Suffrage For Men!

The oppression of men works through ignoring and berating devoid of empathy

Suffrage For Men!

This is an excerpt from a chapter that has just been added to the book “The Oppression of Men”:

Women have been privileged at all times, although the way in which women wan­ted to be privileged has changed. At first they wanted to be provided for by men who had to work to free women from this necessity. This was hailed as a great success by early feminists until later second wave feminists rebelled against what the first wave had achieved, calling it ‚patriarchal‘ against the facts. Today, it is not so much women as feminists who are advantaged, but men and non-ideo­lo­gi­cal women who are disadvantaged.

Almost all literary agents are feminist influenced, whether they are male or fema­le They only publish feminist-influenced writings, preferably by women, more recently by non-men or anyone who is not a white, heterosexual male (loser).

For that they are celebrated. There are no literary agents for non-feminist books or books critical of feminism. It’s the same with publishers and literary sites.

Those who do not ascribe pronouns to themselves are not allowed to submit here at all:

The false feminist view of perceiving women who have been privileged at all times in all cultures (see Martin van Creveld, “The Privileged Sex” as well as Jan Deichmohle, “The Oppression of Men”) as disadvantaged victims, and men who have been discriminated against in large majorities as unfairly advantaged, has ele­vated a biologically based skewed perception of sex issues, on which such privi­leged treatment of women and disadvantaged treatment of men can be traced back, to a principle and has destroyed any compassion, empathy and even more so social love of women for the male sex and turned it into the opposite, from con­tempt to anger and sometimes hatred. The result is a mood similar to that created by fascism, only with a different group of victims.

Common nasty invectives against male losers and their voices are reminiscent of fascist show trials like the Volksgerichtshof, where character assassination of critics of fascism was committed with roars of rage. Emotionally, the bashing and muzzling of incels (and more generally male losers) or critics of feminism works just as it did in show trials, whether under Stalinist communism or fascism.

Another common trait is that, just like classical dictatorships, feminism deprives hostile groups of human sympathy, instead covering them with scorn and malice, try­ing to portray them as miserable subhumans. This is the same with the in­sul­ting of incels or critics of feminism (in the comment below as “filth” or “scum”) as it is with fascism. In both cases, the politicisation of the law, described by the term “kangaroo court”, leads to the humiliation and dehumanisation of those who think differently, only with the opposite sign. Today, it is white, heterosexual men, incel and male losers as well as right-wingers, and especially their in­ter­sec­ti­on, who serve as the enemy image and scapegoat, are systematically targeted by agitation and dehumanised, whereby in the usual distortion such fascistoid agi­ta­ti­on is then made palatable as ostensible “anti-fascism”.

By the way, the sexual-political term “breeding choice” is feminist and was brought up by the first feminist wave before the First World War; the idea was to exclude men not wanted by women and not to let them reproduce in order to achieve a hereditary ‚improvement‘. One of the counter-arguments here is that in fact the opposite is achieved. Unilateral breeding choice of women to men was an agenda of the suffragettes who won political suffrage for women but suppressed sexual suffrage for men because they believed purely female choice to be an innate female natural birthright. Such blatant double standard for both sexes of opposing standards did not attract attention at the time, was only noticed and criticised by Jan Deichmohle. To this day, books like mine that call for sufffrage for men as well are bitterly suppressed.

«Bitter incel filth, extreme right-wing rubbish a la the Nazi era. So it’s a good thing you have nothing to offer women and the western world and won’t repro­duce.☺» (Peterchen)

If anything is fascist here, it is the defamation and oppression of social groups like incel and male losers that Peterchen engages in with low-level personal abuse reminiscent of denigration of minorities and dissenters in the Nazi era.

Male losers and their voices are treated with hostility, hated, insulted, ignored and so totally suppressed that their existence remains unknown in public debate. Instead of total war on battlefields, feminism has produced total oppression in life and reproduction.

«Perhaps if you were a woman, you’d understand how misinformed and offensive this books appears to be. I’m going to pass.» (Rachel, Li­te­ra­ry Agen­cy RXD)

My reply:

«Perhaps if you were a decent woman or man, you’d understand how misin­for­med you are, as explained in the book, and how offensive and oppressive the fe­mi­nist ideology is, which is widespread in the media, including in the literary estab­lish­ment, that oppresses men and degrades them to losers. Male losers are either constantly ignored or vilified. Rejections like yours for ideological reasons are part of The Oppression of Men, as explained in another book that you also rejected. Thus you are an active representative of The Oppression of Men, of the feminist sexual fascism of our time.»

Many hide behind form letter phrases that say nothing about the motivation of the rejection and are even, as meaninglessly general as they were expressed, in my case, blatantly false.

«Dear Jan – Many thanks for writing. You have an interesting story to tell and there’s a lot to like about your approach. But in the end I’m afraid I didn’t come away quite fully convinced…» (Farley, Chase Literary)

Most of the time they are brushed off with empty phrases and form letters, so that the cause cannot be proven. The above-mentioned literary agent did not even read enough of the cover letter to notice that it was a non-fiction book, not a novel. Presumably one word in the subject line, namely “Critique of Feminism”, was enough to send the form rejection at the push of a button, or she didn’t care. There is no fictional “narrative” in this book, instead there are precisely substantiated factual arguments.

«I’m sorry not to offer to read your manuscript or offer to represent you, but it doesn’t sound like a good fit for my list.» (Jennie, Dunham Literary, Inc.)

Dunham is one of the many literary agencies who immediately reject unread unwel­come views on feminism, as she herself has written. While this reveals that sentiment, opinion and prejudice are the cause of rejection, because a factually based judgement is not possible without reading and knowing what is being judged, there is little beyond that. In this case it corresponds exactly to the meaning of the word ‘prejudice’: a judgement before knowledge, that is, without understanding what it is about.

«Sorry Mrs. Deichmohle, it is with great regret i must remind you that women can’t write or read, as you, Jane, so wonderfully exemplified with this god awful drivel of a manuscript. I also can’t read, since i too, am a woman. Tough luck!» (Susanna, Ein███ Literary Agency)

This was her response to the following letter:

«This book fills a huge gap in the shelves and presents the best arguments from the 1950s until today to refute the ideology of feminism… Anyone who does not want to be misinformed should read the book.»

In the mountain of cowardly excuses, enough unequivocal answers went in. Above, a woman who bears a famous name, that of a male physicist who over­turned the old worldview and replaced it with a bold novel one, mocks the thinker and poet who overturns the old feminist worldview with bold novel thoughts that are unpalatable to rulers like her. She sneers that as a woman she can’t read, (so she can’t read my manuscript either), to call me Jane and Mrs Deichmohle, which she herself then associates with allegedly biased smears. When feminists, leftists or greens don’t have factually correct arguments, which is most of the time, they respond emotionally, with personal denigration. Perhaps she expects me to respond at the same abysmal level. I won’t. I’m just documenting how critical men are mocked, and in what light a feminist ticking woman puts the female sex in order to mock me. She probably thought her sneering reply was clever, without realising that she was firstly suppressing dissenters and secondly scoring an own goal.

«Dear Jan,

Thank you for thinking of the Lennon-Ritchie agency. This isn’t a book we want to represent. Good luck with your search for an agent.

Sincerely,
All the warring mis-informed feminists at The Lennon-Ritchie agency.»

“This isn’t a book we want to represent.” – I have often heard this speech bubble, it is like reciting prayers to prayer wheels or rosaries. But then comes a revealing hammer: there is no name as a signature, but “All the warring mis-informed feminists at The Lennon-Ritchie agency.” Obviously, at some point in time, the minds of feminist-minded people shut down so completely due to entrenched ideology, feelings of consternation and partisan sentimentality that they can neither think objectively nor realise how ridiculous they are making themselves with such a response, let alone how much they are revealing about their strong opinion drive that shapes their activity. Even if most do not dare to answer so heftily, according to the self-descriptions of agencies, their agents and their job specifications, it is a broad and staggering majority of about 98% to 99% of all literary agents who share their feelings or attitudes to some extent. This has been demonstrated in 9 articles or book chapters so far that have examined all the current English-language lieterary agencies that can be found on the internet.

No reputable literary agency would have accepted; only one agency, blacklisted on the internet, which lives on payment by authors without, however, making a placement with an established publisher possible, at most working with small publishers who accept authors even without fee-based preliminary services, was prepared to take from me what it considers my best – my money. An equally shady Indian agency also wanted only my best, my money. It was infamous on the internet for having taken advantage of many authors by first taking money from the authors, then selling their book to newly established, inexperienced publishers, whereupon it fails; in the ensuing dispute between equally disappointed publisher and author, they are said to regularly withdraw as innocent. The third and final agency was a start-up from Oxford, which must have been genuinely interested in the unusual book and requested my entire script, but dissolved itself the week it was about to present its decision and offer because its operators had received more lucrative offers for their careers. Those who want to make a career stay away from critical works that are discredited already unread only because of their title or the ostracized author.

«Wishing you the best of luck with your writing, but this topic is not for me. Thank you, Susan»

The subject of critique of feminism is rejected. Whether the book is good, ideas, arguments and other content groundbreaking, does not matter. If the book were fe­mi­nist, it would be read worldwide by an interested sisterhood and acclaimed by media. Much more insubstantial, emotional and unprofessional feminist out­pou­rings have been hailed as media successes for generations. But if a man writes some­thing critical about it, at worst even a male loser, i.e. the most despised exis­ten­ce of all humanity, it is totally suppressed, for decades, for his whole life, no­bo­dy gives a damn. “None of our business!” is still the most harmless dismissal. Con­tem­po­ra­ries lack the imagination to see how opposing manuscripts are trea­ted, depending on whether they are feminist or critical of feminism. The former are celebrated and hailed even if they are nonsensical and lacking in content, the latter are completely without chance, however well thought out and diverse in themes and ideas they may be. Feminist is considered valuable, anti-feminist is called filth.

Attitude is the main qualification in today’s book market, just as it is in media. Feminist tracts have been published in large numbers for generations, and each of them in large print runs. Basic feminist criticism is completely unpublishable and nobody cares, would at best have a circulation of a few deposit copies. Feminist works are given great prominence by the media, anti-feminist ones are stubbornly ignored. Only when a work critical of feminism threatens to be publicly debated despite such an imbalance, to find a noteworthy number of readers, does it get reviewed, and then sneeringly and spitefully slated, smashed to the ground with absurd accusations to discourage reading. In the case of feminist works, most recently Meike Stoverock’s “Female Choice” in Germany, it is, as always, the other way round: dozens or hundreds of newspapers and online media unani­mous­ly praise the book, usually in the same wording, copied sentence for sen­ten­ce from a self-promotion by the author, her publisher, or a relative of the author.

All this is not baseless or exaggerated accusations on my part, but has been preci­se­ly researched and proven in my books, which compared books on comparable topics of opposing viewpoints. Conclusion: When Jan Deichmohle demands male suffrage, all the obstruction and oppression I have just described occurs. When women demand female sufffrage, the exact opposite happens, they are promoted with enormous power. If a feminist woman writes about “female choice”, what I just mentioned and documented in the “J” section of this book happens: unani­mous cheers, a broad, month-long advertising campaign in the media. If a man criti­cal of feminism writes about “The Oppression of Men”, the first chapter of which is called “Female Choice”, with many more topics that far exceed Meike Sto­ve­rock’s achievement, then it is totally ignored or slammed, as documented and proven. By the way, my book was there long before hers. One could also regard her book as a plagiarism, whereby the original was suppressed because of its attitude, while the plagiarism was systematically promoted because of the op­po­site attitude.

Next level is then calling people names like “filth!” “Nazi” and so on; they don’t do it below that nowadays. The incel is the sub-human of today, who experiences the contempt of society and is oppressed just as in fascist times – only the group of victims has changed, the psychological deformation of whole collectives that no longer tick properly, but collectively share prejudice, hatred, gloating and hostility, works very similarly to Stalinism, fascism or fanatical sects.

«Re: Novelty: Scientific Evidence for The Oppression of Men
Thu, 18.08.2022 15:16Hello Jan Deichmohle,

It is a pity and regrettable that your conclusions and thoughts towards our society are so misogynistic. For I could not discover more than openly lived hatred of women. This derogatory and aggressive position is not compatible with the values of MOLA. And thus we – you and I – are obviously at very opposite ends of the social value spectrum.

Greetings
Maurice B.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022, 8:06, Jan Deichmohle wrote:
Dear Ms B.,

At the time of Galileo and Kepler, almost everyone was convinced that the sun went around the earth every day, as we could see with our own eyes. Anyone who disagreed was considered ridiculous, or worse, persecuted. Something similar is happening today with regard to both sexes men and women» (Letters from and to MOLA Literary Agency)

It is a scientific book that presents objective evolutionary biology facts that can’t be refuted, only attacked with emotional, unobjective personal hostility for po­li­ti­cal reasons. The “conclusions and thoughts” are logic, those who reject them re­ject logic, for example as a ‘patriarchal construct’, as feminist waves have done. Those who are capable of logic cannot deny the evidence – there is no factual refutation, instead attacks against the person of the author, which is an error of logic known since antiquity: “ad hominem”

Facts are falsely attacked as ‘misogynistic’ due to ego-centred feminist sentiment based on ideological bias, distracting from the very real misogyny of male op­pres­si­on that the book demonstrates.

Maurice shows the typical deformations on which feminism is based and which are produced by it. First, she is incapable of addressing an explosive issue in a fac­tu­al and logical manner. Not only is she driven by feelings, attitude and mind­set in her perception and thinking, but she cannot even read a critical text with reason. In doing so, she confirms classic judgements about how women are often instinctive, so that she does a disservice to her cause and to women in particular: she abuses her power to reject unapproved thinking, to keep it out of the media and literature, thus to suppress it. Because this has been done systematically on a large scale since 1968, it casts a bad light on herself, her like-minded sisters, and those in whose name feminism engages in the oppression of men, especially losers and critical voices like mine and the rejected book.

A very factual and literary preface she reinterprets as “misogynist”. This is false and slanderous. Any deviation from feminist doctrine is dismissed as “anti-women”. In doing so, she argues as under Stalinism: back then, anyone who didn’t clap long and loud enough at Stalin’s speeches was a “class enemy”. In fascism, everyone who did not cheer long and loudly enough at the dictator’s speeches was a “racial enemy”. In feminism, anyone who dares or is clever enough to refute the ideology of the current dictatorship is considered an “enemy of women” (or “misogynist”).

“I could not discover more than openly lived hatred of women” is the usual dis­tor­ti­on of all facts into the exact opposite. On the contrary, the concern and topic is love for women, who, however, are biologically dominant, exclude a broad majority of men from love through sexual selection, then punish those excluded by them or incels with contempt, i.e. regard men with contempt. Thus they live out hatred of men, which first degrades men to losers or even incels, in order to then despise and insult them for having been degraded to losers or incels.

It is feminists who have been conspicuous in all waves for hating men, some­times militantly, often radically, to the point of androcide dreams. Feminists have become totally incapable of feeling a modicum of compassion or empathy for most men or male losers, who have instead been icily dumped and insulted. They have spread their anti-male attitudes throughout society. This too shows a fas­cis­toid empathy disorder first of feminists, later of generations of women uprooted by feminism and now of the whole society towards men, especially male losers, incels and critical men. So while the view of male losers and the book are a struggle for female love, feminism is an empathy-disordered hatred of men, which is also expressed by her deluded emotional outpourings with which she dismisses and thus suppresses the voice of male losers. Abuse of power. But with her emotional, feminist, instinct-driven abuse of power, equally incapable of decent, empathic behaviour, as she is incapable of factual, unbiased reading of new information and logical thinking, she showers the writer with false and defamatory attributions:

“This derogatory and aggressive position”

Feminism of all waves was highly aggressive, on a scale unimaginable before. Feminists do devalue, emotionally and personally. The book is factual, does not devalue any person, compiles facts. That, too, is part of the twisted feminist-fascist psychology: unpleasant facts are not accepted. Dissenters are demonised. Not reason, but a biased twisted feeling, an ideologised sentimentality drives and clouds the mind. One consequence is that feminists of both sexes regularly twist facts on emotive issues into their opposite; their perception is bent 180°. There is no human decency with them. Dissenters are morally executed. They are not shot as in Hitler’s fascism, but they are collectively murdered for their character.

“is not compatible with the values of MOLA.”

The values of the MOLA are thus the mockery and complete suppression of male losers, a moral lynch justice of opinion and the cleansing of literature and science of thoughts critical of feminism. The MOLA is therefore probably uncon­sti­tu­ti­o­nal, because it explicitly wants to prevent male losers from having their say, par­ti­ci­pates in the oppression and mockery of male losers. This is actually uncon­sti­tu­ti­o­nal, except that contemporaries are already so infected that they hardly notice it because they themselves feel and perceive feminist and are no longer capable of an objective assessment. That is how strongly people have been collectively deformed by our system.

Not even a standard work, scientifically based, such as “The Oppression of Men”, a call for suffrage for men, can be brought to the public and debated in this femi­nist society. If female suffragettes had been treated in such a way, there would have been no feminism, there would be none of their millions of works, many of which were distributed en masse. Double standards could not be more blatant: Feminists profited from classical male tolerance in order to seize power and abolish that tolerance, just as, incidentally, Goebbels once said, scoffing that the bourgeois press had been so stupid as to give them a freedom they had no intention of returning. Feminists behave in exactly the same way. Early feminist writings were published in antiquity and even in the Middle Ages, supported by men. No one prevented this, on the contrary, their works have been faithfully pre­ser­ved for centuries until today. But the moment feminists gained power, this tolerance was over, men could no longer voice fundamental criticism. The greatest impudence is that they claim to promote disadvantaged and un­der­re­pre­sen­ted voices, but in fact they are using this very argument to perpetrate the greatest suppression of voices ever.

Any feminist book on one of the many topics covered in my books would be celebrated by the media and the public as an intellectual breakthrough, discussed, debated and exalted in many reviews, as I have exemplified with Meike Stove­rock’s book “Female Choice: From the Beginning and End of Male Civilisation.” Dozens, if not a hundred unanimously jubilant book reviews appeared, often even of the same wording, so that obviously they copied from each other or simply spread the feminist press release. Some well-known media gave her a friendly interview without critical questions, thus advertising free of charge. Not a single scathing review appeared in established media, nor a single review with at least critical questions. With a book critical of feminism, it is exactly the opposite. For decades, all the established media have withheld my books, which now number more than 35, have concealed them from the public. The media people seem to hope that I will finally die so that my books will disappear from the world, unread and unknown.

For a fiction book by a feminist-minded woman, I have already paradigmatically presented a similar case in the work “NO!” years ago. A woman’s book about a girl’s search was unanimously praised in the media as ‚funny‘. Unthinkable, by contrast, were books by men about a boy’s or man’s search. “Nobody cares about it! That’s a private matter!” I was dismissed in horror decades ago by a publisher who had founded an ‘Enlightenment-influenced’ publishing house in my place of study. Women may do it and many are fascinated; men may not do the same, no one cares. Yet it is an exceptional situation for women, but a typical daily hurdle and problem for men. This unwritten stark double dichotomy shapes our per­cep­ti­on, worldview and the creation or non-creation of books, issues and debates. That is why there were and are female suffragettes, and very successful ones at that, but no male suffragettes, who would have no chance of success either. “The oppression of men” is rooted in this perceptual distortion that makes us perceive and judge women’s and men’s concerns so radically differently and oppositely. The same is true for countless topics and books.

We are not even aware of such a distortion of perception according to the sexes, which actually gives women carte blanche to make any demands they want, but forbids men any desire or demand as ‘whiners’ and ‘pathetic wretches’. “Wear it like a man!” is said with contempt to men; an auxiliary reflex is triggered towards women. Women are celebrated when they make demands, while men are berated‘ as ‘vicious’, ‘ridiculous’ and ‘failures’ for doing similar things. All feminist waves are based on this skewed perception.

This is how “the oppression of men” works. It is invisible to most people because no one who has not experienced it first hand can imagine the “wall of icy silence and total lack of echo” that suffocates any man who breaks the taboo and raises issues critical of feminism. There is a left, green and feminist privilege in breaking taboos; they are enthusiastically hailed and revered as innovators for doing so. The magic word “breaking taboos” makes feminist, left and green eyes light up; they admire the author unread, assuming that of course left, green or feminist taboo-breaking is included. But taboos must never be broken in the op­po­si­te direction – that would then be considered ‘reactionary’, ‘evil’, ‘chau­vi­nist’, ‘sexist’, ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’, of course without any rational jus­ti­fi­ca­ti­on for such attribution.

No one who has not experienced it first-hand can imagine the radical, spiteful rejec­tion with defamation and insults below the belt experienced by anyone who breaks the taboo of fundamentally criticising feminism or representing the concerns of male losers. This is as strictly forbidden as fascist positions were after the Second World War, although it is feminism that is fascist in many ways: feminism spreads extreme intolerance, one-sided hostility against a population group, namely white heterosexual men, and even more radically white hetero­se­xu­al male losers. Feminism mobs and suppresses opposition like a fascist Volks­ge­richtshof. Feminism is empathy-impaired towards white heterosexual male losers who are dehumanised and insulted as fascism has done to other victim groups. Incel and male critics of feminism are angrily attacked as filth and humanly inferior, i.e. degraded in a similar way as National Socialists did with so-called ‘Untermenschen’, and insulted in such a way, as exemplified by a com­ment quoted in this chapter, representative of many I received. The Volks­ge­richts­hof also attempted, through emotional shouting down, to portray the accused as a pathetic figure in the show trial, the filming of which has survived to this day. The groups of perpetrators and victims have changed, as has the tone, but the method is the same. The empathy disorder towards male losers is related to their dehumanisation and hostile treatment, just as with fascists, but additionally builds on evolutionary hurdles biologically imposed on the male sex, such as being dependent on sexual selection and having to prove oneself.

These are not isolated cases, but are experienced by every man who dares to express fundamental criticism of taboo topics such as feminism. Nor could the extreme double standard be more blatant: Meike Stoverock’s book “Female Choice” is unanimously and without exception hailed, while my book on the same topic, written years earlier and with a main chapter of the same name – even an entire book series of mine was called “The Power of Female Choice” years before – is hushed up, dismissed into public non-existence, and when sub­mit­ted to publishers, savagely and foul-mouthedly unanimously rejected with per­so­nal­ly denigrating low blows. Yet the two books are not equal; mine is writ­ten with heart and soul, concerns defeats experienced in life, whereas Meike Sto­ve­rock academically disenfranchises men sexually without ever having suffered the same herself; the content of both is thus morally very different. In terms of content, hers is very thin compared to the many themes and new groundbreaking ideas in mine.

If a woman demands suffrage, she is celebrated and revered as a heroine, her writings are disseminated en masse and debated in society and made a mental common good. She acquires a quasi-religious status, as do her writings.

If a man demands suffrage, he is totally ignored, rejected, spitefully defamed in his rejection, berated, presented as ridiculous, defamed as a crackpot, a lunatic and a ‘Nazi’ and trampled on as bitterly as a Nazi; in general, this has become one of the modern methods of oppression, to suppress undesirable views by false comparisons to fascism just as radically as real fascism suppressed dissenters and is trying to do so again today in a new guise. The only difference is that critics are not murdered today, but are put down in the media and as human beings.

This applies to all Western countries; such double standards affect many issues, including any genuine critique of feminism; they affect all white, heterosexual male losers, who are thus the most oppressed group of our time. Double standards and double morals are a gross understatement; there is no word in our language for the stark, radical contrast between feminist nonsense, which is spread en masse and drilled into children, and the total oppression of opposing views or male losers, which is so absolute that they do not have a say at all, are trampled on at the outset so that they cannot even arise, and where they do arise, their existence is not even known. This is only possible because of a total failure of empathy towards white, heterosexual male losers.

In this way, according to an instinctive archetypal model, the oppression of men, as expressed by women’s rejection, operates on several levels at the same time: through sexual selection (because only women, but not men, have sexual suf­fra­ge) and through dictatorship of opinion and attitude in the media, including the literary establishment, where male or critical contributions are indignantly rejec­ted out of feelings of consternation, with the oppression being carried out with furious false attributions such as ‘misogynist’. Fascism and communism were similar to feminism today, where dissenters were suppressed as ‘class enemies’ or ‘enemies of the people/race’ instead of ‘enemies of women’ (or ‘misogynists’) as is the case today.

If anyone does not understand what I mean by “the oppression of men”, a glance at the text of the rejections I quote in my books from publishers, literary agents, media and the commentaries that engage in a mental-moral lynching is enough. This is exactly how “the oppression of men” works today. Apart from unleashed primeval instincts that are no longer captured and balanced by any cultural structure and give women absolute sexual selection dominance and privilege, it is the media one-sidedness described here that trumpets every feminist whim with great fanfare, but icily silences male criticism or views, through which men are oppressed.

Many contemporaries do not understand what and why I criticise so pointedly, because they have never experienced such radical rejection as I have. That’s because we have been subject to cultural re-education from childhood for 150 years, which is why many of the totalitarian dogmas prevalent today are taken for granted, shape their personalities. I explained this recently in an as yet unpub­

lished article on the second-wave feminist fighting term ‘self-realisation’:

Feminism has poisoned and confused the relations of both sexes, created strong mutual misunderstanding and conflicts of interest that would hardly exist under natural conditions and in a functioning culture, and if at all, then only to a much lesser and milder extent. Innate sex differences, which would be beneficial under natural conditions and even more so within the framework of a culture, because both sides help each other and do something for each other, became sources of constantly intensifying strife. This strife, which only came about through the poisoning of sex relations and the destruction of naturally grown culture, triggers female discontent and anger. Although men have more reason to be dissatisfied with today’s deficiencies, male victims are not given a hearing or a voice in feminist societies, so that their views do not count and it is pretended that they do not exist. Female dissatisfaction and rage thus arise all the more the more feminism impacts, confuses and poisons the relations of both sexes.

This corresponds to what addicts experience when they create withdrawal symp­toms for themselves with an addictive substance, which they then try to combat with even more addictive substance. Addicts who became dependent on hard drugs usually need higher and higher doses over time to fight their withdrawal symp­toms after the high of intoxication has subsided. Likewise, feminists fight prob­lems created by feminism, which are also due to the lack of natural culture fought against and increasingly abolished by feminism, with even more fe­mi­nism. Their suffering thereby constantly increases, like that of addicts, so that they need ever higher doses or more radical feminism, without which they are as if in withdrawal. They hate the critic of feminism like addicts hate the doctor who wants to wean them off their addictive drug, which they associate with painful with­drawal symptoms.

Due to the disintegration of our culture in the ongoing very radical cultural re­vo­lu­ti­on, we no longer have any concept of natural conditions; feminism has created a state and maladministration in which self-realisation has become a problem. In this, too, feminism resembles addiction: Just as drug addicts seek relief by reaching for the substance that, after a brief intoxication of unworldly utopia, in­ten­si­fies their suffering and triggers withdrawal symptoms in order to remedy the symptoms in the short term with the substance that triggers them in the long term, so too does feminism function, including the struggle for self-realisation. How­ever, this does not solve the problem: just as the addict becomes more and more addicted the more he tries to improve his condition with the substance, feminist ideology spreads suffering in society, which then triggers feminist rage, which for short-term feelings of relief and victory causes long-term damage and thus a worsening of suffering. This also applies to self-realisation, which becomes all the more difficult the more feminism poisons and confuses relations of both sexes.

With the indignation with which addicts react to attempts to deprive them of the addictive substance, feminists of both sexes react to my arguments because they have built their identities in laborious struggle on the basis of (false and harmful) feminist principles. They therefore have a squishy feeling that the books are pulling the rug out from under them, which is why they condemn and avoid them like the plague. But that is precisely the quality of the books.

Basically, what is hated, criticised and attacked in my books is precisely their strength and does not exist anywhere else, because no one else had the resilience and inner strength to work it out and formulate it so clearly and thus sharply.