Get the VantaBlack Pills Armed and Ready: The 2020s will See the Triumph of Reality over 60 Years of Sexual False Consciousness

People before the mid-twentieth century took their reality from reality, not a media-modulated simulation of it. This is why people like Shakespeare saw female nature for what it is, or had such a sure grasp of the incel problem and its social implications. In those times there were no magazines, films, TV shows or grinning celebrity stooges to distort an individual's perception of reality. A good analogy would be signal to noise: a smart person prior to the twentieth century got a pure signal between reality and thought, with much less noise (except for organised religion and classical education, for the educated classes) to cloud the signal.

The Truth Killer

This is why the repulsive Richard's soliloquy in Shakespeare's Richard the Third is still so relevant, five hundred years after it was written. It came from sharp observation of reality itself, not a distorted representation of it:

But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamped, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them,--
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun.

Richard the Third: The West's First Black Pilled Hero?

This speech is completely free of Sexual False Consciousness; there is no trace of self-delusion, idealisation of women or other coping mechanisms. Richard knows a sub-four, hunchbacked male like himself will never be loved or admired, only feared and despised. And given this fact, he determines to fully accept his outsider role and set about destroying his peers with gusto. He is, in all respects, a Black Pill hero. Nor is Shakespeare alone among pre-modern writers in possessing an acutely Black Pilled mindset. The British Victorians Anthony Trollope, Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy all had a better grasp of female nature than any modern writer. Hardy's stories are full of deluded females chasing handsome, Dark Triad Bad Boys and shunning short, ugly Nice Guys; he drops depleted-uranium Black Pills everywhere.

So why is Sexual False Consciousness such a modern - in fact, late twentieth century - phenomenon?

Answering this question not only sheds much light on SFC, it also implies that the 2020s will be the decade when the Black Pill eclipses SFC as the dominant paradigm of western sexuality.

Although the mainstream media originated in the nineteenth century as printed newspapers and journals, it only acquired total hegemonic dominance over the western masses after world war two. This stranglehold only began to loosen in the late 1990s, although it fundamentally remained in place until around 2009. That momentous  year began to see the introduction of social media into every aspect of life, obliterating the mainstream media consensus that had dominated mass thought for the previous sixty years. The subsequent election of Donald Trump, the UK's vote for Brexit and the West's nationalist resurgence are all manifestations of this process; and without sounding too pretentious, I think the rise of the Black Pill and the Manosphere in general are also part of this 'reclaiming reality' agenda. 

Yes: we are part of a wave.

The Post-War Boom: Anomaly, not Norm

I do not think the rise of the Black Pill is a revolution, however. In fact, it is the restoration of normality after sixty years of media-induced delusion. This is because the mid to late twentieth century - the mainstream media's historic pinnacle - was actually an anomaly, in virtually all respects. It was defined by relatively high social mobility, economic prosperity, progressive rhetoric, institutional feminism, a western media monoculture and extreme levels of Sexual False Consciousness. This is why the Baby Boomers who grew up in that era find the Red and Black Pills so incomprehensible; they actually think a one-eyed Indian janitor has a serious chance with racist Anglo-American models and actresses, or that hyper-hypergamous women want sex with everybody, or that 'looks don't matter', or that some nobody can 'work his way up from the mail room' to become CEO of a multinational.

In those days the MSM could peddle these myths without resistance from autonomous social media and the free, honest discussion it facilitates,  which is why Baby Boomers and older Generation Xers are the age groups most deluded by SFC (and false consciousness in general). Brutal Black Pill facts like female sexual fascism or the Dog Pill are simply beyond the deluded minds of those media-indoctrinated generations.

The Post-War, Blue-Pilled World is History, Now

From the standpoint of 2020, this now seems entirely self-evident. Enough time has now elapsed between the post-war era and the rise of social media for us to clearly see that one-eyed Indian janitors bouncing around in bed with sneering Anglobitch models was just a fiction cooked up by an omnipotent mainstream media: Sexual False Consciousness in its purest form.

But now our time is come. The collapse of media-maintained Sexual False Consciousness means reality is reality for the first time in sixty years. Baby Boomers and their irksome delusions will start dying off in earnest throughout the 2020s: and good riddance. Worsening levels of sexual disenfranchisement and other forms of male ostracism across the Anglosphere will only add fuel to this conceptual renaissance. At present, 27% of American males under 30 have been incel for over a year; by 2025, this percentage will surely rise to 50% or or more. I am not not being presumptuous when I say the 2020s will be the decade for incels, the Black Pill and all forms of dark enlightenment.

The Black Pills are Coming...

The INCEL Revolution: Norway, Riots and the Failing Hegemony

Futrelle and other feminist sympathizers always consider themselves iconoclasts and revolutionaries – strange when one considers their boundless admiration for the mainstream media, which enjoys an intimate relationship with the Anglo-American cultural establishment. This gushing approbation makes more sense if one considers television and newspapers to be pro-feminist, misandrist institutions – and that feminism defines the Establishment rather than opposing it.

Antonio Gramsci argued that the media bound the consent of the masses to the existing social order by injecting them with a worldview contrary to their real lives – in short, they adopted the worldview of the elite (or their media minions), becoming detached from (and indifferent towards) their own reality. In this deluded condition, they were easy prey for elite manipulation. What the Internet has done – in its various forms – is challenge this indoctrination process. And that is frightening the elite, for obvious reasons. Richard Scarecrow’s blog is an excellent example of this ‘reality revolution’ in action. While the legacy media continually aver that Anglo-American women are kindly angels brimming with love for humanity, Richard gives us telling anecdotes about real American women – seemingly a very different species.

When Richard – a personable, educated, solvent male – approached women in his youth, he met remarks like: “You’re so ugly I wish I was a lesbian”; “fuck off”; “Go shoot yourself”. Now, encounters like this are very rarely described in the legacy media – yet seem rather commonplace in contemporary North America. Likewise, the ubiquitous female attraction to thugs and psychopaths is widely discussed on MRA blogs and websites, yet comprehensively vetoed by the 'mainstream' media. It seems that TV and the print media are living in a cocoon of utter self-delusion on any issue that might cast women in a negative light - in short, hopelessly out-of-touch with mainstream experience. This partly explains their recent marginalization and decline into low-brow slogans and platitudes - nowadays, only working class morons, knee-jerk conservatives and libtard fanatics uncritically swallow the puritanical misandry peddled by Murdoch’s legacy press: thinking people have gone elsewhere for news and opinion (according to Reuters, 70% of Americans now consider the media 'out of touch').

This dramatic shift raises many issues of interest to MRAs and anti-feminists. With the media’s hegemony crumbling, we are seeing reality aright for the first time in centuries. While the mainstream Anglo-American media would have us believe that 60 year old women are as attractive as 20 year olds, that all men want sex with Sarah Jessica Parker, that fashion models are all leaping around in bed with truck drivers, that women aren’t hypergamous and that no one is INCEL – in short, a farrago of fictions – most thinking people now see that these are remarkably silly messages. The point being, only since the Internet emerged has any opportunity for consensus social reality to be described or upheld at all – prior to the Internet, reality was systematically vetoed.

The Internet revolution also permits new perspectives on long-standing men’s issues. It has long been assumed by PUAs and conservative anti-feminists that the late sixties weakened monogamy, allowing women to pursue 'alpha' thugs and celebrities and creating a large rump of sexually disenfranchised males. While there is some truth in this model, an alternative explanation exists. In short, could it be that there have always been sexually-disenfranchised, INCEL males – that they are not new at all? Perhaps they only seem so because - prior to the Internet - there was no way for them to articulate their experience.

The media aimed at the Anglo-American working class projects a strongly sexualized agenda – ‘everyone’ is having sex ten times a day in Murdoch-world. Given that Anglo-American working class males are – given their low incomes and desultory life-chances – unlikely to enjoy much high-quality sex, one must accept that this is classic hegemonic manipulation at work. Further, anyone who dares challenge these mass hallucinations is reflexively lambasted as a ‘freak’ or ‘misfit’. And the middle class media (GQ, Men’s Health, Esquire) are little better, largely devised by Anglo-American homosexuals and projecting a denatured, high-bourgeois fantasy world as some kind of hyper-real ‘norm’.

But now – zum Teufel! – we have a plethora of blogs, websites and social media where normal people can express themselves without Murdoch’s tyrannical filter. It is our contention that this explosion gives the impression that INCEL males, PUAs and MRAs are something new – when they have always existed, albeit in a voiceless state. After all, the voiceless might as well not exist, for all practical purposes. Similarly, anti-feminist dissent has a 'fresh-minted' aura that is entirely spurious: a good British magazine called Male View existed in the early 90s, covering much of the ground now ably traversed by Angry Harry (I know – I published in it). Of course, Male View came by subscription only – its message was too radical for the mainstream – but it still existed, albeit in a marginalized state. In sum, the Internet has made the marginal mainstream.



Anders Breivik’s massacre in Norway has caused the Anglo-American Establishment much angst, most of it focussing on how online ‘communities of interest’ can form spontaneously in cyberspace, blissfully free of their ideological control (the manosphere being a good example). This fear is interesting, since fear always betrays weakness:

Anders Behring Breivik: Tunnel vision in an online world

Every country needs some degree of cohesion. Just how much is a legitimate matter of dispute. Some believe that cultural pluralism is a recipe for fragmentation and the loss of trust. This may be the case, but not necessarily. So long as common institutions function impartially – education, housing, work etc – a society can live well with considerable diversity. However, the moment we cease to speak to each other, something serious is under way. This is exactly what happened with Breivik and many of his co-believers: they developed a parallel reality on the internet.

The role of the internet in fragmenting the public sphere has been the subject of some scholarly and journalistic interest, most recently in Eli Pariser's excellent The Filter Bubble, which shows how Google, Facebook and other major actors filter our web searches, updates etc according to our user profiles and previous cyberhistories. So if I am an environmentalist typing "climate change" into Google, I get a different set of results from you, if you are an oil executive. The filter bubble operates on Amazon by giving personal recommendations; in its more insidious ways, it tailors our web searches to confirm our pre-existing world view without us noticing. Eventually, we may drift apart and end up living in different worlds.

Breivik must willingly have allowed himself to be brainwashed by Islamophobic and extreme rightwing websites. However, had he instead been forced to receive his information through a broadsheet newspaper, where not all the stories dealt with Europe's loss of confidence and the rise of militant Islam, it is conceivable that his world would have looked slightly different. Perhaps one lesson from this weekend of shock and disbelief may be that cultural pluralism is not necessarily a threat to national cohesion, but that the tunnel vision resulting from selective perusal of the internet is.

Thomas Hylland Eriksen, The Guardian UK, 25 July 2011

'... had he instead been forced to receive his information through a broadsheet newspaper, where not all the stories dealt with Europe's loss of confidence and the rise of militant Islam, it is conceivable that his world would have looked slightly different.'

True enough - but would his world have looked like reality? The same discourse emerged in relation to George Sodini - if he had not been immersed in the PUA subculture, would he have shot the people? Well, had Sodini been listening to the 'mainstream' media (and there is no evidence he did not) he would still have thought himself a crazy misfit - and perhaps been even more dangerous. After all, the 'mainstream' media's distorted fixation with demographic oddities - rich people, cross-class relationships, teenagers, alternative lifestyles - is hardly conducive to normal social adjustment. British academic John Downing cites evidence that people who watch a lot of TV hugely exaggerate the number of privately-owned helicopters, tennis courts, swimming pools and mansions in western societies - clear proof the 'mainstream' media promotes a delusional view of the world. How, then, can accepting the 'mainstream' media promote proper adjustment when it projects such delusions as casual norms?

The establishment's worries were recently compounded by the riots in England, challenges to the power elite's hegemony organized through social networking media. Prime Minister David Cameron has already promised to shut down social networking channels during future riots. This highlights the danger they represent to our oppressors - and the opportunities they give to us.

The Death of Anglo-American MSM (Main Stream Media) and the Rise of a New Counter Hegemony

On May 11th 2009 the New York Times reported that the newspapers (big and small) have lost 16% of their readers since 2000, but the major broadcast networks had lost 28% of their viewers in the same time. In short, the MSM looks to be in terminal decline.


The Main Stream Media is now directed at leftist Baby-Boomers, the elderly and the working class. It survives only because these groups lack the technical facility to contribute to the Blogosphere. Leftists, the elderly and the working class are a useless audience because they are timid, dying or stupid. A cursory glance at any British newsstand shows the same story; publications aimed at out-of-touch pensioners (Daily Express, the Daily Mail, the provincial press in general), neo-Christian liberal eccentrics (the Guardian) or uneducated no-marks glued to their TV sets (Sun, Mirror, Daily Star). None of these publications has any appeal to a genuinely intelligent, self-aware person of any social background. The same can be said of TV. Aside from a few decent wildlife shows, the programmes are banal prolefeed (X Factor, American Idol) aimed at the human LCD. Political programmes are utterly juvenile, still trapped within post-War paternalism, refusing to accept that Britain now dances to the tunes of America’s Power Elite (without understanding this, no genuine understanding of Anglosphere politics can begin).

In the modern Anglosphere, MRAs are heavily outnumbered. In itself, this is not insurmountable: as Stonewall Jackson opined, a small nation can hold its own against a larger nation by concentrating its forces, destroying the enemy in detail, compensating for small numbers with greater activity. Indeed, during the early days of Anglo feminism in the late Sixties, they did exactly this. Feminists were active everywhere across the Anglosphere and were able to drive patriarchy before them, destroyed in detail or trapped in intellectual redoubts. Today, the liberal feminists hold the ground that matters: the mainstream media, the law, politics and academia. We hold nothing. However, the fall of the MSM removes a vital part of their fortress, giving us the initiative for the first time in decades.


To understand this situation better, we must return to Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony. Gramsci thought deeply about why revolutions happened in some countries, not others. Why did Russians rebel during World War One, and not the English? After all, on the morning of the battle of the Somme, some 60, 000 British troops died; whole villages lost all their men in a few hours. The same could be said of the American Southerners during the Civil War. Why did they keep fighting, even after Gettysburg, when all hope of victory was gone? According to Gramsci, hegemony explains this difference. Russia had no elaborate mass media comprising radio stations or newspapers, which weakened the masses' social conviction and made revolt more likely. By contrast, the English fought on because they were enmeshed in a complex hegemony comprising schools, newspapers, radio broadcasts, street names and customs, binding them to the existing social order and making them more pliant to state manipulation. We are all trapped in hegemony, to a greater or lesser extent. And it is fair to say that we are now trapped in a matriarchal hegemony, which has normalized the denigration and marginalization of men across the Anglosphere.


However, since the MSM is the major tool for transmitting the NAMWO agenda, its decline represents a golden opportunity to create a counter-hegemonic movement. The Internet is supplanting the MSM and we must colonize it NOW to realize our aims and ambitions. If we look at the media world, the most potent initiatives inhering to men's issues are occurring online. However, removal of the MSM's ability to control popular discourse is beginning to have far reaching effects in the real world, too. We are witnessing what Gramsci called a 'crisis of hegemony' where many of the old pan-Anglosphere sureties are no longer viable. All the old assumptions are disintegrating, where they remain in place at all.


The hegemonic breakdown is much more precipitous in Britain than elsewhere, simply because British hegemony is more developed than that of the younger Anglosphere countries. It is implied that, being more socially integrated, the British quickly lapse into anarchy when sundered from hegemonic tradition. Hence Britain’s hegemonic collapse is having political effects transcending mere lifestyle issues. A case in point: declining support for the ‘mainstream’ parties is matched by rising support for the BNP. Of course, Nick Griffin’s nationalists have fully exploited the Internet to get their message across - as we might expect from a counter-hegemonic perspective.

Canadian criminologist Elliott Leyton discusses British hegemonic exceptionalism in Men of Blood, his study of crime in Britain. He argues that Britain has traditionally enjoyed low crime rates because of high hegemonic integration. For example, British murderers have much higher suicide rates than incarcerated murderers elsewhere in the world – obviously, the ‘shame’ of such a crime is greater for highly integrated individuals. Interestingly, the excellence of the British armed forces may also relate to this hegemonic factor – during World War Two, 120 British troops were worth 150 Americans in western theatres. Even today, the excellence of Britain’s forces give it a disproportionate influence on world affairs. And British football hooliganism mimics traditional imperialist themes of international expansion. But I digress...

In short, the MSM can no longer regulate public opinion as they did in the post-war era. Men’s rights, populist politics and other anti-Boomer agendas are just a few of the online results. In the longer term, the MSM looks doomed to extinction. It cannot compete with the Internet for a number of reasons:

Expenses and overheads. To get any publication to the newsstands, costs are astronomical. It costs little or nothing to post opinion or information on a website. Ultimately, costs alone will force the MSM onto the Internet, where their advantages are nullified.

Speed. The Internet is quicker. Newspapers chew over old stories because they are followers, now. Today, hot news breaks online, not via the MSM.

Technical proliferation. As more and more people get online access, the old media channels wither. As handheld devices like iphones and Blackberries become ubiquitous, those old channels will run completely dry.

Death/marginalisation of current MSM audiences. The old die off. The working class has no spending power. Boomer leftists are dying off, too. The MSM presently survives on these audiences. This is why their offerings are so weird, low-brow and out of touch. Newspapers seem to think we are still living in 1958: party politics, organized religion, feminism and post-war collectivism all express this archaic fixation. Smart younger people have decamped online, disgusted with these offerings. The MSM have adapted skilfully to lower class/Boomer/pensioner tastes - but dealt themselves out of the game.

Given that the MSM are doomed, what does the future hold? Many things, not all of them good.

Firstly, the blogs of today will become tomorrow’s online institutions. Roissy in DC or Whisky (or whoever runs their blogs, then) will become household names. Baby Boomer left-feminism will be forced back, as its spokespeople die off. Already, Greer and MacKinnon convey an archaic ethos bizarre even to most women. We can expect Internet-based, pan-Anglosphere post-modern communities of interest to burgeon. Such communities will widen into pressure groups, maybe even new political blocs. Emboldened and renewed by these new communal links, Britain will sever links with Continental Europe and look more towards the States and the commonwealth as its natural cultural allies. As pan-Anglosphere hegemony erodes, supplanted by these new online communities of interest, the constituent nations will start to politically disentegrate. Britain in particular may lapse into civil war, torn between a paternalist MSM ‘Court’ and a populist Internet ‘Country’.

Truly, we live in interesting times.

The BNP, Protest Voting and the Rise of the Anglobitch

The BNP (British National Party) is a unique aberration in the history of the Anglosphere. Never has a far right wing, neo-Fascist political party achieved so much electoral success in an Anglophone country: as well as having a presence in local Government, they also have not one but TWO MEPS (Members of the European Parliament). Readers outside the UK may not have heard of them, but it is impossible to doubt that their recent successes represent a watershed in Anglosphere politics.

Much learned ink has been spilt on the BNP phenomenon, but one key factor has been overlooked: Anglo-American feminism and its impact on young, disenfranchised males. In an online article, referring to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Arun Kundnani examines who really votes for the BNP:

New research into how people voted in local government by-elections in autmumn 2003 shatters some of the myths about who votes for the BNP. The study indicates that BNP voters are not, as often supposed, disgruntled, elderly people who are uncertain about a changing world. And, the rise of the BNP cannot be attributed to traditional Labour (Democrat) supporters, having grown frustrated with the current direction of their party. The evidence also suggests that those who vote for the BNP are not just being tactical but really do support the party's views. And the theory of BNP success resting on low turnouts does not hold water.

Young support

The most startling revelation of the report, entitled 539 voters' views: a voting behaviour study in three northern towns, is that, in the areas studied, the younger one is the more likely one is to vote BNP. Around one in three of 18-25 year-olds said that they voted for the BNP. 46 per cent said they had voted for the BNP on a previous occasion. While the Labour Party had strong support among older age groups, hardly anyone in the 18-25 category voted Labour (Democrat). In this age group, large numbers of young men have been attracted to the BNP's message - making it the only party whose support is predominantly male.


So the BNP really appeals to a very distinct, and quite unexpected group: young, disenfranchised white males who do not usually vote or take part in politics. Interestingly, this group of males is also the group that has lost most by Anglo-American feminism. The skewing of education in favour of females, for example, has quashed opportunities for young men to improve themselves; and the endless vilification of males in the media has damaged young males' self-esteem. Young, poor white males are now the lowest-achieving group in British schools - and this failure is echoed all around the Anglosphere.

Could the rise of the BNP be directly linked to misandrist agendas emanating directly from Anglobitch feminism? Could it be a visceral response to decades of misandrist vilification from the Anglo-Saxon cultural Establishment as it brutally promotes the Anglobitch and her endless 'rights'? Really, these questions answer themselves. After all, one decisive plank of the BNP's political programme is to remove all women from the workplace, thereby expanding male employment opportunities. And the party's far-ranging racist, anti-immigrant agendas serve to minimize sexual competition for young white males from dark-skinned immigrants lionized by the liberal media.

In fact, what we are witnessing is a hegemonic breakdown, in Antonio Gramsci's terminology. That is, the ideological cement that binds the consent of the masses to the existing social order is crumbling, creating new opportunities for ideological reconstruction. At a more pragmatic level, young white males simply have no reason to support the existing hegemony. The Anglo-American matriarchy simply offers them nothing, making rejection of its misandrist edifice a revolutionary act.

In short, the BNP presents a perfectly packaged range of measures to correct young white males' many gender-based grievances. Is it any wonder they are flourishing?

Post-Modernity, Hegemony and the Pan-Anglosphere Men’s Movement

In our Post-modern social reality, there is no coherent unity of outlook. There is no single, monolithic culture. The old demographic distinctions of age and social class are becoming existentially blurred: age, especially, means little in the post-Internet era. The West (especially the Anglosphere) has known an anti-authority, Rock ‘n’ Roll ethos since the late Fifties – half a century. The whole ‘Baby-Boomer’ conflict between staid, Church-going adults and ‘revolutionary’ young people is now effectively meaningless: in many respects, the young are now far more conservative than the old or the middle-aged.

This blurring of traditional distinctions has been greatly enhanced by the Internet. Online, anyone can be anyone, and talk to anyone. People who might never engage in real life can commune at the click of a mouse. This has engendered the rapid growth of interest-led communities that transcend the older demographic distinctions. Of course, the Pan-Anglosphere, anti-feminist community is one of the most potent of these. And its presiding concepts are filtering into mainstream life.

Feminists are increasingly astonished to find their assumptions coherently challenged by young men schooled in the new ‘masculinist’ thinking by their male elders. Even feminist ‘scholars’ can no longer ignore the fact that men experience sexual abuse and extensive discrimination before the law. In short, the Internet in its primary role as Post-modern communications vehicle has instantly solved a problem that has long bedevilled the Pan-Anglosphere Men’s Movement – getting men of different generations to talk to one another. Undoubtedly, this new and fluid discourse is feeding the Marriage Strike and fostering a new, critical attitude to feminist claims. Even today, the offhand notion that women are everywhere and always ‘oppressed’ cannot be expressed in intelligent company – and how much will this anti-feminist animus expand with the decline of traditional, misandrist media like television and the press?

We are in the midst of what political philosopher Antonio Gramsci (top left) called a Hegemonic Crisis – a period of cultural change and restructuring. The Hegemony is the totality of names, artefacts and assumptions – the cultural ‘cement’, if you will – that makes things ‘what they are’. For the past thirty years, gender feminism and misandry have been intrinsic features of the Pan-Anglosphere hegemony; assumptions that none durst challenge. But – due to the Post-Modern Internet - those assumptions are crumbling fast, at least among men. According to Gramsci, this process of dissolution presents rare opportunities for cultural reformulation. We live in interesting times – times that will shape gender relations for decades to come. If men across the Anglosphere act decisively now, we can permanently weaken the false claims of the gender feminists and build a new, healthier patriarchy; if we fail to so act, gender feminists will proceed to annihilate the family, marginalise men and ultimately destroy western civilization.

The future is in our hands, for good or ill. Fortunately, my faith in the Anglosphere male’s warrior spirit is undimmed and absolute.