Strategy and Tactics

Post image for Strategy and Tactics

by W.F. Price on October 6, 2009

Rather than writing only about how to advance men’s interests in a practical manner here, I’d like to dive into the rather abstract dialogue we see developing here around the issue of troubles facing the modern, Western man.

First, I’ll note that one thing that still surprises me is how often other writers such as Novaseeker and zed touch on exactly the same issues that have been going through my mind. What this says to me is that there is an objective problem out there, standing like a monolith, that is easily observed by disparate people throughout our land. It really is impossible to ignore at this point, and more and more people are beginning to put some thought into its solution.

However, first we have to start defining the nature of the problem and make an effort to understand what brought it about. Is it Feminism, Social Conservatism or chivalry? These are all problems, to be sure, but what it really comes down to is how they are used. Feminism is used to appeal to women on the basis of equality, Social Conservatism is used to convince men that they have to put up with incessant abuse to earn the right to be a man, and chivalry is used to justify everything from adultery to murder in the guise of “protecting” women.

So why would people use these things, and what kind of people would do so? Wouldn’t there have to be some sordid, malicious conspiracy created by some nefarious group of hidden powermongers to carry all of this out? Of course conspiracy is involved, but not just “a conspiracy,” rather, innumerable conspiracies. People like to discount conspiracy theories as the ravings of lunatics, but they are ignoring the fact that conspiracies are simply how people get things done. Conspiracies are not only carried out by shady men in suits in the halls of power, but also by couple of people working in billing at some small business in your hometown who want to, say, get a rival fired.

Many divorces are conspiracies. Wife gets together with friends and complains about husband, friends offer advice on family law and lawyers, wife secretly hires an attorney, and suddenly husband is served and has two weeks to respond. That’s a nasty little conspiracy, but it’s really at the lowest level. A step above it you have the divorce lawyers, who lobby to get changes made to family law that will be good for business. If you think about family law from a strictly business perspective, there are two ways to increase profits. The first is increasing volume, and the second increasing fees. Essentially, you can have something akin to a fast food restaurant or, on the other hand, an expensive restaurant with $200 bottles of wine. Maybe you can do both, but it’s kind of a hard act to juggle too many different cases at once, according to guys I’ve spoken with who practice family law. If you want to go the McDivorce route, you’ll want the law to make divorces easier to obtain and simpler to finalize so you can plow through them. If you want to do it the other way, you’ve got to raise the stakes by encouraging high alimony payouts and huge settlements. Thanks to tireless work on their own behalf, divorce lawyers have managed to make both options available, so divorce has truly been democratized and rendered quite profitable for those in the business.

Above divorce lawyers there are businessmen and politicians. The politicians can use feminism to shore up their support from women, Social Conservatism to shame men into voting against their own interests and chivalry to excuse unconstitutional laws like VAWA. Of course, there’s money and power – and apparently sex – in all that for them as well. More social programs for women allow for better patronage networks and stronger coalitions that give them an edge in reelections. They have focus groups, lobbyists and advisors who conspire with them to pass the necessary bills and attain the funds.

The businessmen, being all about the money, are constantly competing on the basis of profit. There are a number of ways to increase profit, chief among them being increasing sales and lowering costs. Now, imagine that you could knock down wages by a huge influx of labor (working women), and simultaneously increase sales by pumping up female consumerism. Any businessman who failed to take advantage of this would lose out to those that did. So of course businesses jumped on the feminist bandwagon and started hiring women and pitching as many products to as many women as possible. However, business has started to hit a brick wall, in part due to the very nature of their new workers and consumers. This appears to make business the weakest link in the national conspiracy.

As demonstrated above, plenty of people benefited from the social trends that have increasingly burdened men over the last several decades. So is it at all surprising that so many have struggled – both openly and behind the scenes – to implement this brave new world? If squeezing working and middle class men – a minority of some 25% of the population – meant more money, privilege and power for everyone else, someone was bound to take advantage of that at some point. Aggravating the situation is the fact that America doesn’t face any credible existential threats anymore, so there’s really no reason to appease the men who would defend her.

So viewed from a strictly objective perspective, our pain was their gain [This is one reason Social Conservatism has been such a thorn in our sides -- our pain was elevated by this mutant philosophy to some kind of Sacred Duty, despite all manner of treachery and abuse]. However, there always comes a point where things just start to break down. You work a horse too hard and he might get a stress injury that cripples him for life. You beat the living daylights out of a dog on a regular basis and he’ll start to bite. The same can be said for men who have too much weight on their backs. In fact, I am convinced that this economic stimulus is simply cover for the dimishing returns we are getting from heaping ever more on the backs of America’s men. It’s a stopgap that won’t work, because this country has become a money pit where investments get you little more than landfills brimming with discarded women’s shoes and last year’s cell phones.

All of this came about because this was a strategy pursued by a grand coalition. It may not have been articulated clearly by one source, or even coherently articulated anywhere, but it was in fact a success, and it has only recently started to fray a little bit around the edges. But it is starting to look a bit shabby – especially to men – and there are hints that it could unravel in earnest.

So far, men have responded to a strategic war waged against their interests with tactics. Game has emerged as possibly the most effective tactic of all, and has started to put the brakes on the complete subjugation of masculinity in the Anglosphere by serving as an effective tool for release as well as parrying the barrage of assaults on masculinity. In this sense Game is necessary, but it isn’t enough. There are other tactics, to be sure, but mostly they consist of dodging the frontal assault — avoiding marriage, strict contraceptive practices, and beating the quick retreat have become de rigueur for the quick-witted man with an eye to self-preservation. However, we are, for the most part, entirely lacking in strategy.

Men are still reeling from the body-blows inflicted by feminism, backed up by complicit politics and spirituality. On the one hand you have a Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden with perfectly coiffed gray hair, and on the other you have a Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker who are cut from the same cloth. At this point it would be entirely reasonable to assume that the tactics of self-preservation and gratification are all that is left to the typical man.

However, there is one very important factor that has been ignored by pretty much everyone involved: the ultimate destruction of the male economic and political base will undermine America’s ability to project economic and military power across the world. A nation of emasculated, impoverished men that is run only by the likes of Oprah, Obama and Hillary Clinton is a true paper tiger. In time, it will become so weak that even the crushed men under its jurisdiction will have renewed power, if only because they have been entirely disenfranhcised and therefore have nothing left to lose. Whether they have the will to do anything about it is another issue, but the opportunity will definitely present itself.

The question this presents is what strategy men will begin to pursue. Will it be endless self-gratification, hedonism and dissipation until the entire edifice crumbles around us? Perhaps, but given what we’ve put up with so far it doesn’t seem as though that is a true expression of our nature. In fact, I’m pretty sure that many of us will rise to the occasion and redefine what our civilization means. It certainly won’t be a walk in the park to do so, but men crave challenges, and I think there are still enough of us up to it. And either way, imagine the spoils of victory. What man in his right mind would deny the fruits of a better society? Certainly neither alpha nor beta.

Fortunately, we have already done the hard work. Men have gone the extra mile, we have given up the shirts on our backs, and we have turned the other cheek. We have lost our wealth, our labor and our very pride. As bitter as the process may have been, we have gained something far grander than these ephemeral marks of stability and respectability: true freedom of will. We have finally rubbed the sand out of our eyes and started to see that many of the duties demanded of us are impossible (not to mention undesirable) to fulfill, and that there are other options.

This suggests a very simple and effective strategy: Spread The Word. As more and more men wake up to the fact that they have better choices, the old attitudes and coercive systems designed to keep us in our place will prove to be little more than a bump on the road rather than the invincible walls so many of us see them as today. In fact, more and more of us have begun to adopt this strategy, and this should be very encouraging; a revolution always starts with The Word.

Our goal – emancipation of men – is already clear, and the fog is beginning to lift and reveal the path toward that goal. All that remains is to put on our boots, strike camp, and get on our way.

{ 96 comments… read them below or add one }

The Fifth Horseman October 6, 2009 at 13:57

Beautiful, man.

I am going to do a huge article on The Futurist, in the next 30 days, about the imminent ‘War on Misandry’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
dragnet October 6, 2009 at 14:00

Interesting post…

I’ve been reading your site for a few days and there are more than a few things I find myself sympathetic to. But I have to raise an objection against the obviously Republican slant of the site—if only because I am a liberal. And black.

For example, I’ve read several posts railing against affirmative action—standard right-wing boilerplate. However, the authors do nothing to address legitimate greivances that some men (i.e., black men) have due to the injustices forced upon them by white men. A primary complaint of this site is that social forces and feminism have conspired to deprive us of our manhood. However, for many centuries white men conspired to deprive black men of their manhood and although this has largely ended, it impacts our society profoundly until this day.

There is much talk on this site of uniting men no matter their race, creed or political affiliation. I think that would be an amazing and incredible feat—and absolutely worthy of pursuit. But if the writers are honest, they will address the legitimate greivances that men have with each other, and not just ignore them, or paper them over by ranting against Obama and affirmative action. Only then can we all stand together against the common threat to masculinity. But you will not get men of different ethnicities and political views—all men—to stand with you until you make a concerted and serious-minded effort to address the sharp, painful and valid divisions among us. Your ability to do so, I think, is the true test of whether this site is capable of aiding or sparking a serious movement of serious men—or just remain a couple of really pissed of guys with a pretty cool blog name.

I have many more thoughts, of course, but I think for now I will continue to read your site and reflect a bit more…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 6, 2009 at 14:04

Don’t forget the Four Horsemen of Male Vengeance, who will all arrive by 2020 to correct this imbalance :

1) Game
2) Sex Technologies (which will create a society where 8s are treated like 5s).
3) Globalization (Islam coming into the US, more men leaving the US for Asia, etc.)
4) Increase in violent crime. The safety of women is dependent on the ratio of ‘protector’ men to ‘aggressor’ men being above a certain threshold. A squeeze from both ends tips the ratio into an unsafe zone, and single urban career women are far more at risk than a married housewife in the suburbs.

All 4 combine by 2020.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 6, 2009 at 14:08

dragnet,

Feminism is a far bigger threat to black men than some ordinary white guy who goes to his job everyday.

As a black man, emphasize the ‘Man’ part and de-emphasize the ‘black’ part. The challenges you face in 2009 have much more to do with the ‘man’ part, rather than the ‘black’ part of who you are.

For example, since feminism draws strength from the Democratic party, voting Democrat is just about the most self-damaging thing you could be doing, as a man (no matter what color you are).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 6, 2009 at 14:11

Hey dragnet, all politicians are in my sights. I’m far from Republican — I just usually gun for the ones on top, and they happen to be Dems right now.

But you do raise a point about minorities getting screwed. In fact, I had an idea for a piece in mind that you just reminded me of. Thanks for that — I probably would have forgotten about it if you didn’t bring it up.

BTW, it’s hard to keep up with everything, so I do appreciate reader feedback.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 6, 2009 at 14:29

Welmer,

I will send a link to this article to Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and RS McCain. Both are interested in this subject, and it they see this email, some exposure will result.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JD October 6, 2009 at 14:47

First I want to say that dragnet is right about everything he said.

Second, the article failed to address the largest hurdle that needs to be overcome in men’s rights. Male disposability. As long as people think that a mans life is worth less than a womans or a childs, then we’re going to continue to be treated the way we are.

Men make up 75% of suicides, 85% of the homeless, 90% of workplace deaths, the majority of high school dropouts, the minority on college campuses, and not to mention circumcision, conscription and a lifespan that’s several years shorter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry October 6, 2009 at 15:23

@Welmer

Gobsmacking post. I loved it.

There is one extra VERY SIMPLE tactic that will help to reduce the power of the government – something that is absolutely necessary to help beat back feminism.

And this tactic is to argue for and to promote ANY politician who will cut taxes. And the MM should align themselves with such politicians and actively promote them.

@dragnet

I fundamentally disagree with your views about white men behaving any worse towards blacks than they did towards whites in America.

For example, thousands of white slaves were employed in America before black slaves were brought in from Africa – with the numbers not being that much different.

There is also much evidence to suggest that the whites were actually treated worse.

And many of their descendants are still called rednecks or trailer trash – and still often mocked and derided on TV programmes.

(Try referring to blacks with similar epithets!)

Furthermore, this mistreatment of whites by whites went on for a good deal longer.

In addition, of course, a look at the history books will show that black men are no angels; either in Africa or in America.

A major and perennial problem for blacks and whites is that they can easily identify each other, making it all too easy for them to maintain artificial divides – with these divides being fomented all the time by racial activist groups and governments.

In the latter case, racial divides are purposely fomented in order to inhibit men from uniting; i.e. divide and rule.

Affirmative action is just one of the tactics.

After all, if you continually privilege one group over another, you continually cause tensions.

Very useful, from a government’s point of view.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry October 6, 2009 at 15:27

I forgot to add that many black and white men are clearly beginning to overcome some of their racial problems thanks to them recognising that, by and large, they nowadays have the same enemies.

And a quick look at MRAs activating on YouTube (when you can see their colour) demonstrates this quite well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ganttsquarry October 6, 2009 at 16:12

Excellent piece Welmer.

I think conspiracy is the wrong word though. Geese don’t conspire in Canada to fly south for the winter. They do it because it comes naturally.

Dragnet,

Nice to have you here. Hope you stay.

“But I have to raise an objection against the obviously Republican slant of the site—if only because I am a liberal. And black.”

A conservative/libertarian slant yes, a Republican slant no. Conservatives( and especially Republicans) aren’t immune from criticism though. Like 5H said, your maleness is under more attack than your blackness in 2009 I would submit.

Black women, like their white counterparts, do much better on all sorts of measurements than black men do.

“For example, I’ve read several posts railing against affirmative action—standard right-wing boilerplate.”

I think it’s quite natural for MRAs to oppose affirmative action. It doesn’t take much of a leap in logic to go from opposing female special treatment to doing the same with regard to race preferences.

I will say that the rationale for black affirmative action, while I still oppose it, is much stronger than special consideration for females.

As a conservative with libertarian leanings I’m sure we disagree on most issues. With that said, I hope you stay and contribute to the debate. Good to have you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 6, 2009 at 16:16

Remember that I consider social conservatives to be drifting into being more a part of the feminist left than the free-market, incentive-driven, self-determining right.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt October 6, 2009 at 16:31

The Republican slant comes from the consistent attacks on liberals.

This, of course, does not make one a Republican, either. False dichotomies are often created by the human mind, however. There are ways to make that clear, however…

As to the initial post, I agree. The most important thing is to inform everyone of what is really going on… when men, almost uniformly, refuse to get married, the endgame will have arrived, one way or another.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eumaios October 6, 2009 at 16:47

Ganttsquarry: “I think conspiracy is the wrong word though.”

Eric S. Raymond has called this sort of thing the prospiracy

What distinguishes prospiracies from conspiracies is that the members
don’t necessarily know they are members, nor are they fully conscious
of what binds them together. Prospiracies are not created through
oaths sworn by guttering torchlight, but by shared ideology or
institutional culture. In many cases, members accept the prospiracy’s
goals and values without thinking through their consequences as fully
as they might if the process of joining were formal and initiatory.

What makes a prospiracy like a conspiracy and distinguishes it from a
mere subcultural group? The presence of a “secret doctrine” or shared
goals which its core members admit among themselves but not to perceived
outsiders; commonly, a goal which is stronger than the publicly
declared purpose of the group, or irrelevant to that declared purpose
but associated with it in some contingent (usually historical) way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 6, 2009 at 16:59

when men, almost uniformly, refuse to get married, the endgame will have arrived, one way or another.

Actually, only 20% of men have to avoid marriage to get to the endgame (assuming these are a uniformly distributed 20% and not the bottom 20% Omegas).

When you have 100 women competing for just 80 men, ALL women are stressed out.

So only a small number of men have to refuse to feed the beast, for it to starve.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti October 6, 2009 at 18:28

” Game has emerged as possibly the most effective tactic of all, and has started to put the brakes on the complete subjugation of masculinity in the Anglosphere by serving as an effective tool for release as well as parrying the barrage of assaults on masculinity. “

Just because game is tactical in nature doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have strategic effects.

Game, at its core, is about understanding what women are at the most fundamental level. This is a paradigm shift of society-wide (therefore strategic) proportions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti October 6, 2009 at 18:39

Conspiracy is a great word for it, if you break the word into its components “con” as in with, and “spire” as in breathe.

So the word means to breathe together, which actually fairly well sums up what’s going on here. No dark smoke-filled rooms necessary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 6, 2009 at 18:53

dragnet: “But you will not get men of different ethnicities and political views—all men—to stand with you until you make a concerted and serious-minded effort to address the sharp, painful and valid divisions among us.”

What do you think would be the best way to address these divisions?

We can certainly open a dialogue, but those in control of the power structures are not represented here, so any sort of real remedy remains a long way off.

Labels like “republican” or “liberal” hide more than they reveal. I have serious ideological differences with both sides of the political spectrum, and thus no label that either of them can come up with does anything except distort my real views into a strawman which allows them to dismiss them without consideration. I am equally suspicious of both sides, and refer to them as “Crips and Bloods in suits.”

I will be among the first to say that black people historically have suffered horribly at the hands of white people. And, so have red people, and yellow people, and brown people, and yes, even other white people. And, all of the various colors of people have shown plenty of willingness to turn on and harm others of their same color.

One of the biggest hurdles to finding an appropriate remedy is that the last proposed remedy born of white guilt actually turned out to be one of the largest causes of the problems of today for the black community. The Moynihan Report back in the mid-60s basically said that the welfare state of Johnson’s “Great Society” would destroy the black family. But, the “liberals” of the day went ahead with it anyway. Asking why they did that would probably get us a long way toward identifying some of the real forces at work behind the social changes we are discussing.

A lof of the issues boil down to how someone self-identifies. When I read posts here about “Affirmative Action” I interpreted that purely in how it has been used to advance women. I haven’t seen any real research on the subject, but it appears to me that AA has benefitted white women a whole lot more than it has black men, and black women even moreso – because they represent a “two-fer.”

I can’t speak for Welmer, and he is the ramrod of this collaborative blog, but I would welcome some contributions on the issues you mentioned. From what I know of him, I suspect he would as well.

An elephant as big as the one we are tackling cannot be eaten all in one bite. The writers here take on the issues which are foremost on their minds at the moment, and frankly beating ourselves up and wearing hair shirts over things done by people who lived and died long before we were born will never be at the top of the list.

I know that black men often carry a lot of rage toward white men, and in order to move forward something has to be done on both sides about that. Progress will never be possible if we cannot move past the atrocities of the past in order to deal with the atrocities of our presents. We need to find a sense of proportion. For example, every 3 days more black babies are killed via abortion than the total number of lynchings that occurred. Black women kill twice as many black people per week, 100 times as many (future) black people per year, as white people ever did. And, it is still happening TODAY. Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, was white, but she was not a white man. Her racist and eugenic ideas are well known. Blaming guys like me for actions of people like her, simply because we have the same skin color, is not going to get any of us anywhere.

Instead of castigating us for not addressing your issues, why don’t you take a shot at addressing them yourself? I haven’t known Welmer long, but I know he is very committed to making this blog work to open up some topics of discussion which are taboo in the lame-stream-media . I know that he is also very interested in controversial topics which will spark discussion and draw interest. I would be extremely surprised if he would not post a guest editorial by you pointing out those divisive issues and any suggestions you might have for moving beyond them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
el chief October 6, 2009 at 18:55

My platform:

Return to manufacturing
Return to unionism (strength in numbers)
Return to shaming
Maintenance of female freedom, but removal of female subsidies
True equality of divorce laws

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
miles October 6, 2009 at 19:32

Welmer,

I really dont expect *much* change for another decade. When the current group of 30-something women enter spinsterhood in heretofore unthinkable numbers, but are still politically-active enough to gripe very loudly about it, then some issues might get spoken about aloud in quarters that reverberate.

Frankly, from an ethnic standpoint, I would predict whites are going to “lose” a good amount of America, and when China stops buying our debt…………….many SWPLS in goverment/ad/paper-pusher jobs will be confronted with real financial discomfort also, and the lack of demographic demand to pump the economy will be a topic of conversation for them also.

America might become a second-world-standard-of-living-nation for a while mid-century. France was poor after the revolution and England has known poverty in the past (as has Russia). 150 years from now however, people may look back on the 1980s-2020′s as a time of great demographic decline that preceeded a crash that awoken the populace to its bad-social ideas. We will see.

One thing I do know for sure though……………..a non-hispanic white birthrate of 1.6 children per female (California) and an Asian birthrate of 1.4 children per female is not tenable. Two generations, three at the most, can pull this before women begin to have kids again or these groups will simply be overwhelmed culturally and their members interbreed with newcomers and they will die out ethnically like the Spartans basically did in Greece. That is a real possibility is that the majority of Americans now will simply become a part of a “new” Brazillified America of the future that will look like Brazil (or Mexico City) in 2100. A nation that endlessly self-criticizes itself and loses its love and pride in itself (like we have, becoming “ashamed” to be an American) can very well see something like this come to pass. It wouldn’t be the first empire to basically dissapear.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
PB October 6, 2009 at 19:49

Looks like zed conveniently forgot to mention the overwhelming amount of violent crime committed by blacks against white men & white women.

I’m getting really sick of the anti-white sentiment that permeates the USA. REALLY SICK OF IT. Especially by ass-kissing white male appeasers.

http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html

All men working together is a bunch of BS. I say we separate like our biology tells us to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 6, 2009 at 19:54

miles,

Everything you wrote is totally oblivious to technological change.

A lot of where we are now is because technological change happened to favor women (quite by accident). That is why 20 years ago, if you were to predict broad changes, you would be shown to be way far off today.

Your notion that ‘America will be middle-income by mid-century’ is absurd. Even countries that are poor today will have living standards that exceed the wealthiest nations of today by mid century. Human fairness is another matter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan October 6, 2009 at 19:55

Right on, Miles.

The thing about the combination of hedonism and feminism we have now is that, as you said, it is untenable for any culture that wants to survive and transmit its values. Western civilization is failing. Some of the ideas mentioned–men refusing to get married–will only hasten its demise.

“Socially conservative” masculine ideals work, because in many cases they address basic human problems. But they only work in the context of a traditional patriarchal society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 6, 2009 at 19:55

Just because game is tactical in nature doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have strategic effects.

Game, at its core, is about understanding what women are at the most fundamental level.

I agree. If Game teaches a man more about how women think, he is unlikely to be paying for a lot of dates, or get suckered into a $20K engagement ring and $50K bridezilla wedding.

Game makes it easy for a man to avoid feeding the beast. Game thus indirectly is a crucial force in starving the beast.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 6, 2009 at 20:00

Looks like zed conveniently forgot to mention the overwhelming amount of violent crime committed by blacks against white men & white women.

I also didn’t get around to mentioning the incredible black-on-black crime numbers. Hint: the black boy that got beaten to death this last week in Illinois was not beaten by whites. Or, the inter-tribal massacres which have plagued sub-Saharan Africa for years. The Sudan is not white against black, nor were the Bantus and Congolese.

On the other hand, I have a whole lot more in common with my black neighbors, one of whose sons got shot and killed a few months ago (by another black kid), than I do with some blind Jackass like Joe “My sister beat the crap out of me, so I’m passing a law so all women can do it to you” Biden.

Simple solutions appeal to simple minds. Unfortunately, they don’t work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tarl October 6, 2009 at 20:48

However, there is one very important factor that has been ignored by pretty much everyone involved: the ultimate destruction of the male economic and political base will undermine America’s ability to project economic and military power across the world. A nation of emasculated, impoverished men that is run only by the likes of Oprah, Obama and Hillary Clinton is a true paper tiger.

I contend that is exactly the outcome the political establishment wishes to achieve, and has been actively seeking for a long time. They are right now in the process of dismantling the American empire and making sure it can never be rebuilt. If you have never read this, read it now. If you have read it before, read it again. It has never been more relevant.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
miles October 6, 2009 at 20:59

Jack Donovan, thank you for your kind words.

The Fifth Horseman,

I hope you are right my friend, for the people of the future’s sake. However, we have a age-based welfare system in de facto terms (medicare, etc). We are legally obligated to take care of the aged by entitlement law. There are going to be too may old people and not enough young working people to take care of them. This will entail a rise in taxes to do so, impeding economic growth and making it MORE expensive for young couples to have children. New advances will no doubt require more electricity, and we are on the verge (climate bill) of making electricity more expensive than ever. We need to build many nuclear plants and start wave/solar/ge0thermal/wind adjuvant sources of electricity, but leftists (enviornmentalists) file lawsuits to stop each and every new project of -any- kind. I hope some new (helium 3, zero-point, etc) energy source can be found, and a way for housing to become much cheaper can also be discovered. However, the greatest wealth generating resource we have are law-abiding men working 40-50 hours a week to make money to support their families. Families aren’t forming nearly as oft as they should though. Demand in the future, unless we can create new markets in the third/second world-economies, is going to be very soft because there will not be as many of us as potential consumers, even though each one of us (through robotics, JIT inventories) will probably be able to be more productive. The world is in a precarious financial position as we speak.

I hope you are right, and new technological progress makes us very wealthy…………………….but we still need more babies to be born.
The facts are this: Western birthrates (Korea’ actually got under ONE child per female for a while) are well below replacement.
A nation with 20 million young people in its “breeding” generation who have a birthrate of 1.0 child per female will only make 10 million children over a 20 year period. If that generation of children does the same, they will only be making 5 million babies in the next 20 years. If the cycle repeats, you will only get 2.5 million babies.
What we have is 20 million people becoming 2.5 million people in a mere 80 years time (20>10>5>2.5) . Any country with demographics like this is looking at national suicide.
Google “Russia and suicide and birthrate” and you will read several articles warning about impending doom for Russia in this century if that nation cannot get their women to have more than 1.37 children per female over the next century.

The only, The Fifth Horseman, solution I see technologically that could -really- make a huge difference would be the perfection of artifical wombs (already birthing animals in Japan) that would allow single men in their forties to have a couple of kids (doubling their own birhrate as one adult will “make” two children) and buffering our birthrates back up to replacement levels.

Frankly The Fifth Horseman, like “Whiskey” I think that our current social arrangements (people meeting in bars, where the top 60% of women who usually are not *really* overweight compete for the top 20% of men who usually string about 3 of them along at a time for their entire decade of their 20′s—–leaving many of these gals childless and very resentful at 30) is practically jury-rigged to produce a birthrate of about 1.6 or 1.7 in perpetuity. Too many women finally marrying in their late 20′s and early 30′s almost guarantees that not enough of them will have that second kid. Already we see that nearly one-out-of-four white females go childless in blue states, so this makes it necessary for many women to have 3 kids (diffucult these days) to buffer the birthrate up to replacement levels).

While the West sorts this out The Fifth Horseman, Islam and the Third World just keeps on making plenty of babies (except Iran, who has a birthrate of 1.7). Who wins the future is who shows up for it. The Romans were much more advanced than the barbarians. The Greeks, Sassanids, Spartans, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Persians all faced demographic decline before their ultimate falls. All that are left of these once wealthy and powerful civilizations are ruins. Babymaking is the best survival policy of all, and since the 1970′s, the west has been below replacement in fertility. We will either get it straightened out over the next 30 years, or we will be replaced by peoples who still make 2.0 children or more per female. Thats just my opinion on the future of the West.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech October 6, 2009 at 22:54

However, there is one very important factor that has been ignored by pretty much everyone involved: the ultimate destruction of the male economic and political base will undermine America’s ability to project economic and military power across the world. A nation of emasculated, impoverished men that is run only by the likes of Oprah, Obama and Hillary Clinton is a true paper tiger.

This is intentional. No one who opposes America wants to do what’s required to really challenge America, give freedom to men, since that would mean they would completely lose their power. The only way to challenge America is to rot it from within as we have seen for the last several decades. Of course, this has a high potential to backfire big time.

The only, The Fifth Horseman, solution I see technologically that could -really- make a huge difference would be the perfection of artifical wombs (already birthing animals in Japan) that would allow single men in their forties to have a couple of kids (doubling their own birhrate as one adult will “make” two children) and buffering our birthrates back up to replacement levels.

This is what we will see happen (in addition to anti-aging technology). I know lots of people think the government will bow to pressure from feminists to ban such technology from use by men, but think about it from the perspective that they will be dealing with. Whoever is running the government at that time will be looking at the failure of importing masses of third worlders which cause societal destruction and women on welfare popping out kids which also causes societal destruction. By the time artificial wombs are invented there will be no choice but to let single men use them to have kids because its about saving civilization.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 6, 2009 at 23:02

An awesome milestone article Welmer!

Men – If you are reading this, you are the Resistance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 7, 2009 at 01:16

miles,

You don’t know anything about technology. Anything at all.

Artificial wombs? You can already hire a surrogate mother with donor eggs in India for $10,000. European and Japanese people are doing this.

You seem totally oblivious to the 3-D/VR sex and sexbot technology possibilities. These are far more imminent than ‘artificial wombs’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 7, 2009 at 01:18

miles,

You might like my concept of the ‘Wile E. Coyote moment’ that many women face, when they realize their attractiveness is gone, just a bit to late to prevent the plunge.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Harvest October 7, 2009 at 04:01

“For example, since feminism draws strength from the Democratic party, voting Democrat is just about the most self-damaging thing you could be doing, as a man (no matter what color you are).”
I’m glad you said that. With their large donations from and connection to trial lawyers (Family Court), I’ve been recently staggered by this affiliation. Aghast, though it fits what i’ve been seeing from the democrats for years, black men are scapegoated as reasons for more and more social programs from women and children. No talk about actually improving upon the tried and true nuclear family whose loss they claim to bemoan, no, it’s talk of new (fatherless) family arrangements and the state and men funding them. It’s been entirely against the self-interest of black men to vote democrat all these years they are half of the matriarchy as I see it,

“On the one hand you have a Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden with perfectly coiffed gray hair, and on the other you have a Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker who are cut from the same cloth. ”

That’s exactly as I see it, MEN are being played from both ends, Social Conservatism and a ever advancing Feminism in democrats.

“Hey dragnet, all politicians are in my sights.”

BINGO. Council for Women and Girls? His Father’s Day speeches? Black men are in a definite fog regarding democrats, the party of the Teachers Union. Oh yeah, you know that group of people who are ignoring the plight of boys in school? Who address it by saying “Oh it’s only happening to the black and hispanics urban kids” BLINK BLINK. Huge constituent of the democrats along with the churches, the hypocritical place the black men avoid. Democrats are scared to death of black men catching on to their misandry. All those liberal publishers condoning black men-bashing literature and broadway plays? Dems.

I think black men, myself included have been screwed by dems so long and with such a large no. of them come from single mother households over the last forty years, that their suffering from a collective brain-washing which has been just as effective as the evangelist on the other side. And just as effective as the Oprah’d brain-washing of females. Combine this with their isues never being addressed correctly in the media, black men collectively believe after a while they don’t have a side. But they definitely FEEL somethings up. The are just not fully aware of how it’s being done. Why else would you go on a national television show to defend black men against the likes of Tyra and Oprah without knowing the FACTS to combat the lies and snickers. It’s like a deer caught in headlights.

I’m hoping by the examples of this 4 yr. term that black men will lift the fog. I see no better time.

PB, I’ll have to research your stat. Violent crime has gone down alot if that helps at all.

Excellent piece. I’m sure you’ll have some willing black commentary soon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoxytocin No. 87 October 7, 2009 at 04:19

In fact, I am convinced that this economic stimulus is simply cover for the dimishing returns we are getting from heaping ever more on the backs of America’s men. It’s a stopgap that won’t work, because this country has become a money pit where investments get you little more than landfills brimming with discarded women’s shoes and last year’s cell phones.

Welmer, this is an uncharacteristically generous assessment of the “stimulus” plan, which, like essentially all other government “job creation” schemes, actually undermines the creation of wealth – via opportunity costs that exceed the stimulus itself.

It’s like the famed “towel moment” of history’s most illustrious ignorer of opportunity costs, J. M. Keynes:
Drama was a Keynes tool. During a 1934 dinner in the U.S., after one economist carefully removed a towel from a stack to dry his hands, Mr. Keynes swept the whole pile of towels on the floor and crumpled them up, explaining that his way of using towels did more to stimulate employment among restaurant workers.
– from here
If this towel-sweeping is writ large, then, indeed, restaurants will be able to hire more janitors. But where Keynes – and Obama – go wrong is that those janitors are being hired at the expense of other, wealth-creating investments. The restaurateurs will be that much less able to expand or invest in their businesses.

Analogously, the stimulus plan may visibly create some jobs – but at taxpayers’ expense. Were that money to be left in private hands, it would certainly be spent according to more urgent (and profitable) priorities, thus creating more wealth than would the stimulus plan.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harvest October 7, 2009 at 04:29

“One of the biggest hurdles to finding an appropriate remedy is that the last proposed remedy born of white guilt actually turned out to be one of the largest causes of the problems of today for the black community. The Moynihan Report back in the mid-60s basically said that the welfare state of Johnson’s “Great Society” would destroy the black family. But, the “liberals” of the day went ahead with it anyway. Asking why they did that would probably get us a long way toward identifying some of the real forces at work behind the social changes we are discussing.”

Agreed. Major FAIL. The answer I’m getting back from those in the day is embarrassment, for WHAT, I don’t really get. It’s why they still tap-dance around the issue today though their bumping into a brick wall. More and more they must address the disaster and black men won’t any longer let them get away with blaming us the victims of this social engineering and they know it’s coming.

““Ever since the Moynihan Report, people didn’t want to talk about single-parent households,” Norton said. “That’s because, first of all, the Moynihan Report didn’t come out of us. And it came out just after the civil rights bills had passed and it made people angry because White America hadn’t taken responsibility for its huge part of what had torn the African-American community apart. So nobody wanted to hear it.”

I would post to YT vid of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s 39th Annual Legislative Conference where Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton TAP-DANCES the above but it’s now missing from 9/09.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead October 7, 2009 at 04:52

It’s not just an American issue. Politicians are getting away with dicking men all over the Western world because it works for them. The only voters they take any notice of are women because they’re the ones that swing in large numbers if they get a bad feeling about any particular candidate. The men will still keep voting for their usual alliances no matter what, and for the few that can cut their tribal urge to vote like they always have, they’re effectively neutralized by the few on the opposite side who are swinging the other way.

A more workable strategy to motivate mainstream politicians who ignore men is to vote for small third parties – doesn’t matter much who. If more and more men were to vote conscientiously, and away from the lame-stream, a highly visible stock of accumulating unused voting power will start getting the attention of those who normally ignore us. Until then, our votes will continue to be taken for granted and nothing will change.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harvest October 7, 2009 at 04:58

“A more workable strategy to motivate mainstream politicians who ignore men is to vote for small third parties – doesn’t matter much who. If more and more men were to vote conscientiously, and away from the lame-stream, a highly visible stock of accumulating unused voting power will start getting the attention of those who normally ignore us. Until then, our votes will continue to be taken for granted and nothing will change.”

I agree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Corporate Christianity October 7, 2009 at 06:25

I appreciate much in this article, especially because it points out that the authoritarian corporatists have cynically used social conservatism as an effective tool to game the system.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many in the MGTOW community will (justifiably) complain about destructive feminism, but then worship at the syphilitic altar of right-wing talking heads and neoconservatism/social conservatism/corporatism.

Libertarianism and William Buckley-style conservatism are sound political philosophies, if a man wants to be conservative.

Authoritarian corporatism doesn’t give a shit about anything but their wallets, and will happily help authoritarian bureaucrats bring an Orwellian-style police state down on this country if they think they’ll make a buck off of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 7, 2009 at 06:38

This suggests a very simple and effective strategy: Spread The Word. As more and more men wake up to the fact that they have better choices, the old attitudes and coercive systems designed to keep us in our place will prove to be little more than a bump on the road rather than the invincible walls so many of us see them as today. In fact, more and more of us have begun to adopt this strategy, and this should be very encouraging; a revolution always starts with The Word.

Exactly.

The strategy is a simple one: wake men up, so that they make more informed life choices rather than mindlessly feeding the feminist maw. There have been far too many young men who have willingly thrown themselves into the gnashing teeth of the family law system, simply out of ignorance of what the system is, what the likelihood of divorce is, and the full array of laws that are aligned against men and in favor of women once married. It truly is a modern legalized slavery, in every way, for men today. That word needs to get out, more than anything else, to preserve the lives of many of our young men from outright ruination and slavery for years on end.

That sounds negative, and it is, but there is a positive side to this as well — namely that men should realize, once they understand the system and how it has come about, that the current scenario also gives men unprecedented freedom, if they are simply willing to recognize that and act upon it, rather than following the well-trodden path that the system wants them to take so that it can enslave them with its misandrist laws.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
paul October 7, 2009 at 07:48

I felt Welmer’s article was extremely insightful. Such insights are way above what one often reads. Now I am in the UK and from that perspective I can not say I saw anything Republican in it. Anyway that’s not the point of my post.

Last night I listened to a long podcast about the American war of Southern Secession. One thing I learnt was that slavery had been present in many places and that in some it had ended because of economic reasons, mostly resulting from the slaves escaping and moving away. This created a large loss for the slave oner.

There may be something here analogous to the situation of men in the West. As we increasingly abandon the system, the system itself begins to crumble. This of course can be a long process and not without a lot of dislocation and suffering. By making this suggestion I know I am not saying anything that Welmer did not say in his excellent piece. But one can go on to say how can the process be accelerated? To know what could or should happen is not the same as making it happen.

It seems to me this is always the problem. Casting a vote one way or the other does not for me constitute much in the way of action. On a personal level I suppose my own approach was to not engage in the system at all. I withdrew from work many years ago. I did not withdraw from being paid though until many years later. However, summing up now I think all I managed to do was hurt myself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 7, 2009 at 08:10

Spreading the word is key. My hunch is that the current headcount of regular or mostly regular readers in the Spearhead/Roissysphere/MGTOW/etc. cluster of male awareness is still ~2,000. This is an impressive baseline to start from, however I am hoping we are in the 10,000 territory come this time next year.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr. N October 7, 2009 at 08:40

Welmer talks of chivalry.

Chivalry is born of violence. Southern men were polite to each other because anyone of your social class could throw down the glove and summon you to a duel.

Women were protected and respected because if you didn’t their papa would kill you.

As a corollary black men and low-class whites weren’t respected because they could not kill a gentleman and get away with it.

Things changed dramatically with the opening of the old west, especially Tennessee, Kentucky, etc. Any man with enough work could acquire his own estate and political power, making himself a gentleman of equal or greater means than the higher classes of the east.

Sam Houston, whose father died when he was young, ran around half naked with Indians for years before becoming governor and US presidential candidate. A man called him a liar (while he was represented Cherokee Indians) on the Senate floor. Later that night Houston beat him with his cane in the streets of DC. Houston eventually became president of his own nation, Texas.

Andrew Jackson’s father died shortly before his birth. He was reared by his mother and older brothers until he was orphaned at 14. During the revolutionary war he enlisted (at 13 years of age) and was captured by the British. While there he refused to clean the boots of a British officer (at that time all British officers were from the upper class) and the officer slashed Jackson with his sword scarring Jackson’s head and left hand. Jackson, this kid, later became a general that thrashed the British in New Orleans and later a US president.

With men of such humble means making so much of themselves in the new west (and willing to fight and duel for themselves) people were forced to respect what were formerly lower classes. Out of practical means the lower class whites adopted chivalrous attitudes too.

Keep in mind behind all this politeness was the threat of violence.

If women want men to act chivalrously towards them, than that means women’s fathers and brothers will have to be much more involved in their dating lives, like killing off suitors who acted inappropriately. Do modern feminists really want that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
miles October 7, 2009 at 10:02

The Fifth Horseman,

You are “Tood” from Roissy’s aren’t you? He said the exact same things you did about sex-bots and getting Indian women to have kids for 10K. Most men dont’ know about those possibilities and are probably very uncomfortable with having another human being being a psuedo-natal-low-paid-womb-worker for them. Artifical wombs, which are birthing rats and cats RIGHT NOW in Japan, would be the kind of detached-guilt-free-sterile technology that would appeal to Americans.

However Tood, I imagine that the birth rate will actually increase for whites (and Asians) here in America in about another decade. The reason why is that older women who have watched it fail fantastically (and led to 25% of their once-attractive sisters going childless and being unwanted old maids……..that “Wily E. Coyote” moment indeed), will aggressively be warning their daughters, neices, and grandchildren of what a lie it all was. Women will not find happiness being corporate employees without families, but we need a generation of them (happening right now…………women in their 30′s and early 40′s) going childless to show them “the hard way”. Unfortunately Tood, most people have to learn things the hard way.

BTW—–Think about what you wrote about me Tood. “I dont know ANYTHING about technology”. In my previous post I mentioned Helium 3 (the moon) and zero-point technology, artifical wombs, and have a knowledge of what sexbots are. The average man-on-the-street knows nothing about any of those things. Im here at “The Spearhead” as a reader, on the internet. Hyperbole is the sphere of hysterical females. As men we are supposed to be above that and calmly and rationally discuss circumstances. I calmly and rationally advocate policies that would rescue the Western birthrate and Judeo-Christian Western Civilization. Ive not wish (like some do) to see the West become a Islamic Colony with Sharia law——–like someone I remember from Roissy’s. Sexbots and 3-D sexual technologies are no more than sophisticated masturbation. Men and women need to get it togther again and have real marital bonds and real love between real human beings. The future you are advocating with artifical mastubatory sex for the masses would be a childess-one that only a David Alexander would love.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Deborah October 7, 2009 at 10:18

I know they are few and in short supply, but what can supportive women do for the tactical spread of this movement?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 7, 2009 at 11:13

“The question this presents is what strategy men will begin to pursue.”
The first thing that it helps to understand is who is behind feminism and why. What do they hope to achieve from it. I am amazed in this day and age that so few people answer this question. Try http://www.henrymakow.com. The Illuminati are using feminism as one of the tools to destroy religion and family so that they can create enough chaos to usher in their ‘New World Order’. This is very well documented and all G8 leaders openly talk about the ‘New World Order’ now. Bush senior announced it on 9/11/1991, yes, you read that correctly, 10 years to the day before 9/11 Bush senior addressed congress and announced the ‘New World Order’ was ‘coming into view’.

The reason men have had so little success as MRAs is that they have not identified the real enemy. The Illuminati. They have been preoccupied with women and politicians. Neither of whom have any power at all. They are all told what to do. So the ‘strategy’ that must be employed must take into account who the real ‘enemy’ is. It is those behind the curtain who issue orders to the political leaders like Obama, Brown, Rudd, Putin and others. All of these men are puppets being told what to do.

The strategy I believe that is most sound is to learn how statutes and laws work and then use them to defend yourself from the feminised legal system. Most men do not know they have no obligation to be subject to any statute or any legislation. The bible itself declares all christians are not obliged to follow any law created by any man. Not a bad reference.

I suggest men start learning these things. Here are two excellent videos that take you through the background of how the legal system is set up to decieve you.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4024663011008894776&ei=AWamSoSfOZmt-AbA58j7BA&q=john+harris+it%27s+an+illusion#

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7040453665540929835&ei=JmamSob-DsfJ-Ab8iZ3gBA&q=robert+menard+bursting+bubbles#

There are two main ways forward.
1. Renounce your ‘social insurance number’ and live as a free man.
2. Recapture your ‘strawman’ and indemnify yourself from any action of your ‘strawman’.

I wonder if guys here are willing to discuss this? Most MRAs dismiss this all as ‘fiction’ and continue to do what is futile. Negotiate with politicians who are corrupt and know full well they are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 7, 2009 at 11:26

“Spearhead/Roissysphere/MGTOW/etc. cluster of male awareness is still ~2,000″

Guys, at http://thinkfreeforums.org/index.php we just passed 6,000 members and it is growing rapidly.

You want to refuse the jurisdication of your feminised legal and political system? This is a good place to start. I seem to be the first ‘cross over’ from ThinkFree to MRAs.

You see Men have all the rights they need, they just don’t know it or know how to exercise them. Once enough men refuse the jurisdiction of the “criminal just-us’ system, well named because they are criminals, we will start to see some tansformation.

Those of you stuck in crap countries like the US and UK can import some decent women under common law contracts. I live in Germany so I already have a supply of non-feminised women. Feminised women are in the minority globally. They will go away soon enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 7, 2009 at 12:09

Deborah – Recently the Men’s Rights movement has been greatly benefiting from the efforts of diligent women, including 2nd-wives. Such women are especially effective because any opinion pieces, columns, and letters that they write to MSM publications can get through the PC gatekeepers of these institutions. When a man says the very same things, they are usually discredited off the bat as “bitter divorced guy”, or “misogynist”, or “angry sexually frustrated dork” labels. So such women have been great as uncensored Truth Tellers in the media.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 7, 2009 at 12:14

miles,

Everything you wrote about how things will be mid-century, and by the year 2100, displays an assumption that there is little or not technological change between now and then. Hence the ‘don’t know anything’ statement. Your predictions will be off by an astonishing degree, because you have not understood the accelerating rate of technological change.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
novaseeker October 7, 2009 at 12:36

I know they are few and in short supply, but what can supportive women do for the tactical spread of this movement?

Probably the best thing you can do is (1) pay close attention to the world around you and the portrayal of men you see there (e.g., portrayals of men in pop culture, conversations about men with other women and so on) and (2) recognize and counter misandry or quasi-misandry when you come across it in your own life, especially (but not only) with female friends. These two small things help to build awareness quite a bit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 7, 2009 at 12:39

Globalman – I was checking out the thinkfree.ca main site. Interesting material. I am guessing the forum is viewable by registered users only; for understandable reasons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Steezer October 7, 2009 at 14:06

Globalman, sounds like anarchy. Not a winning solution.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada October 7, 2009 at 16:31

Deborah October 7, 2009 at 10:18 am

I know they are few and in short supply, but what can supportive women do for the tactical spread of this movement?

***
Organize other women and rollback these 3 key pieces of legislation:
1) Vote to repeal VAWA.
2) Vote to repeal IMBRA.
3) Vote to repeal the Bradley Amendment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Puma October 7, 2009 at 16:42

As far as tactics go, here is something you can invest in doing 15 minutes a day to Spread the Word.

You know all those news stories we monitor and come across? Stories about marriage laws, divorce laws, DV laws, outragous celebrity divorce settlements (like John Cleese), etc? How about whenever we see one, we comment on the spot and drop a link to a relevant MGTOW* essays? By “beacon essay” I mean one which will get the clicking person curious and keep reading further material until the red-pill effect occurs.

Most of the The Spearhead authors’ blogs are cross linked at this point. So are certain classics like the Don’t Marry Essay. You can get creative with this, and the link you drop in can depend on the topic you are commenting on. Between the bloggers here there is a whole wealth of topics that have been covered over the last year.

This commenting on the spot will mean registering for a lot of local/regionals papers though. You may want to create a dummy email account just for this registration/commenting activity.

*PS: By “MGTOW” I mean the superset of Spearhead/Roissysphere/MGTOW/MRA etc. material. I know some of you consider yourself member of one subset and not others. But I mean general men’s awareness sites, you pick the flavor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JD October 7, 2009 at 20:31

@ Puma and Deborah: Also, one way to help is to criticize the type of discourse feminists engage in. False statistics, shaming language, hate speech, and their selfish attitude.

The one thing that bugs me most is the ONLY time you can get most women to listen is when you have to stop and explain why it’s bad for them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 7, 2009 at 21:23

One thing that men are stupid about is organizing into an MRA movement. That is why the MRA crowd has made so little progress.

If divorced men took it upon themselves to gather and protest with signs and pickets against unfair divorce laws, and have young men come up out of curiosity, so that young men can be exposed to the evil secrets beign hid form them, things would change.

But I have yet to see any MRA group actually gather for a ‘Tea Party’-like protest. If they can’t even manage that, they won’t get anywhere.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 7, 2009 at 21:24

A female robot can now sing :

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-10368780-260.html?tag=mncol;posts

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 7, 2009 at 21:58

5th – Divorced guys do go on MRA street protests:

http://www.familycourtchronicles.com/photos/protest/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead October 8, 2009 at 00:05

Original and creative ways of spreading the word are also in order.

John Cleese is engaging in this right now with the traveling comedy shows that he’s taking on world tour. I’m speculating here, but I can’t see why a man of his age, still worth more than 10 million pounds after his divorce, really needs to work. But we know from his past work that he thinks well outside of the box, and I can’t think of anything more effective he could do to publicize the inanity of divorce law than to dedicate a series of live shows to his case.

His ex-wife cannot possibly come out of this without looking more and more like a corrupt and greedy individual that is plundering what rightfully belongs to the talented individual that earned them. Her cynical use of law, and the willing agency of lawyers too invested in this business, couldn’t be better exposed by a nightly re-run of humorous entertainment that will certainly mock the whole absurdity of it. She may have won the money, but Cleese is ensuring she also wins the notoriety of being one of the most worthless women of our time.

This is the same situation comedy with culture-shifting social message that Norman Leer used against men with devastating effect when he launched Archie Bunker and its evolutions. Now Cleese is returning the fire with the same tactic. All it takes is repeating the same message over and over again from multiple, credible sources who seem to be motivated by the desire to amuse you. Eventually your point of view will take up space in the minds of those who are entertained. I expect this is why Cleese chose the traveling show format – unlike TV or film, he is in complete control of content, and doesn’t even need to show a return on investment. Genius.

Make a point of taking your girl-friend along when he’s in your town – how she responds will be an education.

I intend going along just to see how cleverly he’s doing this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JD October 8, 2009 at 00:25

The problem with the MRA movement is that firstly, feminism has the academic world in a stranglehold so most MRAs are going to be blue collar at best.

Secondly, most of the omegas are going to be too worried about offending women to speak up and most of the alpha’s are going to be too busy getting laid to care.

Thirdly, since we have a generation of men being raised by women (horay for divorce court), they aren’t going to have a positive male role model to teach them self respect and what their true worth is, as a man.

Fourth, Women make the majority of the population and the majority of voters.

Game is going to teach a guy the fundamentals. The basics of female psychology.

Safe sex and the Marriage Strike are only going to get you so far. Even if implemented on a massive scale, the best you could hope for is tighter regulation of abortion and contraception to get the birth rate up.

Political activism is what’s going to win this fight.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JD October 8, 2009 at 00:38

What we need is a well connected and college educated MRAs to get some funding for an organization to compete with the National Organization for Women.

You think that with all the wealthy divorced men out there (Men like Rupert Murdoch, who payed his ex 1.7 billion) , you could round up enough cash to at least get it off the ground.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 8, 2009 at 00:50

Cash comes later. What needs to happen first is a gathering to protest.
Look how effective the Tea Party movement has been in a short time.

If the MRA movement cannot gather protests of 100 divorced guys to decry the cruelty and dehumanization of what is going on, the MRA movement is nothing. It is all talk until it can at least start making protests and demonstrations of 100 or more people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead October 8, 2009 at 01:19

“If the MRA movement cannot gather protests of 100 divorced guys to decry the cruelty and dehumanization of what is going on, the MRA movement is nothing. It is all talk until it can at least start making protests and demonstrations of 100 or more people.”

Agreed. You can get 100 people to protest about nearly anything in a decent-sized city. If divorced guys can’t be bothered, their talk is way bigger than their walk.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 8, 2009 at 02:18

If such protests start and appear to have over 100 people, I will join up. I will go to all of them and be vocal.

But they have to start protests of 100 people first. The Tea Parties have thousands of people each in all major cities. Even ‘Free Tibet’ protests have more than 100 people.

So MRA people have to show that they can meet this very minimal threshold.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 8, 2009 at 02:24

Puma,

Your example was a protest of 6 people, four years ago.

If that is the best you can muster, the MRA movement is even more of a non-entity than I thought. The letter ‘A’ in MRA appears to stand for ‘Armchair’.

Look at the Tea Parties. Thousands of people. Per City. Every Week.

Get a clue….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 8, 2009 at 06:00

I actually don’t think that the MRA thing is the way to go. We’ll never really be a significant political force. The reasons for that are many:

* Chivalry/shaming — this effectively prevents most men from even speaking up about things they perceive to be unjust when it comes to women, as well as encourages them to see such inequalities as being justified as a part of chivalry

* Competition — men are good at collaborating with other men to compete with other men, not women; this is a huge disadvantage men have politically, as a group

* Pussy power — once men settle into a relationship with a woman, often all the men’s issues stuff gets set aside, or at least put on a very distant back burner.

Combine all these three together and you get where the MRA movement has been — not much. Women are different in that they, like most primate females, have an instinct to band together to put off male threats. In our species, this overall primate tendency was offset, to a significant degree, by the fact that we are patrilocal, rather than the typical matrilocal set-up. This diluted female power by taking the females away from their matrilocal kin, and into a group of kin-related males, flipping the solidarity trigger the other way and allowing men to rule our species more effectively. Other primates are matrilocal, and the females are all kin-related and have high degrees of social cooperation when it comes to banding together against individual males (and male cooperation is low, because the males are itinerant competitors).

What has happened in our species is that as culture has progressed to a culture of widespread transience and anonymity, and the social unit has grown, male cooperation and solidarity have decreased (no longer living in kinship groups) and female solidarity has increased in power as a result of this. For most of the history of our species, this was not the case because we were patrilocal — women were at a disadvantage relative to their primate sisters in hemming in male power by means of solidarity groups. That changed when modernity broke down intra-male cooperation and solidarity, thus opening the door to the females of our species asserting themselves in the way that other female primates do –> by shows of solidarity.

It’s not a coincidence that Western feminism, since the beginning (before the vote was secured) has been about shifting our society from a patrilocal to a matrilocal one. The initial push for this was the move towards mother custody — that started a movement which, more than a century later, has shifted things to being, in effect, a matrilocal society. That’s significant, because matrilocal societies are characterized by high degrees of female structural power due to low levels of male cooperation when compared with the levels of female cooperation –> precisely what we see around us today in the contemporary West.

For all of these reasons, I think that an activist movement is not the way to go. It’s been tried before — ask old-time MRAs from the 70s about their experiences. It doesn’t work. We can’t recreate a feminist movement for men — men are different from women in too many respects for this to be effective.

Rather, we need men to embrace their freedom. Game is a part of that, for some guys. Making other life choices based on independence and freedom of action are another part of it. In fact, for each of us, there will be a different path. That’s the beauty of the freedom that is now open to us. It’s new, and different from the past, but not all of the differences from the past are bad — certainly not if we embrace them as freedom, rather than as regret for the past which has been “lost”. The past is not coming back, but each man has more freedom of action today than he did in the past to mold his own future. Too few men do that, and THAT is a big problem, because by not doing that they play directly into the hands of the fembots.

We can have a revolution, gentlemen, but not one that involves thousands of men marching in the streets burning their athletic supporters. No, it will involve millions of men doing exactly what they want to do with their lives, convention and women and social expectations be damned. That is what our revolution, and our movement, will look like.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harvest October 8, 2009 at 08:50

At sometime the MRA movement is going to have to devise strategies with the full knowledge that government, unless I’m reading things wrong (sarcasm), doesn’t WANT us married, doesn’t want us having kids at all apparently and if we have them they want them via brainwashed females for the State. It’s happening all over the western nations. Even down to synchronism of articles, new proposed laws and attacks on men, like the “economic failure caused by men so women should take over” meme.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harvest October 8, 2009 at 09:04

My point is I think the above runs right smack into the idea of freedom as expressed by Novaseeker. And that has to be dealt with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul October 8, 2009 at 09:12

Above I have read comment about MRAs being unable to mount even a protest of 100. In fact MRAs are so frightened and reluctant to ‘go public’ that they only dare speak out using pseudonyms.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 8, 2009 at 09:34

Paul, part of that is because of judges’ discretion in contempt sentencing (for arrears, etc), and another is that guys are afraid of losing their jobs or having a hard time finding new ones. I’m thinking about ditching the pseudonym, because I don’t feel like I have much to lose, but for guys who do have a lot to lose, I leave it entirely up to them as to whether they want to go public with their names.

A lot of people take some time to feel comfortable about being open about their views, so there’s no need to push anyone into exposing themselves. Actually, I don’t even think it’s necessary for most people to make open statements — all they really need to do to make a change is become conscious of the freedom and choice that is available to them, and live life accordingly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 8, 2009 at 09:36

Paul – I really am just a cat. I don’t know what you are talking about. :-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 8, 2009 at 09:53

Ganttsquarry–

I will say that the rationale for black affirmative action, while I still oppose it, is much stronger than special consideration for females.

I agree. That’s exactly my position. I’ve said that at Roissy’s many times of the last year and half I’ve been there in real time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JD October 8, 2009 at 10:18

Novaseeker & Harvest. It isn’t that the government doesn’t want men getting married. It’s that certain organizations profit when marriages end.

And as I said, avoiding marriage is only going to get you so far.

What good is not getting married going to do when a woman “accidentally” gets pregnant?

What good is it going to do when a woman lies and says you raped her?

What is it going to do to all the misandry in the media?

What good is it going to do to all the boys dropping out of high school and never going to college?

If anything, the more men avoid marriage, the more angry women are going to get. And the worse all the other problems are going to get.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 8, 2009 at 10:29

Harvest

I’m glad you said that. With their large donations from and connection to trial lawyers (Family Court), I’ve been recently staggered by this affiliation. Aghast, though it fits what i’ve been seeing from the democrats for years, black men are scapegoated as reasons for more and more social programs from women and children. No talk about actually improving upon the tried and true nuclear family whose loss they claim to bemoan, no, it’s talk of new (fatherless) family arrangements and the state and men funding them. It’s been entirely against the self-interest of black men to vote democrat all these years they are half of the matriarchy as I see it,

Harvest I’d politically ally with you in a NY minute. I’d take doing away with AA for blacks completely off the table if we could get a LOT of black men to join an anti-rad feminism and matriarchy alliance. Start by doing away with all AA for women in it’s various forms.

Think of what would actually happen if the only way women with or without children could get money from men (ex husbands or baby daddies) or from the state for being mommies was voluntarily from a particular man. After a wrenching period of adjustment, think what a revolution between the sexes that would bring about. The great majority of women would have one hell of a lot of incentive to pair bond with one man who’s willing to support or help support her and her spawn, and stay that way. Stay that way because under this new regime, she will be unable to state coerce any resources out of him or anyone else – she’ll only be able to entice him. By you know, wifely services.

I believe it was called traditional marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 8, 2009 at 10:36

If anything, the more men avoid marriage, the more angry women are going to get. And the worse all the other problems are going to get.

I’m not suggesting that avoiding marriage is the cure for all of our ills, but simply that men need to embrace their freedom. A part of that freedom is the freedom to marry, if they wish, well cognizant of the casino-like nature of that decision. But there is also tremendous freedom to organize one’s life in a different way.

More fundamentally, who cares if women are angry? Are you suggesting we should be placating them so as to avoid them becoming angry? If that’s the case, it will be a never-ending journey. It’s likely women have been angry with men for one reason or another since time immemorial and it’s likely it will always be so. Placating that anger serves no purpose.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 8, 2009 at 11:07

Puma October 7, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“Recently the Men’s Rights movement has been greatly benefiting from the efforts of diligent women”

Really? Name ONE success. I mean a real success not one of these fake ones the Illuminati give men to keep them struggling. And I don’t mean ‘more talking’ or ‘more letters’ or ‘something published in the MSM’. I mean cold hard success.

I’ll give some of ours:
We have had judges flee from court rooms in humiliation.
We have had men successfully refuse to pay child support and alimony. (Me included.)
We have had men refuse to be incarcerated when the police came to arrest their strawman.

Puma October 7, 2009 at 4:42 pm
“You know all those news stories we monitor and come across? Stories about marriage laws, divorce laws, DV laws”

Puma/All, the first and most critical thing MRAs need to learn is that these are NOT LAWs. They are statutes and they are fraudulently presented as ‘laws’. ‘Family Law’ is NOT LAW. It is statute. In wester countries it is often called ‘The FAMILY LAW ACT’. I intend to get the AG of Australia convicted of fraud over this.

The second thing is this. You have no obligation to obey a statute. You can say ‘No’ to any statute. This means you can say no to anything that is a ‘law’ created by a government. I have just mailed off my Claim of Right to the Queen, and PM, AG, GG in Australia to declare I no longer consent to any statutes of the Commonwealth of Australia. That is a perfectly lawful thing to do. I still agree to be subject to Common Law, the law of the land.

Therefore, every man has the right to say ‘No’ to ‘Family Law’ and how it operates today. Every man has the right to say ‘No’ to being subject to any government rule. you don’t like having to hire women in a company. Just say ‘No’. You just have to learn how to say ‘No’. Once you learn ‘their system’ it’s actually pretty easy to say no and stay in ‘honour’ lawfully speaking.

I am now to the point of approaching various MRAs to let them know about this…..hence my being here. Most men stay willfully ignorant of common law and so they then deserve everything they get.

Women make up the majority of voters? Fine. Just refuse to obey the statutes passed by the people they vote for and stop paying your income taxes. Pretty soon it will not matter at all who the women vote for or what the politicians say or do. You can safely ignore the lot of them and go about your life peacefully. Since I learned all this I have been much happier. I particularly like the bit of not paying income tax lawfully. I was paying 35% of my total income as income tax and I was supported a wife and 2 kids as well. Without them? In 2 months I earn enough money to support myself for a full year. Before? I was working my arse off 11 months of the year…often 13 days a fortnight. I know what I prefer.

“Globalman, sounds like anarchy. Not a winning solution.”

How do you come to that conclusion?
We are proposing people avail of common law, a system that has evolved over the last 5,000 years and has proven itself as an excellent lawful system. It still exists in all former british colonies. Indeed, all former british colonies built their current statute based government systems on top of common law. Common Law is the still existing foundation of ALL former british colonies. Where is the ‘anarchy’?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 8, 2009 at 11:33

I didn’t know what the Bradley Amendment was. So I googled it. Here’s what it is:

the 1986 federal Bradley Amendment, which mandates that a child-support debt cannot be retroactively reduced or forgiven even if the debtor is unemployed, hospitalized, in prison, sent to war, dead, proved to not be the father, never allowed to see his children, or loses his job or suffers a pay cut.

The result of this incredibly rigid law is to impose a punishment that makes it impossible for any but the very rich to get out from under a Bradley debt. Thousands of fathers are sentenced to debtor’s prison (a medieval practice we thought America abolished centuries ago), and thousands more have their driver’s license confiscated (making it extraordinarily difficult to get a job).

There is no requirement that, if and when the Bradley debt is paid, the money be spent on the children, or that the debt be based on an estimate of the child’s needs, or even that the so-called children actually be children (some states require the father to pay for college tuition). The Bradley debt is misnamed “child support”; it is a court-imposed judgment to punish men and extract money from them to support some mothers and a $3 billion federal-state bureaucracy.

Take the case of Larry Souter as reported recently in the Grand Rapids Press. He was released after spending 13 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of second-degree murder.

He was then summoned to court to explain why he should not be convicted of contempt for non-payment of his Bradley debt that kept rising during his years in prison: $23,000 in back support plus interest and penalties that raised the total to $38,082.25. The ex-wife’s attorney argues that Larry should pay because she “has endured the substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant’s contribution of child support.”

Since the children are now adults, this case proves that the Bradley debt has nothing to do with child support. It has to do with court-ordered transfer payments from which the state gets a cut.

This case is not an anomaly. Clarence Brandley spent ten years in prison before he was exonerated and released in 1990, whereupon the state hit him with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support debt that accumulated while in prison.

Many other cases prove that men cannot escape the Bradley debt even if DNA proves that they are not the father. The law even forbids bankruptcy to alleviate the Bradley debt.

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/mar06/06-03-01.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 8, 2009 at 11:34

Welmer October 8, 2009 at 9:34 am
“Paul, part of that is because of judges’ discretion in contempt sentencing (for arrears, etc), and another is that guys are afraid of losing their jobs or having a hard time finding new ones.”

Interestingly, you can simply refuse jurisdiction of the judge and he can not find you in contempt if you do it properly. Under the ‘criminal just-us’ system the judge is a captain on a ship and he has complete discretion with no limits. They are a bunch of criminals and it is a system just for them. Once you know this it becomes obvious what is happening. If you agree to the jurisdiction of the court what you are agreeing to is to waive all your rights like a seaman on a ship in the 1700s. Not a good idea.

As far as ‘arrears’. We have had men wipe off ‘arrears’ with a few Notices. It’s actually quite easy to do. They do like to send paperwork back and forth but the bottom line is that there is no money with which to pay anything so a man can’t actually pay arrears. They then issue a warrant for the arrest of your strawman and when the cops come you give them a copy of your ‘berth certificate’ which is what they really have jurisdiction over and tell them to ‘crack on’ and put it in jail for as long as they like…LOL!!

One really fun part is this. When a judge issues an ‘order’ (which mine did in Ireland and Australia) you can give them a bill. Just like McDonalsd when you ‘order’ a burger they ‘bill’ you for your food only they don’t give you a piece of paper for the bill at McDonalds any more. Courts are private run for profit companies just like McDonalds. And judges are the equivalent of ‘burger flippers’. If a burger flipper threatened to jail you for not paying an imaginary bill called ‘arrears’ you would laugh at him. Yet we take judges seriously. We are stupid..LOL!!

So I have billed my judge in Ireland EUR1.5M for the maintenance ‘order’ and I have offered to pay the interim maintenance ‘order’ of EUR150K just as soon as he pays my ‘bill’ of EUR1.5M for agreeing to fulfill the order. He has to declare the bill unlawful, at which point I can charge him with fraud under common law, or he will get a lien of EUR1.5M against him personally. I also billed the registrar in Australia $A5.5M for the sale of my house. All I am doing will be going into a book. I am starting to have real fun with this now! I only hope they don’t shoot me! LOL!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 8, 2009 at 11:41

Doug,
“Many other cases prove that men cannot escape the Bradley debt even if DNA proves that they are not the father. The law even forbids bankruptcy to alleviate the Bradley debt.”
It’s not a law. This is ‘proof’ of nothing. The only way this legislation (not LAW) can be enforced is if the man agrees to the jurisdiction of the court. Since they get this ‘agreement’ by deceit lots of men wind up in jail not really knowing what happened to them. They didn’t do anything wrong but they are in jail non-the-less.

I’d like to help them get out. Would you and other men here like to help them get out too?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 8, 2009 at 13:02

Spearheads! -

Here is a classic Red Pill playbook run of how to pull men from the matrix. Read this thread here:

1. Fine relevant topic
2. Stroke the flames the argument
3. Drop links to further reading

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=413898

You can apply this tactic on other boards for your own hobbies, whatever they may be. Pulling men from the matrix is dirty business, but somebody’s gotta do it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dave October 8, 2009 at 13:22

“However, the authors do nothing to address legitimate greivances that some men (i.e., black men) have due to the injustices forced upon them by white men. A primary complaint of this site is that social forces and feminism have conspired to deprive us of our manhood. However, for many centuries white men conspired to deprive black men of their manhood and although this has largely ended, it impacts our society profoundly until this day.”

Quite a few Jews were enslaved by blacks in Africa 5000 years ago, as well.Their labor built the pyramids,just as black labor cultivated the cotton fields of the American south.

But no living African-American has ever been enslaved by a white plantation owner in contemporary America. Those days are long gone and NO ONE wants to return to them. Most whites today find it deplorable that such things went on in the past and would never allow such a thing to happen again. Just as,I’m sure, no black person would enslave anyone today. We cannot undo those things, any more than blacks can undo the enslavement of Jews at their hands.

What we CAN do, if you are as appalled by the issue of slavery as I and most white men of today are, is stop a whole NEW class of people from becoming slaves,i.e. men.

This is happening in OUR time, and you have a chance to work together with us to ensure that NO man,black or white, becomes a slave in this day and age.

However,we must put the past behind us if we are to work together to ensure the future freedoms of men everywhere. Fulfill the dream of Martin Luther King Jr.,stand with us,as our brother, against our new slavemasters so that we may create a world where our sons do not suffer the same injustices the men of today do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead October 8, 2009 at 14:16

Protesting needn’t be seen as ‘activism’. It’s very likely that the effect on any onlookers would be dwarfed by the effect on those that take part – and that’s its real value.

Once you get a man to protest, he won’t go back. He’s passed a psychological line. I suspect that’s why gays made such a thing of ‘coming out’ back in the day. If you won’t come out, you’re still ashamed of what you are and how you think.

Men’s biggest problem is that they have given up thinking in terms of their own interest. This isn’t natural – they have been intimidated into thinking they have no legitimate right to their own interests by a lifetime of shaming.

Getting men to think that they have as much right to consider their own interests as any hairy-legged lesbian is necessary before you can expect anything else of them.

From what the Game guys are saying, learning to assert yourself isn’t a turn-off to women either, so the idea that men won’t fight for their own interests because they think of women first is quite wrong. If they were thinking of women first, they’d be out there loud and punching.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JD October 8, 2009 at 15:22

Novaseeker, shut up with the fucking strawmen. You look like an idiot.

I already said what needs to be done in my post, rereading it in case you missed it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 8, 2009 at 15:30

What? Come on JD. We are all on the same team here. Let’s not use attack language on each other.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fb October 8, 2009 at 15:43

@Welmer:

Perhaps your future columns might expand on the demographics of the USA’s military decline.

My question is – will the Hispanics pick up the slack? Will there be enough Green Card soldiers to go fight in the USA’s wars? Will the whites of West Virginia continue to march happily to their slaughter for the sake of their government?

@Puma:
‘Here is a classic Red Pill playbook run of how to pull men from the matrix. Read this thread here:

1. Fine relevant topic
2. Stroke the flames the argument
3. Drop links to further reading’
{Homer Simpson voice}
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
{/Homer Simpson voice}

Simpsons references aside, you should update your WordPress more, possibly linking the sites where you proselytize.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 8, 2009 at 15:54

fb – Thanks for the recommendation but I don’t intend to be a regular blogger like some of the more talented writers here. I am intending that one page to be more of a static beacon essay. One light-house amongst many, warning the sailors to stay away from the treacherous rocks ashore on a dark night.

I should probably turn-off the header date-stamp, once I figure out how.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 8, 2009 at 16:19

fb – One clarification. I wasn’t the one proselytizing on the goldismoney forum. I just saw the rapidfire landings on my beacon essay page, and went to check out where it was coming from. I don’t know if any of the the anti-marriage guys there are affiliated with MGTOW/MRA or not. One of them was very good; he may possibly be one of us.

Anyways, you guys who are not regular bloggers should also put up a beacon essay. The more the better. We must accelerate the ongoing Marriage Strike. We must accelerate this dark chapter in history.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 8, 2009 at 22:58

I support all the principles of MRA, but in the last 3 days have found that this noble cause, which would easily be supported by 70% of the public if they were made aware, is run by incredibly ineffective people. 3 days ago, I had no idea I would ever be opposing an MRA person, given how strongly I support the principles.

The MRA crowd cannot muster even tiny protests of 100 people in a major US city. They can produce no evidence of any results they have gotten in the legal system. Some claim that there are results, but when asked to provide details, they choose to berate the few people who are actually sympathetic to the cause and say ‘we are not obligated to produce results’. The mystery of why this ‘movement’ has amounted to a big fat zero continues…… /sarc

It is a shame that such an important and noble cause (supported by 100% of the Game community and probably 70% of the general public) has incredibly ineffective armchair people at the helm. Someday a real MRA leader will emerge, and he will be from the Game community (i.e. a doer rather than a talker).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead October 9, 2009 at 01:24

“Someday a real MRA leader will emerge, and he will be from the Game community (i.e. a doer rather than a talker).”

We all admire a doer over a talker F.H.

How about placing an ad in your local rag reading “Wanted: 100 men to march up main street this Saturday at 2:00 pm, to demonstrate for men’s rights. Show how pissed off you are with how men are treated in divorce law, domestic violence, child support or any other thing that gets on your goat. Placard optional. Beers, hot dogs and laughs down at the Red Lion afterwards ( kicks off at 3).”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul October 9, 2009 at 01:59

Welmer I was only being slightly teasing when I wrote about using pseudonyms. However, it does relate to a bigger concern I have in my mind. This is just my feeling but I do get the impression that for MRAs Internet activity is a thing in itself. So that in a sense what we have are sort of social networking site. Some would say there is nothing wrong in that and may be this is exactly what is needed. I don’t know. Before switching on my computer this morning I was awake in bed thinking about all this. I realised that what activism I had done pre-dated the my on-line involvement. This was not that long ago as I certainly only went active on -line may be 5 years ago. My ‘activism’ included attending a street demonstration and setting up a group with other men which met in my house. For a time we engaged in campaign with the local social services department. Perhaps the biggest thing I did was to make what I thought was a ‘men’s right’ sort of film which I sent to film festivals. You can see it if you want by going to http://www.youtube.com/user/mooseman33

But all this was before I started getting involved with the internet. It could be that I just ran out of steam or that the lack of any big enough success just sapped my strength. May be I just got old. All certainly has faded away.

Don’t misunderstand me Welmer I think this website is the best I have seen and from what I have read (and I have read a lot) it is something that could inspire me and promote activity. Indeed you in particularly have caused me to turn over ideas in my mind that I would not have done otherwise.

And I Know that Puma is a cat and a very fine cat indeed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 9, 2009 at 07:24

5th – There is an old man named Irlandes who is one of the original MRAs. He used to write newspaper columns (under his real name) on men’s issues in the 1970’s and used to council divorced guys going through depression in the 70s/80s. He did warn us about one of the factors that keeps the MRA movement back time and time again. That is Men Fighting with Other Men. He called it “The Destroyers”. Read this part of his memoirs:

http://close-to-the-pavement.blogspot.com/2009/06/second-post-by-irlandes-where-we-are.html

We can all be a destroyer. Let’s be careful to keep our destroyer-sides in check.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harvest October 9, 2009 at 10:23

“5th – There is an old man named Irlandes who is one of the original MRAs. He used to write newspaper columns (under his real name) on men’s issues in the 1970’s and used to council divorced guys going through depression in the 70s/80s. He did warn us about one of the factors that keeps the MRA movement back time and time again. That is Men Fighting with Other Men. He called it “The Destroyers”. Read this part of his memoirs:
http://close-to-the-pavement.blogspot.com/2009/06/second-post-by-irlandes-where-we-are.html
We can all be a destroyer. Let’s be careful to keep our destroyer-sides in check.”

Word.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
M October 11, 2009 at 07:24

“Spread The Word. As more and more men wake up to the fact that they have better choices”

Would be great to see a follow up post that paints this vision -> what are the better choices?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
novaseeker October 11, 2009 at 08:02

I think that by “better choices”, Welmer means that the well-trodden path of becoming a wage slave to corporate bosses and wives/families is not the only choice for men, and generally today far from the best choice. Other choices: do your own thing, live life how you want to, eschew social conventions about the male “role” in life and so on. We are living in a period where men are freer to do this than we have been at any point in history, yet most men are still stuck in a rut in their “old” roles, roles which, under the current legal and social framework, amount to outright exploitation and abuse of men. Men need to eschew these roles and carve out lives for themselves which make sense to them, which make use of the freedom we have today to do so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Suzanne October 13, 2009 at 07:02

A friend of mine sent me a link to this site while speaking to me about the “underground male empowerment” movement. My first reaction was to scoff as I hardly thought men needed any more “empowerment” then was naturally granted to them at birth. I was, however, mistaken.

It seems that women want equality in the workplace and on the social scene, but they will want the luxury of playing the victim whenever it’s convenient (ie: divorce settlements). This is not feminism, this is hypocrisy. True feminists take responsibility for their choices and do not advocate or practice the emasculation of men. Equality is simply that, equality. It is not about disenfranchising any particular group.

I personally hold more conservative values and appreciate a man who is not threatened by my ambition or my goals and is capable of maintaining is dominance. Unfortunately, thanks to the disturbing direction Western culture has taken, I have yet to find one who doesn’t immediately relinquish his hold on “the pants.”

Take back your spine, guys.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 13, 2009 at 07:31

Take back your spine, guys.

Many of us never relinquished it, and younger men often never got taught how to have one in the first place.

Your “scoffing” and belief that men are somehow “empowered” at birth – by virtue of having been born with a penis, I suppose – is precisely the mentality we are seeking to change.

Even in your ostensibly “equalist” short post, there is a lingering smell of female entitlement. A man who has defended his spine against endless attacks by women may decide that the tendency to attack him for being a man reduces the value of women below any potential rewards for being involved with them.

Keeping our spines sometimes has to translate to women no longer getting the benefit of them.

Most men are not “threatened” by a woman’s goals, which is one of the cliches women like to throw around all the time. But, a perpetual power struggle with a woman who refuses to cooperate with a man’s sense of self-direction (distorted into the one-up one-down language of “dominance”) eventually becomes intolerably tiresome.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Suzanne October 13, 2009 at 11:17

Apparently I failed to clearly communicate my point, because I by no means intended to approach Spearhead turf with the feminist flag flying. As I mentioned, there is a tendency within the upwardly mobile female demographic to dismiss any sort of suggestion that men stand at any sort of disadvantage – which is an incorrect assumption.

I agree that fighting the good fight means picking your battles (to “throw around” some more cliches), and if that means reserving the assertion (and subsequent benefits of) your masculinity to only those who are worth it, then so be it.

Conversely, there is a part of this equation that is a two-way street. I once heard a preacher debunking the myths of misogyny that many love to assign to religious texts and he explained that although women are ordered to submit to their husbands, husbands are also ordered to protect and provide for their wives.

I believe the underlying motivation for most women who strike out to become “independent” is not emasculation but fear. I think they look at the disintegration of traditional relationships in today’s society and fear that they’ll wake up one day to find the man who promised to provide for them, the object of all their love and devotion, got a restless leg and left. Today a heavy emphasis is put on instant gratification and people are constantly assured that it’s okay to take the easy way out – if you’re not happy with your spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend trade ‘em in – and it’s bred a significant insecurity in people…but I just seriously digressed.

At any rate, my point is that I agree with what you’re saying Zed, as well as the rest of what I’ve read in this publication. It’s a good step in the necessary direction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ted June 20, 2011 at 07:41

If I still resided in the states, I probably would have more zest and zeal for the cause. God knows, I used to feel that way. I still get a glimmer of how shabbily men are treated in the west when I read the news. Note to self: stop reading the news so much.
I have to recommend Asia to those weary and adventurous souls, who just want the hell out.
Have rarely regretted moving. For westerners, Asia is single man heaven. The girls are not docile, but feminine and agreeable. You don’t get the snotty remarks about men. Each gender is relaxed and not in a state of war.
May come back to visit, but that’s all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous October 13, 2012 at 19:45

I suggest the following as strategies and tactics for men to follow in addressing feminism and misandry:
Men have control over their own resources.
Women have control over the resources of the state through government “Husbandry” and other means.
Women, also, have the control of the resources of men who have become an isolated resource producing male for a woman and her children.
Will a “Matriarchal” state as exists in the USA truly allow males to be part of truly mated pair bond with an responsible and egalitarian relationship with their children?
No!
Under ALL matriarchal structures, males are not members of the mated pair bond nor the lives of their children.
This is life under a matriarchy.
We are, indeed, moving towards a matrifocal , matrilineal, and matriarchal society.
Men must learn to survive and function well towards our own enfranchisement under this new order while, at the same time, learning to understand our own weaknesses and how to deal with this to the best of our health and well being.
Identifying and recognizing misandry, gynocentric societal changes, and its religion of feminism does not entail lamenting about being oppressed; it entails identifying your opponent, their strengths and weaknesses;and, the, formulating a strategy to go forward and achieve success despite the changes women have made.
In the game of chess, using an orderly, well thought out, methodical means to address your opponent is the optimal means to gain the advantage and win.
Thinking and acting in this manner is men’s strength and women’s weakness.
Men must learn to play this “chess game” with women individually and collectively.
By doing so, they can formulate a successful strategy for individual success and happiness and that of men in general, despite the hostile social, cultural, economic, and political environment that the Matriarchal state has created.
Men should create the social, political, economic, and economic environment that is the compliment of feminism for themselves.
Men, as a result, must become independent as well.
In my opinion, as men do become independent from this feminist construct, the same will have disastrous affects on this feminist construct and the tyrannical feminist state that supports the same!
Why? In actuality, it is men who support and defend the state and the women who occupy the same. When men abandon their traditional role in support of both women and the state, both will collapse. The feminist construct, the feminist state, and feminist women, therefore, provide the premises for their own denigration and destruction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: