From White Supremacy to Female Supremacy?

by Featured Guest on August 12, 2011

[Editor: Dr. Davd Martin, a retired professor who currently resides in Canada, has offered some of his essays as material for The Spearhead. They are written in the academic style, fully annotated and researched, and are a great resource. I'll publish one today as a post, but the style is better suited to another format, such as pdf, so when they've been converted I'll upload them to the library and offer them through links on the main page. In the meanwhile, enjoy!]


From White Supremacy to Female Supremacy?


The Status of Canadian Men and Families Compared to the Former Plight of Black America


Davd Martin, PhD






The “Moynihan report” was controversial from its publication. Cited as


Anonymous, 1965. The Negro1 Family: The Case for National Action. United States Government Printing Office.


..this centimetre-thick paperback book was written (as acknowledged by the US Department of Labor website, 2010) by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, previously co-author with respected American sociologists and later US Senator from New York.




The purpose of the ‘Moynihan report’ was to urge that


"The policy of the United States is to bring the Negro American to full and equal sharing in the responsibilities and rewards of citizenship. To this end, the programs of the Federal government bearing on this objective shall be designed to have the effect, directly or indirectly, of enhancing the stability and resources of the Negro American family."


The chief problem Moynihan saw in [we would now write Afro-American] families was a tendency toward fatherless, matriarchal household structure. That tendency has spread to society in general, arguably more-so in Canada than in the United States. Given the concerns the report expressed about the effect of family structure on individual accomplishment and societal well-being, we might ask if society in general is now worse off for the change; while given a "morally neutral social science disclaimer" included in the report, we might also ask if the ill effects of a substantially matriarchal family structure as described in 1965, have been remedied by making matriarchy common throughout “society”. These two hypotheses, which can not both be true, are implied by different parts of “the Moynihan report”, and perhaps time did indeed tell, or research could soon tell, which of them be valid.




During the 45 years since the original was published on paper, the matriarchal tendencies it deplored have become much commoner among "non-Afro-American" families; and perhaps especially among the families of “subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Windsor”: It seems that the dominance of women and girls in the most-Anglophone, most-British-in-ancestry, and most-Monarchist parts of the British Commonwealth, is greater than that in the United States and much of Continental Europe (though some anecdotal reports could be heard to indicate that in Sweden and Finland, women rule in as great a percentage of households as in Canada.)




Tucked away in Moynihan’s text is a "morally neutral social science disclaimer" typical of the 1960s: "There is, presumably, no special reason why a society in which males are dominant in family relationships is to be preferred to a matriarchal arrangement. However, it is clearly a disadvantage for a minority group to be operating on one principle, while the great majority of the population, and the one with the most advantages to begin with, is operating on another." [ch IV, near the beginning]




Moynihan continues, "This is the present situation of the Negro. Ours is a society which presumes male leadership in private and public affairs. The arrangements of society facilitate such leadership and reward it. A subculture, such as that of the Negro American, in which this is not the pattern, is placed at a distinct disadvantage." From my own observations and reading during the 1960s, i would say that Moynihan exaggerated the extent of post-World-War II patriarchy in working class American households2, and that the median and modal distribution of power in American marriages was very close to equality. Though husbands did exercise some ritual headship, much of it was more courtly than real (for example, driving the car when they were in one together, and opening doors and waiting for their wives to pass through first.) In public affairs, male leadership was indeed the norm. Since 1965, the power of women both in public and in private has increased, and that of men has declined.




Today Canada is not “a society which presumes male leadership in private and public affairs” nor one in which “the arrangements of society facilitate such leadership and reward it;” rather the reverse. There is some residual male predominance among leaders over 40 years of age, but this can be best understood as “societal inertia” (cf. Grant, 1969: 115; Martin, 2011). It is more advantageous to be born a girl in Canada today, than to be born a boy; and that has been the case for about a generation. Much rhetoric between 1965 and the present extolled gender equality; but the actual social change has been from near-equality or modest female dominance in the home, and male dominance in the workplace, to[ward] female dominance in both spheres3.




Looking at changes in Canadian family law and family statistics since 1965, one might plausibly conclude that Feminists, reading “the Moynihan report”, chose a very different action plan than Moynihan, a high-status Irish-American man, proposed; and that rather than accepting Moynihan’s goal of making the men more prominent in Afro-American family life, they set out to make women more prominent, and men much less, in "non-Afro-American" family life.




Looking at the legal and ‘educational’ treatment of men today, at marital [in]stability and the proportions of single-parent [family?] households, one might conclude that Moynihan failed and the Feminists prevailed—and not only in the US, but even more in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, perhaps also the U.K. In Canada today, with women a strong majority among university students and entrants to the professions, with women advantaged by criminal and “family” law (cf. Martin, 2011), it is more accurate to say, “Canada is a society which presumes female leadership in private and public affairs; the arrangements of society facilitate such leadership and reward it” .. than to say that male leadership is presumed and facilitated4.




(Might it be relevant that during the intervening years, and for more than a decade before 1965, the Head of State of all these “British Commonwealth” states, has been a woman who, by customary British Royal usage, is explicitly styled as superior to her husband?5 It does seem to be a truism that the arrangements of the elite are to some extent aped by the middle and even sometimes the lower classes; it has been the case that Canadian and “Commonwealth” ritual has treated Her Majesty Elizabeth II as somehow better than all other people; and what little reference to the Royal Family i myself have read, seems to indicate that Her Majesty’s son Charles, rather than being strengthened as Her heir, has been deprecated. One should probably not infer from this that Her Majesty is a principal influence; but one might well infer that being so deferential6 to a woman of regal bearing, for over half a century, and seeing the men of her family dominated by her, has had some effect.)




Today, i perceive Canadian family life to be more like the "Negro" family life Moynihan sought to change, than it is like "White" family life in 1965.7 Moynihan wrote, "Almost One-Fourth of Negro Families are Headed by Females", what is the proportion today in Canada? Men are a decided minority among university students and entrants to the professions, and their rate of representation is falling. As it is advantageous today and has been advantageous all this 21st century, to be born a girl rather than a boy in the Nice countries… so it was advantageous in the first two thirds of the 20th Century, to be born "white" rather than "Negro". Only in the treatment of Afro-Americans before Brown v. Board of Education, and possibly the Canadian "Residential School" scandal, can i find parallel within the common-law tradition before 1965, to the treatment of male Canadians today in criminal and "family" law8.




In the Afro-American case, false stereotypes of inequality were believed for generations: Blacks were believed to be inherently lazier, of lower intelligence, more violent and criminal; one main task of “the Moynihan report” was to show that differences which might be taken as proof of these stereotypes were better understood to result from discrimination, than to represent inherent differences between races. It is entirely plausible that, if legal gender discrimination is accepted for a generation, most Canadians born after 1990 would come to believe that men are inherently inferior to women in much the same ways as “Negroes” were once held inferior to “whites”: For instance, Clark and Clark (1947) found that Afro-American children downgraded their own race in conformity to prevailing cultural biases.




There appears to be a systematic effort to stereotype men along lines eerily similar to those followed by racist stereotypes of “Niggers” in the early 20th Century. As Jeremy Swanson (2009-2010) has detailed but not yet systematically tabulated, men are often treated as guilty until proved innocent by mass media and police, and sometimes by courts of law; while women are treated as innocent until proved guilty and often excused for homicides of husbands or “lovers” if they testify that the victim threatened them—even if that testimony is not corroborated by a neutral witness or strong physical evidence. Considering the temptation to perjury entailed in a risk of criminal conviction, this practice falls far short of the quality of logic normal to Canadian and Common Law; but it parallels rather well the treatment of “Negro Americans,” and especially of male “Negro Americans,” before 1954 (and for some years afterwards in parts of “the South”.)




Comparing the status of Canadian men with some past racial prejudices in a neighbouring country, we can readily see that conventional stereotypes about gender relations left over from the time of “the Moynihan report” are no longer valid and should be corrected. Specifically:


  • gender equality in educational and legal treatment and outcomes, would require an improvement in the status of boys and men! (Where are the Affirmative-Action programmes and Legal Reform programmes for males?)


  • demands for favouritism for girls or women cannot be supported by appeals to gender equality; and arguments along those lines have been false for all this young century.


  • "Patriarchy" is either a foreign phenomenon, as exotic to the Nice Countries as foot-binding or worshipping carved wooden idols9; or else it is pre-industrial history with a few present-day manifestations in numerically small subcultures and pre-industrial societies.




As the disadvantaged gender, men can benefit from less-defensive, more honest “strategy-and-tactics”:


  • we should adopt gender equality as a criterion, but perhaps not as a goal10.


  • we should refute and even scorn the misuse of gender equality by Feminists seeking to increase their privilege, years after they reached and passed equality in treatment11;


  • we should look to the U. S. Civil Rights Movement for models we can adopt or adapt;


  • we should also look at the Feminist actions of 1966-2006 for models we can adopt or adapt12;


( [these two lists are not necessarily complete; additions are invited])




We might benefit if we adopt a label for ourselves other than merely “Canadian men”; and a case could be made for ironically calling ourselves eunuchs. More affirmatively, if one were to ask, what shall we men call ourselves in analogy to "Negro"? the parallel treatment would be to translate man into Spanish: Hombre. (I like that word because in Spanish speaking countries, the phrase "muy hombre" is a compliment.) The rhetorical meaning of taking a foreign word would be somewhat comparable to Afro-American men discarding a foreign word for the plain English “Black”, and also implicitly claim the respect hombre connotes [and “negro” did not in 1965].




Functionally, adopting a [nickname?] would –


  • – acknowledge that we are now subject to systematic and oppressive discrimination;


  • – imply that the discrimination is wrong and we do not accept it;


  • – show sympathy and solidarity with the Afro-American men who led the Civil Rights movement, but in a way different enough that we are not offending them by using a word they consider to be theirs to employ or not [as Nigger and Negro have become].


– abd also show solidarity with Hispanic Americans, who are perhaps the nearest US ethnic analogue to the Canadian Métis.13




The "Moynihan Report"s portrayal of matriarchy seems well worth re-reading in context of today’s marriage laws and differential criminal law enforcement by gender—and of today’s female prevalence in education which, combined with pro-female-biased criminal and family law, leaves us the disadvantaged gender–and to an extent women haven’t been disadvantaged in a hundred years, perhaps far longer. That portrayal also invites a test of the merits of matriarchy, as implied above.




In his ‘morally neutral social science disclaimer’ that "There is, presumably, no special reason why a society in which males are dominant in family relationships is to be preferred to a matriarchal arrangement," Moynihan presented an hypothesis to the effect that consistency of family structure across ethnic groups was important but the difference between patriarchy, matriarchy, and gender-equality was not14. In summarizing statistics on education, employment, income, and [social disorganization], Moynihan presented an implicit hypothesis to the effect that matriarchal, fatherless families were cruelly disadvantaged. Both hypotheses cannot be true together. Canadian family changes since “the Moynihan report” appeared, if their consequences can be identified, may indicate which hypothesis is more true:


  • Has shifting social leadership toward female predominance and family leadership toward matriarchy done overall societal good?


  • Has it done overall societal harm?


  • Or, has societal well-being remained effectively unchanged, with women now clearly better off than men?–that is, have women gained and men lost, in close-to-identical amounts?




Moynihan entitled his "report": … The Case for National Action. The national action was not taken; instead, the matriarchal bias he deplored has become more general. How has social well-being changed over the same span of time, and how much of the change is best understood as the consequence of increasing matriarchy? This is a subject well worth the attention of sociologists, psychologists, and criminologists, and might well contain many good thesis topics for graduate students. (It is also a subject where research design must be especially wary of potential biases.)




The results i have noticed, refute Moynihan’s ‘morally neutral social science disclaimer’: The past 45 years have shown us some special reasons “why a society in which males are [equal or] dominant in family relationships15 is to be preferred to a matriarchal arrangement”—have they not? Children are less well off. Moral standards have declined, and the declines in honesty, respect and charity are in my humble opinion, comparably and perhaps more harmful than the declines in sexual restraint.16 Men have lost common-law rights whose value cannot be measured in mere money. Millions of foetuses who could have become healthy, happy children and then socially contributing adults have died for the convenience of adult women, many of whom may wish in old age that they had children to come by and help out. The refutation is not absolute; there can be many kinds of egalitarian, many kinds of matriarchal, and many kinds of patriarchal family structures; our experience has compared one largely egalitarian and two significantly matriarchal examples. It does indicate that matriarchy wastes men and boys contributory potential more than an egalitarian system with a few patriarchal bits, wastes women’s.




Our family and moral declines have parallels, perhaps to some extent consequences, in the huge increases in the importance of and in respect for Islam since 1965. Mainstream Islam is not harshly patriarchal, though some sects may be; it is patriarchal in some ways, and usually gently, as mainstream Christianity was when the world was more Christian than anything else. We cannot go back and re-live the last 45 years, to see if forming a gently patriarchal or keeping a carefully balanced gender-egalitarian Canadian society might put us in better stead today than our present predicament; but we can and should compare today’s conditions with those of 1965. From what i have lately heard about crime and addiction rates among the young, from what Moynihan wrote and i knew from other sources by the time he wrote, about the effects of fatherlessness on school performance and social pathology; from the criminological truism that men who go to prison don’t have fathers they can honour…




… “it is putting it mildly” when i doubt that the changes we have seen, were optimal or even desirable and conclude that the ‘morally neutral social science disclaimer’ was in error.




It is time “and past due”, for men to formulate a vision of the future that is better than matriarchy.








References:




Anonymous, 1965. The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.




Bakke, Edward Wight, 1940 Citizens Without Work. New Haven: Yale University Press. Cited in the above.


"Consider the fact that relief investigators or case workers are normally women and deal with the housewife. Already suffering a loss in prestige and authority in the family because of his failure to be the chief bread winner, the male head of the family feels deeply this obvious transfer of planning for the family’s well being to two women, one of them an outsider. His role is reduced to that of errand boy to and from the relief office."[212]


"Having observed our families under conditions of unemployment with no public help, or with that help coming from direct [sic] and from work relief, we are convinced that after the exhaustion of self produced resources, work relief is the only type of assistance which can restore the strained bonds of family relationship in a way which promises the continued functioning of that family in meeting the responsibilities imposed upon it by our culture." [224]




CBC News, 2010. Reports of the State visit of Her Majesty Elizabeth II to Canada and New York City. June-July.




CBC News, 2010b [July 20]. Report of a decrease in the Canadian crime rate with discussion by a criminologist [whose last name began with S...] indicating that ageing was an important, probably the main cause of the decrease.




Clark, Kenneth B., and Mamie P. Clark, 1947 "Racial identification and preference in Negro children." In T. M. Newcomb and E. L. Hartley, eds., Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. [A classic for showing that black children preferred white dolls and downgraded their own race--in conformity to prevailing cultural biases. Probably would not be replicated today if repeated, due to social change.]




Glazer, Nathan 1964. "Negroes and Jews: The Challenge to Pluralism," Commentary, December, pp. 29-34.


.


Grant, George, 1969.  Technology and Empire.  Toronto: Anansi. “The weight of tradition carries on in an established university for several generations, with the result that the curriculum may reflect the ideas of a class which is no longer dominant outside its walls.”[115]

Griffin, John Howard, 1961. Black Like Me. Boston: Houghton Mifflin hardcover; NYC: Signet paperback.




London Daily Mail, June 25, 2010 “Student-cleared-rape-emerges-second-man-committed-suicide-falsely-accused-woman” By Chris Brook. Circulated by Jeremy Swanson, FRA.




Lupri, Eugen, 2004. “Institutional Resistance to Acknowledging Intimate Male Abuse”, Paper presented at the Counter-Roundtable Conference on Domestic Violence, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 7




Martin, Davd, 2011. “The ‘Status of Men in A Woman’s World’: Educational, Legal, and Demographic Realities vs. Social Inertia, 2011”. Everyman.org website, posted April.




Pettigrew, Thomas F., 1964. A Profile of the Negro American. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand


The Negro wife in this situation can easily become disgusted with her financially dependent husband, and her rejection of him further alienates the male from family life. Embittered by their experiences with men, many Negro mothers often act to perpetuate the mother centered pattern by taking a greater interest in their daughters than their sons." [16]




Rustin, Bayard 1965. "From Protest to Politics: The Future of the Civil Rights Movement," Commentary, February.




Swanson, Jeremy, 2009-2010. E-mail anecdotes numbering in the hundreds, of cases of [1] differential law enforcement by gender; [2] differential reporting of criminal charges by gender; [3] differential treatment of divorcing spouses by gender.




United States Department of Labor website, accessed 2010.




United States Supreme Court, 1954. Brown. V. Board of Education, decision.




Yohannan, K P, 2001. Revolution in World Missions. Carrolton, TX: gfa books (the publishing part of Rev. Yohannan’s organization, Gospel for Asia. This book is cited not as a classic nor unusually authoritative reference, but as an ordinarily credible one from a disciplined and successful source—which book happens to be in my library.)



1As those who read Spanish or Portugese recognize already, "Negro" is simply "Black" in a different language.  In the mid-20th Century it was deemed more polite to say "Negro" than "Black"; the custom has since changed at the initiative of Afro-American activists:  They said they wanted "Black" in English, and we non-Afro folks, from Aboriginals to Euros to Asians, generally went along with that wish.



2In the 1960s i resided in the United States and earned my Ph.D. There. In 1971 i moved to Canada and have lived here since, excepting one year in Finland. I noticed no significant difference between Canadian and US family power balance either on arrival or in anecdotes from people in both countries; but that might be affected by the specific places i lived.



3In the professional workplaces of 2010, there is female dominance among the young and male dominance among the old. Since the old inevitably retire and die and the young inevitably replace them, and since the schoolchildren of today seem to be continuing the girls-above-boys patterns that brought about female dominance among professional entrants today, the pattern is set toward a Canada [and a US, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe] where women dominate the work world as well as most households.



4Female and male dominance, like “matriarchy” and “patriarchy”, are matters of degree, not matters of “kind”. More formally, they are continuous variables, not dichotomies [nor trichotomies, etc.]—hence, “more accurate”.



5… and to a greater degree than her father the King was styled superior to her mother the Queen? Her husband is titled Prince Consort, not King; while the title of the wife of a British King, is Queen.



6It is a criminal offence [cf felony in US usage] to startle the Queen, a lawyer recently told me.



7I don’t have the data i’d need to compare Aboriginal or Asian ethnic groups in the same way; and in 1965 Moynihan had similar difficulties.  If any reader should have such data, i hope he’ll start writing them up.



8Apartheid might be adduced. I do not know those old long-replaced laws as well as i know the US “segregation” and Canadian Residential School stories; and i am not sure if South Africa should be considered part of the common-law tradition in the way the United States is. It should perhaps be stressed that i refer not to the harshest days of “Jim Crow” in the Southern US, but to school segregation, and generally to discrimination as experienced in the northern and western US between 1945-1965, as analogous to men’s legal disadvantages in Canada today.



9The ‘totem poles’ of the Northwest Coast of North America are not idols and they are not worshipped, they may be used analogously to Orthodox ikons, but i am not informed enough of Wakesian practice to say for sure. Carved wooden idols are worshipped in parts of Asia (Yohannan, 2001: 58)



10Why not a goal? I have seen indications, as yet not enough for me to form a conclusion [much less write-up formally], that women in power misuse that power and mistreat other women as well as men, to a greater extent than do men in power. It may be that in a decade to a generation from now, if these indications are confirmed, that a predominance of men in holding some forms of power, will prove to be the wisest political arrangement. That said, using gender equality as a criterion remains worth while: If men should return to dominance, it ought to be with good cause and good and documented reason. We have now seen in both race and gender relations, the baleful effects of selfish political oppression.



11Gender equality “on balance”, with women advantaged in the domestic sphere and men in paid employment, may have existed in working-class Canada and “white America” well before 1965.



12The difference between “look to” and “look at” is intentional. Afro-American men are our brothers in spirit [and for some, brothers or at least cousins in genealogy as well] while Feminist activists seeking still-more-preferential treatment while already advantaged, are our oppressors. We can learn from our oppressors, as for instance many believe the founders of the State of Israel learned from the Wehrmacht of World War II; but we should do so more warily than from our fellows—as the State of Israel has perhaps to some degree, failed to do, resulting in greater hostility from the Muslim world, than was needful.



13As there are at least two Hispanic subcultures in the United States (e.g. Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban) so there are at least two Métis subcultures in Canada (e.g Prairie, Acadian, rural-Québecois). Métis in Spanish is, of course, mestizo.



14Since such disclaimers were conventional in social science in the 1960s, one cannot tell if Moynihan believed what he wrote or simply “genuflected” to a custom of his time and line of work.



15Oddly, “the Moynihan report” hardly mentions gender equality; yet my observations of dozens of marriages and households from 1955-1980 indicated to me that rough gender equality was commoner than matriarchal or patriarchal household organization—and thus, the median as well as the modal form in working and middle class Canada and USA. We should not despise nor avoid equality! We should neither, mis-label arrangements to our disadvantage, as equal.


It might be worth mentioning, that declines in the crime rate and particularly the rates of some violent crimes, should not be “credited” to Gun Control nor to the degradation of men—but to ageing. It has long been a criminological truism that crime generally and violent crime especially is far commoner among the young than the old; and that the effect of long prison sentences in reducing recidivism is largely due to aging. (At the extreme, of course, the recidivism rate among those who die in prison, is zero.) Canada’s population has grown noticeably older since 1965; and in accord with the ageing hypothesis, Canada’s crime rate has fallen (CBC News, 2010b).



16That is not to minimize the declines in sexual restraint: When prostitutes become “sex trade workers”, real trades are denigrated through no fault of their own; when sexually transmitted diseases become common, public health in general suffers. It is to say that privileging the least moral of women to lie and drive innocent men to suicide (London Daily Mail, June 25, 2010), and then protecting their identity so future victims cannot be forewarned, represents moral decline comparable to that which marked the last years of the Roman Empire.

{ 94 comments… read them below or add one }

Alcuin August 12, 2011 at 07:39

What’s missing here is the enormous role played by Christians in feminizing men (no beer for Christian men, as it is associated with men and all-male socializing) and in pedestalizing women. The churches more than anything have stabbed men in the back. They are profoundly anti-male and anti-masculine.

Interesting paragraph, then, about Islam….

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 7
John Boy August 12, 2011 at 08:13

Men need to organize if they expect to get anywhere! You would think this would be easy when considering how much money men control but it just seems to never happen.

The benefits of a well funded, well run, media savvy organization that advocated for men would be enormous. First of all, we would be in a position to float ideas and laws and not suffer personal retribution the way individual men are. Secondly, they would have access to the media, both paid and unpaid, which would force greater society to acknowledge men’s issues on men’s terms. Thirdly, men could begin enforcing legal changes ending legal second class status for men. Fourth, begin redirecting resources to men or preventing the out right theft of money from men in the first place.

The funny thing is that it would not take that much to do it. A couple of billion dollars tops. There are approximately 150 million males in this country. That is roughly $6 per head or the equivalent of a Happy Meal (I have not eaten at McDonalds for a while so I am guessing). Once these organizations were set up and FUNDED they would be beyond the reach of our better organized malevolent opponents that would no longer be able to strangle the movement in the crib.

This would rock the world.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 2
Firepower August 12, 2011 at 08:31

In the Afro-American case, false stereotypes of inequality were believed for generations: Blacks were believed to be inherently lazier, of lower intelligence, more violent and criminal

LOL “false” stereotype???

DP Moynihan WAS a communist like Tip O’Neill.

NOT the sanctified, pedestalized “rational liberal” icons revered so much today…by those who can even read well enough to know who the hell they were.

Lazy criminal blacks who’d rather collect a check and fuck than work. WHO can imagine that?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 40 Thumb down 34
Fabron August 12, 2011 at 08:57

Interesting read.

I’m not just being cranky this morning, but Prof. Martin has a quirky (and wrong) style of using a lower case “i” for the first person singular pronoun. Perhaps he was trying to demonstrate his humility, but it smacks of submissive thinking by a man who spent too many years on a feminized campus.

His style of lower case “i” would never be accepted by any academic journal.

It’s capital “I”, Prof. Martin.

More criticism:

There is not one mention of our consumer society. Women account for more than 80% of retail purchases. That’s why advertising is directed toward women and not men. That’s why television programs nearly always portray a man as a doofus who is inferior to the woman.

On the day after 9/11, President Bush (or was it Giuliani?) said the best way to recover from the tragedy was to “Go shopping”. Yep, that’s what the country needed at that time, some national “retail therapy”.

My point here is that one of the biggest factors working against men in our society is consumerism and the advertising that drives it. This extends to political campaign advertising as women and feminized men are ask to vote for a candidate without consideration of the consequences.

This is not likely to change in my lifetime. I feel depressed. I’m going to go buy some stuff and then I will feel better.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0
Lord Simon August 12, 2011 at 08:58

I credit my success to my neighborhood. I grew up in a middle class black neighborhood in which out of the 30 + families who lived there, all were two parent households but 2. One single mum, one divorce. 90% of the kids in my neighborhood played little league sports, participated in boy scouts and ROTC. Most of us went to college and on to professional careers. Why? We had Dads who were there for us. My Dad was president of our football league. My best friends Dad was our coach who lead us to city wide victory and owns his own construction company. My other friends Dad was our scout master and a former US drill Sargent. We were scared to death of him. Most of our Dad’s were military. It took getting into high school to realize we were an anomaly. Lots of blacks hated us for not being like them, and of course whites being whites, well you can read the comments around here and see how they think. Still, I follow something my Dad told me, love those who love you back and forget the rest.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 60 Thumb down 5
Ken August 12, 2011 at 09:07

An “is to be” future…….
1) women allowed to spray/taze/shoot men who “threaten” them (i.e. getting too close in parking lots, stores, or just “sexual harrassment”)
2)single/childless men barred from public parks, malls, even McDonalds-type restaurants where kids gather (i.e. “protection from possible perverts”)
3) stricter gun control (with male gun owners in mind)
4) new taxes levied on single men (funneled to support single mothers)
5) less and less due-process in arresting/charging men with crimes.
6) “Hate Crimes” extended to men who “argue” with or curse out women.

Think this is overreaching?
Well I’d love to be wrong….but we’ll see!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 1
Antiphon August 12, 2011 at 09:12

Alcuin:

“What’s missing here is the enormous role played by Christians in feminizing men (no beer for Christian men, as it is associated with men and all-male socializing) and in pedestalizing women. The churches more than anything have stabbed men in the back. They are profoundly anti-male and anti-masculine.”

This is a very general claim that is often made at the Spearhead. Could you give some specifics regarding Christian feminization of men?

I would say, observing trends over the last century or two, that the rise in feminism (and all other aspects of Liberalism) has coincided with a lessening of Christian belief and practice in the West. That is to say, as society as a whole and in its parts has become less Christian, feminism has increased. Do you read the situation differently?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 6
Nico August 12, 2011 at 09:20

OT:

epic video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6ztgjtg0mQ&feature=feedlik

Roumanian female teacher slaps policeman. Policeman fails to behave as a mangina.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 0
Antiphon August 12, 2011 at 09:20

Lord Simon:

A) “of course whites being whites, well you can read the comments around here and see how they think”

B) “of course blacks being blacks, well you can listen to the lyrics of rap music to see how they think”

C) “of course blacks being blacks, well you can look at crime statistics to see how they act”

Question: Which of the above statements is not an example of racist stereotyping?

Answer: A (of course)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 8
keyster August 12, 2011 at 09:28

Later in his life Moynihan went on the refute and contradict much of what was in his report. Like so many he became more conservative (and wise) in his views after observing, experiencing and accepting human nature for what it is. (Although it happened to take him much longer to realize this.)

The UK has the highest per capita of single motherhood than any other continental European nation. Is it any wonder it’s youth run amok? They eat, drink and screw…and will steal if the opportunity presents itself. Yes, sounds a bit like Southside Chicago or Detroit to me.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Lord Simon August 12, 2011 at 09:28

Antiphon

Actually its all of the above. Racial stereotyping isn’t going to go away. But I’m glad to see you can recognize it when you see it. Now can you recognize it when you do it? That’s the blind spot most people miss. I did it for a reason, those who get pissed about it, well it shows who they are, those who recognize it and say nothing, it shows who they are and those who say, ‘hold on, not cool’ those are the ones ready to have a conversation. I think you might be ready.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 9
Alcuin August 12, 2011 at 09:29

Antiphon, check out my site. I’ve posted a lot on Christianity and feminism/feminization.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
oddsock August 12, 2011 at 09:32

Hopefully, when enough of us have swallowed the red pill we will finally stop making posts about what the whites did/do or the blacks or the muslims et al. It is very very simple. The war is and always has been against MEN/BOYS not colour creed or religion. We are all one, simple as that.

It is so easy for a cloaked feminist or a site destroyer to cause major upset because they know full well most guys are still trapped in the mind set society and the PTB put them in. So easy to control, I am still shocked at how many guys that call themselves MRA’s still make posts about race etc.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 5
mananon August 12, 2011 at 09:45

@Lord Simon

“Whites being whites”…

You had me until that sentence. Not all white people are “like that”, any more than all black people are “like that”. Your childhood family and community sounds impressive – better than the environments many white kids in Britain grow up in.

And why? You said it yourself – fathers who were involved in family and community.

The presence of fathers is more important than race. I’m sure *we* can all agree on that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
epoche* August 12, 2011 at 09:59

the canadian men are so pussy whipped and the country is isolated, so it is a weird historical phenomenon. I live in buffalo and I have been to canada many times. I have the strange feeling that you could take over the whole place by waving a few guns in the air.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 7
Dubcik August 12, 2011 at 10:01

I have to agree, with my limited personal experience, that women in power often mis-treat their employees. My husband works in a male dominated trade. At his last 2 work places, he’s had female bosses. Females who didn’t “work” their way up the ranks and know the industry, like most men in his field do , but wives of the owners. The situations in both companies was that in meetings, with 30 men (workers) and 1 female (boss) is that any man who spoke up and voiced an opinion which challenged or disagreed with the way the “boss” said they should be done, was let-go in a month or two.

Both companies spent an enormous amount on training employees, only to turn over those employees at a huge rate and train new ones. But who is really at fault here? The inexpereinced women who abuse their power, or their husbands who give their wives a nice cushy management job then are too whipped to get rid of them when they are clearly causing employee dis-satisfaction and falling profits?

Wait, I just answered my own question. Firing wife = legal nightmare = divorce = 50% of company now goes to her = loss of company he origninally started.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1
Antiphon August 12, 2011 at 10:06

oddsock:

“Hopefully, when enough of us have swallowed the red pill we will finally stop making posts about what the whites did/do or the blacks or the muslims et al. It is very very simple. The war is and always has been against MEN/BOYS not colour creed or religion. We are all one, simple as that.”

I would disagree with your assessment. The war on men and boys is one aspect of a larger war. Some men come to the MRM because they have been burned by a woman in some way. Others (I am in this category) are trying to figure out why the world is so topsy-turvy and come to realize that one aspect is the destruction of families and men by feminism.

Some patrons of the MRM sites are probably monomaniacal: its all about feminism and women. Other patrons visit many sites in many different camps and try to see connections. I for instance keep my eye on some palaeoconservative sites, some liberal sites, some that deal with racial issues, some traditional Catholic sites, some MRM sites, some sites that deal with Judaism, some sites that deal with current events, some that deal with pipe-smoking, and some that deal with vintage clothing (though I do not, myself, wear it), etc.

I am trying to see how all these things are connected. I have come to the (always evolving) opinion that the attack on men/boys and families is one (very important) aspect of a more generalized attack on society. It might be the key point of attack, but it is not the only point and I doubt it is the supreme goal of the attackers.

And while, yes, I do sympathize with black men, Latino men, Asian men, and any other men who are being robbed of their proper position and authority in their household and society, it does not mean that I turn a blind eye to other ways in which our interests (racial, ethnic, religious, etc.) conflict.

I think it is a sign of the MRM’s health that some members are beginning to see that their problems are bigger than out of control feminism.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price August 12, 2011 at 10:28

I am trying to see how all these things are connected. I have come to the (always evolving) opinion that the attack on men/boys and families is one (very important) aspect of a more generalized attack on society. It might be the key point of attack, but it is not the only point and I doubt it is the supreme goal of the attackers.

[...]

I think it is a sign of the MRM’s health that some members are beginning to see that their problems are bigger than out of control feminism.

Funny, I was writing about this very thing just this morning (not finished yet).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Lara August 12, 2011 at 10:50

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 32
continent August 12, 2011 at 11:40

Moynihan modified his views to “Benign Neglect” which allowed feminist to hijack the Civil Rights Movement and
retrofit the white upper class women as the “victims” of discrimination. The Supreme Court agreed and used the 14th Amendment which had been enacted to help newly freed slaves to apply to women in feminist pursuit of “Master Gender”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benign_neglect
quote
“Benign neglect was a policy proposed in the late 1960s by New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the time on Nixon’s White House Staff as an urban affairs advisor. While serving in this capacity, he sent the President a memo suggesting that “the issue of race could benefit from a period of ‘benign neglect’. “

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Ken August 12, 2011 at 12:20

“What’s missing here is the enormous role played by Christians in feminizing men (no beer for Christian men, as it is associated with men and all-male socializing) and in pedestalizing women. The churches more than anything have stabbed men in the back. They are profoundly anti-male and anti-masculine.”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Where does one think liberalism came from originally but the alien creed of christianity? :) I have a simple “test” for men who call themselves Christian:
Answer these simple questions:
1) Have you ever had (straight) sex?
2) Have you ever defended yourself with force?
3) Have you ever had money/property in your name?
“Yes” to any of these three questions proves you’re not a follower of Jesus of the Hebrew Bible~ he preached specifically AGAINST all three of these!
*examples? Sermon on the Mount and his warning against looking at women with desire*

Bingo….Yahtzee! :)

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 15
oddsock August 12, 2011 at 12:30

Antiphon

No need to disagree with my analysis Antiphon, I agree with almost everything you say. I am aware of the bigger picture I am simply trying to lead more men into seeing it. The war on men and boys is not just simply a war on men and boys, it’s is as you say, part of a much bigger plan, feminism was/is a powerful weapon that has been used to great effect. They (ptb)obviously had to destroy the family structure first. The overall plan IMHO is going to be some major socital change and governance and yes I do firmly believe there is a NWO. Despite what many people may think of him, David Icke makes some excellent videos in which he pieces together the jigsaw.

Hope that explains my original post a little better ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
legendary warhorse August 12, 2011 at 13:04

It would take psychologist and sociologist to rationally look at the problem, but the issue is many of those departments are overrun by feminists and manginas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
rapscallion August 12, 2011 at 13:27

epoche*,

you guys already tried that. It was called the war of 1812. We followed you back and burned your white house. XD

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
Maaldweb August 12, 2011 at 13:34

Well I guess we needed a strong dose of Political Correctness after the reality punch Petra gave us with the article about the UK riots.

A note to those unfamiliar with social sciences. Everytime you see an article written by someone in the academia, before you read it take a look at his work, the articles & books he has published, in which academic journals were published etc (btw I was unable to find anything about Dr Martin online). That way you will be able to understand where he lies politically.

Sociology is so heavily marxisised which is merely pointless to even take into consideration what sociologists argue. You see leftist academics are not interested in describing the world, but transforming it to fit their ideas, (read the last sentence again, it encapsulates the modus operandi of the Left)
So when it comes to social sciences (or “sciences” since the leftists have destroyed their credibility), anything you read that defies common knowledge there is a great possibility to be mere propaganda in academic jargon.

Sorry for not reading the article, I decided not to after seeing the hilarious part about “false stereotypes” Firepower commented upon. Thanx Firepower for finding it, you saved me some time from reading the article.

Anyone who really believes that black underachievement throughout history is related to “false stereotypes”, I have some seafront real estate in Kentucky to sell you…

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 9
Rebel August 12, 2011 at 15:49

Female supremacy?

Female supremacy cannot persist in a civilized society: either female supremacy or civilization has to go.

And if civilization ends, female supremacy dies anyway.

I wouldn’t worry about that.

Let things unfold. Be solution oriented.

Things will keep on becoming worse until women roll up their sleeves and “fix” their mess.

If they “fix” it: fine.
If they don’t: fine.

It really doesn’t matter if they do it or not now: the next civilization is almost ready to take the lead.
Basically, all we have to do is… nothing.

Young men: maybe you could think about learning Chinese..

This is good advise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
john thames August 12, 2011 at 15:53

What we need is:

(1) White Supremacy;

(2) Male supremacy.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 26
Geography Bee Finalist himself August 12, 2011 at 15:57

re: “false” stereotypes, intellectual tyranny among liberals, and how it pertains to the arena of blood donation (granted slightly OT)

There has been an uproar recently in the United States almost exclusively among liberals over the unwillingness of the FDA to even partially relax the Red Cross ban on any male who has had sex with any other male under any set of circumstances, even once, since 01/01/1977, from donating blood. There are many Americans of all political agendas who would like to keep the ban in place for statistical reasons. Ironically with liberals, this three-part question does not bother them:

1) were you born in or have you lived in Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger or Nigeria since 1977?

2) if you have lived in or have travelled to any of these countries since 1977, did you have a blood transfusion or medical procedure involving a blood product in any of these countries?

3) have you had sexual contact with anyone who was born in or who has lived in any of these countries since 1977?

Immigrants from Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger, and Nigeria are not fighting for the PRIVILEGE to donate blood. Blood donation is not a birthright.

The other difference is that the individuals with the birthplaces in Central Africa have to live with their places of birth and dates of birth their whole lives, with no way to conceal or repress their birthplaces and birthdates.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Rocco August 12, 2011 at 16:22

Welcome to the party doc.

Read Warren Farrel, the Welfare reform act Hillary passed in 1996, sponsored by the repubitards that, by raised tanf by 225% from 2000 to 210 and is responsible for all the effects you see in you social science readings.

Are you crazy??? You think we should call ourselves Hombre? really?

Why not “Crazy man” or “convict”? I mean we have convictions right?

No we need hombre like we need creepy.

How about somthing we all invented together and like … mens rights activist or MRA?

If they don’t like it because it’s not catchy and if there is some baggage because some folks don’t like uppity men, well then they can suck my d@ck.

And we know what their doing to us is similar to what they did to blacks a few years ago….and this is our sisters, mothers, fathers, wives daughters and sons.

IMO through Hillarys law including debtors prison, they have re-invented indentured servitute.

I have been careful not to make too many analogies between the mra and the civil rights movement in writing because it’s tacky.

I say that Martin Luther King says that there is such a thing as “rightous anger”, and so men should not feel anger is a dirty word.

We are human, we get angry when enslaved….it’s natural.

Otherwise, I stear clear.

Welcome aboard….put on your thinking cap….they sit around all day thinking of how to f@ck with us…..lol.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Rocco August 12, 2011 at 16:43

By the way….I think that feminism may have resulted from the profound effect on the British conciousness that Elizebeth I had when a woman…the ones we have had to get to re-know….succeeds in running a country.

That was 1550, luckily such disasters are rare indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England

It seems to go back that far in terms of culturally acceptable behavious of english women compared to that of women from asian cultures.

Thought provoking observation about Elizebeth II and her first son. I notice the queen bee seems to like Kate Middleton alot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
epoche* August 12, 2011 at 16:55

I think it is a sign of the MRM’s health that some members are beginning to see that their problems are bigger than out of control feminism.
——————————-
Thus the fundamental problem in Western democracy now, as Minogue sees it, arises from inequality not in wealth but in wisdom or competence. That is why he focuses on the mind. That is also why he does not speak much of rights. The intellectual elite behind the politico-moral project that he opposes does not say this is the problem they see, but in fact it is. Despite what they say, they do not merely, or mainly, want to equalize wealth; they want to equalize competence, through government programs that equalize power—to compensate for society’s (perhaps nature’s) unequal distribution of intelligence.

To do this it is not enough to ensure equal rights for everybody, because some will exercise those rights more effectively than others. Offensive differences will remain and become even more intense as merit takes over from privilege. Civil rights having to do with behavior are not enough; nor is the indifference of toleration. One must get to the thinking behind the behavior. The less competent and the more competent must be taught to think differently; and to accept that their own degree of competence comes from external conditions rather than individual merit. Those conditions can be changed, or in the case of natural privilege, compensated for, by government action, so that it is reasonable for government to become responsible for them.

In taking this responsibility, government negates and replaces individual responsibility, by which individuals can be praised or blamed for their merit and behavior. But again, to accomplish this government must first change behavior by taking over the thinking of individuals, by getting them to believe that only the government, not the individual, can be responsible for the fate of individuals. The poor, the deprived, the oppressed must be taught to look to government for solutions to their ills—all of which are social conditions—and the rich and powerful must be taught to submit to government, not grudgingly but in good humor, with “deference.” As once Walter Bagehot spoke of the deference of the lesser sort to the better sort, now deference must flow in reverse, from better to lesser. Equalization must be applied to all, the less competent equalized up and the more competent equalized down. Then all will see that no one is individually competent. This equalization takes place in the mind, not merely in society by the redistribution of wealth. Freedom, in the governing elite’s view, is a collective enterprise that depends on the creation of the servile mind. The servile mind is one that has learned that there are no free individuals, that everyone is a creature not of God or nature but of society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
Lord Simon August 12, 2011 at 17:04

john thames August 12, 2011 at 15:53
What we need is:

(1) White Supremacy;

(2) Male supremacy.

We already have that. The problem is those who in control don’t give damn about those who are outside of the club. If you are here complaining about feminism you are outside of the club. A wealthy INVESTOR in banks and fortune 500 companies could care less about women, minorities and poorer whites. Whatever works to keep the power and control flowing. And if that means screwing over other men, so be it. Kings don’t care about serfs, they just want them to do their job and stay in their place. They will pay lip service to the current “culture” and throw out some bones, but honestly they don’t give a crap. If men rise up and demand more, trust me, they will throw us some bones, but if you want the lion’s share, you are going to have to take it. Nobody is going to give it you.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 8
Rebel August 12, 2011 at 17:23

Let it be said, in passing, that the Roman Catholic Church is a female.

That’s where you will find the answers to the questions regarding female supremacy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8
Lara August 12, 2011 at 17:32

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 32
Lara August 12, 2011 at 17:46

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 32
W.F. Price August 12, 2011 at 17:48

I sometimes even imagine myself saying, “Off with his head.”

-Lara

Haha. But as a queen, I imagine you’d probably be executing more women than men, and some of them quite viciously.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Rebel August 12, 2011 at 18:31

“I always thought it would be awesome to be Queen Elizabeth.”

“I sometimes even imagine myself saying, “Off with his head.” ”

Maybe Catherine of Russia would be more fitting..

Or Marie Antoinette, whose head came off. This one fits, too.

(Didn’t she say she lost her head?)

-*)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Anonymous August 12, 2011 at 19:38

epoche*:

“As once Walter Bagehot spoke of the deference of the lesser sort to the better sort, now deference must flow in reverse, from better to lesser.”

Reaction 1: The above thought is solid gold–reminiscent of H.L. Mencken’s “Notes on Democracy”. I like to read it during election years.

Reaction 2: Your comment, as I understand it, calls to mind a passage from Codreanu’s “For My Legionaries”: “According to an ancient maxim, equality means treating unequal things unequally.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Antiphon August 12, 2011 at 19:39

epoche*:

“As once Walter Bagehot spoke of the deference of the lesser sort to the better sort, now deference must flow in reverse, from better to lesser.”

Reaction 1: The above thought is solid gold–reminiscent of H.L. Mencken’s “Notes on Democracy”. I like to read it during election years.

Reaction 2: Your comment, as I understand it, calls to mind a passage from Codreanu’s “For My Legionaries”: “According to an ancient maxim, equality means treating unequal things unequally.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Alcuin August 12, 2011 at 19:46

epoche: “the canadian men are so pussy whipped and the country is isolated, so it is a weird historical phenomenon. I live in buffalo and I have been to canada many times. I have the strange feeling that you could take over the whole place by waving a few guns in the air.”

This is the sad reality. Canadian men are bigger manginas than almost anywhere. I live in Asian exile more because of the weak men than because of the gross Canadian Uberfrauen. The longer I live away from Canada, the more I feel like a man. I don’t have to apologize constantly for breathing someone else’s air, which is how things are in Canada.

Shameful situation. Canadian men are hopeless. The women are asexual and domineering. Why would anyone build a life there?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3
Antiphon August 12, 2011 at 19:48

Mr. Price:

“Funny, I was writing about this very thing just this morning (not finished yet).”

Can’t wait to read it! I’m sure that your insight will be thought-provoking.

Indeed, it probably isn’t said often enough here how impressive your grasp of the modern situation and how clear and elegant your statement of it is. Keep up the great work you do, Welmer (can we still call you that?)! And don’t be afraid to expand beyond purely men’s issues. As men, there is nothing that falls outside the horizon of our interest or concern. Women are the ones with a limited range of interests.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Bob August 12, 2011 at 20:28

epoche* August 12, 2011 at 09:59
«the canadian men are so pussy whipped and the country is isolated, so it is a weird historical phenomenon. I live in buffalo and I have been to canada many times. I have the strange feeling that you could take over the whole place by waving a few guns in the air.»
Here feminizm run free. Guns are bad, hunter are bad peoples, if you like guns you are see as an Hitler emule. We have lost billions of dollars on a stupid database to list all firearm and who own it… [I can't figure out how a dumb database linking owner with guns can cost that amount! It's insane, a result of the feminazizt vitues (self-serving, egoism, narcissism,etc) I suppose...] All this came from the ‘Polytechnique’ that feminizt use ad nauseam to promote misandrous laws and keep any males critic down. This is especialy effective in Quebec where Polytechnique incident append. BTW, I read somewhere that an Autocrat of the international feminizt sphere said after visiting the nasty province, that Quebec is the feminist paradise (read hellhole). Comming from a highprofil female supremacist, males are at the very bottom of the food chain there. There is no resistance to the progress toward an Female absolute supremacy.

But to take over the whole place jst wait. Canadians are not reproducing (not enough) so thanks to the great progress of feminazizm we will go extinct in few generations from now. What Great accomplishment! As far as evolution is concern feminizm is a dead end. A complete faillure.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
Boxer August 12, 2011 at 21:06

Nothing to add. I just wanted to thank you for posting this fascinating article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Sebastian August 12, 2011 at 23:31

““Hopefully, when enough of us have swallowed the red pill we will finally stop making posts about what the whites did/do or the blacks or the muslims et al. It is very very simple. The war is and always has been against MEN/BOYS not colour creed or religion. We are all one, simple as that.”

I would disagree with your assessment. The war on men and boys is one aspect of a larger war. Some men come to the MRM because they have been burned by a woman in some way. Others (I am in this category) are trying to figure out why the world is so topsy-turvy and come to realize that one aspect is the destruction of families and men by feminism.

Some patrons of the MRM sites are probably monomaniacal: its all about feminism and women. Other patrons visit many sites in many different camps and try to see connections. I for instance keep my eye on some palaeoconservative sites, some liberal sites, some that deal with racial issues, some traditional Catholic sites, some MRM sites, some sites that deal with Judaism, some sites that deal with current events, some that deal with pipe-smoking, and some that deal with vintage clothing (though I do not, myself, wear it), etc.

I am trying to see how all these things are connected. I have come to the (always evolving) opinion that the attack on men/boys and families is one (very important) aspect of a more generalized attack on society. It might be the key point of attack, but it is not the only point and I doubt it is the supreme goal of the attackers.

And while, yes, I do sympathize with black men, Latino men, Asian men, and any other men who are being robbed of their proper position and authority in their household and society, it does not mean that I turn a blind eye to other ways in which our interests (racial, ethnic, religious, etc.) conflict.

I think it is a sign of the MRM’s health that some members are beginning to see that their problems are bigger than out of control feminism.” – Antiphon

(Please pardon the poor writing, I’m much below requisite sleep)

Antiphon,

That was well said, but I think there is a deeper truth that we must start to embrace, which is one of the main reasons I’ve lost interest in most blogs that aren’t primarily about personal/individual improvement:

No one is “attacking” us – not in any organized way, neither openly or as a conspiracy, and there isn’t a group victory possible. The fundamental problem cannot be solved, because it is an inevitable result of human nature. Civilizations decay. They aren’t sustainable. Even when we look at history, what looks like very long term civilization is actually just new paradigms replacing the old in the same location, even perhaps with largely the same genetic base (Egypt may be a good example).

The English/Christian/rule of law/Individual Liberty epoch is dying. It cannot be salvaged. The pertinent questions are:

1. What can be done on an individual level to maximize the value of life during the decay and survive (either ourselves or our progeny) through the collapse?

2. What will come after/how can we work now to shape it for the best?

3. How long will it take/what can we do to speed a new, better era?

The typical person living through a “fall” doesn’t have their quality of life degraded that much (averages don’t mean much to the unlucky, however).

Work on self improvement – health, knowledge, productive capacity – learn skills that translate into a more local means of making a living as a hobby first, if you still work in the “combine” as a financial/government/education type. Things that are currently heavily regulated/illegal that you can learn about but not yet practice can be good choices – gunsmithing and the ability to make your own ammo are some examples. The best option, of course, is a skill or trade with minimal material inputs that is valuable in both an advanced society and a post collapse society, ie – a skilled surgeon will probably never go hungry, but may go crazy due to change in lifestyle, so have your kids go to school to be large animal veterinarians/surgical specialists or lens grinders or mechanics or something like that…

If you can live where people make a living off the land/natural resources, then live there – mines, timber, crops, livestock, fishing… Especially places with some independent combination of those things. Cities are growing tumors. They will metastasize soon – violently.

Stockpile ammo and weapons that you have learned how to use in a manner consistent with your locality, skill level, and income/wealth. In a world of true deprivation the right combination of lead, brass, charge, and steel are worth MUCH more than gold. Bullets make great money.

Become more engaged in your local real world community, focus your online time on real learning. Learn who your neighbors are – if you can help each other out when the SHTF, it won’t really matter that he’s a misguided commie pothead that drinks only organic goat milk that he squeezes himself from his own goats and you are a creationist dumbass redneck gun nut that reloads his own 12 gauge shells… you will both have something to trade.

The positive mental, spiritual, emotional, and perhaps even financial benefits of doing these things still have a great personal value, even if I’m wrong. Stop watching tv, stop playing video games, stop wasting your money on a fancy car or a vacation to Vegas…

You can’t save this ship, you can only learn how to swim and remain faithful that you will find land…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
Rebel August 12, 2011 at 23:44

@Alcuin:The longer I live away from Canada, the more I feel like a man. I don’t have to apologize constantly for breathing someone else’s air, which is how things are in Canada.

This, friend, is a gross exaggeration. I’ve been living here for ages and never apologized for anything. Ever.

But I have a way with words and always willing to fence, always willing to escalate. I know what words cut a deep wound.

But I grant you that the Anglo Canadian female is an unbearable loud mouth with a deep vaccuum within their thick skulls. There is none stupider than the Anglo Canadian female: they truly sit at the very bottom of the totem pole. And you wonder why Canadians don’t reproduce?
For your info, the Anglo Canadian female is the MOST EFFICIENT anaphrodisiac ever discovered. Even a bull in love couldn’t get a hard on.

Other than being a pisspot, what other use could an Anglo Canadian female have?
And low grade pisspots at that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Robert August 13, 2011 at 05:09

Nico August 12, 2011 at 09:20
OT:

epic video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6ztgjtg0mQ&feature=feedlik

Roumanian female teacher slaps policeman. Policeman fails to behave as a mangina.

He almost slipped.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Robert August 13, 2011 at 05:32

Rebel August 12, 2011 at 18:31
“I always thought it would be awesome to be Queen Elizabeth.”

“I sometimes even imagine myself saying, “Off with his head.” ”

Maybe Catherine of Russia would be more fitting..

Or Marie Antoinette, whose head came off. This one fits, too.

(Didn’t she say she lost her head?)

-*)

There was also queen Mary of Scots. It took over a dozen wacks with the ax to remove her head.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Robert August 13, 2011 at 05:46

Sebastian August 12, 2011 at 23:31

It would be cool if the red bill were a physically exsistent pill. x 1 trillion could be added to the world’s water supply.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
mananon August 13, 2011 at 06:39

“From White Supremacy to Female Supremacy?”

There are members of the MRM who are white nationalist, or even supremacist. Personally I don’t want to be superior to anyone. Whether on the basis of race or sex I just want fairness. In today’s world the choice is a tough one. Be a good Beta, or a white knight and ‘fit in’, or stand up for yourself, say f@ck you and grow a pair. I did the latter and WMOW. The prospect of an MRM that was forceful and vocal made going my own way easier; the MRM has a lot going for it and I hope it prospers of all our sakes.

But now white nationalism makes things more difficult. With that becoming more vocal the choice increasingly seems to be between White Knighting or White Nationalism. I don’t fancy either to be honest. If the MRM becomes a proxy for White Nationalist interest going my own way all over again may be the only option.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5
keyster August 13, 2011 at 07:40

Other than the similiarities of women and non-whites being identified (or identifiying as), oppressed or victim groups, there is no “white supremacy” leanings in the MRM.

Civil rights for all regardless of skin color is not a bad thing. Civil rights based on sex (which feminists latched on to in the 60′s), is ridiculous and always has been. Men, white or otherwise, will fall over themselves to help a woman do anything. There’s never been anybody keeping women from succeeding in our society but herself.

To equate women with the struggles of the black race, is an insult to and diminishes the black race experience in our history.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
D August 13, 2011 at 07:59

I second mananon.

It becomes apparent after awhile on MRM sites that there are two wholly inconsistent groups gravitating into MRM, and there is a de facto leadership that cannot be unaware of the matter, but which tolerates the incoherent co-existence of these two groups.

It did take me awhile to pick up on. At first I came by MRM by way of divorce, which exposed me to family law and other extensions in criminal and civil law where “feminism”, if not even greater and more abstract forces, basically had done away with equality under the law and created a horrid situation where despite the utter incompetence of my ex-wife as a parent, despite her abusive nature – the entire system was designed so as to protect her and find fault – even fictional, in me.

That isn’t an accident – that is a systemic problem run through the lot.

I do not wish to be superior to anyone. Facing such a problem, I, like the author, like mananon and like others here, think the appropriate response is to take our example from various civil rights movements that proceeded us. I think the right response is to answer feminism like Paul Elam at his best (oh: and his worst – pretty bad) – which is to absolutely insist that for women to demand equality – then they should get ABSOLUTE, across-the-board, equality. Not equality to their advantage but inequality when it still favors them – men should refuse to cooperate with laws and practices that fail to demand of women what is demanded of men.

The most ironic – and just thing – would be for the opening political salvo of MRM to be the passing of an Equal Rights Amendment, and ERA – that would not just erase gender-based preferences from the books, but highlight their stink in public for everyone to see.

But then I noticed that there’s an inconsistency: at the same time as obviously many others here, are here for reasons similar to me, and who harbor sentiments similar to mine, there are also others who are attracted to MRM because it appears to be the “most” mainstream outlet for their radical, chauvinist and racist beliefs.

Examples: scroll up –
Firepower and the 19 people who up-voted him. At present, up-votes out pace down votes.
Find John Thames who straight out calls for “white supremacy” and “male supremacy”. Better again: at count right now 8 people have up-voted this. Nine have down voted.

Nice audience you have here Mr. Price.

An MRM that is a civil rights movement for equal rights for men and for the dignity of all people …

CANNOT

…coexist with white nationalism.

I will not be a party to this. I will not be a party to reconstructed Klanism.

Sebastian says we should stock weapons. That is not the position of a person who, like W.F. Price appears to be doing – seeks to observe, critique, reform and reinvigorate the culture and social fabric.

Which way is it? What will this movement be?

When we see African-Americans finding common cause with the message like Lord Simon, when we hear those like Felonious Monk recognizing they are men before they are black – this is cause for hope.

Those hopes are quickly dashed by the white nationalists in the number who are quick to assert that they do not wish to keep even virtual internet company and common cause with people outside their color – who respond to the comments like Lord Simon’s as if he were an unwelcome visitor or guest.

So – W.F. Price, Angry Harry, Paul Elam, Bernard Chapin … what’s it going to be? Are these just blogs and anyone is welcome, even readers of the Occidental Quarterly who barely conceal their sympathy for the Third Reich, … or is a movement of patriots, committed to the cause of equality, prepared to spill some blood – in only some of their own blood – to fertilize and renew the tree of liberty.

The civilization has endured decay of its parts many times, excised the source of decay and come out stronger for it.

The White Nationalists here would hasten the decay to replace our civilization with something in their own image.

There is a whole different constituency here who will either rejuvenate our society, or go down with it, but would soon keep company in the sewer than with White Nationalists.

Why – MRM leaders – do you tolerate the coexistence? The two constituencies are mortal enemies. Unless you wish to be puissant writers and Youtube media presences with minor followings, you will need to make your choice.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 19
Alcuin August 13, 2011 at 08:17

Regarding adopting a name to call each other:
” – acknowledge that we are now subject to systematic and oppressive discrimination;

– imply that the discrimination is wrong and we do not accept it;

– show sympathy and solidarity with the Afro-American men who led the Civil Rights movement, but in a way different enough that we are not offending them by using a word they consider to be theirs to employ or not [as Nigger and Negro have become].”

The third point does not count because this is an American concern, and the men’s movement is international. Why would a Canadian or Australian have to show special solidarity to black men? The first two points, however, are valid. Again, “hombre” is a nice word from a nice language, but internationally it would cause confusion.

The only word to use is “rapist.” “Hey rapist, how’s it going?” “Rapist” is the feminist equivalent of the “N” word used against black people.

Choosing a nickname must be in the face of the person who hates us, and therefore must be really fucking rude. We use that rude word in our own way. They call us rapists to scare us and shame us. They want to scare us about sex and shame our sexuality. Fuck’em. Let’s appropriate the word for ourselves. “Hombre” has no spice because it has never been used as an insult against men. Turn the insult-fear-shaming word, “rapist”, into an insider word. Then it will lose its power. Every time a man uses it, women will know what he thinks of feminism. “Rape culture” talk will lose its force.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Rus August 13, 2011 at 08:45

White nationalism/supremacy, or any other race or religion-based policy, is not necessarily inconsistent with MRM. In both cases facts are being weighed and a judgement made. In one case that men are oppressed and that we need to change it by whatever means we can – up to and including violence in the case of the gun crowd – and in another that, yes, there are actual differences between races and these differences may be meaningful, perhaps even important.

Logical conclusions based on objective data is the order of the day. It’s the only way out of the mess the feel-good majority have gotten us into.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
Robert August 13, 2011 at 08:52

Most of the men I have recruited into the MMM/MRM have been black men. We need to move beyond race. I might be down voted but, I refuse to recruit only men of certain skin color. If we Men want to achieve our goals, we need to treat each other as Men. I am a Man not a skin color. I refuse any/all special rights, privileges, etc. All Men must be willing to do the same. This does NOT mean we should remain in a subservant state. It means we all must strive together and build each other up instead of tearing each other down. Also, let us not make the mistake feminism did by using anyone of “color” to achieve our goals and then toss them away or forget them. It is time to face the dawn of a new age united as Men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4
Alcuin August 13, 2011 at 09:18

Robert, “We need to move beyond race.”

I agree. We can achieve our goals only if we are united. A man is a man. Men of all colors and creeds have to deal with the same headaches from our women. Why not work together?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5
Lara August 13, 2011 at 09:28

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 35
Vortac August 13, 2011 at 09:38

“Question: Which of the above statements is not an example of racist stereotyping?

Answer: A (of course)”

Why is racism not racism when it’s targeted against pale-skinned people?

- Vortac

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Vortac August 13, 2011 at 09:52

“The only word to use is “rapist.” “Hey rapist, how’s it going?” “Rapist” is the feminist equivalent of the “N” word used against black people.”

This would not work. I advice against it.

First of all, some of the reasons why that ‘n’-word worked was because the powers that be wanted to paint the darker-skinned people as perpetual victims (like women). Without the ‘political correctness’ in our side (like it was and is on the side of any skin-color-”minorities”), this would not work. The media would not portray such usage in the light of ‘empowerment’.

Second of all, the word ‘rapist’ is like the word ‘pianist’. It applies to people based on their DEEDS. It does not apply to people who have not committed an evil act against women. Whereas the ‘n’-word had nothing to do with what someone has done or not – it simply referred to a “race” in an insulting and demeaning way. “Rapist” has nothing to do with anyone’s race or skin color, only their actions. What you suggest would actually worsen the situation, because it would be like admitting that white men are rapists (and thus imply that other men aren’t), when the truth is far from that. (I know there are pale-skinned men who have raped, but there are also men that have other skin tones and colors who have also raped)

The truth is that MOST white men have not raped anyone, would not rape anyone, and would rightfully consider it an insult for someone to call them a rapist. Also, the statistics about these matters are a tad controversial, but it seems that the paler-skinned people are in the minority among men who have raped (rapists). That’s another reason why it wouldn’t work.

That also would undermine the pain, frustration and victimhood of MEN who get raped – especially when being sent to prisons falsely accused of raping a woman. How’s that for twisted irony – someone who didn’t do the deed gets the ‘rapist’ stigma implanted on their forehead forever, AND they get to be victims of the deed they did not commit, many, many times, for years (or at least months).

Also, it wouldn’t work because the people who originally used those ‘n’-words insultingly, were ‘slave masters’, and thus very evil people indeed. Taking their dehumanizing word they use to insult and shame their ‘cattle’ or ‘property’, and turning it around is actually pretty natural progress, because humans do not deserve to be insulted and dehumanized just because the color or tone of their skin. “Rapist” shares NONE of that. At least not in an intuitive and obvious way, like the ‘n’-word does.

Most pale-skinned men today are not slave masters or rapists, so such a word would just feel weird and insulting, and it would never work the way the ‘n’-word works.

A good idea in some way, but not very well thought through.

- Vortac

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
john thames August 13, 2011 at 10:00

This country has not had any male supremacy/white supremacy since the 1960′s. What it now has is a rapidly dwindling residue of its former stock. The source of the poison is precisely what I say it is. Since Mr.Price shall not allow me to elaborate, read Professor Kevin MacDonald and you will quickly find the factual support for my claims.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
mananon August 13, 2011 at 10:38

D has it nailed.

I can see how clever feminism has been in seeking to identify with racial minorities. By doing so they have msnaged to conflate in many a white western MRA’s mind black men and white women! And so as MEN’s rights activists some would throw black man under a bus because feminists have cosied up with them on the sly.

Way to go team woman!

White Nationalism and MRA-ism are incompatible. We either believe in men’s rights or we believe in nothing.

P.S.

In these discussions I genuinely feel for black men. Feminism has already destroyed their families and left their boys with next to nothing. But the black man can’t turn to some in the MRM because he’s identified as part of the ‘enemy camp’. So where does he turn? Well the riots in England might give some of us a clue…

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7
Rus August 13, 2011 at 10:58

Okay then, question to the man-or-nothing people.

What of Muslim men? And i mean all of them including the ones who actively stone raped women and kill their children for being too well integrated. Should they be allowed into the clubhouse?

I submit that failing to differentiate between groups of men can only end in another form of disaster.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8
Maaldweb August 13, 2011 at 11:01

Robert wrote: “Most of the men I have recruited into the MMM/MRM have been black men”

Of course mate! Blacks just need a scapegoat and you offered them one!
First it was slavery, then it was secret experiments on blacks (you know these crazy theories that AIDS was manufactured to kill blacks etc) , then it was the institutionalised white racism (which peculiarly affects only blacks, never other non-whites), then it was the republican/conservative politics and the “hidden racism”, and now it is feminism. Tomorrow who knows. The important thing is that the black man has always an excuse for his shortcomings and failures. He doesn’t go to jail because he deals crack, oh no, he goes to jail because white policemen are racist. He may impregnate 12 year old ghetto females and have several kids who have never seen him, but that is not his fault, it is the result of feminism (and perhaps Catholic Church’s teachings against condoms?) etc etc etc

Of course feminism which was directed against the white male and the white family has affected blacks as well as soon as became the dominant force in western politics. But blacks were the way they are (high criminality, bad performance in all aspects of life, low IQ) before feminism. Feminism just made the atrocious black female, even more atrocious. Because now except of being ugly she has the law on her side as well.

For the record, I am just a race realist. I wouldn’t even certify as a race separatist since I don’t have problem living next to east asians provided we are speaking about small communities and not a huge wave of immigrants. But when it comes to blacks and muslims I want them out of Europe. The former because they offer nothing positive, the latter because their dream is to conquer Europe.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 17
Rocco August 13, 2011 at 11:08

There are some who lean toward white nationalism….I don’t know what nation they think is white anymore…I think that horse left the barn 150 years ago…and I don’t want it back but whatever.

I really don’t care if you sleep with a blow up sheep, hate whitey or hate blacky as long as you hate injustice and don’t hate men.

We are dealing with the rise of the klan. Women of the klan were feminists first. I have proof. The Klansmen were stopped, the women never stopped they morphed into the Feminist’s you see today.

Feminism is not a philosophy of poor women. It is a philosophy of wealthy, smart white women. Professors and lawyers.

All who share one thing in common….hatred and anger at all men and a huge superiority complex.

The goal. Ostracize men from society then kill them.

Progress Report: Ahead of schedule.

Men kicked out of the family…check.
Men kicked out of college…check.
Men kicked out of HS….check.
Men kicked out of elementary….in progress…we have them on meds, in jails and on lists….
Mens right to freely associate terminated…check
Mens right to a fair trial eliminated….check
Boys right to a father eliminated…..check
Mens right to travel curtailed…….check
Reinvent debtors prison for debt to women…check
Mens right to emergency food eliminated…..check
Mens access to health care limited or eliminated….check
Research for mens diseases unfunded…..check
Screening for male cancer eliminated…check
Put men at the mercy of a womans word…..check
Put men at the mercy of a childs word…..check
Make it unsafe for men to assocate with women or children….see above.

The list goes on and on.

And we fight over whether it’s insulting that a few guys here like it that they’re white, I don’t care but don’t try to make this a white supremecy issue and don’t tell me the MRM is racist against blacks or that blacks have had a bad time on a MR site because I’ve never seen it.

And don’t start asking for mods to stop free speech….the very next thing that will be stopped is our ability to critisize feminism.

That’s when I leave the MRM.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 6
Rebel August 13, 2011 at 11:10

@Robert
“There was also queen Mary of Scots. It took over a dozen wacks with the ax to remove her head.”

She must have had her head screwed on tight, that one.
That’s why the guillotine came in so handy. Much less messy. Clean as a whistle.

Apparently, Gillette Co came up with a new model: the five blades guillotine. If the first blade misses, the second will do the work, if the second blade misses…….

The beauty about the guillotine is that it works even if electricity goes down.

And it can be made portable, in case of an emergency.

You can also have the parallel guillotines: a dozen heads get chopped at a time. Swings!

Damn!, can’t stop progress… LOL!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Firepower August 13, 2011 at 11:43

D polemicized:

The most ironic – and just* thing – would be* for the opening political salvo of MRM to be the passing of an Equal Rights Amendment, and ERA – that would not just erase gender-based preferences from the books, but highlight their stink in public for everyone to see.

Justice? Would be’s? Just where do you think you have been for the past half-century? Neverneverland?

Woulda shoulda coulda. Empty words of The SWPL Elite. Blood fertillzes The Tree of Liberty, Brandon. NOT platitudes.

Highlighting stink? Do you really, really RLY explect Katie Couric, Chris Matthews or Christiannnnnne Amanpour to discuss real Real REAL problems?

Unlike them, I have no fear of highlighting YOUR stink in public.

You’re either a fantasist or a a maker of LIES.

Sure, if every black was Thomas Sowell or Charles Payne.
Nonetheless – Liberal FEMINISTS did NOT NEED black females help to totally castrate the most powerful white male establishment in the history of the world.

So, blacks males do NOT play any part in re-taking said white male world. Unless they keep their arrogant mouths shut and politely acquiesce to fulfilling a more realistic role than The Dominant Minority Screaming for (and getting) Big Welfare Tit money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
Firepower August 13, 2011 at 11:58

D polemicized:

The most ironic – and just* thing – would be* for the opening political salvo of MRM to be the passing of an Equal Rights Amendment, and ERA – that would not just erase gender-based preferences from the books, but highlight their stink in public for everyone to see.

Justice? Would be’s? Just where do you think you have been for the past half-century? Neverneverland?

Woulda shoulda coulda. Empty words of The SWPL Elite. Blood fertillzes The Tree of Liberty, Brandon. NOT platitudes.

Highlighting stink? Do you really, really RLY explect Katie Couric, Chris Matthews or Christiannnnnne Amanpour to discuss real Real REAL problems?

Unlike them, I have no fear of highlighting YOUR stink in public.

An MRM that is a civil rights movement for equal rights for men and for the dignity of all people …

CANNOT

…coexist with white nationalism.

You’re either a fantasist or a a maker of LIES.

Sure, if every black was Thomas Sowell or Charles Payne.
Nonetheless – Liberal FEMINISTS did NOT NEED black females help to totally castrate the most powerful white male establishment in the history of the world.

So, blacks males do NOT play any part in re-taking said white male world. Unless they keep their arrogant mouths shut and politely acquiesce to fulfilling a more realistic role than The Dominant Minority Screaming for (and getting) Big Welfare Tit money.

BOSS PRICE: CAN WE PLEASE GET A BETTER EDITING SYSTEM – LIKE THE ONE WE HAD BEFORE

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7
Maaldweb August 13, 2011 at 12:13

My apologies but I am not much in favour of self-lobotomisation.

Gays, blacks, cultural marxists, trendy lefty airheads and feminists all allied against the white male and sought his destruction and the destruction of the western civilisation in general.

Were the blacks tricked into this alliance? Hardly.

If black men feel that way, there is only one way to repent, fight in the first line. I will be cheering for them if they do.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5
Classic Joe August 13, 2011 at 12:58

I think the most basic and important value here is humanity. I don’t have a problem white nationalists if they are commited to being humane. The current allowed belief is multiculturalism, meaning every culture has to mix with every other one all the time. This obviously won’t work. People who want to separate into groups and not mix with other groups are fine with me if they go about their business in a humane way.

The other necessary value is opposition to totalitarianism. Humanity covers this but it’s a fairly small step to also say that any person or group of people who want as much authority as they can get are a problem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
freebird August 13, 2011 at 13:23

The Black Panther got no respect with words.
What did get some respect was when they (legally) armed themselves and marched on the Capitol lawn.

White men could use a reminder..
(black men too..)

Bullshit walks, money and force talks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
E August 13, 2011 at 13:23

mananon

But now white nationalism makes things more difficult. With that becoming more vocal the choice increasingly seems to be between White Knighting or White Nationalism. I don’t fancy either to be honest. If the MRM becomes a proxy for White Nationalist interest going my own way all over again may be the only option.

I have never met a Liberal who literally accepted ALL aspects of what is usually associated with Liberalism: gay marriage, global warming, universal health care, affirmative action, feminism, ignorance of HBD, outlawing the use of the internal combustion engine (that’s for the environmental extremists out there), raising income taxes to 80% on the “rich”. Has anyone ever met a Liberal who literally bought the total package? I doubt it. You do realize you get to pick and choose much like items on a menu right?
That’s what Liberals do and so can you!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Kane August 13, 2011 at 15:50

It is time “and past due”, for men to formulate a vision of the future that is better than matriarchy.

We’ve already formulated it, it’s called patriarchy, and it’s the reason I’m typing this over the internet rather than scrawling it on a cave wall.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Eric August 13, 2011 at 16:52

Alcuin;
I think you could make a strong argument in the case of the protestant/puritan strains of Christianity. Feminism has taken a much stronger hold in countries with those traditions than in Catholic/Orthodox countries. The reason for this is because Christianity, in its original form, always recognized a gender polarity; with male/female saints, for example. The Reformation did away with female saints altogether and fused the church into one androgynous principle.

The same happened on the sociopolitical scale. The paternal state and the maternal church existed since Constantine’s time; the Reformation eliminated the ‘Mother Church’ and fused church and state, again, into an androgynous unit.

The further result is, that without a feminine spiritual ideal, men turned to venerating earthly women and pedestalizing them. Women in these countries took on the roles once reserved for Mary and other female saints; with or without any of the latters’ virtues. In other words, women were worshipped simply for their genders’ sake, without any idealized feminine standard. Female supremacy rose out of that system as the culture became more secular. Now, things are going full circle: women speaking of themselves as ‘the goddess within’ and other forms of goddess-worship.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Eric August 13, 2011 at 17:01

Robert;
You’re correct; we do need to move beyond race and focus on the immediate problem. As someone else pointed out here, female supremacy will end western civilization. The problem is cultural; it won’t be solved by changing politics, religion, or even ideologies.

What’s needed is to educate men as to the real nature of the types of women that our culture has produced and getting men to avoid that culture. That might mean MGTOW for some guys; others marriage and family with women from traditional cultures. But the bottom line is, the problem can’t be fixed by trying to fix the women in our own culture. A few women might see the light and fix themselves, but men have to start thinking in terms of cultural survival now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Rocco August 13, 2011 at 18:20

One thing I am struck with from some posts is that some seem to not think women did this without any help from men. We were not involved.

I almost feel like a feminist about to scream….but sisters did all by themselves.

The PTB may have funded them, but it’s each individual woman that robs you when your dating, files for divorce, child support, custody, false allegations, is controlling and hates men.

I don’t think men venerate women because of the church, men venerate women or no puntang.

Men keep venerating women because otherwise they’ll leave you imprisoned or broke and, with what I know now, you enter into indentured servitude to your woman and are never released.

I don’t think whats happening now is that unstable. Slavery and extreme injustice can and has survived for centuries.

The rise of the MRM is the only hope I see for the family to rise again, although I don’t think it’s in the cards if women don’t want it and they definitely don’t.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
Robert August 13, 2011 at 20:15

Maaldweb August 13, 2011 at 11:01
Robert wrote: “Most of the men I have recruited into the MMM/MRM have been black men”

Of course mate! Blacks just need a scapegoat and you offered them one!

Is the MM/MRM an experiment? I don’t think so. As I have stated previously, I am more selective in who I recruit.

Consider a spearhead. When most people see a spearhead they see one object. Do they realize that it takes millions of atoms all held together by cohesion to form the spearhead. We are individuals but what unites us is the realization there are problems and injustices that we have in common. We can fight against those problems and injustices as individuals or we can fight against them together. The spearhead is only as strong as the material it is made of. Which is stronger; pure steel or brittle steel. If memory serves me correctly, steel is made from iron that is mixed with other elements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel

None of the elements destroy or illiminate the others. They all bond and become one strong item.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Robert August 13, 2011 at 20:18

I am very careful to avoid recruiting racists or anyone who I believe might be a racist. I do not see racism as being productive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
Rocco August 13, 2011 at 20:54

Generally, all races and sexes are, for the sake or argument, equal in intelligence.

IMO

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10
Anonymous August 13, 2011 at 20:55

@Rocco August 13, 2011 at 11:08
“There are some who lean toward white nationalism….I don’t know what nation they think is white anymore………………………………………
………… ……………. ……….
…………………….And don’t start asking for mods to stop free speech….the very next thing that will be stopped is our ability to critisize feminism.

That’s when I leave the MRM.”

If what you said is true, if we have come down that low, then maybe the MRM is not what we need but something more like this:

http://www.vhemt.org/

And save ourselves years, decades of useless misery.

Why should this species continue? Anyone knows?

I mean, isn’t that a logical conclusion?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
john thames August 13, 2011 at 21:02

Where is the evidence for the statement that all races and sexes are equal in intelligence?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
codebuster August 13, 2011 at 21:59

One thing I am struck with from some posts is that some seem to not think women did this without any help from men. We were not involved. I almost feel like a feminist about to scream….but sisters did all by themselves.

No they didn’t. Women have never been able to do anything without men, and feminism could never have happened without men. Men have been the prime enablers of feminism.

The PTB may have funded them, but it’s each individual woman that robs you when your dating, files for divorce, child support, custody, false allegations, is controlling and hates men.

Easy peazy… if they hate men, then don’t date them and don’t marry them.

I don’t think men venerate women because of the church, men venerate women or no puntang.

There are two simple solutions. Choose one:
1) Learn to control your sex drive;
2) Castration.

Women also have a potentially overwhelming sex drive… but they don’t get to discover it as easily as men do. Female morality, with its apparent absence of sex drive, is contrived because it is based in fear – fear of not finding a provider, fear of having to fend for herself. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs comes into play, and for women, being provided for is the first priority that needs to be met. It is because of this materialistic priority and the fear of not obtaining it that their sex drive all too often takes a back seat. It’s easy to pretend to hold the moral high ground when you don’t venture beyond your babying privileges that come with being provided for.

I enjoy the opportunity to laugh at women and the dopey choices that they make in men. Do not take that pleasure away from me by expecting me to believe that all men are wonderful just because they have dicks.

Men keep venerating women because otherwise they’ll leave you imprisoned or broke and, with what I know now, you enter into indentured servitude to your woman and are never released.

Easy peazy… don’t marry.

I don’t think whats happening now is that unstable. Slavery and extreme injustice can and has survived for centuries.

On this point I agree 100%. I applaud the rise of the MRM and encourage it (within limits) – indeed I predicted it’s emergence long before there even was a MRM. And while I am buoyed by recent developments, a part of me is anticipating the heavy hand of authority to radically change things at short notice. The internet has vulnerabilities that not even a Wikileaks strategy can overcome, should the authorities prefer a true dark age with them in power over compromising with the current, internet-friendly status quo.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Michael August 14, 2011 at 01:39

Evidence?

What is the race of every non self identified commentator? You can start with me. Since every race is either superior or inferior to another, it is reasonable to assume you will be able to determine race based upon writing patterns. Go

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) August 14, 2011 at 02:55

“It is time “and past due”, for men to formulate a vision of the future that is better than matriarchy.”

This has been done. The “vision” (for want of a better word) has been formulated and published. I live it. It’s just going to take some time for other men to wake up that the remedy is available. Like TNS men are “seeking solutions” when the solution already exists.

I, personally, find it quite strange that MRAs are whining about all the shit they have to put up with while doing nothing about educating themselves on the remedy.

Gee. Even this article from a PHD no less mentions common law quite a number of times. I guess he’s an idiot like me too, eh? I guess he just has no idea about law and is so stupid that he dreams up this common law shit in his sleep and that his work is to be discredited because he’s a “common law looney”, eh?

One day you men will wake up to common-law. And when you do? You can fully expect me to blast the shit out of you for taking so long. Why? Because while you remained WILLFULLY ignorant many more men went through the meat grinder. Us men could have solved this problem over a year ago now. But even the thuosands of men who read this blog and the thousands more they reach chose to be WILLFULLY ignorant and let their brothers lives be destroyed.

Once again. Here is how you live free in the femnazi world. And it works on an individual basis. The remedy is not “change to the government”. The remedy is to refuse to be governed. Stop being a sheep.

http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/1/threadid/538/scope/posts/Default.aspx

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
DCM August 14, 2011 at 05:07

“john thames August 13, 2011 at 21:02

Where is the evidence for the statement that all races and sexes are equal in intelligence?”

This is a question that has to be answered on long term evidence because historical accidents can make a difference in appearances.
American Indians weren’t expecting an invasion, which came from the Mediterranean region and brought diseases to which they had no resistence. Spain had a developed military system due to fighting Moslem savages for centuries and a developed colonial system due to having occupied their reconquered lands as well as such places as the Canaries.
At this point Western society entered into a period of tecnological innovation that a damaged culture had no time to adapt to, though the Indians did resist for a long time and some still do culturally and legally.
It seems likely people had only been here about 20,000 years, as well.
In such a case comparative abilities are difficult to gauge.

On the other hand, European and Chinese people both have consistent records of accomplishment and recovery from invasions and disasters. They seem to exceed other major groups overall.
Semitic/Hamitic people more or less measure up to that.

I don’t know enough about the world’s other cultures, including African cultures that draw attention here.

“Michael August 14, 2011 at 01:39

Evidence?

What is the race of every non self identified commentator? You can start with me. Since every race is either superior or inferior to another, it is reasonable to assume you will be able to determine race based upon writing patterns. Go”

Well, I’m white.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Rocco August 14, 2011 at 07:33

@ Anonymous

The volentary extinction movement = planned parenthood = eugenics movement of Cady Stanton = feminism

IMO the PTB are concerned about big riots and have been funding depopulation through feminism for a century.

IMO the PTB soon realized in the 60′s that depopulation would come about and they realized that this would destabilize markets in the way we’re seeing today. The PTB then realized that the feminism that gave them depopulation could give them crazy spending. Just remove the husband…it’s not like the PTB had to do anything, all they had to do was make the marriage contract unenforcable. Thanks RR.

So, I’m not for depopulation and I’m not for censuring. In response to these changes I think men should “don’t worry, be happy”.

What was the question?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Firepower August 14, 2011 at 09:24

Eric

…we do need to move beyond race and focus on the immediate problem. As someone else pointed out here, female supremacy will end western civilization.

In case you haven’t noticed…

it’s not women ending England and Vancouver – or even in past Katrina New Orleans.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6
epoche* August 14, 2011 at 17:43

I don’t think men venerate women because of the church, men venerate women or no puntang.

Men keep venerating women because otherwise they’ll leave you imprisoned or broke and, with what I know now, you enter into indentured servitude to your woman and are never released.

I don’t think whats happening now is that unstable. Slavery and extreme injustice can and has survived for centuries.

The rise of the MRM is the only hope I see for the family to rise again, although I don’t think it’s in the cards if women don’t want it and they definitely don’t.
———————-
its all about the money, women need mens money far more than men need women. women never found universities, churches, schools of thought or institutions – they only take over the ones that men build. if we become vocal enough things will get better. As far as the notion that feminism can last forever, thats nonsense – the nanny welfare state is insolvent and career women dont reproduce at replacement levels. I couldnt imagine anything more likely to fail than radical feminism, I just dont want to get caught in the trainwreck.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
LoveTheDesert August 14, 2011 at 18:09

I don’t care what system is in power, whether it’s patriarchy, matriarchy, anarchy, fascist dictatorship, or communist utopia. As long as I can enjoy my bachelor lifestyle without interference from women, religion, or the state. I just want to work enough to support ME, and then come home and watch X-Files reruns, read books, play my guitar, go biking on the trails, and work on my computers. Nobody entertains me, so why should I entertain anybody else (I’m talking about women here). Women don’t need me or offer me anything, so I don’t offer them anything in return. I don’t even date anymore, I’m probably doing women a favor by removing myself from the dating pool… I’m just one less creep they won’t need to reject.

Back in 1965, I probably would’ve been under more pressure to get a career, start a family, then work until I dropped dead.

Today, I don’t think I’m under that same pressure. One reason is because, first of all, there are no jobs anymore. The backstabbers in Washington took care of my generation’s future insecurity. And secondly, women have picked up all the slack to keep this hamster-wheel called society going. And more power to ‘em!! Basically, men don’t need to work as hard anymore. Well, not if you’re a bachelor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
LoveTheDesert August 14, 2011 at 18:21

Lord Simon wrote:

“Lots of blacks hated us for not being like them, and of course whites being whites, well you can read the comments around here and see how they think. Still, I follow something my Dad told me, love those who love you back and forget the rest.”

I know exactly how you feel, lots of blacks hate me too for not being like them.

I think we should send ‘em all back to Africa.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
LoveTheDesert August 14, 2011 at 18:56

Of course, I was just kidding about sending them all back to africa. Like Lord Simon, I like to get my kicks by throwing out flippant, inflammatory comments for the sake of rocking the boat.

But on a serious note, I don’t think a race war or the collapse of cilvization will ever happen. Not with all the nukes that are ready to blow the world up seven times over. There won’t be any collapse of society and fighting in the streets, there will just be a dead irradiated planet with mutant cockroaches.

So don’t worry, everyting will be fine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Avenger August 14, 2011 at 19:39

Not with all the nukes that are ready to blow the world up seven times over.

Ever hear of the Neutron bomb?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Firepower August 15, 2011 at 11:28

oddsock

Hopefully, when enough of us have swallowed the red pill we will finally stop making posts about what the whites did/do or the blacks or the muslims et al.

Aha. Peace, rainbows n’ Luv. From a paki.

Just how do propose we hold hands with our wonderful loving allies – blacks, muzz and pakis – yet wage total war on women?

You brits can’t even figure out how to slap the wrist of muzz who blow up your cute lil’ double decker busses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Anonymous August 17, 2011 at 02:31

What are yous smoking. most “White Supremacist’s” are also traditionalist’s. Traditionalism is the right wing of the man-hating Matriarchy.

Right now the traditionalist’s are out of power and would seek to use us to re-enter the picture. The past wasn’t all peaches and cream some here make it out to be. Read up on Emerson and the early MRM of the 1900′s. Back then the MRM was in the same shape but dealing with traditionalist’s in power.

We don’t want traditionalist’s to regain power or allow them to co-opt the MRM. Other wise we are dooming future generations of males to the same exact situation we are in now.

Feminism is a continuation of white supremacy. Or rather it is a continuation of “White Female Supremacy”. Either way I contest the notion of “White Supremacy” on the grounds that if anyone tries to say I am genetically or racially similar to an Irishman, a Scotsman or an Englishman I would break them in half for insulting me. As I view those Caucasian ethnicity to be inferior as that is where this feminist and traditionalist plaque originated from.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Eric August 17, 2011 at 13:41

Firepower:
True, but feminized males are. Male self-emasculation will pave the way for female supremacy.
Although a lot of men don’t agree with this hypothesis, there are some credible sociological theories that show a distinct connection between matriarchal/female-dominated societies and social stagnation/ deterioration. Regardless of whatever one thinks of these theories, it can’t be denied that no exclusively female-dominated culture has ever reached a civilized level; and every male-dominated one that had a strong streak of female power either stagnated or went into decline afterwards.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Maz August 22, 2011 at 06:13

“What’s missing here is the enormous role played by Christians in feminizing men (no beer for Christian men, as it is associated with men and all-male socializing) and in pedestalizing women. The churches more than anything have stabbed men in the back. They are profoundly anti-male and anti-masculine.”
Feminising men you say. Well, my University Christian Club is considered to be the most conservative Christian Club on Campus. We aren’t allowed to drink alcohol at club meetings, but you don’t need alcohol to have fun. Secondly, we were having a talk about marriage at a meeting the other day, and the club mentors strongly recommend that, regardless of gender, nobody should even be thinking of getting married until they have at least a master’s degree. Maybe that’s a little extreme, but I definitely get where they’re coming from: I don’t see that as ‘stabbing men in the back’. I see that as equipping both sexes to serve God and raise up a family, for how can you hope to do these things if you are ignorant and uneducated?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: