Tuesday, September 30, 2014


by Mr. Mean-Spirited

Somebody pushing in front of you is one of those minor annoyances in life that reveal a man’s true colors. Character is never more clearly displayed than in those small, daily confrontations with other human beings.

Allowing someone else to get ahead of you in line causes several seconds – maybe even a couple minutes – to be taken away from you that can never be retrieved. If you act like a nice person, then parts of your existence will be lost forever. Elbowing you aside is an act of deliberate contempt, but accepting that shove is an action of determined cowardice. If other people didn’t think you were weak and worthless, they wouldn’t be trying to get in front of you in the first place. You must defend your place in line as if your very life depends on it – because it damn well does.

A man loses status by not confronting the small encroachments of others. While someone slipping into line ahead of you is a comparatively minute affront – a man does not lose social standing in a once-in-a-lifetime defeat, but in refusing to defend his position in tiny ways in the everyday events of life. It is how a man resists against the small infringements in daily existence that marks a great character.  

If you don’t confront your neighbor in the slightest trespasses upon your personal space, then his encroachments will only increase on the next occasion. You must face-down minor affronts immediately or else they will grow into major assaults. Before you know it, his heel will be pressing down upon your toes.

Think of someone pushing ahead of you as a test of character: if you are unwilling to confront his intrusion, then you are shown to be the coward that you are. Letting someone in front of you in a line marks a man as a pansy more definitively than a defeat in a fistfight. Permitting an act of disrespect to go unchallenged leaves your personality drenched with the stink of a wimp, a stench of the weakling that cannot be washed off. An honest man defends his position – no matter the situation. A man who doesn’t protect his place in daily life will not defend himself anywhere else in life.

No matter how inconsequential the social interaction, you can sabotage humanity by making that encounter as unpleasant as possible. Best way to protect yourself against the liberal masses is not to allow anyone to get away with anything.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014


by Mr. Mean-Spirited


The standard definition of misogyny is “hatred of woman” – true enough, I suppose; however, I would define misogyny as an understanding of a woman’s real nature. A man comes to dislike something not because of unfamiliarity; an individual comes to loathe the opposite sex not because a lack of first-hand experience, but because he has a rather intimate knowledge of the gender in question. A man becomes a misogynist because he knows women too damn well.

No man ever makes a decision to hate the female of the species. No male really wants to become a misogynist. Instead, you need to think of misogyny as a truthful reaction – the only possible honest reaction – and the only just reaction – to being treated in a particular way by the feminine gender.

I am a misogynist because all women are whores. I still have trouble believing that women are so simple-minded that they actually accept what men tell them. Surely a creature that allows herself to be sexually humiliated by men cannot be respected. Any gender that allows themselves to be used in such a manner has to be despised. Any person who would willingly swallow some one-night stand’s semen is not worthy of respect. How can women be such sluts?

I am a misogynist because women judge a man for his social status. If you going to accuse men of being superficial enough to evaluate a lady on the basis of her physical appearance, then you must find women just as shallow if they judge a gentleman on the basis of financial resources. While women form an attachment with a male who will advance them in the pecking order of the community, the female will hypocritically claim that this economic relationship is actually love. The misogynist knows better.

I am a misogynist because women make such astonishingly bad decisions in bed partners. Mass society says that women can copulate with anyone they choose, but that is not going to stop me loathing females for their selections. If dames prefer to fornicate with unsuitable partners, then I am going to hate the broads for their appalling lack of judgment. Choices have consequences. Make the wrong pick and you get repercussions – negative repercussions. A misogynist holds women to account.

I am a misogynist because I do not trust women. I know that a girlfriend will ultimately be scheming to entrap me with some story about an accidental pregnancy. The evolutionary purpose of the woman is to ensnare a man into fatherhood. I would rather hate a female than be fooled by the feminine. Distrust is a defense-reaction against a lady’s duplicity. Not protection against being hurt, since that will happen no matter what – but a safeguard against being taken-in by feminine deception.

I am a misogynist because women are such conformists. Women have an innate need to be accepted by her social circle. A female only does something with an eye to the recognition of her peer group. Even the very fashions she might wear are selected to merit her friends’ approval. A woman wants to be part of something, and I hate her for that.

I am a misogynist because every prostitute thinks she will make a great mother. In fact, the more of a whore, the better the mother she imagines that she will be. I hate women because every tramp seems to feel that raising a child will make up for years of sexual promiscuity. Passing on her slutty ways to yet another generation.

I am a misogynist because every woman thinks she is doing men a favor merely by spreading their legs. No matter how hapless she is in all other areas of life, every dame imagines that she is good in bed. The reality is that few modern American females have any sexual skill whatsoever; they just lie there expecting stuff to be done to them. If it weren’t for certain biological imperatives, no man would want to stick their dick in that that salmon-smelling slit in the first place. I’ve got news for women: fucking them is goddamned obligation.

I am a misogynist because women won’t shut the fuck up. Always asking questions – always talking about their feelings. Why is it that females seem to imagine that anyone gives a shit about their opinions? Hell, the main reason men prefer blowjobs is because it keeps the broad from saying anything for a few blessed minutes. I am a misogynist because I am sick and tired of their incessant chatter.

I am a misogynist because women think that they are loved by someone. A man only tells a woman that he loves her just to keep her quiet – and the broad is dumb enough to believe it. I hate females for thinking that they are loved; I hate ladies for their inability to face reality. Time for girls to get real: no one truly cares about them; no one loves them.

I am a misogynist because a woman’s body is designed for breeding. The female’s own bodily processes are as repulsive as her monthly bleeding. Her very physiology is as an affront to common sense: pregnancy is not a divine miracle but a disgusting mess. If I had some alien creature inside my body, I wouldn’t be content to allow the thing to remain implanted within me for nine months – I would want a surgeon to remove this invading entity immediately. Her very flesh makes me queasy.

I am a misogynist because, for better or worse, a distinction between sex roles has always been part of the Western tradition. I am not saying this divergence is necessarily a good thing, just that this disparity has been constant feature of Euro-American culture. Misogyny is the only means of preserving these distinctions in an era of political correctness. Nothing like defending your birthright to piss-off the feminists.

I am a misogynist because betrayal is in a woman’s nature. Infidelity is inevitable; treachery is just a matter of time. It is not a matter of seeking greener pastures – as much as finding a guy more amply endowed with greenbacks. Hating all women is obviously not going to delay a girlfriend’s inevitable betrayal – as much as allow you to place her disloyalty in the proper perspective. Misogyny is preemptive. If certain female behavior is foreseeable, then misogyny helps to recognize the pattern. Misogyny makes everything a woman does into something predictable. Hatred is always anticipatory.

At a moment in history when feminists dominate the mass media, admitting your innate misogyny helps to define yourself as a genuine nonconformist. A true individualist always places himself in opposition to modern trends like feminism. A misogynist stands against everything about the modern world.

Thursday, September 18, 2014


by Mr. Mean-Spirited

Sharing is the manner in which a human being is first brainwashed into conformity. Teaching a free spirit to share is the process by which an individual is mind-controlled into becoming a communitarian.

Sharing always goes one way. You will always be asked to divide what you have with the less fortunate, but somehow the more blessed never seem to share anything with you. Sharing only goes in one direction – away from you toward someone else. If you want to be able to keep what little you have, then you must never share under any circumstances.

You’re only being deceived by the professional do-gooders if you think that you will ever get anything out of sharing. Taking advantage of the compassion of strangers is how the humanitarian establishment managed to hoard their wealth in the first place. It is always the same characters who personally benefit from sharing who are always talking about a moral duty to share. A do-gooder always tells you to be generous when he has a hand in your pocket. Don’t be fooled: never share.

The human mind is made subservient to the establishment through the act of sharing. If you are determined to breed, then you would never allow government schools to indoctrinate your children into sharing. Teaching a child to share is the way a citizen is socialized into submission to the state.

You transform a youngster into a conformist by eroding his sense of ego, and the way that society trains a child to be obedient is by making the youngster share. Every time you share something, you lose a piece of your inner self. Sharing makes you less of a person.

The act of sharing is exactly what binds you to the larger community – the keyword here is “binds”. To sever those bonds, you merely need a determination to start keeping what is yours. Bureaucrats simply assume that sharing is one of those attributes of a good citizen. Refusing to join-in becomes an affront to everything decent and liberal. To humanitarians, refusing to share is such a deplorable and despicable gesture, that it places you beyond the bounds of polite society. It is incomprehensible to do-gooders that a citizen would not want to share. 

Just as the act of sharing on a personal level will only result in individually destructive behavior like generosity and liberalism, so the action of sharing on a governmental level will only result in culturally destructive policies like foreign aid and reception of immigrants. To eliminate public weakness, you must first eliminate private self-sacrifice. To restore a heroic selfishness to civilization, you must first re-establish self-centeredness.

When it is so easy to give into what the mass media tells you, keeping things all to yourself is the ultimate mark of personal courage. When idealists lecture you to help the poor, keeping that change securely in your pocket is the sign of your true moral worth.

Sharing is for losers. Never share. Sharing is the way that the community manipulates your personality into obedience. Never share.


Tuesday, September 9, 2014


by Mr. Mean-Spirited

If you can't take the law into your own hands, then the law isn't worth obeying. If you can’t deal justice yourself, then there is no certainty that things will ever be put right.

All governments fear vigilantes; not because the officials are afraid that there might be a periodic miscarriage of justice (after all, the state-run legal system has plenty of that); instead, the establishment is frightened of vigilantes because they threaten the job security of the bureaucrats. A judge doesn’t care about making the right decision; instead, the magistrate is worried about protecting his lifetime appointment.

A vigilante no more needs official authority to do justice than an ordinary believer needs ecclesiastical authority to say a prayer. Authority is merely the way that an entrenched hierarchy justifies their own position.

Vigilante justice is effective justice. Vigilantes deal in direct justice, an immediate type of restitution doesn't need to be mediated through a bureaucracy. You don't need your basic human need for retribution to be dissipated and diluted through the institutions of the state. You don't need some government employee like a judge to tell you what is right and proper. Vigilantes instinctively know what needs to be done – they don’t need a legal precedent to tell them what is just. Unlike your local police force, you won’t see any incompetence at a public lynching. Vigilante justice is just common sense through the barrel of a gun.

Vigilante justice is swift. Citizens have no desire to waste money keeping a prisoner on death row for a couple decades. Restitution is quick in the vigilante system. It saves time if a vigilante court would also carry out the execution that same day. Vigilante justice does not keep the victim waiting in suspense for redress.

Vigilante justice is dead certain. When citizens take care of lawbreakers, no evidence is excluded because of some technicality – the eye-witness testimony of a victim is good enough. Vigilante justice is not a matter of finding the best lawyer; instead, justice is merely a matter of eliminating the criminal. It is not necessary to create a prison industry if the vigilantes are allowed to do justice. 

Vigilante justice doesn’t need attorneys. You don’t need to maintain a parasitical class of lawyers in a vigilante system; you don’t need legal representatives whose only role is to muddle the proceedings. You don’t need an advocate if you can take care of things yourself. Vigilante justice does not need a mediator.  

If someone steals one of your prized possessions, it really isn’t necessary to involve the state. If the injured party is permitted to attain retribution directly from the criminal, harmony can be restored without creating a criminal-justice establishment that requires a constant supply of fresh victims. Government only manages to insure that restitution remains impossible. 

Vigilante justice does not create a police state. Armed vigilantes dispense the truest form of justice. When the state fines a criminal, the money does not go to the individual whose property has been pilfered; instead, that money goes to the government, not the actual victim. Vigilante justice does not require the creation of an ornate administrative complex.

Vigilantes don’t have fragile self-esteem like members of a police union; vigilantes don’t constantly need to be told what a great job they are doing like government officers. You don’t find vigilantes patting each other on the back and calling each other “special” like secret police agents. Taking justice into your own frees society from all the sanctimony self-righteousness of law-enforcement bureaucrats.

Even though crime might be declining in the country, the criminal-justice industry is always growing. If the police cannot steal enough resources from genuine criminals, they will find a way to extort money from peaceful citizens. When the vigilantes seize power, the law-enforcement institutions will not able to steal property through asset forfeiture, and the police officers will not be able fill their quotas with bogus arrests. The state will not benefit from the actions of the criminal when citizens take the law into their own hands. Vigilante justice does not enrich a law-enforcement industry.

Vigilante justice is focused on the individual, not the institution. The person who is directly wronged is able to attain redress personally in a vigilante system. When a murderer needs to be punished, a family member is able to extract the desired revenge himself. Vigilante justice is personal and direct.

Vigilante justice is not corrupt. Unlike a judge on the take, vigilante justice cannot be bought. Vigilantes don’t take bribes to let the criminal get away with murder. You don’t need your restitution to be interrupted by a prosecutor’s need for campaign contributions. Vigilante justice may be brutal, but vigilante justice is not done in back-room deals.  

Vigilante justice is without mercy. Vigilante justice won't be distorted by bleeding hearts feeling sorry for the criminal. Vigilantes don’t need to give the criminal any second chances; they get things right the first time. Compassion is not wasted on those who do not deserve it. Vigilante justice is pure and without leniency. Vigilantes do not go around making exceptions.

So what if the posse might occasion ally string-up the wrong person? Human life is enormously over-rated and the world is exceedingly overpopulated. Even if the vigilantes might occasionally make a mistake – at least they will always err on the side of giving the world a bit more breathing room.  

The state justice system needs professional criminals to keep themselves in business. Experienced lawyers require experienced outlaws. Only vigilante justice will eliminate the criminal class and the law-enforcement complex at the same time.   

The Old Western idea of the rifle above the door is the most efficient system of justice ever devised.