A Post Argument World

      "If You Don't Know, I'm Not Telling You."

It was 1998 and I had met an attractive woman at a jazz club. I was the only guy in the room bold enough to ask her out because she was sitting with two guys and was particularly attractive. But I had approached enough women in my life rejection never bothered me. I asked her out, she said yes, and I think I left the two guys she was with jealous and dumbfounded.

But this is where the story ceases to be a good one and quickly devolves into a bad one. Because on one of our first dates I took her hiking. And after that date, while driving home, she seemed awfully quiet, even pissed. And so when I asked her "Hey, are you alright?" She snapped back,

"IF YOU DON'T KNOW I'M NOT TELLING!!!"

My then-23 year old dumb ass not only continued to try to find out what was wrong, but continued to date this psychopath for 15 months because I was horny.

The experience, however, was not wasted because about a year later a friend of mine wanted to set me up with her "amazing" friend. A friend who was so sick and tired of dating professional athletes and other men who treated her "poorly," that she was finally ready to settle down for a sucker nice guy like me.

We had dated a couple months, and while it initially started out good, it quickly collapsed one day when I got gas. I filled my tank. Put on the cap. Went into the gas station to pay for my gas. And when I got back in the car and drove off, this girl had the same angry, permanent resting bitch-face look my previous girl had.

I winced at the prospect of having to ask again, "Is there anything wrong," but seeing no other option, did so. Which then resulted in her screaming at the top of her lungs, freaking out (while driving on the interstate at 70 MPH) furious I had not offered to buy her a soda.

You cannot make this shit up.

But having had previous experience in this field before, I calmed her down, dropped her off at her parents house and never saw her again (until I saw her again at a party with her new husband, but didn't recognize her because she got so fat...but that is another story).

While today I can look back with eyes twice the age and realize these women were genuinely mentally ill, vile human beings, at the time I lacked the wisdom to realize...even acknowledge...that a lot of women are evil and capable of evil. And this has probably always been the case for 25 year old men. They have to double their age to realize that, no, it wasn't you. Young women can be manipulative, they can lie, they are often spoiled, and some are just rank evil, getting kicks out of stirring up drama and watching men squirm.

But the days of 25 year old men naively getting hoodwinked into thinking they actually did something wrong are rapidly coming to a close, if not, are outright over. Long gone are the days where men fall for the vile trap of "if you don't know, I'm not telling you." And not a single guy believes you have to cancel the date because your "girlfriend just broke up with her boyfriend and really needs her right now." Because while men today may be leaderless, fatherless, and not have an older brother to warn them about "the ways of women," they do have the internet. And its existence has fundamentally upended the dynamic between men and women.

"Here Comes the Internet"

When I was 25, it was the year 2000. And at about that time discussion boards were starting to form on this new-fangled thing called "the internet." Additionally, Blogger was launched as a free service by Google in 2003 wherein people could write about most anything. And while there were limitless topics being discussed on the internet, humans being humans, they started talking about the opposite sex.

It may have seemed an innocuous, even cute "hobby" for men to journal, write, comment, and discuss women on the internet. But this innocuous hobby ended up becoming the longest running, most thorough, longitudinal study done on women, let alone in the history of the social sciences. Because for the first time in history men globally were allowed to start sharing notes, observations, anecdotes and data about their experiences with women.

And it wasn't pretty.

At first it was hush hush because the observations were, frankly, damning about the opposite sex. Only bombastic men preceding us such as Tom Leykis or old philosophers long dead (HL Mencken) for example) could critique women honestly without fear of reprisals. But they either made a living at it or were already dead. The rest of us had to worry about losing our jobs, losing our marriages, being ostracized from our social networks, or being called (GASP!) a sexist. But reprisals aside, men could not deny what was happening in reality. Men could not deny that they were confirming consistent behavior among women, trends and traits, and that "No, you're not insane. That happened to me too!" Men simply could not deny the truth and were savoring the sanity that came with it.

The internet floodgates about "women and their ways" further opened because of several reasons. First, most men's primary interest and motivation in life was women so nearly every man on the planet had reason to further the discussion. Second, most men's experiences with women were confusing, mentally tortuous, and contradictory to what the world was telling them it should be, or even gaslighting them into what it was. The internet verified that no, what they experienced was real, and that they were not insane. It was a rare bastion of sanity in a world claiming you were the one with the problem. And third, bandwidth increased that other forms of media (namely podcasting and live-streaming) could be performed over the internet. And soon what was an obscure section of the internet, populated by nerds who couldn't get laid, was the fastest growing, and largest singular social topic in all of media. Furthermore, with so much traffic, not only were men's observations about women becoming more mainstream, increasing numbers of men were making a living continuing this informal longitudinal study. Meaning they may have to fear censors on different social media platforms, but didn't have to worry about losing their jobs or livelihoods. Meaning they could be even more empirical and candid about women.

The third major trend on the internet was doing videos about and monetizing the erupting digital "Sex War." People really didn't care what was politically correct, let alone whether it offended women, only that they could monetize it. Cleverly structured shows such as Fresh and Fit, The Whatever Podcast, and Kevin Samuels made bank bringing on women to expose themselves and the true nature of women to the world. Bombastic personalities like Andrew Tate became global masculine celebrities. Any podcaster or influencer knew talking about the sexes would triple their traffic, prompting people to have increasingly edgier, even anti-feminist takes. It got so fervored even obsolete mainstream media old fogies got into the action (of course 20 years too late). And a generation of Tiktok girls wanted to their slice too. Whether it was by raging against men like a feminist, cheering on men as an astroturfed, cleavage-bearing "tradwife," or just posting man-hating rage-bait - anything to avoid getting a real job. The world was starting to realize women were not sugar and spice and everything nice.

Finally, silently running in the background of all of this was online dating. Which, unbeknownst to everyone in the world, was keeping score. Because of it's digital nature, online dating was able to compile the largest statistical database ever made, measuring women's true mathematical interest in men.

But while everybody was too busy either sharing experiences on discussion forums, writing books, doing podcasts about dating, lamenting how bad online dating was, or TikTok-ing their latest "Guys, let me ask you a question, where have all the good men gone" click-bait-whore videos, nobody realized what was actually going on. Nobody saw what a quarter century of this informal longitudinal study did.

It completely mapped out, modeled, and reversed engineered women.

In other words, men finally figured women out.

Women Are No Longer a Mystery

Laugh as you might that men have "figured women out," but as mentioned before we're past the point of arguing. And while people may find it cute or quaint men claim to have figured out the "algorithm of women," a serious consequence of this unlocking is that women are no longer mysterious. The mystery of women is gone.

Sure, not all women are the same. Certainly, they're not robots, AI, or NPC's that operate as a monolithic group. But men have figured out nearly every major and minor rule, motivation, incentive, and reason governing women's behavior. And thanks to the internet it's laid bare in plain sight for everyone to see if they look for it.

So what are women, if not a mystery?

Well, they're just like men. Rational, calculating, savvy human beings making the wisest most effective decisions they can given their environment. But what differentiates men and women in the choices they make is one key and critical thing that inevitably explains why we're past the point of arguing - disparate sex drives. DRASTICALLY disparate sex drives.

Whether you like it or not (and as a reminder, we're no longer arguing here) the internet has exposed some key axioms or facts about women. And while we could write scores of thousand-page books about what the internet has exposed about women, as it pertains to the topic at hand there's a handful of axioms that are germane

1 - Women do not like sex as much as men

2 - Women do not like men as much as men like women

3 - Women HATE sleeping with men they do not like

4 - However, just like men, women are inherently lazy. And the only thing they hate more than sleeping with men they do not like, is having to bear the full weight and responsibility of supporting oneself in the real world.

Naturally not every woman is like this. Yes, I know of many women who support themselves, some even supporting drug-dealing boyfriends. But regardless of these singular instances, the above 4 axioms give women in general an option men do not have - they can use their sex appeal to extract resources from men, thereby permitting them an easier life, and one with certainly less work. (And why wouldn't they?)

It could be asking a boy to do your homework for you or accessing the limitless number of horny nerds in an engineering program to help you with your calculus.

It could be having any one of the many mail suitors in your social group help you move, fix your car, or assemble some furniture.

Dave Ramsey has famously demanded men be enslaved to pay for girlfriends', fiancees', and wives' student loan debts.

Nightclubs are merely a place for women to extract free drinks and worship/attention from men.

Women's use of dating apps to string men along for entertainment, self-esteem, and feeding their egos...and not dating...is no secret.

The infamous "KHOMA loans" I ran into in banking where rich husbands would co-sign loans so their wives could run ridiculous bobble shops was a well-known, yet hush-hushed phenomenon in banking.

And marriage is perhaps the longest running and classic form of this subsidy. Whether it's the husband doing all the blue collar work, disproportionately paying for the house, making payments on his wife's Lexus, making payments on his wife's student loans, or disproportionately paying for utilities, his wife's life is entirely subsidized. And this says nothing about divorce, where (typically) men are ordered to pay a settlement and often times alimony to a woman they are no longer having sex with.

Now to any clear-minded man such behaviors, propositions or actions would be unacceptable. If your male friend demanded you pay for his student loans in order to be his friend, or ever uttered "If you don't know, I'm not telling" you'd drop that person from your life as the liar and liability he is. But women can get away with this because they either offer sex or offer the prospect of sex.

This strategy will work for a while. A shockingly-long time in some instances for particularly desperate men. But inevitably men will get tired of the unacceptable conditions, treatment, and double-standards, especially if they're not getting the sex their were either promised or implied to get. This guarantees the inevitable arguments that nearly every relationship has. It also runs the risk that men will stop thinking with their dick and use their big head instead, and come to the epiphany that women may just be more interested in a man's attention and resources, than they are having sex with him.

And this is where women becoming "mysterious" becomes so critical.

Keep in mind this is not all women. But in order for women who do use this strategy to keep it up, they need to hide the fact they have no intention of sleeping with you, being nice, supporting themselves, taking responsibility, or being a truly loving valuable asset in your life. Women need to hide the fact they're just marrying you for commitment and resources and would prefer a sexless marriage. Women need to hide the fact they don't care about the family budget, they just want you to work more for the Mercedes she wants. Women need to hide the fact they consciously majored in math-avoidant bullshit and attended college to party, and not ever be serious about being an actual strong and independent woman with a real profession. And single women have no greater sport than stringing along single men for attention, validation, worship, and entertainment. So how do you do hide these ulterior motives and keep the worship, resources, time and money coming?

You be mysterious. You be ethereal. You be intangible. And over the eons women have perfected the strategy of being "mysterious."

Here there is an uncatalogueable number and variation of strategies, tactics, methods, and moves that women use to obfuscate and hide what they are doing in reality.

There is the "Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus" false premise, where women are such ethereal, even magical creatures nobody can possibly understand them and they just can't be tethered to or defined by the realities of life. Men are just "magically" more empirical and women more "emotional" meaning, tee-hee, well, I guess we'll just never be able to figure them out.

The concept of "EQ" was created not just to make stupid people feel better, but was also a canard to imply that women were just naturally more "emotionally mature" than men. Can't mathematically point out how, can't scientifically prove it, can't be nailed down in any way, but women are authoritatively more mature than men so anything they say, especially about relationships, has veracity...at least according to pseudo-science.

Women having their period and going through menopause is often abused as an excuse to be insufferable, not in the mood, or unable to get on the treadmill and maintain your girlish figure.

Psychology provides a vast number of mental disorders that conveniently excuse women (and men's) irrational, damaging, horrible, even, evil behavior. The hiking girl claimed to be BPD and anorexic. The screaming soda girl no doubt probably had some kind of disorder. But at the end of the day they weren't mentally ill. They were just horrible people who wanted to do horrible things. But they needed the mental disorder to excuse that so I would believe them and continue feeding them time, money and attention.

Psychology, also like religion, provides any reason, rationalization and interpretation you want as it's so amorphous. Women can always go to a "therapist" and whatever bullshit comes out of that session can be used as an excuse to avoid empirical reality, responsibility, or to continue on with the grift in in their relationship with a man. Furthermore, psychological advice can be interpreted however the recipient wants it, usually to their benefit, usually to their advantage, all with the veracity and authority that a "doctor" said so.

There's mind games girls will play whether that's hard to get, the "mother hen," "bitch shields" on nights out, or just standing men up. They also have no problems texting men on dating apps or social media for weeks, before inevitably going ghost. Many think it's an actual strategy to get men to like them. But it mucks the water enough to continue the "mysteriousness" of women.

Related, if you ever ask women what you're doing wrong, this invokes one of my favorite obfuscations - the "You see, the one thing you don't understand about women is X" schtick. Men have to understand there's always "one thing" you missed. You could be 50 years old, asked out thousands of women, slept with scores, done the 3,267,901 things they asked you to do before...buuuutttt...

"You see, the one thing you don't understand about women is the 3,267,902nd thing here." It's a treadmill that has no end and no destination. And it's designed that way because it perpetuates the mystery forever that you have YET to figure women out.

Christian women are famous for abusing the bible and the sin of lust to avoid having sex with their husbands. Secular women just more simply blame headaches. Sexless marriages are around 25-35% of the total, none of which is women's fault of course, because "you see, the 3,267,903rd thing you don't understand about women is..."

There's rank name calling and shame should you dare to question, or simply suggest a woman might be to blame for her choices or has erred. You have a small penis, must be gay, or have mommy issues, etc.

And if all else fails, or the man dares to call her on her bullshit, ask she be empirical, be responsible, or threaten to leave her if she doesn't start satisfying his needs, there is a general and total tactical retreat into the dark and murky world of...

emotions. And good luck with that.

Here reality ceases to exist as all that matters is how she "feels."

You're about the file for bankruptcy and lose the house if she doesn't get a second job and cut her spending?

She screams she works really hard and deserves to have the life she wants.

She's getting fat and you no longer want to have sex with her and so you ask her to lose weight?

She cries.

She's not saving enough for retirement and kicking around getting a masters degree in art? And you dare to suggest that's a pissing away of money and she needs to work more?

She gets angry, furious, and threatens divorce. And of course she cries...probably while calling you a name or two.

As an example, perhaps one of the most absurd arguments I've ever had in my life was with an ex where I was (idiotically) yet patiently explaining to her why she can't be late anymore.

Think about that. I'm arguing with a FULL GROWN 30 YEAR OLD ADULT ON WHY SHE NEEDS TO BE ON TIME. It's a basic, function of adult human behavior. A basic courtesy to others and yourself. Neither I nor anybody else should have to explain why a full grown adult should be on time. And yet, upon me insisting on this basic, adult human expectation and responsibility, SHE FUCKING CRIES.

Regardless of what basic, normal, factual, empirical issue it is you're trying to get your woman to acknowledge and take action on, the point is women revert to emotionality, and ESPECIALLY crying when they sense you're about to force reality on them, dare them to be responsible in some manner or another, or in some other way bring their grift to an end. It is a last desperate attempt to get the man to ABANDON facts, reality, empiricism, and ethics, and emotionally bludgeon him into continuing to accommodate or support your privilege at his expense. It is emotional black mail in the hopes you capitulate the argument to make her stop screaming, stop being upset, and above all else, stop crying, just to "go back to normal." But remember, crying is what adults do when they've been caught in a lie, caught in a hypocrisy, caught in an unfairness, or just caught in general. Crying is lying.

There are certainly a million more tactics women employ to remain a "mystery" to men. But in the end it's just a smoke screen to prevent men from impassionately and unemotionally assessing what women's actions are telling them about women's true motivations and their interest in men. It is to keep men perpetually running on the "Treadmill of Hope" to "finally" figure women out, fulfilling the impossible "happy wife, happy life" dictate, or to finally get that girl in History class to go on a date with him.

But in the end, you just have to use your big head and not your little head to realize this.

Do you really think in the 200,000 years men have been on the planet, with trillions of male human hours dedicated to it, and great philosophers across all empires and cultures, if there was a solution to the mystery of women, men wouldn't have figured it out? The reason literally all men before you couldn't figure out women, is because...well..frankly...they were horny. But the SECOND reason they couldn't is because there never was a puzzle. There never was a mystery to solve. That was the mystery. It was all just an act.

IT ONLY GETS WORSE

This epiphany alone (that women are not mysterious, but act mysterious on purpose to maximize the benefits they can extract from men with as little expenditure in return) should give most men's minds years of thoughts to chew on. But if there's one derivative thing men should focus on, it's the consequences of having generation after generation of women raised in this environment. An environment where women can capture, manipulate, and monetize the male sex drive so they do not have to face the full force, costs, and consequences of reality. In short, what happens when somebody doesn't have to grow up in, and fully face, the real world?

Well, they become a psychopathic spoiled brat that throws temper tantrums on the interstate if you don't offer them a soda! That's what happens!

But admittedly, that is an extreme example and not every woman is that level of "The Princess & the Pea," nor that evil. Still, because women have been effectively shielded from reality by the male sex drive, they often times have NO CLUE what is required of it. And often times live in denial of the realities around them.

How many women do you know who went 10's of thousands of miles without an oil change because daddy or hubby "did all that car stuff."

How many women know where the shutoff valve is in their apartment or home, let alone even know one exists should a main break and the house start to flood?

Despite generous (and often times, multiple) divorce settlements, it's shocking how many women end up impoverish and unable to retire in old age.

To this day 90% of female college students major in absolutely worthless, unemployable degrees (while men are "only" at 60%). What's worse is they're so untethered from reality, they actually think they can make a living wage with a "Communications Degree."

Women actually believe their "confidence" or "education" will get them the man of their dreams, while never admitting the reality they have to hit the gym, be thin, and regularly have sex.

Have you ever had to wait for a woman? Are you waiting for one right now? Are you waiting for her to finish packing, catch a flight, schedule an appointment, or she's so bad at time management she doesn't have time to do the dishes, pick up her clothes, clean the liter box, or just get the fuck out of the car after you parked it 45 seconds ago? I bet she's still in the car right now, gathering her things while you're listening to this, while you're standing in -10 degree weather.

And perhaps the peak example of women's disconnect from reality is while men are getting killed in wars, injured in industrial accidents, dirtied while changing the oil, or slaving away on an oil rig, women are so pampered they actually think they're the victims. They're the ones who are oppressed. And this is no where better epitomized by Women Studies degrees, where women are so privileged they can MAJOR IN STUDYING THEMSELVES, DEMAND TAX PAYERS PAY FOR IT, AND THEN IN THE SAME BREATH CLAIM THEY'RE OPPRESSED.

Their world is truly delusional.

Men, meanwhile, could only dream of living in such a world, because the reality is that LITERALLY NO ONE is going to pay for our rent in exchange for a blow job or a quickie. nobody is going to give us preferential treatment if we sleep with them. We have to face reality, full force, in it's entirety, or die, making us entirely empirical and intricately familiar with reality. Our worlds could not be further apart.

THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION

When you boil it down, arguing or having an argument, in its simplest form, is a disagreement between two people over how to solve a problem. And the only reason they are arguing is because, presumably, they care about the other person. Otherwise, they would say "fuck it," walk away, and go on with their lives. They wouldn't argue about it.

Therefore the point of the argument is to have each person make their case as to how they should communally go about solving a problem, so that the relationship may continue in peace and in a better manner. But this optimistically assumes a couple things about both parties arguing.

First, you have to assume both parties have a desire to accurately diagnose the problem so that the problem may be accurately identified and therefore solved.

Second, you have to assume both parties are seeking a solution to the problem that would work so the problem goes away, and never has to be dealt with again.

Sadly, this is rarely the case with women.

It is not that I wish to slam on women in general, or have some kind of bone to pick with them, or that some women aren't capable of reasoned, mature, adult conversation. But (as the internet has so clearly exposed) women are primarily concerned about their feelings above all else, including reality. (See the video, "It's Not About the Nail"). And this makes arguing with them a simple impossibility.

As discussed before, as an evolutionary adaptive strategy, women are generally intellectually dishonest about what they want to maintain the advantage the "mystery" strategy affords them. This means if there's an argument, they typically are negotiating in bad faith, having an ulterior motive (typically the continued support, protection, and subsidy of men to offset the full costs of reality). This results in specious arguments, emotional pleas, and (frankly) blather that has no bearing in reality, and therefore no chance of actually identifying or solving the problem. Furthermore - unless raised right or forced by her father to change oil, work to support herself, and face reality in its totality - many women are simply so untethered from reality, so far removed, there is no reasoning or rationalizing with them because they're simply not empirical. They're entirely unaware of the full demands of the real world. It's all emotional or simply what they want.

Finally, not once in the history of women has one ever admitted she was wrong or at fault. You could catch your wife in bed with another man and she has the instinct to magically excuse her behavior, defer blame, and insist she did nothing wrong. God himself could come down from the heavens and tell her she's wrong, and like Neo she will dodge all his accusations through the most fantastic mental acrobatics. It is indeed a fascinating phenomenon to witness.

This makes arguing with women (and any one else who is intellectually dishonest) an outright impossibility. There is no genuine desire or often times even the ability on their part to identify the problem, acknowledge the problem, and put forth the work to solve the problem. So why bother?

But it is here that it's incumbent upon men to be stoic enough to know when it is futile to argue.

If you were to look back at the majority of your arguments with the women in your life, the vast, vast majority of them, were absolutely pointless and resolved nothing. You had a genuine, real world problem. And through emotions, crying, obfuscation, and nonsensical blather, she was able to lead you off into the weeds, make the conversation painful, and get you to forget about the problem because you didn't understand what she was saying, plus the argument was so painful, you just wanted it to end. However, in your capitulation, you tacitly agreed to continue tolerating the problem, and allow her to continue enjoying the convenience, hypocrisy, or double-standard. It could be her spending, it could be her weight gain, it could be her being slow or late, whatever it was. It would continue.

But let us be absolutely clear. In the end, you weren't wrong. She did get fat. She did spend too much money. And she was always late. You were just wrong thinking she could be reasoned with. You were wrong thinking she cared about you enough to change or sacrifice to solve that problem. You were stupid enough to think arguing would solve the problem.

WHY WE'RE IN A POST-ARGUMENT WORLD

Reality, whether you like it or not, is going to give you some problems. Sometimes it's hunger. Sometimes it's health. Often times it's poverty. Sometimes it's mental. But you and everyone on this planet is going to face real world problems. And these problems are going to be hard enough to overcome on your own. But it becomes a nightmarish existence when you have the added baggage of a full-grown adult in tow, absolutely refusing to be:

empirical

intellectually honest

responsible

mature

and vested in the relationship over her individual self

Furthermore, with the increasing financial demands upon men such as housing costs, lower wages, taxation, ridiculous education requirements, sexism, divorce, outsourcing, etc., men today simply do not have the time or mental capacity for this irrational, emotional, not-reality-based bullshit. And once you remove the testosterone from it, the arguments become so plainly simple, so self-evident, they're absurd.

No, we are not arguing about you being on time.

No, we are not arguing about you spending less than you make.

No, we are not arguing about you being thin and attractive and healthy.

No, we are not arguing about whether we're having sex or not.

No, you're not crying because I told you I'm not paying for your Masters Degree in Journalism.

No, single moms are not brave and amazing, and no, I'm not marrying you and your bastard son Yayden.

No, you're not voting to raise my taxes, import immigrant labor, lower my wages, or betray the country.

No, your mother is not coming to live with us.

No, I'm not working too much. We have bills to pay.

No, big is not beautiful and Lizzo is not pretty.

No, you're not going to Ibiza for the girls weekend.

No, you are not mentally ill and therefore cannot work for a living.

No, you're not getting on drugs.

No, you're not getting a tattoo.

No, we aren't raising our kid trans or vegan.

No, there is no way in hell we are arguing about, "If I don't know, you're not telling."

And, HELL NO, we sure the fuck are not going to argue about me failing to ask you if you wanted a soda.

It is just not possible to live with people so untethered from reality asking for such ridiculous things.

Therefore, there really is only one way for men to respond to women when it comes to arguing. You don't. You simply decree. You simply order and you command. And if women don't like that, they can leave. Men insist that they not only lead in all relationships, but they are the final arbiter of all decisions and his woman (if there is to be one in his life) will not only comply, but "jovially comply" (which is an interesting concept you may want to look up in the Masons). Not because he is a dictator. Not because he's a prick. But because women's demands are often impossible. They're antithetical to reality. And this optimistically assumes they're even being honest about their demands in the first place!

In other words, since no solutions to real world problems are possible via arguing, this renders the entire act of arguing completely pointless. And instead, men must simply insist on it either being their way or the highway, because any other form of negotiation or arguing is simply a waste of time.

JUST TWO MORE THINGS

There is, however, two incredibly important points that need to be made about this entire discussion. One a very important premise, and the other a caveat.

The very important premise all of the above is based on is that you are an honorable, ethical, empirical, and self-supporting man. It assumes you live in the real world, have faced and solved real world problems, and otherwise have the wisdom and experience that comes with being an honorable, self-supporting adult in the real world. The reason this is so vital is so many men are not these things.

The drug-dealing boyfriend who lives off his woman has no right to bark orders at her or give dictates as to how they shall live. The student-debt ridden 42 year old Millennial has no authority or position to tell his woman how things are going to go down with the family finances. The democrat who collects welfare or EBT so he can avoid work does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to telling his woman that no, her mom cannot live with them. And the Edina nepo-baby trust funder who is just banging a girl with no intention of committing to her, has no right to tell her about how she keeps her home.

But the man who is experienced, who does support himself, who isn't a nepo baby, can fix his car, and has a job, he is in a position of authority because he's just better at life than the majority of women who have had life on "delusional-emotional-easy mode." He's better at the "Game of Life" than most women, and that right there is the simple reason why he should be making most decisions, and why arguing (is frankly) beneath him and insulting to him.

Many of you self-supporting, real men may have had the cute and quaint experience where a woman who is nowhere near as independent as you attempts to give you life advice or assert some kind of authority over some minor aspect of your life. Like you're doing the dishes wrong, or that your house isn't designed the way she'd like, or that your hobbies are foolish. These are the same women who are surprised that men can feed themselves, maintain a home, wash their clothes, and in general survive without women. Meanwhile, they're 32, still have student loans from 12 years ago, make $17 an hour at some pissant job, are on anti-depressants, maybe have a kid or two in tow, no savings, no 401k, and a car that is about to break down. Yet, they're going to lecture you about using organic shampoo, because your regular shampoo is going to cause cancer.

These women are not only beneath you, but ones you certainly don't argue with. And if they are in your life, they either obey your orders unquestionably, or they get out. The reason you worked at becoming a real, honorable, self-supporting man is so that your life is not encumbered or dragged down by these people and their idiotic arguments, desires, or requests. And it is why you leave these women to the weak, dependent, dishonorable men who DO have to argue with these women and endure the hell that that life is. You are not a pig. You don't roll in mud.

The second important point to make is the caveat. Specifically, the rarity of quality women. Because while this essay has been highly critical (and accurate) about the honor, integrity, and intellectual honesty about women, it should also point out and make apparent just how rare and valuable women with those qualities are.

You are absolutely right both the "If You Don't Know, I'm Not Telling You" girl and the Psychopathic Soda girl were hot women. And you are absolutely right I chased after them because I was young and horny. And you would be further right that the hotter women are, the more mentally ill they tend to be because the world lets them get away with murder. Not a single one of them had an ounce of honor, integrity, honesty, or ethics. But they did have nice tits.

But as you age, and especially if you want a quality woman in your life, what makes women REALLY HOT are the boring mundane traits we've been talking about. And the reason why is these "mundane" traits make life so much easier and so much more enjoyable.

A woman who is honest makes it's so much easier to make her happy because she just tells you truthfully what she wants, what's bothering her, or what she's thinking.

A woman who has honor and integrity KNOWS she is responsible for her own life and her own success. She knows she has to major in accounting. She knows she has to work out to find a quality man. She knows she must support herself.

A woman who is responsible is not a liability to others. She has her own 401k, makes her own money, and pays for her own expenses. You do not have to carry her. You don't have to bail her out of her student loans. She is not a parasite. You are not her slave. And the mental ease that comes with a GENUINELY independent woman (not the faux feminist variety) cannot be explained.

A woman who is not solipsistic is aware other people exist. She has empathy and therefore respects other people's lives and time. She is punctual, considerate, and has situational awareness, not because she is being kind, but because she realizes it is the most efficient and effective way to have a profitable, enjoyable relationship - to acknowledge and honor the other person's time and existence.

And while men will forever initially focus on how hot a woman is, or how big her tits are, a woman with the rare traits mentioned above will have the ability to deliver on a standard that is borderline impossible for most other women - a relationship with no arguing or crying. In part because she's not delusional or intellectually dishonest. In part because she carries her own weight, and therefore there's nothing really to argue about. But more so if there is a disagreement, she'll usually defer to your authority to keep the peace because she has the maturity to realize it isn't worth it, and you are a full grown man who will likely make the right decision anyway.

And that is the goal. The new standard of living. The new requirement of men. A world without arguing.

Not because it's something "nice" or something we'd like to have. Not because men are being arrogant, insisting on what seems to be such an impossible and delusional goal. "Pfa, getting women to not argue."

The reason this is the new normal, is because arguing never worked in the first place. It was always a ploy in the majority of instances to keep men dancing and maintain a double standard. It was rarely about anything tangible, solveable, or important in the real world. It was to continue to maintain the impossible standard of living where women's FEELINGS trumped reality. And to reiterate what was said before, it...

just

doesn't

work.

We've been arguing for centuries. And not a single thing has been solved or concluded. We are done arguing, ladies. And there's the door if you don't like it.

RESOURCES:

People who enjoyed this essay and gained something from it may find the following resources beneficial as well:

The Book of Numbers: Analyzing the ROI on the Pursuit of Women. An economic analysis on men's pursuit of women and whether it's worth it in today's world. Available at Amazon.

Free Agent Lifestyle: A book by Coach Greg Adams which can be found on Amazon.

Bachelor Pad Economics: The financial advice bible for men that addresses all the major and minor financial decisions you will make from the ages of 14 to death.

Masculine Geek: Many thanks to my friend Vince at Masculine Geek whose insight and epiphany were instrumental in this essay. You can find him at www.masculinegeek.life

Asshole Consulting: If you need advice, have questions, or just want to know if you're sane, visit me at www.assholeconsulting.com

Clippings from "Zero World Problems"

 Greetings Cappy Readers!

With the advent of streaming it is obvious many of your favorite bloggers no longer write, and instead have been sucked into the realm of podcasting/streaming.  I am one of those victims.

However, I am writing my latest book "Zero World Problems," some pieces of which were removed/editing from the book.  These "clippings," though well-written, end up on the editing floor as they don't really fit in the book.  

I present one here just to keep the ole blog alive and give our old school readers a little something to read:

Post-material economies require non-material standards of living. Which means the first thing you need to do is reject your conventional middle school values and all the materialism that comes with it. This is easier said that done in that humans are biologically addicted to consumption and socially programmed to hold it as the most important thing in their lives. But it doesn't change the fact that if you don't ditch materialism as the most important thing in life, you are more or less guaranteed to waste yours, suffering the miserable "punting lives" described above.

How one does this is up to the individual. They can read Stoic and Epicurean philosophy, putting it into practice in their own lives. They can study minimalism and make it their personal financial strategy. Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism, Ikigai, Confucianism, and Taoism are great resources for understanding the philosophical benefits and reasons for a non-material life. And a simple and dirty trick is to just use Facebook to look up all the materialist assholes you had to deal with in your past and see just how miserable, fat, and debt-ridden they are. Regardless of how you get to this epiphany, it is your responsibility to do so. But if there's a trick, if there's a short cut to giving you the needed motivation to abandon your middle school values, it's realizing one thing;

Just how much cheaper it is to abandon your material goals.

For all practical points and purposes, you will never achieve the level of wealth you want. It just isn't going to happen as you'll always want more. But in that vain pursuit, it will cost you everything in life. You money, your time, your happiness, your youth, and your health. But imagine for a second you didn't care what other people thought about you. Imagine if you didn't need to buy a fancy car, fancy clothes, attend an overpriced school, or live in some uppity neighborhood. What if your car payment, your mortgage/rent, and your credit card bills were all 1/3rd they are today? What if you only bought what you needed, and not what society demanded? What could you do?

Could you sleep in and enjoy a coffee before you had to drive to work?

Could you walk to work as you could afford a smallish apartment near your job?

Could you work 30 hours a week instead of 60 since your car was paid off?

What if you had no student loan debt? Would that improve your standard of living?

What if you were never divorced? Would that improve your life?

And what price would you place on never having to worry about money ever again?

The truth is the average American has no idea how close they are to financial freedom. How much easier it would be if they would just give up all the Edina Castle Rock Scottsdale Cavaricci bullshit. How much richer they'd be owning less, allowing them to do more. And while this book has made some philosophical arguments for replacing material standards of living with non-material ones, that is not the main intention of this book. Those arguments have been much better presented in the works of Stoic and Eastern philosophers (of which you should absolutely read). The purpose of this book is a more economically practical one with a "do now, understand later" approach. It is to identify new specific standards we should be pursuing in this post-material world. It is to identify new life goals and objectives that will lead to a better, more fulfilled life. It is to give you a list of specific new economic goals to achieve so you know what to pursue in life after you've achieved enough materially. It is to make you want these goals more than you want a Ferrari or side by side.

These new economic standards of living will fall the following categories:

Freedom

Simplicity

Peace of Mind

Your Home, and

Your Health

It will be through these things humanity can continue to advance and the individual can continue to pursue happiness.

How the Department of Homeland Security Wasted $700,000 in Taxpayer Money on "Diverting Hate"

 

AIN'T NO REST FOR THE WICKED

April was a busy month for me. It entailed the end of a busy tax season. Two cross country trips totaling over 4,500 miles driven. A fun (though physically exhausting) 20 mile hiking adventure in Utah. And the obligatory week of physical labor entailed in spring cleaning. And so when I pulled into my home late last night after a 1,100-mile-one-day drive, I was looking forward to nothing more than banging out the spring cleaning, mowing my yard, hitting the gym, and bingeing on Gintama, my latest interest in Japanese anime.

That was until I found out I was on a government list.

And if you know anything about "government lists," you know you don't want to be on one.

And so, instead of being able to enjoy a well-deserved week-long rest of just hitting the gym and getting my anime-geek on, I was obliged to research how I got on this list, what this list was all about, and who put together this list. Furthermore, upon figuring these things out, it became apparent to me I would additionally now have to go public, explaining this list and the people behind it, as this list is going viral and many of my fine audience members are bringing it to my attention.

So much for Gintama.

WHAT HAPPENED

While the original report has been taken down (though a copy has been linked below), the best I can put together with what remains on the internet is that a non-profit organization called "Diverting Hate" received $700,000 in government funding from the Department of Homeland Security to conduct some research into the possibility of "redirecting traffic" from red pill/manosphere sites to other man-oriented sites that "Diverting Hate" deemed..."not hateful." This was done under the claim that red pill sites (such as my own, Fresh & Fit, Rollo Tomassi, etc.) were radicalizing susceptible, lonely, and marginalized men into misogyny, extremism, even "violence and hatred" against women, and by running ads on our platforms and channels, these alienated men would discover and be diverted to the alternative pro-male channels "Diverting Hate" deemed appropriate and not anti-woman.

To do this Diverting Hate hired out various academics at various colleges including Middlebury, Arizona State, the McCain Institute and others. These academics would identify "hateful" red pill channels/sites, research the channels, measure their "misogyny," even come up with some colorful (and ridiculous) methodologies to create a "Male Supremacy Scale." They also did significant research into other platforms, vocabulary used in the manosphere/red pill community, speculation into how to intervene and protect susceptible males, and ultimately created a recommended "course of action list." And best I can tell they actually did purchase advertising to redirect traffic from the aforementioned sites to the politically-correct sanitized ones (though the success of this is to be determined. Additionally, I will change anything above that proves to be erroneous.).

Had this been any other academic research it would have largely been ignored. But since Diverting Hate published their report in March of 2024, it has gone viral for several reasons. First, in accusing a list of sizable online influencers of being misogynists and proponents of violence, Diverting Hate immediately fired up these influencers' large audiences, who then proceeded to make this report go viral. Second, the accusation alone of promoting violence prompts influencers to answer and defend themselves (my video I'm sure will only be one of many). Third, the presence of Homeland Security. Not only is it controversial, even scandalous that taxpayer money is being used to fund such "research," but there's the implication said influencers are possible domestic terrorists or supporters/enablers of domestic terrorism (and you can read that implication in the report).

But if the three aforementioned things weren't enough to rile up millions of fans, it's the absurdity of the report that probably caused it to go viral most. The researchers just blatantly and unfoundedly accuse people of misogyny, male supremacy and violence. They arrogantly accuse all these people of misogyny and violence on the sole reason and rationale that "they say so." And so now we have government-financed academics arbitrarily and spuriously accusing people of promoting sexism, violence, even domestic terrorism, with absolutely no checks or being questioned, resulting in an Orwellian, STASI like government list (though technically, it is an academic list, not an actual government list). In short, it is the tyrannical nature of the report and the academics who published it that has resulted in this report going viral (and consequently being taken down by the now-embarrassed and exposed researchers).

WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING

For you to truly understand what's really going on, you really do need to read the report in its entirety. The reason being is that while these academics and researchers thought they were being clever, the report is the single most damning bit of evidence as to their true motivations, sloppy research methods, political bias, ulterior motives, intellectual dishonesty, and frankly, laughable stupidity. However, it's completely understandable if you don't have the time or inclination to read a 55 page document (I didn't. I could have watched 3 episodes of Gitnama in that time!) But here is my proposed synopsis of what I think is really happening, of which you can verify by reading the report yourself.

It's nothing but a rank and file money-grab.

Admittedly, this may sound too simplistic or trite, but again, I implore you to read their report as evidence. It's all there.

First, not a single person involved in the writing, researching and publishing of this report has a real job or a real degree (trust me, I looked into all their backgrounds). They are all life-long academic hacks who have been in school since kindergarten, and all have avoided any serious subjects that require math, rigor, intelligence or hard work (just look at their degrees which include gender studies, sociology, social psychology, cultural studies, and tellingly "terrorism studies"). However, their bloviated bullshit degrees indicate they're too egotistical to merely accept a welfare check. And so when there's government grant money to be had (be it the DHS or not), these people have a tremendous financial and egotistical motivation to get it because it allows them to think they're doing something valuable for society, while avoiding real work at the same time. In short, this is just a welfare jobs program, and they need to rationalize it.

Second, their laziness shows throughout the report.

Not a single calorie of effort was made to understand or even accept the chance that the people they were critiquing had legitimate concerns, more nuanced arguments, or simply different views. Additionally, no one from the opposing team was interviewed or asked to give their input. Diverting Hate and its participants just mindlessly accused everyone of being "Saturday-Morning-Cartoon-Villain-Evil" because its easier than doing actual investigations or interviews, let alone trying to understand the other side.

Also painfully obvious was how little effort they put into compiling their "Male Supremacy List." Their list of 11 "main influencers" was a good start, but was missing some major and much more influential red pill/manosphere influencers. It shows they were too lazy to put in the rigor required to perfect a list of a GENUINE "top 10" or "top 20" influencers. And it's likely they didn't want to crunch the data for more than a mere 11 channels.

Related, the methodologies were just laughable, showing equal laziness via a lack of rigor. Of particular note was research done by "PERIL" - "Polarization & Extremism Research & Innovation Lab" to measure "male supremacy." Having had to measure amorphous things like "male supremacy" myself in my economics research, I can appreciate the challenge the "PERIL" team had. But instead of sitting down and putting the effort into coming up with metrics and variables that would plausibly and logically measure people who actually believed men were superior, it was obviously just a lazy list of beliefs they wanted to define as male supremacy. Things like:

-Feminism is about hating men

-Modern society prioritizes women over men

-Feminists are unattractive

-Women are driven to find higher status males

-Women are attracted to high status men

Things many people believe (and often are true), but don't necessarily make you a male supremacist if you believe them.

I could go on. The vocabulary methodology was a joke and showed they put no effort into compiling, let alone understanding a comprehensive list of red pill terms. Their logic and conclusions were not consistent, and often strained to conclude what they wanted. Half the methodologies I couldn't understand what their point was because of poor writing and explanation. The blind assumption and accusation everyone's a misogynist allowed for them to avoid the hard work that would come with analyzing a complex topic, let alone accurately diagnosing it. And absolutely no effort was put into hiding their political bend at all (yeah, we got it, you don't like trump, and I found it particularly cute you capitalized "Black men" but not "white men"). All in all it was an intellectually lazy and dishonest effort and it showed.

Third, the premise of "Diverting Hate" is absurd. Not that we shouldn't be against misogyny, violence or terrorism, but that you're going to PAY TO DIVERT TRAFFIC FROM SITES YOU DON'T LIKE??? That sounds horribly inefficient. This reminds me of bullshit business ideas the wives of rich men would come up with when I was in banking. Ideas that didn't make a lot of sense and the money could've have been better spent elsewhere. However, just as I erroneously and naively assumed the wives of these rich men wanted to run a profitable business, it's an erroneous and naive assumption to think Diverting Hate wants to save marginalized men or protect women. The rich wife was bored and wanted something to do, Diverting Hate just wants the money. And they will go to the extent of falsely accusing people of hate, violence, misogyny, or extremism to get it.

When you factor in:

1. Everyone's work-avoidant/white collar panhandling bogus academic careers

2. The poor quality of research and work that belies their biases, laziness, motivations, lack of intellectual honesty, and one might even argue misandry, and

3. The dubious premise that to combat disenfranchized men, misogyny, and violence, redirecting traffic from a group of poorly selected sites is a viable strategy

I contend Diverting Hate and all people associated with it were primarily, if not, solely motivated by money and not anything as noble as fighting misogyny, protecting women, or helping out disenfranchised men.

WHY THE DHS SHOULD DEMAND THEIR MONEY BACK

I cannot emphasize enough that the people involved in this report do not care about at-risk men or the safety of women. They are merely using these people as a pawns to get funding. If they did actually care about the safety of women and marginalized men, an entirely different and infinitely more practical approach would have been used.

At minimum they should have at least tried to understand why different influencers and platforms are saying things they don't like. Why the red pill has become so popular among main stream culture. A sort of understand your enemy sort of strategy. Related, they would also make attempts to co-opt or turn these influencers to their side, or to at least understand it. If these influencers are so large and have such influence over large audiences, they already have the infrastructure and network to directly promote the message to the precise audience Diverting Hate wants to reach. It would seem to me these influencers would be a tremendous asset to Diverting Hate's cause, and almost the first people you would try to persuade to your line of reasoning or concerns. And it would be certainly more effective in "stopping misogyny" than paying social media platforms to "divert traffic." All Diverting Hate did was accuse these people of extremism and promoting violence, further alienating these people to their cause. Diverting Hate couldn't even offer to debate these people on a public platform.

However, since Diverting Hate's main objective is funding themselves and not fighting misogyny, none of these practical measures were taken, let alone recommended in the report. Furthermore, in not really caring about men/women, they have no incentive to accurately diagnose the root causes of the misogyny and violence they feign so much concern about. Because of this whatever progress the Department of Homeland Security was hoping to achieve in funding Diverting Hate will not be realized and the entire $700,000 will be wasted. None of Diverting Hate's strategies were practical. None of their research was intellectually honest, empirical, or based in reality. Men were certainly not consulted in any of this (nearly all the researchers are female). And consequently, all of their recommendations will likely fail.

To this point, all one has to do is look at the approved list of alternative men's sites Diverting Hate wants to redirect traffic to. To be perfectly honest, they're kinda shit. A third of the sites you can't find without some serious digging, and some I couldn't find at all. If you find them, many of their websites are also, well, kinda shit as as well. Those that do have a YouTube channel rarely have consistent material. And I don't want to speculate about what kind leftist, male-feminist, soy boy, vegan, emasculating, anti-male horseshit content these channels are likely to have. If these sites were so critical to the strategy of Diverting Hate, why are they so inaccessible and lame? It's reminiscent of the religious right trying to make "Christian rap" cool in the 90s - fake, dishonest, and inauthentic. It's also evidence Diverting Hate wasn't really serious about providing a viable alternative to red pill influencers for the men they so desperately claimed to want to save, providing further evidence this was a rank money grab.

However, if the Department of Homeland Security was serious about intervening with at-risk men, as well as lowering the risk of violence against women, all is not lost. There is a group of people they could enlist who are much more informed and intricately more familiar with these at-risk men. And those people are the exact same red pill/manosphere influencers "Diverting Hate" seems to...well...hate.

Red Pill influencers, for all their drawbacks, are much more familiar with the state of men and the individual men themselves than what is, frankly, a group of monolithic-thinking, privileged feminist academics who haven't lived a day outside academia. I would even go so far as to say that red pill influencers have already done more to lessen violence and misogyny against women by telling men the harsh truths about the sexes instead of pretty lies. This has led to an increasing stoic acceptance and better understanding of women, rather than generations of confused and frustrated men, seeking vengeance or retribution over something they don't understand and therefore lash out at. Because of red pill influencers' better understanding of at-risk men, their closer proximity to them, and their lack of an ulterior motive (unlike their feminist, politically-motivated academic-hack counterparts), the Department of Homeland Security should consider something radical. They should spend that $700,000 on red pill influencers instead. There would be more and better results. The advice coming from red pill influencers would be more effective in combating disaffected men and any violence against women. And to be perfectly honest most would probably do it free of charge, or in Rollo's case, a free guitar.

But regardless of whether the DHS listens to red pillers or to echo-chambered feminist professors, the $700,000 they gave to Diverting Hate was wasted. It did nothing. It helped no one. And that will be proven when the same people come around claiming they need more money to fight the problem the original $700,000 didn't solve. It will then be up to the intellectual honesty of the DHS to determine if they're going to continue wasting taxpayer money on politically motivated horseshit money grabs like this or more wisely and effectively spend the taxpayers' money.

IN DEFENSE OF MY COLLEAGUES

The mindless, blanketed, trumped-up charges of misogyny laid against my colleagues is both wreckless, ill-thought out, and in many cases inapplicable. Furthermore, it misses the mark. And while I do not know every one on the "Male Supremacy List," nor have I consumed every second of everyone's material, there is no doubt in my mind that in casting a wide-and-indifferent net, Diverting Hate has falsely accused some people of being misogynists.

This is largely due to the researchers' laziness or lack of desire in trying to understand the finer AND VERY REAL points being made by these red pill influencers. But it is also due to a fundamental difference in what these academics and red pillers believe. Mainly whether men and women are different.

This has resulted in a paradox that anytime red pill influencers point out differences between men and women, even if well-intended, it is immediately categorized of being sexist or misogynist since the nature of the observation is a difference between the sexes.

For example, every woman involved in the research and publication of this report wasted...well...pretty much their entire lives pursuing worthless, bullshit degrees. I have a LONG and ESTABLISHED record of promoting, even imploring young women not to waste their time on worthless degrees, so that they might be wealthy, financially stable, and happier instead. However, such a criticism would no doubt be met by accusations of "misogyny" even though it would be in the best financial interests of women everywhere and would be the single most effective thing women could do to close the wage gap. But because I dare criticize women, even constructively, it's "misogyny."

Another example of this is in the report itself. Where beliefs like:

-Women are attracted to high value men

-Women seek high status men

-Modern society prioritizes women over men

-Women hit the wall

are deemed misogynistic and "male supremacy" according to the authors of the report. Never mind they're all true. Never mind acknowledging these facts would tremendously help men and women understand each other. Because they are uncomfortable truths and women simply don't like hearing them we need to accuse any red pill influencer of saying such things of misogyny. Unfortunately no progress can be made between the sexes if we're not allowed to at least acknowledge the truth.

And as an intellectual exercise in understanding something you don't agree with, a third extreme example would be some of my colleagues' position that the right to vote should be taken away from women. Yes, on the face of it, that is misogynistic. No, I don't believe women should have their right to vote removed. But their position to revoke the right of women to vote does NOT in fact come from a malicious hatred of women or misogyny, but a concern that women voting has had a detrimental effect on society, including women themselves. Again, I don't believe in that position, but the hatred of women is not behind it. A desire to commit or promote violence against women is not there. Ironically, it is a desire to protect them. However, to political ideologues, blindly motivated by government funding, this fine-yet-important distinction is lost on them.

The already-complicated issue of misogyny within the red pill community is further complicated by the wide array of characters and personalities within it. Some influencers may be more bombastic or perhaps engage in shock jock tactics to get the clicks which could be construed as misogyny. Some have found a gold mine in bringing on delusional and confrontational women to talk about male and female dynamics (Fresh and Fit being the original ones to do this, but with follow ups such as "The Whatever Podcast"...which curiously was missing from the "Male Supremacy List."). There were more reserved, mature "William F. Buckley Jr." types, epitomized by the esteemed Kevin Samuels (may god rest his soul). Even women such as Pearly Things are part of the red pill community, presenting feminists a circle they can't square. And then there's just ho-hum elderly man types who dispense their folksy, old man wisdom such as Rich Cooper and Rollo Tomassi. Harmless, affable men who just tell you how women are and used to be "back in the day." And while in this colorful group of people there is a wide array of controversial opinions and serious criticisms about women, not a single one of them hate women or have these opinions out of malice. These people are not misogynists.

But the real issue I think most people take umbrage with in the Diverting Hate report is not the accusation of misogyny. That accusation, is frankly, so overused it has lost its meaning and no one in the red pill community takes it seriously. What really pissed people off was the accusation that we're advocating violence and the insinuation we're enabling domestic terrorism.

Let me make this abundantly clear.

Neither I nor any one of the colleagues I know have EVER advocated violence, let alone against women. Neither have we advocated domestic terrorism in any form. And while the topic of misogyny is gray enough we can all debate about it, the accusation that we are promoting violence or terrorism is one that lawsuits are made out of.

In short, I don't care how you worthless academics make your grift. And I don't care how desperate you are to avoid working a real job in the real world. But I do care if my tax dollars are used to finance your grift. And I DEFINITELY CARE if I'm falsely accused of promoting violence, along with the implication I'm contributing to domestic terrorism. And so does every other red pill influencer on that report and in the world.

I have had to waste 12 hours of my free time researching and writing this response. 12 hours I'm never getting back. 12 hours I could have been watching Gintama. 12 hours that could have made quick work of my spring cleaning. I strongly recommend to everyone involved in this report you don't make me waste a single second more.

SPECIAL THANKS AND RESOURCES

I wanted to thank a girl who is simply known as "BX" on Twitter who brought this to my, and other people's, attention. She has done tremendous work and research on Diverting Hate and the various entities affiliated with it. I will have a link to her Twitter account below.

Also, if the Department of Homeland Security is serious about helping disenfranchised men and lessening violence against women, you can find my consultancy at www.assholeconsulting.com. I do not charge $700,000, but I will deliver results. The site is also linked below. Additionally, the contacts I have within the red pill community would provide a real and valuable asset to the DHS if they are concerned about extremism within men.

I have also linked to a copy of thereport published by Diverting Hate. I have hard copies so if the uploaded version is taken down, it will be uploaded again. Again, I strongly recommend you read the report to see just what kind of people these people are.

And many thanks for those of you who took the time to listen to this long and belabored video. If you are interested subscribe to my channel. Or if you just hate what "Diverting Hate" has done, subscribe out of spite and share with your friends.