[dropcap]I [/dropcap]am glad that I put up my own video about the Lara Logan rape, because it gave me some valuable insight into the work that needs to be done in order to set men on the correct path to their own empowerment. The reactions revealed to me that many “MRA’s” don’t fully understand what the concept of gender war is all about and what it fully entails.

In the video I said that if I were to see a woman being raped I would continue on as if nothing ever happened. And I still stand by that statement without apology. I assert that I am 100% justified in this line of thought.

The fact that I said this must have triggered some innate male protector instinct in many MRA’s that the rest of us who actually understand what gender war is all about eschewed a long time ago. Their main argument is that I’m promoting violence against the entire female gender by saying that I wouldn’t risk my life to protect a woman from violence unless she was a member of my family.

I think the problem here is that maybe men have not yet started to consider that when women and society at large decided to burden men with the job of selflessly saving women from violence, that this was, in and of itself, an act of violence against the entire male sex.

[box type=”download” icon=”none”]The draft was an act of violence against the entire male sex.[/box]

The sexually selective rescue effort on the titanic was also an act of violence against the all men. And the expectation that it’s a man’s duty at great personal risk to his person and his life to save adult females from violence is an act of violence against men. All my ideas do is neutralize the violence that has been foisted upon men by advocating an act of non-violent, non action.

Refusing to defend women from violence is a non-action and therefore cannot be violent in any way, yet you have feminists and MRA’s alike claiming that I advocate rape. You even have one feminist saying that for me to advocate non-action in regards to violence against women is an admission of rape; which is just another attempt to broaden the definition of rape, and another reason why men should refuse to offer defense to women.

MRA’s whining about my stance are resorting to the same tired old white knight shaming tactics employed by their feminist sisters. And of course they add in, for good PC measure, as though that even applies.

These simpletons really are starting to tire me. Sure, not all women are fat lesbian man haters that pen scum manifestos on their free time. However, how many women have trapped men via child support and alimony; a form of legalized slavery? How many women are actively speaking out against this type of enslavement? If you were to ask the average woman on the street if she supports child support and alimony enforcement for women in divorce and custody disputes What do you think she’ll say?

Most women are feminists by association and approval of feminist doctrine. They are feminists by proxy and any MRA that says otherwise has failed miserably at understanding the true nature of feminism.

Women have used their most desired biological asset (reproductive ability) to subjugate the men who naturally desire to perpetuate the human race. They have legislated their biological greed aggressively against men in order to use the state to demand more of the myriad of biological assets that men bring to the table, such as productivity, adaptability, ingenuity and most importantly the ability to defend the female collective.

They’ve used the tradeoff of outdated and breached social contracts to obligate us to defend them, while they either abort your reproductive payoff or use it to enslave you with child support, which we all is just a euphemism for woman support. The ability to defend the female collective is the only biological male quality that at least as of now the state cannot force us to engage in.(in the civilian sector at least).

Any true tactician will identify that as a chink in the armor and withhold that defense.

[quote float=”right”]I’m gonna say it again. Men and women are in direct competition with each other.[/quote] It’s a planned non aggressive sanction that simultaneously empowers men, and places the responsibility on women’s defense right where it should be, on women. I don’t want to hear MRA’s whining about honor and principle. We’re fighting the gender war because of honor and principle, we should be intelligent enough to realize that people are going to choose very carefully about who they are to going stick their necks out for, and I can guarantee you that the vast majority of women will not risk their own personal safety to stop violence towards men in any way.

IF you’re an MRA, act like one. Identify with us and our needs, not feminists and not women. And try to attain a level of awareness higher than the utopian REM sleep that you’ve been living in if you think that men and women aren’t at war with each other.

Men and women are in direct competition with each other. I’m gonna say it again Men and women are in direct competition with each other. We are competing for resources healthcare education our children, our money our legal equality and our freedom. And yes, women are doing this of their own volition.

Some MRA’s ask, “Well, isn’t the state the real enemy? Women are being manipulated also they suffer from feminism as well.” My response to that if it weren’t for the need to explain this as best I can, would be who cares whether or not women are victims? This is a men’s movement, so we will concern ourselves with men’s issues period. This isn’t some fantasy reality where men and women are going to get together to sing Kumbaya and pretend that feminism never existed. Once again women have acted against men as a collective for the better part of sixty years.

[quote float=”left”]Don’t give me that “It’s not about saving women it’s about honor,” bullshit. Women haven’t acted honorably for almost three times longer than I’ve been alive. Fuck that. [/quote] Let’s further explore this “women are victims too,” pussy pass mentality that a lot of so called MRA’s have. Now I use the example of a pit bull and its master. If he sick’s his pit bull on you and you have a gun in your hand, will you then use that gun against the pit bull even though its only flowing the wishes of its master? Does the fact that the pit bull cannot comprehend what it is doing make the pit bull any less of a danger to you?This example only partly illustrates what’s going on in the gender war between men women and the state.

The pit bull was blindly following an order from its master; it’s a pawn, a tool incapable of reasoning. Women, however, were given the tools with which to attack men, and they possess all the powers of reasoning of a fully functional adult human being. In the last scenario the pit bull was a tool that the master used with malicious intent, whereas women were given the tools with which to attack men and left to their own devices.

They willingly chose to attack men. They actively sought and lobbied for laws that made it easier to attack men and harder for men to defend themselves. They, since the very beginning of modern feminism, have acted not as innocent pawns that where manipulated into committing acts of evil, but as willing collaborators that used the promise of preferential treatment from the state over men as a means of attacking them.

So my question is when exactly will men fight back and why exactly does the mere suggestion of ending our part of the already defunct social contract, by placing the responsibility of women’s safety on the shoulders of women, lead inexorably to a disingenuous and thoroughly disgusting marathon of white knighting on the part of self-professed MRA’s?

Why are MRA’s calling for obligatory male defense provisions for women?

Don’t give me that “it’s not about saving women it’s about honor,” bullshit. Women haven’t acted honorably for almost three times longer than I’ve been alive. Fuck that. Take that apathetic, traitorous garbage somewhere else. Like my fellow MRA Richard Rich said, “The MRM isn’t some sanctimonious justice league. MRA’s don’t have the right to interject their selective gender based morality into this movement. We’re focusing purely on men’s issues, men’s rights and the empowerment of men. How exactly will telling men to risk their lives to save women from violence help to achieve this?

It won’t.

And in a society where men are still going to be considered rapists no matter what we do, there is no reason to help a woman out of a violent situation up to and including rape. These are the harsh realities of the gender war.

We will not give economic opportunities to women we will not hire them to any jobs. We will reserve that position for a qualified and competent man to combat discriminatory affirmative action laws against men. We will never spend money on relationships with women. We will reinvest that money into our own individual male interests. We will assess the weak points in the relationships between women and the state and we will exploit them in the fight against corrupt females and the state.

Now are there women that have earned the right to call themselves men’s rights activists and advocates? Sure, women like Erin Pizzey come to mind. But it’s time we start fighting fire with fire. And women like Pizzey are already there holding the torches. A group of people that insist on the defense of another group of people that have attacked them mercilessly for decades are not acting honorably – they are acting stupidly.