that is much needed in the lives of boys and men. This is something men have done for millennia. I don’t think this is something we will ever get rid of, despite men walking away, despite MGTOW, despite all that jazz. It seems to be something we are biologically hardwired to do.

Now, we have grown smart enough as a species to be able to make conscious decisions to walk away, to work on ourselves, to be aware of how we interact with society – and with that I mean all of society, not only men, not only women.

This is, in all honesty, all well and good. More power to you.

I find myself turning my back on society more and more in my own way. At some point, I really just got tired of all the shit-flinging, imbecility and hypocrisy on display in the public discourse. Civility is dead. All that is left is civil disobedience. And that is a misplaced, poorly managed, never thought through parody of civil disobedience from sheltered nincompoops who do not really understand the what, how, when, where, why and such.

Everything has become so scathingly, so eye-scarringly black and white. It is either this, or it is that. Opposition to this must as such necessarily mean complete allegiance to that.

I often wonder if this is due to our dwindling and very limited concentration-spans, making concentrating on something for a prolonged period of time a difficult prospect for most. This giving rise to merely a surface understanding of various issues. It is easy to point at one thing and claim that this – this one thing is what needs to be fixed. Then, and only then, all of this and all of that will be in perfect order.

And then one could probably argue that this is exactly what I am doing when I focus so much of my writing and rambling on the forces of feminism. To which I can only reply that I have a lot of things to get out of my system where feminism is regarded before I feel – and here the emphasis is, I absolutely admit, on the word “feel” – ready to tackle other issues.

I consider it very dangerous when one ideology, when one set of ideas, are given the monopoly on any one concept. Particularly so in regards to such a strange and ever-changing concept as “equality”. More voices should be heard than only the one. And feminism have become so mighty, so big and powerful that it is able to – quite successfully – kill other voices attempting to speak on the topic. That is a dangerous thing. This is something I would say no matter which set of ideas are granted a monopoly, to be perfectly honest. Particularly so if this set of ideas have the power to shut down voices in opposition. Any -ism that shames and threatens other voices into silence or compliance or obedience is dangerous. Protesting is one thing. Refusing people to listen to other voices is quite another.

This black and white thinking is the price to pay for immediate satisfaction through immediate outrage, and facts and nuance be damned.

…Though I am obviously not a MGTOW, being a married man and all, I absolutely understand where it comes from. The best one can do is to carve out a space for oneself – to follow ones own path toward happiness and self-fulfilment. Which feminism consider wise words to give to women, but horrible words to give to men. For, to the eyes of feminism – and to a sure and certain extent, society as is – if a man does not make the betterment of women’s lives his main priority, he is not a real man. That is putting it very simple, obviously.

If there is anything we ought to have learned by now, it is this: the only ones allowed to judge whether a man is a real man or not are women as a group, not men and most certainly not the man being scrutinized at that moment in time.

That is the level of insanity we are at. There are more than enough books, articles, lectures and so and such out there by women telling men what to do in order to be a real man. Which tend to be what the one woman want to see in a man, and never mind the men themselves – men are there for their amusement and their convenience. This is supreme entitlement driven forth and weaponized by the frantic forces of feminism.

It is not without reason that the word “boy” used to refer to a servant. Just get the boy to do it. See what I mean?

As an example, it is a constant source of amusement to me that men are still expected to pay on dates. Scores of women get offended if they are expected to split the bill. No strong independent women to be seen there, I gather – some fish most certainly need a bicycle. At the very least where dates are concerned. This is a traditional expectation.

And though I am very much aware that there are women out there who do pay for dates or split the bills, they are in the minority. To be clear – how people chose to delegate responsibilities in their personal relationships is their business and their business alone. I have no interest in meddling, nor should anyone else. My point is only this: one can not expect one side to fulfil the traditional expectations and then be outraged when the traditional role is expected from the other side. One must give in order to receive. This goes for both parties.

There is this interview with Emma Watson – she of the hypocritical he-for-she funk and flurry – on YouTube in which she magically and majestically swirls triumphantly through the garden of mental gymnastics to explain why she still expects men to pay on dates, despite feminism, equal treatment and so and such. And despite being filthy stinking rich herself.

The traditional roles are very much alive and well where men are concerned, but it is not to be reciprocated in kind. If you want a woman to fulfil a traditional role, you are a misogynistic bastard. You, however, must fulfil a traditional role. If not, you are a misogynistic bastard. For that is equality as seen through the eyes and bleeding gums of feminism: supreme entitlement, because men owe women ever so much and yada-yada-yada, blah blah blah. And you want to be seen as a real man, do you not? And a real man does whatever the hell a woman and society says he must do, at the cost of his own safety, sanity, life, limb and economy.

This “real man” rhetoric is complete and utter shit. A real man is a real man if he says he is a real man, and he does whatever the hell he wants to do, shame and ridicule be damned. Whether that shame and ridicule comes from women or from other men should not matter. Rise above the self-flagellating and self-sacrificial bullshit and do your thing, whatever that thing is.

I was bullied for reading books when I went to school. Literature is one of my first and greatest loves, one of my greatest pleasures in life. Always have been, and always will be. Apparently, this is not something real men do. Whatever the hell this means. Granted, I was singled out for bullying… so whatever I did would give get me bullied. This one stuck out the most to me. Because there is something precious and special about some imbecilic moron with the vocabulary of a toddler proudly boasting about never having read a book in his life ridiculing and belittling someone for reading books, referring to the practice as stupid. Stupid. Maybe I am expecting too much from kids aged sixteen, but – god-damn, if that is not some ridiculous piss-pottery.

It must also be mentioned, mainly for my own amusement, that the girls were not particularly interested in leaving a party and going home with someone whose main accomplishment in life was having a complete collection of Dostojevskij and Jens Bjørneboe on his shelf. Can’t say that I blame them – I am very much aware that I am a boring, introverted social fuck-up with all the charisma of a wet and well-worn sock. I was, however, led to believe that women and girls both preferred intelligence to brutishness, calm mannerisms to “toxic masculinity”, a cultured mind to a fornicating mind, and so and such.

…Now, had I owned a car or a motorcycle, on the other hand – in other words, being able to provide something of value…

There is this constant bombardment of messages aimed at boys and men. Mainly from women. And more often than not feminist women. About how men are supposed to be and act and do and think and behave and not behave and live and love and fuck and breathe and eat and die.

And the messages are self-contradictory more often than they are not, unreasonable at the best of times and completely and utterly shining, burning and flashing with entitlement. In particular when taking into account that men can not say a single god-damned thing about women and how women should be – or, for that matter, what kind of women they want to share their lives with – without being rained on by the great and glorious feminist brigade. And any and all woman and simpering white knight in the immediate vicinity of your tweet or twatter or private conversation in a public space.

I have been verbally harangued many a time in public by self-proclaimed feminists who believe they have the god-given right to charge in on any-and-all private conversation and private relationship if they don’t like what they hear or see – or believe that they hear or see.

Entitlement, thy name is feminism.

If you don’t believe me, try telling the world that you – as a man – want a traditional marriage where the woman stays at home and you provide.

And see what that gives you. Conversely, and for amusement, try saying that you – as a man – want to stay at home and expect your wife to provide for you and the family, to be the main breadwinner, as it were.

Both are equally wrong and terrifying; signs of misogyny and toxic masculinity and what-not and what-do’s and what-don’ts, what, what, what. Kyle’s mum will always be a bitch, no matter how selfrighteous.

The inverse applies as well – if a woman wants to stay at home, the feminist brigade will submit their opinions on her poor choices in life whether she wants to hear them or not.

There is not a single coherent message delivered. There is only the messages – the constant bombardment – that men and boys must do this, do that, do the other stuff even when that contradicts the previous stuff. It is never good enough, for there is always something to bitch and moan and complain about where men are concerned.

I am aware that many of these articles written about what men must do, need to do and so and so are written by different people with different views.

This is not the point. Or, well, were I playing the collectivist blame-game that feminism plays, it would be the point. And that is exactly the point – feminism plays the game of collectivism and tribalism, where men are one group and women another group. Therefore, anything one man does reflects on every other man.

The reverse do not apply.

Anything one woman does is her actions, and does not reflect on every other woman. When it suits feminism. Any one man is representative of men. Any one woman is representative of her self and her self only. When it suits the powers that be. So that painting all women with a broad brush is terrible behaviour, and painting all men with a broad brush is expected, accepted and celebrated behaviour.

It is a confusing time. And has been so for years and years, as the dominant cultural narrative has shifted more and more towards the trembling might and fury of feminism. Which in turn opens the discourse for women to say whatever the hell they want about men – as long as it is in line with feminist thought and philosophy. At the same time, it closes the doors for men so that men can not say anything about women, including what kind of woman they would like to settle down with. Men are not “allowed” sexual or romantic preferences, whereas women are. And any positive thing said about men must include women, otherwise it is perceived as a slight against women. Any positive thing said about women need not include men, and any who say otherwise are labelled an incel by people who have no idea what incel means.

There will be more on this later. Here endeth part five. Join me next week for part six of this never-ending rave and ramble.

  • Please like, share and subscribe
  • Moiret Allegiere, 26.10.2019

Lonely Trainstation Blues – Poetry for the Lost Boys, Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07ZB6K2JX
Lonely Trainstation Blues – Poetry for the Lost Boys, Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1692495518

Howling at a Slutwalk Moon, a collection of previous blog posts:
Vol 1 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/107571074X
Vol 1 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZTPDPR
Vol 2 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075714184
Vol 2 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZR25NL
Vol 1 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075717094
Vol 2 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075723078
Other links:
Redbubble shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Moiret/shop
Blog: https://moiretallegiere.wordpress.com/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3IaCxAXE3pQd7PCdvHoaaA
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/EvbGZyTZSraY/
twatter: https://twitter.com/MAllegiere
Gab: https://gab.com/Moiret_Allegiere
Minds: https://www.minds.com/Moiret
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/people/152465815@N04/

Why I am an Anti-feminist, part 2:

Growing up in a culture that has got feminism running through its veins and its putrid sewage systems is a dreadful thing. This dominant ideology, this serpent cult, has infiltrated and demanded control of just about every facet of society. It slithered and wormed and crawled into our collective consciousness; a viral infection – an inflammation of the braincells – presenting itself as the noble truth, as the one and as the only. In so doing, it allowed no other voices to speak on behalf of equality, nor did it allow any other voices to speak on behalf of sex and on behalf of gender. It demanded, and it were delivered, the monopoly on the topic. To such an extent that we who grew up with this dominant cultural narrative, this deified ideology, were forced to have its message tattooed on the inside of our eyelids. So that we should never forget but always repeat its perverse mating call.

Throughout all my life, this ideology has been there, running wild and unchallenged. It was not until I got older, until I suffered a medicinally induced psychosis that tore my entire being apart, that I managed to gaze above and beyond the lies and see the beast for what it is. That is the power of political indoctrination, that is the power of allowing one set of beliefs to be told and taught and re-taught as truth and fact, unchallenged. I remember being told in school that sex, that gender, was nothing but a social construct.

I also remember being told that there were something wrong with men, and therefore by extension myself. All the flaws and all the faults of the world was the doing of men, not of women. I write about this sometimes. It is not popular, and it is often dismissed as lies and bullshit by the voices that say we must #believewomen without a sliver of a doubt.

That it is dismissed is fair enough, I suppose, as that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This dismissal is also the reason I don’t write about it all that often. It is difficult to write about due to the gravity of the situation and the impact this shit has had on me on a deeply personal, psychological level. And it is even more difficult when I know it to be nothing but a cunt-hair away from dismissal and ridicule from the feminist forces that claim to care for the sexes equally. Childhood damage is as childhood damage does, and to experience this being dismissed offhand as lies and bullshit is not exactly easy. Though it is to be expected. Feminism does not take prisoners. And it sure as all hell does not take criticism.

The notion that women are completely innocent and incapable of wrongdoing lies at the beating, festering cankersore that is feminism. As do the notion that men are absolutely guilty and mainly capable of doing wrong. Strange that, if there are no differences between the genders and gender does not exist. Of course – the feminist hive-mind has got some manner of mumbo-jumbo to explain this away.

It has got all to do with socialisation and all that jazz, ya know. Which means that men must unlearn being masculine, boys need to be untaught their boy-ness. Social engineering, in other words. The feminine is the state of nature one should aspire to, not the masculine. Despite both being social constructs. Strange, weird and peculiar. Try this with any other group in society, and see how far you get. To put it another way; we must unteach the homosexuals their homosexuality. Which have been tried, and, luckily, found to be complete and utter insanity. Well, for most of society. Some stupidity still linger.

If a man – any one individual man – does something wrong and winds up in the news, this is a shining example from feminism that there is something wrong with men. And the might and awful feminist influencers see no qualms in using a tragedy to further their narrative, never-minding those that suffered as a result of this tragedy. As long as it is a man that done did something horrendous, scoring cheap political points on his actions and his victims is quite alright.

After yet another tragic Islamic terror-attack over here in Europe-land some years back, the national broadcasting media-machine of Norway (it functions much the same as the BBC) saw fit to publish an article wherein men and masculinity were to blame for these Islamic terror-attacks. Not the ideology of Islam, but men and masculinity were to blame. Strange. One would believe that blaming characteristics one are born with and can not do anything about – that is ones sex – would be worse than blaming a set of ideas which one choose to follow. One would think to label it sexist that a sex is blamed instead of the ideology. But that is not how it works in the topsy-turvy blubber-mouths of feminist stupidity. For in their mumbo-jumbo voodoo, they have decided that one can only ever be sexist towards women. Something something power something something bullshit. Any criticism of Islam as an ideology or as a religion is met with harsh calls of racism and islamophobia and other such nonsense. That criticism of Islam is racist is pure absurd nonsense, of course, considering that Islam is not a race nor a genetic population but a set of ideas. Nothing should be above criticism. And Islam is included in this. Yet, feminism, or “intersectional feminism”, in its infinite wisdom, has seen fit to take Islam under its wing and protect it from criticism. So blaming the ideology of Islam for making Islamist extremists commit acts of terrorism in the name of Jihad and Islam is Xenophobic, horribly bigoted, racist and so forth and so on. Blaming men – the entire god-damned sex – for these terror-attacks that are done not in the name of men but in the name of Islam is quite alright, of course. There is nothing bigoted nor hateful for blaming an entire sex for the actions of someone who is driven by an ideology and not his sex. It astonishes me, the hoops and mental loops.

These are the same forces that tell us that stereotyping and generalizing based on sex and gender is wrong. This, however, only ever apply if women are the ones being subjected to the stereotyping. Stereotyping of men is A-OK.

This to such an extent that being a man overrides the guilt of the ideology that man subscribes to where terror-attacks are concerned. A set of extremist ideas that have told a man that he must kill in the name of God is less to blame than him being a man. Which is amazing.

It is constant and chronic double-speak. One rule for me, another for thee. In the world of feminism, men and women are not held to the same standards.

One could argue the case that this is not exclusive to the world of feminism, of course, as women always do, always have and always will be getting excuses for their bad behaviour should they do something bad. Men do something bad, it is because they are men. Women do something bad, it is because of men. Women tend to not be held to account for their behaviour in the same way that men are. This is innate to our nature, it seems. But it is weaponized by feminism.

For example; how many times have you heard anyone claim that the woman must have done something to deserve it when suffering domestic violence? And how openly? Articles about men being abused by their significant other tend to be flooded with these kinds of comments. I remember reading one article about a woman amputating her husbands penis. The comments celebrated her, cheered her on and stated that he must have done something. Others said that it was glorious.

And what is more frightening is that this was not the same incident as the one Sharon Osbourne giggled, ridiculed and celebrated on god-damned daytime fucking television! Separate incidents of genital amputation celebrated by women. And yet, these cretins claim that men do not experience less empathy in society!

It seems that a man being abused by his partner, then, is a source of amusement. To men as well as women, though particularly to women. Especially in cases of genital amputation or mutilation. How strange, that men do not come forward when abused by their partners, eh?

The assumption is that he did something and she retaliated. Deny and reverse victim order. Now, of course, people are incapable of believing women to be abusers and men to be abused. Which is another damned pickle. Despite the insistence that there are no biological differences between men and women, men’s greater strength is given as evidence that women can not abuse men. Which is flat-out ridiculous and a bald-faced lie. And very interesting, coming from the mouths of those that claim that there are no biological differences between men and women… Boys are taught, at a very young age, that they must never-ever under any circumstances hit a girl. Girls are not taught the same. A man hitting a woman in self-defence is a bastard, as viewed through the nonsensical imbecility of society. Granted, I don’t think people should be hitting each other at all. But one should be free to defend oneself when attacked, no matter the sex of the attacker.

I don’t often talk about this. But I will tell this story in short, since it is relevant to this topic. It will, more like than not, be the first and last time I talk about it. I was in a relationship once where I was abused. When I was in my early twenties. It began with severe emotional manipulation, love-bombing and all that stuff. This was followed by fits of extreme jealousy and emotional abuse. To such an extent that she kept track of my every move. No matter what I did, I had to check in with her every ten minutes or so through my cellphone, if I was not in her immediate vicinity.

If I did not, or if I was talking on the phone with someone else, she sent SMS after SMS until I replied. I once was on the telephone with a friend of mine, and when I hung up I saw I had received twenty-something messages from her. This was a relatively short phone-call. Maybe ten-fifteen minutes.

The messages got more and more frantic and accusatory. She believed that I was with some other woman, that I was cheating on her, that I was ignoring her and so forth and so on. If I did not reply quickly enough, there would be hell to pay.

Luckily, we did not live together. The relationship lasted a little more than six months.

After a while, things got physical. And the amount of control she held over my actions were extreme. I ended it after a while when I was out of town. While I was out of town, I attended a party where an ex-girlfriend of mine also happened to be. This was purely coincidental.

As would be expected, I got heaps of text-messages during my being out of town, and particularly during this party. She was wondering who was at the party, and when she learned that my ex was there all hell broke loose. After a good and long while of whining and bitching and moaning and complaining, she managed to convince herself that I had gotten my ex pregnant and flooded me with text-messages about this absolutely nonsensical and hysterical fantasy of hers. The reason? My ex didn’t drink. So of course, this had to mean that she was pregnant, not that she did not like getting drunk. She was absolutely convinced of this. This all happened in the span of an hour or so. And so I ended it. Which led to about a year of stalking, scary fucking harassment, constant phone-calls, text-messages and all manner of vile behaviour that sent me into a spiral of depression and anxiety that was only alleviated when she found another poor bastard to pair up with. She tried to get me jealous a few times after this new victim of hers was found, which of course did not work. Then she stopped.

Now, were the genders reversed in this, feminism would undoubtedly use this as an excuse for the victim to hate the opposite sex. “Of course she hates and distrusts men – she has had horrible experiences with men”. I had this terrible experience with this one woman. And I do not hate all women on account of it. Nor do I distrust them. Because that would be god-damned foolish. This was the actions of one woman, not all women. Oddly enough, I do not believe I would be given any excuses if I did in fact hate and distrust women based on this one experience. Strange how that works.

Now, I abhor and distrust feminism. But that is not women, that is feminism. I know that I keep repeating this point. I believe and I hope that it will make this fact sink in, that is: feminism does not equal women. It equals feminism, and that is that.

It is this constant downplaying of actions and of responsibility if a woman does something bad; this celebration of male pain and suffering presented as scoring a goal for the sisterhood… This blaming and demonizing of men and masculinity, the inability to understand that men and women both have their shadow, their darkness that is exclusive to them, that manifest in different ways for the simple reason that we are different. The feminine shadow is celebrated. The masculine is not. Women deserve their revenge, as they say. So all manner of disgusting and vile behaviour is, must and always will be expected, respected and tolerated. Otherwise, you just hate women and wish to chain them to the kitchen sink to cook dinner, birth children and whatever and what-not.

Feminism may talk the talk, but it does not walk the walk.

Equal treatment of the sexes would mean acknowledging the capacity of both for good as well as bad. This is something feminism does not do. Feminism acknowledges only the dark where men and masculinity are concerned, and acknowledges only the light where women and femininity are concerned. Worse still; it depends upon the kindness and decency of every-man to help save every women from the horrors of every-man.

Implicit in this call on men to help save women from men is the knowledge that men are, at heart, good. Which will never be acknowledged in words by the hive-mind, of course. But which is shown as the frail and frantic forces of fragile feminist femininity call upon men to fix everything whilst at the same time blaming men for fucking everything up. It is a game where the rules are written in such a way that men can not possibly win. One would not be amiss if one would assume this to be the point of the exercise.

And as long as feminism are the only ones allowed to write the rules, it will not change. We – our societies – allowed this to happen by allowing one ideology to go unchecked. We allowed the smearing of opposition, allowed the lies and filth and fury to become mainstream. We turned our cheeks and looked the other way as boys and men were demonized, pushed out of this and pushed out of that until only the voices of feminism were heard, until only the plight of women – such as feminism saw it – were heard. We allowed a society to claim that a quest for equality begins and ends with only the one, neglecting the other. And that is only the one as seen through the eyes of an -ism that has at the root of its beliefs the idea that men – all men – are wicked oppressors of women; that all men hate all women. Thus allowing feminism to hate men, allowing women to hate men, manufacturing a nonsensical bullshit gender-war that does nothing but ruin cooperation and love and honour and respect that should be there between the sexes and should go both ways. In the land of feminism, gender means women, sex means women, gender-equality means women must get all.

Feminism made it so that the voices of men are not heard when it comes to issues predominantly affecting boys and men. It made it impossible to speak on behalf of boys and men without simultaneously taking girls and women into account. And what is worse; feminism proposes to speak on behalf of boys and men. They decided that their ideas on sex and on gender also include men, that they – by excluding boys and men from the conversation are including boys and men in the conversation. As long as only feminism is allowed to speak on behalf of boys and men, as if they and they alone know what it is like to be a boy, to be a man.

This they do by demanding boys unlearn their boyishness, men unlearn their manliness. Because feminism, according to feminism, help men too. Except when it does not and feminism says that they are for women, not for men. It is that double-speak again, that nonsensical stream of babble. Helping women would help men, and so we should only help women. Trickle-down equality.

And regarding issues where men undoubtedly suffer more – such as suicide, dropping out of education, homelessness, alcohol-and-substance abuse, etc, etc, – feminism says that we must not turn it into a gendered issue, but must help both sexes. Because it does not need to be gendered unless women can be made out to suffer more. If women predominantly suffer something, it is a gendered issue. If men predominantly suffer something, it is not a gendered issue. This comes from the mouths and clucking tongues of those that insist everything has to be a gendered issue.

But more on this later, I think. Here endeth part two of my cruel and unusual rambling – part three comes, lest I be sent to the Gulags for hatespeech most foul, next week.

  • Please like, share and subscribe
  • Moiret Allegiere, 05.10.2019

My book – Howling at a Slutwalk Moon, a collection of previous blog posts:
Vol 1 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/107571074X
Vol 1 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZTPDPR
Vol 2 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075714184
Vol 2 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZR25NL
Vol 1 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075717094
Vol 2 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075723078

Other links:
Redbubble shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Moiret/shop
Blog: https://moiretallegiere.wordpress.com/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3IaCxAXE3pQd7PCdvHoaaA
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/EvbGZyTZSraY/
twatter: https://twitter.com/MAllegiere
Gab: https://gab.com/Moiret_Allegiere
Minds: https://www.minds.com/Moiret
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/people/152465815@N04/

Redemption Song:

There are those who believe in redemption.

…Those who rush in with clown-like drive-by so-called take-downs, snivelling penitent cluck-clucks as the golden rays of the sun bounce of their shrivelled husk, polished and whitewashed to reflect saintlike self-reflection.

…A certain kind of self-reflection forced upon them by hollow religious sermons meant to make them unburden their beastly masculine shape and form of anything resembling masculinity. That is to say: masculinity as viewed through the mute liturgy of cross-cultural feminist zealotry; masculinity as the brutal cross that only men have to bear, upon which they are to later be crucified atop the hallowed peaks of self-flagellated Golgotha.

…A cross and burden which they must carry with them underneath the vice-like grip and ever-judging eyes of this awesome Goddess of immediate pussy-willow whips and thongs, of self-congratulatory neoteny and fruitful hips, through whose eyes and wretched form all men are sinners singing songs of sinner’s vice and virtue none.

…Within whose judging god-hand grasp and heaving bosom none shall ever be wholly and fully redeemed, yet still see and then consider their murmured self-inflicted martyrdom for the curse and for the cause as a source of grand amusement, picked then doubly-pecked at time and time again with angry knitting needles through their tortured manly eyes, their horrid, horribly horrifying perverse male gaze, or through their dubious liar-tongues that wriggle so amusingly as they choke to death on their own self-sought and self-bought self-immolation.

Never to be fully acknowledged within the church and its angelic walls, its trumpeter halls, its holy smear of period-blood, but to be referred to endearingly or mockingly as “allies” for the noble cause, caused by sex and sex alone, forever doomed to stand without the whining wall and holler at those who did not wish to enter that they are crackpot sinners, brutish bores, never to be absolved of sin.

…as he is surely soon to be…

…for all the pilgrim steps he shall endure upon the path to absolute redemption…

As all truly penitent sinners cursed with cock and balls are want to do, must he now and ever and anon carry the wormwood cross, the snivelled cluck-cluck, into the unwashed masses and their meaty mouths to meet and greet and then dole out calls for redemption as redemption is; acknowledge first the grandest of all earthly sins – the never-seen nor never-heard before privilege of being male (add a sin or more for also being white) – and then work through and then come out the other side, crawling on your knees to beg forgiveness for the sins of you and of your father and your fathers father and so forth, back through time and through the ages until you meet the protoplasmic ooze, until you greet the primordial chaos-soup from whence all men were ripped and torn, born from rape and ravaged ruin, born from perplexing shame and into shame reborn and born again, the original sin once spurted in the face of sinners straight from sinners cocks; a semen-speckled bukkake from the majestic godhead and his cohort, the grand dragon patriarch himself.

Though redemption is dearly sought and even more dearly bought, it is one to never be delivered. For the sins and trespasses one wishes to be absolved off are so grandiose in nature, so undeniably vicious and evil and cold-hearted and mean that none can say or see or think or mean that any true redemption can be had, nor absolution passed upon the shrivelled cluck-cluck husk or the beacon of his armour, rusted and then polished ‘till it turns to glass and passes then as passing gas into the stratosphere, shattered and then chewed and then passed up and passed on and spat out unto the dirt and earth where dead men walk who passed this way before, who self-flagellated ‘till their backs were sore and whipped of all but blood and bone.

For the truest of all that is true, and the realest of all that is real is the knowledge, festering at the bosom’s core of the Goddess’ high embrace – that all men are vicious and are born that way from the loins and in the groin then tangled and entwined.

  • Please like, share and subscribe
  • Moiret Allegiere, 02.10.2019

My book – Howling at a Slutwalk Moon, a collection of previous blog posts:
Vol 1 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/107571074X
Vol 1 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZTPDPR
Vol 2 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075714184
Vol 2 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZR25NL
Vol 1 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075717094
Vol 2 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075723078

Other links:
Redbubble shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Moiret/shop
Blog: https://moiretallegiere.wordpress.com/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3IaCxAXE3pQd7PCdvHoaaA
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/EvbGZyTZSraY/
twatter: https://twitter.com/MAllegiere
Gab: https://gab.com/Moiret_Allegiere
Minds: https://www.minds.com/Moiret
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/people/152465815@N04/

Why I am an Anti-feminist, part 1:

I’ve been doing this blogosphere dance, this YouTube-istan waltz and BitChute tango of mine for round and about a year now. And never once, I believe, have I addressed in simple terms why I bitch and moan about feminism as much as I do. Particularly so since the issues facing men – which are supposed to be my main concern – do in fact stem from things besides feminism. Often things that are biological in nature and re-enforced by culture. More likely than not, it would be somewhat easier to address issues affecting men in society without declaring war on feminism. It would make for less attacks along the lines of “you just hate women”, or similar silly statements which are as ridiculous as they are absurd. I doubt it, though. The preposterous claims of misogyny would come whether one mention feminism or not. For the simple reason that trying to make this society of ours realize that men also struggle somehow takes away from women. Feminism is playing a zero-sum game, where only their voice shall be heard. All must go towards women, nothing need go towards men.

You see – within the coprophilia that is feminism and the way feminism attacks anyone who oppose it lies the answer to my anti-feminism. And I must admit that I have lied to you. I can not possibly address this in simple terms. You will have to be subject to my cruel and unusual rambling yet again.

Feminism is an -ism first and foremost. In my eyes and murky mischievous mind, this alone is enough to raise some alarms. An -ism is a set of ideas and beliefs; an umbrella under whose limited roof one seeks shelter from the rain. Stray but a little beyond its clearly defined borders, and one can not help but get rained on. Feminism, as an -ism, is incredibly totalitarian and tyrannical in its approach. It does not only propose to speak on behalf of all women – no, no, no – it also proposes to have a monopoly on the concept of all things equality. It is not enough to hold the belief that the sexes should be treated equally – you also have to refer to yourself as a feminist. Otherwise, you can not possibly be for equality, according to their flightless feminist fancy. It is incredibly important for feminism that one wears the label of feminist. Were it a movement only for equality, surely it would be enough to state that one believes that the sexes should be treated equally? This is not the case. Feminism demands you wear the label of feminist. To such an extent that they will ignore someone’s wish to not be labelled as such with the wonderful fuckery that is: “Oh, so you believe in equality between the genders? Congratulations: you are a feminist.” Or, of course, claim that you are either a feminist or a sexist. There is no in-between, nothing but either/or. Strange thing to come from a movement that proposes to be nuanced. This is terrifying, no matter which movement, which -ism, which anything. But, OK, fair enough – I’ll play. If you are a feminist, you are a sexist.

It should be enough to frighten people away from feminism to look at how they attack anyone who dares disagree with their infected and ready-to-be-cut-away concept of equality (which is not equality of opportunity but equality of outcome), as haters of women; foul basement dwelling misogynists who just want to maintain the power men have over women in society. Which is odd, of course, considering the fact that the basement-dwelling bozo bogeymen of their patriarchal conspiracy can not possibly wield any manner of influence and power on account of being basement dwelling bozos with no power and no influence. Which is the claim of the feminist hive-mind, of course, when meeting any opposition. Either that or shame for lack of sexual prowess and success with women. As if the most important value a man has is whether or not he is attractive to women. From the mouth and rotting brain of feminism comes the truth…

I would dare argue – as I have done many times before – that any movement that claims to hold the monopoly, that claims to be the only voice to speak on a certain topic, is one not to be trusted. Especially not one to be trusted on to speak on that certain topic. Doubtlessly so when riding under the banner of an -ism. And I don’t care whether this be an -ism I tend to agree with or not. Nothing and no-one should be believed when claiming to be the only one to speak on this or that or tit or tat. Everything can and must be questioned.

This goes for my own convictions as well. See, as critical as I am of feminism and the ideas of feminism, I am even more critical of my own ideas. Which is one of the reasons why I tend to avoid writing on recent news and such. I go through an excruciating amount of self-doubt and hesitation before putting thoughts to digital paper. To see if they hold up. Usually they do.

One of my greatest character flaws as well as one of my greatest character strengths, I think, is my excruciating self-doubt.

Of course, I am just a nobody on the internet, merely a drink or two, that is – some slightly lowered cognitive abilities away – from becoming a good old fashioned anarchist.

I am not a massive movement with fat chunky butts placed in seats of immense power and influence such as feminism undoubtedly is. And within the broader men’s rights movement, or the manosphere, or whatever you want to call it, I am absolutely nothing but a tiny voice whispering into the broken algorithm of the Google-God.

With this in mind, I think it is only fair that a movement of such magnitude as feminism should be scrutinized more than any one individual sucker on the inter-webs. For it is the movement I am attacking, not individual members and hangers-on to that movement. With a few exceptions to this rule, as there always are.

The movement is not understood properly by society at large. This is due to feminism worming its way into the minds and thoughts and zeitgeist of our cultures as the only force fighting for equality between the sexes, and so any opposition to this must mean opposition to equality between the sexes.

This is, at best, dishonest.

Mostly, it is just lies, social engineering and brainwashing.

It seems that most everyone refers to themselves as a feminist by default. For simple reasons; this is what the term “equality” has come to mean in the heads and minds of the populace who don’t have the time or the interest to delve beneath the surface: “feminism”. And the obvious hatred of anyone male, anything masculine, is brushed away as just the ravings of a radical few, not a picture of the movement as a whole. And the obvious push for female supremacy, the obvious rhetoric that states quite clearly that women are not only better than men at doing anything, but women are also superior to men in morality and in understanding and dealing with emotions, as well as everything else, is brushed away with a flick of the wrist and a laughter that it is just building up girls after girls having been thrown under the bus for so long. In order for the sexes to be treated equally, girls and women must be treated far better than boys and men.

This is… ah… obvious, I suppose, to those who believe that preferential treatment equals equal treatment. Or who are daft enough to believe that revenge for perceived prior oppression done by none alive today and likewise suffered by none alive today is equality made manifest in goose-flesh… For equality, boys and men must suffer what imagined hardships girls and women suffered in the past. It is the sins of the father for which the son must pay, seven generations down the lie. Revenge is equality, you see, not pettiness and stupidity.

Feminism has got to be the only movement in the world where the thought-leaders, the founders of the movement, the ones that write the books, who change the laws to be anything but equal, who found gender studies courses, who wield the power of the movement are said to be “not true feminists”. It has got to be the only movement in the world in which the ones that made the movement what it is are not true adherents to its movement.

Take the term “the future is female” for example. This comes from Sally Miller Gearhart. She co-founded Women’s and Gender courses on universities. Which are still taught today. She wrote about reducing and maintaining men to about ten percent of the population. Which is where the term originates. “The future – if there is one – is female”.

This term is printed on t-shirts and proudly worn by those who have drunk the sacred period-blood and eaten the vaginal yeast communal wafer of feminism. And everyone else who believe that girls and women need a leg up, a handout and a pedestal on which to stand because, in being equal, girls are better than boys and women are better than men.

With this knowledge – that “the future is female” has its origins in a fantasy of reducing and maintaining men to about ten percent of the population – would it be inappropriate for me to assume everyone wearing this shirt to hold similar sentiments? If not, why not?

If I wore a T-shirt with a quote from Mein Kampf – taken out of context – for simply enjoying that quote, would that fly? Would it be OK for me to state that Hitlerism is not true Nazism? That the figurehead of the movement had it all wrong and was not a true Nazi? Or would people pelt me with rotten fruits and throw me into the glorious fjords of Norway, to either drift away or drown? Oddly enough, I believe wearing a T-shirt stating that “The future is male” would visit worse worries upon my head than any random quote from Adolf Hitler. That would be hating on women, you see. And that is the worst crime one could possibly commit. Far worse then killing men for the crime of being men, you must understand.

…Lo, and behold, how the herp does derp, how wondrous is this magnificent herping of the derp…

Should I not be allowed some manner of indignation that a term whose origins lie in wanting to reduce men to ten percent of the population – gendercide, in a word – is as marketable and loved as it is? Should I not consider it a bit weird that the thought-leaders of a movement are said to not be true to the movement? All par for the course in the double-think-stink of the feminist hive-mind. All hatred is justified, downplayed and forgotten. The worst I have ever heard in regards to the “men must be reduced” thingamajigger is that she was either not a “real feminist”, or she just had a very bad day.

Wow. I am stunned. That is downplaying it some, no? When I have a bad day, I am a bit grumpy and complain about my grumpiness on Twitter with a biting self-deprecation in regards to my chronic pain. I do not propose we reduce women to ten percent of the population. But, in the feminist utopia, women are never held to account for what they do. In particular feminist women. Even when they are not true feminist women and so should be open to attack by the real feminist women.

… Look how the derpy-herp herpy-derps through the meadow and the fields; how it derps in the herpy depths of the herp-derp stream…

If one believes in the history delivered by feminist revisionist historians, which looks at how women were supposedly treated in societies past, neglecting of course to look at how men were treated, it is easy to believe that women were terribly oppressed.

However: it is never as black and white as feminism pretends.

Women were protected. And men were sacrificed. And still are…

That is about as simple as I can put it, as black and white as I myself can put it. Of course; fighting fire with fire is stupid. And fighting black and white imagery with black and white imagery gives us nothing but a fuzzy black and white picture.

You see, in the dismal cosmic dance of society, for every perceived privilege men had, there were also responsibilities and sacrifices attached. And for every perceived oppression women suffered, there were also privileges and protection attached. The relationship between the sexes have always been a complex and difficult dance.

Neither black nor white nor black and white for either. Suffice it to say that the past was hard for everyone but the elite, but the aristocracy, man and woman alike. Looking only at how one side suffered does not give the whole picture. Yet, that is what is done. Just as it is done now. We look only to how women are doing, and label this equal treatment. We care only for the plight of women, neglecting the plight of men. And we refer to this as equality.

Not only women suffer. Men also suffer. And that is how it has always been. Both sexes experience difficulties within society and within culture that is exclusive to them. Helping one at the cost of neglecting the other – as feminism does – is contrary to treating the sexes equally. Completely and utterly contrary, in fact. For a movement that is supposedly about making the sexes be treated equally, it is damned good at refusing to treat the sexes equally.

I would posit that the world would do better with a human rights movement than one exclusively for men and one exclusively for women.

Were it not for feminism, I would not wear the label of a men’s rights activist. I would, more like than not, wear the label of a human rights activist. That is, if I have to wear these fucking labels at all. See, the older I get, the more I believe that all these labels, all these this-that-and-the-others are nothing but a ridiculously overcomplicated tangled mess of words and wires that only confuse and complicate everything far more than is necessary. But I digress.

…Feminism refuses to view men as complete and complex human beings. Evidenced by their hand-waving away of the various severe issues that our side – that is the manosphere, or whatever – bring up.

Smearing and ad hominem attacks is about all they have when faced with the arguments delivered from the men’s rights movement. Included in this is of course the incredibly stupid and obvious to anyone with half a braincell attempt of theirs to smear it as a white supremacist movement. That is the weirdest one. Misogynist? OK – it’s not true in the least, but at the very least it is somewhat related to the topic at hand. White supremacism, on the other hand… that is so obviously bullshit that I am amazed they get away with it. But, ya know, women are wonderful and all that.

Of course; feminism does not care much for women either. It cares only for feminism. Evidenced by how feminism treats women that do not wear the label of feminist; how they treat women that behave in a manner not accepted by the feminist hive-mind. They are gender-traitors and must be burned at the stake and have their heads put on pikes as a warning to other women that they must tow the party-line, lest the same fate should befall them. Online bullying and harassment is only an issue when it is a feminist that fall victim to it. It is not a problem when it is multiple feminist goons that perpetrate it, targetting a non-feminist traitor. This is the glorious effects of their othering of any-and-all that do not bend the knee and swear fealty to their cause.

And feminism – for all its portrayals of itself as some sort of underdog fighting the power – is not the underdog but the power. They are the establishment. Of course – it wins popular vote merely by its portrayal as an underdog. Because who does not love an underdog? The top dog. That is who. And in portraying men – in the guise of the doubtfully existent ”patriarchy” – as the top dog they have done two things (and more). 1: they have painted and portrayed themselves as the underdog fighting the top dog. 2: they have created a wonderful excuse for their shaming and hatred of men and all things masculine, hiding every instance of obvious hatred of men behind the curtain that “oh no, we are only talking about the patriarchy”. And every critique necessarily must mean that the man critiquing is guilty of being the very man they complain about. Clever.

For, ya know, the oppressed have every right to hate their oppressors. Even if it does not make sense for the oppressors to allow the oppressed such amounts of power and influence as feminism has got in these topsy-turvy worlds of ours. This should be evident to anyone.

Supposing that women are oppressed, how in the fuck are the oppressed allowed as much social influence as women as a group do indeed wield? And have wielded for some time…

Why do the oppressors – as horrible as they apparently are – allow their subjects to spew their vile hatred with impunity? It does not make any sense. And for all their blubbering about dismantling gender stereotypes, the feminist hive-mind are not doing a good job at removing the stereotype of women as irrational, hysterical, overly emotional creatures with little-to-no capacity for reason and logic… To be clear, this is not my view of women. It is, however, my view of feminism as a movement. Well, part of my view of feminism as a movement.

Supposing that feminism is fighting and are oppressed by the establishment, why then do powerful figures within the establishment – that is, political, media, entertainment, you name it – pose with t-shirts proudly stating “this is what a feminist looks like”? Were women so oppressed as feminism claims, a merely whispered accusation about foul misogyny and hatred of women would not be enough of a shutdown to derail any conversation onto the character of the man in question instead of the argument presented.

Mumbling something about “internalized misogyny” would not be enough to shut down any woman who dares move beyond the confines of the umbrella that is feminism. Yet this is what happens. Time and bloody time again. It is the worst case of the Chewbacca defence I have ever seen. It makes no sense. Yet, it works. And it works and more are in the works.

It has been led to my attention that my ramblings tend to become a bit lengthy… too lengthy, in fact. This… well, it is absolutely true. Thus, I am doing this in several parts. Here endeth part 1. Join me next week – if the heathen Gods of old are willing – for part 2.

  • Please like, share and subscribe
  • Moiret Allegiere, 28.09.2019

My book – Howling at a Slutwalk Moon, a collection of previous blog posts:
Vol 1 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/107571074X
Vol 1 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZTPDPR
Vol 2 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075714184
Vol 2 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZR25NL
Vol 1 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075717094
Vol 2 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075723078

Other links:
Redbubble shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Moiret/shop
Blog: https://moiretallegiere.wordpress.com/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3IaCxAXE3pQd7PCdvHoaaA
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/EvbGZyTZSraY/
twatter: https://twitter.com/MAllegiere
Gab: https://gab.com/Moiret_Allegiere
Minds: https://www.minds.com/Moiret
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/people/152465815@N04/

Truth in the age of Deceit:

We live in times of universal deceit. We can not tell the truth. Bit by bit, truth is being eroded beneath our feet, as is our ability to speak it. Speaking the truth is an act of insubordination, an act of revolution. The truth is becoming a fragment of the past, a remnant of times that were, that came and went and blew away.

The doors are shut for facts and for balanced discussion of said facts. Truth means nothing lest it comes from the gut-instinct, lest it stems from the high-strung emotional turmoil that shriek and punch the air with tremors that state “I feel like this, and so it must be truth”.

And don’t you dare question my truth, my lived experience as anything but complete and utter fact that everyone of my tribe experience and have experienced and will keep experiencing seven thousand times or more.

And don’t you dare share your truth, your lived experience as fact if it contradicts my lived experience and my truth felt in the cornucopia of emotion in my safe-space sheltered heart.

And don’t you dare provide evidence, the concrete fact, the truth-and-beauty of absolute beauty in truth that speaks truth to power and tumbles the tyrants down from their thrones.

For tyranny flows from the top to the bottom, it flows from the tremors and the trembles and the fake-and-fancy inner turmoil shared by those who have had it far too good for far too long, whose tongue-twisting nursery rhymes are still sung and whispered at their bedside by overbearing parents who have told them all their lives that they can never do anything but good, that they can never do anything wrong. That, no matter what they do, they are in the right and the entire rest of the world is wrong and must burn if it disagrees. If lacking parents, substitute hired government goons.

This frantic world of ours allowed the throne to be usurped by warmongers that peddle propaganda; whose tongues and teeth are brown and stained with coagulated blood drained from the throats of subdivided willing victims of a war that stem from trying to please everyone. That is; pleasing everyone who is considered by those who wield the power of deceit to be underprivileged and oppressed in true Marxist fashion. Carried on and carried forward by champagne socialists who do not know the difference between a shovel and a pickaxe, who never saw their cheap-rent apartments disappear and turn to dust from new governmental regulations that deemed them unfit to live in, yet whose silver-tongues that claimed to do good for those that could not be choosers never did think that this would limit the availability of apartments and never did anything to alleviate this, rendering the market ever worse for those that have always been forced to settle.

There is no mistaking it. This is a war. A war that is the result of a cuntural cultural revolution that has been going on beneath our feet for fifty years or more; that has been fought in classrooms with cheap hits dealt from subversive pedagogues whose dimwitted godly light and siren-song shone and sung its way into the minds and developing personality of impressionable children who caught the words and let them fester and spread within their own nuclear brain cavity. More pawns, more peons and peasants handcrafted in indoctrination-chambers to hunt the Kulaks.

To manufacture dissent. Manufacture chaos. To spread disillusion and disharmony to the hungry masses, presenting feels as reals and wiping away any remnant of objective reality to bring forth the new-found reality, the subjective reality where every instance of emotional turmoil on behalf of one and not the other is an issue that has to be dealt with, that has to be overcome by governmental over-reach to limit what we should say and can say and how to say it, to bring forth the hate-speech laws and make them so convoluted, so confusing that everything and nothing at all may be considered hate-speech on the whim and will of whomsoever feel offended by the voice and uttered utterance of those who are considered privileged by the privileged powers-that-be that dominate the discourse, never allowing dissenting voices to be heard. And that is dissenting voices not being allowed under pain of governmental punishment, under the majestic banner of the stately ban-hammer fantastic; the tyranny of governed speech deciding what speech is the correct speech, what opinions are the correct opinions, which -ism is the only -ism one should be allowed to follow in the gloomy grim funeral rite of our liberty.

We are being ruled, governed and drugged by television and media-conglomerates that spin their so-called truths in new-speak news that starve our brains of oxygen until we are close to passing out; that blast us with new information every five seconds so that we can not process the information properly, or never read beyond the click-bait headlines calling for our permanent offence and anger at the unjust nature of the beastly world we live in. That just so happen to only be unjust for the one and not the other, in the eyes of new-speak news and their cohorts that manufacture the perpetual war. Because war is peace. Freedom is slavery. And so forth. And so on.

It will keep us distracted, wilfully sheltered from what is going on behind the canvas and the cloth of looming tyranny that aims at uniformity of speech, of voice and of opinion. We are being ruled by fear and governed by terror to make us accept limitations imposed on our speech and our expression. To label it hate-speech laws is blatantly obvious manipulation of language, telling all that do not think beyond the headlines that any who oppose this set of rules is guilty of hating something or other, and are as such not a decent person, not a good person, not a proper person but someone improper, someone to be shunned and punished for daring to defy the whatever and what-not. Anyone who hates anything is not a good person. Excepting those who hate the ones who supposedly are the haters. They are good people. When they hate what the sheltered stately state have decided is OK to hate.

For a governmental body to decide what is or is not accepted speech is tyranny clothed as compassion. It is a government telling us, in so many words, that this and only this is accepted opinion. And any-and-all that disagree hate the oppressed and are, as such, an oppressor, a bigot, a beastly bastard for whom violence is but a censored Tweet away. And so, they deserve anything that may come their way and the government will not only look the other way, but take part in the punishment. The Kulaks must be dealt with.

And this by any means.

And that is the truth.

For that is the nature of deceit.

  • Please like, share and subscribe
  • Moiret Allegiere, 14.09.2019

My book – Howling at a Slutwalk Moon, a collection of previous blog posts:
Vol 1 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/107571074X
Vol 1 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZTPDPR
Vol 2 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075714184
Vol 2 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZR25NL
Vol 1 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075717094
Vol 2 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075723078

Other links:
Redbubble shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Moiret/shop
Blog: https://moiretallegiere.wordpress.com/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3IaCxAXE3pQd7PCdvHoaaA
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/EvbGZyTZSraY/
twatter: https://twitter.com/MAllegiere
Gab: https://gab.com/Moiret_Allegiere
Minds: https://www.minds.com/Moiret
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/people/152465815@N04/

Lord, help me, I can’t change! (More feminist encounters in the wild:)

Feminism does not have rebuttals.

Nor does it have arguments.

Not as such.

Feminism is an entity existing, living, thriving on nothing but its own hubris, on nothing but its own sense of entitlement. Strip away the hubris, mine away the decades of indoctrination and brainwashing into the serpent cult, and you are left with hollow phrases and learned tactics that is downloaded straight into the melted-machine minds of its adherents from the great feminist server in the nether realms of chaos and hysteria.

Yes.

I have been watching feminist filth-merchants in debate on Twitter yet again. For some reason, I can not claw my way out of that grand spectacle. I can not tear my eyes away from the train-wreck. Though I do not wish to partake – heavens no – I have too little sanity left to lose to do that. And arguing with a feminist brings about as much joy and reduces ones intelligence just as much as banging ones head against the shrapnel from a hand-grenade that never stops exploding.

Yet I keep reading or watching the debates stunned and perplexed, almost transfixed, ensnared by the closed minds on display. You can always tell who has a closed mind by the insistence of those that are close-minded that they are open-minded. A peculiar paradox, I know, but these are people for whom the only thought in their minds is the one that says that women are oppressed and that feminism is the path to take to fight the establishment and the consecrated conservative routines of the close-minded. Even when the intravenous injection of feminism that replaces their mental processing powers also closes their minds to viewpoints that are not infected with the ovary-shrivelling, dick-shrinking, brain-fluid-evaporating virus of feminism.

Of course; I can not fault them entirely. For feminism, this peculiar -ism, is the only -ism that has been allowed to be taught as fact in schools. At the very least for all my life. It has been allowed to be handed down like hand-outs from the hand-me-out squad to young kids, the dominant -ism and the one and only guiding light in the world. For decades. And it is so strange and it is so weird and so soul-suckingly insane that an -ism, any -ism, should be taught as fact to small children. We would not accept this were it any other -ism. We would not accept it were it communism, would not accept it were it socialism, would not accept it were it capitalism, fascism, Nazism, existentialism, nihilism, Buddhism, racism, etc. etc. In fact, we would label it political/religious/whatever indoctrination and demand it to stop. Also, we seem to accept it when it is intersectionalism as well, for some strange and peculiar reason. No-one should stand for this.

Yet, with this toxic, nausea-inducing sludge, we not only accept but we celebrate. And any and all manner of critique, any and all manner of rebuttal or protest or evidence to the contrary that is bright as the surface of the god-damned sun are met with the most vile and horrifying behaviour one could imagine. Which we would not accept from any other member of these gone-past-their-sell-by-date-societies of ours. And rightly so. Because the behaviour on display from these venomous harpies is not behaviour that should be condoned and celebrated. Yet, that is par for the course, part and parcel of living in the fantastic feminist utopia of ours, where women are so oppressed – and feminism so prosecuted – that they can behave like a vile, horrid, treacherous nest of absolute fucking cunts, and do so with impunity, with celebrations, with thunderous applause from the gawking on-lookers that drool and dribble on their shoes for lack of brain-fluid after it has evaporated on account of the feminist heat.

Welcome, my friends, to the machine.

Feminism gives women leeway to release the feminine shadow; the dark side of womanhood with impunity. With no shame nor regret. It allows for the worst kind of behaviour one could imagine; anti-social displays of crudeness, vulgarity and supposed “put-downs” that should not be accepted in any civilized society is accepted the moment it comes from the herpes-infected lips of a feminist do-gooder fighting the good fight against the established establishment that is the patriarchal kyriarchy, the grand and phenomenal godhead of oppression and terror and tyranny that, for some strange reason, allows and celebrates this behaviour from their oh-so-oppressed subjects.

Welcome, my friends, to the machine.

The lack of arguments when faced with facts that are undeniable are stunning. When arguments are attempted, it amounts to nothing more than mental gymnastics designed, in some way or other, to blame men for whatever it is. Even if it is something feminism has implemented, fought tooth and nails with all the ovary-acting they could muster to keep, it is blamed on men. One example of this is custody of children post-divorce. Giant feminist organizations have fought tooth and nail to keep the mother as the primary caregiver. Successfully so, I should add. Yet, when this is brought up as a god-damned affront to fathers – which it is – it is blamed on the patriarchy for assuming mothers to be the best caregivers and motherhood being the only role a woman should aspire to.

What a strange fucking world these people live in.

Such a weird world is this brave blue world. There is no logic, no reason, no ability to see facts, truth and so-and-such for what they are. There is nothing but the immediate emotional upheaval presented as fact because that is what she feels in the moment, in the heat of the moment. And if that is how she feels, then that is fact without a doubt. And there is the problem of it – emotions are subject to change at a moments notice.

This goes for both men and women, of course.

It is not something one should wish to build ones understanding of the world around. Emotions are fickle things. They change all the bloody time. And any understanding of the world that changes all the bloody time can not be an understanding of the world that brings any form of calm or tranquillity or satisfaction. It is all well and good, I suppose, to experience the world as a beautiful place if one is in a good mood. It is not as good to experience the world as a terrible place if one is in a bad mood. Emotional states no doubt paints ones perspective of the world. This is a very human thing, I suppose, neurotic wrecks that we are. But there is no baseline there, no tightrope to walk, no path to follow that will not dwindle and fade away. Better, then, to consider the world as a completely neutral and uncaring thing of nature; an indifferent beast that could not give a single two-handed fuck about ones emotional state at the moment. Nothing changes in the world depending on ones mood. Only ones perception, ones understanding of the world. Being able to transcend that and view the world as the aforementioned uncaring and indifferent beast, no matter ones current emotional state, gives a baseline, a balance, a slap to the face that, at the very least, anchors one to reality instead of the insane realms of subjective fantasy that is the roller-coaster of emotion.

The machine will keep going.

That is the crux of the issue, the pinnacle of madness. For when the machine has started, it is nigh impossible to stop it. And the machine began to spin its wheels a hundred years ago, or more. So that now, driven by the – faulty – understanding that women are somehow oppressed, driven by the gynocentrism in our species; the reptile brain that tell us that we must protect and cater to women above all else, lest the species die out, lest our genes are not spread, lest our seed shall fall to the earth and rise like steam to the heavens above as some perverted sacrifice to the Godhead itself from the wretched hairy palms of the hump-backed, cross-eyed midget Onan, we accept anything from the mouths of women and those who claim to fight the cause of women. For women must be protected, and if we do not protect women with our all, we must hate women with all our shrivelled soul and micro-dicks. (Not to mention that the only reason for opposing feminism – according to its adherents – is a lack of sexual access to women, telling us more than we need to know about feminism and how it views women as sexual receptacles, as well as their view of men and male/female sexual dynamics. That is: sex is something men does to women, something women give to men.)

Micro-dick is one of those trite, yet tried and true, go-to insults of the feminist hive-mind scorned. For one who has no arguments or rebuttals, shame is the apex of put-downs. And shaming men for their lack of sexual prowess or lack of ability to satisfy a woman sexually is the greatest put-down there is, in the hive-mind.

Odd, I think, that any man who supposedly hates women as much as the feminists would have us believe of any who oppose their bass ackwards view of the world should feel any semblance of shame for not being able to satisfy a woman. One should believe there would be no shame in this from someone who supposedly hates women. Because someone who hates and abhors women would, one assumes, not give two fucks about her satisfaction.

Cock-a-doodle-doo.

Of course – men not giving a fuck about female sexual satisfaction is another feminist piss-pot argument dragged up from the depths of their inability to tell a man what they enjoy in bed, or, for that matter, take some responsibility for her own satisfaction as well as his satisfaction where sexual matters are concerned. If one does not tell ones partner what one enjoys, one should not then be surprised that ones partner does not know. Cock-a-doodle-doo.

Welcome, my friend, to the machine.

Given my chosen subject matter in this radical ramble, driven by rage, wrath, ruin and enough caffeine to kill a moderately sized pony, there is a definite need to mention this as well: feminism does not equal women. Despite what the feminist hive-mind want to believe. Or what they want us to believe. A searing, brimstone-and-fire, hell and damnation, full frontal assault on feminism is not an assault on women. Or on women’s rights. It is an attack on an -ism that proposes to not only speak on behalf of all women – even the women who do not agree with it – but that also proposes to speak on behalf of gender equality, that demands a monopoly on the mere concept of equality. A more tyrannical, totalitarian and horrifying notion than that is hard to come by. Any voice who demands a monopoly on a concept, that demands to be the only one to speak on a certain topic, whatever that topic may be, is a voice that should be shunned and ignored. For anyone who claims to have all the answers to all the riddles can not be believed, must not be trusted, must be fought with all the madness of a wild beast cornered with nothing to lose. Such fell, authoritarian beasts are not to be trusted with anything, let alone power.

Feminism have come to equal women to the close-minded open-minded squad. Any woman who does not fall in line with the secular religion of feminism, with all their squalid brainwashing and indoctrination, is an affront to feminism and the divinity of the sisterhood, she is a result of patriarchal brainwashing making her internalize her misogyny. Because, to the eyes of feminism, women are so weak-willed and frail that they are absolutely incapable of thinking for themselves and making their own choices.

If she does not bend the knee to feminism and allow feminism to think for her, she is bending the knee to the patriarchy and allowing the patriarchy to think for her. It is either-or, where women are concerned, in the brain-washed melting minds of feminism. A woman exists either for feminism or for the patriarchy, never for herself. And this squad of permanently offended religious nutcases claim that our side hates women!

It is so agonizingly weird. I don’t think I have ever met anyone that has so much disdain, so much antagonism, so much raw hatred for women than a feminist meeting a woman that does not fall in line with the orthodoxy of feminism. It is an ideology built on hate for anyone who is on the outside. A misanthropic force claiming to work for equality. It makes me sick to my core that this wretched hive of scum and villainy have been allowed by our societies to be the dominant voice on all things gender, on all things sex, on all things equality.

The most radical voices of our societies today are the voices that dare defy the norm to state the simple truth, such as it is, that we are not the same, we are not equal.

Not as such.

We have different strengths and different weaknesses, we have different brains and different bodies to go along with these brains.

We are not the same.

We are not equal.

We are of equal worth, without a doubt.

And we are of equal value. Without a doubt.

But we are not the same.

See, I come from the egalitarian point of view. An individualistic point of view. A point of view that treats people based on the content of their character, based on the way they treat me and the way they treat other people. Sex does not factor into it. In particular now, post red pill blues.

This is something feminism does not like. Nor do they celebrate it. For feminism fights for women to be treated far better in society than men are treated. Based on how they imagine men are treated. Not based on how men are, in fact, treated.

And so to do trad-cons, for that matter. Though, the reasons may appear to be different at first glance, they are not. It stems from the same tide, the same rush, the same brainwave: women are the ones who carry children.

At the end of the day, we are animals. And the ones who carry the children are, biologically speaking, of more value. They must be protected. And they must be pampered and taken care of. Lest the tribe die, lest the species die, lest all fails and we do not survive.

The quest for equality which the feminist hive-mind has led us on is one of misguided equality. It is a quest for equality of outcome which is impossible, given that we are not the same. It is impossible without grand-scale social engineering. Which we are witnessing through affirmative action, through gender quotas, through lowering the standards to include more women. As we can see in the recent hissy-fit-inducing flurry of articles that state that lowering the standards of entry for women is a hand-up, not a hand-out. Hah, bah, nah, humbug.

We float and fly towards different things, based on our different strengths and weaknesses. Our choices are a product of our biology more than they are a product of some horrible scheme by the governing patriarchy that loves men so much and hates women so much that it sees no qualms in putting men in harms way and keeping women out of harms way. Were we truly living in societies that hate women, one should assume that all the dangerous and dirty jobs would be done by women that are not yet ready for childbirth, or who can no longer carry children. That would be hatred of women. One would assume that men be given all the cushy jobs. One would assume that more women than men would be homeless. One would assume the suicide rates to be quite different. And on. And on. Our societies do not hate women. Our societies protect women, and the frantic forces of feminist fragility are well aware of this. They play on this, tugging at our heartstrings through emotional manipulation and pure shaming until we do as they wish.

“You do not hate women, do you?”, she asks as she pouts her lips and widens her eyes… as she bulges what bulges there are… And any man tremble and go weak at the knees and at the groin at the sight of her awesome neoteny, at the seductive whisper of her alluring voice and her wide hips that subtly promise possible procreation in the not-too-distant-future…

The best way to choke the forces of feminism is to treat women exactly the same as we treat men. Neither better, nor worse. Exactly the same. Complete and utter equal treatment. When that is done, the forces shout and rear and whinny that men treat women so much worse than they treat men. Evidenced in this study: https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/6958/Yeung_Amy.pdf .

Well, maybe not the best way to choke the forces of feminism. Rather, it would be the best way to show the beast of feminism for what it is; a movement seeking nothing but female privilege; to hoist women up to stand on the shoulders of men until the shoulders break out of their sockets, only for the feminist hordes to scream for more, more, more.

Just as we have done, time and time again, in different guises and different clothes and wearing different masques. The song remains the same, the band stays the same, the tribe will still be just as the tribe was. Only the names and the seasons change.

Nothing more.

And nothing less.

  • Please like, share and subscribe
  • Moiret Allegiere, 11.09.2019

My book – Howling at a Slutwalk Moon, a collection of previous blog posts:
Vol 1 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/107571074X
Vol 1 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZTPDPR
Vol 2 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075714184
Vol 2 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZR25NL
Vol 1 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075717094
Vol 2 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075723078

Other links:
Redbubble shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Moiret/shop
Blog: https://moiretallegiere.wordpress.com/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3IaCxAXE3pQd7PCdvHoaaA
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/EvbGZyTZSraY/
twatter: https://twitter.com/MAllegiere
Gab: https://gab.com/Moiret_Allegiere
Minds: https://www.minds.com/Moiret
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/people/152465815@N04/

Lies and Slander in the Domestic Violence Industrial Complex:

Healing lowres

Illustration: «Healing», Moiret Allegeire, 2019

Stumbling through the dark corners of the internet one fell morning, attempting to do research on the subject of domestic violence interspersed now and then with one of my dogs barking at some odd happening outside every two minutes, I crawled through the muddiest sludge of the world wide wonder-web to exhume this piece of preposterous writing: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2790940 .

Within this piece of writing, aptly titled: The Feminist Case for Acknowledging Women’s Acts of Violence, we find clear and concise evidence in the form of them admitting it that the feminist movement, or the women’s movement or whatever label one wishes to ascribe to it, built the domestic violence movement upon lies at worst and blatant misrepresentations at best. Of course, this being a feminist movement it goes without saying that the entirety of their hogwashed bullshittery is based upon either outright lies or snivelling misrepresentations of clear facts presented with the most serpentine of forked tongues, quivering lips and trembling forms, saying in a childlike voice designed to mimic the most awesome form of Neoteny: Please, I am such a frail and powerless woman – help me, big strong man whose strength and protection I don’t need but will manipulate at want when I need it. Even if I don’t need it, really.

I am not going to divulge the information within this incredibly illuminating piece of writing in great depth or detail in this particular ramble. I think this fantastic piece deserves a ramble all on its own, to go through it in such depths as I am capable of, being neither an academic nor a scholar. Now, being an academic clearly doesn’t mean much in this terrible post-apocalyptic haze of the current year. This should be self-evident by the sluggish beasts residing within the overcrowded halls of academia. So: rather than delving into this paper in depth here and now, I will take a look at a few proper studies on intimate partner violence and see how the data contained therein correspond to this amazing evidence of feminist skewed statistics and lies most worthy of the immense judgement and subsequent thunder of our grand societal ban-hammer.

Because this piece of writing, gentlemen and ladies, is of such incredible importance to understand the way our ramshackle societies view instances of intimate partner violence through the black and white, tried, true and incredibly faulty lens of male perpetrators and female victims that I can hardly contain my glee in stumbling across it. Even if I read it with a certain anger boiling in my throat, gut and groin. In the pages of this tome of inadvisedly applied “knowledge”, it becomes painfully clear that the feminist movement combined with the domestic violence movement cares not in the least for the victims of domestic violence, be they male or female. It becomes evident – by the constant reference to the “movement” – that it is the feminist movement that matters, the women’s movement. Not facts, not truth, not reason and not the individual victims of intimate partner violence. The movement above all.

The serpent cult is alive and well.

…And only the cult matter in the grand scheme and schism of things.

It should have been common knowledge from the 1970’s at least that intimate partner violence is not a gendered issue. Once again, I would like to refer to the work of that fabulous Loving Grandmother to Us All, Erin Pizzey and her tremendous work in regards to family violence. I recommend – once again – that everyone read her story, listen to her speeches and marvel at the treatment she received at the hands of irate feminists who had an agenda to push that was driven not by any concerns for victims of domestic violence, but by a concern for their own movement, their own dogma and their own hydra-headed serpent god of false tongues and venomous fangs. She concluded, already back then, that intimate partner violence was reciprocal in most cases, built on escalation and a pattern of abuse that was generational from both sides of the dysfunctional family.

She quickly learned that the women in her shelters were just as, if not more, violent than the men from whom they fled. And so saw fit to build a shelter for abused men as well, for which she was disowned by her feminist cohorts, harassed and harangued and bullied until she had to flee the country.

Obviously, this is a condensed version of the story.

All this came to be merely because she wished to actually help those who suffered instead of pushing an agenda that was as blatantly false as it was completely monochrome in its approach to the problem.

Women are angels and saints and men are the devils lurking at the outskirts of our civilization, ready, at a moments notice, to wreak bloody havoc on all that we hold dear. That is to say: on all that women hold dear. For, should we believe the feminist dogma, men can not hold anything dear but terror, tyranny, violence, beer and rape. Preferably at the same time.

Now, closing in on fifty years later, researchers are attempting to view the problem of intimate partner violence through new and fresh lenses. Gazing at it, as it were, from a vantage point not driven by ideology and subjective opinion, but on facts and objective observations.

Imagine now, if the powers that be had listened to Erin Pizzey when she first began speaking truthfully and honestly on certain matters having to do with dysfunctional family matters. Should-haves, would-haves and could-haves are not great tools for intellectual quests, I will have to agree. And resentment and bitterness helps little in furthering anything. But this fraud and sham of a movement has done such tremendous damage where intimate partner violence is concerned that I can not help it. This new research is not anything new. Not as such. And that angers my blood and boils my brain, slowly reducing it to snark and frustration, anger and resentment.

Think of what could have been done to help both male and female victims, as well as their children. Imagine how much work could have been laid down to stop the generational cycle of abuse – to break the vicious circle of replaying past traumas in ones own family of origin.

Instead, the domestic violence movement saw fit to ensnare society within its tangled web of feminist patriarchy-theory and gibbering nonsense, painting men as the perpetrators and axe-wielding maniacs of immense power and violence. That it was the subjugation of women at the hands of both men and the state that caused intimate partner violence, and that it was men and only men who were violent both within and without the family, given the authority to do so by the nebulous and never-seen forces of the tyrannical patriarchy, the reptilian illuminati-annunaki of the feminist tin-foil-hat wearing swashbucklers of truth and glory filtered through mass-hysteria and quaint quantities of hysterical ovary-acting worthy of a hysterectomy or two.

Driven now by a longing for facts and for the feminist nonsense-mongers to remove their stranglehold on the discourse where intimate partner violence is concerned, we – as a society – need to wipe our faultily prescribed myopic lenses and put actual prescription glasses in place to view these dysfunctional family matters in an objective light, not tainted by ideologues who care for the movement and the goals of the movement, replacing the needs of the actual victims and sufferers in the process.

And so, new research floats to the top of the stagnant pool that has been the discourse for decades. From the septic tank of feminist-infused fuckery that has dominated the discourse, rises a noxious gas that may now be lit aflame and blow the whole thing up where the way we view family violence is concerned.

For: what should matter – what should always have mattered – is lending help to the individual victims first and foremost, disregarding the gendered view that feminism has put in place. Which they so clearly admit to have put in place. Secondly, the root cause of family violence should be understood so that the cycle of abuse may be broken. In order to understand it, one has to admit to and understand what both Warren Farrel and Erin Pizzey have been saying for decades; that damaged people damage people, and gender be damned. Gender should not factor into it. Especially not in these societies which we inhabit in which the claim is that gender never matters. Except when it does, of course. And when it does, it is always when it may in some way, shape or form supposedly help women. It is tempting to say that the root causes should be the first thing that matters. But that would then be done without lending help to individual victims in their immediate need. By lending help to the individual first and foremost, the root cause may be discovered and removed as one would remove a tumour.

It becomes glaringly obvious that their “containment” as they put it in the first paper linked, of female offenders and male victims has done a great disservice, not only to the men who have fallen victim to intimate partner violence, but to any-and-all attempt to grab the serpent by its tail and so refuse it to become the Ourobouros, perpetuating its cycle of abuse through generations of families uncounted. By pushing to remove female offenders, they have willingly allowed the snake to go uncaught. They have driven wedges ever further into the fabrics of our societies, into the trust and co-operation between men and women and sat fire to the entirety of the family dynamic. By their own admittance, they have neglected to catch the serpent, they have willingly destroyed the nuclear family and given birth to an industrial complex known vaguely as the domestic violence movement in which male victims – as we shall see soon enough – are not believed, are shunned, ridiculed, often arrested in place of their abuser and removed from their own home. For being beat and abused by their spouse.

All in the name of “equality”; that fantastic term that means everything and nothing all at once, depending upon the view of the feminist at the moment, depending on the position of the moon, depending on whether or not Uranus is aligned with the swinging cock of Mars to be sodomized at a moments notice and so forth and so on.

In the feminist dictionary, words do not mean what you think they mean. They change and they alter and they evolve all the time within the framework of their ideology, as whimsical and fluctuating as anything ever could be. And so, the joke lies there and I must use it: “At the flimsy will and whim of a woman”.

Thank you.

I’ll be here all week.

These are the jokes, people!

***

Looking on another study now, and of course I need to put in an addendum here – I am always a bit careful when looking at studies like this, given that I am not an academic and as such not all that versed in traversing these kinds of studies – this study is titled Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/ .

In this study, they analysed data on young adults aged 18-28 years in the US. The results showed that almost 24% of all relationships they looked at had some violence. Just about half of these were cases of reciprocal violence. In cases were the violence was not reciprocal women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. That is quite a lot, if I am to be honest. More than the feminist hive-mind and various do-goodie virtue-signallers would ever admit to. This does not matter to these people, though, as they will hold forth as arguments that this does not matter due to the fact that male perpetrators are more likely to inflict injury than are female perpetrators. If I understood the study properly, however, instances of reciprocal violence was more likely to result in actual injury than were instances of non-reciprocal violence.

This was found to be regardless of the gender of the perpetrator. I found this to be very interesting when taking into consideration that the study also tell us that “Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women”. From my understanding of this quote, women were the instigators more often than men in cases of reciprocal violence. Thus leading the men therein to reply in kind. Given the greater muscle-mass and bone density of men in general, and the lesser muscle-mass and bone density of women in general, I do not find it all that surprising that women suffer injuries more in cases of reciprocal violence. It would, perhaps, be a good idea to not attempt to beat someone bigger and stronger than oneself.

Understanding that boys and men have been told since time immemorial that they should never – ever – hit a girl or a woman, no matter the circumstances, it is little wonder that the sympathies of society at large go to the woman in these scenarios, never-minding that she may very well have been the instigator. I think it would be prudent to also keep in mind the probability that people in these kinds of relationships where reciprocal violence occur are more than likely damaged people who keep replaying the same scenarios time and again, drawn to each other by a kind of mutual and subconscious desire for destruction and self-destruction, feeding into the generational cycle of abuse from ages past. Re-playing what they learned at the hands and feet of parents for all eternity. I can not imagine a worse doom than this.

The study also tell us that “the percentage of relationships in which there was reciprocal partner violence ranged from 45% to 72%”. Further evidence, then, that reciprocal violence in highly dysfunctional relationships and families is the norm more than it is not. Kinda ruins the pictures we have been painted and presented for ages now of the stereotypical wife-beating man; a drunkard and a brute with violence encoded in his DNA, allowed by both society and the patriarchy, weird deep-state shadow government that it is. A faulty image handcrafted by feminist ideologues whose interests and passions are to maintain this stereotype more than it is to solve the problem. Because solving the problem would mean that they would have to admit – as they have done in the first paper linked – that women are also violent, that men are also victims, and that violent relationships are more often than not a two-way street where there is no clear victim/perpetrator dynamic to be used in furthering an agenda.

And the agenda is also something they would then have to admit to; burying facts for sake of their ideological convenience and the advancement of the movement, the movement being, at the moment, in a state of siege as more and more people are questioning the societal narrative which we have been spoon-fed for decades; their toxin forced down our throats and injected into our veins from powerful institutions of education, mass-media and more.

This state of siege, I assume, is the main cause and reason for the first paper linked – the fear of loosing their stranglehold on the conversation, the debate and the topic forcing them to change tactics so as not to be shown as the bigoted and ideologically possessed and blinded serpents that they are.

There is this radical notion that has been with me, you see, part of my world-view for all my life, based as much on personal observations as it is on objective analysis, that both men and women are capable of tremendous good as well as tremendous bad. That is to say: women are just as capable as men. And men are just as capable as women. For good. And for evil. This goes in stark opposition to the dominant cultural narrative of our societal psychosis – that men are evil and women are good by default. An awfully traditional view of things, one would have to admit.

The study further states that “In fact, men in relationships with reciprocal violence were reportedly injured more often (25.2%) than were women in relationships with non-reciprocal violence (20%); this is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious.”

Gee Whiz! I wonder why it is not seen as serious. Could it possibly be due to the massive influence from the feminist movement in regards to this, I wonder, I ponder, I think and I consider as I sip my coffee and listen to the soothing blast beats and throaty screeching of black metal of the foulest and meanest sort? Note also, that I take my coffee as black and soulless as my metal. It helps with the anger, releases the venom and soothes the mind something fierce. It also wires me up magnificently.

…Could this possibly also have something to do with the gynocentric nature of our species, wherein women are to be protected and as such are given excuses and quite a bit of leeway in regards to the abuse they may inflict upon their spouse and their children? It is a meme at this point, but I think it wise to repeat it here: women’s act of violence prompts us to discuss matters of mental health. And it prompts us to manufacture excuses. Such as that she was abused, either as a child by her father or by her spouse, which forced her to carry out her acts of abuse and violence. Men’s violence, on the other hand, prompts us to demonize all men, telling all men that they need to take responsibility for ending this, starting with looking at themselves in the mirror. It also sparks discussions on toxic masculinity and other such nonsense. When men are violent, it is because they are men. When women are violent, it is either because of men or because of mental health issues, urging us to feel sympathy for her and give her understanding.

What a beautiful shell of a world we inhabit. The post-apocalyptic wasteland is nothing like what I was lead to believe through the movies I grew up on.

Were I not cautiously optimistic, I would have turned into a raging misanthrope by this point in my life. Better to channel that rage not unto humanity as a whole, but onto ideologies that purposefully and cleverly have taken control of the discourse, have tied a noose around the necks of our societies and our civilization, have swarmed their way into our collective consciousness as the truth-speakers, the enlightened and empathetic ones seeking only to establish gender equality, despite proven to be filthy, rotten, tongue-tied-and-twisted liars time and again.

I think it wise to end this part of the ramble with another quote from the study in question, which makes it easy for me to segway into the next segment of my incessant rambling: “Regarding reporting biases, there has been much discussion of whether there are differences in reported IPV by the gender of the reporter. A meta-analysis of the reliability of the conflict tactics scale concluded that there is evidence of under-reporting by both genders, and that under-reporting may be greater for men.”

Small wonder, that, as men are not believed more often than not. Small wonder, that, when men are ridiculed by the forces supposedly put in place to help victims of domestic violence. Of course, in light of the glorious feminist revolution, victims of domestic violence automatically mean “women”. As such, close-to all resources available are merely there for female victims. This based on the false belief that only men are violent, only women are victims, for ever and ever, hail Dworkin, praise feminism, eternal glory be to the collective, amen.

The last study to gaze upon is also the one I think is of the most interest. It is titled “The Help-seeking Experiences of Men Who Sustain Intimate Partner Violence: An Overlooked Population and Implications for Practice” and can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175099/ .

As one would assume, given the title of the study, it looks on the experiences of men when seeking help because of domestic violence. Unsurprising to any who have delved into the weird and wacky post-red-pill world, but probably surprising, bordering on unbelievable to any who have not, the study show that men experience barriers when calling domestic violence hotlines. It contains some very interesting quotes from men who have been foolish enough to attempt to seek help and understanding from the resources available. I will look mainly on their quotes, as the stories of men who suffer intimate partner violence are so often neglected and never told.

Also – I would like to make it clear that I do not use the word “foolish” lightly. Nor do I use it as a slur against the men who attempted to seek help from the resources available. I use it to define – to underline – the severity of the issue. I use the word “foolish” for the simple reason that, as the world and the web in which it is ensnared stand, it is a foolish and futile endeavour. This is due to the domestic violence industry being so tainted, so poisoned, by the might of the feminist industrial complex that one would be hard-pressed to find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy this side of the good part of Star Wars. As this quote from a man contacting a domestic violence agency would attest to:

They didn’t really listen to what I said. They assumed that all abusers are men and said that I must accept that I was the abuser. They ridiculed me for not leaving my wife, ignoring the issues about what I would need to do to protect my 6 children and care for them.

but it is not about hating, shaming or blaming men, you must understand. It is all to do with equal treatment of the genders, as the feminist furies would have you believe, with all their piss-pottery and slack-jawed yodelling. Because those who hate men are not real feminists, ya know. And they don’t like sugar on their porridge, either. Strange, then, that these feminists who are not the real feminists are the ones who have decided the rules and law of the land where the mistreatment of male victims of intimate partner violence are concerned. The not real feminists, apparently, are the ones in control of the movement, are the ones who control the discourse, change the laws, neglect male victims and their children and do nothing but further the narrative that women can do no bad and men can do no good. The real feminists, however, are the ones that do not do this, the ones who do not wield any power or influence within the movement which they subscribe to. The leaders of the movement are not real feminists. The ones who have laid the foundations for the movement and steered us all into these days of apocalyptic madness and rampant misandry enforced by law are not the real feminists.

And Hitlerism, you must understand, is not real national socialism. Real national socialism is something quite different. And on and on the circle goes. Where it ends, no-one knows. Nor where it begins.

I am given to understand that there exist no real feminists. Because this is the excuse whenever these hateful, bigoted purveyors of nonsense and neglect parade their hatred of all things male and masculine around town; that they are not real feminists. And when the leaders of a movement are not real adherents to a movement, it is safe to assume that there exist no real feminists, and that it is all a washbasin filled with toxic waste, vaginal sludge and phlegm.

It is fucking nasty, is what I am getting at.

Time and again, these excuses pop up. And people believe it, all the fucking time, people believe it. That the leaders of the movement – the movers and shakers of the law of the land – the ones implementing all manner of vile treatment of men and preferential treatment for women based on naught but sex – are but a vocal minority, a loud-mouthed gangrenous few who do nothing and accomplish nothing and are thusly of little consequence to the movement as a whole, despite the fact that these trademarked not real feminists are the ones responsible for male victims of intimate partner violence, as well as their children, not only not being believed, but not receiving help at the hands of the plentiful resources available to victims of intimate partner violence. Given that the real victims, ya know, are women and women only. But no – that is not real feminism. They just wield all the power and influence in the name of holy feminism and its wriggling, spineless serpent-goddess. And those who are supposedly real feminists do nothing to stop these so-called fake feminists. How very weird.

You know what?

I don’t often say this, but I will make an exception.

Fuck you!

Fuck you right in the ear and the nostrils with a barbwire-dildo laced with ferret-piss and honey, covered in angry ants!

This work shows that men often experience barriers when seeking help when calling domestic violence hotlines, for instance, men who sustained all types of IPV report that the hotline workers say that they only help women, infer or explicitly state that the men must be the actual instigators of the violence, or ridicule them. Male help-seekers also report that hotlines will sometimes refer them to batterers’ programs. Some men have reported that when they call the police during an incident in which their female partners are violent, the police sometimes fail to respond. Other men reported being ridiculed by the police or being incorrectly arrested as the primary aggressor. Within the judicial system, some men who sustained IPV reported experiencing gender-stereotyped treatment. Even with apparent corroborating evidence that their female partners were violent and that the help-seekers were not, they reportedly lost custody of their children, were blocked from seeing their children, and were falsely accused by their partners of IPV and abusing their children. According to some, the burden of proof for male IPV victims may be especially high.

Now, colour me prickly surprised and oddly titillated – could it really be? Well, yes, of course it could really be. The most infuriating bother of it all is that feminists will go out of their way to claim that this treatment is the fault of men, of toxic masculinity and of the patriarchy and that feminism is the force needed to fix it. This despite them being the reason for this sad state of affairs in the first place. At least now we have an admittance from their own filthy and bloodstained hands that they have knowingly “contained” – their word – instances of male victims and female perpetrators, so one would be inclined to believe that this excuse would no longer work.

Yet, it will still work.

It will still be presented as being the fault of men. Whilst in actuality being a combination of the succubi forces of feminism and the gynocentric nature of our species designing a cultural cutlery narrative that women are victims, even when women are the perpetrators. I can imagine no harsher punishment – no harsher and more foul treatment – than being arrested for being assaulted by ones partner, adding insult to injury one snakelike slither at a time, with the godawful feminist dogma whispering in his ear that this is the fault of men and of himself by extension.

A few quotes from the paper, which I think is of interest:

They offered to listen if I wanted to recount what had happened, but indicated that no support services were available”.

I was mostly just doing research after the occurrence to find out what I should do. I found mostly female help sites and was turned down by several so I gave up.

In regards to law involvement:

They determined she was the aggressor but said since I was a man it was silly to arrest her.”

Told me to get her help. Told me to spend the night in a hotel.”

They saw me as a large male and… took her side. I was at the hospital with bruising and burned eyes from hot coffee thrown in them. They didn’t believe that she did this… and refused to arrest her… The next incidence… the police… saw me bleeding they charged her with felony DV, but later dropped it to misdemeanour assault because we are not married and do not live together.”

Well, now, ain’t that interesting in light of the first paper linked? I would dare say that in the line of duty, neglect of the male is right there up front and centre for all the world to see, were they only willing to do so. Clearly, it is incredibly difficult to see after decades of feminist lobbying and implementations – or alterations – of law made to define Domestic Violence in a light spun neatly by the web of feminist dogma, such as the Duluth-model for dealing with domestic violence. But more on that later, as I keep saying whenever I bring it up. I think – quite simply – that it deserves a ramble all on its lonesome.

When all things are placed within the framework of an ideology that presumes women to be the oppressed and men to be the oppressors, violence can only ever go one way. And that way is down from the top – from man to woman. Women who are violent against their male partners are thus given leeway for her supposedly being oppressed for being female and nothing but. The domestic violence industry has handcrafted this fairytale on feminist insistence, where the big bad wolf is the man and everything done to fight the big bad wolf is of the good, even when that means a man being arrested for his horrible crime of being assaulted.

And so, the girl cried “Wolf”.

Because he must have done something to her that caused her to lash out at him. Because the story told and the image presented for decades has been one in which women are never the main perpetrators, nor the first instigators. It has been presented as being so simple, so lacking in nuance as to be black and white; that is the ever-popular Men Bad – Women Good. I know I repeat this often. This point needs to be hammered home with all the persistence and subtlety of a rampant AK-47 in the hands of a drugged-out-of-his-mind chimpanzee.

When faced with this – that male victims are arrested – the feminist hive-mind does, in my admittedly anecdotal experience one of two things. They defend the woman, stating that he must have done something. Or they claim – as they always do – that this is the fault of the patriarchy for viewing women as weak and helpless, forgetting for convenience the fact that all this is the fault of feminist lobbying. That this is the fault of feminism is made evident – clear and bright as the dawning of a new day – when looking at the first paper linked, or looking at the interview with foul and filthy Katherine Spillar in the documentary the Red Pill, wherein she states that “it is not girls beating up on boys, it is boys beating up on girls” and that “Domestic Violence” is nothing but a “clean-up word for wife-beating.” Imagine my bedazzled shock!

If this is not neglecting male victims and containing female perpetrators for the movement and the ideology and nothing but that, I have no idea what is.

This does not matter much, however, within a culture that is so decided upon viewing women as permanent victims of the tyranny of men that we willingly ignore all facts to the contrary of the cultural narrative. And that is a narrative that has been pushed and prodded and presented as absolute fact for decades, despite being at the best falsely presented statistics, and at the worst downright lies.

The worst part – to my eyes at least – is not the narrative being presented of only men being perpetrators and only women being victims. The worst part of it all is that this one-sided narrative, this bitterly unnuanced view of things, stand directly in the path, blocking what would be the best attempt at remedying the problem. And that is looking at the core reason for violence, which seems to be linked intimately with family of origin issues.

That is to say – the sins of the father will be visited upon the son. Adding, of course, that the sins of the mother and father both will be visited upon the son and the daughter both, in equal measure. Doomed to repetition is the generational cycle of abuse.

For are not our behaviours – our patterns of behaviour in adult life very much a reflection of that of our parents, be they our mothers or our fathers? Being able to see this pattern – this circle of abuse clearly, would mean being able to consider the instigators of violence, the perpetrators of violence within a family, be that reciprocal or not, in light of the abuse they suffered at the hands of their parents. Not as a manner of excuse for their behaviour, but as a way to teach them ways of working through the trauma from the abuse that is not them re-playing it time and again, regurgitating the same generational sins as their parents and their parents did, and so forth and so on.

It would mean grabbing the serpent by its tail, understanding that it is a far more complex issue than the feminist hive-mind and their various sultry snake-cult priestesses would have it presented. This way of tackling the issue, however, would of course mean that the feminist movement as well as the domestic violence movement, which is, to be honest, more or less the same thing at this point, would loose not only the stranglehold they have on the discussion but also a wealth of funding and control.

Which I, of course, consider to be a godsend.

But which they clearly do not – hence the first paper linked, wherein they present arguments for acknowledging female perpetrators of domestic violence in order to further the agenda of the movement, not the help or protection of the individual victims of intimate partner violence, nor the families destroyed by it.

Which just goes to show that feminism cares neither for women nor for men, but their own agenda. Whatever that agenda may be at any given moment.

It is definitive proof that feminism as a movement cares for naught but their movement. Women that oppose their movement and the dogma of it all – Erin Pizzey, for instance, can burn in hell for all they are concerned. And men can go to hell as a collective no matter who they are or what they have done. Or what they haven’t done. Where there should be compassion shown to those who are abused no matter their sex, there is naught. All there is is a movement so entrenched in its own ideology and orthodoxy that they willingly – and admittedly – lie in order to further this orthodoxy. At the expense of victims, be they male or female, adult or child.

And that is that.

No individual matter.

Only the party matter.

All else is naught but sacrifices for the serpent-god.

 – Please like, share and subscribe

 – Moiret Allegiere, 10.08.2019

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Links:

My book – Howling at a Slutwalk Moon:

Vol 1 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/107571074X
Vol 1 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZTPDPR
Vol 2 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075714184
Vol 2 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZR25NL
Vol 1 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075717094
Vol 2 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075723078

Other links:
Redbubble shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Moiret/shop
Blog: https://moiretallegiere.wordpress.com/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3IaCxAXE3pQd7PCdvHoaaA
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/EvbGZyTZSraY/
twatter: https://twitter.com/MAllegiere
Gab: https://gab.com/Moiret_Allegiere
Minds: https://www.minds.com/Moiret
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/people/152465815@N04/