A message to the Mysterious Anonymous Poster...

First, I enjoy your comments; excluding the one that was an ad-hominem attack on Dr. Rookh Kshatriya. I found them to be intelligent and well written. My hat is off to you. I sincerely thank you for your input.

However; there are a few things I would like to debate with you.

To start; you said that Dr. Rookh Kshatriya's blog is not good for gender relations. I disagree with this. Feminism or women's liberation, or whatever you would like to call it (women's empowerment?!) has been mislabeled as "revolutionary". I think this is completely wrong. Feminism was nothing new. It was simply a rehashing of old school Puritanism, centered around the philosophy that sex is bad. Notice that instead of "sex being evil", we now have "rape culture". That is, there is no sex for recreation - no, there is simply a bunch of frat boys raping women.



The thought that men are nothing but untamed animals, and must be kept under constant whip in order to prevent them from raping every woman they lay eyes on, is ultimately a viewpoint shared by medievalism and feminism alike. It stems from a hatred of male sexuality. And to a lesser extent, sex in general.

What Dr. Rookh Kshatriya is doing, in a nutshell, is re-iterating a popular phrase in our culture, "the more something changes, the more it stays the same".


Dr. Rookh Kshatriya points out that feminism is not progression, but regression. By having this philosophy readily available to men, perhaps men will understand that by supporting feminism in anyway (or various women's groups), they are not supporting women (or advancement of the human race) - they are in fact regressing back into a medieval mentality towards sex and sexuality (with the twist of gynocentrism added – my two cents).

Actual modern day “penis device”, resembling a medieval torture device – meant to prevent men from “raping”. Looks like something the Nazi’s would use...

Granted, feminism is cleverly disguised as "sexual liberation" for women. However; take a look at what has been done for men's sexuality - think of "The Talk" not "The View". Penis removal is now celebrated and thought of as a viable form of punishment for men - regardless of whether they committed a crime or not.

Women laughing at a man being sexually mutilated. Not ONE SINGLE WOMAN WALKED OFF THE SET IN DISGUST; NOT ONE SINGLE WOMAN BOOED AND HISSED. Can you think of any men, excluding certain MRA’s/MGTOW's that would applaud a women being sexually mutilated?

Educated and enlightened people, that is, people on our college campuses now form border-line lynch mobs, in hopes of sterilizing young men. Not young men who have been properly tried and convicted of a crime, but young men who have simply been accused of a crime:


A. Is this what educated and enlightened people do? Form lynch mobs calling for the removal of young men's sexuality?

-or-

B. Is this what medieval puritanical lunatics who hate sex and sexuality do?

A or B? My best educated guess, based on 41 years of observation and education dictates that B is the correct answer. This mentality DOES IN FACT EXIST on modern college campuses – this backs up Dr. Rookh Kshatriya’s thesis.

The sooner men understand and acknowledge this, the better off they will be. The sooner women understand what they have become (or at least what a hate-filled movement has done to them), the better off they will be, and men will be better off even moreso. This will improve gender relations. Yes, Dr. Rookh Kshatriya's blog is abrasive, but I think of it as a cold bucket of ice water right in the face of your modern, evolved and enlightened woman who supports, applauds, laughs at, celebrates, or views as a viable punishment for men; male genital mutilation - they are anything but modern, evolved, or enlightened - they are puritanical and medieval.

Crude drawing, resembling something you might find at a Nazi-style concentration camp, showing the infliction of pain through male genitals. This is a drawing from the 21st century.

I offer this for your perusal:

How can anybody praise women's sexuality without also praising men's sexuality? In theory, it should be impossible for one to exist without the other. After all, sexuality involves having sex does it not? And, it involves a man and a woman having sex - does it not? Yet, in our society, we see that women's sexuality is praised and the removal of a man's sexuality is also praised (i.e. The Talk - an all female audience, and all female hostesses laughing, applauding, cheering and celebrating a man having his sexuality removed - although they knew nothing about the circumstances). The castration march held for the FALSELY accused Duke Lacrosse players?

This is illogical to the extreme, unless of course, Dr. Rookh Kshatriya's Anglobitch thesis holds merit, and all the "celebration" of women's sexuality is really nothing more than a way to destroy, demonize, vilify, and obfuscate male sexuality (i.e. Puritanical lunacy) cleverly disguised.

Also, keep in mind that in Sweden, it is legal for a woman to be a prostitute. However; it is illegal for a man to "buy" a prostitute. This is not enlightenment, this is not evolved - this is medievalism with gynocentrism. The thought that women are pure and men (because of the penis) are evil.

Something I will touch on later: The man who was mutilated and discussed on “The Talk” was drugged, tortured, abused, and mutilated.

Can you imagine men, other than certain MRA’s applauding something like this happening to a woman?

How about a group of women applauding something like this happening to a Dog?

How about a group of Nazi’s applauding something like this happening to a Jew?

The hatred of men in our society is obvious, and it is clear that the hatred stems from a man’s sexuality. To quote Dr. Rookh Kshatriya, “The Anglo Media hates sexualized beings, so it hates men period”. More fuel to back up his thesis.

Now, onto my humor:

My humor, and yes, it is just that, humor is multi purposed:

I do it to piss off the feminists (or reasonable facsimiles thereof). This is something I get a thrill out of (sorry, this leopard cannot change his spots). I was the target of hate-propaganda in college, and it pissed me off. The raunchy humor is my way of returning the favor. And please take note here - unlike the hate-propaganda I was the target of in college, I sincerely mean it as humor – humor aimed at people who, according to my observations, have no sense of humor. Also, believe it or not, I actually run my videos past some women - I ask them honestly, "is this going too far?" or, "is this offensive to you?" Sometimes they say yes, and I have in fact removed content based on their opinions.



Claiming that a spiritual being called the "divine feminine" is "on the rag" might be considered sexist, and misogynistic - but what the hell isn't considered misogynistic and sexist these days? Saying Policeman, Fireman, or even Mailman can quickly get you called those names - they are meaningless to me. The terms misogynist and sexist have been so over used and misused in our society that they have no meaning to me. I would speculate that they have no meaning to a lot of people; not just because of a lack of education, but for the same reasons I myself no longer recognize them.

This is a poke at feminists. Meant to lighten some people up, but also meant to piss the feminists off – since so few of them actually have the ability to laugh at themselves.

Anybody taking my poke at a spiritual being called the "divine feminine" as being "on the rag" as a sexist statement and not one meant in humor - clearly lacks a sense of humor, or worse, is too filled with hatred for me to care about what they think.


Another purpose of my humor, is to "point out the obvious". Since when do feminists stand against white-racist bullshit paradigms? It is blatantly obvious that feminists are just man-haters.

Now, the reason I am not serious:

I do have a slew of serious essays already written that I might post on my blog and possible make into YouTube rants. However; I am hesitant to do this, because some of what I have to say is a direct attack on MRA's (although, I consider them to be a direct attack on male-hatred).

It is no secret that I strongly disagree with many of the things I read in the "manosphere". The list of blogs you see to the left; if you look at the top you'll note the caption, "getting smaller...eff you".

When I see blogs that are flagrantly racist, I remove them. When I see blogs that are a tired rehashing of feminist ideals (that is, they exhibit more male-hatred than the hatred of male hatred - eyes crossed yet?) I remove them. When I hear bat-sh*t crazy talk like, "feminists aren't the problem, men are" - I remove them (think about that one for a minute - sounds like a hardcore feminist would say that). When I see MRA blogs that support the same ideals as the feminism I encountered in college - I remove them. When I see blogs that are nothing more than a half-witted attempt to salvage left-wing politics - I remove them (I am a registered independent - I believe that the right wing holds more promise for men - but that is a miniscule amount more - in fact, I'll say a negligent amount more). When I see blogs that I suspect are trying to re-route, misguide, or cover up fundamental truths - I remove them.

Also, any blogs that I used link to that do not link back to me, I typically remove - but only if I see suspicious activity on them - as described above.

One of the biggest deceptions (for lack of a better word) in the "manosphere" is that the biggest problem among men (MRA's), is all the fighting amongst themselves. This statement may be true, but the statement itself is not the deception (or misdirection, misleading etc...) Initially, this led me to "blindly" follow any blogs that had the MRA or ANTI-FEMINIST label on them. Then, I noticed racism, Atheist bigotry, Christian bigotry, or other agendas on them that having nothing to do with improving the status of men; in fact; such ideals will only lower the status of men.

If you mistreat one man because of something like religious beliefs, lack of religious beliefs, race, creed or color - you might as well be mistreating all men.

The reason: Men are a diverse bunch. They are not herd animals. Trying classify men is like trying to classify snowflakes by design - no two are alike.
Men should be free to believe what they want; and skin color or race is irrelevant to the character of a man. Men should also be allowed to choose whatever type of woman they want for a mate – be it a weak woman, a strong woman, a fat woman, a skinny woman, a single mother, a virgin etc…

Myself, I have no desire to control men. I have a desire to help them avoid toxic women – the ones that will lead them to ruin. If they fail to take my advice, I will not get in their face and say, “SEE I TOLD YOU SO DUMMY!” followed by a childish “neener neener neener – you’re a mangina!!!”. No, I will help them get back on their feet, and possibly coerce them into warning other men of what can happen – another attitude of mine that separates me from the MRM.

Now, I think I will post those youtube rants and essays I have, but - I am going to proof read them carefully.

And now, to my mystery anonymous poster:

You are free to write a novel, and use as many comments as you like. However; ad-hominem attacks, shaming language aimed at myself or any other poster will be deleted.

I do not have time to bother with such mental incompetence.

And again, I appreciate your comments and found them to be interesting.

Thanks.