Monthly Archives: May 2014


This article was featured on a 


Collateral Poisoning

Year 2005. I am waiting at a law firm for my appointment. Two women talking at the office next door, one is the lawyer, the other the client. Their door is almost open. They can’t see me but I hear everything they say.

Long story short, a guy had been hired by a company but he quit the job to go work with the competition and the first employer wanted to get back at him. This is the most meaningful part of their conversation,

Client: I want you to sue him for breach of contract

Female Lawyer: Won’t work, he quit before he signed 

Client: I know, I just want him to run out of money & suffer. Just find a way…

The client was an older lady in her early sixties and her words stuck in my mind, like an ear worm:

“I know it does not make sense I just want him to run out of money and suffer” 

My lawyer arrived and interrupted my listening but even later that day I kept thinking about those words the older woman said, the same night I wrote that sentence on a piece of paper and took a good long look at its sheer cynicism.Then the translation hit me,

ORIGINAL: “I know it does not make sense I just want him to run out of money and suffer” 

TRANSLATION: “Rules don’t apply to me, I just want to be right” 

I tried other translations but I kept coming back to the first one

“Rules don’t apply to me, I just want to be right” 

I then started to imagine the woman at the law firm with those words inside, idea “bubbles” coming from her head when she was silent (or about to give a nonsensical answer). I applied the same “bubbles” idea to unscrupulous divorced wives in family courts then to feminists then to demagogues. It was a near perfect match every time.

When it comes to feminists, it’s not what they say that counts, it’s what they do–and their actions are perfectly expressed by the words,

Rules don’t apply to me, I just want to be right”

The reality is that I didn’t know the guy they wanted to sue and I shouldn’t have cared – after all, law bends to the one that has the most money. But her words kept bothering me, for no apparent reason. It was like a tiny tic-tac sized pill-idea that had gone into my mind that kept growing and bothering me until it exploded into frustration. Then I had to sit down to reason over it. Why did it work like that? Why did I have to sit down and reason something so visceral?

Some toxic people are very talented at crafting those little tic-tac bits of psychological poison. In an odd way, when I listened to those women’s conversation, I became that old lady’s forever-unknown poison collateral. Unfortunately, toxic women like her exist everywhere. Even more unfortunate are those who befriend or marry them along with their daily poison.

Here’s another perfect example of that kind of daily poison: a rich guy in his 60′s who was at a cocktail party (at his house) was talking about his collection of sports cars to his friends and his (very) hot twenty-something wife, whom he’d had had an argument with earlier that day. He was eagerly talking about his passion for his cars, and when the hot wife got fed up with the car talk and she just “casually” said the following before going for a drink,

…before I met you, all my boyfriends had trucks.

Let that sink in…

That sentence is a carefully crafted, deliberately poisonous tic-tac sized idea intentionally designed to look innocent, but will do enormous delayed damage. Why would she say that? Why did she make that far-fetched comment when they were talking about sports cars? What did the past boyfriends have to do with it (if anything at all)?  You can read too much or too little into it, but my reading is that if cars are a metaphor for sexual performance for some people, (especially power/status-hungry people)  which would mean she told her husband (in front of his friends) the following;

ORIGINAL“…before I met you, all my boyfriends had trucks”

TRANSLATION: My past boyfriends fucked better than you. 

In case the husband had reacted she could have easily said “But, baby, it was just a comment…” which means she could have used that form of plausible deniability but the poisonous meanings of the tiny sentence were clearly deliberate and multi-layered. 

Add to that she was smoking hot, the guy was in his 60s and not very good-looking, but rich. Imagine the nightmare of living with someone who is actively using psychological warfare against you day in and day out. Imagine having to gulp down 20 or more of those venomous tic-tacs every week. That has to wear you down. It is psychological warfare in its pure form of deliberate, concise, pre-planned attrition.

The Male Lego Mind

Like many men, as a child I loved Legos, and that possibly led to math and logic, then what I do today for a living. Most likely I am one of millions men with those neurological male traits; seeking logic in things, even if it looks like a waste of time, including feminism. Very often, we males (and a few odd women) want to find out how things work even if it seems a waste of time. Perhaps for those reasons it was important for me to understand why, for no apparent reason, this sentence had bothered me:

“Rules don’t apply to me, I just want to be right”

The statement above is in itself an unreasonable position. Why? Because you are openly disrespecting the rules and on top of that you are cynically imposing your ego as a false justification; it means it’s not about logic, it means you just “want to be right.” Be it for a males or females, for yourself or others, saying you want to cheat because your ego says so is morally irrational. The short answer is that the sentence bothered me because trying to rationalize something morally unreasonable is 50% of the headache.

So what is the other 50%?

That is the “tic-tac” effect, which is a term from a comedian suggested to me by Dean Esmay. In a nutshell it describes how some toxic women, during arguments, have mastered the art of inserting a tiny “tic-tac-sized” idea into a male’s mind to foster psychological warfare. I suggest watching the video while remembering the few (or many) toxic women you’ve had in your life. That, and the male reaction he illustrates, is exactly what makes it worth watching. Even if you don’t like this particular performer, watch it, and see how much of yourself you see in it, along with what you remember of interpersonal verbal conflicts you’ve been involved in that you’ve lost and never understood why you lost.

Cures for a Poison

We already know the problem – the poisonous tic-tac ideas crafted by feminists in their little Candy Factories of Doom – but what is the cure or the prevention? What are the choices for us men to react to verbally poisonous women who spew hateful misandrist garbage? Possibly, it boils down to 3 choices

  1. Play it macho and help her damage you
  2. Try to prove her wrong logically
  3. Give her RED tic-tacs

1. Play “Macho”

How do we men defend ourselves against those poisonous tic-tacs given to us by hateful feminists? Well, Warren Farrell put it best:

“The weakness of men is the facade of strength; the strength of women is the facade of weakness.”  –The Myth of Male Power

The men who are unfortunate enough to try to reason with misandrists, or worse, choose a toxic sociopath as a partner, never see her as flawed. On the contrary, a man will sometimes excuse every fault and defect he sees in a woman. To him, she is not poisonous at all. He will defend her and play macho every time she attacks him. We have all been there. The more you play it tough, the more you’re drinking the poison and declaring pyrrhic victory.

“Ha! I eat those tic-tacs with every meal…I am a tough dude!” 

Sure, “every meal,” – that constitutes the undetected problem. It’s not “a little poison” once a year, no, it is a continuous daily supply of venom. And you’re bragging about it. The more you play macho, the more you are placing yourself at the mercy of a sociopath, and the more you place yourself at her mercy, the more long-term damage you will accrue.

How many weeks or years are we talking about?

How how much daily colorful shaming can a macho take?

How much anger and stress can that macho version of you take?


The more you take the macho stance, the more vulnerable you become in the long-term, and the more background (personal/emotional/financial) info you give to her in those seemingly quiet moments of reconciliation–and the more tic-tacs she is actively making in the background of her mind for you to swallow any time you eventually disagree again. The more often you just absorb the poison, the worse it gets, and either you do what she wants you to do and you lose and feel frustrated and ashamed, or if it’s a personal relationship the more you’re likely to pay the ultimate price: break-up/divorce. Yes, she will turn the relationship into a hostage situation and charge you all costs and penalties as ransom, all for a dead hostage.

Sure, a “macho” go will always say he is “invulnerable,” which only proves Warren Farrell’s logic,

“A man’s biggest vulnerability is the illusion of his absolute strength”

Truth is, she will get you by attrition. Logic does not matter, morals do not matter, what she wants is to be right or, in other words;

“Rules don’t apply to me, I just want to be right”

2. Try to Prove Her Wrong

How many times have you asked yourself in the middle of an argument “Why does she keep coming back to the same point!?” Then you calm down, try to explain very patiently to her the reasons, and then… she goes back to square one. Then you explain again, and take more time to explain even more patiently and then… she goes back to square one. Over and over again like a relentless mindless machine. You can spend days or weeks explaining with the best logic you are able to express and she will do the same thing over and over. Guess what? Often times you are just frustrated, sick and tired and you just end up doing what she wanted. But, why?

Because her point, from the beginning, was to “be right,” not to reason with you. She got you by attrition. 

Logically she will not win every time and, in those cases, when you explain the reasons to her and there are people present she will have to “agree.” Of course, “agreeing” means she will be busy in the back of her mind making a new batch of extra poisonous tic-tacs for you, always with a smile. Or, in other words.

“Rules don’t apply to me, I just want to be right”

That means you may have won in front of people but she will keep the grudge and put you in her to-do list. Later on, she will get you by attrition – just wait, she will eventually get to it. It is sad but true, our usual male way of reasoning problems does not count, all that counts is her “being right.”

Even worse, when it comes to your partner, often times you are cornered because they threaten you with break-ups, divorce and debt – again, the relationship becomes a hostage/bargaining chip. Your only real choice is to get out with as much of your dignity as you can, and never go back.

But, at least when it comes to debating feminists, there are other choices–such as “RED tic-tacs.”

3. Giving Them RED Tic-tacs

“I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them”

― Adlai E. Stevenson II

This isn’t relationship advice. Playing the game this way in a relationship will make you a psychopath. But if you’re out in the world trying to reason with misandrists, you are almost certainly dealing with people regularly who are dealing in this same sort of psychological warfare.

The point of all this is simple: those who argue with feminists need to understand the enemy and how the enemy thinks. If you aren’t studying how they work and creating a counterstrategy, you are setting yourself up not to just lose, but to feel terrible about yourself afterwards.

Whereas if you fight effectively, you have turned the tables.

When you realize the opponent isn’t in it for the honest desire to reach mutual understanding, truth or fairness and only wants to cause harm and humiliation, you must either not engage at all, or engage in a way that lets you turn the tables completely.

The choice, as always, is yours.

So let’s get this out-of-the-way: we don’t offer bargains. This is about telling the truth about them to FTSU. Also, let’s say it openly, RED tic-tacs: let’s call it Really Effective Directness. RED tic-tacs are designed after the model of poisonous tic-tacs used by feminists. Why? Because we have to learn to think like the enemy and use their weapons against them. RED tic-tacs also have a delayed effect, and will sooner or later explode into the feminists’ emotions. With a monumental difference; RED tic-tacs are based on truth, not lies, honesty not threats, legitimate questions not illegitimate ones.

Let’s compare,

Ingredients for a Poison tic-tac:

  • indirectness
  • demagogy
  • lies
  • ego+narcissism
  • implications
  • libel
  • hypocritically correct
  • seeks concealment

As a result we have a poisonous tic-tac that

  • Is indirect
  • Relies on demagogy/ emotions
  • Relies on lies
  • Services the speaker’s ego and narcissism
  • Relies on implications and unreasonable quetions
  • Allows the use of libel
  • Is hypocritically correct through PC-ness
  • Seeks concealment of its lies


Ingredients for a RED* tic-tac:

  • directness
  • reasoning
  • truth
  • universal human values
  • factual
  • brutally honest
  • seeks exposure

As a result we have a RED* tic-tac that

  • Is direct
  • Relies on reasoning
  • Relies on truth
  • Services universal human values
  • Relies on statements or reasonable questions
  • Only allows the use of facts
  • Its purpose is to be brutally honest
  • Seeks exposure of its own facts and the opposition’s lies

RED tic-tacs are much harder to craft, because you have to research and think before crafting them, but since they tend to be short and brutally honest you just save a lot of time otherwise wasted in political correctness babble.

I could give you flowcharts, theory, and formulas, but all that is boring. Nothing is better than a real-life example from a truthful, talented and unapologetic speaker. And I will give you a practical, real-world example.

Here is the setting; after a comedy show has ended, people are having drinks and relaxing, and the leading comedian is friendly and talks to some of the audience members. Then a feminist approaches the comedian and tries to engage him with 3-4 poison tic-tacs about some jokes he made in his act. This is all on video. Notice the camera is rolling and people are having drinks while listening. Have popcorn? Here we go:

Feminist: “You know? I don’t like the way you talk about women. You do comedy but I do a lot of sex talk and I work mostly with tragedy, you may laugh but you aren’t gonna get any material from me tonight. I do make fun of clownish dumb men… HEY LOOK AT ME IN THE EYES WHEN I AM TALKING TO YOU!” 


Feminist: Hey please lower your voice, you don’t know m..

Male Comedian: I DON’T NEED TO KNOW YOU! YOU NEED TO HEAR THE TRUTH ABOUT YOURSELF! Besides, I already got material out of you.

That male comedian used a barrage of RED tic-tacs in pure direct language. Zero politeness by using the facts he saw about that feminist. What did she do in response? She tried to conceal the fact she was being exposed (she even threatened him physically, but that backfired even worse. Plus, when a hypocrite tells you to “keep it quiet” you know you are hitting where it hurts.

The comedian didn’t need to lie, or be polite. He was just brutally honest and exposed her and her actions while she desperately sought concealment. The best thing is that it all was captured on video–and that is the trick, because that night, that insecure feminist went home with several RED tic-tacs bouncing inside her head, and you know the next morning she saw herself in the mirror and remembered the comedian’s hurtful, truthful words over and over – and is possibly still reflecting on them to this day.

Then she probably found out about the 2.1 million views her impulsive babble got:

That is a lot of delayed emotional explosions inside her head. (By the way, this is a good time to remember the ABR rule–always be recording.)

When you are engaging most feminists, you are in many ways getting heckled by her. Therefore it is your responsibility to respond with brutal honesty, intelligence, zero politeness and complete self-restraint like said comedian. Always record your exchanges, and if you lose the exchange, watch it to learn until her babble does not upset you (yes it is possible but not easy). If you won, watch it to learn – chances are you still made mistakes, nobody is perfect.

Be as Cool as a Tall Glass of Icy Water

Even the most effective weapon is useless if the user has no training. If you plan on delivering RED tic-tacs you have to learn how to deliver them, otherwise you will fail. Again, If you cannot control your emotions, you will fail at delivering RED tic-tacs.

Delivery is key, and in this case we also happen to take cues from the enemy. How? Well, the delivery of the RED tic-tacs is the polar opposite of the delivery used by feminists. Let’s compare:

Verbal delivery of a feminist using poison tic-tacs

  • Emotion driven
  • Relies on shaming tactics
  • Ready to get offended/plays victim/emotionally explode
  • Will constantly use mockery


Verbal delivery of an MRA using RED tic-tacs

  • Reason driven
  • Relies on factual delivery and exposure of lies
  • Remains cool/stoic
  • Will only use pithy humor to highlight the opposition’s stupidity (used very sparsely)

I will give you a shining practical example of the use of self-restraint via Marc Rudov the man just ignores whatever feminist noise is thrown at him and just powers through. Nothing sticks to the guy (he seems to be made of teflon, graphene or both). In many of Rudov’s interviews and debates feminists constantly mock him and bombard with shaming tactics, such as in this video. Yet, he just powers through, either showing an inexpressive face or giant grin when he proves the competition wrong.

A side note, Marc Rudov’s many appearances on FOX news are “fenced” debates with chosen FOX female anchors, which only affirms the rigged nature of the discussion, yet he does get away with making a few of them almost fly into a rage while he remains stoically calm. It is a complete contrast to see Marc as cool as a tall glass of icy water while the female anchor becomes a cute boiling pot of failed poison tic-tacs.

Rudov and Rogan are two of the best examples of counter-heckling feminists with RED tic-tacs (Rudov changed his tune in recent years from MRA to more “branding-consultant,” but his book on women is still full of quotable knowledge. Like all books, just take what is useful.)

Important note: your impulsiveness will be your defeat

There is no need to sugar coat it:

Do not lie to yourself. If you are impulsive, you will fail. If you cannot control your emotions, you will fail at making and/or delivering RED tic-tacs.

Why? Because getting upset easily is a detrimental trait. It is an enormous obstacle. If you are serious about learning how to make and deliver RED tic-tacs you have to learn how to be less passionate, to be ahead of the game, to avoid falling for the trap of attempted provocation, attempts to get under your skin.

Self restraint pays off. Look at what happened to “Big Red”: she had zero self-restraint while the guys who spoke to her were as cool as a tall glass of icy water.

What would have happened if one of them had yelled at her impulsively? That would have been an authentic, long-term damaging setback for the Men’s Rights Movement, but these men managed to masterfully restrain their emotions.

Make no mistake, it is likely they were upset in the inside, but that is exactly the point of self-restraint and stoicism: you are the boss, not other people, not your body, not your emotions, but you; your mind is the only boss.



















Done specifically to upset my detractors-> All my tweets in pastebin


(42+ & COUNTING)


44  @?????

43 @JackTRRollolo

42 @Tr0l0l0Jack

41 @Jacko_Da_Trolly 

40 @JackoHydraTrol

39 @JackTrolololo

38 @JackTrollOutis 

37 @JackOutisTrolly


36 @JackOutisTrolly

35 @JackMchydraTrol

34 @Tr0lololoJack

33 @TrolololoJack

32 @TrollololoJack

31 @JHydra30

30 @JackOutisHydra0

29 @_jackoutishydra

28 @JackOutisHydra_

27 @burnJackoutis16

26 @burnjackoutis15

25 @17burnjackoutis

24 @JackOutisPrime

23 @jackoutisburn3x

22 @jackoutisburn4x

21 @jackoutisburn5

20 @jackoutisburn1_

19 @jackoutisclone1

18 @1_jackoutis

17 @jackoutisclone2

16 @jackoutisclone3

15 @jackoutisclone4

14 @jackoutisclone5

13 @jackoutisclone6

12 @jackoutisclone7

11 @jackoutis_hydra

10 @jackoutishydra2

9 @jackoutistroll2

8 @trolljackoutis_

7 @jackoutis_2

6 @NaziZillaburn1

5 @TheJackOutis

4 @TrollJackoutis2_

3 @jackoutis2

2 @jackoutistwo

1 @JackOutis








“A woman can do anything a man can twice as good while still wearing heels” – Average Feminist Single Mother



Most of us have seen this “cute” feminist claim but it fails to include the following important disclaimer,


“A woman can do anything* a man can twice as good while still wearing heels” DISCLAIMER:*anything but raising a boy that won’t end up in jail because… Patriarchy – Average Feminist Single Mother




Cute Mediocre Single Mother Nations

Single mothers, everybody loves them, cute, hard working, multitasking specialists, able to balance work, school and a small family better than any man and to put the cherry on top, she is a proud feminist. They cannot be blamed for anything because, well, they have the best intentions after all, right? Everybody knows they do not make mistakes and if they do it is because some men wronged them or it is just the effect of the patriarchy. Sounds familiar? It is a cynical blatant travesty. They make monumental collective mistakes which lead to severe population-wide changes that harm their sons and feed the private prison system. Those are mistakes they have to be held accountable for. Single mothers are not little children they should be judged as who they are: adults. The cannon fodder for prisons is supplied by mothers rewarded by the state for getting pregnant or quitting marriage at the slightest opportunity. This collective lie of a woman “never needing a man” is what feeds the private prison system and the narcissism of feminists just won’t admit to it, but they feed this lie consistently and pervasively to single mothers; “you don’t need a man, you go girl!” and the state just rewards them for this reckless decision that involves not making ends meet for a decade, pure joy for a child, right? The inconvenient truth is that this “single mother reward system” has a snowball effect. As the widespread habit of marriage quitters results in widespread single mothers marrying the surrogate “penis-less” state. The state provides a “non threatening phallic-less surrogate husband” for single mothers. A non threatening and conveniently incomplete but wealthy husband of sorts or, to put it bluntly, the state is or a wealthy, mute, eunuch sugar daddy. It also provides everything a husband would in one family court shot. One single shot, every time. The state also becomes a surrogate father for all boys raised by single mothers but since it is an incomplete but convenient surrogate husband, mothers prefer the practicality of not having him at home at all. Instead, as a surrogate father, the state provides all the years of discipline a boy would have needed in one single jail time sentence shot. One single shot, every time. This is extremely convenient for private jail operators whose main steady flow of cannon fodder comes from ineffective narcissistic single mothers. It works so well because, well, who is going to dare blame the mediocre narcissistic mother when everyone knows she is always a victim & boys are evil anyways? The feminist gospel for single mothers is very straight forward because, obviously, the idea of men and women raising a child together is outrageous as the father is always likely to either beat the boy to death or rape him or both (we all know all adult men are evil especially if they are fathers) so it makes sense for the unruly sons of single mothers to get proper beatings and adequate raping to death in one shot in prison. One single shot, every time… Plus, if the kid ends up in jail, he already was as bad as his father anyways. Outrageous isn’t it? However, the gospel for single mothers is not that outrageous, at least not for them. Just like a wife eager to divorce, in her mind she is not at fault because her husband always failed her. In the minds of single mothers they are not at fault for not raising a boy successfully, it was the boy who failed the mother because, um, well, because, “she did everything right, don’t you see? She did everything right!”. Everything right, In one, single shot. What does it make all those hypocrite single mothers look like when they declare themselves a “force for good” while simultaneously facilitating the beatings and raping of countless young boys? Where have we seen this before? The travesty of these single, narcissistic, immaculate, hypocrite nuns of the state is as misanthropic as the one exercised by the pedophiles from the Vatican. Both the Vatican sexual deviants and their single mothers of the state counterparts are responsible for the harm and sexual abuse they inflict upon young boys despite these hypocrites’ desperate throes for immunity to any accountability by having the daily gall to declare themselves “victims”. Single mothers are long-term physical & sexual abusers of boys just like their Vatican male counterparts.


Good cops are mediocre

Why are single mothers so catastrophically mediocre at raising boys so much so that these boys end up making up 70 per cent of jail inmates? Because single mothers are mediocre bipolar cops.  A single mother is obsessed with being a “good cop only” but all too often she ends up yelling at the top of her lungs & quite frankly children don’t take a bipolar cop seriously. This coupled with the mothers aversion to behaving like a “man” or being like her own “father” (daddy issues) results in her being either too lenient or just bipolar. Surprisingly if this results in a beating from a bipolar mother, it is supposed to be “less violent” for the boy. But, will the single mother be somehow proud of her “gentler” beatings towards her son? After all, she was not like a “man” or her “father”… Right? Raising a child is already too much work for TWO people, let alone one who happens to be narcissistic& delusional enough to believe herself too effective to fail when “just” juggling work, housework and the monumental task of bringing up another human being. Feminist narcissism dictates you never miscalculate, it’s your son who failed you because everyone knows single mothers can play any role perfectly. Any role but the “bad cop” right?



Bad cops are “evil”

Simply put, single mothers cannot play the “good cop – bad cop” dynamic fathers and mothers played from the dawn of time. Let me clarify this is not an argument for antiquity, it is based on biology and the evolution of our species, most fathers are hairier, taller and their voices are deeper than that of the mother and for a little toddler these features are tremendously magnified when discipline is enforced by the father. If the mother is ineffective at disciplining the boy, the switch to a stronger, pithy more serious version of a human being just challenges (or confuses the fuck out of) the toddler because the father figure in strict mode is the original ancient police. The essential part of the ancient police is that, for it to be effective, it has to start early in life, (during toddlerhood or even earlier) as dad has two modes, playful educator or strict bad cop. Contrary to feminist dogma, a properly timed, well-trained father does not need to verbally abuse or beat their children at all, in fact the process of imposing an authority figure from early childhood starts so early that only a pithy command in a deeper male voice suffices. This is demonstrated when the unruly toddler is stopped in his tracks with a clear and loud “NO!” from the father then the toddler turns around, starts crying and walks towards the mother. With that kind of father, the toddler has no leeway to monkey around the yelling, noisy, ineffective easy to ignore “good cop” mother because she becomes just that, noise. With the switch to a father (bad cop) the child is challenged to try to switch around strategies in order to blackmail & cajole them into accepting his toddler tantrum. If well done, the toddler will fail miserably over and over again.



True complicity

For the “good cop bad cop ” strategy to work both parents need to respect & stay away from each other’s role and performance. Failure to do so will result in them antagonizing in front of the toddler thus losing most or all authority. I have seen this spectacular failure live, in parks & beaches during summers, it usually starts like this, the child is throwing a tantrum, the mother signals the father, father takes over, father starts saying a strict “no” mother cannot control herself butts in and starts ear beating the father in front of the child “don’t talk to him like that! ” result? Child understands from very early the father is just another bigger child the mother yealls at but not a father. Mothers who were raised infantilized will also fail to have the discipline to educate a child without interfering with the “good cop bad cop” logic. Two separate strategies are vital for success.



Two jurisdictions

When properly implemented, the good cop bad cop strategy is very effective simply because two strategies are harder than one, especially for a toddler because as they grow up, the boy learns there is always a playful educator & a bad cop at home both living inside a respected father. Sooner or later the toddler grows into a boy that admires the father and around 10-12 the father becomes less and less of a “hero” for the now teen. A father should be aware that he will fall from his son’s “hero” pedestal and should aim high from very early so that the fall is less pronounced but if the mother’s lack of discipline gets in the way the “hero” figure will collapse from the toddler years thus making the father look like another big dummy the mother yells at. Let’s compare this with what happens to single mothers. During toddler years the child learns sooner or later that there is only one person to blackmail with tantrums because she is not a hero, she is not an authority, she is mostly noise. As she consistently fails to be heard, her reptilian brain tells her the only choice is to give daily ear beatings or she will actually beat the crap out of the boy weekly. After a few years, the boy learns to, either ignore the beatings or laugh at the mediocre bipolar “good cop” because often, the single mother will cry and apologize shortly after yelling and/or beating the boy. The message for this contradiction in the little man’s mind reads

“she just beat me and now she is crying & apologizing? she is not for real” – Single mother’s son

The beatings, the yelling and the mother’s contradictory regret accumulate over the years until the boy just develops two personas, one, a husk of a person, the one that the mother approves & the second one, the “mom won’t find out” one that often lands the kid in jail. The chain of injustices is often crowned with this narcissistic verbal jewel from the mother’s mindless mouth “he is in jail because he is just like his father.”


PS What inspired this video performance is the sad reality of neglectful single mothers. It is appalling to imagine what happens behind closed doors at millions of single mother households.



*After some light banning I am back on twitter! BTW here is a friendly invitation to all of you colorful-headed ladies on Prozac; follow me on twitter & be unhappy everyday!  @jackoutis2 



westboro feminists
If feminists were slightly less dishonest


See? A catchy inflammatory title like the one used for this article is a very effective strategy used by feminists like Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Jessica Valenti or many others. See, feminists consistently use this strategy not because they are authentic victims, they do it for profit, for page views, for personal gain.

Why? Because rhetoric from demagogues requires the infusion of strong, preemptive emotional noise in the title (hence the whimsy title for this article and the kind lady above) In many ways, feminists and the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) share many strategies in common besides both being religions.

Furthermore, feminist demagogues persistently and obsessively claim there is an ongoing “war on women” which, plainly speaking means

“men are the enemy”

Which, very fittingly, mimics the WBC when they say

“God is your enemy”

But again, saying there is a “war on women”? Wew…Those feminists really knocked it out of the park with that one. The problem with that exacerbated rhetoric of “war on women” is that, like all lies, it breaks down when we compare it with objective reality. Let’s compare actual historical acts of war with the alleged “war on women” used by feminist demagogues. In the real history of the world, these are common almost universal actions against the enemy:

Actual War
1. Killing the enemy
2. Enslaving the enemy
3. Keeping the enemy as prisoners of war

Therefore an actual “war on women” would look like this
1. Killing women
2. Raping women
3. Keeping women as prisoners of war

See? The problem with extraordinary claims like “war on women” is that they need to be presented with extraordinary evidence but, feminists do not have any.

But, just for the sake of argument, let’s imagine this was an actual debate with someone like the stereotypical feminist “Big Red”. What would be the first thing she would say when shown the comparison above of what an actual war on women would look like? Perhaps the first thing she would say would be something along these lines,


“See? Men have always killed and raped women throughout history & they also whipped them in dungeons. This is patriarchy!!! It is a war against wym..!”

Let’s just use our patriarchal powers to silence the yelling red radcunt above from continuing her tirade because it would far from historical facts and quite honestly, she gives the impression of spitting too much while speaking.

Let me explain, history shows women were not the target of war, men were. In an ideal world, high profile feminists would recognize that men are the primary victims of their own death but instead, they publicly say jewels like this,


No. It is not a meme, nor a mediocre attempt at satire, it is an actual authentic quote completely within the context of feminism and a DV conference. If even high profile feminists have these lapses in their basic humanity and common sense, very little can be expected from the average feminist. The above quote is, just like feminists, disconnected from reality and misanthropic at best.

Objective reality is far from their dogmatic delusional feminist view of reality. Throughout history, “killing women” was never a priority, the main goal was killing the ones wielding the weapons;

Killing men.

If we compare actual war with the purported “war on women” the comparison just breaks down. War does not feature “filming the enemy for sexual entertainment” War does not give anybody “safe practices” or “safe words” to stop the battle.

No. War is about killing the enemy and the enemy has always  overwhelmingly consisted of male armies. Save the exceptions like the Mongols the vast majority of male armies had nearly zero interest in killing the women and the children, quite the opposite, they were enslaved or let go.

Was ever filming sexual intercourse a war strategy?
Is porn an act of war at all?
How does porn rank then?
Is porn a number 4? 7?
If so, what kind of porn qualifies as an act of war?

None. That is why feminists are laughable.

However, the wikipedia page of feminist views on porn makes as much sense as an assembly of Muslims trying to agree on how to follow a pork only cookbook.

Why do feminists like Anita Sarkeesian dislike sexuality and porn so much?
Why do they have the bad habit of comparing it to assault or war?

Well, here is the unkind honest truth:

Feminists reject porn because it reminds them of their own past sexual abuse.

As delusional as it sounds, feminists vicariously re-live their own harm through someone else’s pleasure i.e. Porn. It makes as much sense as an anorexic that hates food more and more every time she sees a junk food ad, but what the anorexic does not say is that she was once force-fed against her will. Or, in a more literal way, it makes as much sense as anti-porn feminist that hates sex more and more every time she sees a porn film, but what the anti-porn feminist does not say is that she was once penetrated against her will. It would, therefore stand to reason that Anita Sarkeesian’s rejection of male sexuality stems from her own personal sexual abuse and how she remembers it regularly. She may even be aware she cannot impose her trauma upon others but, like most sociopaths, she may also believe she provides a “service to society” thus anything goes for the sake of “girls like her”. Notice how the ego of a feminist always gets in.

Feminists are aware of this dysfunction but are too narcissistic to address their unhealthy daily excessive retrieval habits, how they remember their own rape on a daily basis and how porn causes them to keep remembering their own rape (despite the fact it would make more sense for them to avoid it, instead of “stumbling upon” it so often online, you got to wonder how they manage to “find” the “sickest” porn on their own). This excessive retrieval leads them to narcissistically and falsely conclude that, just because sexual intercourse on the screen is personally hurtful to them, it should be banned for everybody else, or as they may put it if they were honest

Ban ALL PORN because my broken sexuality dictates reality FOR EVERYONE!!!.


No. It just does not make sense for sexually broken individuals to be allowed to dictate someone else’s sexuality,  they live in a delusion where they truly believe that their past sexual abuse defines sexual reality for everyone thus, they successfully exercise a form of sexual solipcism where one personal event of a crime falsely defines rules for society as a whole inside their sexually solipcistic heads. This is a broken process which (continues untreated for years and years) is a painfully narcissistic contradiction but instead of acknowledging they have a serious psychological problem, they chose to let their untreated PTSD fossilize and try to enforce the limitations of  their mental disorders upon society. The result? Sexually broken feminists like Anita Sarkeesian trying to regulate the sexuality of male gamers in the western world. Sounds familiar? Let me rephrase it,

Ban ALL SEXY VIDEO GAMES because my broken sexuality dictates reality FOR EVERYONE!!!.

Imagine a victim of a hit and run who now wants all drivers cars and highways banned because they are all part of a “war on pedestrians”
It makes no sense. Blaming others for your own personal trauma does not work. Saying is “not their fault” doesn not help either, because it is a lie feminists tell themselves too often, they say “it is not my fault” not only to the crime that happened to them but to each and every one of their actions. They see the world through their trauma, a distorted feeling-only broken world where their everyday interest is making a drama out of their lives, to stay as far as possible from objective reality and, when they blame other people for their problems, feminists falsely believe they have the higher moral ground. They live in a misery of their own daily making and they actively rationalize convolutes excuses to be royal, unbearable, radcunts.


Do feminists even realize they are as irrational and impulsive as SalafiMuslims? They don’t. They are a radcunt version of the Westboro Baptist Church or Salafi Muslims, take your pick.

Oh, and they also hold anti porn signs at rallies that nearly say

“Women hate men…erm…porn!”

Just like the Westboro Baptist Church, you only have to swap the word “I” and use another word like “God” or a group such as “women” to validate a personal statement and make it look as if it applied to a collective, it has much more punch to say,

“Women are tired of porn objectification”

than just saying,

“I am tired of porn”  

They justify their narcissism by using a collective and just get away with it. It is all about manipulation of the language, just like avoiding to call a male they dislike “rapist” and instead call them “rape apologist” which carries nearly the same punch minus the legal repercussions. See? They are cunning radcunts after all.




As we saw on part one of these series, feminists like Anita Sarkeesian have a rather dysfunctional relationship with porn because of their past sexual abuse. Problem is, feminists are a toxic pandora box of contradictions because somehow they managed to jump from website to website to only to land in the darkest crevices of the internet  to watch the most fucked up porn and when they find the sickest, hardest core rape fantasy or an actual  rape-snuff video, they lose their menses, stand up and yell,


Feminists actively fishing for porn that sexually offends them sounds like a anti-bacon radicalized Muslim hopping from restaurant to restaurant for days on end only to gorge on bacon, to savor its sinful salty taste until he manages to find the one stale bacon strip then, he snaps and with mouth full of bacon he stands up & yells,


Then he detonates his very Halal anti-bacon vest (clarification: the proper suicide expression is “ALLAHU-AKBAR” but the bacon bits coming from his mouth distorted the pronunciation. Apologies to all triggered stressed suicide bombers reading this)

More seriously, it does not make sense for feminists to oppose all forms of porn and to claim all of it is harmful and dysfunctional. Which begs the question what kind of fucked up porn do they watch? Problem is they will not admit to their porn watching habits but this leads us to an even more interesting and filthier question;

How many kinds of porn are there?

Well judging by the matrix of all things being porn (our dear porny internet) in my own rough estimates the surface web might contain around,

  • 70% of hetero porn (aka “vanilla porn”)
  • 25% would be lesbian porn marketed at hetero audiences (male gay porn, transporn and all other eccentric forms thrown in)
  • *5% which would be the illegal violent dysfunctional kind (child/rape/snuff and dysfunctional paraphilias)

This last 5% would be a radfem favorite because it is just the one to immediately blow out of proportion for that small 5% to fit their narratives. Of course, from the point of view of radical feminist demagogues it is more convenient to claim that 99% of all online porn is “violent and dysfunctional” than the estimated 5%.

In essence we have a loud, previously raped, sexually dysfunctional and anorgasmic minority of radical lesbians trying to tell the world how and when to fuck. Feminism is a ghost restaurant for the sexually anorexic, good luck having a meal there.

*Note: 5% is my estimate was based on another 5% related to the number of estimated serial rapists on campuses but I will be glad to include more accurate estimates if you provide sources for them. BTW I found many infographs and stats but none of them reflected a percentage of “dysfunctional porn” available online (you can google “porn infographic” then hunt down the references but none seemed to that category, or even worse, you find estimates from hard-line Christian sites)


Well first of all, Vanilla Porn is not Vanilla Sex as much as a new car is not a fucking transformer from a Michael Bay movie. Vanilla porn features sexual Olympians with above average bodies and sexual drives performing acrobatic and flamboyant sexual acts which always lead to the most elaborate and eccentric orgasms because porn follows the logic of dreams. Porn is very much like dreams: inspired by but removed from reality.

The reason why Vanilla porn is so successful is because Vanilla sex is quite mediocre. 

Vanilla porn is satisfaction and Vanilla sex is compliance. Couples with Vanilla sex watch Vanilla porn the way a fat rhino on a treadmill looks at the poster of a pretty unicorn for inspiration. That is why Vanilla porn has become a staple for websites like brazzers bang bros or other  similar well known sites. It is an affordable filthy ideal.

Obviously the biggest sexual tragedy to human kind is having sex with a feminist. Why? Because most of them are godawfulboil-in-the-ass-ugly and/or anorgasmic thus they have a Nun-ish, prudish and deformed way of perceiving sex and even harmless sex toys are rather “problematic” or only for “sexual deviants“,



Leaving the feminist failures of human kind aside, what are the features of Vanilla porn? Well, it mostly features vaginal anal and oral penetration using one or several erect penises or their replacement AKA sex toys. If the 3 take forms of penetration take place at once it is usually referred as “airtight”. Alternatively, tongues and limbs can be used for anal and vaginal penetration but mostly what is used is much smaller, thinner limbs belonging to lesbian performers in forms of Vanilla porn marketed to hetero audiences.  The use of mouths and tongues as improvised sexual organs or suction devices is also common but mostly, they are used for stimulation of orifices or genitals. Saliva, vaginal secretions and sperm are common and eccentrically used. Blood, nasal secretions and excrement are absent in Vanilla porn.

See the contradictions? 30 years ago nearly all of the acts above may have been considered “hard-core“. 60 years ago? Toxic and Sinful. But nowadays? Just Vanilla.

Here is one thing that many people do not notice, there are two things Japan is almost always ahead of the west: technology and experimental porn.

Today’s Japanese experimental hard core porn is our future Vanilla Porn.

(Fortunately, licking the cornea of a partner went out of fashion in Japan. Unfortunately, enemas containing living eels seems to be gaining momentum and seems to be in our own Western porn roadmap)

However, what is truly fascinating is how online Vanilla porn resembles another (seemingly) unrelated and distant industry that also offers massive, always available, nearly instantaneous satisfaction to a different set of physiological needs: The fast food industry.




See the human animal is a complex and paradoxical one, if the average person in the west has physiological needs, the satisfaction is immediate or it goes roughly like this,

  • Food?->Junk Food/Fridge
  • A drink? ->Fridge
  • Urinate/defecate? ->Bathroom
  • Fuck? ->Internet…

The last one is the paradoxical one, instead of “Internet” it should be sexual worker or sexual partner.  But, given the aforementioned limited choice, high cost and chronic mediocrity of real sex vs the beautifully obscene and lush variety of eccentric ways to ejaculate offered by the internet; online porn wins.

No wonder why online porn paved the way for the modern internet. And no wonder why sexually functional men and women prefer the internet for a quick wank-fix. Real sex is ants, online porn is satellites.

The reality is that Vanilla Porn is far more satisfying than reality when all the costs and risks are considered: Real sex levels of quality fluctuate too much, there is no quality control and the removal of the service is always unpredictable along with the also unpredictable risk of irreversible health problems.

Furthermore, on the legal side becoming an ATM-sperm donor after a divorce or being falsely accused of rape then subjected to a trial by social media. None of those risks is present with porn. (besides stiffness in the arms is quite bearable). Because of all this we are on the brink of an extraordinary filthy revolution: VR porn then fuck-bots.  That is in the near future, let’s talk about our filthy present and the many shades of online porn available.



screenshot 2

As stated before, legal porn has a wide array of manifestations but the list is always incomplete and will keep growing we as new “variants” of porn are created at least every 2 years. If there was an equivalent to Moore’s law for porn it would state,

“Pr0n’slaw is the observation that, over the history of online porn, the number of porn weirdness combined with paraphilias found in online communities and ecosystems, doubles approximately every two years”

That is to say that as technology progresses so will porn weirdness. Many, many, maaaaany forms of porn are considered to be or overlap with one or several paraphilias.

So far, 549 paraphillias have been classified and the number of porn varieties that overlap, combine or modify one or several paraphilias just saturates the mind. (If internet porn had a body it would look like a sentient omnivorous Chinese cuisine cookbook from hell, high on meth+ PCP, constantly churning out new untested porn recipes)

BTW, the 549 number is just a place holder for what may very be a much higher number in offline reality. Yes, there may be legal sexual things so dark and filthy some people may not be proud to share with the internet yet, just be patient, one of the X-Chans will eventually release those sexual Krakens.
But why are paraphillias important? Because they are considered mental disorders and that is a key word for feminist radcunts to salivate like Pavlovian hounds at the opportunity of declaring all porn a “mental disorder”.

Let’s say you have developed (or were born with the potential for) the somehow “classy” paraphillia called Agalmatophilia (i.e. you exclusively wanna sexually ravage polyester mannequins with untold lust) Is there a victim to your “weird” preference?

No. None.

Of course the feminists would have a hard time convincing a polyester mannequin about suing the owner for sandpaper condom for his rough sex. But that is where the feminists would want a “catch-all” law to avoid making themselves a laughing stock (if doing more so were even possible) and make all porn illegal.

Remember, being a feminist means feeling life only but not thinking about it, it is all about impulsiveness and lack of reasoning as well as other things taken away,


But, which ones in the growing list of paraphilias truly are on the verge of being illegal? Which ones are not? Well that is where things are very flexible, (perhaps too much) if we are talking about two consenting adults, they can do as much as they want to themselves and to each other as long as they do not murder anybody (this unfortunately includes extremes such as self harm to name just one) however this “flexibility” has to be calibrated with the laws of the country in question and the field of classification of mental disorders which truly is a field that requires the dispassionate reasoning feminists consistently lack.
And precisely because of that feminists fail at understanding the nature of porn; the act of dispassionate reasoning happens to be anathema to feminist dogma.

Any precise, granular reasoning is not to pass through their wall of emotions. Which puts them in a prison without walls; their passion prevents them from observing or understanding their own mistakes and objective reality as a whole.



hurry2 !


So what does porn do to men then? Contrary to the church of feminism and its gospel, porn is more likely to be a deterrent to sexual “deviancy” because it works as junk food on its clients. It is immediate, it is easy to obtain and usually its users become addicted to it (however, it is more of a compulsion than an “addiction”, as much as you don’t have an “addiction to washing your hands” rather it should be referred as a “compulsion to porn” ). The inconvenient, not too advertised fact of “average Joes who masturbate to porn extremely often” (“Addicted Wankers” or AW’s for short) is that a male that masturbates too often, gets too tired, gets headaches, penisaches and to top it off, also gets the post ejaculatory munchies (somehow reminiscent of pothheads, possibly nothing gets mellower than  pothead AW’s).

Contrary to their religion, ever since the advent of porn from filthy movie theaters into living rooms in the early 80’s via Betamax and VHS tape-filth, then online porn, the rates of sexual assault have been plummeting in the western world. (Almost as if the more religiously repressive the culture, the more fucked “unwanked” celibate men get, like crazy cows nobody milks).

Along with the fact that legalizing porn has also resulted in a correlation in the reduction of sex crimes in several countries. However, the causation is still a matter of disagreement in many fronts. In short, online Porn may reduce rape but if you as a feminist? That is always “problematic” or a lie.

The predictable accusation from feminists  (just like Anita who claims videogames cause sexual violence) would be that without porn men naturally rape. The simple answer is that ~5% of the male population who were born/raised serial rapists are very similar to serial killers: They are a very small percentage of criminals that terrify the confused masses.

But unlike serial killers, it would stand to reason the borderline sexual psychos (not the 5% serial rapists) would  just stay home, watch fucked up porn and jerk off and get fat on Doritos. (if the porn-rape correlation is true, that would be bad news for Anita, Why? Because videogames would also REDUCE not increase sexual violence with the 5% of psychos)

But what do feminists do? Instead of seeing the benefits of massively mellow wankers or the 5% of psycho-wankers getting fatter everyday (thus unable to effectively chase and rape a victim) feminists are still outraged porn exists so pervasively. Granted, many feminists are so fat that even the aforementioned  fat mellow wankers would catch them. But again, why would they? Feminist godawfulboil-in-the-ass-ugliness renders them unrapeable. Even raping a desk would be more satisfying. Or like Natasha Leggero put it,




But humor does not count with feminists prudes like Anita Sarkeesian, to them men, are the attackers, the deviants that only want to fuck and rape and watching porn. They are hypocrites, both men and women watch online porn, men overreport and brag, women under-report and play coy. And feminists? Those are sexual deviants too. Equality for everyone,



Again, jokes and logic just fly over the heads of religious people

The problem with religious people and feminists is that they cannot be persuaded. If confronted with logical arguments, radfems will cover their ears and yell over and over

“No! Porn is porn!”

Just the way members of the Westboro Baptist Church would cover their ears and yell

“No! Sin is sin!”

(ironically, WBC members also consider porn veeeery sinful. Perhaps they should consider merging with their radfem sisters now that Freddy Phelps has long kicked the bucket).
However, the definition of “sin” is incredibly broad and includes perfectly lawful acts (even worse, it also includes thoughts) here is where the definition of “porn” mimics “sin” because it is such a broad definition that it even attempts to ban both perfectly legal acts and thoughts related to porn. And just like you do in front of religious people, “thou shall not speak/think of porn” in front of feminists.

The second problem is that, unlike lawful acts versus purported “sins”, porn is easily placed in a shameful often “indefensible” category based on morals. The phrase “too much porn on your computer” is often used for social shaming, despite the fact that “too much porn” is in and of itself a blurry definition.

How about religious people themselves?

Do they think of sin too much?

How much is “too much temptation”?

How about feminists themselves?

Do they think of porn too much?

How much is “too much temptation”?


Depending on the morals of the culture, demagogues may attempt to make all porn look as bad as illegal porn. Which brings us to the definitions of what forms of porn are truly illegal and detrimental to humankind,


1. Child porn
2. Rape/Snuff porn
3. Bestiality porn

NOTE ON CHILD PORN: Even though leftists and websites like have recently tried to shamelessly normalize pedophilia via the argument “Virtuous pedophile” pedophilia itself is a completely indefensible argument. Pedophilia destroys the future of a human being and normalizing it will only lead to more child porn.

NOTE ON RAPE/SNUFF PORN: The second one features authentic acts of executions and rape. However, when it comes to public executions or gore due to events like road accidents nearly nothing can be done legally because recording gory images is not illegal (unless the family of the diseased sues). What is entirely illegal and should be punished with life imprisonment or death penalty is the cases of snuff film featuring authentic private executions. The most difficult one to discern is the last one, rape porn. The reason for this difficulty is that actors and actresses can portray acts of rape that are indistinguishable from an authentic rape and unless the person presses charges, we cannot know if it was authentic. However, there are limits to the levels of body harm an actor/actress can withstand and if the injuries are life threatening then the likelihood of it being an authentic rape are much higher.


NOTE ON BESTIALITY PORN: Even if there are people who actually date and marry their dogs (even if treat them excellently) they still have no case in court because unlike humans, animals have no capability to give consent to sex (however being a female feminist and claiming past “abuse” may allow the twisting of the law to get away with marrying her German shepherd or a smaller dog as it has already happened)



Now that those 3 are out of the way, feminists will still try to compare all legal forms of porn to child/rape/snuff porn. Even with the writing on the wall, feminists will still try to label all the legal colorful variants of porn “illegal“. It is not short-sightedness, it is feminists behaving like creationists, pig-headed, unpersuadable regardless of all evidence, willing to remain intellectually blind, morons.

A creationist will still say that the earth is 10K years old even if you make them major in archaelogy as much as a feminist will still insist legal porn is a crime even if they have majored in….never mind, women’s studies is theology.


Both feminists and creationists are unpersuadable.

For the sake of argument, let’s entertain the possibility that 5 porn “stars” are actually raped every year. If these crimes took place, did they file a police report? Here is where the noise starts as the typical anti porn feminist will try to

  • Bring up colorful excuses for the adult performer not to “have been able to take legal action”
  • Say the crime took place in the third world
  • Do a hypocritical “switcheroo”

What is the “switcheroo” you may ask?

Well the “switcheroo” is a tool well known for demagogues, it consists of telling a victim’s sad moving story (real or imaginary) then the demagogue stresses and details the victim’s suffering, their struggle, their pain and once the audience is moved and engaged (or enraged by the double espresso emotional noise) Their outrage, is wide awake & ready to be exploited by using the switcheroo. This is done by making the subtle, fleeting implication the same suffering experienced by the victim happens to the public the demagogue is speaking to. THEN they are convinced they too are victims then the demagogue convinces them they are the “oppressed” too. Does this ring the bell?



The “switcheroo” is the art of subtle verbal sleight of hand to manipulate the masses.

In the case of feminists and their version of the “switcheroo”, first they start by speaking of the authentic and real hardships female sex workers in the 3rd world have to go through and how they are mistreated and underpaid then, they do the “switcheroo” and now the feminist demagogue claims women in the 1st world are suffering EXACTLY as much as those in the 3rd. This is a careful form of verbal sleight of hand (instead of just plain lying) by manipulating the audience’s emotions and making them believe porn is a mixture of violent, illegal prostitution combined with rape with zero distinctions between the 1st and the 3rd world.

Now, the oldest form of switcheroo can be found in churches where the charismatic demagogue starts talking about a martyr’s suffering then they do the “switcheroo” aaaaaand, what do you know? All of sudden the demagogue and all the people in the church are victims too! Just like the martyr. (also at this point is where they pass the basket for you to tithe, a pretty slick business strategy if you ask me…). These masters of the art of “switcheroos” play around with the audience to artificially reduce their perception of their own agency (but not their agency as a whole as they can still undertake the task of retribution), to make them feel “oppressed”.
Hitler comes to mind as he used similar techniques; making the Jews look as the dominant class then portraying the Germans as the “oppressed” ones, as Aryan “victims” of sorts. It is all about convincing the audience they have no agency, no power to control anything, that they are the ones acted upon, but the Germans were not alone using the switcheroo, look,


Since the church of feminism uses the same “switcheroos” during their fundrising “masses” we can separate the noise from the facts. They make emotional noise to control people but the fact is that they just lie for profit.
But these hypocritical “switcheroo” manoeuvres date back to even before the inquisition, it is therefore, not surprising, demagogues and religion are like pigs and bacon. Unlike porn and bacon, they are far from being delicious.









Feminists need to push for laws and lobbying to avoid learning any science, which, in and of itself, is also a potential risk, because the prospect of feminists invading science (less likely but they have tried) to co-opt it or (more likely) bypassing it through demagogy to get all porn banned (I am looking at you citizens of the Orwellian Surveillanced UK). But since feminists can go and fuck themselves let’s get back to the main question,

What scientific criteria outside morals can be used to identify harmful porn?

This begs the question, harmful for whom?

Harmful for just one of the porn performers or all of them?

This is where this article will go into a different territory, so, please bear with me. For porn and human sexuality in general to be accurately and scientifically classified we would have to stop looking at the performer’s genitals and see if their brains are experiencing pleasure through future versions of MRI technology and other technologies.




The dark ages

Imagine we place a couple of performers under an MRI and make them watch their own performances then we see their arousal and pleasure centers in their brains. They would have to be strapped to the machine as the scanning is interrupted if you move even tenth of an inch. ( In short, current technology is not ready for porn prime time because only the effects of blowjobs and cunnilingus in the brain could be scanned because the performer’s brain needs to remain static)
Let’s say 15 years into the future MRI does not require you to be immobilized to be scanned and rather you have to wear a rather bulky helmet, (Porn Daft Punk + Porn Teletubbies MRI porn or sorts, told you it would get weirder) then we would ask the performers to have intense rough intercourse (whichever the most controversial is in 15 years) then we would see if their brains would light up with mostly “pleasure” or mostly “pain” or to get the resulting ratio of sexual pleasure: sexual pain.
If that form of future porn were to be considered “harmful” for one of the performers their brains would be blinking like Christmas trees with pain and no pleasure at all. Problem is, in life, there is no pleasure without struggle and authentic human sexual intercourse involves all intensities of both pain and pleasure so it could be hypothesized, we would go by percentages to declare the porn in question “kosher porn” or, roughly 51% average pleasure + no safe word use (i.e. performer was given the choice to stop the act at any time by saying the word/giving a signal) which would make the porn qualify as lawful because the performer enjoyed himself/herself at 51% and did not have to use the safe word plus they got paid handsomely. You can see where this is going right? A lot of radcunty feminist worms would come out of that future porn can, for example,

Feminists’ Possible impulsive rebuttals to the 51% pleasure rule

Opposition (feminists)
“Your science is misogynistic! It should be 95% pleasure at the very least!”

Supporters (producers and performers looking to get paid )
“Can we lower it to 10% pleasure? Pay is higher…”

You could not make anybody happy, not now, not in the future, mostly because emotional thinkers are not authentic thinkers, so science would be “misogynistic” and would demand “neurological enthusiastic consent” or some other form of blackmail bullshit to game the system and prevent the science. Like any religion, feminism is an obstacle for the advancement of science.


However the ramifications of a future MRI test like the one described above, just make the mind explode if we consider the same test applied to false rape accusations aided by mass surveillance feeds..

good google old days
Yes, we live in the good old days of the simpler NSA

Science becomes “misogynistic” when it prevents lying. Let’s just imagine the implications of having scanned let’s say 1,000 brains of authentic rape victims (authentic meaning confirmed by data from Google glass-like devices worn by most people in 15 years, yes, 2014 is the good old days of the simpler NSA)

Let’s say the data of the 1, 000 victims is cross referenced with data scans from authentic rape victims coming from war-torn countries (most likely African ones, unfortunately) we would then see a pattern of how the brain is affected by sexually induced PTSD regardless of geographical location, human neurology would have averages, let’s say the sample group grows to 1, 000,000 victims. Just imagine the fits feminists will throw to have all evidence dismissed in court just to facilitate a false rape accusation after the alleged “victim” and her brain just do not match at all the patterns from the 1,000,000+ authentic rape victims. It is likely it will get harder for them to fake it but feminists will learn how to lie better. Just as they do today with porn.

Back to the present, (and thank you for bearing with me) the constant today and in the future will be feminists lying for effect, be it lying about porn being “a war against women” or porn being “rape” which by the way, also puts a dent in the myth of “rape culture”. If rape culture existed wouldn’t snuff/rape porn be the only one to be considered “kosher”? Why would a father kill his daughter’s rapists as it has happened so many times from the dawn of time? If rape culture existed wouldn’t make more sense for fathers whose daughters were raped to track the rapists down just to have a beer with them? Fathers would greet them and thank them for the merry raping of his daughter and after patting them on the back they would all hug, rise their beers and offer a boisterous toast,


And both the father and his daughter’s rapists would hug and walk towards the sunset while holding a beer with the other hand as the “chariots of fire” theme plays in the background.

Of course, the beer the song and the hugs and all of that would be customary if the myth of “rape culture” existed. (But if you instead liked banjo music to celebrate the merry raping of your daughter, who am I to judge your music taste?)


But the reality of human sexuality is that porn does not encourage rape in functional individuals (the vast majority of us) and the vast majority of human beings do not rape because jails would be filled with them (or jails would not exist anymore).

We humans, despite all of our flaws, have survived incredible tests and against all religions and dogmas, we have made it to this day because, more than 51% of the time, we were doing something right; we cared for our community and for our population, for each other.
Every population has its criminals and for a society to work, criminals cannot outnumber the functional individuals as much as a society exclusively based on cannibalism will not last. Imagine a past where the first human tribe dictated everyone should try to rape everyone at all times, then people would have sooner or later snapped and the mass revenge killings would have prevented us all from being here today. So if porn does not encourage imaginary wars or imaginary rape what does it do?




The energy investment between watching porn and going out and raping someone is exponential. Of course that between the sexual junk food of porn and the purported “act of war of rape” most males are just going to stay home and jerk off. One because they are not criminals and two, well, raping is too much work.

Allow me to enrage all of you Jezebel and tumblr radfems undercover readers with the following statement

“The problem with rape is not the morals. Rape is just too much work, too expensive, morals are secondary.”
-Jack Outis

(please quote me to oblivion, hang on, let me get it for you)

desperate ukraine3

The high cost of rape 

On one hand, (unfortunate pun) jerking off while watching legal porn involves no crime and almost no energy involved whereas rape is a crime that will land the male in jail for decades and involves so much work! Why work to lose your freedom when you can fap?
However, the feminist religion rhetoric demands logic to be secondary to morality thus males have to prove their “worthiness” by stating it and making public displays of shame on behalf of the rapist, this display should work as tacit collective public display of being ashamed of being male, of being a “male sinner rapist against the collective radcunt goddess” to be more specific. This semi religious collective display does not yet require self-flagellation but may at some point. By this “feminist logic” ethnic groups should apologize for stereotypical crimes normally committed by them and so on. Let’s see the world by the absurdity of the “feminist logic” If all men should apologize for rapists then, how about,

  • all black people apologizing profusely for all the car stereos stolen in the 20th century? (That surely was a “war on stereos”, or “crimes against music”).
  • Asians being required to apologize preemptively before driving and apologize/feel ashamed for all past and future traffic accidents
  • Declaring Pearl Harbor an Asian act of war on driving?
  • Requiring a preemptive apology from all Mexicans living in Mexico for all diarrheas caused by bad burritos in the US?
  • Requiring all women to apologize before they say anything.

No. None of it makes no sense. (well, the last one does with feminist)
There is no need to be ashamed for someone else’s wrongdoing as much as there is no need to feel any shame for the crimes committed by serial killers. Outrage? Yes. Shame? No.


Nature eats nurture 

But what does it take to be a rapist then?

Again, we come back to the absurd feminist “logic”. You run out of porn and immediately go out and… rape…right?

Rape a desk instead. Please.

Do you tell your victims “sorry, the internet ran out of porn”?
Do you have to be reminded every morning “rape is not ok” by your female family members?
How about “hit and run” reminders or just murder in general?
How about not hijacking power wheelchairs?
How about not raping a disabled person on top of the power wheelchair while it runs at full speed?

power wheel chair of raaaape

How about a reminder not to rape the family dog?
How about the cat?
How about a tax evasion reminder? (just to be…safe?)
How about just giving condoms for safer raping in case all warnings fail?

Here is the other inconvenient truth; being a rapist requires being dysfunctional either by birth or by nurture so out of that estimated 5% of dysfunctional porn fans.

How many are really likely to go out and commit the crime instead of just googling their broken fantasies at home?

How about a 5% of males in campuses being the actual serial rapists?

How many are natural-born rapists or nurtured rapists? Well, that is the other sublime inconvenient truth, single mothers provide us with the most criminals in society, including 60% of all convicted rapists along with more than 70% of all inmates single mothers producing more than 70% of all inmates in American prisons statistics and massive literature conclusively show. Yes, it has been proven over and over that the vast majority of inmates in American jails were raised by single mothers.

What a sublime irony when feminists declare porn to be “rape” while feminists+single mothers raise at least 60% of actual rapists in American jails, we can’t imagine a more blatant exercise in hypocrisy than the one performed by feminists.

You feminists/single mother radcunts are causing the 5% serial rapist problem by raising the most dysfunctional fatherless boys and you have the gall to blame it all on porn.

You feminists are like a condom avoiding, AIDS-ridden, 50-year-old, life-long whore who blames all of her problems on a hangnail. 

I look forward to the day when feminists hypocrisy is suspended and all of you single mother/feminists radcunts, face the music, raise your hemlock cocktails and say this loudly & proudly,


Thank you for reading.

PS: After some light banning I am back on twitter! BTW here is a friendly invitation to all of you colorful headed ladies on Prozac; follow me on twitter & be unhappy everyday!




Spies within an organization are nothing new in history, because of that, it was not surprising when Hugo Schwyzer successfully infiltrated the sect of feminism then, well, somehow unexpectedly, he self-imploded.
What is remarkable about the Schwyzer-gate is how similar it is to infiltrating an out of the closet cult.
First you read their holy books then charismatically preach to the choir with their own gospel, (while charming the sex deprived ladies)
If it had not been for his implosion, Hugo could have had his own sect-harem for himself, unfortunately he did this on twitter,

oh hugo

How did Hugo infiltrate them?
This is especially interesting, this mentally unstable individual not only fooled them after reading a few “required holy books” then recited and convinced the unquestioning flock of ladies.
(as noted on the twitter implosion mental breakdown)

Just like a fake gay pastor that read a few pages of the bible and made all the sexually deprived ladies in the church tithe generously with his copious loads of charisma. Hugo managed to convince them by casting a spell of fake charm (also provided plenty of closeted lady boners along the way) but actually had utter contempt for his audience, just like Peter Poppoff.

dumbe preachers 2

This speaks volumes of the cult condition of feminism. Volumes, no less. From the unquestioning adoration to a confidence artist using their key gospel vocabulary to the moment these men, with their actions, expressed absolute contempt they had for their followers. It just provides us with solid schadenfreudegold. These feminists, are quick to pride themselves of their “intelligence”, their “independence from the patriarchy”, their “we don’t need men!” claims but when Hugo arrives, they just fall for the guy & make the most public tacit admission of their own collective stupidity & sexual deprivation, all on display, like a giant billboard for the world to see

hugo banner
Preacher Hugo didn’t even buy them a drink…

Their church was infiltrated, desecrated, throughlypenetrated to the point of…all right, let’s be direct, Hugo raped their feminism in the ass with a sandpaper condom but they were tooooooslippery in their own lady boner goo to effectively act in any direction to assuage the monumental discredit of their own making. They are a church, an unquestioning closed minded gullible group of femi-nuns jerking off to their own gospel.

No metaphorical lube

But how close did Hugo really get to being a successful spy? Well, he was successful at infiltrating them but wastoo mentally unstable to even have a clear objective, whatever the nebulous intent was, his reign was short lived(I honestly think he was raised by a single mother or he just burned out while looking for free risky rad-punani)
Did the feminists suspect or even imagine the possibility of such a confident charming newly annointedfeminist had infiltrated them? Most of them didn’t.
Which brings us to the obligatory question.

Do we have any spies in the MHRM?
Yes, without a doubt.

I could be a spy, you could be one, active or sleeper. White knights and radfemsposing as “allies” in blog posts, forums and chat rooms. Please, do not give me, or anybody else the benefit of the doubt, because that is how the feminists accepted Hugo; faith without critical thinking.
Spies in the MHRMare not a matter of “if” but a matter of “when” they will be identified.
My money is on the possibility that the worst spy in the very short future will be very charming and female.


How will our own Hugo try to infiltrate us?
It boils down to punani& charisma. Unfortunately.
More specifically, if she is hot, she is going to be given a pussy pass. Yes, depitethe fact we all complain about this we are likely to make that very flaw if one head stops working and blood pressure is low. Remember, the unthinkable is the first thing to happen when hard-ons cloud judgement. Our own Hugo will most likely be an attractive female that will be too bright, too believable and too fucking sensual to be real then she will be given passes, too many passes and nearly no scrutiny then endless concessions then power. Just like with Hugo. Unlike feminists, our camp only experiences a fraction of the sexual deprivation feminists subject themselves to, which adds to their own nun-mentality and calcified mental illnesses (at least, in out camp, we are not against porn, thus regular wankingprovides some degree of freedom & stress relief)

Why do I think this? Because the sex appeal is the weak point for any of the two groups and unfortunately, we react positively and without question to punaniowners with a friendly attractive face, take for example Karen Straughanaka “Girlwriteswhat” who a few years ago, I ran across, I clicked on one of her her videos for the very first time and kept wanting to just watch something else because her appearance gave me too many mixed signals, too attractive to be that smart, too lesbian-looking to be helping men, in short I had the impression I was being trolled at a master level along with her then fresh face (much fresher back then, lately she has been smoking too much, she does not quite look like an extra of the “walking dead” just yet) which kept me wondering “Is this another femitheisttroll?” and, what do you know? the woman, so far, has consistently earned my intellectual respect every time she puts a video up (wel, she did fuck up the google hang outs a few times but she performed well at Ryerson).
Do I still suspect Karen will eventually turn out to be a spy? Yes I do, but much less than what I would suspect from a newcomer. So much so that I keep listening to the Honey Badger’s podcast to see if I find any cracks in their behavioror logic (found some, one of them (the most glaring) would be them moving away to have their own quasi-separatist gig, getting their own “brigade” domain & shit like that, but, since their body of work has more value overall, these antics do not warrant more importance)
Let’s not forget the most popular podcast on AVFMradio (that is, before the feed was lost, see? Karen is not the only one that fucks broadcasts up) is the “Honey Badgers Radio” and not long ago this very subject of screening possible undercover radfemscame up on one episode of “The Voice of Europe” where Paul Elamand Lucian were discussing how to screen new female potential MHRMmembers, (to weed out the radfempsychos) and the first suggestion was asking them this question

QUESTION: “Do you believe in the patriarchy?”
ANSWER: “um…no?”

That is a dumb question and ineffective at best, it is as ineffective as asking a nervous jittery guy on an airplanewith explosives strapped to his chest and a trigger in his hand the following

QUESTION “You don’t believe in Islam, do you?”
ANSWER “Of course…I am…buddhist?”

A spy will do her outmostto convince you she does not believe in that tenet of their cult. That is why a simple “no” does not suffice because feminists regularly lie to build plausible deniability, they lie by nature because their movement itself is built with lies (yes lies, lies and more lies, just imagine a cunt version of the Vatican). What would make sense for MHRMfemale newcomers would be to require them to make the same enemies the members of the “Honey Badgers” have made. To require them to decry the most widely known feminists. To require them to smear the core ideas of the feminist cult and to metaphorically gore several sacred feminist cows publicly via YouTube. ( has to qualify for excomulgationfrom the “Cunt Vatican”)

In other words, they should make countless irreversible enemies in feminism.

The MHRMfemale newcomer in question has to burn all bridges with the sacred feminist cows, even as a bluff, it has to be unforgivable.

The idea of having a sleeper agent does not become less risky with a simplistic questionnaire, it is a dumb idea on behalf of Lucian, (BTW he needs to switch to a better brand of coffee). Screening sleeper agents is not reduced to asking dumb questions, it is a matter of observing the candidate’s global web presence, if they don’t have one, they need to start it & they need to be publicly decry the feminist status quo. Despite all these precautions, there still is the chance the sleeper could have agreed to smear her own bosses, her own community just for the sake of convincing AVFMgate keepers.
Documentaries have showed how easy it is to infiltrate sects,

by the same token we saw how easy it was (relatively) for agent orange to infiltrate the sect of radfemhub.Ask yourself this question,

How easy is it for our own MHRMgroup to be infiltrated?

Well, this question begs another more “fundamental” question,

Are we a sect to begin with? 

Well, yes and no (honestly, I have not made up my mind based on my observations as this movement is still expanding, this beast is still growing)
But, for the sake of argument, let’s first define what a garden variety sect has as a basic structure. The most basic diagram for a sect would be

1. An elder (untouchable & unquestionable)
2. A small group of unquestioning enforcers
3. A much greater number of “flocks” of unquestioning believers
4. A few, holy unquestionable books

The flock of people will listen and obey, no questions asked. The main rule is that dissent is forbidden. So, lets apply the acid test to ourselves, or plain and simple, lets see if we are an MHRMcult.
Let’s replace this with our structure blow by blow with our own equivalent elements,

1. Who is our own elder?
Paul Elam.
He does seem to fit the bill of an elder, right? Well that is not accurate, he does encourage dissent and first principles which makes the whole “sect” house of cards collapse because a sect stops working when you are authorized then encouraged to disagree and hell just breaks lose when you are encouraged to think, because well, the flock of sheep becomes irreversibly becomes a hard task, one as difficult as that of herding cats.
Paul has a military background and so far he has asserted he wants to run this ship as a competent dictator. This is a double edge sword, either he goes crazy (Steve Jobs style, another cult no less) or he steers this ship Pattonstyle.
The man has earned respect regularly and so far, he does not seem to be requesting or accepting to be worshipped. The moment he is, I, for one, will abandon this ship, for this simple reason
robert anton wilson
Robert was a bit crazy, but that quote shines intensely.

2. So do we have enforcers?
So far, external only. Forum ban hammers and censoring don’t count. But we do have to use enforcers in some situations, especially if you consider notifying the police in the case of the bumblebitchand the money she stole.

me no pay
Still waiting for the money…You toucan-faced cunt.

I doubt you will ever pay…You toucan-faced cunt.

So no, our enforcers are not similar to the proxy violence commonly used by feminists (in the Toronto riots we can clearly see the enforcers block the doors, while the “scum” girl is trying to pick up a fight by taunting expecting to trigger more proxy violence)
So now, the second to the last stop,

3. Are we a group of unquestioning believers?
Am I one? Are you, dear reader, one of those? Well this article does not comply with being “unquestioning” but yes, there is a problem with us. We have an emotional, impulsive and fervent group of guys who have been wronged by the system and/or the courts. In the wrong time and place they are pinlessgrenades, in their “gentlest” state they turn into dramatic keyboard warriors (BTW I had a mirror nearby while writing this article). The fact that some of us have been wronged does not justify being a puppet of impulses/hothead because, as we have seen, with impulsive antagonists such as big red, she was a puppet of her own impulses and ended up promoting us.

impulsive cunt 2

The same would happen with a male hothead at the wrong time and the wrong place. Hotheads do not make good thinkers as much as emotional thinkers are not real thinkers (I am looking at you “big red”). The number of hothead among us is what can put us much closer to to the a feminist defeat such as the one scored by Hugo.

4. The Holy books, do we have unquestionable books of dogma?

Well not really, (but we do have dogmatic impulsive dumbfucksas stated above). Regarding the “dogmatic” books, there is a certain bibliography (Warren Farell& Christina Hoff Sommerswould top the list) which would somehow have a distant resemblance to the bibliography the feminist have on their own but the main difference is, unlike feminists, we do not reject logic and mathso the books are up for questioning and the library is enriched with math, engineering, atheism, critical thinking and STEM in general (many of us have backgrounds related to those areas). Also, due to the first principles and encouragement of dissent by Paul Elamet al, the dogma organization does not work, which, as said before, just makes the “sect” house of cards collapse as the cats run amok.

In short, feminism lives in a church, takes you to its mass to listen and should just “shut the fuck up” (now I understand big red).

Whereas AVFM/MHRMis more like a chaotic airport with plenty of ideas and people arriving and leaving.

Our disadvantage is that despite the feminists being prozac-ridden loons, they have a 20+ years head start. So, unfortunately they are everywhere


In short their sects are organized like this
1. Feminist Elders : working at government/academic bodies all over the world
2. Enforcers : police, court systems and all forms of proxy violence
3. Unquestioning flock: see image above, the one with bright colors(as bright as poisonous wildlife)
4. Holy books (Jasmine France, Andrea Dworkin, Naomi Wolf to name a few…cunt-made books are everywhere)

Since feminism is a cult. Could we use the informal faulty nomenclature used for other well known religious groups?

First faulty nomenclature
Organized Religion
1. Radical fundamentalists
2. Moderate members
3. Secular members

Why is it faulty? Because members of cults will still coyly abbettheir own felons. The moment a radical goes and commits an act of hate he or she can trust a moderate or a secular to keep it quiet for them because they share the same belief system. They cover each other asses even if they say they don’t.
Same rule applies to feminists. They have their own felons, they shield them & defend them regardless of their “stance” be it radical moderate or secular or translated into radfemsex positive feminist or egalitarian feminist.

Second faulty nomenclature
1. Religious people (out)
2. Skeptics(Watson dogma)
3. Skeptics(elder Dawkinsside)

Seems pretty straight forward right? Category one looks interesting, if you are a religious dogmatic nut-job like feminists, you are “out” right?
Should we follow then the nomenclature used for Skeptics?
The answer is: NO
Why ? : Rebecca Watson.

Skepticswere infiltrated by feminists. Little matters their slogan “question everything” which means they failed to apply their own theoretical rule to feminism itself represented by pudgy princess cunt, Rebecca Watson. Rather theSGUpodcastand the Novella clan are a travesty, a group of hypocrites who have failed miserably at using critical thinking in front of the mirror of their own critical thinking since their slogan “question everything”actually is done differently in practice what their actions state is,

“question everything but feminism is off the menu” 

This trumps their purported skepticismin and of itself simply because the moment you don’t question a dogma such as feminism and pretend it is “kosher” or untouchable, it no longer is skepticism, it is a thinly veiled dishonest fashionable travesty.
If you claim otreason don’t leave a little untouched area of your brain that is “off limits” such as deism or feminism. Steven Novella has consistently failed to address this because he sees Rebecca Watson as one of his daughters.
fuck you steven
Fuck you and the whole Novella clan

Especially with Dr Novella (alleged leader of the Skepticsguide to the universe podcast in reality puppeteeredby Rebecca Watson, his wife, daughters and all other radfemsin his camp) who, at this point due to his endless concessions & special rights to his adoptive daughter, Rebecca Watson, he has earned the dubious handle “PZNovella” since he has become another feminist puppet just like PZMyers himself

pz novella

So what is left? The elder Dawkinscamp seems pretty good, right? After all they are against Watson and PZNovella, aren’t they? The answer is: NO
Why? because that is where the radfemoverlap started. Let’s not forget Dawkinswas originally openly supporting PZNovella and Watson via their podcast and the sad inconvenient truth is that radfemsare throughlyinfiltrated by sleeper right wing feminists playing their cards to pass as something more acceptable, almost as if they wanted to give the impression they think on their own. The defeat of the Dawkinsside is all of the “Rebecca Clones” they shelter on a daily basis. Here is this little radfemwho happened to work with Dawkinsfor a brief period of time and was mortified to find out Dawkinsdid not want to have anything to do with Rebecca Watson especially after Elevatorgate. Guess what? The little angel calleSarah Mogliawrote an article describing how “horrible” Dawkinsis…Drumroll! a M-I-S-O-G-Y-N-I-S-T (men are horrible Sarah, unlike you, they think)

Dawkinswill eventually be overpowered by these sleepers, he cannot see due to his age and multiple occupations. He is a gardener of a poisoned garden he regards as an orchard. It is too late for him. Just wait. You’ll see.

dawkinss cunts

So, what is left? 
We can’t truly use neither the religious nor the Skepticsnomenclatures to weed out our own potential radfeminfiltrators simply because they fail to “question everything” out of sheer hypocrisy either forced or implied.
Well, we may use a new system, an unlikely one, based on meritocracy and also based on one of the most well known anti feminist : Karen Straughan
Don’t get me wrong, it is still fully possible for her to still be an infiltrator but given her track record so far, that appears much less likely. That is a very, very, very meaningful term. “Track record”

If we are to accept any female newcomers we must first have to accept that one of them will eventually be an infiltrator but we can delay this event by doing the following as stringently as possible
1. Person has a public track record
2. Merit-based credibility
3. She accepts the goring of sacred cows on Youtube(aka: making irreversible radfemenemies)
4. No victimhood
5. No rights or powers granted

A note on granting powers
Too many errors were made with the Canadian loon Bumblecunt.
Case in point the Bumblecuntwas given too much power, too fast (A canadiannews position??? What in the proverbial fuck, she needed 3 boxes of prozacnot more power within a website) in short, the Bumblecuntwas erroneously given too much power too fast and look at what happened. She even ran away with the money.
She was mentally unstable, impulsive and in general, a liability, Paul should have cut her loose immediately after the first red flags showed up. But why did he wait? Why the lack of determination?
Well, my money is on the honey badgers having internal conflicts behind the scenes and Paul mistakenly undestoodthe red flags given by the Bumblecuntas just general “bitchiness” among the badger ladies. All ladies are bitchy and the badgers, I would assume, are no exception but the one that had to be expelled was a true royal cunt

never give power
I wish you had never happened…

It should not matter how good the profile looks the first red flags should prevent any granting of powers.
Would you like to know why?

“AVFM hacked. “

That future possibility should be enough to alarm most of us.
If it is completely feasible to hack a big, well established, thoroughly protected site,just imagine how AVFMwould fare given a possible group of people with nefarious intentions, working hard at hacking AVFMwith the intent of making the MRHMmovement less visible, what chance would it stand? Remember, censorship is their favoritetool.
We should be highly suspicious of half-hearted behavior, proactive victimhoodor moodiness.

I will not leave myself out. Please apply all scrutiny stated above to me. For starters, I am not even female and my handle is a pseudonym. I am so far, mostly anonymous. Am I to be trusted? Of course not. I want all the rules stated above to be applied to me before an ounce of credit is given. At this point, I certainly do not want any powers beyond being able to submit my ideas in writing and I thank those who feature my writing.
If I earn anything I want people to question me at any given step.
Thank you for reading.

Note for all the ladies,

I am not sorry about what happened to all of you with Hugo.

When it comes to infiltration, nobody likes to be *penetrated so cynically.

Eat your hearts out Hugo ex-groupies & RADFEMHUB CUNTS!

(*pun gratefully intended) 😛

*After some light banning I am back on twitter! BTW here is a friendly invitation to all of you colorfulheaded ladies on prozac; follow me on twitter & be unhappy everyday!  @ jackoutis2





It happened again.

Another “Adria” tried to co-opt a company and failed. Fortunately, she was “persuaded” to quit by the wife of one of the company founders…All right, let’s call a spade a spade, Julie Anne Hovarth was CUNT-BLOCKED on her goopy tracks. Just like Adria Richards with Sendgrid, Julie tried to co-opt a company called Github but unlike Adria, who managed to get two male escape goats, Julie was “coincidentally” told by the wife of one of the Github founders to play nice or quit and keep her mouth shut, Julie complied with none of the above. Just like Adria, She went to Twitter to vent her “oppression” and smear Github as an allegedly misogynistic tech company. Tech companies should understand that hiring social justice warriors like Adria or Julie is just bad for business. These social justice warriors, are not productive people, quite the opposite, they are entirely detrimental to the company because the main purpose of a social justice warrior is activism not actual work. They are dysfunctional because they drag their own personal grievances to work and harm productivity the way they would harm their own personal relationships and children. They make the political personal. They are the worst people for the job and the tech industry (like many others) is being cunt-aminated with these parasites. But this begs the question, with that kind of dysfunctional profile.   How do they get in?  




If you wanted to hire a competent firefighter which one of these two would you hire?

1. A piromaniac (loves fire)  

2. A pirophobiac (fears fire)

Well Adria Richards got the job and men are “her fire” (hint, she does not love them) in short, she was the worst fit for the job, a woman who despises men having to evangelize a work force made of mostly males. Julie Ann Horvath shares many traits with the original Adria, so much so that they seem to have been bred by the same single mother. These “Adrias” tend to have these radfem personality traits, *have below-average skill set *have an “always on” predisposition to get “offended” *have a permanent chip-on-the-shoulder attitude *always try to lecture men about how they should behave. *always try to lecture men about how “privileged they are” *they are hard to work with (i.e. she is a cunt) *Are humorless (as long as humor comes from men) *They have a “hypersensitivity radar” tuned to find “microaggressions” everywhere *Their “radar” causes perpetual grievances about men *have an “us vs them” ideology *Always look for excuses to take men down for “harassment” *Proclaim themselves judge, jury and executioner *Like to be “feared” by getting people fired (which gives them radfem brownie points) But, how do they get in? Well, ask HR. They are quick to “give a hand” to their own dysfunctional members of the sisterhood. Sounds familiar? This will also ring the bell, typically, once hired, management gives them near-endless concessions (again, plenty of “sisters” in HR) but when “Adrias” harm productivity they have to fire them (unless of course, they work in HR). “Adrias” usually proclaim themselves judge jury and executioner and will manipulate social media to trigger two mobs, the first one, which will “hunt down” the supposed offenders (be it an individual or a company) and the second mob, which will attack the “Adria” in question and not surprisingly, she will carefully screenshot all of their “hate”. This is deliberate, she will use that mob’s “hate” as bargaining chips for a new job, donations and in general, for radfem cred/brownie points. Make no mistake, this is magnified proxy violence. Instead of a primary school manipulative little girl getting a bully to beat up those she dislikes, we get a little feminist getting two bully mobs to attack those she dislikes and herself for pity points. The cherry on top is that after triggering all of this proxy violence she faces no real accountability as the diffusion of responsibility works wonders for her. Besides, how could she be accountable for her actions with all the “hate” she is getting? You would expect the tech industry to have learned from this. Guess what? Another “Adria” just hit the news, meet Julie Ann Horvath





But who is Julie Ann Horvath? Let me illustrate,



She is a cunt, of the tech variety       Julie Ann Horvath is a full time social justice warrior with a part time job as developer. She also has degree in English literature (seriously, she does not have an engineer degree at all) Despite the fact that female journalists tend to lie on her behalf (more on that later).


not an engineer 2


In a nutshell, Ms Horvath started working at Github in 2012 (a successful tech start-up), did mediocre divisive work, became militant (she even had an internal club advocating for women in tech called “Passion projects” but it should have been named “Radfem Incubator”) and ultimately failed to co-opt the company as she was CUNT-BLOCKED by the wife of one of the owners. She then started her own “TATTLE-GATE” in a very similar way Adria did. She apparently “quit” but in the town of affirmative action a victim like her will not wait for long. Here is a brief time line of her year and a half at Github   *Github hired  her in 2012 (company was small)

  • Was the only female coder at Github & disliked it
  • Became a diva “[ I ] had a really hard time getting used to the culture, the aggressive communication on pull requests and how little the men I worked with respected and valued my opinion,” TRANSLATION: I didn’t feel special (when treated equal)
  • *Turned into a royal bitch “[ I ] participated in the boys’ club upon joining but when [my] character started being discussed in inappropriate places like on pull requests and issues, the situation changed.” TRANSLATION: I went from diva to royal bitch when people criticized my mistakes *Started internal female militancy, was given “Passion projects” (so that she would STFU, allegedly)
  • Devoted more time to “Passion Projects” than actual work (which was an internal cult of feminism disguised as promoting women in tech) *Kept pushing for internal militancy and threatened to quit *Horvath started dating a male co-worker
  • *The wife of one of the founders asked Horvath out for drinks and told her not to quit or say something nasty about her husband’s company. TRANSLATION: We know you are a cunt Julie
  • *Horvath kept threatening to quit
  • *Horvath asked her partner not to tell the founder or his wife anything about her (anything to hide? Allegedly?)
  • *Founder’s wife kept talking to her and allegedly checking her internal chat logs
  • *The funder’s wife sat in front of her at work to keep an eye on her, allegedly *HR asked to have a conversation with Horvath to discuss the “girl’s night out” conversation with the founder’s wife
  • *Horvath’s partner was asked to provide details too
  • *One month of internal investigation on Horvath followed the HR talk *Founder’s wife kept talking to her and allegedly checking her internal chat logs
  • *Allegedly, the funder’s wife sat next to/in front of her at work to keep an eye on her
  • *Founder asked to speak to her but Horvath demanded HR be present
  • *Founder allegedly accused Horvath of threatening his wife
  • *Horvath cries (HR watched, allegedly) *Founder allegedly criticized Horvath for dating a co-worker
  • *Horvath cried more, (HR provided tissues, allegedly )
  • *Founder asked Horvath’s partner to resign, partner refused
  • *Horvath quits
  • *Horvath obtains a screenshot of ex-coworkers  celebrating her departure in the internal chat
  • *Horvath asks the chat conversation to be taken down, request is refused *Horvath starts airing her grievances on twitter
  • *Github rep gets tweeter “heat”
  • *Github starts full internal investigation
  • *Github puts founder on leave (the one whose wife took Horvath out for drinks)
  • *Github allegedly puts Horvath’s boyfriend on leave (all the events above are allegedly according to her own words)
  • Side note 1: unlike Adria, Horvath did not have the opportunity to “out” a specific male, she was successfully CUNT-BLOCKED instead by the founder’s wife. BTW, kudos to the founder, imagine if the husband, not the wife had inveted her for drinks, what a gigantic “elevatorgate” false rape allegation mess would have been.
  • Side note 2: the best thing of this CUNT-BLOCKING strategy is that Horvath had no “firm” grounds to claim harassment by a male representing the tech patriarchy and its pervasive oppressive silicon phallus (ever wondered what the “glass ceiling” was made of?) TL;DR Horvath is a tech-incompetent, divisive radfem cunt queen who never managed to co-opt  Github, the wife of one of the founders cunt-blocked her until she quit. (BTW apparently using your wife to cunt-block radfems saves you money)






It is excruciating to see how the tech industry will waste enormous amounts of money hiring social justice warriors for positions that will place them in direct conflict with their personal beliefs because they just dislike/hate men. Is like recruiting Talibans into the US army and expect no “friendly fire”. Julie followed Adria’s steps almost to perfection. Mark my words, as long as the tech industry has no psycometric standards to weed out sociopathic hyper-sensitive feminist from being employed, these “Tattle-gates” will keep happening and become financially costlier every time. You cannot hire women who hate men or vice versa.

men are just like animals

Have you ever heard of radical feminist calling men animals? They fail at euphemisms.




How can this be prevented? How can companies keep themselves afloat and avoid the financial costs of these social media dramas?

In short, how do you preemptively CUNT-BLOCK these radfem cunts?

Well, not hiring women would be ideal but since that is illegal maybe the second best choice would be, as mentioned above, requiring potential overly-paranoid-hypersensitive-social-justice-warriors-feminists type to pass a psycometric test. Which they would fail the same way an impulsive sociopath would especially with questions such as this adrias cursor You are a sociopathic cunt Adria This would save the company/start-up numerous liabiilities and loss of capital. So, how do you make a social warrior? What are the tell tale signs or red flags to pay attention to? Well based on Adria’s very own profile, her on anecdotes on her videos and insider accounts as well as Julie Anne Horvath profile and behavior (they do have lots in common, especially always claiming nothing is ever their fault) Julie allegedly quit based on some “unkind” comments on the anonymous whistleblower app “Secret” shown below,

screenshot from 2014-03-23 021658

Anonymity yields so much honesty


I would theorize we will see more insider accounts from Julie’s ex-coworkers depicting her character through the whistleblower apps “Secret” and “Whisper” in the near future. The best part of these apps is that they will provide anonymous coverage to the antics performed by these divas, which in and of itself is valuable data on behavior patterns, in other words these apps may provide the cautionary tales and tell tale signs typical of these radfems. It is not impossible to imagine these apps being used by HR in the upcoming years to see a potential employee’s track record (as much as they do nowadays with Facebook and twitter accounts) to avoid hiring them. Leaving the future aside, let’s  turn our attention back to the profile of a social warrior and focus on some of the background tell tale signs of the typical hypersensitive-social-justice-warriors-feminists that have come out of the woodwork to date.





  • *Raised by a single mother
  • *Has a past of molestation/sexual abuse
  • *Has “daddy issues”
  • *Has a form of untreated PTSD
  • *Has an inferiority complex
  • *Struggles with science math and STEM in general
  • *Holds a humanities degree + incipient/non existing scientific training
  • *Has joined the cult of feminism (“in the closet” feminists are also common)
  • *The cult of feminism  allows them to see science as a “Patriarchal system made by men”
  • *Behavior obviates main focus is militancy not work/science
  • *Publicly falsely claims the inverse, main focus is “work/science not feminism” This is only the basic profile, it however fits plenty of feminists and not only the ones in the tech industry. Now, if we dive deeper into the personal beliefs commonly held by radical feminists groups and people like Adria and Julie, the list of red flags just grows as shown below



  • *Has joined the cult of feminism due to her perceived “oppression”
  • *Has a Erotomaniac+Delusions of persecution traits
  • *Erotomaniac+Persecutory delusions = provide empirical personal belief in the “Rape Culture” delusion ( in other words, she believes everyone desires her to the point of wanting to rape her)
  • *Joins the cult of feminism  to unsuccessfuly “treat” PTSD + Inferiority complex, in the cult, they are magnified instead
  • *Joining the the cult of feminism  provides a group of similar mental patients who share the same faith, confirmation bias and group-think which are combined with the previous personal empirical belief in “Rape Culture”. The result is a cluster of shared cult delusions i.e. “all men are potential rapists”
  • *The cult delusions further promote their own belief in being “perpetually potential rape victims” & equal their daily risk of being raped to those faced by women in the republic Congo.
  • *Groups of female mental patients in the cult of feminism will cross-pollinate & fossilize their shared mental disorders
  • *The cult of feminism  allows them to declare women “superior”
  • *The cult of feminism  allows them to see themselves as permanently “oppressed” even if they are the equivalent of the “privileged, educated, western white men” they criticize
  • *The cult of feminism  allows them to see science as “Patriarchal system made by men”
  • *The cult of feminism  fosters a constant “Us vs them” mentality

Put all of the above traits in a female, give her an ounce of power then place her in a start-up full of male developers and see the “dongle-gate” happen over and over. It is the worst most polarized combination possible, hiring someone that has a phobia and expect them to be professional. They are the worst fit for the job. Don’t hire a pirophobiacs for a firefighter job. But this begs the question. How do these deviants get in? How do they manage to get hired? Well the infiltration building is located in a a town called “affirmative action”. Their presence inside companies commonly follows these stages: infiltration, co-opting/division and incubation. These stages result in two possible outcomes: permanent infection or  purge.




  • *Infiltrates company through an HR contact. (No surprises, most HR management is dominated by females)
  • *Chances of being hired are exponentially higher when HR is female & militant
  • *HR has a default tendency to help or promote through affirmative action
  • *Feminists have a tendency of exaggerating qualifications for the sake of sisterhood perfect example of lying courtesy of sister Nellie Bowles

not an engineer 2

Example of “acceptable sisterhood white lies”


For all intents and purposes the fact that Julie Ann Horvarth does not list an engineering degree in her linkedin page implies that either she never earned it  (thus her coding was learned outside a university) or that she forgot to add it (unlikely) This leads to the implication that journalist Nellie Bowles neglected using the term “developer” and chose instead “engineer” for the “sake of helping a sister”.

The journalist Nellie Bowles lied. Plain and simple. (even if Github referred to all of their employees as “engineers” it would still not make sense) Once I googled “Adria Richards linked in” I landed on the Linkedin page (a monumental feat for mediocre journalists such as Nellie Bowles, apparently) once there, I was interested in cross referencing Adria Richard’s Linkedin profile with that of Julie Ann Horvath’s and low and behold, it became evident that most HR headhunters would notice their flaws and reject their CV’s (that is if these ladies were males) Here is a brief list of what I these radfems share in their CV’s

  • *No science degree
  • *Lots of “padding” in the work experience area (constant job switching in the case of Adria)
  • *A tendency to focusing on public speaking but not hard science and work related qualifications
  • *A tendency towards focusing on “helping women”* and public speaking (TRANSLATION: militancy matters, actual work does not) (*mind you, helping women like them only, not those in the 3rd world.

Of course that saying feminism is elitist and racist would be soooo offensive. But I just did. So fuck all of you radfems) The “padding” in work experience is especially interesting as they both seem to be making up for what they lack in science credentials. Notice the tendency to highlight their public speaking and militancy.

In a nutshell, their focus is feminist militancy not tech work. I took the time to annotate some of their CV’s Click on the thumbnails to see the highlighted CV’s (Warning Adria Richard’s CV is a long clusterfuck of padding and job jumping, suffice it to say she hops (gets fired) from job to job a lot) adrmini         Here is her annotated (MASSIVELY PADDED) CV

adria richards - linkedin annotated

1-0000 2


julie ann horvath

Then the most recent one Julie, the queen cunt (formerly ball busting full-time at Sendgrid)

Then the talented fraudster con artist “Mrs Ripley” Anita Sarkeesian and her manager or mini patriarchy incarnate Jonathan Mcintosh according to this detailed sleuthing we have all seen. 


anita sarkeesian _ linkedin

And finally the Skeptic cunt that claims to “question everything” but her own dogma; feminism. Suffice it to say that her current profile does not put her in an employable situation beyond being a receptionist. Worst thing is her site is not generating enough revenue, that is why now she is e-begging through Patreon.


rebecca watson - linkedin


After all the research on Watson I found a few of her so called “attack sites” against her (first, secondthird ) on her site but I am not going to give her free traffic. (especially now her traffic is so low, -get a job cunt!-) so I found those sites to be either rambling (worse than me, no less) or have an “honest, take no prisoners” approach to criticism. Yet, none of them qualifies as “hate” (Rebecca’s favorite pity-cash-earning term) Among all of the images and comments I had to comb through, one worth mentioning is an Australian-New Zealand based blogger going by the pseudonym “franc hoggle” (one whose saga will be worth of its own post at some point in the near future). For the time being, I will give you the short version, it involves a said blogger, who made very direct criticisms of the Freethought blogs radfems and of Rebecca herself.

This led to the radfems retaliating doing exactly what they do not want to be done to them: doxxing. The hypocrisy shown by the FTB acolytes, their FTB messiah PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson is just  as subtle as Hiroshima’s mushroom cloud. Another one that stuck out as somehow accurate about her character (despite the fact that I am certain it is either a photomanip or a parody account, that unless she had a Hugo-like breakdown at some point) would be the following image; behold Rebecca’s thoughts if only she were slightly less dishonest.

    screenshot 2 Mean? Yes. Innacurate? I doubt it.


After researching the reference to the so called “Sid”, it surprisingly rang true after she divorced her now ex, Sid Rodrigues. No surprises here, short marriage then she proactively filed for divorce due to “lack of satisfaction” pattern, as usual with radfems. What is surprising is the way her need for attention was displayed during the wedding and the utter narcissism of holding a complete conference (TAM 7) hostage to witness their shared vulgar display of need for validation in the form of a mock wedding. (yes, they pretended it was a “surprise wedding” but had already been rehearsed, yes, I did not believe it either, but their acting was worse than low budget porn) It would stand to reason this stems from a neglected childhood yielding her (their) need for validation as simulated adult.

This constant need for validation in her behavior seems to be what drives her as it does with most social justice warriors, they perceive themselves as “neglected” and “wronged” hence the need for “vindication”. Rebecca is into skepticism as a pundit because of her own personal chip in her shoulder, that is why this highlight into what otherwise should have remained private: she broadcast her personal life all over the internet to feel she is worth something. Along with her pundit antics that have not landed any wide media attention (no left wing TV “features” ) She works out to be a mediocre imitation of Anne Coulter minus the money or talent for trolling. At least Coulter has better pundit status and recognition for her antics in mainstream media. Rebecca does not, even as a pundit, she ranks low, very low.

wing hypocrisy Fortunately only one is a millionaire.

Anyways, enough with Rebecunt Twatson.Let’s go back to the stages of cunt infiltration in the enterprise.





As you can see people with abysmal CV’s as the ones above still get through and HR manage to hire them this is what they do after they are hired to try to divide and co-opt the companies they infiltrated, then the following behavior is observed

  • *Actively starts to censor speech, starts with one word she finds “offensive”
  • *Claims “women” find the word offensive (notice the “I” for “women” swap)
  • *Censorship of speech and word swap increase
  • *Tries to recruit other females into militancy
  • *Females that refuse are labelled “gender traitors”
  • *Starts trash talking the “female traitors” to create more division
  • *Consistenly has work-conflicts with “gender traitors”
  • *The conflicts result in more enemies and more supporters. Succeeds at polarizing people and fragments them into factions pro and against her
  • *Consistently claims mistakes are not her fault
  • *Consistently claims “people are against her”
  • *If mistakes are backed up with evidence she claims she “is being framed”
  • *Tries to recruit males through “shaming tactics”
  • *Tries to recruit males through “friend zoning”
  • *Some of the recruited males (friend zoned) become “white knights” the others just obey to avoid more conflicts
  • *White knights are usually “friend-zoned” but do varying degrees of work for her
  • *”Gender traitors” cannot be “friend zoned” thus tensions increase
  • *Claims there is a “complot against her” but not against any other of the other females at work *Due to PTSD+Erotomaniac+Delusions of persecution she believes she is constantly sexually threatened by males in a “Corporate Rape Culture” not surprisingly these males are usually against her
  • *Fragments productivity as she does not interact with “Gender Traitors” &  “Potential Rapists/rape apologists”
  • *Lack of interaction disrupts work line and communication with teams
  • *Lack of team work is “never her fault” *Staff often nick names her “Queen”, “Diva” or “Antisocial” (at best) but “Bitch” and “Cunt” are preferred outside the corporate environment




  • *Devotes most time to corporate militancy
  • *Devotes less time to corporate work
  • *Constant conflicts and friction with team members have added up, some staff memebers refuse to work with her
  • *These conflicts result in above average “talks” with HR/Supervisors
  • *Time for “talks” cost time and money thus projects are negatively affected *She sees “talks” as evidence of a complot against her
  • *Claims low performance is not her fault, rather, the company is “against her”
  • *Starts cajoling HR, if HR backs her up, behavior continues
  • *With HR back-up, she plans to make an example out of a male by getting him fired *Gets a male fired (usually by sexual harassment claims) this is seen as a “badge of honor/brownie points”
  • *HR stops monitoring her as the fired male/escape goat has been offered
  • *Supporters secretly cheer her “badge of honor/brownie points” she then feels “Respected”
  • *”Respect” is seen as a license to continue with her behavior and militancy
  • *HR is co-opted *Is given near endless concessions by contacts, be it HR or female influenced management





If management is female-influenced (wife of founder likes her) & HR contacts grow, she will stay and censor the company, then this happens permanent cunt infection Sandberg is the perfect example of infiltration and permanent infection by a toxic royal cunt. Sandberg became a permanent infection in Facebook mostly because as a Harvard graduate she has more credentials than other feminists plebs such as, Adria Richards, Julie Ann Horvath, Rebecca Watson and Annita Sarkeesian. She is still widely criticized and hated for reasons ranging from elitism, over protection of females working at facebook and in general being a toxic cunt that announces her toxicity with phrases such as “Don’t hate her for being successful” sure, just hate her for being a cunt.






In those cases different from Sandberg, the co-opting fails and the toxic cunt is fired (I am looking at you Adria and Julie) The reasons for the failure are many but mostly the toxic cunt made more enemies than allies and If management less female influenced, finds her performance lacking, she will be fired or forced out (for contrast, males get fired much faster for a fraction of the divisive behavior). She resorts to

  • *Haggling through threats of making the affairs public
  • *Misses work due to “stress” caused by the situation
  • *Seeks to get fired instead of  quitting in order to sue
  • *Behavior worsens
  • *Contemplates extracting information from the company (contacts usually prevent this)
  • *Starts planning media drama + “Bundle of hate/Badge of victimhood”
  • *She is then ejected like corporate diarrhea (similar mess ensues)




The social warrior will tipically smear the company/individuals and portray them as responsible for their firing/events (according to feminism, she is never accountable) the false victim usually follows these premeditated, deliberate steps in their social media drama

  • *All females that did not help her are labelled/hinted as  “gender traitors”
  • *All males are labelled/hinted as “rape apologists” (same punch as calling them “rapists” minus the legal liabilities)
  • *All criticism online is “hate” by default
  • *States there was always “complot against her”
  • *”White knights” on Twitter multiply *”Gender traitors” on Twitter multiply and are usually named
  • *”Misogynists” are usually named /fired
  • *States there was always a “complot against her”
  • *Labels the employer as a “Corporate Rape Culture”
  • *Lack of team work was never her fault *Incriminating screenshots of staff/individuals “nicknaming” her surface *Incriminating screenshots of social media opposition add up (she calls them all “trolls”)
  • *Impulsive opposition (trolls) flings more “verbal excrement” helping her with her deliberate “exit plan”
  • *Incriminating screenshots of social media opposition become a “Bundle of hate/ Badge of victimhood”
  • *Media outlets capitalize and draw attention to “Bundle of hate/ Badge of victimhood”
  • *”Bundle of hate/Badge of victimhood” +”verbal excrement”  goes viral
  • *”Bundle of hate/Badge of victimhood” generates massive “Online Pity”
  • *Money starts coming in (donation button was conveniently placed)
  • *”Online Pity” minimizes/erases past flaws, accountability as she is a “victim”
  • *”Online Pity” lands her a new job or more donations (leftists/white knight supported)
  • *Claims all women are subject to “exactly the same treatment”
  • *Claims she is “at risk”
  • *Does not file any police reports
  • *Does not suffer any sexual assault attempts against her, assures the opposite on twitter/social networks
  • *Does not file any police reports
  • *Does not suffer any assasination attempts against her, assures the opposite on twitter/social networks
  • *Does not file any police reports *Claims the police won’t help her
  • *She keeps taking screenshots of the “threats”
  • *”Bundle of hate/Badge of victimhood”  keeps growing
  • *Trolls don’t realize they are helping her recycle all the threats for real money.
  • *Trolls keep helping her, cycle continues





We are starting to see a pattern. Hypocrisy.   dongley     hula




For those who have spotted the similarities between these toxic cunts & their track records, you may find this checklist close to the reality in your very own work place. There is always at least one that scores very high.

cunt graph! Same cunt breed.

Notes on question 1 “Was raised by a single mother”

Anita Sarkeesian

Her wiki lists she was raised by Armenian parents originally living in Ontario Canada before moving to the USA. The sleuthing report contains some brief mentions of her family during her constant travels. I only found a video of her mom, Seta,  cooking lentils  but I could not find any mentions of her father. It appears the family has enough wealth to afford to have a daughter who studied a useless degree and has no work experience despite being in her 30’s.

Rebecca Watson

Her wedding video makes reference to her “family” who appear to be 2 possible siblings attending the wedding. It is unclear if the parents attended the wedding judging by the 4 people appearing in the grainy low light video 1. A hand is raised next to the men filming 2. The other standing next to him another 3. One filming with an old fashioned camcorder while waiving 4. On the far right a lady that (who may or may not be the mother) also waives at the camera. It is unclear if the parents attended the wedding. 4-mebers On the skeptic guide  to the universe podcast, she has referred to her father approximately 3 times in the last 5 years, in one of those instances, she referred to him as a person that worked for a “big corporation that poisoned the environment” the corporation in question was (allegedly Bayer or Dupont) either this is her “Seattle” environmentalist speaking or this points at a strained relationship with the father. In the skeptics guide to the universe podcast Watson has also mentioned she grew up in a house with a pool and her “eyes would always sting after playing”. It appears that despite all of her criticism directed to males, she grew up white and privileged, her father was white and privileged, her main platform for media exposure and the one that carries the podcast is also white and privileged, Steven Novella as are all the other members of the podcast so they all seem to qualify. Again, just like with Anita,  we see the trend of family that has enough wealth to afford to have a daughter who studied a useless degree and has no work experience despite being in her 30’s.

  Adria Richards 

The only one that seems to have a perfect 10 for all the wrong reasons is half Jewish/Half black princess Adria Richards was born in New York then her parents moved to Minneapolis. It appears her parents split when she was still a child. Again, all this information is provided by Adria herself during her many video rants but even if she provides it any remarks on such info are considered “stalking”. Cheap fake paranoid cunts.

Julie Anne Horvath

Could not find data on her parents but judging by her radicalism there is a high chance her parents divorced and had a strained relationship with her father (if it was one of those rare cases where he was allowed to interact) Will try to interrogate more ex-coworkers on the secret site and update accordingly.



As mentioned above Julie got cunt-blocked and a perfunctory apology was given,  I am glad to see companies cunt-blocking cunts with other cunts. (even if they are their wives)     The apology above is just a damage control tactic, it does not change the fact they got rid of the cunt. It would not be surprising if the founder “on leave” was just on a previously agreed vacation. What is unclear is the identity of the second person put on leave “the referenced Github engineer” who may or may not be Horvarth’s boyfriend. Why would you put him on leave if he did not do anything? Which implies that possibly he had a role in the conflicts. My money is on the possibility Horvath used him as a proxy violence object against others. If he gets fired he may still never learn what happens when you date a toxic cunt like Horvath. The fact that he started dating her speaks of his lack of common sense. Never date at work, especially a cunt like Horvath. What is also interesting is the series of events that led to her departure which were allegedly recounted by her in an email send to techcrunch, which should be taken with a grain of salt. Now, aside form the fact one thing we have learned with feminists is that their versions of events are usually completely opposed to reality, this screenshot seems to be more reliable than her account of events.

internal 2

The annotated screenshot above enraged her enough/was the deciding factor for her to quit and accuse the company publicly. (It is unclear if she saw it and then quit or if she had quit and shortly after the “secret” post went up) If the screenshot is any indication the following two points are very meaningful

1. “Greenshirt” (allegedly an ex-coworker) was very active on the conversation and was by no means alone in sharing stories on Horvath’s unprofessional behavior

2. The second point just delivers a text book definition of an “Adria” it reads, “Queen has a history of RAGING against any professional criticism. Leadership has stood idly by while she lied about contributions, threw hard working coworkers under the bus (again and again) and spread vicious rumors about women at work” The above depiction of

Horvath’s behavior at work perfectly illustrates the typical trend of management turning a blind eye at these readfem antics at the expense of productivity and the increase in internal conflicts caused by the cunt in question. It just boggles the mind the number of concessions that must have been given to her and the glaring double standards of her treatment vs the near zero tolerance given to men in the tech industry. This trend in tech, like all of the areas where feminism has been injected, has the aim of lowering standards and promote false female victimhood. It is an expensive set of habits that many companies will have to reason and consider before even accepting a CV from a female, which in turn damages the credibility of the rare but existing hard-working non-feminist women in tech. Double standards work to the detriment of productivity and that is money lost every day. There should only be one standard for both men and women.        

PS *After some light banning I am back on twitter! BTW here is a friendly invitation to all of you colorful headed ladies on prozac; follow me on twitter & be unhappy everyday!

How I successfully trolled radfem @fakerobotgamer, the 7th most hated redditor worldwide


TL;DR Here’s the link to Anna’s defeat on storify


This article has also been featured on THANK YOU AVFM!

I, the troll

Let’s get this out of the way. Online, I am a troll and a writer. I am proud of both*. As a writer I seek to research and construct the presentation of an idea. As a troll I seek to research, wear down and de-construct a target. As a writer I choose subjects that expose hypocrites. As a troll I target adult hypocrites. As a writer I seek to express clear ideas that will preemptively answer the opposition’s rebuttals & questions by frustrating them. As a troll I seek to express clear ideas and questions that will preemptively get under the opposition’s skin by offending them. As a writer I consider political correctness as optional at best. As a troll I consider political correctness obsolete. As a writer I uphold logic and values we, as a functional society should agree on. As a troll I uphold logic and no values because online, neither my target or I are part of a functional society. It’s not sick, it’s amoral; on the Internet, nobody gets offended.
But today is an exception, as a writer I have chosen to describe my trolling.
As a troll I seek to surreptitiously own the emotions of my targets as they have no conscious control over them. My target’s emotions run free like dogs with a neglectful-narcissistic owner, pooping and peeing on everybody’s property. As the neglectful-narcissistic owner avoids having control over their own “emotional dogs” I might as well put them on a leash and make them maul their owner. Why? Because the neglectful owner’s narcissism relies on others taking care of their emotions. I count on my targets getting offended, on them failing to control their emotions, on them being impulsive. I count on them not looking away from what I write. I count on them displaying/parading what I write thus promoting me, as getting offended is always an impulsive, public affair. Getting offended means my target will publicly ask people for intellectual help and will also publicly ask for me to be censored. They promote me for free because nobody gets offended in private.

My job as a troll is to caress and massage someone else’s eyes and mind with a 40 grit sandpaper glove simply because they are too narcissistic to look away from what I write. Again, it’s not sick, it’s the internet. Besides, the difference between “thorough” and “obsessive” is how offended the person is.

(*”Make sure I am not proud of what you want to shame me for” — Master Troll, Franc Hoggle )


Welcome to the Troll Club

If anything, there is a silent, observable behavior among trolls which translates into the following unspoken unofficial “rules” of the troll club

“Rules” of the Troll Club
*The first rule of the troll club is that you never get offended, your job is to offend people.
*Second rule is, your job is to offend people, trolls never have the “right to get offended”.
*Third rule is, if you get trolled, take the hit and shut up. If you get offended, you are not a troll.

Translation, “you take what you dish out, If it’s too hot, get the fuck out of the kitchen, don’t be a hypocrite”. Beside this, there are no written or spoken rules, anything goes on the land where religions go to die. The Internet.



The Sad State of Trolling on Twitter

The lack of rules in the “trollosphere” also has its disadvantages, namely rape threats and death threats issued by low-level trolls has only helped hypocrites like Anita Sarkeesian to be given money for free. Every screenshot of a rape threat was exchanged for donations in her now infamous kickstarter. Quite literally, every troll issuing a rape/death threat was giving Anita money. Same applies to every single SJW and radfem on social media, every rape/death threat they receive only helps them.

I impolitely disagree with those low-level trolls. I think “Twitter deserves a better kind of troll*”.

A better troll should use zero threats, zero swearing, zero sexual innuendo, just sandpaper questions for attrition. By sandpaper questions I mean questions that are logical, truthful, legitimate and almost Socratic but have been stripped from all the limitations of political correctness.They are intentionally abrasive and every time they are asked they create a raw sense of offense, then they are asked again and again, like an unrequested massage given to the target’s wide open eyes with 40 grit sandpaper gloves. They are the questions we think of asking but we never do out of political correctness in real life. A twist to these questions is that they take a statement from the target and push it to its ultimate logical consequences with all of its implications which only gets the target upset frustrated and sometimes secretly ashamed of what they said. The end result of better trolling would be that the target would not be able to parade anything the troll said as “victimhood badges of honor” because the targets own reprehensible words would put them in a bad light


Feminist: “When I think of an MRA I think about their dick in the gutter, torn off with my teeth”
Dumb Troll: *Fuck you!+Rape threat*
Result: Feminist parades rape threats then gets $$$ +brownie points
Prestige: None

Feminist: “When I think of an MRA I think about their dick in the gutter, torn off with my teeth”
SPTroll: “Do you enjoy their blood+sperm in your gums? Does mutilating a human being give you a sense of power? Justice? Satisfaction? Be proud…”
Result: Usually the hypocrite (AKA feminist/SJW) tries to delete their tweet
*Prestige: The whole exchange is “Storify-ed.” Even if the feminist erases it, it is kept for posterity.

**”The prestige” is also what makes your trolling better, you have to make them accountable for what they say publicly and you don’t let them erase anything. The prestige you can use is called “Storify” which is a website almost completely separate from Twitter that allows you to document everything your target says before they try to erase it. It requires a little extra multitasking but it is worth it. I suggest keeping an off-line copy in case goes down in the near future.

Second Disclaimer: Just to be clear, I do not use racism/hate inducing material/sexual innuendo/threats/swearing as tools for trolling. Yes, I am a flawed troll, I shouldn’t have principles.
(I do swear but rarely)

Lastly, a better troll should mainly target the kind of people nobody would defend: other trolls

Second Disclaimer: Just to be clear, I do not use racism/hate inducing material/sexual innuendo/threats/swearing as tools for trolling adults only. Yes, I am a flawed troll, I shouldn’t have principles. (I  do swear, but rarely)

(*by taking a cue from Christopher Nolan’s Joker)  (**yes, another Nolan reference, I’m a proud Nolan groupie)



The difference between a target and a victim

A target has to be researched before engaging them. If they have media on Twitter and Facebook it has to be reviewed in case it is an impersonator. Red flags for impersonators usually involve: very recent account creation. Low numbers of friends/followers. Poor media available depicting themselves (few or no selfies & only photos etc)
A target has to be over the age and without clear stated indication of a mental-physical illness. People with authentic physical or mental handicaps on social media are to be ignored or briefly mocked. Actual mental patients do not generally have access to smart phones and quite honestly, going to the internet for therapy makes as much sense as fixing a hangnail with a chainsaw. Anybody can impersonate. Besides, hypocrites like Melody Hensley or Rebecca Watson already say more than enough illogical shit to troll them for.

I engage targets not “victims”.


Troll eats Troll

Be advised, if you are a troll seeking to troll another fellow troll you may be eaten alive. There is always a price to pay and trolling a troll implies you may lose and become the main dish. Get rid of your ego, morals and self-esteem then gag yourself with an apple* while typing just in case . Ego is a heavy anchor not worth dragging when trolling.

As a better troll I decided to start looking for an ideal target.

So I was looking for another troll that everybody knew about, someone so hated so despised that the idea of defending such universally-hated troll would only tarnish and smear their defender. What kind of nonsense would Jezebel/Salon-like sites not defend or even dare touch with a 10-foot pole? Could a racist, widely hated, genocide-enthusiast, Westboro Baptist Church-like, zealot TERF- transwoman-lesbian-radfem even exist? I really doubted someone like that would even be possible in real life. Until…

(*the apple is enough, no latex attire needed)



Meet Anna, AKA @fakerobotgamer

The 7th most hated Redditor Worldwide

Let’s say you were raised in a heavily religious background, let’s say you are upset with men, scratch that, let’s say you openly state “I hate males” & you are also lesbian transwoman lesbian. Lets say that you also spouse racism and genocide. Let’s say you actively encourage people to embrace such views and you even have subreddits dedicated to such ideologies. Let’s say that you have a well documented hateful & traceable online track record. Let’s say you apply for a job, and, when they find out about your hateful online track record they avoid hiring you (a conflict-prone person, a liability) but you try to get them fired because they are “bullying you” & you even have the gall play the victim by storify-ing them. Let’s say you regularly exercise hypocrisy by banning all dissenting opinions, words and even questions on your subreddits and you used the same hypocrisy when moderating the r/LGBT to the point you have managed to make enemies even within the r/LGBT. Let’s say you have multiple sock puppet accounts and you actively police your reddits, tumblr, twitter and other social networks just to pick up fights, on a daily basis. Let’s say that the reddit poll of the “10 most hated people on Reddit” is featured on a “little” high circulation site called the “daily dot”. Let’s say the idea is confirmed by the massive audience at the daily dot. Yes, it is unanimously decided you are the 7th most hated redditor worldwide.

Impressively hateful, isn’t it?

With this impressive online CV, @fakerobotgamer got the job. She became my chosen target.



Luring & Defeating target Anna in 3 stages

Stage 1

The Baiting of target Anna

If you want to catch bears you bait them with “bear-crack” AKA a mixture of marshmallows, sugar, dog treats & maple syrup they cannot resist.
But if you want to catch a hypocrite radfem troll what kind of bait do you use? Yes. You use “hypocrite-crack”

AKA a mixture of inflated ego, personal insult and challenge they cannot resist because they want to parade it to their audience.

To start my research, I went to her online profiles looking for evidence she was indeed a radfem and not an impersonator. The evidence checked out, I found plenty of hate and also that she has several cats and a dog. In nature, if you want to get the most vicious reaction from a female animal you threaten their cubs to distract her. In Anna’s case her pets were used to create a collage where her cats had text balloons saying they did not want to be treated like human babies and that they would rather die of parvo than living with her. (reminder, a low-level troll would have threatened her or her cats, I chose to make her catstalk the raw likely truth instead; she uses them as maternal objects because she is broken and cannot be a functional biologically viable-mentally functional transwoman mother. The “parvo” bit was just the rotten cherry on top) It appears the text balloons struck a nerve (quite wounding indeed, as I would later find out). Just like in nature, the female animal living in @fakerobotgamer/anna’s hypothalamus did not disappoint, she viciously responded on Twitter with a barrage of ragging tweets. I, on the other hand, initially responded by just “favving” her raging tweets,  just to add to her frustration.

(side note, as with most poisonous things in nature, I expected the container of her poison to be brightly colored AKA her head. But most of her selfies had been removed, hard to tell what bright color her hair is now)

Stage 2

The sandpaper questioning of target Anna

Before she responded to the bait I had been planning what raw nerves to caress & massage with 40-grit sandpaper gloves. These were the radfem traits I wanted to discuss with her, unencumbered by any politeness or political correctness

“Has a history of molestation/ sexual abuse”

Sample sandpaper question: 
“Were you molested/sexually abused & was it a family member?”

The question is based on Socratic questioning & does not qualify as a threat at all, quite the opposite, it could be asked in a court of law if needed. It is especially grating and abrasive because according to PC dogma, we are not supposed to ask it in everyday life. Again, a better troll should use zero threats, zero swearing, zero sexual innuendo and be direct and raw. Anyways you get the idea, here is the rest of the traits shared by SJW’s and radfems. (I won’t go into sample questions for each because well, you also get the idea)

Common Traits of SJW’s
Has a history of molestation/ sexual abuse
Sexual abuse led into radicalism

Embraced feminism as a religion to cope with trauma
Has untreated PTSD+Erotomania+Delusions of persecution

Raised by single mother
Has daddy issues

Struggles with science math and STEM in general
Claims of oppression to compensate for inferiority complex

Holds a humanities degree but little or no formal scientific training
Has a tendency for public speaking more than actual work

Constantly censors language by using the word “offensive”
Expects nobody to get “offended” when making vicious comments when angry

Has a “US VS THEM” mentality
Has a history of conflictive relationships at work

Constantly displays screen-shots of “attacks” on social media
Claims is constantly at risk but has filed ZERO police reports

Stage 3

Exposing Anna’s  defeat on storify

We are at stage 3 now. The trolling of @fakerobotanna was successful and you have to read it to believe it. Anna seeks to hide her misadventure on storify as much as possible. Fortunately we were at over 1000 views at the time of this writing.

Here is where I ask you dear reader to share the storify link on Twitter, Facebook, G+, TO EXPOSE THIS RACIST, HATEFUL RADFEM

Here is the link

Thank you for reading.