British Sperm Bank Only Has 9 Donors

It seems the NHS has a bit of a problem recruiting men for their National Sperm Bank, story here.  I’ve wrote before about why men should not donate sperm.  So now I feel it is my mission to disrupt the new recruitment efforts because this sperm bank should never have existed in the first place.

Some Dutch woman, Laura Witjens, is apparently the chief executive of the National Sperm Bank.  She talks about her efforts to recruit more men and people’s problems with fertility here on her site.  I am certain that being infertile is a terrible pain but a National Sperm Bank, run by avowed feminists is probably the absolute worst idea to fix infertility, in fact, it doesn’t even fix infertility, a sperm bank is for fertile women.  It just creates a national centre of cuckoldry for women that might have an infertile husband.  She says she doesn’t want to link masculinity with fertility, but her sperm bank’s agenda has no room for infertile men and is seeking to replace them.  But of course, that is not the only goal of a sperm bank.

Reading the Daily Mail’s article on it, the National Sperm Bank is responding to demand from single women that don’t want to wait for men and lesbians.  Apparently they only offer £35 per donation.  I think the ideology behind this sperm bank is the real issue, that there are occasionally women with infertile men seems like a trojan horse.

What do I mean by that?  Well first of all, why would anyone in the UK want to create more single mothers?  Single mothers qualify for all sort of welfare benefits and their children are underachievers.  They are a drag on society.  Not to mention, the type of woman that doesn’t want to wait for men is one that I believe may be questionable for the role of motherhood, given that naturally a mother must have done enough right to not need a sperm bank.  Single mothers are not a positive thing for society, I strongly encourage men not to create more of them.

Then there is the issue of lesbians.  Being raised by two lesbian mothers is at very best sub optimal.  The tendency for the gay community to deliberately subvert norms for themselves is not something I think children should be a part of.  Sorry, but I do not recommend that men participate in the process of allowing children to be raised in this environment.

Lastly, the terminology of “donation” and the tiny payment for it are subtle but disingenuous.  A sperm donation is not merely just a donation of bodily fluid, like blood, or simply just an act of charity that happens to also be masturbation.  It is going to be used to create a child.  A child is a significant thing, who will eventually reach adulthood and participate in society, and the way that sperm bank phrases things, in terms of a simple “donation” is misleading.  It should be made very clear that this sperm will likely be used to create a human.  This is not a light thing to consider.

This National Sperm Bank is clearly a part of the feminist agenda that in a way makes the male contribution minimal and encourages trends in society that are destructive.  The removal of privacy from the donors in recent times reflects this and opens the door to potential cases in which sperm donor’s money is extorted.  Further, I think reproduction should not be something the government has the power to do and in this case, when a man surrenders his sperm, the power of reproduction is ceded and now in the hands of government officials with their own agendas.  For this, I recommend that men not donate any sperm to the National Sperm Bank, or any sperm bank.

The Real Patriarchy

The patriarchy is often labeled as a misogynist group that oppresses men and women alike for no apparent reason.  Feminists think it is just an evil group that sprang up out of nowhere, leaving no direct evidence behind of its existence but plenty of circumstantial evidence like female secretaries being paid less than directors.  It is the cause of all societal ills and it is pro-man, anti-woman except it can also be anti-man sometimes.  In fact, no one benefits from it except for its members whom we aren’t sure exist.  It has propagated itself for longer than recorded history as well.  Of course, these assertions are all ridiculous.  The thing feminists describe as “patriarchy” is illogical, stupid, and doesn’t exist.  But there is a thing such as being patriarchal and there are patterns of organisation that men follow and this is a list of them.  I make no claim to their complete accuracy, they are just one man’s observations.  Hopefully this post sheds light on the necessity of men and maleness and their role in the world.  Here are five things that seem to be in common with all patriarchal systems.

1. Prosperity.  Men and women alike often say that the primary human male purpose is to be violent and destructive and this is their natural state.  I don’t agree.  I think the primary male purpose is to reign in prosperity.  There has been far more prosperous growth than there has been death and destruction, just look around you right now.  Further, we note the status of men that have achieved relatively high amounts of prosperity.  1 in 17 men may have historically reproduced(hello male privilege), and who did the women reproduce with? Wealthy farmers.  Fortunately, capitalism is open to all but not all will succeed.  It is the potential reward that many will risk their savings on to pursue.  So what of the violence then?  Yes, men are involved with fighting but for very good reason, to protect and encourage prosperity.  The world is a chaotic place, and contrary to leftist ideology, sometimes evil exists, in fact, it happens quite frequently.  Physical destruction is the only way to end many threats.  This is true all the way down to the scale of micro organisms, so we likewise see it among humans.  But men do not fight each other senselessly but that is what the left wants us to believe.  Men are equipped to destroy and in a perverse world, that may be used for anti-prosperous reasons such as theft.  But evil is not the primary goal of men, prosperity is, and there may well be times where destruction is the only way to prosperity.  It is no surprise that men dominate roles such as CEO or director but also police officer,soldier, and surgeon (women like CEO’s, doctors, and men in uniform).  Surgeons are tasked with destroying a different threat to prosperity.  If one is open to destroying a tumour, one should also be open to destroying other threats to well-being.
2. Hierarchy. Men self-organise in to hierarchies.  It does not appear natural for all members of a group to be considered completely equal.  Hierarchies often take the form of a tree-like structure in which higher levels have more authority and power.  Leadership is an essential part.  Leaders are often picked for their familiarity with others, experience, and ability but seldom for sheer brute force, good leaders being more popular than others.  Leaders who took their roles using violence often have the least stable regimes.  A hierarchical order is vastly more efficient than an equalist order in which anyone can do as they wishes and no one can take authority over another.  Ages of military expertise have culminated in the chain of command of soldiers that likewise mirrors religious groups, businesses, and family.  This is no coincidence, it is efficiency.  Further, rewards are offered to lower members to encourage loyalty and promote the most capable to new roles.  An equalist ordering is no ordering at all, it is a recipe for disaster.  Socialism and anti-hierarchies are therefore anti-male, as ordering and rewards are a part of maleness.  Higher status and wealth are often associated with higher levels in the hierarchy.
3. Tradition. You will seldom see a patriarchal formation that does not encourage thought about its own traditions.  They do this perhaps to inspire the most recent additions and perhaps also to retain practical knowledge of the past.  As well, it provides something to be proud of and it bolsters group participation.  Beware the voices saying to discard history and tradition for not being to their liking.
4. Rules. Every patriarchal group has rules it develops for itself that members must abide by.  There may be punishments for breaking the rules.  Rules limit corruption, the enemy of hierarchy, and aid cooperation between members.  Thinking back, rules appear constantly throughout history as well as being a part of even most recent groups.  Lawlessness is anti-male.
5. Generosity. Lastly, generosity seems to be a part of so many of these groups that have formed from the family scale to the nation scale.  Whether it was volunteering time to teach the younger members or aiding people that are in need, it seems to recur.  It seems that it could be in part diplomatic, also a part of having status and gaining reward through hierarchical networks, but I think the important part is that it shows a commitment to a larger group.  The idea of a patriarchy that is so insanely hostile, for no apparent reason, that even most men suffer from it is ridiculous.  Generosity is a trait seen in many societies throughout the past.

This list isn’t meant to be extremely definitive, again, these are just my observations.  But at least I am encouraging thought about the male role and displaying the good in the world.  Also, the intricacy of the role of men in the world needs to be discussed as many believe they are superfluous.  My next few blog posts will display some well known examples.  Perhaps June can be “Patriarchy History Month”.

Manosphere and Dark Enlightenment Narrow-mindedness

First, let me clarify, these movements are better than anything the Left has to offer.  The insane Left is rotten and intellectually fruitless and bankrupt.  The Left is also ridiculously powerful and controlling and there needs to be opposition to it.  However, and maybe this is more of a DE thing than a Manosphere thing, the Manosphere and Dark Enlightenment need to clean up their act.  One problem I have with them is that they are unwilling to engage with anyone that doesn’t see things their way.  Call it arrogance, lack of ability, and narrow-mindedness, but unless you completely agree with them, they will call you an agent of the Cathedral or influenced by them.

For those that don’t know what the Cathedral is, look it up.  I don’t subscribe to this broad belief that all things elite are evil.  I also don’t want to obsess about race or iq as much as the DE does.  I also don’t want to create a monarchy and put DE people in charge which is what they want.  For me to disagree on these things, they would say, “you are wrong, you are an idiot, you don’t get it, and you are part of the Cathedral”, and “everything you say must be ignored because you are a part of the Cathedral”.

This is nonsense.  Either you are completely right about all of those things and I am unaware of what my own thoughts are, or you are solipsistic.  It is far more likely that you are solipsistic than that I am or have been manipulated secretly by the Cathedral.

The DE and manosphere have become closed off environments, full of race obsessed people, that simply aren’t interested in engaging with people outside of their belief system.  I think they are more comfortable this way.

Personally, I don’t think the DE will ever expand beyond its circle so I am not really writing this for them but for anyone that might agree with them to some extent and that may wish to do something about it.

The Manosphere’s Admiration of Putin

The manosphere likes Putin a lot, they see him as a saviour of the west, a very ironic sentiment, and think he is a good leader.  It is silly actually because Putin runs an extremely corrupt government and is very skilled at creating propaganda.  He also kills off all of his rivals or any members of the press that say things he disagrees with.  Putin is not a good person to use as a model.

Putin had a rival killed off in daylight who had threatened to speak out against him and the war in Ukraine.  His name was Boris Nemtsov and he actually spoke truth to power, as opposed to American types that make tweets about something silly like transgender rights to weird insurance products.  Boris also, incidentally, had a young model girlfriend, search for images of her.

If anything Boris represented the manosphere, but Putin had him assassinated.  Also, people should look at the history of Putin’s power.  Read about how many assassinations or disappearances of people in the press there have been.  Speaking up about something can put you in danger.  That isn’t something the manosphere should support, the manosphere is pro free speech.  The manosphere dislikes when wild feminists suppress them, so they should oppose restrictions of free speech.

Russia is also very corrupt.  The manosphere should be supportive of men that try to do things and succeed, but this is not how Russia works.  Extortion and other nefarious activities are very common, and much of it is caused by ultra corrupt members of government.  The manosphere should not support these things, they should oppose them because it is restrictive of men.

Lastly, Putin is great at creating an image of himself as a strong, powerful man that is confident and opposes the same evils in the West that the manosphere dislikes such as feminism and the homosexual mafia.  This is true that he may dislike these things but I doubt he cares about his people much because they live in poverty and have fewer opportunities than the west has.  If he really cared for his country and wanted to protect them from the excesses of the west, why would he not also support more freedom of trade?  His interest is primarily in keeping western influence out of Russia and its allies probably more out of fear that they could threaten his power.

I don’t think people should fall for his propaganda, he isn’t a good, upright man that opposes the stupid Left.  He is actually quite nefarious.

The Manosphere’s Racial Obsession

There are a lot of bitter people in the manosphere.  For them, the absolute worst people on the planet, and for the United States are black people living there.  Now, I am not going to excuse many of the behaviours of black people living there.  The drug dealing, the lack of interest in getting educated, the violence, the racial attacks against white people, and the generally higher crime rates and lack of two parent households are inexcusable and the Left loves to ignore these issues or attribute them to racism.  As if somehow white people convinced black men to indiscriminately have children that ultimately get raised in a directionless environment.  Clearly black people have issues.  However, it isn’t worth being angry about these issues.  The government and media will try to create furors about racism but often, they are harmless and the courts end up correcting decisions that were causing harm because of their poor logic.  The real threat is actually more secretive, it is the Chinese.

The Chinese try to counterfeit Western culture.  They admire the universities and the businesses and will do everything they can to appropriate these things for themselves, but they are loyal to their own.  Chinese immigrants to the US do not join the military, they are exclusively interested in the universities and businesses.

The interest in the businesses has led to things in China like counterfeits of American products.  It has also led to a completely unenforceable patent crisis whereby Chinese firms will steal American intellectual property but no claims court can do a thing about it.  American businesses are under fierce cyber assault so that Chinese can steal the intellectual property.  Even American defense products like the F35 have been alleged to have been stolen.

This sort of theft is extremely damaging.  American firms spend money on research and have the fruits of this stolen from them.  Hacking is a huge industry in China.  Their massive population and relative technical prowess have made it so, but the hacking is largely state sponsored as Chinese officials look past it when it is committed against American firms.

The other thing the Chinese try to appropriate are the universities.  They do silly things like model their own universities after Anglo-American ones.  They also send their children to elite schools in America and Europe in huge percentage and drive the costs up by sending so many and offering to pay more.  They also spend their entire lives trying to game admissions tests by studying from very young ages to do very well on them.  Even the Chinese Premiere sends his daughter to Harvard, why not send her to a Chinese university?

Lawsuits are beginning to circle around Ivy League institutions alleging that Asians have been kept out because of race.  A race-neutral approach was adapted in California as a result of voter wishes which was highly favoured by Chinese immigrants.  It is because they produce such high test scores relative to the other races because of their obsession with studying the tests from a young age.  Other races typically do not do this.  UC Berkeley and Caltech are now about 40% asian, soon to be 50%+.  The same will happen to Ivy League schools and really these schools will no longer be American at this point.  The people that made them, and the people in the largest percentage of the population of America, will be a minority at their own schools.  They will have fewer economic opportunities or scientific ones or even intellectual/academic ones as a result.

Prestige from western institutions is a primary motivator for these Chinese.  I think the threats of cyber attacks, outright theft of IP, and essential takeovers of the best universities are a pretty serious threat to the West, more so than black people in ghettos cause.

A Criticism of the Manosphere’s Classes of Men

The Manosphere normally separates people in to three groups.  The three classes are alpha, beta, and omega.  You might find sort of roguish places here or there that have entirely new classes of men that aren’t any of those three, but they aren’t the norm, and those descriptions don’t have an overarching theme of using pack animal terms to describe human sexuality.  In packs, the alpha mates and the betas do not or they may simply be waiting their turn or vying with the alpha to assume the mating role.  Omegas might be something like a runt that stands no chance.  Likewise, the Manosphere would say that alphas are the most attractive to women, betas the second most, and omegas the least.  Betas may not even get any sex from women at all depending on who you talk to.  This analogy gets included in politics too and is often used to describe conflict in society.  There are some problems with this as humans do not exhibit mating behaviour similar to a pack.  The theory also is over extended when it gets included in politics and reduces conflict to something that is primarily sexual.  The alpha, beta, and omega classes might make sense and perhaps describes reality to some extent, but it is often overused.

Recently, there was much discussion about Andreas Lubitz and the plane he crashed.  The theory surrounding him was that he was actually a beta or omega male and because the woman in his life was not interested in him, and he wasn’t getting any sex, he decided to lash out and crash a plane.  Likewise, Elliot Rodger would have been described as an omega.  Betas and omegas represent a threat to society in this model, it is because they aren’t getting any sex.

In this theory, all conflict is a result of sexual dynamics.  Men fight because they don’t get sex, and women are the deciders of who is an alpha or a beta or omega.

There are a few problems with it.  Firstly, human sexuality isn’t like that of a pack where there really is only one that mates and the rest compete to be this alpha.  Things are much more varied and often people split up, pairwise and have sex with each other in this arrangement.

Second, not all conflict need be a result of some sort of sexual dynamic.  There are many different types of disagreement.  Sometimes, violence does happen and people are subjected to acts of terror much like Elliot Rodger’s shooting or Mr. Lubitz’s plane crash.  The Troubles are an example of this, as are acts of terror in the Mid East.  But these are not caused by sexual dynamics.  This leads to the last issue.

Third, sometimes, people are just crazy.  Elliot Rodger’s was clearly a deeply troubled man, I don’t think it is fair to say that lack of sex was his problem.  Lack of sex can be a problem, and the Manosphere is right to point that out, but Mr. Rodger’s problem was not a lack of sex, he was clearly mentally disturbed.  The same goes for Mr. Lubitz.  There is a long history of him appearing to have a mental illness.  Mental illness means doing things that appear illogical to the rest of us who represent a norm.  The Manosphere is rejecting abnormal, criminal, and psychotic psychology when it asserts that its theory about alphas and betas and lack of sex causing crime is correct over what is known about psychology.  I think it is best to defer to the experts in these cases.

Naively classifying anything in to alpha, beta, and omega is probably possible.  We could look at a bushel of apples and declare that the best ones are alpha apples, the averages ones are beta apples, and the small or rotting ones are omega apples.  The same goes for stars classified by brightness.  Grouping things in to best, average, and worst, is probably possible for many things.  It can aid in some things.  I am sure that men can be classified as such.  But that doesn’t make it useful or mean that because you can classify men like wolves can be, that men and wolves have the same sexuality.  I think conflict has other well studied roots that don’t conform to the alpha, beta, omega classes.  Actual mental insanity must occur here and there, and it should be put forward as a leading candidate for explanations when stories like those surrounding Andreas and Elliot emerge.

The Manosphere is correct about a lot of things.  I think it is useful and necessary and needs to expand further.  But I also think it gets too carried away with its theories that look and sound nice instead of describe reality.  I could be wrong, I think that is what’s good is that we should be able to test things and come to a conclusion.  However, as it stands, I think the alpha,beta,omega thing has gone too far at times.

Female Hypergamy Makes Caricature of Men

Once again, female hypergamy is used to attack men, as if female hypergamy even meant anything.  See Oh No! Female Hypergamy.  There is a recent article not written by but centered on a fellow named Rollo Tomassi here.  In it, basically Rollo is talking about how women are being encouraged by popular society to have open sexual relationships which is apparently what women secretly want.  He revels in his secret knowledge of women that he believes only himself and a select few other men know and dares anyone to challenge his opinion. If you disagree with him, then you are a mewling, pathetic, disgusting, loser, creep.  There is so much wrong with this kind of talk, to start, hypergamy is obvious but people like him make it seem like Godzilla by comparison.  Manosphere gurus need to tone it down, and stop attacking men when the problem isn’t them.

Did anyone seriously think that each woman was only physically capable of being attracted to one man on the planet?  No, they didn’t, but that is how men think apparently(sarcasm).  We all know that, whichever your beliefs, nature, God, or the universe didn’t predestine each woman to love only one man, and the same goes for men.  There are many women an individual man could be attracted to, which is the same as male hypergamy.  It makes no sense to say that women are unlike men in that sense and are more similar to special puzzle pieces that men must fit together with themselves thus making whoever some woman’s “match” is the only person she can love.  People were meant to breed with each other, locations and timing change, so of course women can be attracted to different men.  There is nothing wrong or intimidating about this, it is intuitive, it shouldn’t be made in to an outrageous ghoul that the manosphere likes to attack men for not believing in.

The real thing men dislike is when women have actually loved many men.  Men don’t like it when there have been a variety of other penises inside of a woman he loves.  So this is almost like the difference between potential gravitational energy and actual gravitational energy.  Sure, women, can potentially love many men, but them having actually done so is quite a bit different.  Men dislike the actual love of other men, and rightly so, it is very dangerous.  A man who says not all women are like that, means, or should mean, that a woman who is not “like that” is like a virgin or one lacking in experience.  Innocence is about actual physical things, not theoretical potential ones.

The manosphere needs to make these definitions succinct.  It also needs to stop using language that is inflammatory that divides people on purpose.  Some men might truly believe there is a special soul mate out there for him and she can only be attracted to himself, I doubt many, and I doubt anyone who isn’t a teenager.  That caricature shouldn’t be used as a straw man to attack other men.  The reality is that men can say not all women are like that and specifically mean that not all women are actually sluts.