Oppressors are evil, the Hugo is doomed, and George RR Martin is spineless

There’s no escaping the fact that oppressors are evil. When faced with this notion some progressives might try to evade this fact for reasons I might detail later, but really, our human minds think in simple terms. If you oppress others, you’re an evil bastard. Oppression personified is a tyrant ruling over people with an iron fist, entertained by their needless suffering. It’s not often that we think of oppressors as a merry bunch of nice people inviting others for a picnic.

So when the soldiers of identity politics talk about minorities being oppressed (even though there are no laws stacked against them), gullible people will feel a subconscious antipathy towards the designated oppressors. The larger the oppressor group, the less likely that these honest dupes will directly hate all of them; they will just have a quiet resentment seated at the back of their minds waiting to jump forward at the first sign of real or imagined slights. You can see this all around when seemingly normal people become lunatics frothing at the mouth organizing hate campaigns against someone wearing the wrong shirt, writing the wrong story or telling the wrong joke. (No, I will not link to Taylor, Whedon or Hunt, you already know what I’m talking about.)

There are 3 distinct minority movements under the umbrella of progressivism, with different ideas about who the oppressors are. Feminists say it’s men, the civil rights crowd says it’s whites, the LGBT community insists it’s hetero, cis-gendered people. When any of them attacked their oppressors in the past, they have hit the wall built by the other two progressive groups: white feminists saying men are evil were scolded by the civil rights movement because saying anything bad about blacks is racism; the LGBT folks intervened claiming feminists can’t say anything bad about homosexuals or transsexuals either. Thus intersectionality was invented. After a couple of rounds of this silly game they realized that the group of oppressors each of them can target is pretty small; after all the minorities were taken out of the picture the remaining “majority” was that of cis-gendered, heterosexual white males. This is the group all progressives can hate without repercussions, because nobody will come to defend them and they can’t defend themselves since they are the oppressors. Whatever oppressors say is automatically discarded because oppression: loop closed, case closed. White men are evil, and the only ones who could disprove this are white men, whose words don’t count.

Enthusiastic progressives (also known as the warriors of social justice) fight simultaneously against all forms of oppression – which means they fight with tripled anger against the only acceptable target: straight white men. They hate oppression, so they hate oppressors, and in their eyes heterosexual white males are responsible for every oppression in the world.

What does this have to do with the sci-fi award of ever-declining prestige, the Hugo? The social justice bullies claim it was attacked by nazis! No, I’m not kidding. This supposed ‘right wing attack’ and the progressive cry for help pretty much directly proves that the Hugo already was (and still is) under the influence of progressives. If it were controlled by evil white men, why on earth would they attack it now? Problem is, progressives always argue from the position of victimhood, meaning they can never admit to being in the position of power, so even though they have near-total control over the Hugo, they must claim they don’t.

They say conservative writers receive the Hugo only so rarely because – judged strictly on merit and literary criteria – conservative sci-fi is bad. What are these literary criteria, you ask? The race, sex, and sexuality of the author, of course, plus the ideological dynamics in the book under the magnifying glass. In short, everything is decided by the book’s relation to straight white males. If it’s neutral, or, god forbid, favorable towards this evil demographic, the book is bad. It’s not good literature, it’s not good science fiction. It’s the work of oppressors! And people enjoying these books must be evil as well, because no decent human being could or should enjoy a book that’s not about the evilness of hetero white men. Readers loving books that aren’t about the oppression of women are sexists; people enjoying books that aren’t about the oppression of non-whites are racists; fans consuming books that aren’t about the oppression of LGBT people are some kind of phobes… You get the idea.

To summarize: if you think sci-fi means a fun combination of science and fiction, you’re a racist, sexist, homophobe, neo-nazi scumbag and you should probably die. People who aren’t shit like you prefer sci-fi like this Hugo-winning piece of perfection: If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love – a beautiful tale of hetero white men racistly and homophobically attacking a non-white individual with pool cues in a bar, beating him to a bloody coma for no other reason than them being typical, run-of-the-mill hetero white men. (Don’t ask where’s the sci-fi in that, that’s irrelevant.)

They say conservative sci-fi is bad because it doesn’t convey progressive values. This admission is self-defeating as it proves the ulterior political motive it tries to deny, but hey, let’s not hang up on such minute details. We all know the only good sci-fi is social justice sci-fi – that’s just the way things are and this in no way means that the social justice bullies have taken control over the Hugo. It’s them evil white men who attacked the completely neutral Hugo absolutely unprovoked!

So there’s this progressive crowd projecting all the world’s evil onto straight white men. They offer only one way for these evil fuckers to redeem themselves: join the group. If you officially join us, they say, we will not harass you (until you do something that bothers any other member of the club). And here we arrive at the case of George R. R. Martin, who is seemingly the go-to authority about the nazi attack on the Hugo.

Dear George, grow a spine.

You and I both know that none of the puppies are neo-nazis. It’s a laughable accusation leveled by totalitarian-minded people who can’t suffer anyone disagreeing with them on moral questions. They are so pure their enemies must all be totally evil, right? Isn’t this something you fight against in your books, this black & white morality that infested 20th century fantasy so thoroughly?

You and I both know perfectly well that the puppies have amongst their ranks women, non-whites and every possible gender/sexuality combination. They are not against these people, they are these people, just as much as you guys are. And it’s not them rummaging through authors’ underwear to determine if their books are good. It’s not them turning to the spectrometer aimed at writers to determine what to think about their work. It’s not them calling books “bad-to-reprehensible” without reading a word of them, based solely on the authors’ political views. It’s not them thinking the sci-fi community should be reduced to a certain set of people, with the wrongfans kicked to the curb.

It’s you guys.

It pains me that you’re immune to the realization that you are the intolerant, bigoted hacks you warned society about. You want to “purify” science fiction, you think the value of a book is between the legs of the author, you care about the color of a writer’s skin. You’re practically obsessed with these things and couldn’t care less about actual science fiction.

No, yeah, not you personally. You’re just a part of this machine, and your uneasiness is palpable. You’re trying to navigate these waters the best you can, but that is only good enough for cowardly copouts like this:

“Are these the neo-Nazis and rightwing reactionaries we have been warned of? The truth is … no one knows”.

Why George, there are people who know. And I guess you’re one of them. You just can’t say so because it’s not in your interest – the progressive crowd might attack you! Again! But this kind of weaselry tarnishes your reputation, as respectable people would defend others from grave, unsubstantiated, outlandish accusations. Eric Flint had the spine to do it, because he’s a man of principles. You are, it seems, a man of interests.

These false accusations are serious, foul, and indefensible. If you have a molecule of decency left circulating in your veins you don’t go around accusing people of naziism just because they like their science fiction free from thoroughly politicized ‘social justice’.

So here we are. Progressives want to deny their influence over the Hugo so badly they resort to calling non-progressives nazis. They have no other cards left. If this fails, just like all the previous methods, they will be naked. If it’s not radicals “attacking” the Hugo but decent everyday people, then it’s radicals “defending” it. After this line has been crossed, admitting that John C. Wright or Larry Correia are not neo-nazis is an indirect confession that Irene Gallo kinda’ is. She’s the kind of person who thinks it’s fine and dandy to smear and slander, to demonize and denigrate people she doesn’t like, because anyone disagreeing with her is evil and deserves it. Ruining reputations and hurting careers is okay, since any and all differing opinions are literally naziism. Why wouldn’t she call her enemies nazis? If the only way to hurt them is to lie outrageously, so be it. Who cares?

There are some who care, actually: people with a sense of justice – not the social kind, the traditional one.

Posted in Feminism, MSM, Politics | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

The moral crowd

The politically correct progressive crowd knows perfectly well that non-progressives live in fear of them, censoring their own words and actions to avoid the fate of Matt Taylor or Tim Hunt (who got shafted with a lie by the way). What does it say about their character that they think this is a good thing? They think non-progressives should live in fear because we’re evil. This level of wrongheadedness is astounding.

Newsflash: if people fear you because you routinely organize pitchfork mobs to destroy people’s lives you’re not the enlightened good guy you thought you were. If your only way of expressing your moral superiority is organizing hate campaigns you’re not the enlightened good guy you thought you were. In fact an enlightened person with superior morals would be more forgiving, compassionate, empathetic, patient, understanding – none of which describes you at all. You are the polar opposite of these. Oh, you think you have these traits in spades if we’re talking about certain races or genders… Which makes you a racist and a sexist. Let’s be honest here for a second: you see whites and men as your enemies. Your general relationship with these folks is pretty much exhausted by reminding them to check their privilege and sporadically mentioning “feminism cares about men too” while chanting “you are fucking scum” to the faces of men who want to listen to a lecture about male suicide.

But of course most progressives know all this deep down, they’re just enjoying the power of terror they have. Why would they leave the mob? Then they’d have no power over their enemies and they’d also have to self-censor in fear of the progressive crowd. It’s much better to wield a pitchfork than to be on the pointy end of one.

In fact I’m thinking of joining them and becoming an authoritarian, totalitarian nazi just like them…

Just kidding. I have morals. Not superior, just the garden-variety.

Posted in Feminism, Politics | Tagged , | 2 Comments

The idiocy of opposing slut shaming

The idea behind opposing slut shaming is a misunderstanding. Feminists were never known for perfectly understanding the intricacies of sexual dynamics or the psychological differences between the sexes, so building their case against slut shaming on this misunderstanding is more or less expected.

They think men and women are generally the same, therefore men and women should hold the same standards and have the same preferences when looking for a partner. If men and women have different standards then there’s a problem with men. If males and females have two different sets of expectations then the female one is correct, and the male one is wrong. Men having a different standard means they have a double standard! And they must be cured, ie. turned into women.

It’s obvious that women generally prefer experienced men. How do I know this? Because they call the inexperienced ones losers, and they use the word “virgin” as an insult. They might deny this when pointed out but they instinctively know that a man seducing many women is successful, he is doing something that requires talent, charms, effort. On the other hand a man without conquests is a man without talent or charm. Instinctual female urges like hypergamy and preselection reward experienced men, there’s no question about that.

Men on the other hand tend to choose differently according to the role the potential partner will fill in their lives. For short sexual flings their expectations are purely aesthetic, or to put it another way: their dicks will decide. This of course means that most men don’t have any problems with sluts – they will have fun with them and move on. Only losers fall for sluts though, and that is because men who aren’t losers become a lot more pragmatic when choosing long term partners. Men generally invest a lot of emotions, energy and resources into long term relationships and they care if that investment will be worth it or not. Wasting your time and money on a slut who will leave you at the first chance of fucking someone hotter is utter foolishness. For LTRs men want women who don’t cheat or leave easily, ie. women who are able and willing to control their own sexual urges to achieve long term goals. This is of course all the more true for marriages, where the risks for men are multiplied by infinity. Choosing the wrong woman might lead to a divorce, ie. the man losing his children, home, life savings, the fruits of his labor for the next decade or two, and, ultimately, his freedom or his life. This is serious business.

How do we know if a woman is able and willing to control her sexual urges? She has a history of doing so. Anecdotal evidence, the wisdom of the ages, and actual scientific studies all prove that sluts are not good LTR material. Sorry sluts, it’s just the way it is. You might be offended by the saying “once a slut, always a slut”, but it’s statistically true. You come with an increased risk of cheating and divorce that men don’t want to take, whether you like this or not. You might say or think you’re a reformed slut who’s finished with the cock carousel, but please understand if we rather believe the statistics.

Many people will say the double standard is that men expect women to have a low partner count while they rack up theirs. Newsflash: men should fulfill women’s expectations, not their own. Why on earth would they meet their own expectations for women if that is detrimental to their chances with women, since the two standards are pretty much polar opposites? The only logical solution left is that nobody should have any expectations at all… Which, albeit an interesting thought, will never come true.

So, men and women have opposite standards when choosing long term partners, and for good reasons – but of course no reason is good enough for the ideological horde which believes that men and women must be made the same. Males must adopt female standards or else! Sluts are just as good as non-sluts, and men should not have the desire or the ability to differentiate. How dare they expect a woman to control her sexual urges? That’s placing unreasonable expectations on women! Men want to rule over women and restrict their sexuality!

Except male preferences in choosing their partners are not controlling women or restricting their actions. It’s simply a question of personal taste, much like women preferring tall men over short, rich men over poor, and so on. Preferring chaste women over sluts for LTRs does not constitute discrimination against anyone. It’s the prerogative of any one individual to choose his/her intimate partners according to any criteria s/he sees fit. Me saying that I like women with big tits, a firm ass and a low partner count does not restrict anyone’s sexuality in any way, shape or form.

So, back to the main point: feminists find fault in men having their own set of standards. It must be done away with and they must adopt female standards because… patriarchy! Or equality, or something. The desire for virtuous women is wrong because sluts find it too hard to cope with. They want high quality men with low standards and they fail to see how that’s practically an oxymoron. For them it all seems logical: if women don’t have a problem accepting partners of considerable experience, men mustn’t either.

At least this is the story they try to project, in all its hilariousness. Their epic hypocrisy becomes self-evident when one realizes that they do shame men for being succesful with women as well, hence the terms womanizer, lothario, skirt chaser, player, rake, etc. They want men to accept sluts, yet they demonize men who chase skirts because they supposedly “take advantage of women” or something. When two consenting adults are having sex, the woman is empowered and is discovering her sexuality, but the male is a lecherous villain with ulterior motives. So the woman is empowered but is also a victim… Try to make sense of that.

The only actual double standard in this picture is that feminists demand that men accept any and every form of female sexuality, while they shame and bash all forms of male sexuality. We arrived at the point where all feminist ideas meet: women are wonderful, men are evil. Actions and opinions don’t have any inherent moral value; they’re good or bad according to the genitals of the people doing or having them.

What they also miss is that slut shaming was invented by mothers and grandmothers who knew for a fact that only losers marry sluts, and who didn’t want their daughters and granddaughters to marry losers. So they told them in no uncertain terms that sleeping around is out of the question. In a weird fashion this is the western equivalent of female genital mutilation in the Middle East and Africa. The goals are the same, only we’re a bit more intelligent here in the west: we deter young women from ruining their reputation by talking to them instead of cutting off parts of their vagina.

Men generally don’t confront women openly because they know there’s nothing to gain from it. The general public treats men who confront women as garbage, regardless of who was right or who “won” the argument. Men calling women sluts openly is pretty much nonexistent. It’s women who backstab each other or knock each other down a few pegs on the social ladder by namecalling or gossip. If feminists want less slut shaming they should tell women to stop undermining each other this way.

What’s absolutely sure is that feminists attacking men thinking they’re the masterminds behind slut shaming are idiots. That, and quality men will never marry sluts, no matter how hard idiots try to shame them into it.

Posted in Feminism | Tagged | 1 Comment

About rape and consent

In the good old days the definition of rape was pretty self-explanatory: it meant forcing yourself sexually on a woman who made it clear she didn’t want your advances, or on someone who was literally unable to resist (because they were unconscious for example). To this day this is what springs to mind for most people when they hear that someone was raped.

Being drunk had nothing to do with it because people were considered responsible for their own actions even under the influence. Being vocal or enthusiastic about consent had nothing to do with it because it was understood that most women are capable adults able to express their displeasure about a situation if they want to. It was also understood that people almost always initiate sex not by asking for permission but with romantic/erotic gestures, touches, kissing. It was a given that the other party could control the pace and the direction of the encounter verbally or with their own body language. There was also an implicit understanding that any party could and would stop the encounter if it became uncomfortable. In simpler terms: the lack of rejection meant “go ahead”. Many women are shy, inexperienced, or simply just not too lively in bed – these women signal their consent by not doing anything to stop the guy. The women of yesteryear didn’t need to chant “yes” all the way through the act for it to not be rape, and that was fine.

Enter the feminists… Who infantilized women way more than teh evil patriarkee ever could. At first they took away women’s responsibility. If a woman drinks a glass o’something she’s not responsible for her own actions any more. The evil man made her do it! – cries the feminist protecting the feeble little child who’s otherwise an independent, empowered woman. Women are capable adults and the equals of men right up to the moment when they drink something – then they become fragile little puppets who have no control over themselves. This is of course total bullshit, a glaring sign that our societies treat women as a privileged class in their affairs with men. You hit someone while driving under the influence? You are still responsible for your own actions. You consented to sex under the influence? You are still responsible for your own actions – but only if you’re a man. Having a vagina means you’re not responsible for your own actions, the state will believe you when you say the man made you do it, it’s his fault! He’s the adult here, not you!

Then the feminists took away women’s agency. How could you expect women to express themselves without you directly asking them first? Women can’t do that, you silly! You have to explicitly ask for even the smallest of details and wait for the answers, otherwise it’s rape. Women are paradoxical, mythical creatures who intimidate men with their amazing strength and independence who are at the same time unable to say a word or lift a finger to express their displeasure at a man shoving his dick in their faces. You can’t expect women to say “no” to rapists because… why exactly?

So we had to change rape laws to accomodate the feminist view on women: infantile, indecisive, unable to express or think for themselves without men helping/allowing them to do so. Pathetic.

And we’ve reached the point where all sex is rape (mother Dvorkin is laughing hysterically in her grave), since you can be absolutely sure that no sane couple will ever exchange verbal permissions all the way during sex. Ideologically brainwashed fuckwits might try once or twice before realising that it doesn’t work. Sooner or later they must realize that taking part in something of your own volition infers consent, which makes it completely unnecessary to talk about it constantly. Not to beat a dead horse too much but I’m pretty interested in how a feminist would verbally express her consent about sucking a dick, with her mouth full… Should she stop every 10 seconds to say something or will the fact that she’s doing it suffice?

The most worrying part is that people pretend this excercise is not insane. They try to argue the finer details of how we should teach consent to school children boys not to rape, sweeping under the rug the fact that the taboo of rape is a logical extension of the taboo of hurting others, thus already an integral part of our culture. You don’t need to teach men to not kill or rob or rape – if they weren’t raised by monkeys in the jungle they already know. This is why 99% of men don’t kill, rob or rape. Only psychopaths do these things. Good luck trying to teach them out of psychopathy.

Some people say boys are confused about consent. No they’re not. They are confused about the legal and ideological shitstorm surrounding the issue. Don’t fuck a girl who doesn’t want you to. That’s the idea behind “consent” in a dozen words or less. And every boy knows this pretty much instinctually. How do you know if she wants you? She does not reject your advances. This works because, conversely, if she doesn’t want you, she will stop you, like all the women in the history of mankind did so for millions of years.

But of course stuff that worked fine for ages isn’t good enough for feminists, because they view women as retarded children at the mental age of probably 3.

The only other possibility is they simply want women to have power over men – the power to destroy them or send them to jail with a false accusation. The idea of “affirmative consent” is good for only one thing: shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. “Innocent until proven guilty” is gone now, pal. Either you present tangible proof that she said yes all the way through sex, or you’re going to jail. How could you present such proof at all? Nobody knows, not even the sponsors of these fucked up laws. It’s practically impossible.

The situation looks like this: you must acquire verbal consent, something that you cannot record and thus cannot present when asked to. You must acquire it yet it does not protect you from false accusations. Also, even if you acquire and record it, it can be retroactively invalidated and you can do nothing about it. Even if you ask for her papers beforehand, make her perform a breathalyzer test, ask her to sign a paper before a lawyer stating that she consented, she still can say she revoked her consent during sex. Fuck you, you rapist!

And feminists throw their hissyfits now, when rape is at an all time low. Disgusting shitbags.

Posted in Feminism | Tagged | 4 Comments

Dear Mark Ruffalo

You have recently said that some people don’t know what feminism is about. I must admit you were more-or-less right: most feminists seem to completely miss the point that feminism wants gender equality and nothing more. For example, would you be so kind as to tell these fuckwitted criminals what feminism is? Maybe you should give them a dictionary or something.

Posted in Feminism | Tagged | Leave a comment

The gender disparity in STEM fields explained

Posted in Feminism | Leave a comment

Obama f_cked up bad this time

Michelle and Obama just had their 22nd anniversary, and USA Today reports that…

Obama said he spoke recently with a white guy, and warned him that it generally takes about 10 years to train a nigger properly.

“He’ll screw up a bunch,” Obama said. “Eventually we learn, but it takes us a little longer, because we’re not as smart.”

Whoa. I knew something wasn’t quite right but I never expected this much racism coming from a black guy. “We’re not as smart”… That’s harsh. Proponents of racial realism have always knew, but I wasn’t aware that this stat has already seeped into mainstream thought. What’s even more surprising is that it’s now coming from the president, who should pay heed to political correctness. Progressives might lynch him for this even if it was intended as a joke.

Oh, wait…

It was a misunderstanding. He said this about men, not blacks. That’s mighty fine. The progressives are clapping so hard their hands will fall off soon. Women are better than men, hurray for equality! Best prezident ever! Menz are dumm, wymyn must train menz or else we be dumm, haha, lol.

What a fucking disgrace.

Posted in Feminism, Manginas | Tagged | 4 Comments

The truth about ISIS

An individual without political power can’t really do much more than spread awareness. So, this is what I’m doing:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How bad is rape, really?

Quote: “Rape is uniquely awful in that it’s both an assault and a form of torture. Most people classify it as second only to murder as the worst thing that can happen to a person. I tend to agree.”

Most people think like this.

They are idiots.

Let’s imagine an evil leprechaun tells you he’ll magically arrange for you to be the victim of 3 crimes in the next 3 months, and you can’t do anything to stop him, but he’s generous: you get a list of 12 possible scenarios and you’ll get to choose the 3 that will happen to you. The leprechaun will make you forget all the details after you’re done with the choosing so you can properly enjoy the encounters.

1). Half a dozen racist thugs from another race think your face needs some rearranging. The result is a broken jaw, 15 stitches on your left cheek and a permanently blinded eye.

2.) An arsonist burns down your home with everything in it, including you and your family. Nobody dies but all your personal belongings are gone and you receive third degree burns on multiple body parts. On the plus side you become an autodidact expert in skin grafting.

3.) A specialized gang kidnaps the person you love the most. They send you an ear to show they mean business and demand 150% of your life savings as ransom. There’s no guarantee you get the hostage back even if you pay.

4.) A mugging goes wrong and you get stabbed in the kidney. You wait a couple of years for a transplant but until it goes through you are tied to a dialysis machine 4 hours*3 days a week.

5.) Someone falsely accuses you of rape and you spend the next 20 years in prison for a crime you didn’t commit.

6.) Three burglars enter your home at night while you and your family are sound asleep. They tie you all to chairs, beat you until you confess where your valuables are, and then for the longest 20 minutes of your life they discuss if they should rape, torture or kill you and your family. You are crushed by the feeling of total helplessness. After some light torture they simply leave with your stuff.

7.) A drunk driver hits you and flees. Broken hip, titanium screws in your shinbone, and a limp for the rest of your life. After you spend 4 months in bed and 7 months re-learning to walk, that is.

8.) A script kiddie uses your PC to organize DDoS attacks and hides some child porn on your hard drive just for the fun of it. The police don’t believe your version of the story, so you spend 12 years in prison, your family is destroyed, you’ll never get a decent job again and you’re stuck on the sex offender list for life.

9.) The accountant of your small company disappears with most of the company’s money. You are held responsible for tax evasion, you get in considerable debt, you and your company are both bankrupt, your credit is ruined, you can’t get a job with your fresh criminal record and you can’t put food on the table for your family. You prepare for the incoming divorce and living under a bridge.

10.) You decide to hit the town. After a couple of drinks someone attractive catches your eye and you make a move. You end up having sex (using a condom) but the next morning you feel you’ve made a mistake. Because they were sober and you weren’t it means you were raped.

11.) You’re on a third date with someone of your own choosing and things escalate. You tell him/her you’re not in the mood but s/he doesn’t listen. You feel drained and powerless to resist, and decide to let it happen, you’ll probably get away sooner that way. Condom, no STDs or pregnancy.

12.) You drink too much at a house party and pass out. A couple of weeks later your SO confesses that s/he fondled your private parts back then (when you were only getting to know each other) while you were sleeping. No STDs, no pregnancy.

If you didn’t choose the last 3 – which are all different forms of rape/sexual assault – you’re insane. Even more likely you’re ideologically committed to the pretense that having morning-after regret about a single consensual (albeit drunken) sexual encounter is worse than losing an eye or being imprisoned for the next 10-20 years of your life.

Strange how the definition of rape gets broadened all the time to include things that are neither traumatic nor violent, but people cling to the notion that rape is the ultimate evil act, comparable only to murder. Nowadays you can “rape” someone without even knowing it; for example if you have consensual sex with someone who had two glasses of champaigne you don’t know about, and the next day they decide they were “intoxicated”, thus raped, you’re fucked. Insisting in this case that you are a horrible monster deserving prison for raping an innocent victim, traumatizing them for life, is just plain ludicrous.

Posted in Feminism | Tagged | 23 Comments

Imputed Income Trap

It seems the founder of The Spearhead might be in trouble. Please read Keoni Galt’s article here.

Posted in Manosphere | Tagged | 1 Comment