To Stop Mass killers, we have to stop drugging our young boys

As America comes to terms with a monstrous shooting in Charleston that has left nine churchgoers dead, bewildered members of the public are seeking rationality in apparently wanton and inscrutable crimes.

We may never know quite what drives some people to kill. But it seems that in young Dylann Storm Roof, we have further evidence of a trend that should worry us all. I’m talking about his dependence on prescription drugs: suboxone, to be precise.

Roof is just the latest in a long line of young men who have committed appalling crimes after a lifetime on psychotropic drugs. If you don’t believe me, consider some of the most notorious young male shooters in American history.

Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza? Lexapro and Celexa. Red-headed Aurora killer James Holmes? Clonazepam and sertraline. Virginia Tech mass murderer Seung-Hui Cho?Prozac. Charles Whitman, the “Texas Tower Sniper”? Dexedrine. Columbine executioners Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? Zoloft and Luvox.

You get the idea. These young men were all on prescribed medication. Feminism helped to get them there. In particular, female teachers who either dislike men or are completely ignorant of healthy behaviour norms for boys are creating a generation of emotionally stunted, drugged up young men.

Millions of young American men are prescribed powerful drugs after being diagnosed with the phantom condition “ADHD,” better known as a mixture of natural boisterousness and poor parental discipline. The mere fact of being male has become pathologised.

When they get into their teens and early twenties, they graduate onto drugs like Zoloft and Prozac, drugs that can produce a powerfully dissociative effect in the mind, muddying the distinctions between reality and fantasy. All this, because boys are now treated as though they are defective girls.

I once clumsily wrote that video games helped to “shape the fantasies” of Isla Vista gunman Elliot Rodgers. I intended not to incriminate video games in his spiral into madness and murder but rather to point out that young men who lose grip on the real world often retreat into imaginary ones, which can then have a stylistic effect, if you like, on their crimes.

After a year of reading the research on what America is doing to its men, and interviewing hundreds of young men in preparation for my book on the GamerGate controversy, I have come to believe that in most cases it’s not games, or movies, or “misogyny,” or “racism” that drives young men to kill. It is the increasing sense of isolation and disorientation young boys feel in a world that now feels architected against them.

Dylann Roof’s actions are unlikely to have been primarily motivated by race, even though he may have identified as a white supremacist. For one thing, half his Facebook friends were black. Similarly, Elliot Rodgers wasn’t a misogynist in any meaningful sense of the word. What these terrible crimes express more clearly is a crisis in masculinity – a crisis brought about by the way we treat boys in schools.

Men, in particular introverts, and especially highly intelligent introverts who sit near the top of the autistic spectrum, are routinely ridiculed in society, cast out as “manbabies” and “privileged oppressors.” The lived experience of such men is precisely the opposite of privilege: they are punished for being boys at school, branded “creeps” or, worse, rapists for showing sexual interest at college, and after all that – assuming they even graduate – they are discriminated against in job applications.

If “Dylann” “Storm” “Roof” deserves ridicule for anything, it’s his ridiculous name and that 1990s lesbian pudding-bowl haircut, not the fact that he is a man struggling to find his place in an increasingly feminised culture. What was his mother thinking?

Namby-pamby culture in schools is partly to blame for the current crisis in manhood. Teachers, who are overwhelmingly female, freak out at boyish things like play-fighting, cops and robbers and even playing “finger guns.” At best, this is silly over-policing of natural male exuberance. At worst, it is holding boys to feminine standards of behaviour. It’s not hard to understand why some boys, after enduring this for a decade, finally snap in a tragic violent outburst.

By suppressing male behaviours in school and whacking boys on psychotropic medication, we create a perfect storm almost guaranteed to produce broken young men who want to lash out at a world they feel has hurt them. After all, the outlook for young men these days is desperately bleak, which explains why so many of them are giving up on relationships and even sex and retreating into pornography and video games. I call it the “sexodus.”

Medication like Paxil, which Donald Schell was taking when he killed himself and three other people, is society’s answer to its deep discomfort with traditional masculinity. Our authorities don’t know how to stop men behaving like men, so they drug boys into submission.(A jury ruled that the drug company that makes Paxil was partly responsible for Schell’s meltdown.) It is a sadistic and high-risk strategy. And it isn’t working.

Feminists like to bang on about “toxic masculinity” in wake of atrocities like Charleston. But it’s not masculinity that’s toxic: it’s the chemicals we’re pumping into our young men’s bloodstreams, frying their brains and turning them into washed-out addicts and dissociative lunatics who go out and murder anyone they can easily victimise, particularly girls. As ever, it’s women that feminism hurts the most.

And it’s going to get worse before it gets better – unless we stop drugging our young men and allow boys to be boys.

Only Difference Between Dylann Roof and Bill Ayers Is Legitimacy Among the Left

Q: What’s the difference between Bill Ayers and Dylann Roof?

A: Dylann Roof isn’t a friend and colleague of an American president who enjoyed a cushy life in academia before retiring to life as the kind of author who’s invited on-the-air by the mainstream media to hawk his books.

Other than that, both of these pigs share much in common.

Bill Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist.

Dylann Roof is an unrepentant domestic terrorist.

Bill Ayers despises America.

Dylann Roof despises America.

Bill Ayers’s terror group The Weather Underground targeted and murdered innocent people.

Dylann Roof targeted and murdered innocent people.

Bill Ayers used murder and violence and terror as a weapon for political change.

Dylann Roof used murder and violence and terror as a weapon for political change.

Bill Ayers wanted a race war.

Dylann Roof wants a race war.

From here the paths of the two men split in wildly different directions.

Hopefully, confessed murderer Dylan Roof is on a bullet train to lethal injection. Regardless, at just 21 years of age, Dylann Roof’s life is thankfully over; his sick and twisted mind will forever be locked away where it can no longer hurt or poison anyone.

Such was and still is not the case for Bill Ayers, who after escaping prison on legal technicality found himself fully-embraced by the mainstream Left. Ayers was welcomed into the cushy world of left-wing academia where, until his recent retirement, he was a professor at the University of Illinois Chicago. During the 1990’s,  Bill Ayers worked with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley on education reform. In 1997,  Bill Ayers was honored as Chicago’s Citizen of the Year.

As recently as 2008, Bill Ayers was elected Vice President for Curriculum Studies by the American Educational Research Association.

Although in 2008 the media bent over backwards to cover the relationship up,  Bill Ayers and Barack Obama were friends and colleagues for years. When Obama decided to launch a political career that would eventually lead to the White House, he did so in the living room of Bill Ayers and his terrorist wife Bernadine Dohrn.

Once the connection between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama again made Ayers a national figure during the 2008 presidential election (Obama shamelessly lied about this relationship, and the media let him), Bill Ayers was embraced by a mainstream media that was well-aware of his terrorist past.

To sell books, Bill Ayers would be welcomed as a guest on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” The Daily Beast, PBS, MSNBC and elsewhere. (On Fox News Ayers has only faced the contempt and grilling he deserves.)

Barack Obama, the mainstream media, the Left in general are not appalled by the idea of a domestic terrorist targeting innocent people in the hopes of starting a race war.

Not if he’s Bill Ayers — not if he’s one of their own.

If Obama wants to lecture America about race, maybe he shouldn’t have chosen to launch his political career in the living room of a terrorist who called for a race war.

Women “lie, cheat and steal”

HALF of all women would lie to their husbands or partners to keep their relationship going if they became pregnant by another man, a survey said today. The new survey of women’s attitudes to truth, relationships, and behaviour, said the overwhelming majority (96%) admit to lying.

HALF of all women would lie to their husbands or partners to keep their relationship going if they became pregnant by another man, a survey said today.

Figures showed one woman in two would not tell her man that the baby she was carrying was not his – if she wanted to stay with him.

They also said four out of ten (42%) would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, in spite of the wishes of their partner.

The new survey of women’s attitudes to truth, relationships, and behaviour, said the overwhelming majority (96%) admit to lying.

Almost half (45%) of the 5,000 questioned told the researchers for That’s Life! magazine they tell “little white lies” most days.

The favourite fib told by women was “Of course you don’t look fat” with “These shoes were only é10” in second place.

One bizarre finding was that a third of women (33%) said they would stay with their husband if they found out he was a “secret transvestite”, but only half that number (17%) would put up with him if he refused to wash.

The National Scruples and Lies Survey 2004 also found plenty of porkies were told over the Christmas period.

Eight in ten (78%) would pass off a second-hand gift as a brand new present, while 50% have claimed a festive card was “lost in the post”.

The Cost of Pandering to Women in College

college women are liabilities

Much has been made regarding how women are attending and graduating college in greater numbers than men. According to USA Today, women are 21% more likely to graduate college, and 48% more likely to earn an advanced degree (Sheffler, 2014), and yet women make up less than 30% of STEM graduates (Neuhauser, 2014). Women instead tend to major in fields like English and Liberal Arts (Goudreau, 2010) which earn far less than STEM, and often require an advanced degree simply to find employment within that field. In reality, the much-celebrated college attendance and graduation rates of women have little impact on the real world when they major in low-demand and low-paying subjects. Despite women taking over colleges, men are still earning more than women starting out after college precisely because men major in more lucrative fields like STEM (Sheffler, 2014).

It would be bad enough that men are continuously shamed for earning more than women, and told that because women get better grades in easier subjects, that women are more intelligent (SourceFed, 2014) or motivated (Lewin, 2006). However, women are also given disproportionate financial aid to attend college, even though they are now a sizeable majority of college students compared to men. While data is difficult to find, using the University of Oklahoma as an anecdotal example, in 2007 women received 78% of scholarships, and between the years of 2008 -2013 women received 89%, 77%, 68%, 94%, 92%, and 100% respectively (OU SLIS, 2013).

Government grants are another major source of funding for women wishing to attend college. There are numerous resources available created specifically for women (Scholarships for Women), but none specifically for men, unless you count athletic scholarships, which are a sticking point with Feminist activists who resent that female athletics lose money while male athletics make money for colleges (Bloomberg News, 2011). It seems fans aren’t interested in paying to watch female athletes perform at the level of a male high school junior varsity team. However, if you put athletics aside, and focus only on the resources available to help men obtain college degrees, those resources are sorely lacking, while money is being thrown at women who are wasting it on Liberal Arts degrees instead of STEM.

One of the unintended consequences of ignoring men in favor of women is that there is a shortage of STEM majors in the United States; causing employers to turn to H-1B visas in order to import immigrants from Asian countries to do the work, as there aren’t enough qualified Americans available (Logan, 2015). Algenol, a chemical company in Florida is quoted as saying that they always try to find qualified Americans to hire, but are often forced to turn to H-1B visas in order to fill vacancies (Logan, 2015).

The H-1B program is designed to bring in immigrant workers to work in specific technical fields like architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, biotech, accounting, business, as well as others (Logan, 2015), in other words, the fields that men traditionally specialize in.

According to the National Science Foundation, 19.25% of scientists were immigrants in 2005 (NSF, 2009). The only reason it isn’t higher is that there is a “cap” of H-1B visas at 65,000. However, Gary Beach of the Wall Street Journal advocates lifting that cap, as the United States needs more skilled technology workers (Beach, 2015). Beach further advocates that public education needs serious reform in order to teach the skills needed for technology, but that this will take 20-years to complete (Beach, 2015).

Speaking of public education, Christina Hoff Sommers summarizes how the problem starts there, wherein Feminism has become entrenched by saying…

“Being a boy can be a serious liability in today’s classroom. As a group, boys are noisy, rowdy and hard to manage. Many are messy, disorganized and won’t sit still. Young male rambunctiousness, according to a recent study, leads teachers to underestimate their intellectual and academic abilities. “Girl behavior is the gold standard in schools,” says psychologist Michael Thompson. “Boys are treated like defective girls” (Sommers, 2013).

In another article Sommers notes “teachers who work daily with male and female students tend to reflexively dismiss any challenge to the myth, or any evidence pointing to the very real crisis among boys” (Sommers, The War Against Boys, 2000). In fact, boys are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and drugged rather than receive help. Jane Collingwood of Psych Central notes that while adult diagnoses for ADHD are split evenly between men and women, 82% of teachers treat it as a male problem, with 40% admitting they don’t see the problem in girls (Collingwood). Coincidentally over 75% of teachers are female (NCES, 2013), with the number one reason men avoid becoming teachers being the fear of a false accusation of rape or abuse by a vindictive female student (Brace, 2012).

This fear of being falsely accused of rape is shared by male college students, as they are guilty until proven innocent in cases of rape or sexual assault ( Schow, 2014). Combined with the aforementioned lack of financial support, men are lagging behind women overall and yet remain the vast majority of STEM major graduates. All of this is happening while a STEM shortage is causing employers to import Asian immigrants.

Allow me to connect the dots now that we have analyzed the entire problem:

Girls are favored over boys in our public educational system

Girls are showered with money in order to attend college

Boys major in STEM, but not enough are entering college due to lack of financial support, or fear of a Feminist witch hunt

Girls are not majoring in STEM

Employers can’t find enough STEM workers to fill jobs and turn to H-1B visas to import skilled labor from Asia instead.

On March 19th 2015, President Barack Obama noted:

“When these tech jobs go unfilled, it’s a missed opportunity for low-wage workers who could transform their earnings potential with just a little bit of training. And that costs our whole economy in terms of lost wages and productivity” (Obama, 2015).

You will rarely hear me say this, but I agree with President Obama. Having tech jobs go unfilled or filled by immigrant workers on a temporary visa hurts the whole economy and country, especially long term, as these workers will eventually return to their home countries, taking their experience and skills with them. We need American workers in tech to remain competitive globally, and that means supporting the 49% of the population that actually has the desire and aptitude to enter STEM fields, and take these jobs in the first place.

Of course, the problem is that the takeover of colleges by women (regardless of how rigged the game is), is seen as a great Feminist accomplishment. In fact, the politically correct solution is to throw even MORE money at women in order to encourage them to enter STEM rather than simply give support to the men who would be better able to do it themselves (Koebler, 2011).

This is how societies commit suicide through Feminism. They try to make women and men equal by tearing men down, and then wonder where all their skilled labor went. STEM has been routinely identified as a key indicator of economic growth (Katsomitros, 2013), and women are not up to the task.

An article from the Chronicle of Higher Education contains the following telling quote:

“We have strong increases for international students, which is good because if we didn’t have strong enrollment from abroad, some graduate programs would be faltering, but there are some particular concerns about where declines continue to persist for U.S. students. We are seeing a widening gap between U.S. and international first-time enrollments in engineering, math, and computer science” (Patton, 2013).

This is the cost of pandering to women in college: Economic suicide.

Matt Forney: Why “Men Going Their Own Way” Is No Way For Men To Go

In the past few months, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) has completed its devolution from a sensible philosophy of masculinity into a cult for lonely virgins. While I never identified as MGTOW myself, the old-guard MGTOW blog NO MA’AM (whose owner, Rob Fedders, has become so embarrassed by what MGTOW has become that he’s wiped almost all mention of it from his site) was a huge influence on my thinking; indeed, it was my introduction to anti-feminist thought in general.

The men who created the MGTOW philosophy a decade ago—zed, Ragnar, Rob Fedders etc.—were learned men, who’d seen the horrors of second- and third-wave feminism first-hand. They rode motorcycles, banged girls and read books, sharing their findings via blogs and forums. MGTOW was deliberately conceived as an “anti-movement,” in response to the impotence of men’s rights’ activists, and the “marriage strike“—the most recognizable part of modern “migtow” bleating—wasn’t even mentioned in the original MGTOW manifesto.

As it exists now, MGTOW has become a lonely hearts’ club for the refuse of the male species. Not only are most Virgins Going Their Own Way personally repellent losers, their “philosophy” is completely wrongheaded. Men Going Their Own Way will never appeal to anything more than the rejects of American society because it’s a philosophy that denies the fundamental nature of human beings.

“Lack Of Sex Can Drive A Man Crazy”

One common talking point of “migtows” is that their beliefs represent a completely new take on masculinity: the rejection of male subservience to women, or “pussy worship” as the permavirgins call it. This shows how historically illiterate—and arrogant—they are.

Spiritual and philosophical movements focused on celibacy and the denial of base urges have a long pedigree in human history, from early Buddhism and Jainism in India to the Catholic priesthood, monastic orders such as the Trappists, and quasi-Christian off-shoots such as the Shakers.

While it might inflate the bloated ego of the average “migtow” to be compared to great religious movements of the past and present, MGTOW fails even on that front. Monks and nuns don’t take the vows because they’re angry at not being able to get a date, they choose their lifestyles because they want to become closer to God.

Aside from avoiding women (in actuality being rejected by them), VGTOWs indulge in every vice available to them, from Cheetos to video games to masturbation. Their lifestyles are the very opposite of self-control.

The “migtow” aversion to interacting with women also has a less pleasant parallel to radical feminism. In the 1970’s, extremist feminists such as Andrea Dworkin argued for “political lesbianism,” where feminists only had relationships with other women, regardless of their sexual orientation. Dworkin’s logic was that since men were oppressing women, feminists who dated men were literally fraternizing with the enemy.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some “migtows” start advocating “political homosexuality” in the future. After all, since women are evil, ball-cutting, divorce-raping succubi, the only safe relationships are to be had with other men.

If you bang a dude, he won’t jam you for child support or falsely accuse you of rape, and you certainly won’t be “worshipping pussy” if you pack fudge (You’ll just be exposing yourself to HIV and drug-resistant gonorrhea, but hey, you gotta take the good with the bad).

The Masculine And The Feminine

More to the point, MGTOW will never catch on for the same reason that political lesbianism never became popular: they both deny the fact that men and women want to be with each other.

“Migtows” redefine all male-female relationships into male servitude of women, much in the same way that radical feminists recast relationships as men oppressing women. The problem with this is that the relationship between men and women is one of the most fundamental aspects of human existence. As Jack Donovan stated in his book No Man’s Land, masculinity and femininity are defined in opposition to each other; without one, the other cannot exist.

The idea that men can go it alone or that any form of relationship with women is “pussy worship” is a perversion of the flawed libertarian belief that the smallest unit of society is the individual. Both libertarians and VGTOWs ignore that humans are fundamentally interdependent, with countless relationships—laws, customs, family connections etc.—binding us. A society of atomized, disconnected individuals is no society at all. The smallest unit of society is not the individual, but the relationship between twoindividuals.

The reality is that as frayed as relations between the sexes are, men and women still fundamentally want to be together. Even the most Instagram-obsessed, passive-aggressive, narcissistic Millennial girl desires a man to take her. And despite their whinnying, the average Doritos-munching “migtow” would go “pussy worshipper” in a flash if a cute, agreeable girl was dropped in his lap.

MGTOW, Will You Please Go Now!

In the end, Men Going Their Own Way is a passing fad, limited to a few bottom-feeders who would have been shipped off to die on the battlefield in epochs less squeamish than our own. The de facto Marxism of most major “migtow” YouTube personalities—as evidenced by their pathological obsession with bashing “TradCons,” their autistic term for anyone who acknowledges the natural place of men and women—also renders them useless.

Despite their claims that “there’s no difference between the left and the right,” “migtows” almost never attack the misandrist, feminist left, even though it’s the left who holds all the power in the West.

Their impotent rage against anything deemed “TradCon”—even though “TradCons” have virtually no influence in society—indicates that “migtows” are just as opposed to the natural order of humanity as the average pierced-lipped, easily “triggered” Tumblrina.

“Migtows” are the social justice warriors of the manosphere: hysterical, intolerant of criticism, and driven entirely by emotion. Their vision of masculinity is one in which men turn inward, refusing to accomplish anything of value or engage with the world beyond crying on the Internet. MGTOW is no place for men who are proud of being men.