Species Dominance, Artilects, Artilect War, Cosmists, Terrans, Gigadeath, Essays, Media, etc



Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis


A couple of days ago I had an idea that at first did not seem so significant, but its implications grew and grew until it dawned on me, this it was in fact one of the best masculist ideas I’ve had in several years. This flyer is devoted to explaining what it is.

Before I launch into it, I need to give a bit of background. Those of you who have read/watched a lot of my flyers/videos, will know that I’m an angry masculist, i.e. politically active, and sharply critical of what I call the passive, apolitical wimpiness of the MGTOWs. So I was primed to try to refute the rationalizations used by the MGTOW to explain their lack of political commitment to men’s issues.

I was asking myself, my aren’t these young MGTOWs, half my age, being a lot more political, e.g. helping set up masculist/MGTOW groups at high schools, at universities, approaching the broadcast media, writing books on men’s issues, setting up Men’s Studies courses at universities, putting moral pressure on the gender politicians, haranguing the feminazis, putting enormous moral pressure on the fluffie parasites, etc. Why aren’t they doing that? Why are they not caring about men’s collective plight at being manslaves to women, and being financially crucified in the hated fluffie feminist hypocrite dominated divorce courts.

Why aren’t men doing what women did in the 70s, by organizing large powerful men’s organizations, such on NOM (National Organization for Men) that is equivalent to women’s (in the US) NOW (National Organization for Women) which is such a powerful lobby that the gender politicians don’t dare ignore it, through fear of being destroyed by them politically, given that women vote heavily.

One of the most intelligent of the MGTOWs on the internet is TFM (Turd Flinging Monkey) who is obviously a scientist, studying a masters, who knows how to think scientifically, with a strong skepticism, and well thought out arguments. He kept coming out with the argument, that the main reason why it would be a waste of time for MGTOWs to use masculist tactics, i.e. be a lot more politically active, as listed above, is that women are 51% of the voters, and that a higher proportion of women vote than men.

Hence any attempt by men to change the policies of the hated gender politicians, and particularly of the divorce court judges and lawyers, would be a waste of time, since when push comes to shove, in those issues which are a zero sum game between men and women, e.g. in the divorce court, re bringing in joint custody, throwing out alimony, keeping the house for men, not losing half his possessions, etc, then women, fluffie women (i.e. traditional women who expect to be able to parasite off the money of a man) will violently oppose losing her privileges and will bloc vote with other women to keep the gender politicians being so biased against men, because being so biased is so obviously favorable to women.

TFM’s “51% of the voters are women argument” became a real thorn in my side, because it seems so plausible, and is the main justification why so many MGTOWs don’t become more politically active, e.g. by becoming angry masculists and doing masculist things, as listed above.

So I thought back to cases in which nearly everyone thought that it would be impossible to do a particular thing, and how eventually a loop hole was found to go around the impossibility. I will give two examples, and then use them as a inspirations for my own loophole concerning TFM’s impossibility argument.

The first concerns the idea of extracting on an industrial scale the enormous energies of the nucleus. In 1933, Lord Rutherford, the father and discoverer of the nucleus was asked by a journalist whether he foresaw the industrial scale application of the energy of the nucleus. His famous reply was that the idea was “moonshine” i.e. ridiculous, laughable, and this was Lord Rutherford saying this, the world’s no.1 expert on the nucleus.

Leo Szilard, a theoretical nuclear physicist was skeptical of this. He felt there had to be a way to extract such enormous energies locked away inside the nucleus, but how? He had the habit of soaking in a bath thinking about things. He did that on the nuclear energy problem for several days, stewing on the issue. Then, one day, crossing a London street, he had an epiphany that shook him with intellectual excitement and horror.

At the same moment almost, he found both a way to extract energy from the nucleus, and he realized that Hitler, via his physicists, who had just come to power, might have the same idea too. Since Szilard was a Jew, he did not relish Hitler implementing Szilard’s idea first.

Szilard’s idea was to bombard the most unstable of the naturally occurring nuclei, i.e. uranium, with the freshly discovered (1932) neutrons. Neutrons would make wonderful nuclear bullets, because they are uncharged, which is why they are called neutrons. They would not be deflected the way a proton would be, which is positively charged, by the protons in the uranium nucleus.

The uranium nucleus is almost unstable as it is, so if it absorbs one more neutron, it might become unstable and break up into two smaller nuclei. Smaller nuclei have fewer neutrons, so the fission of the uranium nucleus would imply the release of several neutrons, and realizing this gave Szilard his epiphany. He conceived for the first time in history the idea of a nuclear chain reaction of fissioning uranium nuclei. The neutrons that are released could be used to fission other uranium nuclei, and hence the enormous energy of the nuclei could be tapped.

He was a personal friend of Einstein, so he knew relativity, so he calculated how much energy would be released by the fission of a kilogram or so of uranium, and to his horror discovered it would be enough to vaporize a whole city.

He then had the terrifying thought that Hitler might get there first, since Germany was the top science nation at the time. So he rushed to Washington DC to rattle people’s cages, but they thought he was a loon, until he had the idea to approach Einstein himself to send a letter that Szilard and Einstein wrote that got Roosevelt to start the Manhattan project that built the bomb, the nuclear bomb that a mere 12 years later vaporized Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So, Szilard found a loophole around the generally accepted impossibility argument pushed by Rutherford and others. By being skeptical and brilliant he found a way around the problem, and vast new possibilities opened up as a result.

The second example concerns something in quantum mechanics called “the impossibility of hidden variables argument.” At the atomic scale nature behaves statistically, i.e. the outcome of a single event seems not to be deterministic but can vary probabilistically over several outcomes. People like Einstein, de Broglie, and my old prof David Bohm, thought that by postulating the existence of further (hidden) variables, determinism could be restored to quantum mechanics.

John von Neumann, a mathematician, and reputed to be the smartest man on the planet at the time, got interested in this problem of hidden variables, so turned his formidable mind to it, and came up with  his (in)famous impossibility proof. Given his crushing reputation, physicists accepted his opinion for 3 decades, until another genius (male of course) John Bell turned a skeptical mind to von Neumann’s impossibility proof.

Bell felt that an argument is only as good as its premises, so he systematically looked at von Neumann’s premises and found one that was shaky. The more he analyzed it, the shakier it became, until he realized there was a loophole around von Neumann’s impossibility argument, and opened up the door again to deterministic hidden variable theories (but at a price, namely that they would have to be nonlocal, i.e. what happens “here” could influence what happens “there” in zero time, the current greatest mystery in physics, the problem of non-locality, or entanglement, as the quantum computing guys refer to the same phenomenon.)

So these two examples serve as inspiration to apply a cynical mind to an impossibility “proof” to try to find a way around it, a loophole, so the rest of this flyer shows how I went about this, and explains why I feel it is the best masculist idea I’ve had in years.

How to find a loophole in the “51% female vote argument?” The answer is by reducing that number to say 40%. If 60% of people vote in favor of menfairing the gender laws, then the gender politicians would be FORCED to do so, through fear of losing their next election.

But how to persuade 20% of women to vote for the menfairing of the gender laws? It sounds impossible, because wouldn’t women vote in favor of their own sex? But wait, what is MGTOW all about? It’s about punishing women for abusing men, by men refusing to have anything to do with them, especially not giving women babies.

This thought was my epiphanous moment. OMG! Yes! We MGTOWs/masculists could tell women “If you don’t combine forces with the male bloc vote (49%) and push the gender politicians to vote for the menfairing of the gender laws, then we men will continue to refuse to give you babies, by refusing to give you our sperm.

What do women want above all else? Babies! Their whole DNA is oriented toward being baby factories and raising the next generation. That is women’s biological destiny. Women who do not have kids are usually very unhappy, as the experience of millions of careerist childless women shows. They are miserable.

So, the MGTOW strategy of avoiding women and paternity, becomes a masculist tool needed to FORCE women to bloc vote with men to push the gender politicians to menfair the gender laws. Thus the MGTOW strategy becomes a component in the broader deeper masculist strategy, i.e. MGTOW becomes a subset, a tool, of masculism.

It was then a small step to an extension of the above idea, namely, that if women join forces with men, by becoming female masculists, and join the male bloc vote to force the gender politicians to menfair the gender laws, then the passive apolitical wimpy MGTOWs would see their “51% female voter argument” impossibility proof evaporate. This would then free them up to become angry, politically active masculists, who then start pushing for all the masculist activities listed earlier.

Thus the idea of threatening women with babylessness, MGTOW style, becomes a means to politicize the MGTOW by persuading them that it would NOT be a waste of time and effort to become angry politically active masculists. Thus most MGTOWs could be converted into angry politically active masculists, showing real solidarity with the gender plight of other men.

Thus this idea began to grow and grow in my mind. Its implications were richer than what was put into it, which is characteristic of really good fertile ideas – you get more out of it than you put in!

So guys, you MGTOW guys reading this, watching this on its video. Here is a summary of the idea.

  1. Use MGTOW pressure on women that if they don’t bloc vote for the menfairing of the gender laws with men, then the MGTOW will continue to deny them having babies.
  2. This threat will scare women into supporting the MGTOWs and the masculists to bloc vote with men to menfair the gender laws.
  3. When the gender laws have been made menfair, many men will be prepared to have kids again, since many men want kids, but don’t dare to have them in today’s gynocentric world where men are financially crucified in the hated fluffie feminist hypocrite dominated divorce courts.
  4. Large numbers of female masculists are generated, who then bloc vote with men on men’s issues, on menfairing the gender laws.
  5. The passive, apolitical wimpy MGTOWs see this rise in the number of women who take the masculist/MGTOW viewpoint, and see the writing on the wall. They can see the “51% female voter argument” being refuted, being loopholed, so they have a conversion experience, and turn themselves into angry masculists, because they become convinced that being politically active angry masculists will NOT be a waste of time and effort, so they become masculists and start doing politically active masculist things.
  6. In time, if 20% of women become female masculists and bloc vote with men to menfair the gender laws, then the total percentage of people of both sexes (men plus female masculists) will be 60%, enough to force the gender politicians to menfair the gender laws, giving men joint custody of the kids in a divorce, throwing out alimony, allowing the man to keep his house, bringing in the Parer (paternity rejection right), putting enormous moral pressure on fluffies to FIP up and stop being hated fluffie parasites on men, that the masculists so despise, menfairing the gender laws systematically across the board, etc.

So, in the form of a masculist slogan, expressed in a pithy line or two, “To convert passive apolitical wimpy MGTOWs into angry politically active masculists, threaten women with MGTOW generated babylessness to convert women into female masculist allies.”

Think about it guys, then convert yourselves to masculism, get politically active, to get the gender laws menfaired and society degynocratized.


Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis

(YouTube channels) “de Garis Masculist MGTOW Flyers” “de Garis  Essays”

%d bloggers like this: