The Effects Of Western Feminism – An Islamic Perspective

Post image for The Effects Of Western Feminism – An Islamic Perspective

by Charles Martel on September 24, 2010

We Western men understand only too well how feminism affects us.  We compete with women in education and in the workplace on a playing field tilted by the heavy hand of Government.  We pay taxes that fund the feminist organizations that seek to disenfranchise us.  We struggle to find a moral woman with whom we can build a family.  We suffer quietly as our children are taken from us.

Our experience of Western feminism is personal.  Our responses are tactical – game, MGTOW, the marriage strike.

Beyond the personal effects of feminism, there is a big picture, a much bigger picture.  Virtually all Western governments stagger under the burden of decades of reckless spending.  Our borders lie open to a flood of immigrants, legal and illegal, who are drawn by our inexplicable generosity.

The strategic vulnerability of Western culture, weakened by feminism and cultural Marxism, is only too clear.

Dr.  Ghayur Ayub, a former Director General of Health for the Government of Pakistan, focused on this vulnerability in a recent article published on several Islamic web sites.  (Disclaimer:  the provenance of material published on the web can be difficult to determine, but this article does appear to have been written by Dr. Ayub.)

Dr. Ayub focuses on the implications of the disparity in Western and Muslim birth rates.  His article attempts to anticipate the responses of Western governments when they finally wake up to the effects of uncontrolled immigration.  (Will this ever happen?)

Dr. Ayub begins with a quote from Muammar Gaddafi.

“There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without sword, without gun, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50 plus million Muslims (in Europe) will turn it into the Muslim Continent within a few decades.”

Dr. Ayub continues:

“The average fertility rate per family amongst the Westerners is 1.65 as compared to the Muslims’ which is 8.1.  An interesting picture emerges when this is translated into demographic change.  According to studies, it is known that in order for a culture to maintain itself for over 25 years, it has to keep a fertility rate of 2.11 children per family.  Anything less than that would mean a decline in the culture.  At the rate of 1.9, the reverse becomes difficult and it takes 80-100 years to correct itself. At 1.3 or less the reversal becomes impossible.  Keeping these figures in mind, let us study the culture growth rates of certain western countries.

The figures of 2007 show that in France, the fertility rate was 1.8; in England it was 1.6; in Greece 1.3; Germany 1.3; Italy 1.2; Spain 1.1; and in EU as a whole with 31 countries, it was 1.38.  These figures are indicative of a change in the demography of Europe in a few years.  In other words; the European culture as we know it will cease to exist in the coming decades.”

A Muslim fertility rate of 8.1.  Wow!  Can it really be so?

Dr. Ayub goes on to describe the demographic situation in Europe, country by country.

France (fertility rate 1.8):  “in France 30% of children age 20 years and below are Muslims. In big cities such as Paris and Marseille, the ratio goes up to 45%.”

The UK (fertility rate 1.6):  “In last 30 years, the Muslim population there has raised from 82,000 to 2.5 Millions, which is a 30 fold increase.”

The Netherlands:  “in the Netherland, 50% newborns are Muslims and in next 15 years, half of the population will be Muslims.”

Germany (fertility rate 1.3):  “the Germen (sic) government reported that, “The fall in the (German) population can no longer be stopped. Its downward spiral is no longer reversible.” It further stated, “It will be a Muslim state by the year 2050”.”

Belgium:  “50% newborns are Muslims and reportedly its Muslim population is around 25%. Its government recently announced that one third of all European children will be born to Muslims families by 2025”

Dr. Ayub’s attention shifts to the USA.

“In the USA, until recently, the (fertility rate) was 1.6. It increased to 2.11 with the Latino influx but still fell short of the required number to sustain culture. Against this shortfall, the Muslim population in America rose from 100,000 in 1970 to 9,000,000 (9 million) in 2008…………Four years ago, a meeting of 24 countries from OIC was held in Chicago.  Its communiqué mentioned that ”we must prepare ourselves for the reality that in 30 years there will be 50 million Muslims living in America””

Sobering stuff.  Regardless of your view of the so-called “clash of civilizations,” the simple arithmetic of Dr. Ayub’s observations is difficult to dispute.  While Western feminists wage their fratricidal war, our culture slips quietly away.

There’s little hope for Europe.  Many (most?) European countries lack the will to resist the Islamic Hijrah.  As Dr. Ayub points out, a fertility rate below 1.3 in the native population is unrecoverable.  Simple arithmetic.  Greece, Germany, Italy, Spain and several other European countries are already there.

What about the USA?  By 2050 America will stand virtually alone.  Can we find a way to defeat feminism and cultural Marxism and turn back this demographic tide?  There is much at stake.

{ 294 comments… read them below or add one }

Rebel September 24, 2010 at 10:37

Anyway you look at it, feminism is the great destroyer of our civilization and no data, no argument, no reasoning and no law will ever be able to halt (reverse?) the tendency.

I do not believe I’m being pessimistic: just realist.

The question is no longer :”How are we going to stop this?” but rather: “How will we cope?”

No knight in shining armour will save the show.

There will not be another Charles Martel to fight the Saracens.

What matters now is how we are going to adapt to a lifestyle we haven’t been accustomed to.

Methinks that males will do better than females under Sharia..

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 66 Thumb down 7
Nico September 24, 2010 at 10:41

Well, the good news is that muslims won’t put up with feminist antics.

Instead of a Spartacus, we will get a Saladin.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 63 Thumb down 7
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 11:02

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 83
Meistergedanken September 24, 2010 at 11:02

The palestinians used to shout/chant the slogan, “Chairman Arafat – every night we fight for you in our beds!” It is a consciously-held tactic over there to best the Israelis by outbreeding them, and it will almost certainly work. So what if the next couple generations have to live in abject squalor, packed like slaves into run-down tenements?

Demographics is destiny.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 1
Hughman September 24, 2010 at 11:05

All the more reason for me to aim for elite armed forces training after my medical degree. The two together should tide me over pretty much anywhere on Earth.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 11:06

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 65
Nico September 24, 2010 at 11:08

I live in Paris. I think Dr. Ayub overestimates when he states that « 30% of children age 20 years and below are Muslims. In big cities such as Paris and Marseille, the ratio goes up to 45%. »

According to a recent report (2009), Muslims make up 5.8% of the French population (out of 62 millions). The population pyramid for Muslims does have a much broader base though, with 15-24 years old making up 35% of Muslims, while the national average is only 16%.

But many of these muslims are westernized, and Ghaddafi shouln’t rely too much on them. There are also many atheist arabs (who are not included in the census).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 6
Thag Jones September 24, 2010 at 11:09

This is the basic premise of Mark Steyn’s excellent book, “America Alone.” It’s a war of demographics, and feminists are useful idiots in that war.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 4
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 11:17

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 51
thehermit September 24, 2010 at 11:28

The reason for the fall of European birthrates is not feminism, but pure laziness. People, both men and women, don’t have kids because it’s a pain in the ass.

You’re simply lying, as you used to do. Destroying of the family causes what we are facing today, the low birth rates.
That was a known feminist goal.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 79 Thumb down 8
Meistergedanken September 24, 2010 at 11:34

@ Nico:

It doesn’t matter if Dr. Ayub is overstating his case. Ultimately, only the trends matter (evolution, anyone?). So maybe France isn’t majority muslim by 2050, but it will be by 2075.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 2
thehermit September 24, 2010 at 11:35

Skadi, will you hijack this discussion too?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 10
Meistergedanken September 24, 2010 at 11:37

The scary part is that in order to get the [populations] equations to balance in the desired waay, you have to either add more to one side of the equation, or subtract from the other side.

Subtraction can by very unpleasant.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 1
universe September 24, 2010 at 11:49

Can we find a way to defeat feminism and cultural Marxism and turn back this demographic tide?

– Ya, let’s find a way. We expend a lot of energy/time to recognizing and complaining about what is obvious to us. That murderous, back-stabbing, pocket-picking regressive social movements are prodding the greater herd toward an idealized but inherently unsustainable uniformity.
To induce a little fear to get the attention of the delusional, offered is a condensed heavily altered version of the featured guest’s words.
Example:
“Hey girls, your organized enforced solipsist hatred toward men, your guardians, is creating a gradual population implosion. Due to your unrealized narcissism, patriarchs, who would bury or stone you to death for your adulterous treachery, will become the de facto order by default.”
(What? Protect you? But that’s not part of the New Deal. Decide now.
Get out of the way, stay with the order you’ve managed to ruin or whore your way into expected forced discipline).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 3
Thag Jones September 24, 2010 at 11:57

thehermit September 24, 2010 at 11:35

Skadi, will you hijack this discussion too?

Only if we let her. Just vote her down until she goes away and don’t address her off-topic “points.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 8
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 11:57

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 85
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 12:01

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 79
Anonymous September 24, 2010 at 12:08

No. Many men prefer to rather live in freedom, have casual sex or engage in serial monogamy, travel, stay in school forever, etc., than get married and have kids.

Of course. You have broken the deal, remember? I can completely understand young guys who don’t want to play along your rules. The rights are taken from them, so they don’t want responsibility either.

STFU and eat what you cooked.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 67 Thumb down 6
thehermit September 24, 2010 at 12:11

No. Many men prefer to rather live in freedom, have casual sex or engage in serial monogamy, travel, stay in school forever, etc., than get married and have kids.

Of course. That happens when you take all the parental rights from men.
i have to tell you i can understand those young guys.
Now STFU and eat what you cooked.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 5
Ms_Fu September 24, 2010 at 12:11

The state of (non-Muslim) men if Western countries were to become ‘Islamicized’ would depend on the ideals of the most prominent Muslims. In Europe, I see a poorer and more conservative Muslim population. They are nowhere near open to feminist ideas (or respecting the cultural integrity of the indigenous white population). Feminism would take the hardest hit in Europe, which would hopefully mean more rights for men, especially concerning family law.

Here in America, the Muslims are lead by groups such as CAIR and MPAC. As an American Muslim, I’m all too aware of these groups – they are HUGE on political correctness and can be very liberal. If you see their representatives on FOX or CNN, they are experts at avoiding direct responses to inquiries about inflammatory verses in the Quran and try to paint Islam in a way that will calm the fears of Americans. Case in point: I’m sure many of you have heard a Muslim say that Islam is a religion of peace, because the word Islam supposedly originates from the same Arabic word meaning ‘peace.’ Actually, the word Islam originates from a similar Arabic word which means ‘submission’ (to God, to the right way, etc.).

Anyway, I’ve digressed. Many of the more prominent Muslims in America are actually quite liberal and pro-feminist (understand that the most liberal politicians have supported Muslims in America and that most Muslims in the US are Democrat, even though Republican ideals are more in line with Muslim values) and will probably support the current male-oppressive system in place right now.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 14
Keyster September 24, 2010 at 12:18

Japan is just now facing this as a crisis.
Career women, eschewing marriage and motherhood…
= an unsustainable birthrate.

I saw somewhere that in the UK, in all of 2009:
Total number of baby boys named George was 3452.
Total number of baby boys named Muhammad 9261.
It’s an interesting data point.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 0
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 12:20

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 85
Traveller September 24, 2010 at 12:26

Of course feminism would have made the human race extinct, with or without the Muslim factor. They can not foresee anything outside of their immediate wishes.

Not only Western females are unattractive to form a family, to make children, but the whole feminist government burden citizens with taxes too high to leave something for living and it does not lose occasion to restrict every freedom.

Exactly like animals in the zoos, Western humans have not anymore any motive to perpetuate.

Muslims are immigrating because feminists thinks they can replace the Western males in mowing the lawns of their houses extorted from ex-husbands, or in driving taxis to bring them to shopping centers to spend money got from welfare.

As I said in a preceding post, the clash will be between Muslims and feminists. Only the time will tell which point of melting of the Muslim integralism with the Western way of life will be met at the culture takeover.

There are some funny random factors too:

- if Europe and USA will be conquered by Muslim, Israel will be more isolated than today. But it will have not anymore restaint to drop some atomic bomb around. Maybe before the West exhalating its last breath.

- I think the takeover will be by Mexicans in USA not Muslims. Same thing approximately.

Western ugly females will be slaves of some camel merchant or guinea pigs for some drug testing. Western average and up females will be slaves in some harem or in some Latino ranch of some drug trafficker. Much better fate than they all deserve, considered too when they get old they got booted without compliments.

The Russians will be probably the last white enclave in the world.

As I said, beer and popcorn for me.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 8
thehermit September 24, 2010 at 12:27

You’re in denial, cos you would rather bite off your tongue, than recognize what your sistas did to you…
Okay, not my business.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
Charles Martel September 24, 2010 at 12:31

@Ms_Fu

Here in America, the Muslims are lead by groups such as CAIR and MPAC. As an American Muslim, I’m all too aware of these groups – they are HUGE on political correctness and can be very liberal.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I understand this is a sensitive topic for American Muslims in light of the US’s current idiotic foreign policy. The intent of my article is not to “bash” American Muslims. In fact I was careful to construct the article as a series of quotes from an article written by a prominent Pakistani Muslim. The article contains very little of my own opinion, other than my thoughts on the forward projections of current demographic trends.

Having said that, I grew up in a suburb of a city that is now dominated by Muslim immigrants. I can not say that the city is better for this demographic shift.

The Koran explicitly states that Muslims should pursue Hijrah - literally “migration for the cause of Allah” – in order to conquer non-Islamic peoples. I don’t recall any Muslim taking the time to explain Hijrah to we dumb Infidels.

Let’s see how liberal European Muslims turn out to be when they reach 50% of the population of, say…..The Netherlands, in a couple of decades time.

Keyster September 24, 2010 at 12:32

@Ms_Fu

I’m fed up with the claims of Islam being a “religion of peace”. It’s a lie meant to buy goodwill from westerners. I’ve read the Koran. There’s sword play and the spilling of “infidel” blood all through it. Whatever it really is, it’s NOT a religion of peace. The Muslim pundits who spout this as constant rhetoric need to stop doing it. They’re making Islam look like a religion of liars and/or deniers. The ultimate goal of Islam is to tear down and re-create the world into a Muslim Empire. Accept the word of Allah or die. It’s in the Koran.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 6
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 12:37

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 71
thehermit September 24, 2010 at 12:40

Besides Europeans are waking up… there will be opposition.

Who will opposite, you stupid? Don’t count on me.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 16
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 12:53

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 73
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 12:58

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 70
thehermit September 24, 2010 at 13:03

Everyone knows that Islam means submission and that Islam is not a “religion of peace”. Islam is a belligerent, ultra-masculine and aggressive ideology. The whole world sees it.

So what. The european union is a joke, the whole PC shit is a joke, our culture is in ruins… let it burn. Our time is over.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 9
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 13:03

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 56
tweell September 24, 2010 at 13:06

It is indeed a clash of cultures, and Islam is winning the body count. Feminists deserve the lion’s share of the blame for this. As a result of their efforts, fewer women are interested in being mothers, and even fewer men are interested in being fathers, I mean ATM’s. My ex son-in-law told me he’s not ever having relationships with women, let alone getting hitched again. Living as a monk is better, from his perspective. He can’t be (or even fake being) a cad, so he’s opted out instead.
The real question: is Western culture worth fighting for? An increasing number are saying NO.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 65 Thumb down 1
Amax September 24, 2010 at 13:07

Who will opposite, you stupid? Don’t count on me.

A very interesting sitution we have here in Europe, in order to oppose this coming threat, people need to have a way of life to preserve.

What happens when the Huns could possibly present one a better way of life than your own state?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 1
sestamibi September 24, 2010 at 13:08

Traveller, LOL! As roissy/Chateau says, “I’ll be poolside”.

I do, however, take issue with the 8.1 Muslim birth rate, which is actually considerably lower than that. Birth rates in Iran, for example, have just about fallen off a cliff, and if the mullahs have any plans for mischief they’d better do it now because in ten years they won’t have enough young men as cannon fodder to follow through on their threats.

Nevertheless, what matters in the end is that their birth rates are still higher than those of white westerners, so as Meistergendanken says, all that does is buy us just a little more time.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 13:10

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 59
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 13:15

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 55
silent September 24, 2010 at 13:15

Skadi…

“Islam is a belligerent, ultra-masculine and aggressive ideology”

How many predators does Islam deploy against us? How many bombs have they dropped on our weddings/schools/hospitals?

I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt and would read most of your comments these past few days (even though they’re typically hidden) until this one. You suffer from myopia, to say the least.

Ms. Skadi, please pollute other forums, or at least relegate your role to lurker. This is an otherwise excellent website in your absence.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 10
Earl Uhtred September 24, 2010 at 13:15

Europe and America are heading for economic evisceration anyway. Since all that keeps Muslims here is better prospects and an insane welfare regime, and since a burgeoning population of sub-economic criminally inclined immigrants merely hastens the day the number of parasites in our economies reaches critical mass, the problem may solve itself.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
Szebran September 24, 2010 at 13:16

Tactically, it seems to me, the defeat of feminism would cause the stalemate of islam.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 3
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 13:19

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 55
W.F. Price September 24, 2010 at 13:23

Birth rates in Iran, for example, have just about fallen off a cliff, and if the mullahs have any plans for mischief they’d better do it now because in ten years they won’t have enough young men as cannon fodder to follow through on their threats.

-Sestamibi

Iranian mullahs talk big but won’t back it up. Personally, I’m far more worried about the Norks than the Persians.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
thehermit September 24, 2010 at 13:25

Europeans will not die out, simply adopt the islam, and mix with the conquerors. that happened many tomes in the past, a will happen again.
the european women will be moslim wives… and go back to the kitchen to make a sandwich, that’s all. They deserve it anyway.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 6
Watcher September 24, 2010 at 13:28

@Skadi

For someone who understands so very little, you do talk a great deal.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 5
Nemo September 24, 2010 at 13:34

Muslims don’t need to become a majority of all adult citizens of a nation in order to seize power.

They need to do one of two things:

1) Mobilize a majority of young urban men to overthrow the government.

Women don’t violently overthrow governments, men do. The most militant men are usually the young, poor, and unmarried ones who think that they have little to lose and much to gain. The cities are the key areas to control because a riot of farmers won’t topple a distant government, but riots in the capital city can topple the existing rulers.

For example, if Paris and Marseilles cross the demographic transition point and have more young Muslim men than non-Muslim guys, then the French government is going to need to either use a “whiff of grapeshot” to put them down or else it will collapse. Think 1789 or 1968, but with Islam as ‘The Cause”. This time around, many of the young soldiers will also be Muslim. Will they open fire on their own friends?

2) Mobilize a plurarity or a majority of *voters* in *one* election.

A weakness of democracies is that a radical antidemocratic group only needs to win elected power once in order to subvert the democracy.

Hitler won 33% in one election and that was the end of the Wiemar Republic.

Many democracies have only half or two-thirds of all voters actively voting in any election. The person or party that wins the most seats doesn’t need to get 50% of all eligible voters, it needs 50% of the active voters. It only needs to get 1/4 to 1/3 of the eligible voters if just 1/2 to 2/3 of them bother to show up at the polls.

If Islam gets organized and gets close to 100% registration and participation in any single election, then it needs to have as few as 25- 33% of the total adult citizens in any country to seize power.

That’s a much lower hurdle than 50%, so it’s likely that some country in Western Europe will see an elected Islamic government by 2030 or so.

That’s twenty years left before the dominoes start to fall.

Book your tourists trips accordingly if you live outside the EU. The churches and cathedrals will soon be turned into mosques.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0
Rebel September 24, 2010 at 13:38

When one thinks about it… feminism happens to be Islam’s better “ally”.

Notice that feminists do not shriek that much against Islam.

Western men are more critical about feminists than Muslims are.

Coincidence?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
Lovekraft September 24, 2010 at 13:44

Mark Steyn has been raising the red flag about this issue for a while.

I would rather prefer a chaotic world over one of 1984-type control.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 13:45

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 51
Malestrom September 24, 2010 at 13:47

I think Earl Uhtred has the right of it, with any luck the coming economic cataclysm will happen soon enough that there are enough Europeans left to prosecute the long fight back and salvage a viable civilization from the wreckage.

What we can’t take any more of is the gradual, imperceptible (to those who don’t look for it) decay that is killing us now. By the time the sheeple realize where this glacial drift is taking us there’ll be nobody left to do anything about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
The White Rider September 24, 2010 at 13:49

Skadi, you seem reluctant to believe what feminism is causing despite the proof being right in your face. Men don’t want to marry and have kids not because of your misandric myth that we’re all cads and shirk responsibility, but because you and your sisters of the cult of feminism have systematically engineered the system to fuck us in the ass if we’re dumb enough to fall into the marriage trap.

You’re posting on a Men’s Rights Blog and you don’t know how rigged marriage and divorce are against men? Come now. You know all too well but you’re determined to ignore all of the facts, statistics and research that prove this stuff just to keep your propaganda afloat in the minds of the delusional and indoctrinated. Then again, this kind of attitude from feminists isn’t new. They did this kind of damage control almost 20 years ago when books like Warren Farrel’s “The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex” and Christine Hoff Sommer’s book “Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women” exposed bare their propaganda of the day for what it really was.

Big Daddy Government isn’t going to bail you out when this all collapses. Nor are the men who your ideology has oppressed for over fourty years (see: the vast majority of men) going to feel the need to protect you or those like you. You rely on the providence men and men’s labor to subsidize the current regime which enslaves and oppresses the majority of men, but it’s not going to last. It can’t. It’s an unsustainable model.

Even Islam looks like a better alternative to the PC misandry culture we have now to most men after what we’ve dealt with, and we’re certainly not going to rise up in your defense if it happens. Deal with it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 2
jozin September 24, 2010 at 13:50

There are also threads from other groups not only muslims. We in central Europe have virtually no muslims (last time I saw a woman in hijab was about 4 years ago). But we have many gypsies (official estimates):
Slovakia ~ 10%
Hungary ~ 7-10%
the Czech republic – 2-3%
They have on average 3 children when “socialized” and 5 and more when not. These are real, not overestimated numbers.
Total fertility rate of these countries is about 1.3 . So, population dynamics is clear.
When you are not from the region, you do not know what this all means.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Lovekraft September 24, 2010 at 13:51

What I would really like to know is this (and yes, it is related to this topic in that it would be another portend of the advancement of Islam):

of the whites remaining in Zimbabwe, how many are currently being held hostage? I wonder if there are whole counties where populations of whites have been overrun by thugs and right to leave has been completely curtailed.

And finally, if there are white hostages in Africa, what would the feminists and liberals say about that? Because there would be suffering by women, but in the name of third world liberation.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Epoetker September 24, 2010 at 13:51

Islam is winning the ‘clash of civilizations?’ Islam is opposed to feminism? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Islam is not a ‘civilization’ in any sense of the word. Islam does not reward civilized behavior, though maintaining the veneer of a civilized man is useful for those on top. It simply encourages endless intercenine drama, among males, over who can curry favor with the Big Men (i.e., the imams and sheikhs.) So the men understand the women very much-they are actually engaged in the same struggle. This is how the paradox of Islam works-by worshiping the idealized man, every other man becomes unmanly. Even if society is not openly dominated by females, female values and an attitude of chasing after the favor of the alpha male are intrinsic to the collective.

Islam essentially creates a society that runs the way an unthinking woman thinks it should run. This is okay until the oil needs changing, and all of a sudden they need to rely on either their ‘autistic’ but skilled nonconformists or foreigners who do not actually believe that the sun rises and sets on the whim of the alpha male. Cognitive dissonance and hatred sets in, naturally. No one likes hanging around boring beta males who talk about loads torosional or gallons per minute or cycles per second or even Koranic interpretation. All dumb stuff that doesn’t hit her emotion button. (Think about it-if a girl is clitorectimized, her only effective source of buzzy sexual pleasure is going to HAVE to be emotional rather than physical, and they will thus place an even higher value on good feelings and high social status. Demanded repeatedly of her husband, of course.)

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 20
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 13:54

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 42
namae nanka September 24, 2010 at 13:59

Sweden’s current political situation might shed some light on what might happen:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/09/so-much-for-democracy.html

http://www.thelocal.se/29222/20100924/

The women of sweden are between a rock and a hard place, whether to give in to white males or let the immigrants continue with rapes, as whiskey outlines in the comments:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/04/sweden-tops-european-rape-league-but.html

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
namae nanka September 24, 2010 at 14:03

islam and feminism might rub each other’s backs for mutual pleasure:

3:45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7-I9Qp3d4Y&feature=player_embedded

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5
Earl Uhtred September 24, 2010 at 14:04

@Nemo

A straight comparison with past revolutions and Hitler doesn’t work. Hitler could count on at least the acquiescence of most of the population. Islam embodies the EXTERNAL proletariat and any attempt at violent takeover anywhere in the West at this stage would do them no good at all. All Islam’s great gains of the past were made as a roving military aristocracy, all attempts to raise a Muslim party in the West have come to nothing.


Skadi
Btw.. some young European women are converting to Islam…

Women will always bow to a show of strength.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Anonymous September 24, 2010 at 14:06

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 55
Lovekraft September 24, 2010 at 14:08

Actually just found this article over at Moonbattery.com about how western peace activists are raped/kidnapped by their Palestinian/Arab hosts.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139738

They don’t even have to go abroad to entrap our women anymore. Apparently they’re lining up to come there.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 14:13

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 58
Nutz September 24, 2010 at 14:22

In addition to “how will we cope?”, as Tweell stated above, the other question we should be asking is “is Western culture worth fighting for?” I would say… it depends. If we could just roll back the misandry and give men equal reproductive rights I think we’d be okay. Unfortunately history tells us that things are cyclical and that the pendulum perpetually swings from one extreme to the other. I think this is one of the few times we’ve seen with such clarity the pending shift on the horizon.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
The White Rider September 24, 2010 at 14:26

We are avoiding having children because YOU, feminists, have the laws set across the board in westernized countries against men. It is an intolerable and losing proposition to marry and have children as things are.

No fault divorce which always, always gives women a payout even when they are the cause of the divorce and have deeply wronged the man. Court bias against men in custody disputes resulting in fathers rarely getting custody even when they are objectively the better parent. Epidemic percentage of paternity fraud. It goes on and on. Women have all of the control and options and men have to bear the responsibility for others choices. This is why men are making the only winning choice for them in this game: Do not play.

If you cannot see why the paradigm of the day discourages men from wanting to start families and have children then you are quite simply blind and dumb.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 1
namae nanka September 24, 2010 at 14:26

skadi is an example of how women undermine their own society.

This guy’s conjectures are worth a read(keeping in mind women like her),
NSFW(click on the links beneath the quotes):
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Simon_Sheppard

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 14:28

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 57
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 14:32

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 60
Epoche* September 24, 2010 at 14:38

And how dare you blame women and girls for the collapse of civilization, when it is you in the first place who do not want to have kids. It’s amazing how many guys in their best reproductive years and the years in which they have the most energy are avoiding having kids as much as they can. Even well off young alpha guys who women desire. They prefer traveling, making money, buying bikes and sleeping around. The beta boys just sit around and dream about a princess.
———————–
Cupcake Skadi, the whole damn website is based upon arguing for fatherhood. To blame any man for rationally responding to the incentives provided by our society, incentives formulated at the behest of radicals who shoved them down our throat while the majority of women stood idly by is absurd. This is the world that women wanted so I hope you girls choke to death on it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 0
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 14:42

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 59
Ms_Fu September 24, 2010 at 14:43

@ Charles Martell – I hope that you didn’t take from my first comment that I thought that your piece was trying to bash American Muslims. I didn’t get that at all. I totally understand your concern.

@Keyster – Although I don’t really agree with your sentiment regarding Islam, I see your frustration. Believe me, I’m frustrated also with the political correctness practiced by some Muslim groups in an effort to get Muslims accepted by the American public. Meanwhile, more and more Americans see us as underhanded liars.

@ Rebel – The truth is that feminism and Islam have never really been face-to-face and so it is easy to see on the surface feminists (who are mostly liberals) supporting Muslims. As far as ideologies go, there is absolutely nothing in common between the two and one doesn’t have to know a lot about Islam or feminism to realize that when the two finally meet, the clash will be intense.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
The White Rider September 24, 2010 at 14:45

That’s a fine attempt to appeal to emotion rationale for it where you attempt to change the subject but it doesn’t change the fact that people, especially men, make choices based on things like cost-benefit analysis and consequences. It’s not men who are the cause. It is feminists and their manipulation of the judicial system which leaves men picking up the bill for women’s bad behavior and choices.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
namae nanka September 24, 2010 at 14:51

Skadi if you had half a brain you’d see how women brought it upon themselves…

It is proposed that any trait must be expressed both individually and collectively to be evolutionarily viable. Nation States can exist, although only temporarily, in a state of Super Masculinity or Super Femininity. Any State in a state of war becomes Super Masculine; if it does not, it loses the battle. This does not preclude a nation fighting in pursuit of feminine objectives, however.

1. The Super Masculine State dominates;
2. The Super Feminine State becomes extinct.

An obvious, and challenging, question then arises: When does a state change from being masculine (feminine) to being Super Masculine (Super Feminine)? The author’s conclusions in this regard are:

1. The Masculine State expels alien races;
2. The Super Masculine State kills them.
3. The Feminine State admits alien races;
4. The Super Feminine State interbreeds with them.

http://heretical.com/science/procanal.html

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
The White Rider September 24, 2010 at 14:52

No fault divorce doesn’t benefit men at all. Either way they have to pay. Before no fault divorce, if a man left a woman for a frivolous reason such as to find a younger, “hotter” woman for example, he would have to pay her. That was just and fine. However, what happens now is that when women leave men for such a reason, HE has to pay her! Not only that, but when a woman is caught in infidelity, HE has to pay her when he rightfully demands divorce. Worse still, in Canada and probably some other countries, if a woman has a child as a result of said unfaithfulness and the man proves it with DNA testing, he still has to pay for the child!

The only men who benefit from no fault divorce are extreme outliers who get married to very wealthy women and as a result are the RECIPIENTS of alimony. And then only if they abuse the system the same way that women tend to by marrying someone they don’t love just for the money or by breaching the contract and still getting paid. Actress Halle Berry and her marriage is an example of this. She felt it unfair that she had to pay alimony to a husband that supposedly cheated on her multiple times, and has said she will never marry again– she is seeing the all-to-common male perspective because she had significantly more money than her husband. And you know what? She’s right. It is unfair that a spouse who was wronged should have to pay anything.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 1
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 14:52

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 57
namae nanka September 24, 2010 at 14:53

if you still don’t get it, here it is in musical form:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlUe8mvm7ZA

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 14:55

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 54
Ms_Fu September 24, 2010 at 14:56

Wow. The White Rider isn’t taking any of Skadi’s nonsense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
namae nanka September 24, 2010 at 14:58

Women pass on the traditions of their culture to their children, while the traditions themselves were man-made; feminism is the discontinuity in this arrangement. In breaking these traditions and breaking the mother-child and most importantly the father-child (which is almost a necessity for kids to mature into adults) realtionship.

Feminism is the only thing women have “really” done by themselves, the results are, if you are a disinterested observer, laughable.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2
The White Rider September 24, 2010 at 15:01

But marriage is a good deal for women due to how divorce laws work. You get the benefits of another person to support you and help raise your children (that DNA test statistics show are all too often not even his though he believes they are) and even if you choose to leave for a bullshit reason or it ends because of your bad behavior you still get money for it.

No real downside for any kind of woman except the kind of woman that is the female version of the cad. Given how solipsistic you are, I can only assume this is you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 15:01

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 54
Amax September 24, 2010 at 15:01

If you cannot see why the paradigm of the day discourages men from wanting to start families and have children then you are quite simply blind and dumb.

skadi is an example of how women undermine their own society.

Consider; is it possible that many women are in denial about the present situation when confronted about the coming reality due to the fact that they KNOW men won’t come to their rescue like they once did?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
namae nanka September 24, 2010 at 15:01

Skadi where do you think other things happen from? Outer space aliens?

“The biggest threat to the West is not gender equality.”

It damn well is, because it shapes the people and hence their value systems.
Read above, men who are biologically, fiercely territorial wouldn’t have allowed such immigration into their own lands, unless feminized to a high degree.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 15:05

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 58
Rebel September 24, 2010 at 15:06

Oh, good grief, I misplaced my fly swatter again…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
J. Durden September 24, 2010 at 15:07

Skadi, I know you’re a woman, which means debate is new and foreign to you, so let me give you some advice. When someone (or in the case of this thread, multiple people) refute your points, you do not answer back by regurgitating the same thing you have already said. When you do that, you look stupid and you irritate anyone that values good argumentation.

In other words (or, to borrow a phrase from one of my favorite new “anti-feminists,” AKA ALSO KNOWN AS): stop saying the reason men aren’t having children is because it’s a burden. Men aren’t becoming fathers because it’s nearly impossible to be one (with divorce almost being a guarantee and along with divorce the loss of most parental rights). Moreover, the only people I hear describing children as a burden are women, who would sooner dump them off at daycare all day and pursue their careers and carousels of cock than be mothers.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 1
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 15:07

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 72
Gx1080 September 24, 2010 at 15:10

The issue is, that most western women know that when Islam comes in force, almost all the western men will be KILLED or put to slavery.

They WANT that. Most will not actively help the effort, but will sit idle while we get killed.

Learn self-defense, how to use a gun, survival skills and be prepared to live in the run.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1
Epoche* September 24, 2010 at 15:10

It is very primitive to blame feminism or even women for everything. I know that Western women are a bit spoiled, but the root of a the problem is not women alone. Western men have all the possibilities to have more kids, but they don’t want it. Because it’s a burden… and people have become very picky about the opposite sex. They will remain alone, with no kids, including men. Why do you assume that marriage is such a good deal for us women? It isn’t always. It’s much better to be free.
——————–
I wonder if Skadi looks good in a thong, but I doubt it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
The White Rider September 24, 2010 at 15:11

What does a man to have to pay in divorce? Typically, half of his assets, alimony, and child support. This usually means he will be thrown out of his own house while his wallet is taken on the way out. Cook up some false allegations of domestic/child abuse and “rape” (if he raped you why did you continue to have consensual sex with him for months or years after the alleged rape?) which are so common and so effective they are colloquially known as “The Silver Bullet” and even a man with no prior criminal history loses most of his income, his home, and can never see his children again without spending tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the biased legal system.

This not enough to show you why men are wary of marriage and having children?

Child support must be paid in all cases when he can prove that the children aren’t his in Canada. These are 500 year old English laws that have not kept up with technology and the times. They won’t be overturned because… well, feminist lawyers keep trying to block laws which hold women accountable for this (at least paying the wronged men back would be a good start) and have some semblance of justice.

In the US there is a nonsense law in most states which says that a man must establish that he is not the father within X number of months or years or he’s stuck paying. Which is in essence victim blaming and saying that it’s ok for women to do this and they’ll be rewarded for this if they deceive him well enough and long enough with this fraud scheme. Which is exactly what it is. Deception and fraud.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0
Rebel September 24, 2010 at 15:12

@Skadi,

You keep on saying that men no longer have kids today.
Why don’t you take a look here:

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=5040

You will see why. That is, if you are interested..

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 15:13

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 61
namae nanka September 24, 2010 at 15:15

“What rescue? There has been no male protection for a long time now. We are used to not being protected. We cannot depend on a man.”

haha men have created that in which you stay protected and yet think that you are not being protected by anything.
It’s the ultimate tragedy, man to be made redundant by his own creation, or maybe it’s God’s sense of irony.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 15:17

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 56
namae nanka September 24, 2010 at 15:19

“nam, yes, men are territorial. But today’s men are spoiled and lazy.”

quite right dearie, but their own women have castrated them. Civilization does make men lazy to an extent, but Sweden is whole another level of loony. As I posted before, the rape incidents there are highest in Europe; it’s what you call “you reap what you sow”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
The White Rider September 24, 2010 at 15:19

“Well, I suppose the man should pay some money for the child. What other money is there? I mean, if you find someone better and sexier, or you get fed up with your partner, than you just leave your partner, nobody pays anything to anybody, they just split up.”

Oh, what a world that would be! Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. When the marriage ends for such a reason, man pays. Even if it’s the woman who just wanted to hop back on the cock carousel and leaves him… man pays! Unless the woman is fabulously rich and he is not, then woman pays; a real rarity. But almost every time, man pays.

And no, no man should have to pay for a child that he was deceived into believing was his. Ever. This is why female promiscuity was looked upon so poorly in times past. While you may think there is a double standard, there was not. When a woman was promiscuous, you could not be sure the children were yours.

Well, now we can prove who the child doesn’t belong to. The laws still haven’t caught up, though. We here know why they haven’t.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Krobelus September 24, 2010 at 15:20

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 26
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 15:23

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 45
Ms_Fu September 24, 2010 at 15:23

“But no fault divorce also serves men.. if they want to leave their old wives or if they are tired of their wife.. they don’t need a more solid justification to divorce her.”

But Skadi, remember that two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women. You say that men aren’t committed to getting married anymore. But once they do marry, it seems that they are far more committed to making a marriage work.

If I were a man, I wouldn’t want to get married either. I’ve seen from my own parents’ marriage that women can be ungrateful and unforgiving. When a child comes around, he or she takes complete priority over the husband. Women can shout and hit their husbands without punishment while men who even raise their voices in an argument can be considered verbally abusive. In fact, I’ve heard of cases in which men who were recipients of abuse being arrested.

And one doesn’t have to be in a divorce to know what a nightmare that can be. In California, alimony for marriages lasting longer than ten years can be for a lifetime, with no expectation for the ex-wife to find her own employment. In most cases, custody of children is given to the ex-wife, even if contested. In allegations of abuse (according to VAWA), the accused (obviously most likely the husband) has to prove himself innocent instead of the accuser proving her case. Matters in marriage, and divorce, are greatly skewed in the favor of women.

Skadi, if you are young and unmarried like myself, then I can see why you think the way you do. Until recently, I thought like you do. But you need to put yourself in the shoes of a man and read some of the posts and comments without prejudice.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 1
The White Rider September 24, 2010 at 15:24

Why is the divorce rate so high? It’s simple. Women and the zero accountability principle of divorce for women. For men, divorce has only changed from what it used to be in that they now always have to pay, whereas before if a woman cheated on him or left him to chase the gina tingles, she got nothing.

Men gained no incentive to divorce when the laws changed. Everything was still the same as before. The divorce rate jumped after no fault divorce and the reason it jumped is because it incentivized divorce for women. Even the statistics on who files for divorce shows who initiates the vast majority of them.

You’re the one who sees children as burden. Not the majority of men. Stop projecting with your solipsism.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 15:25

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 48
namae nanka September 24, 2010 at 15:25

I mean look at this pathetic drivel,

“Brave Girls, Tender Boys. ‘We Talked with the Girls and Gave the Boys Orders’”

http://www.intercultural.ro/theogs/file/Brave_Girls-Tender_Boys.pdf

then this stupidity,
http://www.thelocal.se/20232/20090623/

the boy doesn’t even have a chance at attaining some sort of masculinity.

The problem with gender-equality is this, masculinity is something that women can’t have, even though all demonstrations to the contrary; they can merely imitate it to a significant degree. Thus to bring men and women at parity, you have to make sure that men lose theirs in order for women to appear equal.
Thus you have feminized men who are “lazy” etc etc, and women with huge cognitive dissonances, which though isn’t a big problem because they are naturally adapted for it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 15:30

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 44
Scott September 24, 2010 at 15:31

Stop feeding Skadi troll

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 0
namae nanka September 24, 2010 at 15:31

“nam, well, forgive me for daring to step on the pavement that you created, but a woman has created you to begin with.”

haha this is juvenile, you are wrong woman, a woman hasn’t created me, it’s like saying man has created nature. He merely shapes it, in the same way woman merely shape that which is given to her by man.
It isn’t the pavement, it’s the social structure that’s around you. The buildings, materialistic achievements are not that important, it’s rather the abstraction of a nation which keeps you safe at night.
Without men, it’s like dead fish at the shore, ripe for pickings.(if the women are still hot, young and tight)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4
Herbal Essence September 24, 2010 at 15:33

Ok, this whole entire thread got derailed by Skadi, which I assume must roughly translate to “hummingbird brain.”

Damn shame.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1
keyster September 24, 2010 at 15:34

I’m frustrated also with the political correctness practiced by some Muslim groups in an effort to get Muslims accepted by the American public. Meanwhile, more and more Americans see us as underhanded liars.

The perception among conservative Americans is that Muslims are exploiting western political correctness, where ever they can; claiming “intolorance” and “hate”, while liberals (the PC police) bend over backwards to appease. Meanwhile, they themselves refuse to be tolerant of anything Christian or Jewish. It seems Muslims do not mix well with other religious cultures, or even among themselves with the Sunni and Shiite tensions…and deaths.

Americans are very suspicious of Muslims because they talk out of both sides of their mouths, (I’m not saying Christians and Jews are perfect either btw). What’s needed is a very focused and direct campaign of reaching out, explaining Islam and its tenets. Why doesn’t this happen? Because it would be exposed, er uhm, I’m sorry, “misinterpreted”, taken out of context, etc. as a religion that would make us very uncomfortable. It would raise more problems than it was meant to resolve.

My feeling is that if “Zion” were to suddenly disappear from the Middle East, Muslims there would mount wars against each other and their leaders. Israel actually serves to keep the mass of Muslims consumed with hatred and distracted just enough, to not want to kill each other….in the name of Allah of course. The dirty little secret is that Israel gives the ruling elite cover.

Keep the masses focused on the USA and Israel as the cause of ALL their socio-economic problems, and not THEIR leaders or religious fervor. It’s brilliant and they’re falling for it, right along with Al Jazeera that feeds into it.

Muslims DO NOT want peace, because its not a religion of peace. It’s a religion of social manipulation and control, like the others. And by the way, terrorism as a battle tactic, does nothing but kill innocents and piss off the survivors. That Muslims have adopted this as their core means of fighting military powers (infidels) and each other, has NOT helped their case for peace any. We hear little condemnation of it from the “spokespersons” either.

As a matter of fact let’s build a Mosque up the street from Ground Zero. Yeah, that’s a GREAT idea to “build bridges” with Americans!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 15:38

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 42
namae nanka September 24, 2010 at 15:38

“Stop feeding Skadi troll”

duly noted, signing off.

Gx1080 September 24, 2010 at 15:10

The issue is, that most western women know that when Islam comes in force, almost all the western men will be KILLED or put to slavery.

They WANT that. Most will not actively help the effort, but will sit idle while we get killed.
———————————————————————————

heh, let you and him fight on a wider scale…. Islam’s misogyny makes a perverted kind of sense. Though there are exceptions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jauhar

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Rebel September 24, 2010 at 15:40

Shouldn’t we stop responding to this pre-recorded drivel?

She’s derailing every discussion.

Will she ever leave?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 15:40

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 48
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 15:42

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 47
terre September 24, 2010 at 15:42

Unfortunately, in the Muslim world feminism and the West’s pathological way of life have almost completely eroded the traditional habits and practices of the people native to the country. The vast majority of Muslims in the Middle East, South Asia and Indonesia are very enthusiastic about imitating Lady Gaga videos and they’re ready to get to business — they want to start corporate life en masse and settling into high-powered office work. The seeds were laid a long time ago (Arab pop music took off in Lebanon circa 1975 and Egypt even earlier due to both countries importing Western industrial methods and governments) and Islamists as well as patriarchs knew which way the wind was blowing. It makes sense if you think about it — they knew the dangers of Western living (think Sayyed Qutb and his trip to Colorado, and this was in 1950) and the startling level of violence was just a swan song for one of the last independent cultures on Earth.

Nowhere survives. Don’t be fooled by the loudest Muslims; they know their time is fleeting and short, and feminism’ll soon bloom in full force from Morocco to the Hindu Kush. Something truly vulgar.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Thag Jones September 24, 2010 at 15:45

I’m going to start voting down responses to Skadi as well as her posts. She’s hijacking every thread and while it may have been amusing for a time, it is getting beyond tiresome now. Some people are just beyond reasoning with and it’s a waste of time.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
captain obvious September 24, 2010 at 15:45

A fast crash, peak-oil style or for some other reason, is the only hope.

Dark times.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 15:50

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 47
The White Rider September 24, 2010 at 15:54

“Rider, the guy should support his child, if it’s not his child, let the other guy support it.”

Agreed, but this isn’t how the law works right now. That is all in the land of “ought to be,” and feminists keep trying to block laws which would make it work that way. If women were left holding the bill for bastard children then I bet they wouldn’t be so eager to hop on the cock carousel and then point the finger to whatever guy has the most resources when they get pregnant.

Again, this along with real divorce laws which don’t ream men would mean less single mothers bleeding the system dry and a return to where men actually believe it’s worth it to have a family. Though of course financing one can be hard in these times of affirmative action keeping qualified men out of jobs.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8
Druk0ziz September 24, 2010 at 15:56

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 29
terre September 24, 2010 at 15:58

Also the vast majority of white women, especially SWPLs, adore Arabs and exotica until it gets too close. Submit to Allah, but do it from afar! And then some actually get turned on by them because Muslims are “real men.” Fuckin’ insane!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
SM September 24, 2010 at 15:59

Skadi is a troll.

Here posts are “golly gee willikers” (with fingertip to mouth) –fake ignorance– looking for attention. She is purposely trying to be annoying in that little girl way.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 2
greenlander September 24, 2010 at 16:00

Welmer, can you just ban this dumb bitch? I’m open to the idea of dissenting voices but Skadi’s repetitive drivel isn’t dissent: it’s spam that derails real discussions.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 2
Thag Jones September 24, 2010 at 16:03

Drukoziz:

Don’t be asinine. Please do point to some place in the world where Christians are actually doing this. It certainly isn’t hard to find Muslims doing these things. This kind of moral equivalence is simply unfounded. Muslims in countries with Islamic governments practice this on their own people; I don’t see this in Christian nations and I’ve lived in several of those. Unlike Muslims, Christians and Jews evolved (yes, I am aware of the irony) from a 7th century mentality.

Try building churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia and see how much “tolerance” you get there, yet here, mosques are springing up like a virus everywhere you look with no real retaliation and a good dose of PC acceptance and taking it up the ass in the name of tolerant multiculturalism.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 5
Malestrom September 24, 2010 at 16:07

I understand where Skadi’s confusion is coming from, she seems unaware of things that we’re White Rider is taking for granted when he speaks.

Skadi, overwhelmingly, a woman leaves a marriage with more than she committed to it, marriage is therefore not a risk to the woman. White Rider is correct, what used to keep marriages together was that the man knew if he left his wife for his hot secretary he’d lose his children in the resulting divorce (and be expected to continue supporting them, as per the oaths he swore during the marriage ceremony), and the woman knew that if she wanted to jump back on the dong carousel, she would lose her husband as a provider and protector.

As things stand now, the man’s requirement to provide for his family is absolute and non-negotiable, it is not dependant on the woman maintaining her end of the marriage bargain. essentially, men can never get divorced, as their obligations to a woman remain the same outside the marriage as they were inside the marriage.

And excellent example from my country is Ray Parlour’s ex-wife. He was a professional footballer, they got divorced and the court ruled he had to give her 250k a year in spousal support (what we call alimony over here) plus 36k a year in child support, the initial settlement also awarded her 2 houses worth God knows how much. She went back to court a few years later because she didnt think it was enough and was awarded an additional 150k a year. The only unusual thing about this is the sums involved, because the husband was wealthy, this is what happens in a divorce, all the obligations of the husband as provider are retained, the wife simply gets to throw off all her reciprocal responsibilities.

It simply is not the case that men have a free pass to leave their wives under no-fault, the man always pays, even if his wife cheated him or committed paternity fraud. This was a central (though unstated) goal of feminism, making female infidelity irrelavent to the outcome of divorce, and they have been totally successful in this endeavour. You can say ”well the children still need to be looked after” all you want, but the fact is that men simply will not marry under these circumstances. This is what feminists don’t understand, by changing the laws like this you might trap one batch of men, those who are already married and so can’t escape, but other men will begin to see the hook behind the worm and will stop biting.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 6
terre September 24, 2010 at 16:14

“There has been no male protection for a long time now. We are used to not being protected. We cannot depend on a man.”

Dear God this planet is completely insane. Arguing with a First World woman feels like jamming your face into a merry-go-round.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4
Alte September 24, 2010 at 16:14

Women pass on the traditions of their culture to their children

Really?
I read this stated all of the time, but have seen little evidence of the truth of this. If it were true, why is it that removing men from their homes tends to lead to an abrupt collapse in culture, religion, and tradition? Didn’t Fish Eaters do a bit on this very topic that disproved this theory?

Women are society and men are civilization. Culture, religion, and tradition fall into the civilizational role. Women will dump their culture like a hot potato as soon as they meet someone hotter with a different culture. Women don’t really care that much about that stuff, they just do it out of habit or to impress the men in their lives (or to show up other women).

As for the whole Muslim birthrate stuff, I actually researched the data for an article I wrote (which has now disappeared into the netherworld). I found no European country for which the devout Muslim birthrate eclipsed the devout Christian birthrate. A higher number of Muslims are devout than Christians are devout, but there are still substantially more devout Christians and their numbers are growing at a faster rate than that of the Muslims excepting immigration. In other words, if the borders were closed to Muslim immigrants, Christians might continue to dominate the population.
It is true that secularists are destined to die out, though. But I don’t really see a bunch of secular feminists dying out as… a tragedy, per se. They choose not to reproduce and I choose not to care if they reproduce.

Islam expands mostly through reproduction (organically), while Christianity spreads fastest through conversion (which is much easier and quicker). European Christianity gave up on evangelism, but now that its making a comeback over there (and to great success), I think we’re giving the Muslims a demographic run for their money.

I think there will be a religious revival in Europe (along with the emerging ethnocentrism), but whether it is a Muslim one remains to be seen. It might be that the European Christian men finally grow a pair instead. Miracles can happen. Maybe the Swedes will be the first to put on their pants and send the women to make babies and sandwiches. Stranger things have happened.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8
Scott September 24, 2010 at 16:15

no no NO it doesnt respond to reason!

women-children like Skadi cloud & dumb down every net thread with unpluggable, intangible emotional crap like everywhere else in society, dragging down the level of discourse to their bleating brat level: progress. And no one calls them on it cause that’d be ‘sexist’.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 4
Tim September 24, 2010 at 16:21

Skadi,

Nice to see you again and hope all is well with you way over in Latvia. We’ve been over this a thousand times; I don’t know how it is possible you haven’t accepted the male position when all the overwhelming evidence is on our side. Men don’t want to marry or have children because of brutally unfair and despotic anti-male laws in the west. I don’t know the situation in Latvia, but based on what I’ve read, including this article, it sounds like Europe is also extremely anti-male. Well, you women wanted this, and now you have it. There will simply be no children born in Europe that aren’t Muslim. You need to start making the connections as to why. I won’t go any further into it, but let me present you with this youtube video of a retired Master Sergeant from the U.S. Army. After serving his nation for twenty years, he is rewarded with having to pay lifetime alimony on top of child support when he and his wife divorced. She is not poor; she is a registered nurse. Yet the courts insist that he pay $2600 US dollars to his ex wife -FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.

Now please, do you really think that is fair? Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2UuDt-QdQQ

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 11
W.F. Price September 24, 2010 at 16:22

Skadi is a troll.

Here posts are “golly gee willikers” (with fingertip to mouth) –fake ignorance– looking for attention. She is purposely trying to be annoying in that little girl way.

I don’t think she’s actually a troll — more like one of those annoying, tagalong little sisters you can never get rid of. Maybe that’s Skadi’s problem. Perhaps she never actually had a big brother is trying to find some sort of substitute.

Rather than ban Skadi, I think I’ll just ask her to limit her comments on posts to a more reasonable proportion of the comment volume. I will give her credit for a definite improvement over the months, but she still has a ways to go.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 24
Malestrom September 24, 2010 at 16:23

What rescue? There has been no male protection for a long time now. We are used to not being protected. We cannot depend on a man

WRONG! You do not recieve provision or protection from any individual man, that much is true, but do not think for a second that you are independent.

Another main goal of feminism was shifting the responsibility for providing for and protecting women from individual men, within the marriage contract, onto men as a group, outside the marriage contract. As a result this provision and protection has become largely invisible, or at least most women choose to ignore it.

I’ll use my own mother as an example here. I remember years ago her saying something along the lines of she’d raised two children completely on her own without help from anyone. I politely pointed out that after my sister was born, she stopped working for about eight years, during which time the state (ie the taxpayer) essentially maintained the family. She’d been able to juggle raising me and working, but after my sister was born the workload proved too much and until she got old enough to do things for herself my mum couldnt work, and even so I’m fairly sure the only reason she could manage me and a job is because I was an inredibly good child, simply not doing bad things and requiring basically nothing in the way of supervision or discipline.

Before I’d said that, she just hadn’t considered all those years of public assistance to be ”getting help”, in her mind, she’d done it all. The fact is she had massive help from society, and understand that by society i mostly mean men as around 80% of tax revenue is collected from males.

Trust me Skadi when I say that you are totally dependent on men for your current lifestyle. If men stopped doing the things we’re expected to do, stopped maintaining the roads and sewers and infrastructure, stopped drilling and refining the oil upon which 100% of the technology you use is dependant, stopped transporting all the food you eat from where it was produced to where you buy it, if all these things stopped, you’d be crawling around a swamp trying to decide which piece of lichen looks the least unappetizing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 2
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 16:32

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 39
Tim September 24, 2010 at 16:33

I don’t mind Skadi. I think she is intelligent. I would like to see her accept the male point of view, though. I’d like to see her denounce feminist lies. Men and women are not equal; we are different. She must accept this. If she denies this then I believe we will have our answer as to why Europe crumbles under the mighty hordes of Muslims one day. Perhaps one day feminists will be viewed as traitors and marched into the public square and have their hair cut off. This is what the French did to their women who collaborated with the Nazis in the Vichy Government. They were marched into the public square and had their heads shaved to show everyone their shame. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but no society can every flourish or survive when the women en masse become sluts, degenerates and filthy whores.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 22
Rebel September 24, 2010 at 16:33

Islam is a religion of conquest :1.2 billion Muslims

Christianity is a religion of conquest: 1.9 billion Christians.

Both stem from the same tree.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 20
Alte September 24, 2010 at 16:33

LOL, Maelstrom. I like the swamp analogy. I usually resort to the creativity-free “grass huts”.

I think women don’t really understand how much men do for them. Really. It wasn’t until I sat down to think hard about it one day (because of a discussion on here) that I realized I wasn’t as independent as I thought. It took me a while. It’s a level of abstraction most women can’t manage. They look around the room: “Hmm… no man here. I must be doing it on my own. Golly gee! Hear me roar!”

Women are sort of stupid that way.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 3
Thag Jones September 24, 2010 at 16:37

Rebel, they may stem from the same tree but they have grown in different directions in practice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Traveller September 24, 2010 at 16:38

“I don’t think she’s actually a troll — more like one of those annoying, tagalong little sisters you can never get rid of.”

So it is discovered it is not a troll but a netkook. I am not convinced it is female, not that matters.

The attention it is receiving tells most people is not so used to the Internet way.

One advantage of forums over this blog-like article-plus-comments structure is the possibility to set nicknames in ignore mode without asking an admin.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
CM September 24, 2010 at 16:41

I found it interesting in that in my classes at the Global Institute of Sustainability one of the greatest recognition of how to curb birth rates is (roll the drums) “Education of Women” AKA feminism. Who knew?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
thehermit September 24, 2010 at 16:44

Don’t be asinine. Please do point to some place in the world where Christians are actually doing this. It certainly isn’t hard to find Muslims doing these things.

Don’t forget that all the religions had their bloody times. Islam is a -relatively- young religion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
CM September 24, 2010 at 16:46

I don’t mind Skadi. I think she is intelligent. I would like to see her accept the male point of view, though. I’d like to see her denounce feminist lies. Men and women are not equal; we are different. She must accept this. If she denies this then I believe we will have our answer as to why Europe crumbles under the mighty hordes of Muslims one day. Perhaps one day feminists will be viewed as traitors and marched into the public square and have their hair cut off. This is what the French did to their women who collaborated with the Nazis in the Vichy Government. They were marched into the public square and had their heads shaved to show everyone their shame. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but no society can every flourish or survive when the women en masse become sluts, degenerates and filthy whores.

It says in the Bagavad-Gita:

When women are corrupted – chaos is unleashed in society

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Malestrom September 24, 2010 at 16:47

I agree Thag Jones, Christianity is the true religion of peace.

Yes, there have been unfortunate episodes in Christianity’s history; the Inquisitions and the Crusades (by which I mean the Northern Crusades, the Eastern Crusades were totally justified and neccessary). However, all human societies wage war and do evil, the question is, are civilizations based on Christianity more or less belligerent than the average human civilization. I think the question barely survives it’s asking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6
thehermit September 24, 2010 at 16:49

I think women don’t really understand how much men do for them.

They do, just don’t think it’s valuable. You don’t know the real value of things, until you lose them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Thag Jones September 24, 2010 at 16:49

@ the hermit

Don’t forget that all the religions had their bloody times. Islam is a -relatively- young religion.

In that case, we ought to treat it as a child who needs disciplining. But I suppose by modern standards, that is exactly what are are doing – hovering over it and protecting it while it becomes an unruly brat.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 16:49

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 44
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 16:54

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 40
Malestrom September 24, 2010 at 16:54

It is not that women don’t work, it is that our economy and civilization is not dependent on them working. The economy can get on perfectly well without women working, it worked fine before they entered the workforce in large numbers.

If men stop working to maintain civilization it’s back to swamps and lichen, that is simply an obvious fact.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
terre September 24, 2010 at 16:56

Men have built civilization. Women have no need to. Men run literally everything that keeps the modern world afloat and you can count the major contributions from women on one hand. Women have little issue with whether we live in grass huts or not because it’s immaterial with regards to their sexual power, which forms the primacy of their psychological constitution.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0
SM September 24, 2010 at 17:00

Before I’d said that, she just hadn’t considered all those years of public assistance to be ”getting help”, in her mind, she’d done it all. The fact is she had massive help from society, and understand that by society i mostly mean men as around 80% of tax revenue is collected from males.

While reading your post, I thought of a perfect example of what it is like talking to a female about something: How they use argument drift tactics to frustrate and convolute.

This is a very hard to put your finger on thing for men. But I saw an opportunity to put my finger on it: to “name it”.

So here goes…

Shes says: I’m independent”.

Man says: “You get money from the state (and the other protections of police and infrastructure [roads etc/food/ utilities] –all things from the hive of men).”

She says: “You don’t think I deserve/need that stuff?”

Ah ha! Right there! female argument drift tactic. She doesn’t concede a lost point. She just takes off from the concession and opens up a new argument window she hopes to score [cheap] points in.

My mother –evil cunt bitch that she is /was — use to always do that (to a little boy mind you). I wonder if any other or all females do it.

The point females launched from was wrong thus destroying their whole argument. (Argument probably motivated by nothing more than glands/mood that moment.) But like the energizer bunny they just keep going –impervious to “correct or incorrect” and the logic train implications.

As a man, I am above its effectiveness now. But as a child –and therefore vulnerable –I found it profoundly frustrating, maddening and unscrupulous.

…I wonder if any other or all females do it. Have your mothers and sisters etc done that to you when trying to work through with them a logic train of facts built on each other?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
Lost_Y September 24, 2010 at 17:15

What’s puzzled me ever since I became aware of this issue is, why would the liberals allow it? I know that the rank-and-file libs/marxists are mentally handicapped by visions of Utopia and world peace, but surely the strategists and decision makers at the top are aware of Hijrah? If not, they must still realize who they’re rolling out the red carpet for.

Muslim politics and liberal politics fundamentally conflict. Muslim men will not put western women on pedestals, they will force them to their knees. No muslim men (and very few women) will tolerate feminism. Just because the rank-and-file femtards are getting postcards from Turkey about the glorious rise of Muslim Feminism does not mean it is actually happening. Now you can dismiss this as liberal/femtard stupidity, but they didn’t get a stranglehold on the Western world by having leaders with no foresight, intelligence, or competence.

While there are some outspoken and genuinely liberal Muslims, they are a tiny minority –even among the immigrants. And a “moderate” Muslim is a far greater threat to the liberal/marxist/feminist status quo than your average conservative voter.

So again; why do the leftist elites allow the Muslim coital conquest of the socialist states they worked so hard to build?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Rebel September 24, 2010 at 17:16

@Thag Jones September 24, 2010 at 16:37
Rebel, they may stem from the same tree but they have grown in different directions in practice.

I concur, but seven centuries later.
I am thinking about the Crusades, the Conquista, the African colonies, the Inquisition and more..

We have had the chance to move forward because our civilization became flourishing while Islam stagnated.

We probably owe much of our civilization to the invention of the steam machine and the cannon.

Still, not so long ago, we had slavery.

We evolved. So will they.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 17:26

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 43
Anonymous September 24, 2010 at 17:36

Oh man, the well-debunked “male privilege” line. Yeah I suppose the harsh work into an early grave that men still do today in the worst, highest fatality jobs was and is a privileged life. Much more privileged than sitting in an air-conditioned office from a job you’re practically handed through affirmative action, to be sure.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price September 24, 2010 at 17:38

Haha, you are right, I used to really want an older brother.

-Skadi

OK then, you want brotherly advice, here you go:

Skadi, you’re causing me trouble here by pissing off the readers. This site does not exist for your amusement. Use some tact, and have respect for the people who value it as a resource. You obviously like it here, so make yourself more agreeable and quit being a brat.

You say you want guys to back you up — give us a reason.

That starts with some humility and empathy. I know, you might have to dig deep, but I think you can do it. If not, then you really should just leave.

Finally, I want you to write at least one comment unconditionally thanking men for what they’ve done for you, and it’s up to you to figure out what that is and explicitly spell it out.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 4
SM September 24, 2010 at 17:52

Tim September 24, 2010 at 16:33

I don’t mind Skadi. I think she is intelligent. I would like to see her accept the male point of view, though. I’d like to see her denounce feminist lies. Men and women are not equal; we are different. She must accept this. If she denies this then I believe we will have our answer as to why Europe crumbles under the mighty hordes of Muslims one day. Perhaps one day feminists will be viewed as traitors and marched into the public square and have their hair cut off. This is what the French did to their women who collaborated with the Nazis in the Vichy Government. They were marched into the public square and had their heads shaved to show everyone their shame. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but no society can every flourish or survive when the women en masse become sluts, degenerates and filthy whores.

You believe getting a hair cut as a punish for treasonous inheritance-stealing (ie feminism) is outside the pale?

Then one wonders why the angoo west –read fag culture– is the way it is.

…..
After Rome fell, there was a return to the pre civilized way in Euro –the “matriarchy of the past”[sarcasm] LOL.

During that temporary non civilized phase, when Brunehilde –a mother of a regent (a baby king on a pillow used as rally standard by the tribal men) — got uppity (stole power not her’s), the Franks (or was it the Spanish Visi) tied her naked body to a wild horse and watched it drag her to death over the coming days. (“Oh, look, there she is now” [...galloping passed along the treeline. LOL.) [I believe she was a visi but her kid was a frank. Maybe our resident Charles martel knows. ;-) ]

…The matriarchy of the past.

—-
If you can’t stomach a woman having her head shaved as punishment for her outrageous abusive inheritance-thieving, there is no hope.

Death to the anglo fag male. Git of all history.

Death to jebus cult: dysgenic infantile retards. (Whether this infantile retardation is nature or nurture is not germane to killing it. Though an understanding of nurture –ie environment-shaping/ callous-ing — is necessary so as to prevent it from ever happening again …if and when we manage to get out of it this time.)

[Note civilization in general is the dysgenic pressure breeding for infantile retard, unfortunately. A chihuahua bred from a wolf pack: wolf of the litter is killed in favor of runt of the litter prevailing. Over the generations = neurotic runt as the new breed. You are so retarded already though that that simple model still --to this anti darwinist day-- confuses you.]

Death to democracy.

Before it is too late.

(Yes I’m in a bad mood. But I’m still right.)

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10
SM September 24, 2010 at 17:59

Lost_Y September 24, 2010 at 17:15

So again; why do the leftist elites allow the Muslim coital conquest of the socialist states they worked so hard to build?

Evidence of how it– liberalism– is not a conspiracy of self aware so and sos. Rather it is this vile disease called democracy. A parametrization of the games of life, making all those who play on that field (and those in their keep) vulnerable to careening snowballs –a runaway train. Same with capitalism. A drunk, wobbling down the road–ripe for the mugging.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 18:04

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 39
Beltain September 24, 2010 at 18:05

We are still at the point that islam is not a direct threat to feminism in the USA and is looked on like every other minority group by the feminist…. as an ally against Western White MEN. Period…

The feminist have managed to turn every imagined wrong, every made up outrage, and every forced concession since history has been recorded into a plus for them and a liability for White men. And to rub salt in the wound they then claim it is a racial thing and all whites are guilty while they reap the largest share of the benefits despite being almost entirely White themselves.

Feminist are on the verge of doing something no other culture, religion or race has ever been able to manage and that is defeat the spirit of Western men. We must stop it.

Hell if a leader rose up now and declared a chunk of land as MALE-America I would quit my job and go there to defend it today.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
Amax September 24, 2010 at 18:05

…I wonder if any other or all females do it. Have your mothers and sisters etc done that to you when trying to work through with them a logic train of facts built on each other?

There is a poster who goes by the name of Alte who can give you some insight on that, and she isn’t a practitioner of that approach btw. She had written something about it on her website that I think you should find interesting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
nothingbutthetruth September 24, 2010 at 18:11

Well, Christianity is a religion of peace. Read the New Testament (“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword”.) However, for many centuries, Christianity got away from its origins, developing new doctrines about the “just war”, so it became a religion used to justify and even to start wars. But, during the last centuries, these doctrines have been abandoned in an attempt to return to the Christianity of the first Christians. Christianity has come back to its origins, becoming again a religion of peace.

The same thing has happened with Islam. Islam is a religion of war. Read the Koran. While Jesus was a loser (killed by his enemies), the Prophet was a winner: was a militar who only managed to make Mecca Islamic by the sword. But, for many centuries, Islam got away from its origins, developing new doctrines that allow Islam to work in a society with peace. But, during the last centuries, these doctrines have been abandoned in a attempt to return to the Islam of the first Muslims. Islam has came back to its origins (“fundamentalism”) so it has become again a religion of war.

This is why fundamentalists and salafists win any debate with so-called moderate Muslims. They have the Koran and the hadith on their side.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Epoche* September 24, 2010 at 18:11

So again; why do the leftist elites allow the Muslim coital conquest of the socialist states they worked so hard to build?
——————————
because as I noted before the masses really would cut off their nose despite their face. Anything that can be perceived to harm white males is assumed to be beneficial to everyone else, and if not, then at least we are going to drag everyone down to the lowest possible level. Politicians in a democracy arent really caretakers of a nation so much as they are a despised cynical social worker that we are all dependent on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Malestrom September 24, 2010 at 18:24

SM

The ancient Greeks had a specific term for that line of argumentation, I can’t remember what it was off the top of my head. Basically you are correct, it involves overwhelming your opponent with sheer weight of points made. When something you say is proven wrong, do not acknowledge it, just make another point, it takes more mental effort to debunk the rubbish they are saying than it takes for them to say it, so you slowly lose the will to continue the debate and you find yourself wondering later how you lost despite destroying every one of the arguments they made with clear and obvious logic or facts.

This is the primary mode of argument for the vast majority of women. NEVER underestimate the power of the random non sequitur as a debating tool.

Yea, as if men don’t live in that civilization, they built it for themselves too and were always the privileged ones.

I do apologize, I was under the impression you were at least somewhat clued in to the truth, seeing as how you hang out here. I now see that you are simply a standard, off the shelf, government issue feminist.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
nothingbutthetruth September 24, 2010 at 18:32

On the other hand, terre has it right. Since Islam is a religion of external ritual and not of internal belief like Christianity (Islam is a shame-based culture while Christianity is a guilt-based culture), it is difficult to know how many of Muslims are really “true” Muslims and how many of them are only playing their part not to be stigmatized by their community or not to have their lives threaten (The penalty in mainstream Islamic doctrine for a Muslim that stops being Musling -apostate- is the death).

But fertility rates give us a glimpse into the internal world of Muslim people. Here you have an objective quantity to judge the real devotion of Muslims. This works this way:
1. Islam forbids any kind of contraception.
2. So if Muslim are true Muslims, their fertility rates would be extreme. If they are not extreme, this means that Muslims are using contraceptives so they are not following Islam that well.

Well, the numbers depict what Spengler calls “the fragility of Islam”. The birthrate of most Muslim countries has dropped dramatically the last twenty years. Countries like Iran or Algeria have rates below replacement levels. And other countries are not far away. Today, the only part of the world with high birthrates is Sub-Saharan Africa.

IMHO, this shows that feminism will win the battle to Islam. I have seem many Muslims complain about Western habits creeping into Islamic countries. IMHO, this is because Western mass media have entered Muslim countries and many Muslim people (although they save face before they community by saying otherwise) are very aware of the messages they receive from the Internet and satellite dishes.

Does this mean that Europe will not end up becoming a Muslim continent? Well, it depends. Muslim immigrant communities in Europe have far higher birthrates than their counterparts in Muslim countries (the same happens with Latino immigrants in USA). And even a slightly higher birthrate than the natives is enough to sustain population replacement. On the other hand, Muslim rely heavily on the welfare state, which is on its way out.

So it is not as black or white as it seems. As an European, I have devoted a lot of thought about this topic and I hate seeing neighborhoods of my hometown become Muslim communities, but it is too early to give up hope.

Of course, nothing of this would have happened if Western civilization was not in decline because of feminism. Islam is a opportunistic disease. Feminism is like AIDS: it removes the defenses of the organism. People don’t die of AIDS. They die of any infection (i.e., flu) which would not be mortal if defenses had not been weakened by AIDS. Islam is this kind of opportunistic disease for Western civilization.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price September 24, 2010 at 18:33

Of course, I love men and I’m grateful to men for many things in my life. I’m grateful to my dad for staying with us and for loving me (I’m a daddy’s girl).. to my boyfriends for all the romantic experiences and the wonderful sex we had. To my favorite athletes.. and to all the guys who respected me and were kind to me. Thank you

No, not enough, Skadi.

Not just specific men — men in general. And make it sincere.

I find it very frustrating to have to spell this out to a Latvian girl. Can’t you think of the men who laid down their lives in the long, nearly futile effort to gain independence for your nation?

Why don’t you go down to the grave of one of the forest brothers – or meža br??i you prefer – and lay down some wildflowers by the cold headstone to give him the deference, affection and respect that a brother who gave all deserves?

Skadi, if I didn’t think you were ignorant about the offensive stuff you put out there, I would have banned you long ago as an irredeemable, evil wench. But I still have some hope for women, although perhaps I am fool for that.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 7
Alte September 24, 2010 at 18:33

That probably just made her whole week, Welmer. So much attention, and now a special task! All mine! All mine! All mine! Welmer gave me my own special task! All my own, and it’s extra-special, just for me!

But maybe I’m just projecting. LOL.

So yeah, she’s like Welmer’s tag-along little sister. And everybody keeps asking, “Welmer, do you have to keep her around? She’s always bothering us and she’s so annoying.”

Skadi, it’s okay to be a tag-along, just try to be a less annoying one. Watch how I do it:
– adopt Big Boy speech
– try not to repeat yourself too often or talk about yourself too much (I know, that one is soooo hard)
– try to think of things to say that the Big Boys will find interesting
– if you go overboard then slink away for a bit and try harder next time (they aren’t very good at holding a grudge)

why do the leftist elites allow the Muslim coital conquest of the socialist states they worked so hard to build?

Easy answer: They don’t really care. I know a lot of them and they really couldn’t care less about protecting their civilization. They don’t have offspring or believe in an afterlife, therefore they just care about the party continuing until they die. Whatever comes after that is not their problem. They’re just aiming for genteel decline.

I wonder if any other or all females do it

They all do it, or at least occasionally feel the urge to do it. I used to do it, but stopped once I noticed the bad habit. It’s very tempting because it works so well for winning arguments. I wrote about it here (Rule #5), which was cited on another thread.

Women do it to each other a lot, but we don’t mind it as much as we’re just talking to talk, not to reach some sort of decision (except maybe vying for status). So anything that prolongs the discussion is seen as a good thing. That’s why a lot of guys have trouble following the trail women’s discussions take; there seems to be no point and the subject constantly changes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
Lethargic September 24, 2010 at 18:38

Regarding the article, true, I doubt you will ever hear feminists advocating responsible immigration control. Therefore, they have no solution to the problem. They are the weakest link in all of this.

Advocating responsible measures doesn’t chime with their ‘help the world’ mindset. They want to be goody-goody all-embracing (not embracing men, of course) but drastically fail to consider the practicalities of mass immigration.

Feminists know very little about cause and effect. They are a weak link with a loud voice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Keyster September 24, 2010 at 18:39

This kind of moral equivalence is simply unfounded. Muslims in countries with Islamic governments practice this on their own people; I don’t see this in Christian nations and I’ve lived in several of those. Unlike Muslims, Christians and Jews evolved (yes, I am aware of the irony) from a 7th century mentality.

If the “moderate” Muslims of the world truly cared, they’d take a strong stand against the radicals, (so we don’t have to). But, much like the relationship between women and feminists, they remain rather apathetic to it…watching from the sidelines, as if to hedge their bets. Terrorism works like that. See how having a Muslim (by father) President has helped calm them down?

Again, the HATE that drives these uneducated deluded savages to kill themselves, and us, for 70 virgins is pure subterfuge. Keep them consumed with hatred of Jews and “The Great Satan”, and you control them for your benefit. They don’t want peace. They want a seat next to Allah for eternity.
Blessed be Mohammad, the Great Warrior!

Sharia Law is explictly about oppressing and controlling women.
Strict Islamism is very clear about this.
I think in that regard, they might be on to something.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4
thehermit September 24, 2010 at 18:43

But I still have some hope for women, although perhaps I am fool for that.

No you’re not a fool for that, but just because we have no other choice.
You know as i know.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
SM September 24, 2010 at 18:50

thehermit September 24, 2010 at 16:44

Don’t forget that all the religions had their bloody times. Islam is a -relatively- young religion.

Christianity and Islam are both ca 1500 years old.


Lets look at these two brothers and what they have accomplished…

Islam took some tribes and built a civilization from them. It also did that while kicking out the “great whore of Babylon” who was those first civilizations of the near east. The “great whore”; You know: your bible…

As punishment for man’s enlightenment he was caste out of eden –nature’s way– to the great whore babylon –civilization: where the drunken fools become the kings and the whores take these “kings” –nee fools– as THEIR concubines.

(So much for your “‘matriarchy of the past’ made patriarchal through civilization” cockeyed horsehit. Technology of course is the Luciferian apple you dullards.)

Meanwhile, christianity destroyed Rome. And then went on to emasculate northern Europe and ultimately replace N Eur’s natural culture –eden-esque– with the great whore Babylon who now squats there (Britain and diaspora). The 7 headed dragon breathes [ooh, spooky].

So in tally: Islam built a culture while jebus cult destroyed two–Rome and N Euro. And it was just getting rolling.

Christianity continued to migrate around destroying masculinity. Three continents worth.

Both christianity and marxism come from the same jewish migration. “The diaspora”. The children of lilith. [Lilith was adam's first wife--incorrigible and thus caste out. ]

Indeed Christianity and Marxism are both the same migrant strategy/political trick –labor demagoguery and meek shall inherit the earth utopianism.

That strategy is a biological reflex of this migrating tribe. …Migrate in and exploit the natural caste-fissures, pitting the host culture’s plebeians (lowers) against the uppers –using labor/slave-class rally cries and Utopianism– positioning yourself as the new uppers once the smoke clears and there are no host culture males left to expel you.

That is all over your heads though. …History seen through biology and anthropology lens. Note ant wars: hive vs hive strategies.

…Oh and der Fuhrer wants me to tell you he was betrayed by his generals. Yes, yes Adi. He can be such a boar. He’s sitting right next to me here in Hell.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 13
Skadi September 24, 2010 at 18:54

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 32
Alte September 24, 2010 at 18:57

I doubt you will ever hear feminists advocating responsible immigration control

I was posting a bit on a large Catholic forum, and was making good headway with changing hearts and minds, but I got myself banned for calling one of my fellow-female posters a feminist (which is a “very bad word” on such a forum). The discussion was about immigration control, specifically the recent decision to allow DV to be used as grounds for granting asylum.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
W.F. Price September 24, 2010 at 19:04

Alte, you have a talent for summing things up. That last comment would make a good post.

For the record, I do have a little sister, and, much to my chagrin, she did tag along all the time — at least until I was 18.

As annoying and embarrassing as it was at times, I still have a great deal of affection for her. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that she’s the only woman in my life with whom I have a pure, uncomplicated relationship. And I do love her without reservations.

But you know what really makes it something special? Neither of us has any ulterior motives. We just care about each other, because we grew up together and shared a childhood.

Unfortunately, she’s spoiled blondes for me. Unless they are truly exotic looking (like some Finnish and Baltic women), blondes remind me of my sister and I therefore feel no attraction to them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
Alte September 24, 2010 at 19:12

Which comment? (Yay! I got a bit of special attention! LOL.)

Actually, I managed to bake cookies that both look and taste good for once, so I’m already all attentioned-up for the evening.

You remind me of the way my son acts toward his little sister. Patient forbearance and wry humor.

Advocating responsible measures doesn’t chime with their ‘help the world’ mindset. They want to be goody-goody all-embracing (not embracing men, of course) but drastically fail to consider the practicalities of mass immigration.

That’s because women love to share. Sharing makes them feel like nice people. That’s a good thing when you’re sharing out the blueberry pie, but it doesn’t make much sense at the political level. Sharing in politics is socialism, which ultimately results in less pie for everyone. The only women I know (including myself) who get that are the ones who’ve had it drummed into their heads by a very dominant man.

My argument about the case was that it opened the floodgates for mass immigration through the asylum policy. Most of the guys just agreed, but the women all said, “You are so mean! That poor woman needed to be helped!” They couldn’t get over that. They couldn’t say, “That woman needs to be helped, but we cannot help her without pissing all over our own country. So we won’t help her.” They just couldn’t make that mental leap from the concrete (the woman who needs to be saved from her Mean Husband) to the abstract (immigration policy).

It’s all concrete to them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
Alte September 24, 2010 at 19:21

Actually, Welmer, you remind me a lot of my husband, just older and not as funny. He’s really funny.

That’s pretty much the biggest compliment I can give you, I think. My husband reminds me a lot of Jesus. Just funnier and without the sandals and miracles and stuff. And he’s not the Son of God, or anything, obviously. When I used to read the Bible, Jesus’ voice sounded like my dad’s and now it sounds like my husband’s. It’s funny, because the Bible is an English one but Jesus has a German accent.

That’s why I stick up for you sometimes. You seem like a good guy, Welmer. Not a fool at all.

Really. That’s why we all hang out here. We respect you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11
thehermit September 24, 2010 at 19:27

Christianity and Islam are both ca 1500 years old.

Christianity is more the 2000 years old, Islam i count from Muhammad., 570.

Lets look at these two brothers and what they have accomplished…

Let’s not look at it, i don’t think we can agree on anything…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
Connie Chastain September 24, 2010 at 19:50

Old Ma’am, here, just to float an idea I haven’t seen as I skimmed the discussion.

I believe Europe became the successful culture it was over the centuries because of the influence of Christianity. No, it didn’t get Christianity exactly right — misused it for political purposes, burned witches, made war after war after war, etc. — but even so, the influence of Christianity was powerful enough to seep through the misuse and cause Europe to flower, to create democracy and liberty and other positive aspects of western civilization.

Europeans took their Christianity-influenced culture to new lands. Those offspring-cultures also flourished as long as Christianity held enough influence over them.

And so everybody understands, it was European, Christian-influenced MEN who created so many of the advances the whole world benefits from.

But in the 20th century, Europe tossed Christianity aside in favor of secularism and socialism, of which feminism is an integral component. Feminism despises Christianity because it establishes roles for males and females, particularly within marriage, that feminists see as oppressive to women.

So… they threw Christianity away. I remember reading not long ago that Norwegians overwhelmingly identify as Christian (Lutheran) but over 70% don’t consider it important enough to attend church.

By abandoning the element that made Europe what it was, Europeans have basically cut their own throats, culturally speaking. The USA is following in Europe’s footsteps. I think it will be catastrophic for humanity. So much of mankind’s advances were made by Christian-influenced Europeans and their posterity in other lands.

Can other cultures take up the slack and continue advancing mankind? Anything’s possible, I guess, but absent the influence of Christianity, I’m not hopeful. I think humanity has a dark and bloody future.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 10
Tim September 24, 2010 at 19:54

Welmer,

Before I sign off I wanted to mention Skadi isn’t so bad, but she isn’t quite 30 yrs old yet I believe, so she is doing what we all did at that age, partying her ass off. She’s on the cock carousel until she decides its time to settle down. She hasn’t a clue really about divorce, child support, or anything we discuss here.

I notice she didn’t say anything about the retired military guy who faces a lifetime of indentured servitude paying alimony to his ex.

She also failed to say anything about male/female sex differences, and that women are to be held to a higher standard with regard to sexual promiscuity.

Lastly, we should never forget that it is men in high places, corridors of power, that have signed off on this sorry state of affairs. Judges, attorneys and legislators are mostly men, and it is they who we are up against, in collusion with NOW and that gang. Blaming Skadi is about as useful as blaming a child for eating candy.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 10
rob September 24, 2010 at 20:54

Lastly, we should never forget that it is men in high places, corridors of power, that have signed off on this sorry state of affairs. Judges, attorneys and legislators are mostly men, and it is they who we are up against, in collusion with NOW and that gang. Blaming Skadi is about as useful as blaming a child for eating candy. — Tim

While this is true, Tim, it is not entirely accurate, and is, in fact, a tired old feminist saw that has been used against men for decades, if not over a century.

What this line of thinking fails to recognize is that those men are serving women – in exactly the same manner as every other biological, living, breathing entity on this third rock from the sun does. The way “life” works is that the male is the sexual servant of the female.

“Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” — Robert Briffault (The Mothers, I, 191)

So yes, men are in the positions of power, and those men are doing bad things to other men… but why are they doing it? They are doing it because naturally males do the bidding of the female.

Women are society – while men are the outliers of society. Let me state that again: Women are society. What women want, society wants. What women find distasteful, society finds distasteful. What women value, society values, and so on and so on.

Think of it like a herd of cattle. Of course there are males and females, but is the composition of the herd a fifty-fifty split between males and females? Absolutely not! The herd is mostly females, with a dominant bull screwing them all, and young sexually immature males making up the rest. When the young males reach sexual maturity, they challenge the dominant bull for breeding rights within the herd. Either the young up and comer dethrones the bull and takes his place as the breeder, or the bull defends his postion successfully – but no matter the result, the loser leaves and lives on the fringe of the herd… and is constantly trying, or challenging, to try and get back in – in other words, the loser males (betas) are constantly trying to find acceptance back into the herd – they desire to be back in, to be part of the “society” that is virtually 100% female.

Women ARE society – while men are on the outskirts of it. Thus, men are independent because nature forces them to be, while women are collective herd creatures. (Society).

So, virtually anything that men “do” in society, they only do because females have given them the social approval to do so. If females withdrew their societal support, the “alpha” male in power would lose all of said power, and would be replaced by another that females felt were more suitable.

Philalethes has written a few posts about this that explain rather well:

Philalethes #4 – What Do Women Want? It’s What We’ve Got! We Just Aim to Please, Ma’am!

Philalethes #19 – Not Much Happens That Women Don’t Approve Of

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 3
Rebel September 24, 2010 at 21:05

Much to my dismay and misunderstanding, I have noticed time and again that religions make societies / civilizations. In fact, they are an integral part of it.

Human beings have that need to believe in something grander than they. Humans do not want to die and that’s why they invent gods and religions.

But all religions have much the same things in common: they sprout from one man’s imagination and fancy.

There are presently over 20 000 religions and sects worldwide. With that many to chose from, I thank God I am an atheist.

Where is the truth?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4
Druk0ziz September 24, 2010 at 22:15

The evils committed by those claiming to act in the name of the Christian God or the Muslim Allah have a lot more to do with culture than religion. All it takes is people to take the message out of context and run with it ala Hitler, KKK, or the Taliban. Also, external influences help – such as a perceived Christian nation bombing the everliving crap out of your home/neighboring country(ies).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7
evilwhitemalempire September 24, 2010 at 22:20

Can we find a way to defeat feminism and cultural Marxism and turn back this demographic tide?

Why not simply import our ‘decadent’ culture?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire September 24, 2010 at 22:21

I mean export.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire September 24, 2010 at 22:29

So yes, men are in the positions of power, and those men are doing bad things to other men… but why are they doing it? They are doing it because naturally males do the bidding of the female.

So what if an ‘alien’ comes along and starts to usurp the females power? Like the porn industry perhaps.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Jesse September 24, 2010 at 22:36

As I’ve been saying all along, not only will they outbreed us, when they do rise up a lot of non-Muslims will see the Muslims as a lesser evil to feminism and will simply not oppose them. I predict that they will gain power in lots of Europe and Australia long before they actually outnumber us. I’d have a hard time bringing myself to oppose them, I certainly wouldn’t risk my life to do it – and I’m an atheist. Suicide is the leading cause of death here for men under 40, how could Islam produce a worse result than that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Lost_Y September 24, 2010 at 22:45

I appreciate the responses to my question, but I didn’t ask why the everyday rank-and-file, lower to middle class, politically powerless liberals/feminists welcome Islam.

I’m actually asking why the strategists like Steve Hildebrand, the decision makers like Obama, and the moneybags like George Soros — true Liberal elites– would welcome an opposing force like Islam when it clearly threatens their power and their plans. (The same question holds for their European/British counterparts.)

I like simple answers, but, “liberals are dumb and shortsighted” seems too simple when we’re talking about the top leadership.

Are they hoping for peace by assimilation?
Do they think they can absorb all the immigrants into the Nanny State and get them to renounce their religion as they have with so many Christians?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Avenger September 24, 2010 at 22:55

Druko: the only problem with your post is that it’s not Christianity but the OT, Hebrew you quoted was Isaiah. Not much different from the other Semites who invented Islam. Same type of culture and background.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Gunn September 24, 2010 at 23:51

The only country I can think of where islam is directly contested is India; there have been many incidents there, the most famous of which (in the western media) are the gujarat riots where several hundred muslims were killed by a hindu mob.

What I found interesting about that incident was the very pro-islamic stance taken by the media here in reporting it. I’m not suggesting for a moment that a mob killing hundreds of people is something to advocate for, however there was and is a history to the violence in India, and scapegoating a strongly hindu government for the results of the riot seemed wrong to me.

Could a similar event happen in the west? In the UK, there are various hotspots where chav culture meets muslim culture (various ghettos in the east end of london for example), but beyond this its difficult to imagine full scale fighting between muslims and non-muslims. Maybe the day will come, however with the way the demographics are its more likely that the takeover of UK culture will take place with a whimper rather than a bang, as the men who would have contested the incursions simply weren’t born due to feminism.

So then I wonder what a muslim europe would look like. I can think of very few examples of islamic countries that I would class as civilised or advanced; and in many cases, advancement seems to be based on the presence of oil or other mineral wealth rather than the creation of an advanced society.

Again, I think the Indian situation is interesting and relevant here. When India gained independence from the British empire, it was partitioned into India (mainly hindu) and Pakistan (muslim only). Both these countries started from a more or less equal footing (if anything, Pakistan had more favorable geography as it lies in the NW of the subcontinent). Today, Pakistan is a backward feudal hellhole which is appeased purely for its strategic location rather than anything else. India is not free of corruption or problems by any means, but can at least claim to have a reasonable society and is considered by many to be a potential superpower (though this is likely decades away).

The ‘culture’ we see in Pakistan is I think the future legacy of feminism in the UK and the rest of europe. The high birth rate is amongst what would charitably be classed as the dregs of society, and when this group becomes the majority its unlikely that they will be able to even maintain existing levels of civilisation, never mind improve on it.

This is one of the key reasons why I am currently reorganising my life to become independent of the UK and able to move, work, and live somewhere else without having to start again from scratch. I have no intention of being around to reap what the feminists have sowed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
universe September 24, 2010 at 23:54

Sheer madness. The view, if one pauses for quiet reflection.
Husbands accused of improprieties and jailed; fathers mandated away from families; many more imprisoned for simple inability to provide for once familiar children; single parent mother headed households incubating emotionally stunted future adults; girls influenced to hate boys; boys influenced to go along with it; young women programmed to despise motherhood and young men. All done by decree. Totally unbalanced. Madness. Young men are even now beginning to walk away from family engagement.
A conspiracy theorist would say that feminism is part of a Western population control and reduction sub-agenda. Float tenuous data to the ultra vulnerable, hyperbolize unsubstantiated data to an air of authenticity, mass conversions leads to mass infant murder and marriage
avoidance. Controlled madness. Presto. It’s 2010.
Resourses for earlier modern feminauts came from somewhere. Nothing ever gets momentous without an Apple and Dumplings man. Even Thoreau supped with a benefactor.
If this great civilization is to be saved it would be worth considering the many heads of the hydra beast. Feminism doesn’t rule the world. It is merely a tool or process. There is great power behind it. That beast is globalism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
CM September 25, 2010 at 00:00

Rob thats pretty good.

The individual actually was in a mythical past time the focus of the collective – this is what is know as the “nostalgia for paradise” we all have it… look deep inside – you probably have some genetic memory of it. It was before we settled down into domestic civilization – in those times there was peace. When we moved from the paternal focus on movement to the maternal focus of sedentary civilization – the collective became the focus – because they produced what had been fundamentally established the new value of humanity – materialism (resources). Thus resources and riches where the new passion and love of humanity – to the expense of human beings themselves (time freedom labor). With the domestic matrix the civilization became focused around the feminine. The only thing for man to do was to explore the edges because he was denied any true affection or significance at a fundamental level of being – thus why we have invented everything built everything and established everything – the only other thing was to work work work, because it probably reminded us of our old paradise of movement based life… All life is movement but domestic civilization denies this. It just sits there, and is crying all the time creating new problems just like a unrestrained female. It rapes the planet and destroys the environment locking humans into a cage they can never escape. Domestication of plants and animals was the domestication of humans. While we built and invented everything the sedentary matrix is the feminine – and thus the matrix deeply female centered. It would collapse without male restlessness in about 60 seconds. To find out more about this read my latest blog entry:

Click on my name, click on “The Majestic Blah” at the top and read it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
namae nanka September 25, 2010 at 00:32

“Again, I think the Indian situation is interesting and relevant here. When India gained independence from the British empire, it was partitioned into India (mainly hindu) and Pakistan (muslim only).”

And it’s interesting to note:
“In August 1947, at the end of British Raj, the population percentage of Hindus & Sikhs in what is today Pakistan was perhaps as high as 10-15%, but would drop to its current total of less than 2 % in the years since Pakistan’s independence in 1947. ”

and that the country turned into an Islamic state from being secular at its inception.

“But all religions have much the same things in common: they sprout from one man’s imagination and fancy.”

I would say that “they sprout from one man’s grasp on reality.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
namae nanka September 25, 2010 at 01:14

“Really?
I read this stated all of the time, but have seen little evidence of the truth of this. If it were true, why is it that removing men from their homes tends to lead to an abrupt collapse in culture, religion, and tradition?”

Because boys not only outgrow their mothers physically but also mentally. The why and how of traditions are something that most women don’t get a hang of, while a father can easily explain or even display to sons. Removal of men also leads to removal of the force that makes women act accordingly to traditions.
But the bond created with mother from infancy molds young minds and its power is immense. And as women are society, their view, no matter if they realize it’s right or wrong, acts as the default one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
namae nanka September 25, 2010 at 01:32

Add to above:

” They just couldn’t make that mental leap from the concrete (the woman who needs to be saved from her Mean Husband) to the abstract (immigration policy).”

Like a young man grasping abstractions vs a child being told of the bogeyman. A man can never be as good at the bogeyman reference.

SM

“Death to democracy.

Before it is too late.”

heh it already is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Scattered September 25, 2010 at 01:40

try not to repeat yourself too often or talk about yourself too much

Yeah thats it…I was wondering why your comments don’t annoy me anymore.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gunn September 25, 2010 at 02:19

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11367622

This is the kind of reporting from the MSM when political groups emerge to tackle the growing problem of the islamisation of europe.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen an article from the MSM that lays out the real day-to-day problems that Sweden has in terms of crime and violence because of the entry of muslim immigrants.

Instead, we have a refusal to air the issues, and journalists throwing out implications of racism and intolerance without pausing to reflect on the substantive problems in society.

This is the corresponding ‘analysis’ the BBC provides on the Sweden Democrats (a right wing anti-immigration party):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11374155

To say its risible is an understatement; the article assumes that the reader agrees that right-wing anti-immigration parties are evil and apologises throughout for the fact that they are gaining strength in Sweden without actually elaborating on whats driving this – the massive increase in crime and violence caused by immigrants as well as their complete refusal to integrate with Swedish culture.

The huge issue here which no one wants to engage with is that these one-issue parties are becoming popular because the one issue they talk about is a massive problem day to day for everyday people. Instead of properly taking up this issue (immigration), the mainstream parties prefer to bury their heads in the sand. When these far-right parties do gain power, the country suffers as their more idiotic stances on other issues gain weight in national decision making.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous September 25, 2010 at 02:25

Drukoziz is misrepresenting the Bible. Isaiah reads:
Isaiah 13:16-18
16 Their [Babylon's] infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.
17Behold, I am stirring up the Medes [Persians] against them,
who have no regard for silver and do not delight in gold.
18 Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the fruit of the womb.
(Biblegateway.com – ESV)

There is no imperative for Christians or Jews to convert by the sword. That is Islam’s department. This passage is simply Isaiah’s prophecy that Persia would conquer Babylon and do what conquerors have historically done, namely rape and pillage. Much of the rest of Isaiah deals with God’s judgment of Israel and the coming of the Messiah.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6
Avenger September 25, 2010 at 02:40

Nanka wrote, the population percentage of Hindus & Sikhs in what is today Pakistan was perhaps as high as 10-15%,

It still is.. There was an East and West Pakistan. E Pakistan is now called Bangladesh and is about 10% Hindu. West Pakistan which is just called Pakistan today is 5% Hindu.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi September 25, 2010 at 03:03

””””’ Tim September 24, 2010 at 16:33
I don’t mind Skadi. I think she is intelligent. I would like to see her accept the male point of view, though. I’d like to see her denounce feminist lies. Men and women are not equal; we are different. She must accept this. If she denies this then I believe we will have our answer as to why Europe crumbles under the mighty hordes of Muslims one day. Perhaps one day feminists will be viewed as traitors and marched into the public square and have their hair cut off. This is what the French did to their women who collaborated with the Nazis in the Vichy Government. They were marched into the public square and had their heads shaved to show everyone their shame. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but no society can every flourish or survive when the women en masse become sluts, degenerates and filthy whores.
”””””
Oh the horror they cut their hair off as punishment instead of throwing them in jail. So mean so mean lol

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
namae nanka September 25, 2010 at 03:05

if men are really selfish, then why is society growing narcissistic with the rise of women…

Avenger it states “in what is today Pakistan” so that means that they aren’t considering Bangladesh in it. Though wikipedia isn’t exactly reliable, I don’t doubt that the percentage would have only decreased. And of course the percentages don’t add up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous September 25, 2010 at 03:06

“Oh the horror they cut their hair off as punishment instead of throwing them in jail. So mean so mean lol”

yeah, they should just seize their make-up kits, that’s punishment enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Avenger September 25, 2010 at 03:28

Hell if a leader rose up now and declared a chunk of land as MALE-America I would quit my job and go there to defend it today

I told you, we can take over Alaska. It’s very large and has a big coastline and the population is only 1/2 million. As little as 100k men can take over the government and run it like we want. We’ll get our women from Russia and just sneak them in and make it a sactuary State like a lot of mayors have made cities. We’ll use nuclear power and advanced technologies for our energy. Many of those Russian girls are good at science so we’ll kill 2 birds with one stone. We won’t need any oil but if we have any problems with the US gov’t we’ll just destroy the pipeline as punishment :o ) Every man over 12 will be part of the militia and we’ll be armed with the latest weapons for protection. The State will be a free trade zone and there will be no taxes and few laws. There will be no prisons either, the really bad will simply be kicked out into Canada or the lower states. Marriage will be by contract and contracts will be strickly enforced.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Avenger September 25, 2010 at 03:30

nanka: it was intended as a Muslim state.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger September 25, 2010 at 03:31

Though wikipedia isn’t exactly reliable

It’s written by amateurs with an axe to grind

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price September 25, 2010 at 05:13

I told you, we can take over Alaska. It’s very large and has a big coastline and the population is only 1/2 million.

-Avenger

I really like Alaska, but there is a big problem with the state: about 99% of it is “public” (a whopping 65% is federally owned) or Indian land, including the habitable areas, which means ordinary citizens have no right to own it. This means that real estate is seriously overvalued.

Alaska is really just one big federal resource warehouse.

I think we’d have more luck leasing a few square miles (or an island) somewhere like the Dominican Republic and setting up an international mantopia as a sort of quasi-independent, for-profit entity. Just provide some of the gambling profit to the banana republic’s govt., advertise it as a haven for weary men around the world, and you’d be making money hand over fist. This is essentially what Macau is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
SM September 25, 2010 at 05:46

Again, I think the Indian situation is interesting and relevant here. …Today, Pakistan is a backward feudal hellhole which is appeased purely for its strategic location rather than anything else. India is not free of corruption or problems by any means, but can at least claim to have a reasonable society and is considered by many to be a potential superpower (though this is likely decades away).

It is also a feminism hot spot.

Duh…

You simply don’t get it because you brain is tangled inherently, englishmun.

This is one of the key reasons why I am currently reorganising my life to become independent of the UK and able to move, work, and live somewhere else without having to start again from scratch. I have no intention of being around to reap what the feminists have sowed.

And wherever you go there feminism will be again. Because it is you, Englishmun. It is baggage attached to you. It is your culture itself.

Your “advanced civilization” line of reasoning is cross purposes thinking.

“Advanced civilization” and “feminism” are synonymous. Why don’t you get this yourself? Why do you resist accepting this even after it is pointed out to you?

Your brain is convoluted inherently. You are bred to be insane; Like a quaking chihuahua is at the breed-level neurotic; it is bred to be. A warped creature culled from the more normal wolf, from which it comes.

It is the biological brain modules/impulses themselves.

The ‘culture’ we see in Pakistan is I think the future legacy of feminism in the UK and the rest of europe.

And no feminism. Except maybe some shipped in by the surviving anglo /jew run west.

Curious neurosis called the englishmun.

I’m not suggesting for a moment that a mob killing hundreds of people is something to advocate for,

How does one take power in this society without killing in the streets? Carpet bomb its cities from 30,000 feet? Send it poisonous blankets?

Revolution is NOT for the squeamish.

What tactic for stopping feminism would you recommend and stomach?

Getting a tax break and inventing a more “advanced society”? And that will get rid of the neurotic-convoluted breed itself that inherently created and creates feminism as a very symptom of that neurotic-convoluted breed’s very existence?

How many “advance gizmos” have you invented, gunn?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9
Migu September 25, 2010 at 06:03

The pope was able to to turn the bible into a call for War? Does that make Christianity a hate filled, die by the sword religion. Was Jesus a General?

The japanese did a number on Buddhism awhile back. They were using it to help justify the invasion of Manchuko, both Russian and Chinese holdings.

Lets see, Hinduism also preaches peace. It’s history is as bloody as the rest.

Look at today. Liberalism??????? What does that word mean? Liberalism is nothing more than the philosophy of liberty, yet it is used to enslave and justify all manner of atrocities.

How is this different than men using the philosophy of peace for the same purposes?

Any idea can be turned on its head. The Koran speaks of evangelism. The Bible does the same.

What is evangelism? Informing the ignorant of a specific set of beliefs.

A crafty fox came along and convinced everyone it actually meant kill and enslave unbelievers.

If you already have a full cup of water, why did you come to the fountain?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Thag Jones September 25, 2010 at 06:06

Druk0ziz September 24, 2010 at 22:15

The evils committed by those claiming to act in the name of the Christian God or the Muslim Allah have a lot more to do with culture than religion. All it takes is people to take the message out of context and run with it ala Hitler, KKK, or the Taliban. Also, external influences help – such as a perceived Christian nation bombing the everliving crap out of your home/neighboring country(ies).

Are you seriously trying to say Hitler had some out of context Christian message? He was an occultist and an atheist – and in fact, all his “beliefs” were pretty much in line with today’s idiot lefty (the vegitarianism, rabid anti-smoking, anti-religion… the list goes on). Guess we’d better add atheists to your moral equivalence pyramid. As for your last sentence, this is why “nation building” is likely a waste of time.

Skadi isn’t so bad, but she isn’t quite 30 yrs old yet I believe, so she is doing what we all did at that age, partying her ass off. She’s on the cock carousel until she decides its time to settle down.

This is such condescending crap. This is not like a child eating candy, as you say, this is a grown woman who doesn’t know when to shut up and listen. If she’s interested, she should do just that, instead of pissing everyone off with her incessant drivel. Just read for a while and resist the urge to comment on every little thing.

When I was “not quite 30″ I was not partying my ass off or riding the cock carousel so speak for yourself. I get so tired of endless adolescence and this “she’s only 28″ bollocks. Grow up! I guess then she’s well on her way to being a middle aged cat lady – gee, she’ll be so much more fun to have around then!

But please go easy on me, I’m not quite 40 yet and I’m a bit upset because I wost my bwankie.

Perhaps one day feminists will be viewed as traitors and marched into the public square and have their hair cut off.

Don’t they already inflict this punishment on themselves?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
demirogue September 25, 2010 at 06:15

Take away the welfare, the feminist inequality in laws and jobs, get people thinking family again, stop the selfish casual sex that’s permeated through the west and everything should be fine. But alas, the cock carousels and slut culture isn’t going anywhere. Nor are the feminist and the lopsided laws they have garnered throughout the years.

We deserve to be destroyed and taken over. We are selfish and self centered and deserve it for sure.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
namae nanka September 25, 2010 at 06:15

“nanka: it was intended as a Muslim state.”

I wanted to imply that with a muslim-majority it doesn’t matter what the intentions were.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Alte September 25, 2010 at 06:19

Yeah thats it…I was wondering why your comments don’t annoy me anymore.

LOL. Everytime I mention something personal I get voted down by everyone, which is the rating version of “rolling the eyes”. Even I can learn eventually.

Although an anecdote can sometimes actually add to the conversation, sometimes it’s just navel-gazing. It’s hard to tell the difference sometimes, and sometimes I just don’t really care. Sometimes I’m just tired.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6
demirogue September 25, 2010 at 06:21

One other thing I’m coming across is more and more women who bought into the lie of college with fluff degrees are going to be financially dependent upon someone for their very futures. They are in debt and have worthless degrees because they bought into the lie. That situation needs to remedied as many of them need to be directed towards finding suitable men to be with. They need to literally have the brainwashing taken out of their minds (or they’re going to end up as being burdens to society) and put to use in the roles for which their sex was intended.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Avenger September 25, 2010 at 06:36

I really like Alaska, but there is a big problem with the state: about 99% of it is “public” (a whopping 65% is federally owned) or Indian land, including the habitable areas, which means ordinary citizens have no right to own it. This means that real estate is seriously overvalued

You mean 65% of it WAS federal land. After we build up the population using the Russian females as breeders we’ll have a large enough army to do as we please and I’m sure there’s a lot of oil and gold and minerals there we can use. We’ll form our own country the old fashioned way-we’ll just steal it lol We’ll ally ourselves with the Indians and make sure they get a good chunk of it. They can even claim it’s their land and the US had no authority to buy it from the Russians who didn’t own it either and bring it to the World Court to decide.The US doesn’t have an army big enough to control such a large area and besides they’re are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.We’ll call our new country ARM (the American Republic of Men) But even if you want to remain part of the US it’s easy to control the State gov’t and make our own laws. Under the ridiculous US system each State gets 2 US Senators no matter how small the population. Take over the governments of the 5 most sparsely States just by populating them with your people. Vermont only has about 1/2 m too.S Dakota etc Now you have 10 US Senators out of a 100 and can pretty much block or pass a lot of legislation (like privatising gov’t land :o ))

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Ragnar September 25, 2010 at 06:51

The pope was able to to turn the bible into a call for War? Does that make Christianity a hate filled, die by the sword religion. Was Jesus a General?

The japanese did a number on Buddhism awhile back. They were using it to help justify the invasion of Manchuko, both Russian and Chinese holdings.

Lets see, Hinduism also preaches peace. It’s history is as bloody as the rest.

Look at today. Liberalism??????? What does that word mean? Liberalism is nothing more than the philosophy of liberty, yet it is used to enslave and justify all manner of atrocities.

How is this different than men using the philosophy of peace for the same purposes?

Any idea can be turned on its head. The Koran speaks of evangelism. The Bible does the same.

What is evangelism? Informing the ignorant of a specific set of beliefs.

A crafty fox came along and convinced everyone it actually meant kill and enslave unbelievers.

If you already have a full cup of water, why did you come to the fountain?

Migu as much as I like most of your argument, there is a flaw here.

Migu cannot fly, a stone cannot fly, ergo Migu is a stone!

We cannot compare on likes alone, we need to compare the differences.

;-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Beltain September 25, 2010 at 07:14

You mean 65% of it WAS federal land. After we build up the population using the Russian females as breeders we’ll have a large enough army to do as we please and I’m sure there’s a lot of oil and gold and minerals there we can use. We’ll form our own country the old fashioned way-we’ll just steal it lol We’ll ally ourselves with the Indians and make sure they get a good chunk of it. They can even claim it’s their land and the US had no authority to buy it from the Russians who didn’t own it either and bring it to the World Court to decide.The US doesn’t have an army big enough to control such a large area and besides they’re are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.We’ll call our new country ARM (the American Republic of Men) But even if you want to remain part of the US it’s easy to control the State gov’t and make our own laws. Under the ridiculous US system each State gets 2 US Senators no matter how small the population. Take over the governments of the 5 most sparsely States just by populating them with your people. Vermont only has about 1/2 m too.S Dakota etc Now you have 10 US Senators out of a 100 and can pretty much block or pass a lot of legislation (like privatising gov’t land :o ))

Not that it is a bad plan overall but the bit about Senators means little really. In fact any national politics is moot. In the end any movement based from where ever will result in civil insurrection. As the companion article on Scalia pointed out judicial activism is where the feminist/progressives are getting their power.

Therefore we wouldn’t even need a full state all we really need is a county with a sheriff to start. The sheriff has alot of power Constitutionally and through him we can declare many laws and legislation null. By claiming strict adherence to the Constitution we have an outright claim to legitimacy.

After that it would be a matter of surviving the first waves of government goons and gathering followers.

We have a dream!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Thag Jones September 25, 2010 at 07:16

demirogue, I agree with you’re statement with the exception of the following:

We deserve to be destroyed and taken over. We are selfish and self centered and deserve it for sure.

I see what you’re saying, but in a way we’ve already been taken over – the left has succeeded in turning schools into a social experiment and we are reaping the results. Universities were once a place where one could debate controversial points without fear of retribution but now students who openly hold dissenting views are routinely given lower grades. Leftist brainwashing has set us up for a fall.

This pretty well sums it up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Migu September 25, 2010 at 07:27

Migu as much as I like most of your argument, there is a flaw here.

Migu cannot fly, a stone cannot fly, ergo Migu is a stone!

We cannot compare on likes alone, we need to compare the differences.

Indeed we do Ragnar, indeed we do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Alte September 25, 2010 at 07:39

Actually, I was thinking some more about my mental “Jesus scale” that I rate guys on. I know you all think it’s corny, but I’ve found it very useful for rooting out negative male influences. I used to be really bad at that, before I was a Christian.

I think that is one of the major problems with removing patriarchal religion. What scale do the women use to judge their men by? Who keeps an eye out when the men are away? One of the main benefits of such a system is that it provides women with a suitable alpha male by which all other men are to be measured, and who keeps them in order when the men aren’t physically present.

Some of that work being outsourced to ministers who are in charge of meeting regularly with the women and reminding them to do as they’re told and be good. Even the older women get in on the game, shaming and chastising misbehaving young women and errant wives. Older women nowadays don’t feel like they have the right to butt in. What measure are they to judge the women by? What right or obligation do they have to step in?

I’m thinking that our civilization became great because of the many positive side-effects of organized religion, so dumping Christianity sort of threw the baby out with the bathwater. Women are rarely athiests, by their very nature, so removing patriarchal religion just leads to widespread matriarchal religion or unorganized superstition and cults. Even the athiest women I’ve known are very superstitious. Obsessed with nutrition, reading horoscopes, believing in medical quackery. And they seem to have the most awful taste in men.

It makes sense that we began to decline once we took Jesus away from the women. It makes sense that the guys who have conveniently provided their women with Muhammed are now doing so well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5
Keyster September 25, 2010 at 07:41

Let’s not forget that the current ziegeist is VERY anti-Christian/anti-Religion (except for Muslim, of course). It’s the state that is needed to control people NOT religion, loosely according to Marxism. Worship the state and its fearless leaders, not some supernatural deity.

And Christianity did not topple Rome. Apathy, lethargy and getting too big for its own good did. The cost of defending and managing a large swath of land and civilizations became very unwieldy. The long fall of Rome was political, not religious. It was bureaucracy, taxing and spending. (sound familiar?)

My sense is that as the Fall of Rome took several hundred years, the fall of Western Civilization will take several decades, (or a decade is the new century in “historical transformation” terms). Time moves MUCH faster than it once did, because of technology. The lines of communication have been reduced from months and weeks to seconds.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Just another Belgian September 25, 2010 at 07:51

This video might interest you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAivyEazJQ0&feature=related

I have to say that there is quite a big difference between different muslims. Morroccans are the worst: they dont work, steal, are very agressive and make a lot of trouble; Turks generally are better: they work (some work very hard) and dont cause that much trouble.

I’ll convert without a doubt to Islam when the time is ripe. I’m a christian now, but i dont really care about gods. For me religion is a means to create a stable society and the christian values were quite good for a lot of people.

Sadly catholicism and the authority of the church is damaged in the west (sexual scandals, television, changing morals…) so its not possible and thus not worth repairing. Islam will be the next big religion, i guess like all living things, religion has a growth stage, a climax and a decline stage.

Some commenter remarked: the trend is more important than the absolute values! Most people dont seem to grasp the concept of steady growth.

A woman commenter proudly remarked that muslims shower the western women with attention. Yes indeed, but the same muslim that showers you with attention (mostly of the uber-sweet fake kind) will beat you up if he feels like it (you might actually want the old god to come back).

The good women for the christian tradition wont have a lot of trouble under Islam, the “liberated” women might have some adjustment problems though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
Ragnar September 25, 2010 at 08:22

What is evangelism? Informing the ignorant of a specific set of beliefs.

A crafty fox came along and convinced everyone it actually meant kill and enslave unbelievers.

If you already have a full cup of water, why did you come to the fountain?

We do have a problem with evangelism. It a selfpreservation mechanism for most societies. We presume culture=religion here.
This is true for most societies.
Evangelism supports “us” and take the wind out of our enemies.

Thus we must export feminism to survive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
namae nanka September 25, 2010 at 08:25

“Lets see, Hinduism also preaches peace. It’s history is as bloody as the rest.”

All religions preach peace…among their own followers. Now which are the ones that don’t extend it to outsiders?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
namae nanka September 25, 2010 at 08:30

“They need to literally have the brainwashing taken out of their minds (or they’re going to end up as being burdens to society) and put to use in the roles for which their sex was intended.”

Concubines for butthexers like goldman sachs and tucker max? Women will never be burdens to society, it’s like a tautology.
Though on second thought, real women with real weight might find themselves being crushed under their own weight.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Alte September 25, 2010 at 08:34

Christians outbred the decadent and feminist Romans, who were already in decline. The Romans complained that the Christians (with their focus on chastity and austerity) multiplied like rabbits. The Roman state was weakened by widespread immigration that they needed to maintain their empire among falling birth rates. Or something like that.

I see it around me now. Many of the homeschoolers I know are living on lower-middle class incomes with large numbers of children (many 6+ families), everyone well-educated, well-fed, and in homes with their biological fathers. Headscarves, too.

Remember, headscarves was something that Christian women (and Jewish before them) donned to separate themselves visually from the decadent Roman women. Some of the early Christian women rebelled at first, but Paul chastised them for it. The Muslims women took up the habit from the Christians.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
Anonymous September 25, 2010 at 08:53

Remember, headscarves was something that Christian women (and Jewish before them) donned to separate themselves visually from the decadent Roman women. Some of the early Christian women rebelled at first, but Paul chastised them for it. The Muslims women took up the habit from the Christians.

Got a link for that?
It’s interesting from a European pow.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Ragnar September 25, 2010 at 08:55

Remember, headscarves was something that Christian women (and Jewish before them) donned to separate themselves visually from the decadent Roman women. Some of the early Christian women rebelled at first, but Paul chastised them for it. The Muslims women took up the habit from the Christians.

Got a link for that?
It’s interesting from a european male pow.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Gunn September 25, 2010 at 09:01

SM wrote:
“Advanced civilization” and “feminism” are synonymous. Why don’t you get this yourself? Why do you resist accepting this even after it is pointed out to you?

Whilst the rest of your post was drivel, this comment got me thinking: is there a grain of truth in this?

Specifically, advanced civilisation here referring to equality I guess.

If one was to review where things started to go wrong in the west, I would suggest that universal suffrage was certainly an accelerant. One of the most muddled concepts in the modern west is the idea of ‘democracy’. Most westerners consider it to be a self-evidently true maxim that universal suffrage is a necessary condition for a well-functioning society (e.g. part of the push into Iraq was based on the idea of bringing democracy to the region, and this was seen as a ‘good’ outcome without needing further explanation). However, what we have forgotten it seems is that the right to vote must carry with it the responsibility to discharge various duties to preserve, maintain, defend, or develop our countries.

This has become corrupted in modern times as we have a class of parasites that feeds off the productivity of the class of producers in society. One of the things that the article in the OP doesn’t examine is why its possible for the poorest members of a society (e.g. muslim immigrants) to be the most fecund. In a welfare state, where we subsidise and even favor large families that survive only because of state handouts, we are bound to see the type of growth rates evidenced. Even worse, because those parasites are given an equal voice in electing government, there is no possibility of self-correction in the process; instead, we have massive positive feedback loops on the subsidisation of such behaviour.

Various articles on the Spearhead have examined the link between women’s suffrage and feminism, so I won’t bother expanding on that in this comment.

I think that advanced civilisation does not have to fall into the trap of allowing the tyranny of unchecked democracy, but once a culture starts down that path it becomes virtually impossible to revert to a more sensible form of government.

I guess this yields a very bleak prognosis for the west: in order to counter the threats of feminism, marxism, and multiculturalism, it might in fact be necessary to roll back suffrage. I simply don’t see this happening.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Keyster September 25, 2010 at 09:08

A woman’s primary purpose is to be a mate to man, a wife and a mother.
To be a mate to a woman, a husband and father is secondary for a man by comparison. Men are meant to do everything else involved in providing for and protecting his family; working, defending, harvesting, hunting, ingenuity, building an organized/systemized structure of doing things better; sacrificing his own life in the process if that’s what’s required.

THIS is what feminists reject, what they refuse to accept as biological/theological FACT. Even the ancients knew this much. That women should be some socially constructed hybrid of a man AND a woman defies the natural order. And we’re going to pay for this with our demise. Modern women need to embrace womanhood again, before its too late. She and her enablers need a Renaissance from feminist lunacy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Alte September 25, 2010 at 09:17

Paul talks about it in his first letter to the Corinthians (Europeans who were mostly non-Jews before conversion).

We’re actually all supposed to be covering our heads, too. But the Bible doesn’t specify with what. Some Christian women wear hats, some scarves, bonnets, mantillas, etc. Here’s a good summary of the issue.

The French banned the veil, but the Germans have rules on nuns wearing habits. Same difference. The older Bavarian women still wear headscarves. Covering the face with a veil was also practiced among the wealthy in Europe. That’s wear the wedding veil comes from.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Ragnar September 25, 2010 at 09:26

Thanks Alte.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Lord Viktor September 25, 2010 at 10:58

@Lost_Y:

“So again; why do the leftist elites allow the Muslim coital conquest of the socialist states they worked so hard to build?”

I’ll tell you why, because deep down, the liberal whores WANT to be dominated and enslaved. The feminists want to be conquered because it fulfills their sick little rape fantasies that they would never dare admit to any kitchen bitch that is the emasculated, New Age Sensitive Western male she created.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
CM September 25, 2010 at 12:13

sacrificing his own life in the process if that’s what’s required.

I’m not sure about that last one but I voted you up nonetheless.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
LoonWatch September 25, 2010 at 12:38
Saku September 25, 2010 at 12:44

“the simple arithmetic of Dr. Ayub’s observations is difficult to dispute.”

Too bad that the numbers of Dr. Ayub are all FAKE. Mulisms in Europe dont have a fertility rate of “8.1″:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/eurabian_follies

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11
Saku September 25, 2010 at 12:45

Eurabian Follies
foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/eurabian_follies

Dispelling the Myth of Eurabia
newsweek.com/2009/07/10/why-fears-of-a-muslim-takeover-are-all-wrong.html

The ‘Eurabia’ myth deserves a debunking
theglobeandmail.com/news/world/article711186.ece

The Myth Of Eurabia Exposed Once Again
islam-west.com/2007/05/myth-of-eurabia-exposed-once-again.html

Bat Ye’or: Anti-Muslim Loon with a Crazy Conspiracy Theory Named “Eurabia”
loonwatch.com/2009/09/anti-muslim-loon-with-a-crazy-conspiracy-theory-named-eurabia/

Stop the Judaization of America (SJOA)
loonwatch.com/2010/08/stop-the-judaization-of-america-sjoa/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14
Saku September 25, 2010 at 12:48

The author who wrote this article, exposes his bias by his own nickname. Dr. Ayub and Charles Martel are the two sides of the same coin. Both of them, for different interests, are keen to spread fake data to advance their agenda. I’ve posted links that refutes categorically those data.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9
Saku September 25, 2010 at 12:58

“If these books insist so much on the future, it is because current figures are unimpressive. According to the higher range of estimates by the U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC), there are already as many as 18 million Muslims in Western Europe, or 4.5 percent of the population. The percentage is even lower for the 27-country European Union as a whole. The future will certainly see an increase, but it’s hard to imagine that Europe will even reach the 10 percent mark (except in some countries or cities). For one thing, as the same NIC study indicates and demographers agree, fertility rates among Muslims are sharply declining as children of immigrants gradually conform to prevailing social and economic norms. Nor is immigration still a major source of newly minted European Muslims. Only about 500,000 people a year come legally to Europe from Muslim-majority countries, with an even smaller number coming illegally — meaning that the annual influx is a fraction of a percent of the European population. ”

All the datas taken as gold in the Charles Martle article are fake.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9
Avenger September 25, 2010 at 13:14

SM, this is for you:

Take up the White Man’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit,
And work another’s gain.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
The savage wars of peace–
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper–
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard–
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–
“Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?”

Take up the White Man’s burden–
Ye dare not stoop to less–
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke (1) your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
Have done with childish days–
The lightly proferred laurel, (2)
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
trent13 September 25, 2010 at 13:15

Women absolutely need to embrace womanhood, the problem is that the majority of men and women (even anti-feminist men and women) hotly dispute what proper womanhood consists of. Considering that most people derive its definition from the kind of social construct we have, instead of believing that there is an independent definition of womanhood which remains true despite whatever faulty social construct is placed on or around it, it it make sense that most women don’t even know how to be women anymore. Womanhood and manhood are like Cinderella’s feet, the only shoes (social construct) that are going to fit is patriarchy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
Migu September 25, 2010 at 13:55

Ragnar,

Most of the martyr era christian literature can be found at orthodox, and catholic church stores. The vatican website is up too, just not too organized. If there isn’t a church close by see below. Those are rules, but you can find the history from there.

Alte is right, headscarves and veils come of out christian practice.

Here is the official version http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Alte September 25, 2010 at 14:09

A lot of German women make fun of the Muslim women and their Kopftuch, but I think the Muslim women have the last laugh. The ones I know seem to have a joy in their life and a dignity that the German women just don’t have. The Germans laugh and then they spend their Friday night, blind drunk, going down on some strange man behind a barn. Who’s laughing now?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
Alte September 25, 2010 at 14:45

Here is the kind of headcovering the women at my church often wear. Sometimes they wear white ones. Outside of church they wear something more like this. A Catholic woman’s take on the veil.

I’m not allowed to wear a veil, because my husband thinks they’re vanity hiding as modesty (they draw attention to the wearer. I wear a lot of hats, instead. Or a bandanna.

Remember the girl with the pearl earring? Head coverings were the norm before, up until the 1940s or so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6
ragnar September 25, 2010 at 15:16

Thanks Migu and Alte.
In Denmark women also used to wear headcoverings when I was a boy. I just didn’t know it had any religious connections.

Here’s a link to some paintings by a danish painter, Johannes M. Dinnesen.
http://www.dinnesen.com/texts/Johannes_M_Dinnesen_galleriet.htm

Scroll down a litlle and there are women with headcoverings.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
nothingbutthetruth September 25, 2010 at 15:34

If today the rules for dressing are very liberal in Western countries, why so much fuss about the Islamic headscarf? Don’t we see barely dressed people, punk hairdos, piercings, tattoos and lots of weird clothes on the street every day?
.
Because it is a symbol of a totalitarian ideology (radical Islam), that’s why. It is like a svastika: it is the symbol of ideas who are incompatible with our society.
.
It is false that the Koran forces women to wear the headscarf. It only teach to dress with modesty. In fact, in countries like Egypt, wearing a headscarf was rare before the raise of fundamentalism.
.
I have lived in a Muslim neighborhood and I know women who wear a headscarf in Europe wear no headscarf in their Muslim native country. Although some women wear the headscarf willingly, many women (especially girls) wear it because of huge pressures of parents and Muslim communities (I was a high school teacher and some of my students were in this situation).
.
In short, the headscarf is the way to prevent integration for young girls in the mainstream society and to reclaim public space for Islam. Islam is the ultimate “Us” vs. “Them” ideology and its goal is the demographical conquest of Europe.
.
As much as loathe feminism and as much as understand Christian people like Alte stating that gender relations are better in Islam (which I agree), for a Christian a secular society is better than a society with a majority of Muslim people. You only have to see how Christian minorities are treated in Islamic countries.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Red0660 September 25, 2010 at 16:26

Personally, I welcome the foriegn hordes. Even patriarchal civilizations with lower birth rates than muslims will out produce us by their increased male enfranchisement and thus increased male production incentive alone.

Monogamy and the patriarchal family was and still is the dynamic responsible for the burgoning of civilization. When males are not a part of the family or are forced to provide to one while not a part of it as is the case under feminist matriarchy simply do not produce as much.

Under matriarchy, average age of first marriage increases significantly as does divorce rates and single woman birth rate. Since matriarchal laws were instituted these indicators changed DRAMATICALLY. We now have a 40% single mother birth rate in the U.S. and matriage tates are on a continual decline as well.

Historically, matriarchies and matrifocal societies have always been overtaken by patriarchal ones.

Monogamous patriarchies have higher birth rates and thus, replacement levels and numerical superiority and therefore higher levels of male resource acquisition but more importantly higher male incentive for resource utilization and production. For males this goes hand in hand i.e. technological advancememt.

I personally see payriarchal civilizations as our saviors. I welcome the foriegn hordes. Historically speaking, their conquest over us is inevitable…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Red0660 September 25, 2010 at 16:37

In such a situation, it may not be a bad idea to accept what the newsweek article was telling men…..stop producing and stay home. Besides it said the government and business will pay us to do so.

It also suggested that men not rrject the demise of the American production base but embrace it. Take on “female jobs” in the service sector it says. The more men embrace these ideas the sooner we can accelerate the decline. Eventually the foriegn patriarchs will kill off our men and save us from the matriarchy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Alte September 25, 2010 at 16:39

I love the paintings. The Oma in the Stube one makes me homesick. My Oma’s kitchen looked just like that, with the Kachelofen and plates on the rack. She used to wear her scarf around her neck at home and then pull it up over her head when she went out. She was a good woman. A good cook, too.

Some of the other paintings remind me of Germany, like the timber-frame houses.

NBTT,

for a Christian a secular society is better than a society with a majority of Muslim people. You only have to see how Christian minorities are treated in Islamic countries.

I agree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5
Alte September 25, 2010 at 16:55

The Copts in Egypt are a prime example of Christian persecution. The stuff they’re being put through is truly horrifying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
Alte September 25, 2010 at 17:25

Although some women wear the headscarf willingly, many women (especially girls) wear it because of huge pressures of parents and Muslim communities (I was a high school teacher and some of my students were in this situation).

Although I’m loathe to tell Muslim men how to run their households. If they think their women should wear headscarves, then they should wear them. My husband also has a strong influence upon the way we all dress, and I think that’s a legitimate function of male headship.

If I don’t think Islam is compatible with our current form of government, then that is a separate issue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
Yo September 25, 2010 at 18:34

@Rob

WTF is it with you and Philalethes kissing the ass of the Almighty Power of Women?

Men make civilization AND society. The only society that those dumbass yapping cunts make is the “Real Housewives of NY” TV show kind. Women have power only when manginas are too pussy to be in charge.

“So yes, men are in the positions of power, and those men are doing bad things to other men… but why are they doing it? They are doing it because naturally males do the bidding of the female.”

You got that right — males NOT MEN. You think Attila the Hun did the bidding of females? He would throw the one he wanted over his shoulder or drag her to his tent by their hair. The only problem that he had was that he kept tripping over the other cunts wanting to be next. When women are put in their place they shut the fuck up and serve and they LOVE it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7
W.F. Price September 25, 2010 at 18:48

You got that right — males NOT MEN. You think Attila the Hun did the bidding of females? He would throw the one he wanted over his shoulder or drag her to his tent by their hair.

Eh, not the best example. Atli was supposedly murdered by Gudrun, his vengeful concubine, who first tricked him into eating his child. Read the Volsunga Saga for the details:

Then hastened the sweet-faced
Delight of the shield-folk,
Bright in the fair hall,
Wine to bear to them:
The dreadful woman
Gave dainties withal
To the lords pale with fate,
Laid strange word upon Atli:

“The hearts of thy sons
Hast thou eaten, sword-dealer,
All bloody with death
And drenched with honey:
In most heavy mood
Brood o’er venison of men!
Drink rich draughts therewith,
Down the high benches send it!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Yo September 25, 2010 at 20:05

Never said that a man can’t be tricked or murdered, just calling bullshit on sandwich man. I just pulled Attila out of my ass as a picture of someone who probably didn’t say “dear, is it okay if I go rape and pillage before the stuff on the honeydo list?”. Anyway, argue the point and not the example.

Weak (as in no strength of WILL) males are ruled by pussy & weak males can’t take pussy, so they worship pussy. Then dumbasses see that and think OMG pussy has magic power.

Y’all go on and on showing how women make lousy companions, are worthless when it comes to creating anything, can’t be trusted to be a loyal partner and are barely good for sex. And then you show how men create and build everything, and can overpower women whenever they want to. Still haven’t seen the almighty power of women yet.

Oh wait, now I see it. Males with no vision and strength of will, or anything else that would make women want to come along for the ride, go to the Gatekeepers Of The Most Holy That Lubricates and say “please, please may I have the social approval to do you, while serving your Society of Backstabbing Gossipy Skanks and Decorators of Grass Huts”.

Hey, I have an idea, why don’t you take Rob and Philalethes to a thug biker bar and be amazed by other ways of doing the society of women?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8
Red0660 September 25, 2010 at 20:48

Think about it, they’ve declared the END OF MEN anyway. Lets all celebrate it. We will find a way to END MEN once and for all, (don’t you watch the news?) I love the limp dick male symbol on the front of The Atlantic Magazine (See)

Remember the Newsweek article says that “They’re (men are) still overrepresented in business and government” anyway.

It says ““Conceiving of masculinity as something to be”—a part to play—“turns manliness into something ornamental”. You hear that men, don’t worry that male workforce participation and male jobs are on a continual decline (See Graph). The preceding graph only shows until 2005, you should see it now men. Don’t worry that the American production base and thus the trade deficit are in a precipitous decline (See Graph). Lets continue consuming more than we produce : ).

Women are over half the workforce now you know THEY (WOMEN) DID IT! See cover of the economist (Here)

We devoted the Stimulus Package to women you silly men. Go home men, roll over, let the multinational corporations cede our economic sovereignty for profit. Yes men, while your workforce participation wanes away so does your wage!

We must get men to stay home like the Newsweek article says:
We must create a state of confusion (See Picture)

It’s all about globalization and free trade you know. If you want a part of this wealth you had better give what money you do make to the corporations in the form of the purchase of stock in the market in order to finance your own demise. Give money to the feudal lords and your masters will give you just enough back so you don’t starve to death.

Let the matriarchy destroy us. You see, it all started during the American Cultural Revolution of the 1960′s i.e. the American Marxist Revolution. Rebel from the homefront women, it is oppressive, come on the Communists even knew that, (See)

Remember men, the concept of “free love” our Soviet comrades taught us. Remember, Communism and Matriarchy will free you from your provider role men:

“Contemporary society goes even further than the ancient tribal society in acting as woman’s trustee, instructing her not only to marry but to fall in love only with those people who are “worthy” of her.”

“Now imagine another situation. A respected woman of bourgeois society – a social figure, a research student, a doctor, or a writer, it’s all the same – becomes friendly with her footman, and to complete the scandal marries him. How does bourgeois society react to the behaviour of the hitherto “respected” woman? They cover her with “scorn”, of course! And remember, it’s so much the worse for her if her husband, the footman, is good-looking or possesses other “physical qualities”. “It’s obvious what she’s fallen for”, will be the sneer of the hypocritical bourgeoisie.”

-Alexandra Kollontai (Stalins leader of the Zhenotdel or “Women’s Department”)

So, go home men, as the Newsweek article states ‘the government will pay us for childcare and not to produce!)

Remember men, don’t produce so much, besides…..

“The state is responsible for the upbringing of children” “The woman who takes up the struggle for the liberation of the working class must learn to understand that there is no more room for the old proprietary attitude which says: “These are my children, I owe them all my maternal solicitude and affection; those are your children, they are no concern of mine and I don’t care if they go hungry and cold – I have no time for other children.” The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; she must remember that there are only our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers.”

-Alexandra Kollontai -Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

“Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands that the characteristic of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society be abolished.” -Fredrick Engels (Communist Theorist)

Remember men, if we can destroy the family and destroy marriage, if we can destroy monogamy we can destroy patriarchy:

On Women in the Workforce:
“Nowadays the working woman hastens out of the house early in the morning when the factory whistle blows. When evening comes and the whistle sounds again, she hurries home to scramble through the most pressing of her domestic tasks. Then it’s off to work again the next morning, and she is tired from lack of sleep. For the married working woman, life is as hard as the workhouse. It is not surprising therefore that family ties should loosen and the family begin to fall apart. The circumstances that held the family together no longer exist. The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation as a whole. The old family structure is now merely a hindrance.” “Communism liberates women from her domestic slavery and makes her life richer and happier.” -Alexandra Kollontai -Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

The key is through women. If we can control women, we control men : )

- “Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.”
- Karl Marx

***Jessica Smith in Women in Soviet Russia (1928) describes conflict between men and women in Changing Attitudes in Soviet Russia and records debates in which women accuse the men of condescension (oppression) and patronage or (misogyny) & (patriarchy).

If we can do those things we can achieve the following. The American Cultural Marxist Revolution of the 1960′s was a god send for us comrades! Now the fields are ripe for patriarchies and muslims to destroy America and western civilization!

Take a look comrades BEHOLD FEMALE LIBERATION!!!:

Single Mother Birth rates since the beginning of our revolution!:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/SyZbmIeXr1I/AAAAAAAAAS8/uGus_mLRIt8/s1600-h/ScreenShot010.jpg

Divorce since the beginning of our revolution:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/SfvQAuMd87I/AAAAAAAAAJ0/_Q3YQiwyaV0/s1600-h/ScreenShot001.jpg

Remember comrades, the Communist Bolsheviks instituted no-fault divorce as well : ) Now at very most the patriarchs are engaged in lose knit cohabitation at best! See: Divorce on Decline But So is Marriage http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm

Yes men, the dirty patriarchs are on the run
Marriage rates: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TBS94FhQmPI/AAAAAAAAAb4/e-iWQV-qzqM/s1600/MMMMM.jpg

Never married men by education level:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TBS-H3qX8sI/AAAAAAAAAcA/JmD89_cx-xY/s1600/MMMM2.jpg

We shall grow the welfare state at the same time comrades:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S9L60Hl5CMI/AAAAAAAAAbI/lNxtZBf0tsI/s1600/welfare.jpg

Beware though, look closely at the single mother birth rate around 1993, (Here). The momentous growth of the single mother birth rate declined and reset it’s trend momentum significantly. This is when welfare reform took place in the U.S.

You see comrades, it all centers on resource constructs and resource transferability to women as to whether or not mated pair bonds and monogamous families are formed. If we make resources available to females and forcefully transferable from males through no-fault divorce legislation, if we give default custody to women, we can destroy the family. We must increase the might of the government husband, we must force men to have no rights in marriage. We must continue laws such as “women first” Affirmative Action in college admissions and and business hirings.

We must ask all applicants questions like these (See picture) We must find out if the person has white skin and is male.

Remember, this is not necessarily about full fledge communism, it is not necessarily about destroying the free market, rather destroying the working class. It is about corporatism as well. This is about profit. We must divide and conquer the family, the working class, the middle class.

Exploitative corporate socialist fascism is the future of America.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” -Benito Mussolini

Remember, women are our pawns in order to transfer power to the State:
Observe this video. We are their husband now and together, with the help of women we can subjugate men. See Video: Workhorses of The Matriarchy

It all centers around female hypergamous mating behavior.
Offer women protection and provision from the State and they will be the wives of government to the demise of men. We can disenfranchise men and increase the power of the state.

If we can provide this to females if we they will no longer form families with males but rather polyandry. Female sexuality will not be guaranteed to many men while at the same time female sexuality will go from private and monogamous to public and promiscuous. A type of soft polygamy. Women will better be able to select the genes they want without actually needing to form a mated pair bond. We can even sell male genes through the mail to females. We can cut men out of the family and even reduce their reproductive rights to zero. We can harvest male genes and form for profit enterprise. We can disenfranchise men and reduce them to chattel!

Women will increasingly take up this offer under matriarchy and the corpo-fascist-feminist-socialist state. You see, we have driven an wedge between the very elements of the social fabric, men, women and the family since our Revolution began. Age at first marriage: (See Graph)

As Frederick Engels and Marx knew, we must shift the economic unit away from the family and toward the individual who will increasingly rely on the State and working industry.

Men, but most importantly women, will become ever the more isolated, ever the more dependent on the State. We must continue the implementation of secular and separate representation by gender within government and make gender secular laws accordingly to facilitate this. We must ignore the Constitution of The United States in order to do this. With separate representation by gender, race or even religion, we can divide the people and transfer power to the State and working industry.

Women will become increasingly desperate, they will be left wondering what is wrong and be forced to seek fertility treatments or sperm donors just to reproduce, that is if they are not already a single mother. The idea is to create diametric opposition between men and women. We must turn them against each other. With the change to female based curriculum models in early education, with Affirmative Action, Title IX, women only loans and scholarships we can succeed in the accomplishment of females outproducing and out competing males for resources. We must ensure that the resource constructs are there for females so that we can facilitate the destruction of the mated pair bond and the family. This is why we devoted the Stimulus Package to women though 80% of all jobs lost in the recession have been to men.

Our plans are going well…. See Graph: (Female College Degrees Compared to Males)

If we can create the proper resource disparity between males and females, if we can provide the proper resource constructs to females we can drive men out of the family.

Remember hypergamy, remember The End of Men article: Well here is what the author is hoping for She states elsewhere on a woman’s website about what her wishes are in terms of men and the family:

“But in some cases, this historic gender shift does look like a war, or at least a stand-off. The major change in the working class is that women are not getting married at all, judging men to be unsuitable partners.”

-Hanna Rosin author of The End of Men

Link: http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/kristof-defends-men#comment-66174

Yes, she knows what the plan is and so do other feminists who write openly and with impunity about killing off men in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

The Chronicle of Higher Education is a newspaper that presents news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators. The Chronicle of Higher Education is the major news service in the United States academic world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicle_of_Higher_Education

Who Needs Men?
By Prof. Laurie Fendrich

Yes, they know full well what they want. They will use the power of the State to do it. Remember what women told us when the Cultural Revolution of the 1960′s and second wave feminism began…. “The Personal is Political”….indeed it now is… Remember men “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” Observe the early beginnings of the feminist majority, one of the leading women’s organizations in the United States along side N.O.W.

(Picture 1) Read carefully the text on the button men. These people are now members of the Federal Council of Women and Girls. These people are who Christina Hoff Sommers was writting about in her article No Country For Burly Men when they devoted the stimulus package to women.

Men you know well that we are under assault. The Council of Women and Girls now has its sights on the “male dominated” STEM fields or science, technical, engineering and mathematics. You saw what happened to the President of Harvard Lawrence Summers when he questioned the lack of female representation in the STEM fields (Here)

(Picture 2)

You see men, the idea is to break women away from “dependence” on men and the family. The idea is to create them as a separate socio-political and socio-economic class. This must be done by any means necessary including forcing you to provide to women after divorce. The idea is to make women “independent”.

However, they will pay the price, we all will. Yes, it is true, the muslims and patriarchal civilizations will close in, they will defeat us eventually. matriarchies, historically speaking do not survive very long.

Here is the hypergamy chart for men and thus marriage potential based on their resource acquisition ability: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/SpG9C3rxWHI/AAAAAAAAAPE/EcMSxfbtRC8/s1600-h/ScreenShot001.jpg

Imagine what happens when we create the reverse, when women produce more than their male counterparts…..

Observe: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S3-zeTFNLSI/AAAAAAAAAXQ/BvqthT1B_Mk/s1600-h/18178_1277295145456_1622331797_726485_3876340_n.jpg

Observe: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S3-1qJp5z-I/AAAAAAAAAXY/6GsoruFAUoY/s1600-h/33.jpg

Yes men, as the feminist in The Chronicle Of Education mentioned…the writing is on the wall, western civilization and thus patriarchy will meet it’s end and with it our civilization. Personally, if we can not change this we must embrace it and then adapt.

Personally I say, live your lives by Going Your Own Way the same way roman men did. Near the end, marriage, women and family became so unattractive to men that the Roman birth rate declined precipitously. No fault divorce was introduced in the Roman Republic as well.

Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus states in 131 B.C….

“If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor.

Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become.

“Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.”

So Quintus said the above in 131 B.C… It seems The Roman family really declined in the final century of the Republic–that is, the period from 146 BCE to 49 BCE when Julius Caesar was proclaimed sole dictator.

Men have always mentioned the relationship of women and government. We are quite aware of female nature. Men are quite aware of the challenges we face. We must do what we can to maintain our Freedom, Liberty and Independence.

Aristophanes wrote Ecclesiazusae or Assembly Women (The Latinized spelling of the Greek title ??????????????, Ekkl?siázousai also known as Assemblywomen). It is a play dating from 390BCE which is similar in theme to Lysistrata in that a large portion of the comedy comes from women involving themselves in politics. This play is much more infused with gender issues than Lysistrata is.

The play concerns a group of women, the leader of which is Praxagora. She has decided that the women must convince the men to give them control of Athens, because they could rule it better than they have been. The women, in the guise of men, sneak into the assembly and vote the measure, convincing some of the men to vote for it because it is the only thing they have not tried.

The women then institute a Socialist-like government in which the state feeds, houses, and generally takes care of every Athenian. They enforce an idea of equality by allowing every man to sleep with every woman. (Similar to the “free love” concept which was a part of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution, the American Cultural Revolution associated with “sexual liberation” in the 1960′s)

There is a scene in which two men are talking. One of them is going along with the new government, giving his property to the women, and obeying their orders. The other does not wish to give up his property, but he is more than willing to take advantage of the free food.

Remember men:

“Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole F*#@+*g patriarchy!” -Gloria Steinem (Detroit Free Press, April 15, 1974)

“For the sake of those who wish to live in equal partnership, we have to abolish and reform the institution of legal marriage.” -Gloria Steinem

Remember that as men, we stand alone against government and working industry who wish to destroy our sacred bond with women and our role in the family. Understand that it is women’s own nature that is used against us all.

Form ranks my countrymen, stand together and win by direct confrontation and the spilling of blood or by passive resistance by not participating in actions by which are used to subjugate you. Tyranny is among us but the spirit of men will prevail. Whether this spirit is enfranchised toward the construction or destruction of society is the challenge we face. Make your choice but either way the spirit Liberty will prevail. God speed my countrymen. I will stand beside you in exile and I will stand beside you while bearing arms. I will gladly die beside you my brothers. You are all I have. We must stick together, we must fight together to save this nation or to expedite its destruction toward a new beginning.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Lost_Y September 25, 2010 at 21:56

@Lord Viktor
“I’ll tell you why, because deep down, the liberal whores WANT to be dominated and enslaved. The feminists want to be conquered because it fulfills their sick little rape fantasies that they would never dare admit to any kitchen bitch that is the emasculated, New Age Sensitive Western male she created.”

So George Soros and Barack Obama secretly want to be raped by Muslim warriors. Interesting.
Oh, well. There seems to be no answer. Maybe I’m just giving Liberals too much credit?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jesse September 25, 2010 at 23:01

@ Thag Jones
Still pushing the “Hitler was an atheist” smeg are you?
How does that square with what he said in a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, when he said,
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

And In a speech at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 he said,
“National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church’s interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles.”

And in April 26, 1933 Hitler argued that “Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.”

Let’s put the “Hitler was an atheist” myth to bed shall we?

All religions have been used to oppress others and have led to mass loss of life. The particular superstition behind them is irrelevant, when you have blind faith you get blind obedience, when you have blind obedience you can get those with obedience to do your bidding. Those that lead have a need need to get their way, that’s why they spend their lives dedicated to obtaining their power, be that secular or religious. Religion is just a means to an end.

“Control is controlled by its need to control” – William S Burroughs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11
Red0660 September 25, 2010 at 23:51

Think about it, they’ve declared the END OF MEN anyway. Lets all celebrate it. We will find a way to END MEN once and for all, (don’t you watch the news?) I love the limp dick male symbol on the front of The Atlantic Magazine (See)

Remember the Newsweek article says that “They’re (men are) still overrepresented in business and government” anyway.

It says ““Conceiving of masculinity as something to be”—a part to play—“turns manliness into something ornamental”. You hear that men, don’t worry that male workforce participation and male jobs are on a continual decline (See Graph). The preceding graph only shows until 2005, you should see it now men. Don’t worry that the American production base and thus the trade deficit are in a precipitous decline (See Graph). Lets continue consuming more than we produce : ).

Women are over half the workforce now you know THEY (WOMEN) DID IT! See cover of the economist (Here)

We devoted the Stimulus Package to women you silly men. Go home men, roll over, let the multinational corporations cede our economic sovereignty for profit. Yes men, while your workforce participation wanes away so does your wage!

We must get men to stay home like the Newsweek article says:
We must create a state of confusion (See Picture)

It’s all about globalization and free trade you know. If you want a part of this wealth you had better give what money you do make to the corporations in the form of the purchase of stock in the market in order to finance your own demise. Give money to the feudal lords and your masters will give you just enough back so you don’t starve to death.

Let the matriarchy destroy us. You see, it all started during the American Cultural Revolution of the 1960?s i.e. the American Marxist Revolution. Rebel from the homefront women, it is oppressive, come on the Communists even knew that, (See)

Remember men, the concept of “free love” our Soviet comrades taught us. Remember, Communism and Matriarchy will free you from your provider role men:

“Contemporary society goes even further than the ancient tribal society in acting as woman’s trustee, instructing her not only to marry but to fall in love only with those people who are “worthy” of her.”

“Now imagine another situation. A respected woman of bourgeois society – a social figure, a research student, a doctor, or a writer, it’s all the same – becomes friendly with her footman, and to complete the scandal marries him. How does bourgeois society react to the behaviour of the hitherto “respected” woman? They cover her with “scorn”, of course! And remember, it’s so much the worse for her if her husband, the footman, is good-looking or possesses other “physical qualities”. “It’s obvious what she’s fallen for”, will be the sneer of the hypocritical bourgeoisie.”

-Alexandra Kollontai (Stalins leader of the Zhenotdel or “Women’s Department”)

So, go home men, as the Newsweek article states ‘the government will pay us for childcare and not to produce!)

Remember men, don’t produce so much, besides…..

“The state is responsible for the upbringing of children” “The woman who takes up the struggle for the liberation of the working class must learn to understand that there is no more room for the old proprietary attitude which says: “These are my children, I owe them all my maternal solicitude and affection; those are your children, they are no concern of mine and I don’t care if they go hungry and cold – I have no time for other children.” The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; she must remember that there are only our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers.”

-Alexandra Kollontai -Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

“Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands that the characteristic of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society be abolished.” -Fredrick Engels (Communist Theorist)

Remember men, if we can destroy the family and destroy marriage, if we can destroy monogamy we can destroy patriarchy:

On Women in the Workforce:
“Nowadays the working woman hastens out of the house early in the morning when the factory whistle blows. When evening comes and the whistle sounds again, she hurries home to scramble through the most pressing of her domestic tasks. Then it’s off to work again the next morning, and she is tired from lack of sleep. For the married working woman, life is as hard as the workhouse. It is not surprising therefore that family ties should loosen and the family begin to fall apart. The circumstances that held the family together no longer exist. The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation as a whole. The old family structure is now merely a hindrance.” “Communism liberates women from her domestic slavery and makes her life richer and happier.” -Alexandra Kollontai -Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

The key is through women. If we can control women, we control men : )

- “Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.”
- Karl Marx

***Jessica Smith in Women in Soviet Russia (1928) describes conflict between men and women in Changing Attitudes in Soviet Russia and records debates in which women accuse the men of condescension (oppression) and patronage or (misogyny) & (patriarchy).

If we can do those things we can achieve the following. The American Cultural Marxist Revolution of the 1960?s was a god send for us comrades! Now the fields are ripe for patriarchies and muslims to destroy America and western civilization!

Take a look comrades BEHOLD FEMALE LIBERATION!!!:

Single Mother Birth rates since the beginning of our revolution!:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/SyZbmIeXr1I/AAAAAAAAAS8/uGus_mLRIt8/s1600-h/ScreenShot010.jpg

Divorce since the beginning of our revolution:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/SfvQAuMd87I/AAAAAAAAAJ0/_Q3YQiwyaV0/s1600-h/ScreenShot001.jpg

Remember comrades, the Communist Bolsheviks instituted no-fault divorce as well : ) Now at very most the patriarchs are engaged in lose knit cohabitation at best! See: Divorce on Decline But So is Marriage http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm

Yes men, the dirty patriarchs are on the run
Marriage rates: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TBS94FhQmPI/AAAAAAAAAb4/e-iWQV-qzqM/s1600/MMMMM.jpg

Never married men by education level:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TBS-H3qX8sI/AAAAAAAAAcA/JmD89_cx-xY/s1600/MMMM2.jpg

We shall grow the welfare state at the same time comrades:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S9L60Hl5CMI/AAAAAAAAAbI/lNxtZBf0tsI/s1600/welfare.jpg

Beware though, look closely at the single mother birth rate around 1993, (Here). The momentous growth of the single mother birth rate declined and reset it’s trend momentum significantly. This is when welfare reform took place in the U.S.

You see comrades, it all centers on resource constructs and resource transferability to women as to whether or not mated pair bonds and monogamous families are formed. If we make resources available to females and forcefully transferable from males through no-fault divorce legislation, if we give default custody to women, we can destroy the family. We must increase the might of the government husband, we must force men to have no rights in marriage. We must continue laws such as “women first” Affirmative Action in college admissions and and business hirings.

We must ask all applicants questions like these (See picture) We must find out if the person has white skin and is male.

Remember, this is not necessarily about full fledge communism, it is not necessarily about destroying the free market, rather destroying the working class. It is about corporatism as well. This is about profit. We must divide and conquer the family, the working class, the middle class.

Exploitative corporate socialist fascism is the future of America.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” -Benito Mussolini

Remember, women are our pawns in order to transfer power to the State:
Observe this video. We are their husband now and together, with the help of women we can subjugate men. See Video: Workhorses of The Matriarchy

It all centers around female hypergamous mating behavior.
Offer women protection and provision from the State and they will be the wives of government to the demise of men. We can disenfranchise men and increase the power of the state.

If we can provide this to females if we they will no longer form families with males but rather polyandry. Female sexuality will not be guaranteed to many men while at the same time female sexuality will go from private and monogamous to public and promiscuous. A type of soft polygamy. Women will better be able to select the genes they want without actually needing to form a mated pair bond. We can even sell male genes through the mail to females. We can cut men out of the family and even reduce their reproductive rights to zero. We can harvest male genes and form for profit enterprise. We can disenfranchise men and reduce them to chattel!

Women will increasingly take up this offer under matriarchy and the corpo-fascist-feminist-socialist state. You see, we have driven an wedge between the very elements of the social fabric, men, women and the family since our Revolution began. Age at first marriage: (See Graph)

As Frederick Engels and Marx knew, we must shift the economic unit away from the family and toward the individual who will increasingly rely on the State and working industry.

Men, but most importantly women, will become ever the more isolated, ever the more dependent on the State. We must continue the implementation of secular and separate representation by gender within government and make gender secular laws accordingly to facilitate this. We must ignore the Constitution of The United States in order to do this. With separate representation by gender, race or even religion, we can divide the people and transfer power to the State and working industry.

Women will become increasingly desperate, they will be left wondering what is wrong and be forced to seek fertility treatments or sperm donors just to reproduce, that is if they are not already a single mother. The idea is to create diametric opposition between men and women. We must turn them against each other. With the change to female based curriculum models in early education, with Affirmative Action, Title IX, women only loans and scholarships we can succeed in the accomplishment of females outproducing and out competing males for resources. We must ensure that the resource constructs are there for females so that we can facilitate the destruction of the mated pair bond and the family. This is why we devoted the Stimulus Package to women though 80% of all jobs lost in the recession have been to men.

Our plans are going well…. See Graph: (Female College Degrees Compared to Males)

If we can create the proper resource disparity between males and females, if we can provide the proper resource constructs to females we can drive men out of the family.

Remember hypergamy, remember The End of Men article: Well here is what the author is hoping for She states elsewhere on a woman’s website about what her wishes are in terms of men and the family:

“But in some cases, this historic gender shift does look like a war, or at least a stand-off. The major change in the working class is that women are not getting married at all, judging men to be unsuitable partners.”

-Hanna Rosin author of The End of Men

Link: http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/kristof-defends-men#comment-66174

Yes, she knows what the plan is and so do other feminists who write openly and with impunity about killing off men in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

The Chronicle of Higher Education is a newspaper that presents news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators. The Chronicle of Higher Education is the major news service in the United States academic world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicle_of_Higher_Education

Who Needs Men?
By Prof. Laurie Fendrich

Yes, they know full well what they want. They will use the power of the State to do it. Remember what women told us when the Cultural Revolution of the 1960?s and second wave feminism began…. “The Personal is Political”….indeed it now is… Remember men “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” Observe the early beginnings of the feminist majority, one of the leading women’s organizations in the United States along side N.O.W.

(Picture 1) Read carefully the text on the button men. These people are now members of the Federal Council of Women and Girls. These people are who Christina Hoff Sommers was writting about in her article No Country For Burly Men when they devoted the stimulus package to women.

Men you know well that we are under assault. The Council of Women and Girls now has its sights on the “male dominated” STEM fields or science, technical, engineering and mathematics. You saw what happened to the President of Harvard Lawrence Summers when he questioned the lack of female representation in the STEM fields (Here)

(Picture 2)

You see men, the idea is to break women away from “dependence” on men and the family. The idea is to create them as a separate socio-political and socio-economic class. This must be done by any means necessary including forcing you to provide to women after divorce. The idea is to make women “independent”.

However, they will pay the price, we all will. Yes, it is true, the muslims and patriarchal civilizations will close in, they will defeat us eventually. matriarchies, historically speaking do not survive very long.

Here is the hypergamy chart for men and thus marriage potential based on their resource acquisition ability: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/SpG9C3rxWHI/AAAAAAAAAPE/EcMSxfbtRC8/s1600-h/ScreenShot001.jpg

Imagine what happens when we create the reverse, when women produce more than their male counterparts…..

Observe: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S3-zeTFNLSI/AAAAAAAAAXQ/BvqthT1B_Mk/s1600-h/18178_1277295145456_1622331797_726485_3876340_n.jpg

Observe: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S3-1qJp5z-I/AAAAAAAAAXY/6GsoruFAUoY/s1600-h/33.jpg

Yes men, as the feminist in The Chronicle Of Education mentioned…the writing is on the wall, western civilization and thus patriarchy will meet it’s end and with it our civilization. Personally, if we can not change this we must embrace it and then adapt.

Personally I say, live your lives by Going Your Own Way the same way roman men did. Near the end, marriage, women and family became so unattractive to men that the Roman birth rate declined precipitously. No fault divorce was introduced in the Roman Republic as well.

Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus states in 131 B.C….

“If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor.

Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become.

“Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.”

So Quintus said the above in 131 B.C… It seems The Roman family really declined in the final century of the Republic–that is, the period from 146 BCE to 49 BCE when Julius Caesar was proclaimed sole dictator.

Men have always mentioned the relationship of women and government. We are quite aware of female nature. Men are quite aware of the challenges we face. We must do what we can to maintain our Freedom, Liberty and Independence.

Aristophanes wrote Ecclesiazusae or Assembly Women (The Latinized spelling of the Greek title ??????????????, Ekkl?siázousai also known as Assemblywomen). It is a play dating from 390BCE which is similar in theme to Lysistrata in that a large portion of the comedy comes from women involving themselves in politics. This play is much more infused with gender issues than Lysistrata is.

The play concerns a group of women, the leader of which is Praxagora. She has decided that the women must convince the men to give them control of Athens, because they could rule it better than they have been. The women, in the guise of men, sneak into the assembly and vote the measure, convincing some of the men to vote for it because it is the only thing they have not tried.

The women then institute a Socialist-like government in which the state feeds, houses, and generally takes care of every Athenian. They enforce an idea of equality by allowing every man to sleep with every woman. (Similar to the “free love” concept which was a part of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution, the American Cultural Revolution associated with “sexual liberation” in the 1960?s)

There is a scene in which two men are talking. One of them is going along with the new government, giving his property to the women, and obeying their orders. The other does not wish to give up his property, but he is more than willing to take advantage of the free food.

Remember men:

“Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole F*#@+*g patriarchy!” -Gloria Steinem (Detroit Free Press, April 15, 1974)

“For the sake of those who wish to live in equal partnership, we have to abolish and reform the institution of legal marriage.” -Gloria Steinem

Remember that as men, we stand alone against government and working industry who wish to destroy our sacred bond with women and our role in the family. Understand that it is women’s own nature that is used against us all.

Form ranks my countrymen, stand together and win by direct confrontation and the spilling of blood or by passive resistance by not participating in actions by which are used to subjugate you. Tyranny is among us but the spirit of men will prevail. Whether this spirit is enfranchised toward the construction or destruction of society is the challenge we face. Make your choice but either way the spirit Liberty will prevail. God speed my countrymen. I will stand beside you in exile and I will stand beside you while bearing arms. I will gladly die beside you my brothers. You are all I have. We must stick together, we must fight together to save this nation or to expedite its destruction toward a new beginning.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
RedPill September 25, 2010 at 23:57

A strong society is like a rock, which when sufficiently divided it becomes gravel. Gravel is easy to move, shape, mine, make use of any way one likes.

By constantly dividing people based on religion, gender, nationality, age, ideology etc, they are maximizing their available ” Human Resources “.

Keep fighting each other, you deserve all that’s coming to you. I don’t blame them one bit. It’s not their fault that they are smart.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
migu September 26, 2010 at 00:00

So let me get this straight. What a politician says in his speech is what he believes? Right………….step right up vote for me I’m whatever you want me to be. Just give me that vote and I’ll catch the chimera. March on over to ballot box, pull the lever for me, and I’ll give you a unicorn.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
DirkJohanson September 26, 2010 at 00:12

“According to studies, it is known that in order for a culture to maintain itself for over 25 years, it has to keep a fertility rate of 2.11 children per family.”

OK, enlighten me here.

Putting aside the issue of relative population growth, I don’t understand why a culture can’t maintain itself with a lower fertility rate. What if every culture had, for instance, a fertility rate of exactly 1.5. Who would take over? Lions? Roaches? Martians?

What am I missing here?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
Venetian September 26, 2010 at 00:27

Despair all ye Nations, deny not that we’re sick,
For our blood is like water where once it was thick.
And our minds grown leaden, our bodies gone weak,
And venom pours from our lips whenever we speak.

Despair all ye Nations, for the time draws apace,
When the rot of the cynic shall steal our good grace.
And our sweetest of dreams shall fade to lost hope,
Our pride and our arrogance; Our noose and our rope.

Despair all ye Nations, see the years drawing on,
Our great cultures are fading and soon they’ll be gone.
So conceited our Scholars, they jeer through their teeth,
With their theories so shallow – Quite soulless beneath.

Despair all ye Nations, for the ending is near,
When the Lord of Lost Heart shall govern us with fear,
Our weakness unfetters as we face this unknown,
And our faith trails to nothing; we stand here alone.

Despair all ye Nations, the Corruptor has come,
And the sad days of this world are nearing their sum.
For the shining ideals through endeavours we sought,
Grow sour as he passes and are coming to nought.

Despair all ye Nations, there’s no hope for us now,
For we made this monster, placed a crown his brow.
He fed on our apathy; our pain made him swell,
We gave him Dominion, he gives us his Hell.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jesse September 26, 2010 at 00:29

Even in Mein Kampf he said:
“I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator”
Sound like an atheist to you?

The MRM has been hijacked by right wing bible thumpers but that doesn’t mean we all are. They fail to recognise that it was corporations that sold us out to feminism to sell more crap in the first place. Without their control of the media feminism wouldn’t have got off the ground. The corporations would sell themselves into slavery if they though they could sell the whips.
I reject all the right wing rhetoric we read here. Welfare isn’t the problem, it’s forcing men to pay directly that is causing the hardship – that is the right wing approach. If all the wimminz had to look forward to after divorce was a subsistance pension they wouldn’t be lining up to do it. It’s maintenance/alimony that is the problem.
We have had substantial dole (unemployment benefits) combined with rent assistance and free healthcare in Australia for decades. It’s enough to survive but not enough to afford luxuries. What we have learned is that a very small percentage of people are prepared to live that way for extended periods of time. All the right wing predictions of widespread malingering never happened. If women only had access to that sort of subsistence income they wouldn’t be so keen on divorce. What keeps them doing it is getting access to half of the man’s wealth, not some pissy little pension.
Quite frankly I’m tired of hearing these right wing assholes pushing their barrow, they have totally hijacked the MRM. The enemy isn’t a particular economic system, it’s feminism. Feminism’s strength came from right wingers promoting their cause in their greedy grasp for profit and now the Religious Right blame socialism for all the mess? It’s a load of bollocks. We need to focus on the real issues and not some ideological bs about left vs right. Oppression can come from either wing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7
namae nanka September 26, 2010 at 05:46

“What if every culture had, for instance, a fertility rate of exactly 1.5. Who would take over? Lions? Roaches? Martians?
What am I missing here?”

The threat of exponentiation works both ways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
thehermit September 26, 2010 at 05:59

I just pulled Attila out of my ass as a picture of someone who probably didn’t say “dear, is it okay if I go rape and pillage before the stuff on the honeydo list?”

Probably did not say anything like that. Attila was a nomad, son of the steppe, one of the ancistors of my nation. We don’t know too much about them, sure they were rough people, but not without any culture i think.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
rob September 26, 2010 at 06:03

@ Yo,

WTF is it with you and Philalethes kissing the ass of the Almighty Power of Women? — Yo

A rather spurious charge, given my history in this movement and the viewpoints I have expressed over the past years.

Men make civilization AND society. The only society that those dumbass yapping cunts make is the “Real Housewives of NY” TV show kind. Women have power only when manginas are too pussy to be in charge. — Yo

Indeed, and Philalethes makes quite a point of this too. I only linked two articles of his on this subject, rather than all 5 or 6 because more than two links holds comments up in the moderation queue.

One thing which Philalethes discusses is how women innately attempt to keep men as powerless as children – because women have 100% totalitarian control over children. When a man “becomes a man” he grows out of the influence of women and surpasses the totalitarian power of the female.

It is when this happens that men begin to have usefulness to both society and thus, to women themselves. Women try to keep men as boys, but what they need are men and men are those who are not controlled by women, but rather have grown beyond that.

This is why so many societies try to “cut the apron strings” in one form or another. In our culture, children were to be educated by their fathers after the “tender years” had passed. Many cultures, even more or less matriarchal ones, have recognized the need to separate boys from the influence of women so that they may outgrow mother’s power and into men – a sphere that is higher than that of women in the hierarchy, thus making men that have “something women themselves cannot accomplish,” and therefore becoming both useful and attractive to women. Thus all of the “rites of passage” that are found in cultures all around the world – mostly with the intention of severing boy’s ties to female power, and teaching him to cultivate his own power that surpasses it. It is this power – the power that surpasses the female, which you are trying to illustrate with your Atilla example – you are merely providing an example of exactly what I am talking about – he grew his power outside of the influence of women (women cannot teach men to be men, only to be children), and thus his sexual attractiveness also greatly increased. See above to Briffault’s Law in the post you are criticizing – Attila offered a benefit to women (power, prestige, social proofing etc. etc). The thugs you speak of are doing the same. Btw, it is not neccessarily “bad-boys” that women are attracted to but rather men who are strong enough to grow out of the female reach of control. What women are attracted to are “hard guys” who won’t put up with female bullshit – indicating they are not under female power. The problem with us today is the only men left who are “hard guys” are the badboys and thugs who are decidedly anti-social. The rest of the men in our society never really grow out female totalitarianism, and thus women resent them as failures and don’t want to fuck them, or even give them nominal respect, for that matter.

I don’t really see how you are ranting against either myself or Philalethes, since both of us repeatedly state pretty much the identical thing you are saying. I suppose pointing out the underlying factors and conditions of why women need males to grow into men is something men should not discuss because…???

It is not only me and Philalethes who argue this, btw.

“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” — Karl Marx

“… Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated–who knows how?” — G.F. Hegel

Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs — Immanuel Kant

As Philalethes points out in other posts of his – think of men as a “big stick” to females – a tool. That is what men are to females – a big tool that she uses to do things she cannot do herself, or finds too distasteful to do herself. Women compete amongst eachother to have access to the biggest stick. However, if a male never grows out of female influence, he will never develop the traits neccessary to truly offer woman what she cannot do herself.

Btw, Zenpriest has a good piece about how the male is the sexual servant of the female here:

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2010/09/zenpriest-27-ignoring-women.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
rob September 26, 2010 at 06:18

Btw, forgot to mention.

There is a difference between “society” and “civilization.”

Primitive hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago lived in a “society” even though there was no civilization yet founded on earth.

To say that female “society” creates things like Desperate Housewives is not accurate – a female “civilization” would create that (if all the other neccessary things to film a TV show magically fell from the sky). Society is merely a group of people living together. There is a society of primitive people in Papau New Guinea, but there is no real form of civilization to go along with it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
rob September 26, 2010 at 06:45

A couple of relevant articles from “The Men’s Tribune”

http://www.menstribune.com/methods.htm

http://www.menstribune.com/feminist.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Thag Jones September 26, 2010 at 07:52

Jesse, I’m not seeing where the “right wing bible thumpers” are exactly. Not being rabidly anti-religion doesn’t make a person a bible thumper. If you are too clouded by your obvious rage to see that, you might need to take a step back from the computer, have a smoke, cool off a bit.

It’s not the first time I’ve been accused of this on the Internet, so I don’t care all that much, except you’re wrong if that’s what you think I am. Some atheists are just as bad as proselytizing fundamentalists – what’s it to them if someone else believes in God? So long as people leave each other alone and faith helps someone live a decent life, who cares? No need to throw away the baby with the bathwater is all.

Oh, and like I’m going to take Hitler’s word for it that he was what he said he was. He was a lunatic co-opting religious ideas to get votes – SURPRISE! I don’t listen to politicians any more; they’re more or less all full of shit and I don’t have time to figure out who is less full of shit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Jesse September 26, 2010 at 08:27

Well actually Thag, I wasn’t specifically aiming the “right wing bible thumper” comments at you, so please don’t take offence. The part aimed at you was the evidence that Hitler wasn’t actually an atheist. There is a lot of evidence out there that shows he wasn’t, and not all of it came from his mouth, a lot also comes from his compatriots. That he was an atheist is a myth promulgated by many bible thumpers to distance themselves from him. He was a scumbag regardless of his theology but the assertion that he was an atheist is simply false. One should condemn him for his actions, there is no need to fabricate a myth about his theology.
The problem most atheists have with the Religious Right isn’t so much their beliefs as the way they try to inflict those beliefs on everybody, that’s why we care.
My other comments were aimed at a trend that is blatant in the MRM, not specifically you. That’s why I separated the comments with a blank line. The MRM is full of people seeing commie bogeymen everywhere. I don’t know whether it’s a paranoid hangover from cold war propaganda or they are trying to exploit the MRM to their further their own personal political agendas, but it’s a distraction from the real issue. Feminism is a problem all of it’s own, independent of the whole right vs left debate.
For your reference I subscribe to neither wing, both have advantages and pitfalls and I have seen a balance between them work very well. Painting feminists as commies may be a useful device to consolidate Americans against them but to non-Americans it only makes us all look like loonies looking for reds under the bed. We’ve implemented many left wing policies here and it hasn’t led to a Communist dictatorship – not even close. They’ve just eased the suffering of the poor and stopped them from turning to crime to simply survive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13
Thag Jones September 26, 2010 at 08:38

OK Jesse.

I think though that feminism is closely tied with progressivism, which is leftist. I need to try to flesh this idea out a bit and do a post on it, but it’s going to take me a while, lol. I don’t think there’s really much of a “right wing” any more and what is called “liberal” today isn’t really all that liberal in the classical sense at all. It’s all about branding – there’s even a “Progressive Conservative Party” in Canada (WTF!) – and “liberal” sounds better than “fascist,” which was a label those leftists used before it went out of favour after the war. Then of course there’s the demonization of the opposition to the point that people think the Nazis were “right wing fascists” and that the KKK was a Republican plot, when it was in fact a wing of the Democratic Party. The average ignoramus also thinks Lincoln was a Democrat.

The left is particularly adept at co-opting and deflecting in this way, and feminists have aligned themselves with them and I’m sure 99.9% of them vote left. You simply can’t talk about feminism without talking about the left.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Jesse September 26, 2010 at 09:04

Well let me sumarise my stand succinctly:
Opposition to feminism is a cause that all men should unite against regardless of politics or religion. Whether one is a Capitalist, a Socialist, an Atheist or a Christian is irrelevant, we all need to stand together as one to confront the common enemy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
Jesse September 26, 2010 at 09:08

Oops, i said that wrong LOL Let me rephrase that:
Opposition to feminism is a cause that should unite all men regardless of politics or religion. Whether one is a Capitalist, a Socialist, an Atheist or a Christian is irrelevant, we all need to stand together as one to confront the common enemy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
rob September 26, 2010 at 09:30

I don’t know whether it’s a paranoid hangover from cold war propaganda or they are trying to exploit the MRM to their further their own personal political agendas, but it’s a distraction from the real issue.

Or it could be something simpler, such as the fact that there are hosts of famous feminist leaders that openly and boldly declare that feminism IS Communism and that feminism & Communism’s goals are one in the same.

Given that so many of them openly declare that feminism IS Communism and that so many of them – from the Suffragettes to the Modern Day – have openly affiliated themselves with Socialism and Communism, perhaps the real distraction are those who try so hard to cover this aspect of feminism up, thus resulting in abjectly false solutions rather than looking at the situation as it truly is.

It’s about going to the roots of the disease, rather than dealing with the symptoms.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Jesse September 26, 2010 at 09:45

It doesn’t matter what they claim they are aligned to, it’s how it is dealt with under whichever framework it exists. I outlined how it can be dealt with under a left wing framework – make them live on a subsistence pension. The root cause isn’t socialism, it’s feminism itself. Corporatism has blood on it’s hands too. Both left and right wing have dropped the ball regarding men and it can be dealt with under either system.
This is an issue of justice, the only politics that is involved is in the Marxist sense of the word – a struggle of class against class. So even under a Marxist framework there is political injustice that needs to be remedied. Let’s not lose track of the true enemy here. When a tyrant uses Christianity as his justification for mass murder do Christians blame Christianity? No they blame the tyrant’s usurping of their religion. The same is true here. Socialism isn’t the problem, it’s the way feminists usurp the idea for their own grasping for power.
Control is controlled by it’s need to control. The devices used to obtain that control are incidental.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9
rob September 26, 2010 at 10:25

Jesse,

So let me get this straight.

Hitler says, according to your own post:

Even in Mein Kampf he said:
“I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator”
Sound like an atheist to you?

To you, simply because he says so, he is a Christian – despite the well known fact that Hitler, as well as most high level Nazis, worshipped Mysticism and the Occult – which is, btw, where the belief in the blonde haired Aryan superior race comes from – it stretches all the way back to the superior Atlanteans, which is also why Hitler was fascinated with such things, as well as other related mystical stories and artifacts.

However, simply because he says he is acting as a Christian, you are demanding we believe it is 100% true, despite there being plenty of historical evidence illustrating the contrary, or contrary at least to a bastardized version of Christianity that contradicts Christianity itself.

However, when feminists say they are Communists, then you do a 100% about face and say that them saying they are Communists is completely irrelevant.

It seems to me that it would be you that is the one bending things for ideological purposes, rather than everyone else.

“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism…” — Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 3

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

“Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, make unequal treatment not unequal at all.” — Catharine MacKinnon, “Reflection on Sex Equality Under Law,” Yale Law Journal, 1991

“A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised.” – Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

“Private property appears: master of slaves and of the earth, man becomes the proprietor also of woman….Here we see the emergence of the patriarchal family founded upon private property. In this type of family, woman is subjugated.” — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex

“The Women’s Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought.” — Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597

“How will the family unit be destroyed? … the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.” — From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar

Feminist Subversion of the Gender System — by Carey Roberts

Outing the Feminist “Great Lie” — by Carey Roberts

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Jesse September 26, 2010 at 10:32

If I might add before I go off to bed (it’s 3:25 am here); Neither Communism or Socialism advocates discrimination in the courtroom, quite the reverse in fact. These feminist bitches may indeed claim to be left winged but they aren’t. They are solophistic supremesists, you can’t get further away from left wing ideals than that if you tried.
I personally don’t think we can solve this problem under the current democratic system. I’m just sitting back and waiting for the Muslims to take over, then the bitches won’t know what hit them. ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9
thehermit September 26, 2010 at 11:25

Neither Communism or Socialism advocates discrimination in the courtroom, quite the reverse in fact.

How can you say that???
All the former socialist countries made directed political lawsuits, and sentenced their political opposites.
Stalin killed or deported millions.
I don’t care what the ideology says, these are the facts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
by_the_sword September 26, 2010 at 12:32

SKADI:

Here is a book that I recommend you read:

It is a cookbook for Middle Eastern Cuisine Stuff that your Muslim conquerors will enjoy eating. I strongly suggest that you start brushing up on your cooking skills so that they will find some use for you when they take over your country.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
trent13 September 26, 2010 at 13:41

Neither Communism or Socialism advocates discrimination in the courtroom, quite the reverse in fact.

Oh! That would explain why Stalin killed all those people…..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Avenger September 26, 2010 at 14:40

Beltain: There are only 100 US Senators and they are located in DC the seat of government. Anything they say gets a lot of publicity.You’d only need 1 men’s rights and anti government person there to get a lot of attention. Now imagine having 10 of them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Beltain September 26, 2010 at 16:24

Avenger

I am not disagreeing with your opinion at all. Not this time :)

I am simply pointing out that to get to the level you are talking about we can also start at the county and work our way up.

I would prefer something a bit South of Alaska though but WTH gotta start somewhere.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Alte September 26, 2010 at 16:33

Jesse,

I don’t think you understand what the “Religious Right” is. They’re social conservatives, which is a category that next to nobody on The Spearhead falls into (as they are mostly pedestalizers). There’s actually a very strong libertarian bent on here, myself included. There are strong undercurrents of nihilism/anarchism, as well.

We’re not actually interested in forcing people to live one way or another. Our interest is in removing all government supports for feminism. In other words, it’s part of an anti-statist movement. Whether that is a conservative state or a liberal state, all Big Government serves The Goddess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Jesse September 26, 2010 at 22:42

Stalin did what he did because he was a power mad arsehole, it had no more to do with Socialism or Communism than the Pope Innocent III massacred thousands of Cathars because he was a Christian. The evil behind it was megalomania. Bringing up Stalin’s name is pure fear mongering. He was hated by other communists too.
This is a culture shock issue I think. Socialism is a word used by Americans to drum up fear. You see it as a synonym for evil. It’s quite bizarre through foreign eyes. The Republican party could never exist here, they would be called greedy, evil pricks and run out of town. Our right winged party (who call themselves the Liberal Party) is not as right winged as your Democrats.
We have implemented many socialist policies and they are loved by all. Trying to dismantle the public health care system would get you kicked out of office in a heartbeat, same with the dole and numerous other reforms.
Playing the socialist angle here as a way to drum up fear simply won’t work. You’d be better off showing how the feminists are twisting the ideology and being hypocrites. What they are actually doing is creating a new class structure where they repress the other class, the very thing that they should be opposing if they truly were socialists.
The whole religion angle would get you laughed at here too. We recently elected an Atheist Prime Minister (well, sort of, it is a hung parliament). The issue wasn’t raised once. I can only imagine what would happen in the US if one party ran an atheist leader but I’m sure it wouldn’t be ignored. Religion is never mentioned by the major parties, using the G word is political suicide. Australians are simply not a religious people. The god botherers have no real clout, they are considered the looney fringe. They also can’t stack the ballot boxes with their flock because everybody votes – by law. A bible thumper (we call them bible bashers) is simply somebody that goes to church or even just believes in god. Like I said, there is a huge cultural gap between our two peoples.
The tactics I see used here would fail miserably, it has to be tackled as an issue of justice. Fighting it from the standpoint of “feminists are godless commies” wouldn’t make you any friends at all. You would simply be laughed at as a fear mongering nutter. If it is to be fought it has to be fought on the actual issues of justice or not at all. Aussies have no problem embracing elements from both sides of the political fence, it has worked well for us. I see no reason why men from both sides can’t unite to fight the common enemy – but I’m not an American and I have a hard time getting my head around the way you guys think.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7
thehermit September 26, 2010 at 23:27

Socialism is a word used by Americans to drum up fear. You see it as a synonym for evil.

I was born and live in a former socialist country, and think you don’t know what you’re talkin’ about.
Ok free speech and all that shit, but as i see nobody taught you when to be silent. Your kind is called useful idiot…

It does not matter what Engels and Marx had written, when people start to put their views into practice, it ends up in tyranny.

Think about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Jesse September 26, 2010 at 23:38

As I said, we have implemented plenty of left wing policies and it hasn’t resulted in a Communist dictatorship. The word socialist doesn’t mean evil to an Aussie because it hasn’t led to anything evil, quite the contrary. The difference is that we didn’t put somebody like Stalin into power and we have been careful not to take it too far. Stalin would have turned anything bad, he was a bad man. Mussolini was a tyrant and he wasn’t following Marx, he said that his Fascism should be called Corporatism. What you are talking about is tyranny, the ideology behind it is immaterial. A tyrant can twist anything to suit his desires.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8
Jesse September 27, 2010 at 00:11

Just to be clear – I am NOT a socialist. I consider myself to be slightly left of centre (I am an old unionist). Now to an American I may seem like a flaming communist but I’m not. I just don’t think that everything socialist is evil, they have some good ideas, they also have some bad ones. The same can be said of capitalism, some capitalist ideas are good but some are downright evil. I have seen a balance between the two work well, you just need to keep swapping between left and right governments to maintain that balance – something that is getting harder to do all the time. Our Labour party is too far to the right for my liking, it was better when we had a clearer distinction between the two. When things swung too far either way you just swapped parties.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
thehermit September 27, 2010 at 01:23

I just don’t think that everything socialist is evil, they have some good ideas, they also have some bad ones. The same can be said of capitalism, some capitalist ideas are good but some are downright evil. I have seen a balance between the two work well, you just need to keep swapping between left and right governments to maintain that balance – something that is getting harder to do all the time.

Now that sounds different. I don’t say capitalism is perfect. the fall of socialist states started because there was no control on the ruler class, on the politican leaders, and they were not strong enough to control themselves.-Thats the point only, where capitalism seems to be the best.
Tyranny is not in the system (whatever it is called), it is in the human nature.
However, system can streaghten or weaken it.
i never thought all the leftist thoughts are coming from the devil…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Jesse September 27, 2010 at 01:54

Exactly. And these feminists are not what they say they are, they never were. They talk about equality and socialism but what they actually are is supremacists, something totally contrary to their claims. Instead of attacking the ideology these hypocrites lie about claiming to be following we should be attacking the facts. Simply pointing out what they claim to be communists or socialists may work in the US but it won’t cut any ice elsewhere. What they are doing should offend socialists as much as capitalists, Atheists as much as Christians.
United we stand, divided we fall.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
Migu September 27, 2010 at 08:36

When the means become inconsistent with the ends, then only destruction results. Socialist, Capitalist whatever you want to call it. If you use contrary means to achieve your ends, your ends will always END

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Amendment X September 27, 2010 at 09:37

I am interested in the duality of Masculine/Feminine-dominated societies. Clearly, once a society becomes Feminized, it opens itself to domination by masculine societies. What periods in history have seen significant changes to this duality besides our own current transformation from masculine to feminine?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Yo September 27, 2010 at 11:06

Rob,

Thank you very much for your explanation, and I agree with what you said in it completely!

So I went back and read your comment at 24 September 2010 @ 20:54.

And that comment (see below) seemed to be saying that a man’s power can only be derivative, and that women will always actually be guiding and controlling everything.

I was ranting against that idea. And I am still a little confused.

Are you saying that the 24 Sept 10 @ 20:54 stuff stops being true when: “a man ‘becomes a man’ [and] grows out of the influence of women and surpasses the totalitarian power of the female. . . . [because] Women try to keep men as boys, but what they need are men and men are those who are not controlled by women, but rather have grown beyond that.”

If so, then I think that the fact that this social power of women to control and limit males can be (and should be) overcome by boys as they become men (for the well-being of both men and women, and to satisfy women), should be emphasized (when you and Philalethes write about such things).

Excerpt from 24 September 10 @ 20:54:

“So, virtually anything that men “do” in society, they only do because females have given them the social approval to do so. If females withdrew their societal support, the “alpha” male in power would lose all of said power, and would be replaced by another that females felt were more suitable.”

“Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” — Robert Briffault (The Mothers, I, 191)”

“So yes, men are in the positions of power, and those men are doing bad things to other men… but why are they doing it? They are doing it because naturally males do the bidding of the female.”

“Women are society – while men are the outliers of society. Let me state that again: Women are society. What women want, society wants. What women find distasteful, society finds distasteful. What women value, society values, and so on and so on.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
namae nanka September 27, 2010 at 12:38

“What periods in history have seen significant changes to this duality besides our own current transformation from masculine to feminine?”

page 17
http://www.arlev.co.uk/glubb/index.htm

During the Song Dynasty (960 to 1276) the position of women in society dropped to a new low. Until this time women had been schooled in the arts and versed in the classics; they held independent rights to property and wealth, and could marry or remarry at will.

New ideology, however, redefined their status, laying the groundwork to keep nearly half of China’s population obedient and limited in skill and ability. Women’s roles were defined only in the context of complete dependence upon men.

http://www.josephrupp.com/history.html

Women enjoyed far greater freedom in the Vedic period than in later India. She had more to say in the choice of her mate than the forms of marriage might suggest. She appeared freely at feasts and dances, and joined with men in religious sacrifice. She could study, and like Gargi, engage in philosophical disputation. If she was left a widow there was no restrictions upon her remarriage.” Will Durant – Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage

http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/10/rig-veda-position-of-women-1-2.htm

I think the feminist history which recounts of times and places of “enlightened societies” where women were treated as equal might help you some more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Rob September 28, 2010 at 10:53

So I went back and read your comment at 24 September 2010 @ 20:54.

And that comment (see below) seemed to be saying that a man’s power can only be derivative, and that women will always actually be guiding and controlling everything.

I was ranting against that idea. And I am still a little confused. — Yo

Yes, I agree, it is a confusing concept but I believe it is very real none the less.

While men must grow out of the power of females in order to become useful, it is still the females who decide what is and what is not acceptable. Men and women are both halves of the same species, not as two entirely separate groups who have no effect upon the actions of another, although be it noted – the female affects the actions of the male to a far greater extent than the other way around.

“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’ says Grammer” – New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001

Think back to the example of the herd, where the bull breeds the lot of females. Is it entirely that the bull gets to breed because he is the strongest and most aggressive of all the males… or is it that the females choose the bull because he has displayed the traits neccessary for them to choose him as the alpha? The bull doesn’t fight the females and overpower them – he fights other males to put on a show for the females so they will accept him as their mating choice.

“Cherokee women didn’t have titled positions. The men had those. But women had the Women’s Council. They had a lot of control. People forget that… With the Iroquois, the chief was a man, but the women chose the chief, they nurtured him, they installed him. Women could take him out.” – Wilma Mankiller, principle chief to the Cherokee Nation, 1987-1995, speaking at the University of Arizona in January 2002, as broadcast on C-SPAN, June 1, 2002

One of the problems that we have is that “what women want” is not static, but rather it is fluid – ever changing according to the social needs of the day. In days gone by, women decided they needed strong men who would stick around and protect and provide while at the same time leading the family – and that’s the kind of men that society produced, because that’s what females wanted. Today, women want weak, spineless poofs for provider husbands, and aggressive overt sexual displays from their sperm providing “alphas” and thus, that’s what we have.

If the economy collapses and our civilization begins to crumble and thus, life begins to get harder, most likely women will begin to find the values of the protector-provider role, with the female being more submissive, to be more attractive, and thus men will become that way in order to attract the females.

Another interesting concept Philalethes puts forth which is somewhat related is in regard to species of animals that only have females, of which there are a few species found on earth (ie. lizards):

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2010/07/philalethes-9-immaculate-conception.html

In the same way, he asserts that the male’s biological purpose is to serve the female, in that these female only species are incapable of evolving and therefore can only exist in a completely safe ecological niche where there is no competition with species that are male & female, because a female-only species does not have the ability to evolve without the male.

This plays into a few other concepts that are related in regard to “the essense” of male and female, something which I refer to as “spike” (male) vs. “rhythm” (female). I attempted to explain this general concept in this piece:

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2008/02/male-and-female-equal-but-different.html

Males “spike” and vary much more wildly than females do, who tend to cluster around the average, while men exist far more in the outliers – ie. IQ where males inhabit the outliers of both 70 and 130 IQ in far greater numbers/variability than females who are clustered more around the mean of 100IQ. This concept comes through as “male” or “female” in a plethora of instances between males and females.

Some believe that this is the genetic purpose of the XY vs XX – because it enables evolution. The missing leg that creates the “Y” is what makes men far more variable, whereas the extra leg that creates the female “X” is what holds these genetic mutations (the positive ones) in the human genetic code.

So, a fella like Einstein, for example, is a deviation from the norm because of his high IQ, and because his high IQ makes him stand out from the normal population in a positive light, more females will find him sexually attractive because of this mutating trait, and thus more women will choose to bump uglies with him and those positive mutations will get locked into the human code via the females genes, not the males. Many such “mutations” are passed through the female, not the male, even though some of them may only affect males themselves (such as colour blindness etc.).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Yo September 28, 2010 at 15:32

Rob,

“Think back to the example of the herd, where the bull breeds the lot of females. Is it entirely that the bull gets to breed because he is the strongest and most aggressive of all the males… or is it that the females choose the bull because he has displayed the traits necessary for them to choose him as the alpha? The bull doesn’t fight the females and overpower them – he fights other males to put on a show for the females so they will accept him as their mating choice.”

I agree with you about this.

Also, the “social” version of masculinity seems to be defined by the feelings of a woman’s head-hamster, with “alpha” being “a man who adapts himself to the whims of society created by women” (or at least tricks their innate and shallow stimulus-response mechanism).

In any case, in an environment without manipulation, the order of events is: 1) the bull conquers, thus impressing many females, and 2) he then mates with the females because they are impressed and choose him, or because they want babies and he is the only choice still standing.

But the key point is that first he conquers those who are more powerful than the cows, and thus the society that the cows create continues to exist because he allows it.

“Cherokee women didn’t have titled positions. The men had those. But women had the Women’s Council. They had a lot of control. People forget that… With the Iroquois, the chief was a man, but the women chose the chief, they nurtured him, they installed him. Women could take him out.”

“One of the problems that we have is that “what women want” is not static, but rather it is fluid – ever changing according to the social needs of the day. …

If the economy collapses and our civilization begins to crumble and thus, life begins to get harder, most likely women will begin to find the values of the protector-provider role, with the female being more submissive, to be more attractive, and thus men will become that way in order to attract the females.”

This seems to be the prevalent situation, and one of the foundational reasons for the current mess.

My point is that it does not have to be this way, and should not be this way. In fact, this must end, if we are to ever change this cyclical load of crap also know as “society created by women.”

A superior man personally conquers and creates through purpose, focus, self-control, and strength of will.

And women then follow their nature, which is to submit to his power, and discard their society-of-the-moment to adapt themselves to him, just like a “good girl” can shed her skin to become a biker bitch, in the blink of an eye.

And don’t forget that the first thing that women do when conquering hordes come over the border is to lie down, open their legs and say “Society? What society?”

So, what exactly would prevent such men, if they have vision and wisdom, from designing an advancing civilization, and then telling women something like:

“We consider you to be (potentially) equal in value, as human beings. If you demonstrate a kind heart, and use your important and sometimes unique abilities enthusiastically and productively, you will gain our respect and an opportunity to become our complements.

However, as history has shown, you do not have the logic or values to create or maintain civilization, or to have independent authority without destroying what you touch. We will no longer pretend that you do, neither to keep you from feeling bad, nor to fail your shit tests while trying to get pussy.

You will be given two choices. The first will be to belong to us and be cherished and protected, as women, as long as you also take care of us to the same extent, but in the way that is natural for you. The second will be to be treated exactly as men, without exception, and to be subject to the same requirements of independence and productivity, as well as identical justice.

You are not our equals and you are not in charge anymore. We are going to create the world as it should be, and if you try to obstruct us, we will put you in your place.

If you accept this and join us joyfully and sincerely, your happiness will be a priority. But this has always been true for men, with respect to women. What has changed is what men will no longer do, or allow other men to do, and that is to smile and agree with you when you pee on our leg and tell us that it is raining.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
SMC September 28, 2010 at 16:01

Think back to the example of the herd, where the bull breeds the lot of females. Is it entirely that the bull gets to breed because he is the strongest and most aggressive of all the males… or is it that the females choose the bull because he has displayed the traits neccessary for them to choose him as the alpha? The bull doesn’t fight the females and overpower them – he fights other males to put on a show for the females so they will accept him as their mating choice.

Incorrect matriarch silliness. The female bovines etc are going to go where the eats are. The males then are “ACTIVELY” fighting over those plots. If the female goes to a loser male she “likes” the stronger male will simply pursue her and bully that other male away, until she tires and he mounts her. (Also she stops being on the productive territory –where the eats are– for her and her kid _thus dying out.)

You are making the male the passive one in the story line for an assortment of psychological reasons specific to modern western male humans.

It is called ‘relativism’. Seeing what you have been conditioned to see when looking at new things. It is well known and explained. The jews have long since demonstrated it when it was in their interests to do so: Ie explaining how society’s pre conceived notions were coloring even high table –supposedly objective– studies and conclusions about jewish political allies. But now that the “worm has turned” [ie feminism is the prejudice of the day], the jews and their studies are cricket quiet.)

There are two kinds of relativism. Purposeful and accidental.

Steven Jay Gould [jew, hahrvihd] with his “male barnacles are just some reproductive cells immobile inside the female barnacle’s reproductive tract”. Very accurate but you can hear the “nyah nyah” in the study. Purposeful politically motivated relativism, a`la psychological warfare against the dumb suggestible goy… er um I mean sheep.

The other kind is your kind above. Conditioning as filter for interpreting new data.

[Not to mention your argument above in itself is tangled. Typical of tortured kaleidoscope arguments trying to hammer those square pegs into round holes. This is similar to political arguments where in we conform to Republican tent BULLSHIT saying in order to stop liberalism we have embrace more underpinnings of liberalism and attack conservative cultures elsewhere... Let the tortured peg hammering begin.]

————-
The big take home part in herd studies is not the matriarchy cockeyed nonsense. But rather it’s more insight into the universe’s emergent-multicellularism and 1st plane pressures trumping sexual plane — 2nd plane– pressures.

[Note that I don't use "imperatives" but rather I say "planes" of selection. "Imperatives" is inaccurate and is confusing creationists and other dunces. I don't use "convergence", preferring the more accurate "parallelism" --when talking of eg sharks and dolphins or termites and ants-- for the same reason.]

One…

The herd is type of cell seen from the big picture, with the females and calves as the nucleus, the winner males as a layer right around that and then the beaten wounded males as the _skin_ around the breeding core. That limping skin will be the first thing picked by predators –a protective layer around the breeding core.

Two…

The 1st plane pressure for the herd is “lottery of death against the predators”. In that life strategy, males don’t kill the vanquished. They just wound them. The wounded males will be 1st-choice food for the predators thus protecting the big winner(s).

The second plane pressure is the standard reproduction.

Bovine sexual dynamic (ie “2nd plane” competition) is male vs male direct combat –”ACTIVE”– over fem sex value. (The other sexual dynamic is the flying bird’s “male vs male displayer” with female as trump card chooser.)

(The modern Human western culture high school hallway and niteclub’ sexual dynamic is the birdlike “passive” male dis player with the female as trump card. This is recent human occurrence. This female as chooser/male as passive has been snowballing along –ups and downs but always a general trend– for millenia but culminated recently. Note about a century and a half ago male vs male dueling was officially outlawed for Euros (a little later for other indocrinates). That _modern_ hallway and niteclub dynamic is probably the key thing that has prejudiced and conditioned you and created your relativism.)

Because of the merging between the BOVINES specific 1st plane and 2nd plan selection, the modules that have gotten selected in herds for males are the “fight to the maim” ones. Note wild bull horns are fat and curved in, while female horns are thin pointy and curve forward and down. The female’s were selected by predation, while the males were selected –as priority– by male vs male combat; but combat in a “fight to the maim” breed where a lottery of numbers is the 1st plane pressure.

…It is “immoral” in the herd to kill… (“Ape does not kill ape” : “thou shall not kill.”)

That gives insight into our own morals and from where they come. [Prerequisite: there is no such thing as freewill or any of that. You just think there is for some profound bio-efficient reason.]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
SMC September 28, 2010 at 16:43

To Yo.

Your Attila example above was fine.

Attila was poisoned by his latest concubine. True.

BUT

Women always poison, always try to steal inheritance, always instigate competition, are always the desired and always engage in ignoble/ frustrating behavior.

This is a big thing the matriarchy crowd ignores.

Any period the matriarchy-crowd calls patriarchal would have all those thing too. Queen Isabella (Columbus fame ) poisoned her way into a throne, As did Cleopatra (who was _Greek Ptolemy_ –ie civilized), as did Sweden’s Christina and the british throne is littered with these head hunting dames. (There are more both known and unkown to history.)

The difference between Atilla’s –supposedly matriarchal– time and the other civilized –supposedly “patriarchal” — times was that in Atilla’s time these poisoners were called concubines. In the civilized –”patriarchal”– times these same poisoners were called queens.

The civilized period — supposedly “patriarchal”– has all the same female behaviors and penumbra (ie male desire etc) as the barbarian period –supposedly matriarchal. The difference is that as we leave the barbarian period we no longer see men robust enough to balance the ever occurring female chicanery out.

“Matriarchy of the past” is crackpot ism. Originally spread by liberals and jews. Long since admitted canard (a false report from the bush). It is now a favorite of MRM wings.

These MRAs have conflated the idea of females everywhere being more valuable than males (and as such the instigators and points of competition) with the females being active controllers/choosers and the males being passive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price September 28, 2010 at 17:05

Sean, if you have an argument with Jews, take it to some explicitly religious site and base your arguments on the Torah and Talmud (if you know anything about them).

If you think the dispute between Jews and gentiles is entirely racial, you definitely don’t see the big picture.

In any event, The Spearhead has a policy against religious attacks and race-baiting, so it simply isn’t appropriate here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Anonymous November 8, 2010 at 22:34

Cat Stevens Peace Train Was that a prophecy?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ali November 21, 2010 at 14:01

When Islam comes, all the western men will not be killed or inslaved. Many many men will see the benefits of Islam, considering the feminist dominated hell hole you have gotten yourselves into. Yes the men who continue to fight us will be killed. Many of the women will be too. Outspoken feminists will vanish, never to be seen or heard of again. Many of your feminist man haters will write new books and give new seminars repenting their past delusional beliefs and begging forgiveness. The ones who do not will be seen hanging from cranes and stoned to bloody pulps in the town squares. Property confiscated in divorce courts will be returned to men who convert to Islam, and their children will be returned too. They will have the opportunity to have their ex wives punished for their past deeds. The men who try to defend the current system will be butchered by the majority of men who have been oppressed and dispossessed by it. We won’t have to kill them all, the western man will kill the western man. The oppressed will rise up and strike off the heads of the oppressors with an Islamic sword, wielded by a western hand.

This has been discussed and is currently being discussed at many mosques and Islamic forums and venues by muslims in the western world right now. The reason we do not attack feminism is because, as I have heard western men say, they are useful idiots. They are actually creating the western men that will support us when the time comes. The western man typically sees Islam as his enemy. But we will open his eyes. When he sees that it is his own society and his own women that are his enemy, he will turn to us, and we will welcome him with warm embrace. And we will fight by his side in his battle to free himself from those who refuse to see the light.

My western brothers. Muslim men have known all along what would happen if women were given rights to rule over men. They are their own worst enemies. What you have done is equal to giving a child the rule of the household, which in many of your homes is the way it is. A women exercises authority based on the same mentality as a child, emotion is her rule for everything. This is how your society is being ruled right now, and your households. It can only end in the collapse of your civilisation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Epoche* March 21, 2011 at 06:12

Stalin did what he did because he was a power mad arsehole, it had no more to do with Socialism or Communism than the Pope Innocent III massacred thousands of Cathars because he was a Christian. The evil behind it was megalomania. Bringing up Stalin’s name is pure fear mongering.
——————————-
both the inquisition and the stalinized purges were the result of idealism and compassion. they result from the inability of those in power to cope with human imperfection and wanted to liquidate the weak and powerless who were unable to defend themselves or conform.

Skadi, what do you look like? I mean if you want a husband who will support you while you take care of the kids (there being no other reason to post here again and again) then at least show us what you look like.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
definitelytomorrow April 30, 2011 at 06:02

Wow. These comments are enlightening to just how dellusional some men are.

Women have been treated far worse in the past than any of you full grown babies. So there’s some backlash? Our mother’s tell us what some fist and power happy men will do to us given the chance. This here forum is proof enough.

We take away YOUR rights? Until we have equal pay for exactly the same roles, work time, and level of education. Until we are freely allowed to choose whether we want children or not without slanderous accusations. Shutup.

The Earth cannot sustain uncontrollable population growth. A drop in birth rate coincides with higher education parity across both genders. Conversely higher birth rates are associated with lower standard of living and lesser education.

Women are not so very different from men. We need ambitions and goals of our own. How many of you would seriously enjoy a life confined to a house where a woman mounts you, has your child and now your life is to stay home and rear it, cook and clean, and basically submit to a society that has been trained to perceive you as a sex object, logically and morally inferior, and a bit of a wuss to boot (let’s not forget you’re required to ‘look pretty’ to impress your wifes work colleagues and bosses)?

Yeah, see how long you ‘swallow that’ idealogy without complaining, oh dear house-husband with no permissable outside-house dreams.

We want to be creative, and we want bother genders equal. I for one have never campaigned for greater rights than men. Here in Australia we have PARENTAL leave, not maternity leave.

We busted our asses during wars when men weren’t at hand, and then expected to go back to the kitchen? Forget it. We don’t expect men to die for us, women join the army and fight for their countries too.
From a reproductive point, it isn’t the smartest move in a long-standing war to further cut birthrates. Most logical PEOPLE would agree to that. Again, the choice to have children comes from men and women. Wake up.

How could you be expected to be a sane person without life ambition of your own? To be seen as a baby factory and home maker. How dare any of you try to say that women having jobs has been ‘unfair’ to you. Unfair is being ruled by a fist and blatant gender apartheid instead of logic-based arguments.

Stop playing victim and see the benefits you have rather than always want some ‘boogie monster’ (apparently bent on destroying men. WTF?), is trying to take. It’s pathetic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8
Drew July 8, 2011 at 15:18

There is a steady, definitive, decline in Western society among Men. Women have done well in the last 25 years or so. Men not so much. Yes I’ve been too busy paying taxes playing “catching-up” to have a family. Now, I’m 42 and I don’t want one. The laws are stacked against Men and look how some Women behave. Fortunately, I’ve have been lucky. Mark Rudov wrote a good article “Will She call 911 on you”?

Marriage is a financial disaster for Men. Regarding equality in the workforce: I’m not going to play the game if the end game is equality. I want to be the best or nothing. If I have an argument with a Women suddenly I’m being abusive, harassing and then she calls the police because she is feeling “threatened”. I’ve had Women threaten to call the police on me for act of convenience. Count me out of being one of todays useful idiots. Why do you think the whole bank is full of female tellers? A Man working there would last one argument and then the girl would call the police. It’s simple. The police enforce feminism and keep Men down. This is my opinion only. Its a time in society for Men to stay low. And the wage gap: nobody makes the same amount of money. Nobody. Period. If a man makes more he is a better negotiator. The West was the best in the 50′s, 60′s and even some of the 70′s before Women dominated the work force. Why do you think we don’t make anything anymore? Too many Women driving forklifts in the name of equality. Everybody suffers. We had pay equity in Canada. It cost $9 billion dollars to make Women on par with Men. What Women couldn’t negotiate, the big bad government came in and made right. And I live in a society I could locked away for saying this stuff. Islam wins and the modern western family disintegrates. And I cant do a thing about it!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
iB March 15, 2014 at 07:16

Islam allow Polygamy. There is no way feminist can tolerate that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 4 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: