Younger Women Turning to Domesticity

by W.F. Price on March 29, 2012

As I suggested in my last post, a shift toward more conservative gender roles is probably already underway, with younger Americans leading the trend. Julia Rothman, writing for the Washington Post, claims that younger women are taking up the domestic arts with an enthusiasm that hasn’t been seen in decades:

Around the country, women my age (I’m 29), the daughters and granddaughters of the post-Betty Friedan feminists, are embracing the very homemaking activities our mothers and grandmothers so eagerly shucked off. We’re heading back to jam-canning and knitting needles, both for fun and for a greater sense of control over what we eat and wear.

That younger women are more domestically inclined than their mothers or women of my own generation seems entirely believable. American women over 35 or so who can cook from scratch are a rarity. In fact, those who can cook at all are hard to come by. As for the baby boomer women, they were perhaps the most hostile to domestic work of all. However, I’m not sure this was entirely feminism’s fault; much of the commercialism of the 20th century promised women a world in which housework would be a breeze, without any of the old-fashioned drudgery that characterized the lives of women before WWII.

However, rather than a break from one generation to the next, as Julia Rothman suggests, I suspect it’s actually the changing demographics I discussed in yesterday’s post. Although the dominant trend during the 80s and 90s was for women to shed all domestic responsibility, not all of them did. And guess which women had the most children…

What is happening is that as the daughters of the more fecund traditional women come of age, the culture is shifting along with them. The how-to books on canning and sewing are finding more buyers as these women prepare to take on the same role their mothers did and this, rather than a wholesale rejection of feminist ideology, is why these books and products are so much more popular than they were in the 90s, when these women were still girls.

We tend to forget that people really do turn out like their parents, and before birth control and the cultural divide in the US, the kind of women who were inclined to support feminism still had plenty of children and lived essentially the same lives as their more conservative, religious fellow Americans. However, once the new progressive ideals really took hold, a demographic change was set in motion.

I know women who grew up with progressive mothers. Almost all of them turned out progressive themselves. However, in the new generation there simply aren’t as many of them. Some women from conservative families became progressive, but most of them are content to live life as their mothers did. Recruiting these women didn’t really work.

It’s looking more and more as though feminism may simply deal with itself in the same manner the Shakers did. The Shakers may have been America’s first influential gender equality movement, and they rejected marriage and procreation. Shaker membership peaked in the early 19th century at about 6,000. Today, there are three Shakers in the US. In contrast, the ultra-traditional Amish have seen their ranks nearly double in the last twenty years alone. Despite the enormous impact feminism had on the West over the last half century, it may turn out to be merely a flash in the pan; a demographic dead end. Ironically, however, in retrospect we may see that it had one of the most enduring demographic impacts on Western populations of any movement or event in US history. By pushing down the fertility rate of an enormous cohort of Western women and aborting untold numbers of children, feminists may have successfully marginalized and all but assured the extermination of a particular group of Americans: themselves.

{ 337 comments… read them below or add one }

Traveller March 29, 2012 at 11:54

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

To hell. They just are afraid becasue the big government tit is running out of milk. Do they believe a man will put them in his house just because they can make a sandwich?

Now men can cook better alone and better than any woman, and/or they can decide for healthy food, fast food, paleo food, ethnic food.

Her: “I cooked an egg for him!”
Judge: “Ok you get the house, the car, the bank account…”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 141 Thumb down 8
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 11:56

From the post-

That younger women are more domestically inclined than their mothers or women of my own generation seems entirely believable. American women over 35 or so who can cook from scratch are a rarity. In fact, those who can cook at all are hard to come by.

You might want to throw an upper limit on that “over 35″ because over 35 would also include women such as my grandmother who is 84 and who can cook just about any dish you can imagine. In fact some frozen food company executive offered her money for her pizza recipe (this was back in the 1970s) after he had tried the pizza at the family restaurant, and she declined because she didn’t want to see the pizza sold in a mass produced frozen/boxed fashion.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 11
American March 29, 2012 at 12:00

Ariel Levy in her book about Modern feminist Raunch culture, did say the new “Raunch feminism” would be the straw that broke the camels back.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 38 Thumb down 31
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 12:08

I actually have a theory that very few women/females actually want to reproduce and that generally they do not care about their off-spring… Aside from the WN and feminism in WN ideology/movement article I am mapping out in my head, I think I pretty much have the basics for an article that is just a theory of mine that I came up with through observation… It’s of course an unproven theory but a great deal of evidence exists for it.

Women/females don’t actually want children/off-spring, they have no real inherent urge to reproduce. However they recognize that men/males have a very strong urge to reproduce (this is part of why men are portrayed as always being horny and ready to have sex). Most men/males want to reproduce, they want off-spring, they want to be fathers.

Women are tuned in to what men want and realize that for men to realize their goal of fatherhood they will need a woman. A woman gains security and access to resources from a male in exchange for allowing him sexual access which often results in procreation. However, women/females don’t actually care to have children, the child is a mean’s to an end, that end being the resources/security gained via the male.

Additionally, females/women don’t actually value their off-spring as evidenced by their wholesale refusal to sacrifice for their off-spring or meaningful defend their off-spring.

For an example in nature let us look to the lion, the most feared of all land animals in Africa… A lion pack may consist of 6-8 females (lioness) and 1-3 males (lion) [generally only more than 1 in instances where the males are brothers]. The male lion/s will knock up the females and they will have cubs by the males… However, when a stronger male or team of males comes along, they will drive off the present male leader/leaders, and the females (despite outnumbering the new-comer males by at least 3 to 1) will sit back and watch as the new-comer KILLS all of the cubs from the dethroned/deposed male/s. The females just sit by and do nothing as their cubs are slaughtered. Once the slaughter is complete they quickly wind up pregnant by the new males.

These females are not interested in doing what is right, they do not care about their off-spring, nor do they care about the male they are with. As soon as a better off (i.e. stronger male) comes along, they will jump ship and sign up to be protected by the better/stronger fighter, even at the cost of all of their cubs/off-spring.

It is entirely possible that the females could band together to support their males against the new-comer/invader lions that want to dethrone the males, kill the cubs, and take over the pack… However they do nothing. They don’t value the males and they don’t even value their own off-spring.

I’d like to write more about this theory of mine, that so-called “maternal instinct” is a vicious lie, an absolute myth, created and pushed by feminists and female supremacists in general. It is just a theory though and I’m not any sort of psychological authority.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 60 Thumb down 60
I, Enemy Combatant March 29, 2012 at 12:13

I’d like to write more about this theory of mine, that so-called “maternal instinct” is a vicious lie, an absolute myth, created and pushed by feminists and female supremacists in general. It is just a theory though and I’m not any sort of psychological authority.

You realize that lions are not human.

You might as well try using the behaviors of ants, horses, or ermines as examples.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 24
Amanda March 29, 2012 at 12:15

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 175
djc March 29, 2012 at 12:17

I don’t care what they do. It doesn’t matter to me anymore. They can still go insane on you in an instant. I will never forget the night my ex took a ball peen hammer to the steel door of my man cave room I built in my garage. I locked myself in because she came home drunk and wanted to fight. I still have that door. It’s dents remind me of why I choose to remain alone.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 137 Thumb down 4
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 12:20

I, Enemy Combatant

When a child is killed by a parent/primary care-giver/household member, 50% of the time it is the biological mother. Less than 10% of the time is it the biological father. Usually it is mom or the new man mom has brought around, or the two working in conjunction.

Susan Smith didn’t hesitate to kill her kids just because the man she wanted to get with had written her a letter, “I could really dig you but I don’t like your kids.” She thought as soon as her kids were dead she could get with the guy.

That is simply the most publicized and sensationalized case. In the USA it is estimated that around 1,200 children are murdered by their mothers each year. We don’t hear about each individual case, generally only the more sensational ones where 3-4 (multiple) kids are drowned or something very spectacular happens in regards to the manner of their death/murder.

Anytime a father is even arrested for injuring a kid, it hits at least local and county news. When a father kills a kid it usually make state/regional news.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 94 Thumb down 11
J March 29, 2012 at 12:27

You know, people vote with their feet! This requires action. Feminists use to be about that, but the new feminist is not about that, their feet are either pointing behind them or towards the ceiling. Men are starting to take note and either use that to their advantage one of two ways. One, is use them, an two is to merely reject them like I did and find a woman somewhere else in the world entirely; or Just leave women altogether!

I think younger boys and girls are taking note. Compunded with the selfish baby boomer’s generation retiring, and the impact that will have, it is not long before older folks will work to the grave.

Sad really, but when you turn your back on thousands of years of civilizatoonal experience, you better know what you are doing. It seems to me the baby boomers were just spoiled children whose very first “temper tantrum” never really ended!!!!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 62 Thumb down 3
Walter Kurtz March 29, 2012 at 12:34

“This may surprise you, but among young women, the ones most likely to be interested in cooking, crafting, and “traditional homemaking” skills are the ones who are feminists.”

Do you have any evidence for that?

Because all of the young women I I know that are interested in these things are in traditional marriages.

My anecdote beats your anecdote.
Because I say so.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 117 Thumb down 5
RFactor March 29, 2012 at 12:35

Just curious, how do you reconcile this “return to domesticity” with the fact that more people than ever are living alone, that women are delaying marriage later than ever, and that young women’s fertility has dropped to an all-time low over the past couple of years?

Sources:
- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/living-alone-means-being-social.html?pagewanted=all

-http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/18/u-s-birth-rates-hit-record-lows-is-it-the-economy/#0_undefined,0_

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 1
keyster March 29, 2012 at 12:36

“This may surprise you, but among young women, the ones most likely to be interested in cooking, crafting, and “traditional homemaking” skills are the ones who are feminists.”

This may surprise you, but just because you make a proclamation about young feminists doing something, doesn’t mean it’s actually true.

If you can site some data to back up such a statement, you might have a chance. Sorry sweetums, we’ve been out and out lied to for too long. You can’t just say something anymore in hopes of making it magically so. That ship sailed 20 years ago.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 118 Thumb down 8
Ethical March 29, 2012 at 12:38

“It is entirely possible that the females could band together to support their males against the new-comer/invader lions that want to dethrone the males, kill the cubs, and take over the pack… However they do nothing. They don’t value the males and they don’t even value their own off-spring.”

@Bryan
Lionesses often do to try to help fight off the new male(s) but they back down if he proves dominant enough because a big male lion is serious business (see the difference on youtube between the wide berth hyenas give a male lion and the disrespect they show to female lions). Also lionesses are coordinated in their hunting and fighting, but not completely. Certainly not as much as some other animals like wild dogs. When it comes down to it they’re a group of individuals. Seems to me that the lionesses will sneak a bite in when the pride male has the new male in a vulnerable position, but no lioness wants to be left the only one fighting that new male.

I do agree that women have always been more cautious about reproducing than men are. A lot’s been written about that. The theory is that men only have to invest a couple of minutes, while women have to invest at least 9 months + 18 years. Of course that was before child support.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 2
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 12:43

Ethical

Women don’t have to invest 18 years into anything.

History is full of examples where women abandoned their children and the children were left to raise themselves or be raised by relatives.

There is no law of nature that states women must provide for their off-spring or even care about their off-spring enough to keep them alive. It is a feminist notion to believe that women are programmed to care about their off-spring and provide care for at least 18 years while men are only programmed to impregnate women and then leave. The graveyards of this world are full of the remains of men who cared enough about their off-spring to work themselves to death to provide for them.

A friend of mine who fought in Angola (in the South African military) remarked that he saw a lion chasing a black/tribal woman, and she was holding a baby in her arms. She threw the baby down and the lion went after the baby, allowing the woman to escape. The soldier later approached her and asked her why she did that. Her logic- “I can always have another baby later.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 89 Thumb down 18
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 12:45

Ethical

Women really don’t invest anything by having a kid. A woman who wants to have a man stay with her can be reasonably certain that bringing a kid into the equation will achieve her goal.

If a woman has a strained relationship with a man or if she is worried the man will leave her, she often has a kid, not because she is overwhelmed with love and joy at the prospect of bringing a new life into this world, but because she wants to tie the man to her (or at least tie his resources to her).

Men make the lion’s share (no pun intended) of the investment when having a child.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 19
imnobody March 29, 2012 at 12:46

I can cook and feed myself, thank you very much. And maids are cheap in my country. For sewing, there are business like “Fix and fit”. Being a single guy, household chores are very easy and cheap.

I must be a male feminist, because I want equality. I don’t want a woman to cook a meal and think it deserves half of my wealth only for having done that.

They wanted to work. They thought that we were evil so we forbade them the access to this “paradise” called “a job”.

Now, they find out that work is not the place depicted in “Cosmopolitan”: a glamorous place to have hot affairs with wealthy hunks. And they want an early retirement. No way. Let them have what they have fought so hard for. No need to slave oneself for an aging woman to enjoy a free rid. This is called “equality”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 119 Thumb down 7
cracker March 29, 2012 at 12:50

They may be returning to “domesticity”, but the things she is talking about are hobbies, not real domestic housework. Women are using these things as a distraction from real life; thus, they do not contribute in an real and concrete way to the functioning of a household. Take a look at Pinterest if you want to know what I am talking about. There’s all kinds of crafty domestic crap on there that women are swooning over. Is any of it the type of stuff you would want your wife spending countless hours doing? Probably not. Hobbies and crafts are the type of thing that a hard working women does after the real work is done, so it foolish to think that this shift is positive at all. Just one more distraction, like daytime TV and romance novels.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 65 Thumb down 5
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 12:52

Amanda

This may surprise you but since I know how women are capable of lying without a second’s hesitation, I have decided not to put any stock in your statement, which unsurprisingly was made without any accompanying evidence.

Girl power can achieve a lot of things (such as wrecking previously functioning corporations, giving men migraines, making women miserable as they try in vain to ponder why they always fail) but it cannot make a false statement true.

Your statement tips the scale of my BS detection device.

Sorry, try again later. Better luck next time.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 68 Thumb down 13
Coastal March 29, 2012 at 12:54

Call me Captain Cynical, but I think there’s something else going on here.

Under the influence of feminist ideologues, and their own Apex Fallacies, women were convinced that the world of work was a glamorous soap opera existence of taking the G5 into Rome to seal the deal over lunch with Luigi Billonaire, before heading off to Berne for the UN summit.

Of course, if they’d ever have listened to those stoopid men, they’d have heard that work is kind of rubbish, actually. But instead they insisted that they were all going to be CEOs by thirty, and when they failed that it was all down to those sexist men conspiring against them .

Now the penny’s dropped and they’ve belatedly decided that Grandma had a good deal after all. Well, sorry Grlllllls, but while you were finding out just how tough it is out there, we were finding out just how easy it is to run a house. If it’s a choice between cleaning my own house, or losing it in a divorce, I’ll take Door No 1.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 127 Thumb down 4
Lyn87 March 29, 2012 at 12:55

Yesterday on a different website I made the comment that feminism has always contained the seeds of its own destruction – the internal contradictions are just too important. Feminism can be created under certain circumstances, but it is fundamentally unsustainable in all cases.

Many “ism’s” exist that have counterfactual components, but feminism is based on counterfactuals. For example: feminists thought they could change the way women view their traditional roles without also changing the way men view their traditional roles. They thought men would continue to be the providers of their father’s generation while they themselves became the sluts that became their daughter’s generation. Cause and effect intervened, as it so often does. So yesterday’s “beta-male providers” became today’s “slackers” as yesterday’s female “nurturers” became today’s slut-walking skanks. And who can blame the guys? Who wants to bet your livelihood and freedom in a game where your partner can declare herself the winner and the state will enforce her “victory” at gunpoint?

Another is that feminism can only survive in wealthy societies that have enough excess capacity to ignore unpopular realities. One problem with feminism is that only patriarchies become (and stay) wealthy enough to ignore the realities feminists find objectionable. If feminism succeeds in wiping out the widespread acceptance of paterfamilia, the society will enter a slide that will eventually render it no longer capable of maintaining sweeping illusions, such as that men and women are interchangeable or that women are generally superior.

Same with the Pill, and low birthrate in general. All Western women can limit their fecundity, but not all demographic groups choose to do so equally. It stands to reason that the very types of women most enamored of feminism are those most likely to bear fewer (or no) children.

Bill is correct: feminism is a problem with a built-in cure: it kills itself. Unfortunately, barring a catastrophic event that renders all great illusions too expensive to maintain, it takes generations for disproportionate breeding to win out, especially since feminists seek to have “proxy children” by controlling education.

Much blood and treasure is shed along the way – but the eventual death of feminism is as predictable as the sunrise: it nothing else kills it feminism will kill itself.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 107 Thumb down 6
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 12:57

Coastal

*Running a house, so easy a woman can do it!*

That might make a great bumper sticker slogan.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 70 Thumb down 7
Opus March 29, 2012 at 12:58

I have a theory about this.

It posits that as men being the bulk of the unemployed remain at home, and do so without complaining and probably actually enjoy themselves and reveal themselves as every bit as capable as a woman of cooking and cleaning – all (bar one) of the Michelin *** chefs are male – women (who always emulate men) now recognise that commuting is exhausting (and not glamorous) and that actually working non-stop for forty years is not exactly fun, or empowering. Naturally they now see domesticity as rewarding especially when they realise as they age and climb the corporate ladder that the number of desirable males decrees exponentially.

As Moxon sets out in his book most women only want to work part-time anyway.

I predict more of the same.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 7
MKP March 29, 2012 at 13:01

“For an example in nature let us look to the lion, the most feared of all land animals in Africa”

You ever been to Africa? Hippos kill far more people, and are far more feared, than lions.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 2
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 13:04

MKP

Yes hippos kill more people but they are not an absolute land animal are they, as they spend a great amount of their time in the water… Lions are basically a land animal.

Notice the word LAND in my statement.

Hippos are land/water.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 21
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 13:05

MKP

Also, unless I am mistaken, hippos tend to have a fairly narrow range, mostly being present in southern Africa. Lions are found from Kenya/Sudan all the way down to Mozambique, Angola, South Africa, etc.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 20
Lyn87 March 29, 2012 at 13:08

Lions versus hippos!

Feminists take on the winner in a cage match!

Film at 11:00!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 57 Thumb down 5
Troll King March 29, 2012 at 13:18

Really?

Even the “traditional” women I have known in college were sluts who could barely manage to microwave something without burning it.

Sure, after slutting it up for a few years and finding themselves single by 27 without hopes of finding their husbandbot delivered they get restless and try to go back to their traditional values.

Promale/antifeminist tech has some good articles on gaming reformed sluts or born again virgins.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 60 Thumb down 7
Atlas March 29, 2012 at 13:40

When I was considering dating again after my divorce, one of the most important things was finding a woman who knew how to cook and clean. Talk about a rare trait!

I did eventually find one that can do that and can she ever cook! She is so good that I actually married her. She calls herself a dinosaur because she knows how to cook, clean, and do laundry. My ex could not even boil water…seriously, she could not!

My wife likes trying out new recipes and gets cooking magazines. She has asked me about canning too. She’s a good one.

She is also not a feminist, not even remotely.

As for Amanda’s comment, I call BS on that and demand evidence that what she says is true. I won’t hold my breath.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 4
Zorro March 29, 2012 at 13:42

@I, Enemy Combatant March 29, 2012 at 12:13

What has been historically called “maternal instinct” is, in fact, a myth. There are numerous books written on the subject. Those predilections and behaviors in the human female that compose “maternal instinct” are not at all instinctual. Parental nurturing behaviors in both the male and female are learned and predominantly self-motivated (the individual desires to adopt them). If you had a lousy father, you might be a lousy father because you were not taught good fathering skills; conversely, because you had a lousy father, you insist on being the best father you can.

Paraphrasing Will Munny: Instinct’s got nothin’ to do with it.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6
Rob March 29, 2012 at 13:54

“Feminism is a problem with a built-in cure: it kills itself.”

This is true. And perhaps the Amanda-Marcotte-feminists of the world are just Useful Idiots… but Shitlery Clinton sure isn’t as dumb as Amanda Marcotte. Hillary Clinton exported feminism globally when she was First Lady, and now she’s back in the halls of power, promoting it globally again.

Marxists understand the inherent problem with their socialist ideologies. They know socialism weakens the state until it either gets conquered or gets absorbed by a superior competing system.

So, the only way to stop being overtaken by such societies, is to have only one society – so there is no competition. This way, they can run their global state at 50% capacity, or 30% capacity, or whatever, because it simply won’t matter. Who are we gonna compete with? The Martians? Once this is in place, the real social engineering can begin. Both Marxists and Feminists want to create a Utopia by evolving people into a new form of human – and using state force to do so.

“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism.” — Karl Marx

“[After Communism succeeds] …then, there will come a peace across the earth.” — Josef Stalin

This is why Marxist theory demands that once a global structure is in place above the level of the “state,” they will use socialism to collapse all the states around the world. (This was supposed to happen during WWI, but didn’t, thus the creation of Cultural Marxism). Once that happens, things will “pop up” to the next level, which will be a global government operating as a Communist dictatorship, with no individual states below them.

“While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.” — V.I. Lenin

The world once looked like this (how we identify ourselves):

Individual –> Family –> Community –> Region/State/Province –> Nation –> World

If you destroy the family, the individual will “pop up” to identifying with the community, and if you destroy the community, they will “pop up” to their region and so on.

What they are after creating is a world that looks like this:

Individual –> World Government

One of the things they have been doing is called “transvaluation.” (I believe the notion came from Neitzche as a way to discredit Christianity). What transvaluation means is taking the “bottom” value and placing it on the top. You can see this done with homosexuality in our society, where the values of homosexuals (who have at best, neutral survival value to society) are placed above the values of heterosexuals who have positive survival value.

Feminism has done this in regards to men and women. The man should lead. The man has always led. The “hierarchy” works like this:

Men –> Women –> Children

Now, also, keep in mind that just because men are the “top” in the hierarchy, in terms of who is the most valuable humans, things work in the opposite direction. Children are preferred over women and women are preferred over men (we think it right for a mother to die saving a child, but not a child dying to save a mother).

What has happened with Marxist manipulations is we now have a society in which the hierarchy looks like this:

Women –> Men –> Children

The next step in transvalueing the family is to make it look like this:

Children –> Women –> Men

And how will this come about, you ask? All you have to do is give children more rights over their parents than their parents have over the children. This is exactly what feminism did with men and women, and the next step in destroying the family is putting children’s rights first. (Ahem! Hello shared-parenting advocates!) Don’t forget, it takes a village. Shitlery Clinton’s thesis was on this very subject, where she compared children in families suffering abuses similar to the Indians living on the reserve. She claims that children’s rights are ignored in favour of parental rights. She recommends that a government bureaucracy ought to be created to ensure children’s rights separately from their parents.

And they are doing it globally, right now, with the United Nations’ CEDAW agreement. (Covenant to End Discrimination Against Women). The CEDAW has within it, the declared “Rights of the Child.” In it, you will find things like children having the “right” to choose their own religion and having the right to all forms of media/communication etc. etc.

The thing about these international treaties is they supercede national constitutions. If the CEDAW disagrees with the US Constitution, it is the CEDAW that wins. I believe there are only seven countries left in the world who have not signed it – the USA being the most notable hold-out, simply because Americans value their Constitution so much – with good reason.

Canada signed it several years back, and a few years ago, a father in Ontario got taken to court by his teenage daughter, funded by legal aid. The girl was using the internet in her bedroom to communicate with her friends and sneak out of the house in the middle of the night. The father found out and grounded her from the computer, taking it completely out of her room. Well, legal aid took the guy to court to show he had violated “The Rights of the Child” under the CEDAW Canada had signed, because by removing access to the computer, he had violated her right to freely use all forms of communication etc.

How can you run a family in such a way?

You can’t.

What are you going to do when you are a devout Catholic, but your 8 year old child comes home from a screwed-up school system that brainwashed him into becoming a Muslim or a Wiccan? Are you gonna drop him off at the church of Satan on your way to Mass? The CEDAW says you must.

Many shared-parenting advocates as well are talking about “the rights of the child.” It should make every stand up and take notice. What kind of rights are we talking about here?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 81 Thumb down 7
Art Vandelay March 29, 2012 at 14:00

Lions versus hippos!

Feminists take on the winner in a cage match!

Well many feminists are already shaped like hippos…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 2
Eric March 29, 2012 at 14:02

Price;

Even though it’s a hopeful sign, it won’t mean much until women also turn to valuing men again.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer March 29, 2012 at 14:11

The recent spike in homemaking enthusiasm can be directly correlated with the publication of A Man Wants a Wife, Not a “Co-Worker” , which apparently has unnerved a lot of sassy American women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 9
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 14:15

Rob -

I agree with 98% of what you stated… However I believe you are mistaken as to how the Marxists want to force people to evolve to bring about a utopia. I believe Marxists/socialists simply identify large segments of society, the segments they believe will stand in the way of the revolutionary transformation of society into a perpetual dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the central committee which of course speaks for the proletariat) and they liquidate/massacre that segment.

Marxists identify those who have no place in their utopia and then go about the pursuit of their utopia by murdering those who don’t belong.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 18
Travis March 29, 2012 at 14:16

OT:
Just found this article about the re authorization of VAWA on HuffPo. Gwen Moore, a Wisconsin Congresswoman gave a speech claiming violence against women is “As American as apple pie.”
Many of the comments are from women advocating “buying a gun and just blowing the perpetrators away.”
Others claim that anyone who doesn’t support VAWA is part of the imaginary “war on women”. Sadly, there are almost no comments refuting any of their claims. Here’s the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/gwen-moore-rape-congress-vawa_n_1385981.html

I know I’m pretty new here, but the way I see it, one of the most important things we can do is to post comments on these “mainstream” articles. Not because there’s any point in arguing with the feminists or mainstream media, but because it’s a good way to reach the guys who haven’t yet taken the “red pill”. I think there are a lot of guys who read our comments and come to the conclusion that “Hey, I don’t have to go along with this bullshit. There’s an alternative to just going along with the PC crap that’s been shoved down my throat. If this guy’s willing to speak out, I can too…”
Maybe I’m wrong. But I read a lot of these articles, and it seems like whenever you have a couple of guys start posting our point of view, a whole slew of other guys start joining in.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 7
imnobody March 29, 2012 at 14:17

“For example: feminists thought they could change the way women view their traditional roles without also changing the way men view their traditional roles. They thought men would continue to be the providers of their father’s generation while they themselves became the sluts that became their daughter’s generation. Cause and effect intervened, as it so often does.”

I think this sums it up.

To be fair, this worked for the first generation after feminism. Boomer and early generation X women were able to have it all.

They were able to have affairs and one-night-stands when they were young and, when they had had their fun, to get married to a higher beta and enjoy the traditional family with kids and picket fence. Men had not wised up yet and were able to follow a traditional program even when women had jettisoned the traditional program.

If you read the testimonials of that generation, you will see that women are really grateful to feminism. They could have fun (hooking up) and then to have a traditional family. Susan Walsh is an example but there are plenty of examples on the Web.

The problem was with the following generation. They had seen their mothers and elder sisters to have it all, so why not them? They took this “have-it-all” program as a stable fact of nature, instead of a transient moment on the way from patriarchy to matriarchy. The fact is that men were changing because of the new sexual market and were more and more reluctant to commit to former sluts.

Then, the shaming began: “Men are immature”, “Men are commitment-phobics”, “Women have changed so much but men have not been able to keep up with this change” (meaning “women have become sluts but men’s becoming interested in marrying sluts has not come to happen”.)

I have explained it with more detail in

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/05/23/kay%E2%80%99s-man-child-revisited/#comment-92075

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer March 29, 2012 at 14:28

Some of these ladies are consulting metaphysical resources to help them come to terms with their lack of domestic skills.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
Just1X March 29, 2012 at 14:28

Yeah Uncle Elmer, I heard that that was the case…at Forbes, I think it was

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Ode March 29, 2012 at 14:30

Traveller

To hell. They just are afraid becasue the big government tit is running out of milk. Do they believe a man will put them in his house just because they can make a sandwich?

Here’s the math
Joe Sixpack will begin working working at age 25 and retire at 65.
That’s 40 years of working.
If he makes $50,000 a year that’s $2 million of income within a normal human lifetime for a man.
How much do men spend on women? Probably 25% of their income so 25% of $2 million equals $500,000.

This is why I never married. I cannot think of anything that a woman can put on the table that’s worth $500,000. Since you mentioned sandwiches. Yes I agree $500,000 is a lot of money to pay for sandwiches.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 6
Ethical March 29, 2012 at 14:34

“Women don’t have to invest 18 years into anything”

@Bryan
Very true. Once they’re out of the uterus neither men nor women have to invest in their children at all. But I don’t believe you would argue that women’s biology doesn’t force them to be a little more picky than men have to be. When you said women don’t want to have children I was agreeing in the sense that because women can only have a finite number of kids and because they have to spend at least SOME time growing each one inside them, they have to be more careful in their reproductive choices. Technology women now gives women ABSOLUTE choice over reproduction, and that increased choice is what they wanted all along. Where I was disagreeing is that being more careful doesn’t mean wanting kids less. It might just mean wanting security first.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
slwerner March 29, 2012 at 14:36

Bryan – ”Susan Smith didn’t hesitate to kill her kids…That is simply the most publicized and sensationalized case.”

Sadly, the Susan Smith story would not have made news except for the fact that she claimed that a black man had stolen her car and kidnapped her sons.

In rural South Carolina, this claim made big news, and brought her much more (sympathetic) attention than she had intended – including extra law enforcement brought in for the man-hunt to find that black guy that took her kids. It had gone national before the police investigation turned up “inconsistencies” in her story, and then discovered the truth that she had rolled her own car into the lake, drowning her sons.

And, you are of course, quite correct in that it was not the “rare occurrence”. Similar stories regularly show up in local news, but seldom gather much attention, and are quickly forgotten. But, when a man kills his kids, the news is sure to follow the story closely, to it’s conclusion (his conviction).

Why, it’s almost a man-bites-dog story.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
cyclotronmajesty March 29, 2012 at 14:57

I wonder if this is part of the “return to nature” green sustainability, get off the grid and government social control movement. Allot of hippies, ravers, burners even though they may consciously disagree with traditional gender roles, appear to somewhat embrace them as means to survive on their own. It’s a efficient model and works effortlessly. Every time a society hits a dead en it looks back to the closest model of sanity it ever had. This would be traditional gender roles, which were never galling except in extraordinary circumstance. But those unusual events are used to stereotype all the past mellinia of human history back to arboreal primates for the sake of feminist politics.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Kevin March 29, 2012 at 15:14

There have been a bunch of really good articles this past week or so!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 15:29

Travis

In a healthy society there wouldn’t be a demand for the sort of crap that is found of Huffington Post. In a semi-healthy society the people who post on such a site would be identified and put into detention/internment camps or deported.

Why, in the name of freedom and free speech, must we extend tolerance to those who want to use those very same freedoms to destroy us and our entire civilization?

Anybody who openly advocates communism, socialism, social democracy, any variety of marxism-leninism, should be arrested and imprisoned indefinitely, deported, or neutralized after being convicted in a court.

Advocating marxism is basically the equivalent of saying, “Only 148 million class enemies perished between 1917 and 1987, [see Dr. Rummel University of Haiwai on the massacres carried out by communist governments, and the Black Book of Communism] let’s add another 150 million land-owners, business-owners, farmers, clerics, religious people, and above all, those evil White men!”

Anybody who advocates communism should at the very least lose their freedom, and probably should lose their life. It is the equivalent of advocating the destruction of the world via the destruction of civilization. Communism is the doctrine of the destruction of nations.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 31 Thumb down 29
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 15:34

Ethical

What I am saying is that for the most part women have no biological inclination to want to reproduce. All they want is for a man to expend his resources taking care of them. However, this generally requires that they bear children for the man. That is my explanation for why most women wind up having children, they realize they have to do so in order to get what they want from the man.

For almost all Western women their dream would be to find a man with a few billion dollars who doesn’t mind giving away huge portions of his wealth, in exchange for nothing on their part. They certainly don’t want to have to have children to get what they want. Although for many women they have no idea what they want.

Women are far too fickle to be taken seriously. A good general rule is to ignore what they say and pay attention to what they do. Those who talk about how they value family and want to be a good wife/mother “some day” but then who ride every cock they come across, are clearly not wife/mother material and have no interest in a family, for them a family is merely a means to an end, the end being a man’s resources or some emotional crutch provided by the man.

Life is too short to spend time trying to figure out the colossal mountain of intrigue that most women engage in to get what they think they want or claim they want.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 14
Avenger March 29, 2012 at 15:44

As I suggested in my last post, a shift toward more conservative gender roles is probably already underway, with younger Americans leading the trend. Julia Rothman, writing for the Washington Post, claims that younger women women are taking up the domestic arts with an enthusiasm that hasn’t been seen in decades:

It has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal. Females have always been doing this stuff and it doesn’t matter what their class or educational level is. If they have property they’ll have a garden. The poor woman may be growing potatoes to eat while the rich one roses but it’s really the same instinct to grow things for the home whether it’s food or some flower for decoration. There’s a female near me, Martha Stewart, who’s been doing this for 30 years and she’s made a lot of money with her show, magazine, products etc so I assumed that there were many females interested in these home type things like cooking, gardering,decorating, crafts etc I doubt that many men are watching her show or reading Martha Stewart Living magazine. All of the dept. stores whether it’s Macy’s or Target seem to have a sewing and sewing machine section and I doubt they’d waste valuable floor space unless they were selling these things. Females, regardless of their education, are always more nest oriented. Only a small % have the temperament to go out and compete in the outside world. What men thrive on is only nerve wracking or boring to the average female.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 6
MT459 March 29, 2012 at 15:45

I never understood, even as a kid, this feminist, yo gooo grrrl movement to get women into the workplace. As a kid, I thought that women had it easy that they could stay at home instead of commute and work 5-7 days a week. Men never had this option. I remember wondering how a woman could possibly want to go to “work” as opposed to stay at home (even if child rearing was involved). I remember my father telling me that if I didn’t go to college, I had to work in a steel mill haha. For another part of my childhood, I thought that I might get drafted into the military and likely die in combat (a wholly irrational fear, but try telling that to an 8 year old). That was another double standard that always irked me…Men could be forced to die for their country, yet women couldn’t!? WTF? I thought we were equals in every way, except that women were more special.

So now that women are essentially forced to work for their well being (because you know, men aren’t manning up and marrying them to support them) many of them HATE it. I graduated college in 2010, so I’ve had two years to observe how all these girls I graduated with have changed their opinion about work. Two years ago they were go-getters who were about to be “empowered”, all bent on climbing the corporate ladder….now? They are either slaving away 50-60 hours a week at a job that is too stressful or their stuck with their same job (or even laid off in some circumstances) and all of a sudden want a husband and a family….how convenient.

The thing that these crazed and deluded girls fail to realize is that women have always had the “right” to work. Sure, it may have been harder to crack the ranks of certain professions before the feminist movement, but there have always been female scientists, lawyers and authors. Employment is not empowerment, it just means that you are usually going to be stuck doing something boring/tedious for 40+ hours a week plus commute. Women used to have a pussy pass with work, but young men nowadays aren’t going to be as willing give up their freedom and their ambitions just to support a wife. Why buy the cow when the milk is free? If a man is already getting sexual access with limited investment, why would he marry and give up his present and future to his wife?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 4
Geography Bee Finalist himself March 29, 2012 at 15:50

Some younger women MAY be turning back to domesticity now, but their entitlement mentality is probably not dropping back to earth.

Feminists will still show no shred of grace when forced to make a concession required due to budgetary constraints and will continue to think their programs and causes are sacrosanct.

Even if feminists are forced to make more concessions, they will continue to denigrate male soldiers everywhere of every nationality and never proactively demand mandatory female military conscription responsibility in countries that have long given them a free ride in sponging off men. This turning to domesticity is just another attempt to be the parasites that they are.

@ Travis

Huffington Post deletes and bans anyone who does not toe a liberal enough line. I have been banned from Huffington Post myself.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 8
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 15:57

MT 459-

You say- Why buy the cow when the milk is free?

What if I don’t care about the cow and I don’t care about the milk?

Sure some women are pretty/visually pleasing, some women are sexy, and as a heterosexual man I have some basic sexual interest in women. But there is NOTHING inherent in women that makes them worth the sort of trouble they presently are. Women are NOT worth it.

As for American women, I don’t want to date them, I don’t want to marry them, I don’t want sex from them/with them. I just want them to go off back into their own little bubble and work their government make-work jobs until they die from complications due to morbid obesity around age 40. To that you can add Canadian women, New Zealand women, Australian women, and British women.

As Jefferson Davis said- “All we want is to be left alone.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 12
Anti Idiocy March 29, 2012 at 15:59
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Avenger March 29, 2012 at 16:01

Bryan writes, ‘For almost all Western women their dream would be to find a man with a few billion dollars who doesn’t mind giving away huge portions of his wealth, in exchange for nothing on their part

Hey,I’d like to find a female like that too :) And btw, stop watching dopey Hollywood films because in real life wealthy men are smart and are not going to be giving away money for some piece of azz. Streetwalkers don’t get billionaire good looking Richard Gere to marry them. The only well off men who end up losing their money to females are sports or showbiz idiots.

“That is my explanation for why most women wind up having children, they realize they have to do so in order to get what they want from the man.”

99% of our behaviour is subconscious and we’re just programmed to do certain things and most of the time do not even consciously understand why we behave as we do. This subconscious behaviour is even stronger in the female and since she is the one who must bear and care for infants she has a subconscious instinct to find a mate to help, the best one she can find.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 4
Rob March 29, 2012 at 16:04

“I agree with 98% of what you stated… However I believe you are mistaken as to how the Marxists want to force people to evolve to bring about a utopia. I believe Marxists/socialists simply identify large segments of society, the segments they believe will stand in the way of the revolutionary transformation of society into a perpetual dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the central committee which of course speaks for the proletariat) and they liquidate/massacre that segment.

Marxists identify those who have no place in their utopia and then go about the pursuit of their utopia by murdering those who don’t belong.” — Bryan

You are correct. But they aren’t evolving individuals, rather are evolving humankind – society as a whole.

Think about it this way. If you are removing the “undesireables” from the population, you are evolving the society, and if it is the only society, you are altering humankind by doing so. If you don’t want people in your society to have blond hair, the simplest way is just to kill all the blond haired people. As these people are removed from the gene pool, they will also be failing to pass on their blond genes to the next generations… do this for a few generations, and how much do you think the amount of the future populations will continue to be born blond?

Further, they also believe in social “evolving.” This is precisely what we have already been dealing with today. Homosexuals, for examples, have long since claimed they could “cure” society of their homophobia by having mandatory school instruction on the subject, where they claim it will be possible to rid society of homophobia in merely one generation – by brainwashing it out of the kids in the classroom.

This is also happening in feminism. A few years back, someone sent a me a document from my province’s teacher’s association/union, where it was seriously being promoted as part of Grade Eight Social Studies, to have all the boys write an apology to all of the girls in the class, for their historical misogyny and abuses against women. This type of social conditioning, they claimed, would remove misogyny from society in a mere generation as well.

And its true. It does work that way.

We have been socially “brainwashed” over the past couple of generations to have a new view of marriage and family as well. Everyone now comes from a divorced family, or has been divorced, or at least has a sibling or some other relative who is divorced. It is now something like 50% of children live in homes without a biological father present. It is normal now.

And the only people who really know what a society was like when marriage was still a semi-viable institution, are the Baby-Boomers and a few spatterings of the elderly who are older than them. Once the Baby Boomer generation dies off, will there be anyone left who remembers what such a society was like? There is still some talk today that No-Fault-Divorce was a really bad idea, comparing it to the time before it came in. But once those people are gone, who is gonna talk? Does anyone really talk about presumed-father-custody being undermined by the suffragettes anymore? 99.9% of people probably don’t even realize that for thousands of years, the bedrock of society was based on marriage involving presumed father custody rather than mother custody – nor that the divorce epidemic began with this change, and not with no-fault divorce. (The divorce rate rose from less than 2% before the 1870′s – which had held constant for thousands of years – to around 15% by the 1920′s. That is over a 700% increase in divorce. Since then, divorce has risen only a modest 300% or so).

So, yes, Marxists often just simply killed those they didn’t like. I understand in Cambodia they were even killing people who needed glasses because they were genetically inferior, but just because some of the Marxist states used such brutal tactics, does not necessarily mean it is “ironclad” Marxist technique to use murder. It is more about the belief that it is possible for man to become god himself, and remake the world into heaven on earth.

By the way, an interesting side note about evolution. When Darwin came out with his thesis, Marx and Engels were extremely excited. Remember that Marx based his ideology on Hegel’s notion of “The Truth is Relative.” (There is no Absolute Truth). When Darwin came out with his book, they regarded it as the science that “proved” they were right. What evolution means in regard to “The Truth” is that because the world is always changing, what was true yesterday is no longer true today. Therefore, what is true today is not necessarily the truth tomorrow.

At any rate, Marx and Engels wrote a letter to Darwin and asked him to affiliate his science with their political ideology.

Darwin declined the honour.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 4
MT459 March 29, 2012 at 16:13

“You say- Why buy the cow when the milk is free?

What if I don’t care about the cow and I don’t care about the milk?”

I give you mad props for being able to resist your biological urges and completely drop out of the game. I’ve sworn off women countless times in my life, but I still keep going back. The chase and the conquest of getting pussy (especially new pussy) remains thrilling to me despite all the problems that can usually be associated with it.

Maybe I’ve never been burned too bad by a girl before (no false rape accusations, no humilating public rejections), but I still keep going back. Marraige on the other hand? Out of the question unless we see an absolute transformation in divorce laws.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 3
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 16:16

I’d like to point out that in Cambodia they killed people with glasses for a different reason.

Pol Pot and his party were convinced that people who wore glasses had problems with their vision due to reading too many books and reading late at night by candle. They assumed that anybody with glasses had suffered degredation to their vision due to continually reading books. They regarded such people as dangerous intellectuals.

It wasn’t an issue of genetic inferiority.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 11
Ethical March 29, 2012 at 16:28

“What I am saying is that for the most part women have no biological inclination to want to reproduce.”

@Bryan
Hopefully you’ll find some solid evidence to back it up. If so I’d be interested in reading that article should you write it. I’ve already stated my opinion that you’ve confused women being more picky with them not wanting to have kids. But it seems plausible, given the seemingly absolute choice women have over their own reproduction today, and the twisted laws that make men indebted to them even with no children involved, that women’s natural urge to be picky about their children’s potential fathers could have run amok. Women no longer have to justify themselves by bearing a man’s offspring. With current laws they’re already entitled to his production without having to do anything. With all this I could see how a growing number of women might put so many criteria on having children that they NEVER ended up wanting them. Even if they’ve married prince charming, even if they owns her own home, can hire a nanny, and can send the kids to private school like they’ve always wanted, I wouldn’t be surprised if a growing number of women still don’t feel the urge (case in point: Jennifer Aniston).

Yes life is too short to pay too much attention to what women say they want. But I hope you can do some digging and come up with some proof and some enlightening answers. Finding out the truth of this story is definitely worthwhile, and will never be confused with trying to figure out women’s whims.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Rebel March 29, 2012 at 16:28

About mothers letting their offsprings die, I am not too sure that the lion was the best example.

You may chose another animal, such as the polar bear and see how the mother defends its young cubs.

Good luck to you if you happen to be in the neighbourhood..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 16:35

MT459

It’s been about 4 years since I’ve been with a woman, about 3 years since I’ve had any alcohol, and about 6 years since I’ve had any tobacco.

I’ve never had much problem cutting something out of my life and moving on in a positive direction.

I’m not giving up on the idea that SOMEWHERE out there in the world there is a woman who will be able to form a positive and meaningful lifetime relationship/marriage with me and form a family with me, but I have basically given up on the idea that such a woman can be found in the Anglosphere (USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Britain, etc).

I may spend a few months in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Romania, Slovakia, and the Baltic States, and see how things go, if any of my friends can show me around some village and introduce me to some stable and happy farm family with a nice marriage minded virginal daughter around the age of 16-19 who speaks at least basic English or has the potential to learn.

If I ever wind up making a large amount of money I would probably leave the USA and might even renounce my citizenship if I could gain citizenship in a few other nations.

I qualify for dual-citizenship with one foreign country but I haven’t exercised my right/option to claim the citizenship and get my passport, but I am going to do so in the near future.

My main reason for staying in the USA is the very reasonable self-defense/home-defense/property-defense laws and the Second Amendment. Of course if a man ever defends himself (with any level of force) against a woman charging at him with a knife, oh boy, you’d better believe he is being put on trial. I have a buddy whose girlfriend charged at him with a knife, he slugged her in the face, knocked her clean on the ground, took the knife away, and told her “call me when you’re sane.” She never did call the police or make an issue out of it, but she never did call him after that.

I love America as a nation, the history of the nation, the potential the nation has, the Constitution (mainly the Bill of Rights, most of the later amendments are trash)… America has so much potential but I doubt it will ever be realized, at least not in the near future.

Sure my family is mostly all in the USA (some are in Argentina, Canada, various European nations), but there’s no reason I have to be tied to the USA for life.

If I could find a country where I could readily get into a decent career where I can be treated like the professional I am then I would be open to the idea of moving in the near future. As an additional condition this country would also have to permit me to retain possession of the firearms I presently have.

Gun collecting, shooting, etc, is a major hobby of mine. Also I carry a firearm on a daily basis for lawful defense. I’d hate to have to leave my dozens of weapons behind if I were to leave the USA.

However, if I were ever to come into millions of dollars or had a business worth millions, I would probably relocate to a nation where I would be able to use my influence/money to own the sort of guns I want and be allowed to carry at least one pistol.

I also value free speech, which effectively rules out Canada, Britain, Germany, France, etc. I have a friend who spent a year in prison for translating a book. I have other friends who had legal problems because they raised questions about issues relating to WW2 and whether or not certain events happened as the mainstream history books suggest.

The world is very messed up and there’s not too many places worth moving to. It might be possible to marry a Romanian or Polish woman and then live in the USA in a low population density state on a farm/ranch in Wyoming or South Dakota. It is possible to drop out of mainstream society and more or less become insulated against pop culture, to a degree anyway.

Remember I’m a WN and that rules out Asia and most of South America. For me my opportunity to find a wife/mate will be limited to the former Com Bloc nations of Eastern/Southern Europe.

I don’t condone mixing but I understand all too well why most Western men want nothing to do with Western women.

The popular view in the WN movement, especially pushed by women, is that Western men mix because they are losers, women mix due to propaganda and social influence. In essence, women never have to take responsibility for what they do, not even in the WN movement.

Anyway, I’m sort of digressing so I’ll just wrap up this sentence and hit the submit button.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 18
woggy March 29, 2012 at 16:36

Geez Amanduh,

Didn’t the Feminist luminaries make great speeches, didn’t they write convincing prose and didn’t they make lots of converts with their “fish and bicycle” tee shirts draped over braless bosoms – all in a very memorable effort to call domesticity “drudgery for women”?

Somebody better remind these feminists that they’re scabbing for the patriarchy every time they pick up a wooden spoon.

Somebody needs to prod them – reminding them that their golden vaginas only fart perfume unless , in the midst of their goddess complex, they allow an occasional penis to enter and a subsequent new life to exit.
The shame of it!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 16:37

Rebel-

A polar bear will not hesitate to defend itself or its off-spring against a human, as a human is a pathetic creature unable to effectively fight against it.

I do not doubt that a lioness (female lion) would readily fight a human to protect its cubs.

However, would a female polar bear fight a male polar bear to defend the cubs? Male polar bears are nothing to sneeze at!

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 13
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 16:40

Ethical-

I believe that for many women in this modern society, having ONE child (and by this I mean ONE child) has become something of a status symbol.

A woman may have a child, but only so she can experience being a mother in the sense that one would experience going to the Grand Canyon, the Pyramids of Giza, or the Panama Canal. I don’t believe that women have a natural instinct to reproduce and if they do it certainly is not to the extent that it is with men.

I have a lot on my plate but I’m going to do some research into this, see what I can find, and write at least a few pages on it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11
W.F. Price March 29, 2012 at 16:41

This may surprise you, but among young women, the ones most likely to be interested in cooking, crafting, and “traditional homemaking” skills are the ones who are feminists.

-Amanda

Amanda, every young woman who has gone to college calls herself a feminist. That’s pretty much irrelevant for our purposes here. What’s important is how they actually behave. You may be something of a feminist for putting off marriage and childbearing, but if your intent is to stay married to your husband, sacrifice some career advancement to raise kids, and be a housewife at least some of the time, you are a lukewarm feminist at best. Actually, you are pretty much average in terms of lifestyle for an educated white woman. I’ll bet your mom was, too. The real hardcore feminists are almost invariably divorced or single, and have much lower fertility than the national average. They also will not cook or clean for a man — that is beneath them. You might be too young to remember what it was like in the 80s, but trust me, domestic work was totally rejected as oppression by feminists of that era. Ever heard the term “latchkey kids?” That’s what my generation was, in large part. Especially the urban ones. There was no parental helicoptering, our mothers didn’t send us to school with freshly baked cookies, etc. Baby boomer mothers were so uninterested in domestic chores back then that most men my age learned to cook and such ourselves. This is really why you see all these 30-something guys interested in food and cooking — it’s something we picked up as kids out of necessity.

Bryan March 29, 2012 at 16:52

W.F. Price

My mother used to have a “kitchen is closed” policy after which I wasn’t even allowed to cook for myself. She used to frequently tell me I didn’t deserve dinner and that if I wanted food I could call my dad and have him bring me something.

Ultimately my dad obtained full custody and she didn’t even have visitation rights.

When I say that women/mothers don’t care if their kids live or die, eat or go hungry, I am speaking from experience. If it wasn’t for my dad (who lived about 4-5 minutes away) bringing me food on my mom’s days during the joint-custody years, I would have gone hungry 40-50% of the time. However, I must say that my mother did frequently cook, but there were plenty of times she would tell me I didn’t deserve dinner for some arbitrary reason and of course at her decided time “the kitchen is closed!”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 9
Rob March 29, 2012 at 16:55

For everyone who thinks that feminism will just die out and fade away, it may be so, but the structure they have built will stay long after they are gone.

Has no-one put two and two together yet what the implications of the ongoing global economic crisis might be?

For example. Back in 2008 & 2009, at the height of the disaster, all of the world leaders almost immediately started chirping about the need to create an international organization to make sure the global economy still functions. Hell, our ex-Prime Minister, the Right Dishonourable Paul Martin (who is hailed as an economic genius from his time as Finance Minister) went on a bloody tour across Canada trying to convince us that we had to give up some of our Canadian sovereignty in order to make the world work! I mean, my God! Is that not the definition of treason? All the world leaders were saying this.

It was complete bullshit. In fact, the reason why the world didn’t completely implode was because there was little affiliation from one nation to the next. Americans, for example, have seen their dollar’s purchasing decline rapidly, whereas Canada & Australia’s dollar (while still declining) has held value far better. Therefore, should the United States really go belly up, git your money out of US Dollars and into Canadian dollars pronto, so you still have some wealth left. This is what the Germans did when they experienced hyper-inflation. The smart ones simply dumped their marks and bought the British pound, thereby preserving their wealth.

It has only been since the most recent Euro-crisis that the world’s leaders have somewhat shut-up about this treasonous notion of handing over national monetary sovereignty to a newly created Global organization. I mean, it’s kinda hard to make the case for such a thing while “Global Government-Lite” (The EU) is crashing and burning into the ground precisely because they are bound by the European monetary system. If the EU did not exist, only Greece and the other PIIGS would be screwed. But now, they all are. So, ask yourself, why do all the world leaders keep promoting the idea of creating a global currency, or at least, a global organization to handle the world’s monetary supply? It is suicide.

However, notice what else has happened in Europe. It all started with being an “economic union.” That is where it started. But in order to make the economic union work, things had to be standardized, and so in came the legislation to do so… and then further legislation… and so on and so on. Once the basic frame-work was in place, they easily passed all kinds of laws – well outside of economic policy and into social policy – and all of the Europeans suddenly discovered the EU was more important and powerful than their own governments.

So, as we watch the USA run up debt to levels that are simply unsustainable anywhere in the world except in Disneyland, we are also watching the EU do the same, and in order to keep propping up these, even countries like Canada and Australia are funnelling in billions of dollars of aid to keep the ponzi scheme going, deflating our own dollar’s purchasing power at the same time.

At some point in the near future, this whole puppy is gonna explode. And there will be lots of demand for a new form of government to be created to “deal with it.” Of course, it is always global. And of course, it will only deal with money, not social policy… for now. (It just never works that way).

Once they have a structure in place that all are bound to, rather than volunteer to, they will simply start dialectically manipulated the global state from economic policy into social policy, the same way they did in the EU.

Like I said earlier about the CEDAW, much of the framework is already in place.

All they really need is a global structure everyone is bound to, and they will get their global government. They tried desperately to convince nations to give up some of their sovereignty to a global structure when the Global Warming Hoax came out, and when the shit hits the fan in our economies, they will try to do it again.

And once it’s done, it’s done. See Greece. They haven’t even got the option to leave the EU. There is no constitutional provision to leave the EU, and the only way they can create one, apparently, is to re-open the constitution and then 100% unanimously vote it in. Except, since Greece is still in the EU, they too have a vote, and why the hell would they vote for their own financial destruction? Lol! They are FUBAR in Europe, and the USA is in even worse shape than them.

The drumbeats for large global government gets louder and louder. It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s happening every day, right on the tell-a-vision.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 2
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 16:58

Ethical

I don’t know if most women know who they want to have kids with. I don’t know if there is any man in the world who can satisfy the average Western woman.

He has to be rich yet humble and down to earth, sensitive yet willing to fight anybody who gets fresh with her… He should be intelligent yet not so intelligent that he intimidates her and makes her feel inferior.

They seem to have a desire for a Bill Gates bank account, a 1980s Stallone style body, and an outlaw biker personality (with the exception that he doesn’t force her to turn tricks for the gang, although who knows with modern women they may want to be treated that way).

I just don’t think women are worth the effort. I have no desire to spend the time trying to figure out women and their ever-shifting desires.

As I told a friend of mine, “if you let them, women will eat up five hours a day just moaning about their problems… I’m not paid to be a full time counselor… If women think they are not paid for cooking and cleaning, men are not paid for providing on-call on-demand counselling services.”

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 13
DCM March 29, 2012 at 16:59

“Bryan March 29, 2012 at 16:40
……….I don’t believe that women have a natural instinct to reproduce and if they do it certainly is not to the extent that it is with men. ……..”

It may be less than men’s in a way but if you look at feminist sites you’ll always see sections about cute animals — babies or pygmies — and celebrity babies and children.
I read an account by someone visiting a nunnery and on holidays the celebate sisters gave each other baby clothes for presents. The clothes would be donated to charities but the message is there.
I’d bet present generations, or those up till recently, have been brought up to repress their instinct and are all the more miserable for it being unconscious.
Females are always unhappy anyhow and always wish things were otherwise and — oh! you just don’t understand!
They might as well be unhappy in situations that make men happy.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 17:06

DCM

All of those articles about celebrity babies, they excite women because women like the lifestyles of the rich/famous. Women don’t much care for children. A baby is nothing more than a fashion accessory, a chance for the woman to play the role of mother and be praised for being such a wonderful mommy.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 15
Geography Bee Finalist himself March 29, 2012 at 17:15

“There was no parental helicoptering…”

Parental helicoptering is unfortunately done based on the idea of the “offspring as an investment mentality.” I am the middle of three children and my parents were ahead of the game in being helicopter parents (I was born in August 1981).

Parents justify helicopter behavior on the grounds that “college is expensive (and parents often make choices that make college even more so),” “other parents do it as well (that’s news to all the orphans and children who lost one parent through death, divorce or desertion),” “they want what’s best for their kids (what about everyone else’s kids?),” and other bullshit excuses. It becomes obvious that the parents are not interested in anything other than drawing on an eating, sleeping, and working investment in their old age, also known as unadulterated self-absorption.

As for my own parents, I am not going to give them anything in their old age (father is 62, mother is 63). The nonviolent vindictive behavior I will display towards them going forward is something they both brought on themselves. I will look forward to the day one or both need nursing home care, put them in a nursing home, and never return.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 16
DCM March 29, 2012 at 17:16

“Bryan March 29, 2012 at 15:29

………….
Why, in the name of freedom and free speech, must we extend tolerance to those who want to use those very same freedoms to destroy us and our entire civilization?”

There’s no need to. If someone says they’re going to kill a public official or blow up some building they are arrested. The same fate should befall people who openly plan to destroy us because it’s the same thing.

“Anybody who openly advocates communism, socialism, social democracy, any variety of marxism-leninism, should be arrested and imprisoned indefinitely, deported, or neutralized after being convicted in a court.”

Correct. Liberals have misinterpreted freedom to their own ends. Once people are shown to be destructive they must be watched.”

“Advocating marxism is basically the equivalent of saying, “Only 148 million class enemies perished between 1917 and 1987, [see Dr. Rummel University of Haiwai on the massacres carried out by communist governments, and the Black Book of Communism] let’s add another 150 million land-owners, business-owners, farmers, clerics, religious people, and above all, those evil White men!” ”

Yes.

“Anybody who advocates communism should at the very least lose their freedom, and probably should lose their life. It is the equivalent of advocating the destruction of the world via the destruction of civilization. Communism is the doctrine of the destruction of nations.”

The entire 20th century was a series of experiments in communism, none of which delivered on the promised paradise and all of which killed millions. There’s no need to tolerate this any more.

I heard that one time Hollywood commies were having a meeting at which John Wayne and his stuntman buddies showed up. When the meeting was in process Wayne and pals jumped up and proceeded to beat the commies to pulp, then left. That’s the example for the future.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3
DCM March 29, 2012 at 17:38

“MT459 March 29, 2012 at 16:13
…………..
I give you mad props for being able to resist your biological urges and completely drop out of the game. I’ve sworn off women countless times in my life, but I still keep going back. The chase and the conquest of getting pussy (especially new pussy) remains thrilling to me despite all the problems that can usually be associated with it.

Maybe I’ve never been burned too bad by a girl before (no false rape accusations, no humilating public rejections), but I still keep going back. Marraige on the other hand? Out of the question unless we see an absolute transformation in divorce laws.”

The chase is profoundly boring and stressful. I could be doing other things, which I have been for 30+ years.
Basically, while I could live with “the right female” there isn’t one unless law and custom force them to be. All I’d want was someone who’d willingly fuck and whatever else I liked and who didn’t constantly complain. She’d be welcome to play with shoes or knit or whatever as long as she realized I was supporting her so she should keep herself presentable and pleasant.
That is why females need stricter controls. They’ll be unhappy no matter what their situation so they might as well be so in circumstances that make men happy.
But chasing them — no, it’s too much trouble after you get to your mid 20s. Not fun.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3
Glenn March 29, 2012 at 18:18

Please rename this article to “Younger women turn to domesticity, but find few men willing to foot the bill”.

Likewise, as far as I am concerned, offering “domesticity” to an American female is merely giving a future ex-wife more time to shop for a divorce lawyer.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price March 29, 2012 at 18:26

@Rob

Yes, the structure may remain for some time, but what I’ve been wondering about is what the long-term implications are. For example, one thing that occurred to me was that traditional Christian Western society, with its rather strict limits on people’s choices as far as sexual and reproductive behavior, might actually have helped create the climate in which weird revolutionary movements like Communism, feminism and the like could burn under the surface and then suddenly erupt into prominence.

It’s a bit of a paradox, but perhaps giving women more choices will eventually restore a more natural mode of behavior, as the dysfunctional ones are winnowed out through failure to reproduce. As Sestamibi has pointed out, Jews are becoming more conservative and Orthodox at a rapid rate, as the Orthodox increase their share of the population through reproduction. I think the same is happening with white gentiles, although maybe not quite so quickly and thoroughly. Actually, I think looking at Jewish fertility and social patterns could be very instructive, as Jews were probably the most strictly controlled population in Europe (for both political and religious reasons) prior to their population explosion sometime in the 19th century. When finally liberated from the ghetto, Jews embraced radicalism and progressive politics like no others, but despite people’s tendency to associate Jews with radicalism it appears that this has slowed down very considerably since the 1970s or so — approximately one generation after the last major exodus from Europe.

Another population I’m looking at is the Spaniards. Spain was fascist for some 40 years, but after emerging from that has gone on to become one of the most wacky, feminist countries in Europe. It definitely suggests to me that suppression and limiting women’s choices strengthens feminist tendencies in populations.

The thing is, giving women more choice probably allows for more rapid evolution of both cultural and phenotypical characteristics. If that’s the case, then allowing feminists to self-select for extinction through abortion/aversion to motherhood may eventually eliminate them as a serious force in our society. In fact, this is probably the most humane solution of all (except for the abortions — it’s really awful that so many children are exterminated by their mothers before they have a chance to breathe and walk on Earth). It’s little consolation for guys our age, I suppose, as we’ll never have a respite from it, but as a father I can at least entertain the notion that my children (and hopefully grandchildren) will live in a world where radical feminism has been reduced to a shadow of what it was.

BTW, I’m glad to see you again, Rob. Hope all’s well. Also, have you heard anything from zed? I’m a bit worried about him. I haven’t been able to contact him for some time, and that worries me given his strokes last summer.

MT459 March 29, 2012 at 18:46

“But chasing them — no, it’s too much trouble after you get to your mid 20s. Not fun.”

I’ve heard that from other guys before. I’m 23 though and I’m still very much into it. Maybe it’s more of an adrenaline thing than a hormonal thing.

Bryan, you touched upon the whole guys only go for asians if they “can’t get white girls” thing. I hate that stereotype because I’ve found Asian girls to be more feminine and caring than white girls (even the americanized ones). Maybe it’s all anecdotal, but I think Asian girls are a good route to go. It’s really all just a shame tactic because white girls are afraid of losing their back-up base of “nice” white-boys.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
Raj March 29, 2012 at 18:47

Of course women love to cook. The only reason they pretend not to is because of the idea that woman might cook to impress or keep a man and that’s a feminism no-no and also goes against the whole princess idea.

Too bad that because of male application of technology, housework and food logistics is easy enough that men nowadays don’t much care about women’s domestic abilities, thus the whole reason for women not to do it has gone away.

Regarding Feminism: The word Feminism is a weasel word. The correct term is male chauvinism. Just like “baby rights” is more accurately “parental love”. Therefore a better approach is to measure male chauvinism.

We are still a long long way from a reduction in male chauvinism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7
Raj March 29, 2012 at 18:56

MT459 March 29, 2012 at 18:46
I’ve found Asian girls to be more feminine and caring than white girls (even the americanized ones).

Be careful, it might just be a better trap. I know a few Asian girls born and raised in Asian villages who could teach a thing or two to the most materialistic and manipulative of Western women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
MT459 March 29, 2012 at 19:12

“Be careful, it might just be a better trap. I know a few Asian girls born and raised in Asian villages who could teach a thing or two to the most materialistic and manipulative of Western women.”

Very good point, Raj. Women should always be looked at as potential manipulators and liars. Maybe I sometimes mistake kindness and a submissive spirit for something else. Again, it could be all anecdotal, but the guys I know with asian girlfriends always seem like they are putting up with less shit than the guys with white girlfriends.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4
Bufface March 29, 2012 at 19:16

The thing is, giving women more choice probably allows for more rapid evolution of both cultural and phenotypical characteristics. If that’s the case, then allowing feminists to self-select for extinction through abortion/aversion to motherhood may eventually eliminate them as a serious force in our society.

I agree with you on that point. The “empowered” career woman are a self-defeating foe.

However, we cannot afford to ignore the true enemy of men – the welfare dependent single mothers.

There is no possible good end in allowing them to continue to breed with whomever they choose and then allowing them to pass the cost of providing for their children on the rest of society.

Its not clear to me whether or not the religiously inclined women or the morally dissolute octomoms will win in the end. Modern Christianity’s predilection for unthinking charity also contains within it, the seeds of its own destruction
All religions depend on intact nuclear families to replenish its numbers. See the fate of the shakers to see what happens when a church has an over-reliance on converts to maintain itself.
One of the reasons (among many others), Christianity is disappearing in much of the modern world is that it is sabotaging the reproductive chances of its faithful sons with the “social justice” philosophy that subsidizes single motherhood.
Men who wait to get a career going so that they can support a family find the mating pool greatly diminished as so many women became single mothers in their 20s. The responsible men who would raise their children with moral values find it difficult or impossible to find a wife and thus they have no children to pass their faith along to. Even if they do have families, they are likely to be smaller due to later age of marriage and the crushing tax burdens to support the welfare state. By allowing women to become “brides of the state”, reproduction is shifted from the responsible to the irresponsible. Children born to single parents are much less likely to persist in the faith (if they have one at all).

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 7
greyghost March 29, 2012 at 19:33

Bryon
You have women and children nailed. Children are a source of incom and status to a woman. Look at the dumb ass Jake Cutler (i hope I got the first name right0 the QB of the Bears. This walks out on a chick and leaves her. No hostages to keep. The stupid ass gets back together with her and that bitch is knocked the hell up. Million dollar QB child support baby. She can now retire.
If every thing stayed the same only men got the kids 50% of the time. This blog wouldn’t even be here. As far as modern western wome go children to women are everything but something to love and raise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Rebel March 29, 2012 at 19:39

Some women seem to be willing to switch back to the old ways.
But judging from the state on mind of so many young men, perhaps even a majority of them, the chances these ladies have to find a husband are not very good.

It was relatively easy for women, some fifty years ago, to throw away their “roles” and to embrace the role they were presented. But going back to the old ways is going to be much more difficult, as men now look at women with great suspiscion.

Good luck to the ladies: I thing they will need it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
greyghost March 29, 2012 at 19:40

Welmer
The thing is, giving women more choice probably allows for more rapid evolution of both cultural and phenotypical characteristics. If that’s the case, then allowing feminists to self-select for extinction through abortion/aversion to motherhood may eventually eliminate them as a serious force in our society. In fact, this is probably the most humane solution of all (except for the abortions — it’s really awful that so many children are exterminated by their mothers before they have a chance to breathe and walk on Earth). It’s little consolation for guys our age, I suppose, as we’ll never have a respite from it, but as a father I can at least entertain the notion that my children (and hopefully grandchildren) will live in a world where radical feminism has been reduced to a shadow of what it was.

I like that and is one of the great things about game and the PUA. A feral women (empowered feminist) Will always ride the carousel for the next alpha. Birth control and abortion are good for thr feral women to always be in a position to ride the next alpha. Feminist lies also project female desire for wealth and high earning career onto high value men. They will choose a career thinking it raises their market value and status. (no kids allowed)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
AndrewV March 29, 2012 at 19:43

@Bryan March 29, 2012 at 12:08

“Women/females don’t actually want children/off-spring, they have no real inherent urge to reproduce.”

This is an interesting idea that I would like to see fleshed out a bit more.

You see, I currently buy in to the idea that the desire for reproduction is inherent in female biology, Susan Smith notwithstanding.

@slwerner March 29, 2012 at 14:36

In her case I am willing to bet that she was willing to ditch her current mate and progeny, because her reasoning was that it would free her up to have babies with the one she had the tingles for.

Susan Smith is a monster in my book. She reverted to her primal instincts despite having the time to think about what she was about to do. I do not believe in prison for reform purposes for the same reason I do not believe in the death penalty. I believe in punishment, and life in prison is appropriate for her crimes. May she suffer for the rest of her life, and may she live a long time with which to do so.

Because, I believe that in this world, the one unquestioned thing a child should have, is that their parents love them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
T March 29, 2012 at 19:45

I read an article not too long ago (don’t have the source!) that said young women are cooking and canning and gardening- but it’s to save money, and prepare for the horrible collapse coming our way- not to play Susy Homemaker.

#2: Bryan needs to remember something: it’s the female lions who do the hunting in the wild. Really! Look it up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
AndrewV March 29, 2012 at 19:48

@Travis March 29, 2012 at 14:16

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that under the protocols the Police adopt because of the VAWA, all a woman needs to do to get a man out of his house is to call the police.

He does not actually have to have done anything. All she has to say is that she feels “unsafe” and the police will cart the guy off to jail.

Am I correct or have I completely misunderstood?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
Uncle Elmer March 29, 2012 at 19:58

Off-topic, but amusing. This guy cited “Gender&Society Journal” for research showing white females were being oppressed over their math skills. I copied a list of Gender&Society research studies as a comment, and he thought I made it up to be “sarcastic”.

Why are High School Teachers Convinced that White Girls Can’t Do Math?

Elmer shares their greatest hits :

elmer 4 days ago

Fascinating. I’ll bet the authors used “math” to analyze the data showing that white females were oppressed. Looks like a rigorous journal, that Gender&Society.

Some other Gender&Society gems I can’t wait to read :

Grinding On the Dance Floor
Gendered Scripts and Sexualized Dancing at College Parties

Casual Hookups to Formal Dates: Refining the Boundaries of the Sexual Double Standard

The Gender Revolution: Uneven and Stalled

Hetero-Romantic Love and Heterosexiness in Children’s G-Rated Films

Gendered Sexuality in Young Adulthood: Double Binds and Flawed Options

Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations

WOMEN AND THEIR HAIR: Seeking Power through Resistance and Accommodation

Racializing the Glass Escalator: Reconsidering Men’s Experiences with Women’s Work

Doing, Undoing, or Redoing Gender?: Learning from the Workplace Experiences of Transpeople

Gender in Context, Content, and Approach: Comparing Gender Messages in Girl Scout and Boy Scout Handbooks

Trading On Heterosexuality: College Women’s Gender Strategies and Homophobia

“Keeping The Dancers In Check”: The Gendered Organization of Stripping Work in The Lion’s Den

David DiSalvo is indignant :

David DiSalvo, Contributor 13 hours ago

Thanks for this … list. It would appear this took you a bit of time to think up, assuming you didn’t have a ready made ‘gender sarcasm’ list ready to go. In any case, I see no reason to doubt the rigor of this journal simply because the title contains the word “gender.” The word has been with us now for a few centuries.

Elmer gets the last word :

elmer 1 minute ago

I didn’t make up the list, I copied it from the Gender&Society website you linked :

http://gas.sagepub.com/reports/most-read

Who needs a ready “gender sarcasm” list when the gender scientists provide it for you? Thing is, these people are serious. It’s a laff riot.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5
T March 29, 2012 at 20:03

Are you guys refering to Suzan Smith, the girl that drowned her kids in the car years ago?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
AAvictim March 29, 2012 at 20:05

@AndrewV

In addition there was a post on here a couple days ago where a guy called the cops because his non-live in girlfriend attacked the b/f after he opened the door a little and she forced herself in. He locked himself in the bathroom and called the police. She got to talk to the police first when they arrived and got him arrested , she was bruised on her knuckles because his body abused her while she was hitting him. A woman can make it an almost certainty from self inflicting or demolishing you with a weapon until you counter. I’m sure the unsafe thing can work but even if not they can make it inevitable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
AAvictim March 29, 2012 at 20:08

To add I think the best thing to do if a woman is at your place and goes crazy to remove her from the house without making any marks as fast as possible and then call the police with her out of the house.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
greyghost March 29, 2012 at 20:14

Yup

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
greyghost March 29, 2012 at 20:21

AndrewV
Women are driven by status,personal security and hypergamy in any order. Things like honor responsibilty,duty and obligations have no place in womanhood.
A childless women is easily ignored. Also remember children are an accessary for a woman that is why abortion is legal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5
Troll King March 29, 2012 at 20:37

On second thought, I wonder how much of this is calculated manipulation?

Think of it for a moment? Women of the Gen Y and even very tail end of the Gen X generation were born into a world where they lost their definition of womanhood.

Motherhood was destroyed and at best was replaced with nannies and single mothers. Women are womb renters today. That is why children have become status objects.

Look at the way Gen Y women have lost other aspects of their sex role and identity. Domestic skills were decoupled and destroyed. Part of this is obviously due to technology but not all of it.

So what was left of the female sex role and identity?

There IS a reason feminists go on and on over sexual objectification of women. It really is amusing if you think about it.

They destroyed their sexual identity and when men responded to the new role they didn’t like it so they bitch and moan about sexual objectification.

Sex is all that is left to the female social role and identity.

That is literally all they have to offer and is literally all that most Gen Y even know as a female trait or identity.

It really should be obvious that they are trying to expand their role. They thought it would be good to expand it with male traits and identity.

I wonder how much of this is due to social structures v. cunning female manipulation.

Women instinctually know that men aren’t interested in sluts as marriage material. Women still want, especially all the Gen Y girls obsessed with wedding type shows, to have their retirement plans/marriage.

SO how do they go from being a slut who is valued solely for pumps and dumps to a potential wife? They claim to be interested in traditional values.

This really is nothing more than make up, just this time it isn’t colorful paste meant to camoflouge their ugliness.

This type of make up is social.

Always remember men. Women actually tell you so much about the nature of females.

Femininity is a PERFORMANCE! Women are performative. It is all fake.

I have heard women bemoan the death of chivalry and commitmentphobia of men since I was in middle school, maybe even earlier. Women know the school.

These women are just trying to play their cards as best they can.

How else are they going to get alimony and child support and default custody if they can’t show that were some form of a homemaker?

Anyways, I am not convinved. I am a Gen Y and grew up with these types of women and I will never marry. Marriage is a retirement plan for women. It always has been and always will be.

I saw a great phrase the other day.

Women trend towards poverty and men trend towards prostitution.

I think many women know this instinctually. Many of them, even the ones in the article linked, realize that the money of big daddy government is running out and without it they will find themselves just as poor as women living in grass huts. They know that men won’t help them unless there is some sort of social construct like marriage.

I will never forget when I was 18 my first boss, who must have known about MRA type stuff, pulled me asided and told me several things.

He warned me about my gf of the time and even told me about his divorce and how I shouldn’t marry her.

He especially told me this:

“Trollking, you can’t cheat on a gf….it just isn’t possible, I don’t care how much women of your generation bitch about it. Cheating ir a legal concept called infidelity or adultery, you are not married to her and the problems with all you young guys is you allow women your age to treat you like you married to them.”

I thought he was full of shit at the time. I didn’t really listen too much, but he was right and that has stuck with me. Women of my generation WILL cheat on you. It isn’t a IF. It is a when.

They are like monkeys. They won’t let go of one branch until they are full grasped onto another branch. Branch = cock.

They are serially monogamous. What is even worse is that I don’t think I have even been friends with a single Gen Y women since even middle school much less today that hasn’t cheated on a former bf. They will openly brag about how they have cheated on every guy they have ever dated.

Guys have adapted to this or they have dropped out completely. Women are now adapting with this camoflouge and they are doing so in a way where they can still destroy a man through divorce and extract the most from the process.

As many have pointed out in the MRM, conservative women and christian women can be not just as bad but sometimes worse than feminists. These types of Gen Y women are the best of both bad worlds.

These women aren’t returning to domesticity, they are playing house.

I will never trust them. I don’t give a shit if they get down on their knees and suck my dick dry. I don’t care if they establish cooking skills rivaling five star chefs. I don’t care if they buy me three escorts each weekend and allow or even encourage me to have a orgy. I will never marry women and I will never trust them.

Whatever trust and love and respect I once had for women when I was younger has been completely destroyed. I know I am no where near the only Gen Y guy who thinks this. There is a reason feminist women complain about the typical liberal guy. I am a liberal. Us younger guys have been raised with the worst types of women because they feeeeel entitled to act they way they do, they are even encouraged for it.

Just look at what guys my age and younger think about and treat women. Before I even found the MRM I was acting this way.

I remember several years ago, I was walking my dog late at night. Down the street from me was some woman screaming at her boyfriend. She even asked me for help. He was distraught but not knocking her around or anything. I just walked on and then felt kinda guilty and turned around to give her help. Then I heard what they were arguing about. He was pissed off and talking about how she didn’t have a right to move across the state and take his child away from him without telling him. She asked me for help again and I just turned around and took my dog inside.

Even before I found the MRM I was getting fucking sick and tired of being treated like a human shield by women my age. I am sick and tired of this, “let’s you and him fight” type of shit. Women are equal to men now, I will treat them the way they have treated me. Hell, I will actually treat them better than they treat men. I have never seen a woman of my age or older help men when in need.

They are more likely to snidely kick you while you are down.

I don’t care nice they try to camoflouge themselves now, I won’t forget and they can’t wear those masks for long as I have found out in my relationships with them. Women can only perform for so long before they revert to their true selfs. In my opinion this “return to domesticity” crap is nothing that a cunning move to continue bettering themselves at the expense of men while adapting to a different playing field or environment.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 9
AAvictim March 29, 2012 at 20:38

If abortion is legal I believe that men should have rights too. I don’t think a man should have a say on whether the woman keep it, but he should be able to renig on the responsibility if he wants to. Entrapping a man for 18+ years as a financial slave seems a worse crime then even a brutal rape.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Poochmule March 29, 2012 at 20:41

Serial monogamy with a vasectomy, no cohabitation, sex sex sex, wait for the ultimatum, string em along as long as possible, cut them loose!

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 20:45

T-

I know that female lions do the hunting in the wild. They are better suited for it in the sense that they can move faster than the males who are much larger. Also the males need to stay intact so they can be ready to fight other males. Hunting is dangerous and often leads to injury, the slightest injury would mean that the male becomes unable to defend his pack from other male lions. It makes sense that female lions bring in the food while the male lion spends his time defending the turf and taking it easy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 20:46

T-

If you were a professional warrior/soldier/fighter/etc and you had to engage in one or two battles each week, you wouldn’t want to have to worry about hunting in addition to handling the battles. Female lions owe the male lions the food.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 20:55

Rebel -

If the woman is a former whore/slut/etc I want ZERO to do with her.

For a woman who is going to get consideration as a serious long-term partner/marriage/mate, she needs to be a virgin. Non-virgins need not apply.

For most women it will be too late to revert back or try to come back to some sort of normal relationship. Unless large numbers of men suddenly become willing to accept “reformed” whores, women with kids by other men, and women with freight-trains worth of baggage.

There will always be a certain percentage of manginas that will march to the beat of any drum in exchange for the slightest amount of female attention, but hopefully such people are dying out and their numbers are lessening with each passing day. These losers expend their resources on the children of other men instead of having their own kids. This is not what life is supposed to be about and from a biological perspective they fail. Fortunately their weak genes usually die with them as they have no children of their own.

If a woman wants to abandon pop culture feminism crap and be a productive member of Western society she ought to make that decision while her virginity is still intact so she actually has marital value for some young man.

If a woman is somewhere around age 30 and suddenly declares she is family oriented, values traditional morality, and wants nothing more than to be a wife and a mother, and that she only needs a man who will “man up” and start a family with her, her claims are patently false and must be seen as such. She had since age 18 to pursue this supposedly all important goal of finding a man and starting a family. She is obviously a WHORE, a SLUT, who is trying to find some dupe to pay her way through life as her looks are starting to fade and there is little prospect of being able to go another ten years hopping from bed to bed.

If women want to get serious about having a family, let them show that it means something, let them walk the walk… Let them make family a priority from age 18-24 instead of making it an afterthought from age 27-35.

The ball is in their court to change their behavior… But they can no more change their behavior than the leopard can change his spots or the ethiopian his skin.

Jeremiah 13

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Women will do as they have always done and civilization will burn as men try to pick up the pieces of what is left.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 10
Troll King March 29, 2012 at 20:56

I know I keep harping on about how young women have changed and older guys don’t quite understand so let me point this out.

Do you guys know who meredith brooks is? Every girl was idolizing her for a period of time during middle school and even into HS while I was growing up. These same girls also loved Madonna.

These weren’t typically the Ani Defranco wiccan loving girls who were early feminists being raised by feminist mothers.

These were the supposedly good girls with mostly traditional families. Traditional families that oddly seemed to have a abundance of divorced weekend dads.

Here is a link to one of the most popular songs that girls just loved:

I’m a Bitch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRqoIHZpWUU

The lyrics for anyone who doesn’t want to listen to this shit, although it does, in a PG type of way, describe very accurately the types of crazy bitches that Gen Y women were growing up.

The lyrics:

“I hate the world today
You’re so good to me
I know but I can’t change
Tried to tell you
But you look at me like maybe
I’m an angel underneath
Innocent and sweet
Yesterday I cried
Must have been relieved to see
The softer side
I can understand how you’d be so confused
I don’t envy you
I’m a little bit of everything
All rolled into one

I’m a bitch, I’m a lover
I’m a child, I’m a mother
I’m a sinner, I’m a saint
I do not feel ashamed
I’m your hell, I’m your dream
I’m nothing in between
You know you wouldn’t want it any other way

So take me as I am
This may mean
You’ll have to be a stronger man
Rest assured that
When I start to make you nervous
And I’m going to extremes
Tomorrow I will change
And today won’t mean a thing

I’m a bitch, I’m a lover
I’m a child, I’m a mother
I’m a sinner, I’m a saint
I do not feel ashamed
I’m your hell, I’m your dream
I’m nothing in between
You know you wouldn’t want it any other way

Just when you think, you got me figured out
The season’s already changing
I think it’s cool, you do what you do
And don’t try to save me

I’m a bitch, I’m a lover
I’m a child, I’m a mother
I’m a sinner, I’m a saint
I do not feel ashamed
I’m your hell, I’m your dream
I’m nothing in between
You know you wouldn’t want it any other way

I’m a bitch, I’m a tease
I’m a goddess on my knees
When you hurt, when you suffer
I’m your angel undercover
I’ve been numb, I’m revived
Can’t say I’m not alive
You know I wouldn’t want it any other way”

We could go on and on about nature and nurture and how much social conditioning has a influence but at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter.

This was just one popular song that girls loved when I was a boy who was just starting puberty. This is actually pretty tame compared to much of the shit Gen Y girls laughed about and identified with.

I really wonder how any would expect boys to grow up respecting girls when as boys they watch the girls in their classes and their female teachers laugh about sexual mutilation of men and boys. Re: the bobbit affair. I remember being shocked at the cruelty that women took in laughing about that.

Now, just cause I got plugged on Aurinis blog for this song.

Boys are treated like shit and they will grow up to think this way about women.

Theory of a Deadman:

The bitch came back:

“The bitch came back the very next day
Oh, the bitch came back, I thought she was a goner
But, the bitch came back, she couldn’t stay away
Don’t you know the bitch came back?

I like her so much better when she’s down on her knees
Cause when she’s in my face that’s when I’m starting to see
That all my friends were right for thinking that we’d be wrong
Well she’s so fuckin’ stupid bet she’s singing along

The trouble with girls is they’re all the same
Forget the diamonds and pearls they just want a ring
Before you know it you’re like a dog on a leash
Well you can try and change the world but you won’t change me

The bitch came back the very next day
Oh, the bitch came back, I thought she was a goner
But, the bitch came back, she couldn’t stay away
Don’t you know the bitch came back?

There she goes again she’s always breaking my balls
No matter what I do somehow it’s always my fault
She says I must be cheating cause I turned off my phone
But that’s the only frickin’ way she’ll leave me alone

The trouble with girls is it’s never enough
They love to complain and they never shut up
They like to tell you the way it ought to be
Go on and tell the world but just don’t tell me

The bitch came back the very next day
Oh, the bitch came back, I thought she was a goner
But, the bitch came back, she couldn’t stay away
Don’t you know the bitch came back?

It ain’t a joke when I say I wanna throw you out
(I really mean it, I really mean it)
Well look who’s laughing now!

The bitch came, the bitch came back
The bitch came, the bitch came back
The bitch came, the bitch came back
She just couldn’t stay away

The bitch came back the very next day
Oh, the bitch came back, I thought she was a goner
But, the bitch came back, she won’t stay the fuck away

The bitch came back the very next day
Oh, the bitch came back, I thought she was a goner
But, the bitch came back, she couldn’t stay away
Don’t you know the bitch came back
[x2] ”

Link to the song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrXIsD1AGOI

I don’t remember which MRA came up with it first but Hate Bounces.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 4
keyster March 29, 2012 at 20:59

One grand flaw in Marxism is that the assumed to be benevolent tyrants that managed the transition from two social classes to one big happy proletariat, would kindly step aside (allowing the working class to eventually “self-rule”). Funny thing is that those in power always seem to think “their work is never done”.

True Marxist’s will simply say Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, Castro, etc., were “doing it wrong”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
Rebel March 29, 2012 at 21:01

@Trollking:

Where were you?

As usual, your post is well thought out and to the point.

Besides, you just confirmed what I said in my earlier post, namely that those women would find no taker.

Except that you are wiser than I by not trusting those women for a second, while I nearly fell into the trap. Thanks for waking me up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
crella March 29, 2012 at 21:02

They had to get sick of mac & cheese, sloppy joes, and Lean Cuisine eventually……

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 21:09

keyster -

Whenever a new marxist comes into power somewhere he is hailed as a great leader, a visionary, a liberator, and the western media drools over him… Think of how they treated Mugabe in the early 1980s…

After a while they realize the guy is a maniac, a mass-murderer, a tyrant, and they can no longer deny this…

At that point the man ceases to be a marxist and all we hear is, “he’s not a real communist, a real communist wouldn’t do that.”

Stalin was a “uncle Joe” to the US/UK media in the 1930s-1940s but in the 1960s, a decade after his death, the organized Western Left decided Stalin had not been a true communist, he wasn’t a real communist!

Mao somehow had a similar experience… He was a great liberator and a visionary but after his death, after the revelation of his massacres and purges, he suddenly became “not a real communist.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8
Poochmule March 29, 2012 at 21:09

Do as Uncle Elmer has done. I want to. If you have ever been out of America say to SE Asia that is the best kept secret on the planet. There you will find a million sweet kind considerate lovable feminen female human beings that are not ruined. The trick is getting them over here and having them not turn into a westernized harpy. They seem to be more grateful and less hateful. They know how to please and value there man. The women here are ruined, never happy, full of depression and drugs and get fat. Im tired of all American women, especially hard core carreer driven bitches.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Rob March 29, 2012 at 21:13

Welmer, did my comment go through? I know I put five or six links in it and it would be held in moderation, but usually it still shows up under a heading that says “your comment is held in moderation” and then you can still see your comment yourself.

This time it didn’t.

If it didn’t go through, could you let me know, as I still have it all saved on my word processor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 21:14

Troll King

Yes, many women are self-styled and bitches and they embrace this “bitch” identity. They will even openly identify as bitches with their t-shirts, “psycho bitch” or whatever it might be.

Maybe I’m a hater for stating this… For somewhere around 97-98% of Western women, there’s nothing wrong with them that death wouldn’t solve.

For all intents and purposes they are useless to society and civilization. As a civilization we are limping along in spite of their interference.

They are not an asset to us in any way, shape, or form.

A mass die-off in the West, especially of women, may be just what civilization needs, but manginas would sacrifice themselves to see that women don’t even break a nail, let alone have to experience the horror of starving to death once the government nanny state welfare money is gone.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 17
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 21:20

There is one main problem with my “die off” theory… As the welfare state begins to collapse and millions of useless eater femiskanks die, it will increase the value of the remaining femiskanks as there will be more men competing for attention from fewer women.

It’s a shame we can’t just clone a few hundred million Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian women, liquidate almost all Western women between the ages of 15 and 50, and then bring the Eastern European clones into the West.

At some point there probably will be a mass die-off, impacting welfare trash in general and welfare trash women in particular. In tough times men are usually motivated to get active to avoid hunger. Doubtlessly a lot of these creeps will be motivated just enough to resort to crime, they will victimize weak people, elderly, liberals who are voluntarily unarmed/disarmed, but they will be quickly shot to pieces by well-armed and prepared citizens.

I only hope that my fellow prepared citizens will take no pity on the masses of femiskank womyn who decided not to prepare and who expect to receive hand-outs from white knight manginas since the government will no longer be providing them the hand-outs they feel they are entitled to.

Imagine the situation in Greece, x 50, with no bail-out from another nation, no end in sight… That sort of situation could easily lead to the collapse of a government and lawlessness in a nation, much like Albania in 1997…

The West is primed for a massive collapse.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 18
MKP March 29, 2012 at 21:22

“Yes, the structure may remain for some time, but what I’ve been wondering about is what the long-term implications are. For example, one thing that occurred to me was that traditional Christian Western society, with its rather strict limits on people’s choices as far as sexual and reproductive behavior, might actually have helped create the climate in which weird revolutionary movements like Communism, feminism and the like could burn under the surface and then suddenly erupt into prominence.”

There’s definitely something to that. 1950s-style America, with kids getting married right out of high school and moving to a house with a white picket fence and Dad coming home from work to find his wife and kids ready to eat supper with him, is often seen as a calm and serene state of existence. In the immediate sense, it probably is. But it’s also a greenhouse that allows everyone’s crackpot schemes and ridiculous ideas to bloom without ever being exposed to the real-life consequences they would (and eventually do) create.

When I say “everyone’s” I mean men and women, but clearly the crackpot schemes thought up by women are the least connected to reality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Troll King March 29, 2012 at 21:31

@rebel

“Where were you?”

I have been around, lurking a bit. Part of it has been that I have been incredibly unlucky or cursed or something with computers this last year. Not having a computer for a few weeks or even a month means that I wasn’t commenting as much because I was surfing at the library or on another persons computer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Rob March 29, 2012 at 21:54

”Yes, the structure may remain for some time, but what I’ve been wondering about is what the long-term implications are. For example, one thing that occurred to me was that traditional Christian Western society, with its rather strict limits on people’s choices as far as sexual and reproductive behavior, might actually have helped create the climate in which weird revolutionary movements like Communism, feminism and the like could burn under the surface and then suddenly erupt into prominence.” — Welmer

Yes. In fact, one thing I have always been meaning to research, is a reference which Otto Weininger makes in Sex and Character (somewhere in there) to an uprising of the feminine in the 16th or 15th Century Western Culture. So, obviously it rose up, and fell again, allowing civilization to keep moving forward. Then rose up again.

But also, keep in mind that it was not until the beginning of the 19th Century that repressing sexuality came about in the West. It was directly related to the rising influence of women in society, which had already begun before the suffragettes. (It is also reasonable to say that the demographic shift from rural to urban got people off the farm where the laws of nature are quite apparent, and into the city where they aren’t as apparent).

It was the temperance movement that got everyone so neurotic about sexual morality in the 19th Century. Women are totalitarians. If they lived ferally, they would live in a communist herd by natural design. In their major and natural sphere of influence, child-rearing, they are 100% totalitarians – and necessarily so. (Everything that is not forbidden will be mandatory). This is why rights of passage for boys are so important – to break the boy free from women’s totalitarianism during childhood, so that he can grow into a man, which he needs to become if women are to find him useful. As long as he stays under mother-control, she will use her totalitarianism to keep him as a child – which is what they are also trying to do with men in society (treating us like children). When women try desperately to keep boys in their totalitarian sphere, it damages both men and women.

Briffault’s Law states it plainly. We probably evolved this from the avian level somewhere in the distant past, but men must bring something to women that women either cannot do themselves, or won’t do themselves, in order for women to find men useful. And when women maintain totalitarian control over their sons (or men in society), the kind of men they need never get created. Women don’t understand men, and certainly don’t know how to create men. They only understand children and their totalitarian control over them. In order to become a man, the apron strings to mother’s totalitarianism must be broken, or future women won’t have men who grow out of being boys, and into the kind of men women need and seek out.

Before the 19th Century, the general belief was that it was men who needed to be protected from women’s sexuality, rather than the other way around. Those wiley sirens with their bossoms pushed up and in your face:

“Dr. John Gordon, a professor of English at Connecticut College, says that in the 1800s anti-male novels and anti-male tracts – thousands of them – “were part of a campaign to represent men as barbarians whose urges had to be leashed in by the forces of decency – meaning women – if civilization were to survive.” — Jack Kammer, If Men Have All the Power, How Come Women Make The Rules? p30
.
“Pre-Nineteenth century Western culture assumed that women, not men, were the insatiable sexual aggressors, with men as vulnerable creatures in need of protection.” — Historian Peter N. Stearns in his 1990 book Be a Man: Males in Modern Society
.
Re: Women viewed as insatiable sexual aggressors:
Women and Lechery — from The Lamentations of Matheolus, 1295 AD

Also, keep in mind the 1930′s research of J.D. Unwin’s “Sex and Culture,” which documents the rise and fall of over 80 cultures, and in which he, against his personal beliefs, found that the underlying factor each time was restricting women’s sexual behaviour.

”It’s a bit of a paradox, but perhaps giving women more choices will eventually restore a more natural mode of behavior, as the dysfunctional ones are winnowed out through failure to reproduce. As Sestamibi has pointed out, Jews are becoming more conservative and Orthodox at a rapid rate, as the Orthodox increase their share of the population through reproduction. I think the same is happening with white gentiles, although maybe not quite so quickly and thoroughly. Actually, I think looking at Jewish fertility and social patterns could be very instructive, as Jews were probably the most strictly controlled population in Europe (for both political and religious reasons) prior to their population explosion sometime in the 19th century. When finally liberated from the ghetto, Jews embraced radicalism and progressive politics like no others, but despite people’s tendency to associate Jews with radicalism it appears that this has slowed down very considerably since the 1970s or so — approximately one generation after the last major exodus from Europe.

Another population I’m looking at is the Spaniards. Spain was fascist for some 40 years, but after emerging from that has gone on to become one of the most wacky, feminist countries in Europe. It definitely suggests to me that suppression and limiting women’s choices strengthens feminist tendencies in populations.” — Welmer

I’ll bet you would enjoy reading this essay, Feminism Exposed: Our Blindness to Feminine Evil — by David Shackleton.

Shackleton argues the case that after the Fascism of World War II – which was equated with the “father principle” – it left the world deeply suspicious of males and fathers – so much so, that we ran pell-mell into the opposite, the mother. (which is more representative of Communism).

”The thing is, giving women more choice probably allows for more rapid evolution of both cultural and phenotypical characteristics. If that’s the case, then allowing feminists to self-select for extinction through abortion/aversion to motherhood may eventually eliminate them as a serious force in our society. In fact, this is probably the most humane solution of all (except for the abortions — it’s really awful that so many children are exterminated by their mothers before they have a chance to breathe and walk on Earth). It’s little consolation for guys our age, I suppose, as we’ll never have a respite from it, but as a father I can at least entertain the notion that my children (and hopefully grandchildren) will live in a world where radical feminism has been reduced to a shadow of what it was.” — Welmer

The problem isn’t really feminism as much as people think. Feminism is just a tool. The problem is the changing structure of the family, and the growth of government in response. The most famous (and radical) of feminists have always stated that they intended to destroy the family, allowing them to restructure society (like a herd of cows living in communist bliss).

BTW, I’m glad to see you again, Rob. Hope all’s well. Also, have you heard anything from zed? I’m a bit worried about him. I haven’t been able to contact him for some time, and that worries me given his strokes last summer.” — Welmer

I haven’t spoken to Zed in about a year and a half. A few months ago I read a few of his comments over at Dalrock’s, but I haven’t seen anything else from him since. I too was thinking of what you are thinking, and I hope he’s just fed up with us all and went fishing.

(Regarding the above point of the family) But, mentioning zed, I was working on an article the other day and relating the moment “the curtain came down.” When talking to Zed about it, I remember very clearly something which struck me right between the eyes. He said to me, “I think the powers that be are about done with feminism anyway. They’ve pretty much accomplished everything they’ve wanted except for a few loose ends.”

And it’s true, they have.

About the only thing they haven’t accomplished is taking children away from mothers and bringing them under state control, so that women wouldn’t be held back by their biology anymore.

They will need men to do that.

This is why I have spent so many years hammering away on this damn keyboard about Marxism. I’m desperately trying to bring out the Marxist connection to all of this so that men/the MRM/the FRA, does not get manipulated like Useful Idiots into completing the final task of feminism, and put the last nails into the coffin of the nuclear family.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 3
Troll King March 29, 2012 at 21:58

@Rebel

“As usual, your post is well thought out and to the point.

Besides, you just confirmed what I said in my earlier post, namely that those women would find no taker.

Except that you are wiser than I by not trusting those women for a second, while I nearly fell into the trap. Thanks for waking me up.”

The thing is that guys of my generation really don’t have a excuse.

Talk to any young guy around or under 30 and chances are he has worked atleast one crappy job.

My first job was in a grocery store. I started out in Stock unloading trucks. Not only was there all sorts of bullshit about men having to do the hard work while women did the light stuff but the biggest thing to observe were the men I worked with.

Divorce and baby momma issues can be ignored or blamed on the guy when he is something that is absent from your view but even then only to a extent. I have heard hundreds of girls and young women talk at length about how shitty or deadbeat their boyfriends, babydaddies and ex husbands were.

I have no doubt that there are shitty men out there but after hearing the same thing hundreds of times from hundreds of women it makes you wonder. It makes you wonder what ex gfs say about you to their new bfs.

I think most in the MRM are reformed white knights. I know I am.

What really woke me up to divorce laws wasn’t getting divorced or coming from a divorced family or even having a huge number of friends fucked over by divorce in the divorce generation.

It was working at a grocery store.

Everybody eats and shops at grocery stores, so you get to see every type of person in town and get to observe what is actually around you. From the single mothers to meth heads trying to steal sudafed.

We had a huge turn over rate. On average we had someone quit from our five man stock team about once a week. Out of about ten, two would be married, three wold be not married but with baby mommas and three or four would be divorced and maybe one or two would be younger men who never married and had no kids but may or may not have a gf.

Now a few of the guys were just scum but 90%+ weren’t and just observing that number of guys, even if they did piss me off by walking out occasionally during lunch and leaving me and the others with a bigger work load, were not abusive assholes or anything that women and feminists claim.

I mean, how many times do you have to watch other people get burned before you wise up? It is all around us. I think it is getting to the point where you really cant ignore it much anymore. Every month there is some new celebrity that is destroying her husband with alimony in a divorce.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3
Napoleon March 29, 2012 at 22:01

Or maybe it is just an act since they realize that being a man-hating feminazi isn’t going to get them anywhere like it used to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Avenger March 29, 2012 at 22:25

Rob, let me just correct what you wrote here–”I understand in Cambodia they were even killing people who needed glasses because they were genetically inferior”

What you wrote is a good example of how young people may have heard one thing but have completely misconstrued it.

Pol Pot was a Cambodian Maoist educated in France and leader of the Khmer Rouge. Those people with the glasses were the intellectuals and educated professional people in his country. The top people not the defective ones.Those were the ones he targeted and killed in his deluded dreams of a communist utopia. The film The Killing Fields is about this.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 6
Sheldon Walker March 29, 2012 at 22:49

From a younger man, I would take it with a grain of salt. The boots on the ground say otherwise. No sign of a domesticity trend for miles~

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Sheldon Walker March 29, 2012 at 22:49

From a younger man, I would take it with a grain of salt. The boots on the ground say otherwise. No sign of a domesticity trend for miles~

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Anti Idiocy March 29, 2012 at 22:59

“Elmer gets the last word :

“elmer 1 minute ago

“I didn’t make up the list, I copied it from the Gender&Society website you linked :

http://gas.sagepub.com/reports/most-read”

DOOOD!!! You squashed that bug!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Rob March 29, 2012 at 23:03

Yeah, Brian already wrote that.

It’s kinda why I wrote that “I understand that,” rather than saying it was fact. Quite frankly, I barely give a shit about Cambodia. Bryan had already tried to inform me of “another mistake” he thought I made, in that they were trying to murder people, rather than evolve them. Sure, many communist dictators did murder millions of people, but, it does not follow that Marxism has mass-murder as a cornerstone. That is patently false. In fact, many Marxists around the world were appalled at Lenin’s use of violence – this is one of the reasons why the Frankfurt School started up, because they wanted to find out how to do it without Lenin’s violence.

It’s rather hard to study each and every communist country in depth, and also study the philosophy itself before all the dictators that tried to use it bastardized it into their own versions, which have little to do with the original philosophy. I’ve mostly tried to stick to what relates to feminism, which is Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin, and later the Frankfurt School. After about five years studying it, I’m still looking for my first profitable penny, or at least a degree from academia. Until then, I think I’ll pass on putting in depth effort to study Stalinism, Maoism, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il and every other Tom, Dick and Harry in between that was from some satellite country behind the Iron Curtain.

They are all bastardized versions – their most identifiable similarity being philosophical Marxist dialectical manipulations used to alter society’s perceptions of the truth, and the end goal. (Except, many bastardized versions have turned into nation state first, rather than international state first – no dictator wants to give up his power to another).

Marxists never expected to have to keep their states actually running after the Russian Revolution. They thought that they would set up their system, the world would enter into world wide revolution and reject the nation-state.

They, um, never thought they would have to maintain their country, and suddenly found that they kinda had to now. Thus, one of the reasons Stalin removed all of the feminism from the state during WWII. It was hurting them too much and made the state unsustainable.

This is also why Marxist states dialectically zig-zag between extreme political, economic and social manipulation, which is a heavy cost to them in all ways, and then they “loosen up” and allow some forms of Capitalism into their system, including lightening up their relations with the Capitalist West by suggesting that economic partnerships will bring them closer to peace. Then they invite western capital into their countries and allow forms of capitalism – which also appeases a heavily manipulated population. They use the capitalism to build up their country’s infrastructure and armed forces for around a generation, and then they zig-zag back away from Capitalism again and start socially manipulating again for a decade or two. Zig, zag, zig, zag. It brings us closer to them, and they build up their country in ways that make it sustainable again for a while – with our $$$.

I’m not that young, old fella.

But thanks, because after writing about 20 pages worth of info, I just needed someone to find one nit-picky little mistake that was not even stated as fact, is in a comments section rather than in a published article, and use it to try to tell me how dumb I am.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 11
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 23:12

The Frankfurt school started because the German Freikorps and various other demobilized (yet still armed/equipped) veterans put down the Spartacist uprising in Berlin and the Bavarian Soviet Republic in Munich. They lost in the armed struggle and so they decided to try a cultural struggle.

Frankfurt school was started by weaklings who had lost the open fight and decided to carry on the marxist struggle in a manner less blatant than taking over Munich and killing all the local leaders and businessmen.

Mass murder is crucial to marxism. Marxism preaches the destruction of the “class enemy” and you cannot have Marxism/socialism without mass murder. Anybody who will not go along with the new socialist state is to be liquidated as a heretic against the religion of Dialectical Materialism (Marxism).

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 15
Rob March 29, 2012 at 23:15

Alright then.

And people really wonder why MRA’s rarely stick around for more than a few years?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 23:17

You write-

Marxists never expected to have to keep their states actually running after the Russian Revolution. They thought that they would set up their system, the world would enter into world wide revolution and reject the nation-state.

—-

I see that you take marxist claims of “stateless” society at face value.

I see their claims and stated objective of a “Stateless system” as patently false. They are wretched and rotten lies designed to lure in the unsuspecting worker who hopes for an existence without omni-present government.

Marxists preach revolution but once they come to power ALL revolution CEASES. They establish a dictatorship that is meant to last forever, a literal hell on Earth that never goes away unless it is destroyed by a patriotic revolution of nationalists or is destroyed by an outside military.

I don’t pay much attention to what Marxists write, I pay attention to what they DO and what they have DONE. Deal with Marxists the same way you deal with women. Ignore what they claim, watch how they behave.

Mass murder is a key component of Marxist ideology.

Marxists NEVER intend to have a stateless system. They intend to establish a perpetual dictatorship and liquidate as many enemies as they have physical control over.

Mind you I’ve read Marx, Engels, Hoxha, etc.

Marx didn’t even believe most of the shit he wrote… He married the daughter of a German/Prussian nobleman, he lived off of inheritance and London stock investments, Engels lived off of the money provided by his wealthy textile mill owning father, and Engels sent regular stipends to Marx when Marx was light on cash. Marx used to write Engels “send more money, my daughter needs to get into an elite academy and make bourgeois contacts so she can marry a baron or a count.”

Marxism is a SCAM, Marx didn’t even take that shit seriously.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 11
Rob March 29, 2012 at 23:23

Tune in next time to hear that REAL Christianity involves starting Crusades and Empire Building because that’s what Britain did, and Britain was based on Christianity.

Marxism is about creating Heaven on Earth, the triumph of man over God.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 23:27

The British Empire marched to the tune of the Rothchilds, Freemasons, and other branches of the Illuminati.

Britain entered into South China and fought a war at the behest of the Sassoons (Iraqi Jews who had moved to British India) so that China would be forced to accept opium from the British Rothschild Empire.

The British Empire was NOT based on Christianity. Britain’s religion is basically just Catholicism without the Roman Pontiff. In the place of the Roman Pope they have the King as Pope along with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Their Church of England is a joke. It pays lip service to Jesus but it is nothing more than a mechanism for state control of the masses.

The British Empire was a paradise for Jewish finance capitalism. Rothschilds, Sassoons, they all had quite the time of it.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 19
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 23:31

Your mistake is believing that Marx wanted to create something new or do something great for the world and that Marx had wonderful intentions.

Marx wanted to destroy the existing order and replace it with misery and oppression on a level unprecedented in human history. Of course he wouldn’t have gained many converts if he had made a public call along the lines of, “Christian Europeans, abandon God, abandon nation, abandon race, rise up, murder the government, put Jewish commissars into power and let us lord it over you, killing millions of you while we live like kings!”

That would have attracted a few dozen psychopaths and mercenaries…

Instead he used class as the main wedge issue… “Workers of the world unite” sounds a whole lot better than “destroy the military, bring down society, and overthrow the existing government so we can establish a new government and enslave you!”

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 9
Rob March 29, 2012 at 23:35

Your mistake is believing that Marx wanted to create something new or do something great for the world and that Marx had wonderful intentions.

Go blow it out your ass, smarty pants.

I am one of the most anti-Marxist people around and don’t even need to defend against such ass-hattery.

Maybe you and Boxer can get together and intellectually jerk eachother off while congratulating yourselves on the works you’ve read.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 16
fondueguy March 29, 2012 at 23:37

“Additionally, females/women don’t actually value their off-spring as evidenced by their wholesale refusal to sacrifice for their off-spring or meaningful defend their off-spring.”

That is a great argument!

The “women and children first” chant is a nice ideal. That is until women’s interests don’t align with the kids and we see what they really value in the relationship.

Who the largest percentage of spots on the titanic, over the children, while using “women and children first” to do it? Who is destroying the family (children) by initiating divorce on a massive scale and claiming advantages with the “women and children first” bias in court?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
AndrewV March 29, 2012 at 23:42

@Avenger March 29, 2012 at 22:25
“The film The Killing Fields is about this.”

A guy from Viet Nam that I knew, told me that movie was less than 1/10 of what really happened there.

I tend to believe this guy, in that we apparently reacted in a similar manner in similar situations, although in different countries.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 23:43

Rob

You’re as skilled as a typical bitch/femiskank in debating/discussing…

Instead of discussing the matter rationally you just tell me to blow it out my ass, cite your supposed anti-marxist credentials, and then tell me to jerk off with some guy…

You debate like a woman…

If you want to get back to being civil we can do that, I won’t come down to your level and hurl insults, although I am quite capable of hurling some nasty ones.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 19
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 23:45

Rob

Let me ask you this… You’re Canadian right? Born and raised in Canada?

Do you recognize that Canada is functionally and de facto a Marxist nation… Not the hardcore Soviet variety, but Marxist regardless…

The same for the USA, but to a lesser extent…

The same for Britain but to a greater extent…

Do you recognize that? As a self-styled expert on Marxism-Leninism you should recognize it when you see it.

There is not one major Western nation which has not more or less fulfilled the 10 planks of the communist platform as articulated in the Communist Manifesto.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 15
Rob March 29, 2012 at 23:48

Really.

Well, maybe since you can read BOTH my mind and even Karl Marx’s mind into the distant past, you can team up with TFH who believes he can predict the future, and you guys can make a killing in the stock markets.

When you claim that you know Marx’s real intentions, you have gone so far off the fact-farm, that there’s no point in furthering a debate.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 18
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 23:48

Rob-

Just as an FYI I’ve done about 100+ hours of lecturing on communism, mostly focused on the Russian Revolution/Bolshevik Hijacking of Russia in 1919, the Spanish “Civil War” (Bolshevik Revolution in Spain in 1936), the Frankfurt School, Bolshevism/Communism in Germany in the 1920s-1930s (and how it was crushed in 1933), etc.

Marxism is a SCAM.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 14
Rob March 29, 2012 at 23:49

@ Bryan,

What, exactly, do you think I’ve been writing about for years?

Enough with you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 23:56

Marx was a Jew raised by a family of Jewish rabbis and lawyers… He was PAID to write the Communist Manifesto and was told to have it ready in time for the 1848 revolutions so it could be released and presented as though it were the voice of the revolutionary workers (paid/hired thugs) who had been organized by the Bavarian Illuminati and told to rise up at a certain date.

The Revolutions of 1848 were not an accident nor was the fact that they were continental in their scope an accident. I have written and spoken extensively about the Revolutions of 1848… Known as the “Springtime of the Nations” I call it simply the “Springtime of the Jews.”

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 18
American March 29, 2012 at 23:56

Thank god for Price and “the Spearhead”.
This is the site where bold Avante guarde men come to speak with their spiritual brothers, about the perversions that have become routine in American law enforcement, and how we are going to fix them.
“The Spearhead” is true to its name, and will live on for our nations children to see how David challenged Goliath, and won.
Many of the men who post here,may in fact be the brightest and boldest men in modern American history, and am humbled to be here.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 11
Bryan March 29, 2012 at 23:58

The Communist Manifesto was published TWO days prior to the outbreak of mass revolutions across Europe. Most of the revolutions in the German States were openly led by Jews, who later fled to the United States after being ejected from the German States.

What a coincidence that the son of a Rabbi, who has ties to the Illuminati, publishes the Communist Manifesto TWO DAYS prior to Europe exploding with marxist revolution.

I suggest you read some Nesta Webster and understand the global and historic scope of this conspiracy.

William Guy Carr (Pawns in the Game) and Nesta Webster (any of her books really) would be a great place to start.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 14
AndrewV March 29, 2012 at 23:59

@Bryan March 29, 2012 at 23:31,

My interpetration of the statement by Rob that “Marxism is about creating Heaven on Earth, the triumph of man over God.” was not one of approval. I suspect you may have believed he was endorsing this.

Why not ask him for clarification?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5
fondueguy March 30, 2012 at 00:00

@trollking

Are fucking serious about the lorena bobbet thing? You and I were YOUNG at that time. I never heard it in some sadistic, horizon vs guys way at that age.

The only thing that got under my skin was girls kicking boys in the balls and the adults who did nothing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
American March 30, 2012 at 00:00

Where Else but “the Spearhead” are you going to be able to see the truth to the degree that we are currently witnessing??
I bow humbly to the site master, and its commentariate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8
fondueguy March 30, 2012 at 00:01

girls* vs guys

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AndrewV March 30, 2012 at 00:03

@ Rob,
@ Bryan,

Oh never mind, I see you two are now engaged in combat.

This is ironic, as far as I can determine the both of you are not that far apart in the fundamentals.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
Bryan March 30, 2012 at 00:06

It is an esoteric debate over details for the most part. I regard Rob as a worthy person to discuss the matter with, but I insist he remain civil and respectful.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 12
AndrewV March 30, 2012 at 00:13

@Bryan March 29, 2012 at 23:45

” Do you recognize that Canada is functionally and de facto a Marxist nation… Not the hardcore Soviet variety, but Marxist regardless…”

Oh I believe we still have fair ways to go before the job is complete but you do have to remember that we are a 3rd. World country, a rich one to be sure but we do match too many of the economic criteria to be considered anything but.

I do however remain optimistic about our future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
American March 30, 2012 at 00:25

Current American “Pork Bloat Capitalism”, is simply not the free enterprise system that gramps fought in WW2 to protect.
In order for American conservatives to protect free enterprise as we know it, the folks that de-regulated the mortgage industry until it utterly collapsed are going to have to be held accounteable.
If American conservatives cannot muster the strength to do this (which it does not look promising), the world will mistakenly see that free enterprise is a perverse and broken system of criminals, which will be a shame, as liberty is a god given right.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 10
American March 30, 2012 at 00:34

Its a crying shame that the leaders of the free world are not calling for the heads of the “pervert bankers” who de-regualted the mortgage industry “UNTIL IT ITTERLY COLLAPSED”, and threw the worlds economic system into chaos.
Perverse spin doctors in American media can “Construct” it in any way their pee-brains can construct, but folks the truth is this, heads need to roll in order for America to redeem itself, and thats the bottom line.
That needs to be said again for the “Willfully Ignorant” here.
…. Perverse spin doctors in American media can “Construct” it in any way their pee-brains can construct, but folks; the truth is this, heads need to roll in order for America to redeem itself, and thats the bottom line.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 10
Troll King March 30, 2012 at 00:35

fondueguy March 30, 2012 at 00:00
@trollking

Are fucking serious about the lorena bobbet thing? You and I were YOUNG at that time. I never heard it in some sadistic, horizon vs guys way at that age.

The only thing that got under my skin was girls kicking boys in the balls and the adults who did nothing.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
———————————————————————————-

Yeah, the ball kicking and especially social bullying pissed me off and were more common. In HS I actually got my name put on some list by some bitch, I never knew who it was, right after columbine. The list was supposedly a bunch of kids that had talked about killing kids or something.

I actually didn’t mind too much. I got out of last period and got to sit in the guidance counselors office and talk about feelings and shit. The first day I thought it was going to suck but then I walk into the room and five of my friends and a few others are there too….fuck yeah. I dropped out of school within months of turning 18 cause I hated it that much. At best it was just boring and pointless.

As far as the Bobbit stuff goes. I was in like fifth grade or something. I remember it quite vividly but I wouldn’t be surprised if it made much of a impression on most boys. People in general tend to have poor memories.

It wasn’t something that really pissed me off, I thought it was just a one off type of thing and wasn’t as clued into the whole affair as I am now.

Remember though, it was a huge deal. You couldn’t turn on the news without hearing about it or watch Leno or Letterman without seeing five different jokes about it. Kids obviously pick up on all that background noise. It wasn’t a constant thing in school but I think one reason I noticed it so much was because I just couldn’t understand how girls were supposed to be sugar and spice while also acting in such opposite ways. Even with just joking about it.

Then again, I come from a feminist family and by that time I had known about FGM and womens oppression and what not.

I would tell you and other guys to sit back and really try to poor over your memories. I have a really visual and much better than average memory.

When I first started thinking about some of these issues, before even finding the MRM, I approached it from a cognitive dissonance and introspection point of view. It is kind of amazing to me how much we can ignore all the shit around us like it is static noise and then continue to slog through our days.

There were a lot of things that were basically background noise when I was in school that I really didn’t pay that much attention to but when I got out or got interested in these issues I started really wondering and thinking over my experiences.

Some examples. With on gf I had I met her mom, divorced three times who had committed parental alienation against my gf, and one day I was talking to her mom while waiting for her to get ready. I was 18/19 and she was asking me about my political persuasions. I told her I was a dem and I even called myself a feminist ally or some shit.

She started going on about how she had been a big deal in the local women’s club and a few local feminist groups, nothing big this is a small town, and then she lets a bombshell drop. She had worked at the courthouse and she started bragging about how when divorced and separated and unwed fathers would file paperwork she and her friends wouldn’t conveniently misplace it.

By this time more of my male friends were unwed fathers dealing with this shit in the same town. I worked with dozens of divorced older men who complained about shit like this all the time. I still failed to put it all together. It was kinda background noise and when I did here things like this I found it disturbing but I hadn’t yet connected the dots so to speak. I figured she was just a bitch and she was disabled so it wasn’t like she was working anymore and so on.

This same gf, I met her aunt from her fathers side. Her father had been a cop and so was her aunt. Her aunt had her own bombshell to drop one time. This woman had wickedly long finger nails. She joked about how she volunteered to do the cavity searches because she wanted to make it as painful as possible and she said this while showing off her three inch fingernails.

Or as far as schools go. I had this one english teacher I actually like and admired, until one day just a week or so into her class. This was in 10th grade and she would call the girls to the front to have them read their assigned paragraphs from the book and she would congralate them on how well spoken and if they had a small amount of trouble with a word they didn’t know she would be patient and spell it out for them.

DO you think she did the same with the boys? Nope. She would make snide comments and even jokes every time one of the guys make a mistake. Things like that were background noise but when I think about it today I just connect more and more dots and if you look at some of the things guys even younger than me say about school it sounds like it has only gotten worse.

Those are just a few examples and there are so many other just kinda small things that one on one I shrugged off but looking back on it, it wasn’t just one bitchy woman or one mean teacher but socially and culturally and maybe even biologically encouraged.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 2
AndrewV March 30, 2012 at 00:43

@Bryan March 29, 2012 at 23:31
” Marx wanted to destroy the existing order”

I can go with this but here is where I think you went off the rails:

“and replace it with misery and oppression on a level unprecedented in human history. ”

I believe the context was more like, “this policy will bring misery and oppression *shrug* their suffering is a necessary sacrifice”.

IOW he was completely indifferent.

“Of course he wouldn’t have gained many converts if he had made a public call along the lines of, “Christian Europeans, abandon God, abandon nation, abandon race, rise up, murder the government, put Jewish commissars into power and let us lord it over you, killing millions of you while we live like kings!”

And do not forget that once that was accomplished he unleashed terror on the instruments he created. The Jews in the Bolshevik were then killed remember? Most of the high ranking members were Jewish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

But clearly all of this was part of his strategy to maintain power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
“With the exception of Vladimir Milyutin (who died in prison in 1937) and Joseph Stalin himself, all of the members of Lenin’s original cabinet who had not succumbed to death from natural causes before the purge were executed.”

When he was facing off the Germans how many of his officers had he just finished killing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Purge_of_the_army
“The purge of the army removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to six-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to four- and five-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts),[31] 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars.[32]”

I would not have been surprised to learn that he had memorized The Prince and The Discourses .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
AndrewV March 30, 2012 at 00:57

@Troll King March 30, 2012 at 00:35,

I talk to the young guys all the time. Nothing you have said is new to me.

It is ironic, how so many misandric women have hammered misogyny into our young men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
Red0660 March 30, 2012 at 00:59

Nothing will change, there is a larger shift in play that will preclude a common felicity with women to begin with:

The title is misleading but the article will show you exactly what is in store.

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-bullet-shot-at-wage-gap-myth.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
American March 30, 2012 at 01:10

A little off topic here folks, But i feel that we should remember our fallen brother “Thomas Belle” who Burned himslef alive on the steps of a new Hampshire court house to protest the sick perverse fammily court system.
Wasn’t his death around this time a few years ago??

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8
crella March 30, 2012 at 03:13

I was half-joking with my comment above, and in no way meant to knock Bill’s article. I’ll elaborate.

We have a single mother/daughter pair in the family(divorced), and I know of other single mothers in that circle. They weren’t the type to get pregnant as teenagers or out of wedlock. They were normal middle-class girls who got married in their 20s.

However once the divorces were final, discipline went out the window as well as even the most basic housekeeping. Clothing choices narrowed to hoodies and jeans or sweatpants , not out of economic need but it being ‘too much trouble’ to iron etc.

Since divorces exploded in the US and American women declared even learning rudimentary cooking skills as ‘slavery’ a whole generation of kids has been brought up on catch-as-catch can meals and lived in messy houses…takeout, frozen food, boxed mac and cheese etc. Mealtime ceased to be family together time, but rather something like a fuel stop. I’m not surprised that maybe it’s going to start to swing the other way. While living in a mess may be easy, it’s not pleasant, and even an easy home-cooked meal of steamed or butter sauteed veggies and meat beats anything out of a box. I hope more of these kids discover the joys of cooking and having a neat home. It’s just basic self-care skills.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7
crella March 30, 2012 at 03:14

American, yes, its close to the date of his death, Thomas Ball died on June 15, 2011.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6
Avenger March 30, 2012 at 03:20

The British Empire was NOT based on Christianity. Britain’s religion is basically just Catholicism without the Roman Pontiff

And that’s Christian not these silly lower class sects like Baptists or Methodists (Baptists who can read) Nobody cares about religion anyway. Fundies are a joke. And it’s a good thing that the US was basically Anglican whether it was the more liberal types in the south or the more conservative type of Anglican in New England sometimes referred to as Puritans because if we had the Cromwell non conformist types like the Baptists, Methodists etc I doubt we’d have the same the same form of government and Bill of Rights as the more Liberal thinking Anglicans established. Liberalism is good ,the problem today is that the people who have appropriated the name liberal are really Marxists.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8
Art Vandelay March 30, 2012 at 03:56

The problem of course is that these things aren’t done out of necessity, they are done as a distraction or hobby. It has nothing to do with actually running a household, a lot if not most women in my age group (I think you call them millennials) are incapable of that. There is no real housekeeping or homemaking going on, just piling on mess interrupted by bouts of cleaning frenzy. The same goes for cooking, only if she wants to.

I remember my last live-in girlfriend leaving everything she got from the kitchen or somewhere else in the place she last used it. So you had dirty plates and leftover food piling up on the table or kitchen counters, clothes dirty and clean lying around everywhere. You could just see, everywhere she sat the mess was piling up around that place. She didn’t even throw trash into the trashcan (I put up quite a few of those). And then one day she would start cleaning, it was an 8 hour ordeal. The same goes with cooking, most of the time she was eating some pre-processed shit, then she starts cooking or just out of the blue baking a cake. And I don’t eat cake… The kitchen is a mess but she is happy she baked a cake, 90% of which nobody is going to eat.

Now it’s nice that they are getting the skills to run a home. But I don’t think you can depend on that. Because they don’t think it’s their duty, it’s just something to occupy themselves with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
American March 30, 2012 at 04:06

Crella, I feel his death should be a date mens and fathers rights activists should hold sacred. The whole mens and fathers rights sphere should be dedicated to this man on this day, as a celebration of his life, and the ultimate scarifice he gave for fathers rights organisations .
The Now “Perverse” main stream American media did not give this man any attention AT ALL, for his desperate attempt ( he gave his life) to raise awareness of the perverse fammilly court situation for men and children.
The case of Thomas Ball, is symbolic of the Perverse media situation in the US, and WE SHOULD NEVER FORGET.
WE SHOULD NEVER FORGET, AND WE SHOULD SHOVE THIS CASE DOWN THE THROUTS OF THE PERVERSE MEDIA SITUATION IN AMERICA, OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER AGAIN.
We should resurect the case of Thomas Belle every year on april 15, as an example, to show the perverse situation of modern American media.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 9
American March 30, 2012 at 04:15

Crella, Im not a father, and after reading horror stories on mens rights websites, i have no plans at all of being one… But this case of Thomas belle should be used ( As He would have wanted), (As he gave his life for) to raise awarenes of not only the “Perverse fammily courts” in modern America, but this case is also sybolic of a “Perverse American media”, as they had a reporting Black-out on his case.
How can anyone now say that American media are “objective, and not into politics”, when the case of Thomas belle shows they are “ALL POLITICS, AND VERY LITTLE ON TRUTH ANG OBJECTIVE REPORTING.
Thomas Belle, Im not even a father, But Im man enough to not let yer death sacrifice for youre children go in vain, and as the American media wanted…un noticed!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11
migu March 30, 2012 at 04:18

You old timer vets at this are right. It’s a repeating cycle of shoot each other.

Rob comes back, within day’s the circular firing squad is assembled. Same thing happens to aa69.

I don’t know ya for nothing, but I’m glad you’re back, always enjoyed your writing, even adopted some of the techniques.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
American March 30, 2012 at 04:22

I do sculpture work, and am thinking about doing a sculpture piece of Thomas Belle who gave his life on the front doorstep of A New Hampshire Fammily courthouse.
The case is so powerfull because it also mocks the Near “Perverse” situation that modern American media is now in by employing a “Media Black-out” of his sacrifice.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 11
L March 30, 2012 at 06:18

It would be nice if you’d let people have interests without saying oh it’s because you’re a woman/man. If a woman wants to can apples, go hiking, and ride motorcycles, and her husband does the interior decorating, watch the kids, and work on cars, who cares. everyone is more complex than you’re willing to believe.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14
Towgunner March 30, 2012 at 06:44

@ Art:

Hey bud.

You wrote “There is no real housekeeping or homemaking going on, just piling on mess interrupted by bouts of cleaning frenzy. The same goes for cooking, only if she wants to. ”

Yep, I know what you mean. Once again, another component of feminism is shown to be irrational. As women have been sold an extremely childish and farcical idea of “independence”, which includes an obnoxious attitude that see’s cleaning up after yourself as beneath them. Of course…this stuff still needs to get done. Here is where our little princesses are going to learn the hard way. I see more women particularly younger ones, who are thrown together, they increasingly stink and are just dirty. How is it “empowering” or “liberating” if you’re wearing 10 day old clothes and smell like feet? Why…why can’t we call women slobs? women then have the audacity to ask ‘where are all the good men?’…answer us men, as with most other normal people, retract from foul smelling people, particularly the ones that are also loud and obnoxious. Another thing, what is “independence”? Methinks it’s not depending on other people. That’s a tall order in today’s culture and runs contrary to the contemporary notion of “independence”, which seems to apply only to women and maybe gays. Apparently, it means they’re free to “fulfill” themselves…whatever that means? That’s odd because all these “independent” women depend on scores of people to help them be fulfilled such as their mother (who is just as pathetic as they enable this irresponsible behavior), men (of course) and the big daddy of them all – the state…ahem taxpayers. My endeavor for true independence was a deliberate decision that acknowledged the real sacrifices one has to make in order to achieve this. For example, the food supply sucks today, pink slime, additives etc…so, I have to learn alternatives that include gardening. Difficult, yes, but necessary, so, I’m doing it. No help, no support…you clean not because its oppressive, empowering or liberating…NO a person must clean because its dirty and they don’t want to live like an animal, you expect and take very little from others and if you do take you pay back in full in a timely manner. As far as the state goes any self respecting truly independent individual wants nothing from it. So mizz independent that needs a man like a fish needs a bike, you still need to clean that little beehive condo and you need to cook at least for yourself. Of course, what’s really happening? women don’t clean, don’t cook, so on top of all the garbage thrown about in their sub 800 square foot space that’s going to be a great “investment”, their GMO food makes them crap out an even more vile gruel adding nicely to the decor. Mom comes over to “save the day” and only acts to enable her all the more by cleaning up. mom has been brainwashed by oprah and the view, so, her daughter is living better than she did??? Come again mom? You stay at home, and if your still “oppressed” that means its clean and sanitary whereas miss independent is chained to a desk, paid less on a relative basis and fulfills herself at a tapas bar or spin class…her “crew” smellin up all these places as she goes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
Towgunner March 30, 2012 at 06:57

@ L

“It would be nice if you’d let people have interests without saying oh it’s because you’re a woman/man. If a woman wants to can apples, go hiking, and ride motorcycles, and her husband does the interior decorating, watch the kids, and work on cars, who cares. everyone is more complex than you’re willing to believe.”

That’s right people are complex, that’s why collectivism is such an abomination as it forcibly puts all of us into neat little categories. Now, it may be true that some women want to can apples etc, and some men want to be homemakers…it’s just not very common. The opposite is the norm…and so what! I take issue when some force, the state or the center for women in the media, deliberately try to impress on me and society that this dynamic is no longer true and that men now are the wimpy ones and women the daring and bold ones. And that’s exactly how it’s put to us! The message is particularly grating to a man who just likes to decorate, because he’s now “wimpy” likewise for women..no wonder everyone is depressed. Like you, I’d rather live in a culture that didn’t get that involved in telling us how to live, let the chips fall where they may – yes that will mean our culture will reflect a realistic observable tendency of homemaking being interesting mostly to women and outdoors-stuff mostly for men. So what? Who’s really being oppressed when some upstart screams oppression and messes around with what occurs naturally?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Ethical March 30, 2012 at 07:15

“Maybe I’m a hater for stating this… For somewhere around 97-98% of Western women, there’s nothing wrong with them that death wouldn’t solve”.

@Bryan

Not sure if there was a joke in there that I didn’t get, or if this was only harmless venting, but if not it’s a good idea to remember we hate feminism and anti-men laws as opposed to hating women themselves. Women (as any other people) can and do change with encouragement. It’s impossible to give encouragement from a point of hatred. Those of us who are Fathers of daughters, sons of mothers, or brothers of sisters, have a responsibility to encourage the good as well as to discourage the bad. And too much hatred is hard on the health.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer March 30, 2012 at 07:38

Anti Idiocy March 29, 2012 at 22:59

“Elmer gets the last word :

“elmer 1 minute ago

“I didn’t make up the list, I copied it from the Gender&Society website you linked :

“http://gas.sagepub.com/reports/most-read”

DOOOD!!! You squashed that bug!

———————————–

To his credit he responds with :

David DiSalvo, Contributor 12 minutes ago

hahaha, well that is funny.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
dawn March 30, 2012 at 07:45

I couldn’t read all the comments because I was getting sad. I understand what you men see and experience with women and it saddens me for you and for the women who have bought the lies that feminism has given them. I bought the lies for a while and I am working with all my might to gain the truth.
The truth being that there is no war on women, men are born to lead, women are better off in the home, a patriarchal society is healthier than a matriarchal society, and that a traditional marriage is hands down the best kind of marriage to be in.
The problem is that most females have not seen a traditional marriage as they were growing up. the ones who have gotten married have not been in a traditional marriage, and men don’t think to ask when they are getting close to a woman they don’t ask how she feels about traditional marriage. If she knows what it is and says “no way” the man should get out of Dodge immediately.
I pray that women wake up from the lie before it is too late, and too that you men don’t give up completely. Feminism is destroying the world and it needs to stop, but it can’t be stopped by men, women need to say “I am not going to take your lies anymore”
I am raising young men and I don’t want you men writing their stories.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 8
Uncle Elmer March 30, 2012 at 07:47

Gender & Society

Gender & Society (GENDSOC) is a peer-reviewed journal, focused on the study of gender. It is the official journal of Sociologists for Women in Society, and was founded in 1987 as an outlet for feminist social science. Currently, it is a top-ranked journal in both sociology and women’s studies. Gender & Society publishes less than 10% of all papers submitted to it. Articles appearing in Gender & Society analyze gender and gendered processes in interactions, organizations, societies, and global and transnational spaces. The journal primarily publishes empirical articles, which are both theoretically engaged and methodologically rigorous, including qualitative, quantitative, and comparative-historical methodologies. Gender & Society also publishes reviews of books from a diverse array of social science disciplines.

————————————

Based on their list of most popular essays, I would love to see the rejection list.

Who says that feminist have no humor?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Uncle Elmer March 30, 2012 at 07:50

Based on David DiSalvo’s noble and manly response to my trolling, I post his weblink here. Looks to be an interesting read :

In What Makes Your Brain Happy and Why You Should Do the Opposite, science writer David DiSalvo reveals a remarkable paradox: what your brain wants is frequently not what your brain needs. In fact, much of what makes our brains “happy” leads to errors, biases, and distortions, which make getting out of our own way extremely difficult. DiSalvo’s search includes forays into evolutionary and social psychology, cognitive science, neurology, and even marketing and economics—as well as interviews with many of the top thinkers in psychology and neuroscience today.

http://www.daviddisalvo.org

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Ping Jockey March 30, 2012 at 08:26

Bryan –
“Marxists preach revolution but once they come to power ALL revolution CEASES…”

SO true! One of the favorite slogans of the Leftist/Democrat Baby Boomers was “Question Authority!”
But notice when they finally get elected and have political power, their unexpressed attitudes become “DON’T QUESTION MY AUTHORITY!!”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Georice81 March 30, 2012 at 08:46

Dawn,

Reading what you wrote is a breathe of fresh air!

I know that there are good women out there. I also know the pressure that society is putting on them and the fight that they are going through. It must be tough being a “normal” woman in today’s society and how you have to constantly stand your ground for what you know is right and normal.

I’d be curious to know about your life and how you have been able to fight the feminist on-slaught.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
keyster March 30, 2012 at 09:17

“Feminism is destroying the world and it needs to stop, but it can’t be stopped by men, women need to say “I am not going to take your lies anymore”.”

What I’ve been saying; “it can’t be stopped by men”.
Men are on the outside looking in, waiting for women to do something and they’re not. Women created and have vigorously sustained this ugly beast. It’s women that will have to begin rejecting it, and speaking out against it….Not just SoCon “traditional” women concerned for their son’s well-being, but ALL women.

While you’re all down on the field playing ball with the future of our society, and perhaps humanity, MRA’s are up in the stands yelling, both cheering and jeering. If men are allowed on the field at all, it’s because they’ve been given a special pass as “pro-feminist”. Women control the theatre of operations in the “gender war”. MRA’s are the insurgents trying to get people’s attention.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 8
The First Joe March 30, 2012 at 09:22

@American – it’s Thomas B A L L.

A in the middle, no E on the end.

And the reason he’s not the MRM figurehead martyr? He himself said in his diary / testimony that he slapped his little kid in the face, so hard he split her lip and drew blood. I for one have ZERO time for that.

Thomas Ball had some smart stuff to say – the “two different books of law” is a very pertinent observation. However, the MRM is already seen as a bunch of violent haters, and adopting him as poster-man (not poster-boy) would be a huge own-goal.

A LOT of men tragically suicide post-divorce.

I am 100% sure that the MRM can find a martyr-figure who did NOT hit their kid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8
L March 30, 2012 at 09:24

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 21
Jacques March 30, 2012 at 09:24

I disagree that canning and knitting are being taken up by the tradition, fecund, demographically different groups that the author alludes to. It is the white, middle class children who are interested in this artsy stuff– none of these things existed in “traditional” societies that the author alludes to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11
Jacques March 30, 2012 at 09:27

I take my comment back — didn’t finish reading the article before I commented!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Geography Bee Finalist himself March 30, 2012 at 09:50

“but certain behaviors outside of being polite and responsible shouldn’t be demanded or expected.”

We all know that cunts will try to set the parameters of male politeness and male responsibility, so don’t expect or demand politeness from men or expect responsible behavior from feminists anytime soon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
dawn March 30, 2012 at 09:54

I wasn’t always “normal” but I didn’t really buy the lies either I guess you could say that I was tainted. I always wanted to be a stay at home wife and mother, but I was hearing from friends and family that I was lazy to stay home. It killed me to be away from my boys, but I didn’t want anyone to see me as week or lazy (I let my fears of others opinions lead me down a path of destruction). During this time I was married to a man with problems, He had a problem with drugs and alcohol and he was abusive. Yes I had a hand in him being abusive. I am not proud of my behavior. Well, our marriage failed. I failed, I wanted this to work, I wanted to be a better wife so he wouldn’t need the drugs. but I didn’t really know how to be a better wife, I would get so frustrated with him and the drugs and say things to bring him down to shame him for his drug use. WRONG THING TO DO!! I made so many mistakes. When it ended I had to work outside the home. And then I met my current husband, And he is just the best man in the world! I realized what a blessing he is to me right away, however I did not start out the best for him. It took a few years for me to get it right, and I am still working on it. Wanting to raise my boys right and for them to see what real femininity looks like so they won’t pick the wrong kind of woman is paramount to me. Keeping the blessed man that is in my life is equally important. I do have friendships with women who are wanting the same things in their life, so I don’t have to deal with the feminist onslaught on a daily basis, and we don’t have television.
When I asked my husband if we could have a traditional marriage he thought I was crazy, but he was glad that I did. I am so very happy that I saw the benefits to it, I don’t get my way all the time, and I have to apologize a lot but it is well worth it.

For those of you who may think I screwed my ex, I wanted him to see his boys and I wanted him to pay child support. He decided that drugs and alcohol were more important than both. After a few years of him not paying and not seeing them I ended his obligation. I worked for a while so my current husband wouldn’t have to support children who weren’t his. He thought that I should stay home and take care of him and the home. He was getting the benefits of being a dad so it was no problem for him to support all of us.
I believe that feminism is so prevalent in the media and the school systems, that in order to keep your sons and daughters away from it they should be homeschooled with out TV in the house.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 22
Buckwheater March 30, 2012 at 09:58

dawn, is it some kind of a disease or strange condition for some many American women to blame themselves so much? European women don’t tend to do that as much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12
Bryan March 30, 2012 at 10:04

Troll King

A woman who works in a court-house who purposely throws away the paperwork filed by divorced/separated men, deserves to have acid thrown in her face.

A woman who laughs about a man having his penis hacked off deserves to have her clitoris snipped off and her breasts hacked off.

I hope at some point men begin directing their anger and pain externally instead of internally. Instead of men committing suicide in record numbers we might eventually see men committing homicide (against femiskanks) in record numbers.

Men committing suicide will not change anything, all it will do is cause women to laugh at their demise and accumulate/consolidate more power in the wake of the man’s death.

Any man who is absolutely determined to die, who has decided that he can no longer take living anymore, should decline to check out unless he is in a position to take 10-15 feminists with him.

Note, under the precedent set in Brandenburg v. Ohio I am not advocating or inciting imminent lawlessness, I am merely discussing abstract concepts. The Supreme Court has ruled that “mere advocacy of violence cannot be criminalized” only incitement to imminent lawless activity is considered criminal speech and thus unprotected by the First Amendment.

I am well within my legal rights to state, “I believe feminists deserve to die, I believe they need to die, I believe society will be better off with them dead, and I believe any man who wants to commit suicide should stay his hand until he has first neutralized at least a dozen or so feminists, and only then should he take his own life.”

And there, I said it.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 23
dawn March 30, 2012 at 10:12

Keyster
“While you’re all down on the field playing ball with the future of our society, and perhaps humanity, MRA’s are up in the stands yelling, both cheering and jeering. If men are allowed on the field at all, it’s because they’ve been given a special pass as “pro-feminist”. Women control the theatre of operations in the “gender war”. MRA’s are the insurgents trying to get people’s attention.”
Men don’t need to be in the stands, they need to be the coach or the general. But gently guiding their women. You can’t fight women out of feminism you have to take the high road, fighting will only play into the feminists hands.But you CAN NOT give in to them, refuse to have anything to do with a woman who is even giving a hint of feminism. Women love having men in their lives, if you refuse them they will eventually cave. And if they don’t your not woman enough for them (they are lesbians)
Be the gentle coaches and help us to see what you are seeing. I read these blogs so I know what you men need to happen but there is so much anger to sift through. I do understand, but you make it hard for us to hear you sometimes.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 13
Bryan March 30, 2012 at 10:13

AndrewV

Stalin killed a lot of Jews but then replaced them with other Jews.

Jesus remarked that Satan’s Kingdom is divided against itself and it cannot stand.

Jews cannot agree on which Jew should be in power.

Read the Talmud, the Jewish book, it is 35 volumes/separate books and it weighs about 400+ pounds. I’ve actually seen and read a physical copy.

It is literally page after page of rabbis arguing over which one is the best rabbi and which one has the best interpretation of the statements/stance of some historically important rabbi. At one point in the Talmud the rabbis are even arguing over which rabbi has the longer penis, yes, I kid you not.

For example, any random page in the Talmud may read like this…

According to Rabbi B. Baruch, Rabbi Hisda was of the belief that Rabbi Huna was against heathens being able to keep the law and uphold the Sabbath… However, Rabbi Eleazar states that Rabbi Hisda is mistaken about what Rabbi Huna meant… Although, according to Rabbi Simeon it is clear that Rabbi Hisda and Rabbi Eleazar are both mistake… Even still, Rabbi Hanania claims that Rabbi Huna was wrong and that heathens who attempt to uphold the law must be put to death, thus Rabbi Baruch and Rabbi Hisda are both wrong as they follow Rabbi Huna.

The Talmud is basically 400 Rabbis having a free for all, arguing over which one is the best rabbi.

In Sanhedrin 58B they actually argue over why Adam didn’t have sex with his own daughter to build up the world in grace. Some say Adam was saving her for Cain, others say that it was not permitted for Adam to have sex with his own daughter.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 18
Bryan March 30, 2012 at 10:18

Ping Jockey

You might have observed in the how in the 1950s when conservatives dominated academia/colleges, the liberals/left/socialists were more or less allowed to articulate many of their ideas because conservatives value free speech.

However, over the next two decades, 1960s-1970s, the left came to unquestionably dominate the scene at most college campuses and the conservatives were not extended the same freedom of speech or the freedom to organize/assemble that they had given the left in the 1950s. Most all colleges have vigorously enforced speech codes and conduct codes which more or less stifle debate and prohibit anybody from offering dissenting views on issues of class, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

The colleges are basically identical, they all have enshrined in code an acceptable worldview where up is down and backwards is forwards. Anybody who disagrees will be put on disciplinary probation, sent to diversity classes, or expelled.

Leftists only value free speech when they are a marginalized minority and need to get conservatives to take pity on them and grant them an opportunity to be heard. Once leftists are stronger than conservatives there is no more talk of free speech.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 9
Someone March 30, 2012 at 10:21

Rob’s comment on social inversion should be a post here. Its that good.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Gilgamesh March 30, 2012 at 10:26

Why is American getting red-thumbed? Sure he misspelled Thomas Ball’s name but aside from that he’s right on the money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Landon March 30, 2012 at 10:30

This won’t surprise anyone here, but after my son was born, his mother became, and still is, very jealous of the attention I give him and will often shit test me on it. I pass them accordingly no problem, but I do worry this may make her dangerous to my son. Believe it or not, I actually give her high marks for pleasantness, femininity, and homemaking. It wasn’t until the child was born that this selfish behavior manifested itself. Regardless of the high marks I give her compared to most modern women, she is still not capable of making good parenting decisions on her own. Everything is just rationalized selfishness. Without the steady guidance of men, we are lost as a culture. I am the true guardian of my son, and believe you me – I am keeping an eye on his mother. She is bizarrely menacing and narcissistic at times. It’s an 80/20 thing. 80% awesome nurturing mother. Sings to him and everything. 20% bizarre, crazy, dangerous, negligent are you out of your mind!? Women, men, and children are taught from birth by this culture to not respect men. I see it happening to my son already and this seems all well and good and normal to his mother. I couldn’t be happier to have a son, but I really have to be vigilant against an insurmountable tide of raunch and subversion. It seems I cannot win. It seeps in through the culture, the media, education every where. As much as it creeps me out, I am still determined have offspring. So I do tend to agree with Bryan on this. I have also been a step parent in my blue pill days. There was a nagging deep dark part of me that wanted to behave like a lion in order to establish myself as dominant. There was a deep dark part of both my ex and me that always saw me as beta for putting up with this ridiculous arrangement of raising another man’s children. As much as it was outwardly praised as noble and chivalrous, the marriage failed due to lack of respect for a man to due such a thing. It’s an unnatural arrangement. It’s of no surprise to me to see such violence, crime, and dysfunction to come it. Of course today’s fem-centric culture tells us this is the new normal. No it isn’t normal at all. It’s dangerous. Why do you think it takes so much Prozac and Ritalin (my how they are profiting from all of this, hmmm)? The wise woman defers to a wise man’s guidance. Rare is the woman today that would degrade herself in such a way.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2
dawn March 30, 2012 at 10:39

Landon,
put her over your knee when she acts like that. Tell her she is acting like a child.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7
Landon March 30, 2012 at 10:56

Dawn,

I do. Which she probably enjoys and may reinforce said behavior.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Bryan March 30, 2012 at 11:14

Avenger

Liberalism leads to the nanny state, the welfare state, and the subsidizing of the breeding/existence of those who are unable to survive by their own means and are thus unworthy to breed.

Normal people look to God and to their own labor/creativity for their livelihood. People with a mental disorder that prevents them from accepting normal life responsibilities look to the nanny state government to provide them with their daily bread.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 12
Bryan March 30, 2012 at 11:26

Ethical

It is mostly just metaphorical ranting/venting.

I’d prefer not to have to witness the demise/death/disappearance of 98% of Western women. It would be quite an ugly and sad affair.

Even still, WHEN (I say WHEN, not IF) the welfare/nanny state implodes and is no longer a factor in the lives of the masses, several hundred million Western women will have to reconsider how they want to live their lives and how they’re going to behave in relation to the Western men. That may result in a large-scale die-off, whether such a thing is sought or not.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10
Bryan March 30, 2012 at 11:34

dawn

Part of the problem is that if a man asks a woman what she thinks about traditional marriage, etc… If she gets the idea that he values it, she will tell him what she believes he wants to hear. Women are great at tuning in to what a man wants and telling him what he wants to hear to get him to sign the deal.

Men need to stop preaching their views to the women they are dating, sit back, treat the date like an interview, and let her tell you all about herself.

If your date is excited that there is a new episode of some show like Sex and the City coming on later that evening/night, you know that you are interviewing/dating a woman who is a skank and is not wife material.

Men need to learn to sit back, listen, and let women do what they are great at, mainly talking about themselves. Let the women tell you everything you want/need to know about them. If you sit quietly and listen they’ll give you two hours of information on themselves and you’ll be able to determine whether or not she is a femiskank. You can probably even get her to tell you whether or not she is a virgin.

You don’t outright demand, “Are you a virgin!” but you just listen to her… If she starts to talk about past relationships, “I was dating this guy once, we were together for like six months, living together, and he was totally a psycho, I just had to get out of there because he was like totally crazy…” She’s just told you she is not a virgin.

Don’t ask very probing questions that will cause her to throw up a defensive wall and respond in a knee-jerk fashion, or that will tip her off and allow her to realize that she needs to give a certain correct answer to maintain your interest/involvement with her. Just sit back and let her give you the short version of her life story/biography.

A date is an interview, you are interviewing the woman to decide if she is worthy of courtship. Let her do the lion’s share of the talking.

If she tries to ask you questions about how much money you make, you can reasonably assume she is a gold-digger. If she shows more than a basic interest in your career/occupation, she might be trying to figure out how much money you make.

Say you’re a project/group manager for an engineering firm and you make $110,000 dollars per year. Telling her the long-story and how much you make, that is going to hurt you. All you say is, “I do some engineering work, technical stuff, nothing fancy.”

Remember, you are there to learn about her, make it a point to have her talk as much as possible, you listen and analyze.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 7
Andie March 30, 2012 at 11:37

Hate to say it, but I think Amanda is right. Most of the women engaging in these new found “domestic skills” are just doing it to make other women feel like shit (yay girl power) and find some other completely fucking pointless way to waste their time and money, and more importantly, to inflict feminine socialization on their male partners.

Head out to the organic berry stand on the weekend and see the chagrined men driving around their stupid Organic Jam Princesses as she finds the perfect berries!

And then watch how the Jam Princess treats the real domestic workers. I’m a stay at home wife and mother with an advanced degree and lots of earning potential, but I value family above everything else and I will die in hell before I pay someone else to raise our children. Staying home requires that my husband shoulder the entire burden financially for us, and it makes me want to puke to think of spending $12 on a basket of berries I can pick myself for free and freeze. In 13 years we have been out to dinner exactly ONCE (on our 10th anniversary). I cook every meal from scratch because it makes me sick to think of wasting the money my husband earns. All our futures depend on him and I believe that the privilege of being at home and taken care of comes with huge responsibilities.

Cooking from scratch isn’t a “hobby”. It’s an obligation and a way I show my love and appreciation for my husband, every day.

I certainly hope that my two daughters will make the same choices as me, and that my son has the good sense to pick a more traditionally minded wife, but given the shitty way we are treated by the feminist liberal media, that will be a difficult choice to make.

I understand men who are just done with North American women. I do. But I am also very saddened that my daughters may not have the chance to do what I do.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 3
Georice81 March 30, 2012 at 11:50

Dawn,

You are quite right in what you have been saying. It is good to have the perspective of a lady who has been in both camps and ended up chosing the right one for the right reasons.

My wife left me a week ago. She mentioned a few days before leaving how her family did not like me because of my Christian beliefs and how they did not understand me. They put pressure on her to leave and they succeeded. Her sisters are the dominant ones in their marriages and all their husbands do is acquiesce to their every whim. To do otherwise would by definition be considered abusive. This is what society has dictated and language itself has changed. Feminists have successfully changed the meaning of words and ideas so as to make it impossible to have a rational discussion with them.

The day before my wife left she had a good talk with a so-called sister from the church. This woman had admitted that she sometimes would rather be single. I had misgivings about her and told my wife so. Apparently my wife had other conversations with people that led her to abandon everything. I had lavished on her and we were on our way to a great life together.

This is why I asked about your life and how you were able to resist the feminist attacks. Feminists love to demean women for wanting to do that which comes natural to them such as staying at home, nurturing, running the household, being faithful, etc. My wife was attacked for trying to do that. It is sad to say, she succumbed to the world.

The irony I find is that feminists have no morality and they argue that it is us men that ruthlessly have prevented them from doing what “felt” right for so long such as uncommitted sex for pleasure and so forth. Yet if a woman argues that she wants to stay at home and take care of her family because it feels right, she is ridiculed and made to feel like a loser.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Oddsock March 30, 2012 at 11:57

I understand men who are just done with North American women. ?

That should read Western women and as for the notion that younger women are turning to domesticity. My arse ! All this means is they have now had to learn how to use a can opener as there are fewer and fewer men available to do it for them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 5
Towgunner March 30, 2012 at 12:02

@L

On the contrary, I meant that the feminist narrative has deemed domesticate chores as wimpy…the point being that it’s unfair to women and men since these things are necessary. Cleaning up after yourself is very important and should be viewed as a personal responsibility. I’m confused because feminism has taken a personal responsibility and put certain qualifiers around it i.e. women and homemaking is oppressive ergo so is cleaning, cooking etc. Moreover, feminism seems to want to reverse roles…why? So, it’s okay for women to shun domesticated chores and only men should do it? If you’re for equality how is it “ethical” to liberate one and to oppress the other? Under that logic no one should clean, cook, decorate…cause you’ll be oppressed if you do. You see, again feminism breaks down. Now, with regards to role reversal, I can tell you that the “wimpy” message is loud and clear in reference to men in the proverbial kitchen because by feminist standards it degrades men and promotes women. Of course, an independent woman will have to do all these chores on her own; otherwise she’ll be very messy and smelly.

Glory? Define that for me? Hiking, seafaring…?? No, no. It’s like this, why do we need to have an entire institution, from an alphabet of NGOs to the potus’s office for women and girls, that tries to get women to go after some abstract concept like “glory”? Why is that needed? Oppression, ha, everyone was oppressed men more than women, if you study history. Frankly, I consider myself independent, always have, I never took social “constructs” seriously and do what I want. I would never demand any help or even look for encouragement from the state or entertainment, academic, educational industries. I don’t need a cheer-leader or set of training wheels. IMO that makes me a strong individual, alternatively, when I see people doing things because their being parrots or mimicking, I call it what it is – weak.

You misunderstood, I didn’t imply that women have to go back to some “pathetic” (your word) existence. And frankly, there is nothing pathetic about it, matter of fact, it’s quite desirable. I even desire that existence. What I meant was if we remove feminism and every other form of outcomes based social engineering, the chips will fall where they may. Under those circumstances people will be free to do whatever they want within reason. No one will be brainwashing them to be something else. The majority of women will tend towards a domesticated lifestyle if they’re lucky enough afford it. Men will tend toward certain roles too. These roles may look like the awful “traditional” roles…but so what?

What’s important to note is the perspective of many feminists on things like “glory”, domestication etc. Totally, out of touch with reality. I said above, I desire a domesticated life. Who wouldn’t? Not having to work, being able to take care of your possessions, raise kids more effectively…stay at home all day, who wouldn’t want that? This is key, I hope to one day generate enough wealth by doing what I need to do now to afford that existence. In the meantime necessity forces me, not some oppressor, to continue to toil and grind away until I see that end, which means I work.

Since we’re getting poorer as a nation, largely thanks to the outlays for feminism, we’ll all have to work more, harder and for less.
In that light, you may find this angle interesting, that the proliferation of 2 income households seems to be a feminists utopia, but, in reality it’s far from anything great and wonderful. Fact: 2 income households exist because we can no longer afford to get by on 1 income. How’s that “progress”?

Not sure what you meant by biological. I will add that there is a definite and undeniable biological difference between men and women that is verifiable at the molecular level.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Oddsock March 30, 2012 at 12:08

Bryan

dawn

“Part of the problem is that if a man asks a woman what she thinks about traditional marriage, etc… If she gets the idea that he values it, she will tell him what she believes he wants to hear. Women are great at tuning in to what a man wants and telling him what he wants to hear to get him to sign the deal.”

Exactly Bryan. I compare dating and marriage to todays woman as the same experience of being soft/hard sold a shitty holiday time share in a place every fecker has been to. A way way over priced over sold crappy deal you can’t get out of without major loss.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
Highwasp March 30, 2012 at 14:14

dawn March 30, 2012 at 10:39

“Landon,
put her over your knee when she acts like that. Tell her she is acting like a child…”

And go to jail for spousal abuse.

“Landon March 30, 2012 at 10:56
Dawn,

I do. Which she probably enjoys and may reinforce said behavior.”

you two go the same church or something?

VAWA

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Anonymous age 69 March 30, 2012 at 14:17

Please, gentlemen, do not commemorate Thomas Ball’s death each year. Less than 9 months have passed, and most folks cannot properly remember his name. This would be an act of self-destruction to bring it to public attention.

And, yes, he was not the saint we need as martyrs. If he had been a woman who slapped that girl’s mouth and drew blood, he’d have custody, wouldn’t he? Women do that all stuff all the time.

This is exactly why I advocate expatting. GTHO, and let the dearies stew in their own juices.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7
dawn March 30, 2012 at 14:52

Bryan,
There really are no benefits to feminism it only looks like there are. It is a false freedom because there are no choices. She either does it their way or she is a traitor to the cause.
The government is a very abusive husband, it ties your hands, it threatens to take your children if you don’t do what it says among so many other things. Women need to see this for themselves. Probably never happen, and your idea of leaving this planet for somewhere else sounds really good.
I am sorry to say this but on the whole (not every) women are stupid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
Oddsock March 30, 2012 at 15:11

Dawn

“The government is a very abusive husband, it ties your hands, it threatens to take your children if you don’t do what it says among so many other things.”

You described exactly the very real abusive wife/girlfriend so many of us know only too well.

Oh, strange how you managed to change the sex of “Nanny” state, as in female, to government being a “very abusive husband”. Funny that.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 10
Ted March 30, 2012 at 15:13

@Gilgamesh March 30, 2012 at 10:26

“Why is American getting red-thumbed? Sure he misspelled Thomas Ball’s name…”

Well, let’s look at that misspelling. He wrote “Thomas belle”.

My dictionary says:

Noun belle 1. A young woman who is the most charming and beautiful of several rivals
“she was the belle of the ball”

American also wrote this: “The case is so powerfull because it also mocks the Near “Perverse” situation that modern American media is now in by employing a “Media Black-out” of his sacrifice.”

Note the use of “mock”.

—————-
“but aside from that he’s right on the money.”

Heh.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Eric March 30, 2012 at 15:42

I think a variation of a 1980s advertising jingle sums up the ‘return of domesticity’ better. A woman sings:

“I can bring home the bacon,
Fry it up in a pan.
Now I’ll get fat and forget about the man.”

Radical feminists, of course, hate the idea of women doing domestic chores, but I think they’ll tolerate it as long as women are doing it for themselves and not for a husband or father. I can’t imagine most women I know of getting overly enthused about domestic arts if it meant doing them for anybody but themselves.

Instead of being seen as a return to traditionalism; I would guess it’s really just another manifestation of ‘girl power’ and feminist illusions of ‘having it all’. Of course, in the Feminist Utopia, men would be enslaved and forced to do these domestic chores, while the women ran society and bred children with the males who are incapable of working. That’s really a lot closer to their ideals; and they already do this on an individual basis—depending on coercive laws and the voluntary submission of white knights and manginas, while they throw themselves sexually at thugs. But they don’t have the kind of legal power (yet) to make it universal.

If men want traditional wives, they’ll have to find them outside the Anglosphere. Until there’s any evidence that this ‘return to domesticity’ includes men; it’s still better to embargo Anglo-American women altogether.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Eric March 30, 2012 at 15:58

Dawn:
The feminist idea of freedom is only the freedom to follow their philosophy. True freedom includes the choice not to change.

“The government is a very abusive husband…women need to see this for themselves.”

The problem is, I think that most women DO see it for themselves. Not only does the government do exactly what you described (to men mostly); but—and this can’t be overlooked—most women seem not to mind ‘abusive husbands’ very much. For example, even though the divorce rate is well over 60% and women end marriages (as well as LTRs), nearly 90% of the time, the FBI’s own statistics show that a woman will leave an ‘abusive relationship’ seven times before she quits! And who knows what percentage of those women move on to another thug afterwards?

If mentioned this before, but I have rarely ever seen women abandoning a relationship because she met a ‘bigger, better deal.’ In almost every case that I know of (my own exs, those of friends, female relatives, &c), she’s left for a complete loser. This isn’t just ‘sour grapes’; these guys I’m speaking of have had long histories of arrests, addictions, mental illnesses, no steady employment, &c. Yet, that seems to be what women prefer in a male (I won’t call them men).

I even know of cases—several of them—where men actually changed their behavior—went from being decent, responsible men to complete abusers of women. Every single one of these guys has seen female attention and devotion to them increase radically.

“On the whole, most, not every woman, is stupid.”

Probably most of them are deeply hateful to men, but not stupid. I think most of them know exactly what they’re doing. They deliberately choose inferior males and depreciate good ones as a means of displaying their contempt for everything masculine, and reinforcing their own sense of superiority over men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5
Eric March 30, 2012 at 16:04

Bryan:
Good points, but the only flaw in your analysis is that ‘women don’t need men and rely on the government instead.’ Actually, this an illusion. Women need men far more than men need them. The government is only a make-shift substitute. As ironic as sounds, the best way to get them off freebies, is to for men to ignore them altogether and force women to rely more and more on the state. As men increasingly MGTOW or opt for foreign wives, feminism will end up imploding under its own dead-weight like the Soviet Union did.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
American March 30, 2012 at 16:46

Ted gets defensive when i post that American Gender-Raunch are “Empowering” themselves from the perverted and manufactured statistics with American law enforcement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12
The First Joe March 30, 2012 at 17:17

@Bryan -
Strongly rejecting your call for (suicidal) men to violently “eliminate” feminist women.
Seriously, you seem to be applying to be the Valerie Solanas* of the MRM. That’s fucked up, wrong and an(other) own-goal for the MRM.

(*she was a violent psycho, wrote the SCUM manifesto, shot + tried to kill that awful patriarchal oppressor… Andy Warhol. She’s a radfem heroine. For fuck’s sake.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
Anonymous age 69 March 30, 2012 at 17:50

I have been teaching English to 6 young people.

1. 20 year old female, gorgeous, very thin. She can cook anything.
2. 15 year old female, cute, not real thin but not a fatty, she can cook most things.
3. A 14 year old female, thin, sister of #1, can cook a lot, not everything.
4. A 12 year old boy, brother of #1, he can cook most things.
5. A 14 year old female, she was cooking when her mom was sick, when she was 6 years old. She had to climb up on a chair to reach the stove, but she did it.
6. A 12 year old girl, sister of #2, burns water, her sister’s words.
7. Boy, 10 year old brother of #5, don’t know how much he can cook, but I have seen him cooking.
So, here in my little Mexican village, out of 5 young women, 4, only excepting a giggly 12 year old, of the females can cook. Actually, I am surprised the one can’t cook.
Living here is a tough job, but someone has to do it, I guess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6
Anonymous age 69 March 30, 2012 at 17:52

Oops! #7 doesn’t participate in the English classes.

While I believe we have a right and duty to be angry about how we are treated, I agree advocating killing women is past the pale.

Expat, and let the Huns do it when they come, heh, heh.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
crella March 30, 2012 at 18:16

Uncle Elmer-

I’ve been perusing some of the abstracts from those ‘scientific papers’…here’s a gem of an abstract about grinding on the dance floor-

“In this article, the author explores the gendered dynamics of “grinding,” sexualized dancing common at college parties. Drawing on the observations of student participant observers, the author describes the common script for initiating this behavior. At these parties, men initiated more often and more directly than women, whose behaviors were shaped by a sexual double standard and (hetero-) relational imperative. The heterosexual grinding script enacts a gendered dynamic that reproduces systematic gender inequality by limiting women’s access to sexual agency and pleasure, privileging men’s pleasure and confirming their higher status.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
Ted March 30, 2012 at 19:00

@American March 30, 2012 at 16:46

” Ted gets defensive when i post that American Gender-Raunch are “Empowering” themselves from the perverted and manufactured statistics with American law enforcement.”

Yeah, yeah. But, defensiveness aside, why did you write his name as “Thomas belle”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Ted March 30, 2012 at 19:07

@Crella

Thanks for the quote.

gendered dynamics … “grinding,” … (hetero-) relational imperative … gendered dynamic … systematic gender inequality … sexual agency and pleasure …

Could almost be American (on a good day).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Ted March 30, 2012 at 19:18

@Bryan

“I’m not suggesting that there would be any moral justification in gunning down 10 random women before taking one’s own life.”

Then why bring the idea up, Bryan?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Ted March 30, 2012 at 19:33

@Bryan March 30, 2012 at 19:22

” I am not bringing up the idea of random killings against random women.”

No, you just write about it. In order to say you’re not suggesting it.

Of course.

” selective neutralization … high value enemy targets, … leaders … cells… takes 2-3 high profile feminist organizers/agitators/murderers with him…” etc

Your imagination might be put to more effective use by producing fantasy videos a la Hollywood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
crella March 30, 2012 at 19:39

‘that Norway shooter guy was able to get a massive amount of exposure for his manifesto to the point where the world has access to it and a great many people have read it.’

How many have discounted it because of what he did? Taking people out with you does not guarantee they’ll listen to you .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Ted March 30, 2012 at 19:47

“I am not suggesting we engage in random drive-by violence against women who are presumably minding their own business in public. ”

That’s very reasonable of you, Bryan.

“However”

Hah

“I believe we
all have the capacity to determine what is just and unjust
and who has engaged in behavior that makes them deserving of death.”

We all do? Suppose there’s a spot of disagreement here and there? It’s not unheard of.

We already have a system for dealing with that – the legal system. It doesn’t work properly, but your efforts would be better directed into coming up with ways of fixing it than the violent insurrection you are advocating.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
Ted March 30, 2012 at 19:55

“I am saying that it is time to utilize this asset to put women in their place by neutralizing the violent feminist leadership that openly calls for our murder and that closes ranks and provides resources in defense of women who murder random men, who murder male activists, who murder their husbands, etc…”

Assassination is not the way.

How about heavy fines?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Charles Martel March 30, 2012 at 20:06

Bryan
I am suggesting that we use highly selective and limited violence so that our enemies are literally terrified to act in an unjust manner.

Bryan, you’ve made one violent comment after another, advocating mass murder, mutilation and now terrorism. This is a minority viewpoint, to say the least I suggest you keep these thoughts to yourself. If this were my web site your comments would already be down the memory hole.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 14
Ted March 30, 2012 at 20:06

“I am not interested in working within a system that gave Solanas three years for the attempted murder of three individuals.”

So agitate for longer sentences in cases like hers. Easier than scrapping the whole system.

“When the system is sick it is best to destroy it and replace it with one that will serve the interests of the people, serve justice.”

Sounds great. So who’s going to design the new system?

You?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, … ” etc etc etc

“Jefferson advocating abolishing what was then the present form of government and replacing it with a new one. ”

Sure. And look what’s happened to it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel March 30, 2012 at 20:27

Bryan
My remarks about acid in the face or breasts being chopped off, that is all esoteric and metaphorical.

Bullshit. Now that The Spearhead is in the SPLC’s crosshairs you can guarantee that some feminist apparatchik is collecting screenshots of anything that looks interesting to them. Your intentions will be irrelevant if the SPLC or whomever decides to put Bill out of business.

All viewpoints deserve to be heard. Let everybody share their views and let the readers decide which ideas deserve further consideration.

Bullshit again. Incitement to violence is not protected speech under the First Amendment. Your comments are inflammatory and indefensible. As a matter of fact, in all the time I’ve been reading The Spearhead I have not seen such a catalog of horrors as your comments in this thread. What does that say about you?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 8
Rob March 30, 2012 at 20:35

I know I shouldn’t step into it with this guy but…

Me thinks, by Brian’s own logic, that he is a Marxist.

Marxists, after all, promote mass-murder. And here we have someone who is promoting the mass-murder of people he deems enemies.

Of course, there is always a justification somewhere. That is the problem with Marxist thought, because it is bound to no Absolute Truth, only Relative Truth. Once you only have the Relative Truth, there is a justification for everything and anything – somewhere – which is the real problem that makes so many Marxists into horrific mass-murderers.

We see the same relative thinking logic at play here with Brian suggesting the demise of his enemies.

Further to add to my case, you can see how Brian finds a Thesis from someone and then obviously provides an Anti-Thesis to the argument, wishing to come to some sort of Synthesis through debate. It is a hallmark of Marxism.

Some examples:

At March 29, 2012 at 13:54, I made a very lengthy comment that related how the West was mired in Marxism, wherein I discussed Hillary Clinton’s role, the United Nation’s CEDAW Agreement which is already signed by all but a few of the nations of the world, and so on. I also clearly related that their goal was to bring us under Marxist control, along with the whole world – and warned several times that the West is almost already there. Further, I discussed Transvaluation to illustrate one way how the West is being conquered.

At March 29, 2012 at 14:15, Bryan replied in his first line: I agree with 98% of what you stated…” and goes on to relate that the 2% he doesn’t agree with is that they want to evolve people, but rather mass-murder them.

Or in other words, Brian pretty much agreed with my premise, except the small “flaws” he pointed out.

However, at March 29, 2012 at 23:45, he tells me that I ought to know how to recognize Marxism because it is here, right in my own country of Canada – and he now indicates I don’t know how to recognize it.

“Do you recognize that Canada is functionally and de facto a Marxist nation… Not the hardcore Soviet variety, but Marxist regardless…”

This is an anti-thesis on several levels.

Well, first of all, he has already acknowledged before, that I did indeed know that Canada is pretty much a Marxist State – in his own words he indicated such by agreeing with 98% of what I said. However, also note that he declares that Canada is a functional and defacto Marxist state – not the Soviet hardcore variety, but Marxist regardless.

Well, now he is offering an anti-thesis to his own newly synthesized thesis, that being, Marxism is not about evolving people, but mass-murdering them. Well, is Canada genociding the politically incorrect? Not as far as I know. We do, however, try to socially engineer and “evolve” our people through peaceful means. But mass-murder? Nope.

So, if Marxism must involve mass-murder, then it is impossible for Canada to be Marxist. It simply doesn’t fit the definition Brian himself gives. It is an anti-thesis to his own thesis.

It does, however, fit my definition, that Marxism does not have mass-murder as an ironclad cornerstone, but rather is more about evolving people into new, better humans. In Canada’s case, we concentrate on social evolution… certainly not mass-murder.

Another anti-thesis Brian gives is: Of course Marx wanted mass-murder! He just couldn’t say it directly. But that’s what he meant!

Well, this is interesting conjecture, but since he doesn’t clearly and objectifiably advocate this, it is 100% unprovable.

However, he then wants me to keep climbing his staircase of synthesized truths by trying to goad me into disproving something that is not even provable in the first place. If Brian cannot clearly provide evidence for his new thesis – because by his own acknowledgement, it didn’t happen except in the way Brian himself “reads between the lines,” then it is the height of insanity to ask another to waste his time disproving it. How? By giving cites and quotes?

The only thing to do is to “step out of it,” (it being this dialectical nightmare of synthesized truths) for it is impossible to argue with a Marxist who adheres to truth that changes simply to suit one’s own purposes.

OK, I said my piece about Bryan.

You can’t really blame such stuff as comparing dicks in cyber-space.

Someone was here giving out gobs and gobs of free info, without arguing with anyone at all. Someone else comes along and undermines the living piss out of him by sneaky manipulation and completely dishonest logic. When Person A says “piss up a rope,” the manipulator screeches about what an asshole the other person is and all the people who were only half paying attention to the discourse go “tsk tsk, the boys are battling and comparing dicks in cyberspace.”

It’s not just the circular firing squad that causes MRA’s to fail. It’s the fact that the people who actually do have knowledge are tired of being forced to argue with people, for no reason, and are not even allowed to become angry about blatant manipulation. Small wonder they throw up their hands and say “fuck it then, I could have saved you five years of searching, but you can all piss off and do it for yourself.”

It is for this reason that the MRM never gets anywhere more than anything else. Nobody manages to stick around for more than three years. Even now, I have not been around the MRM all too much over the past year or so, and I only recognize about 15% of the names now. Of the guys I started MGTOW blogging with years ago, there must only by 2% of them still at it.

We don’t have a university to go to, and despite the great work guys like Bill does with his articles, the theory of MRA (counter to feminism) is built right here, in the comments section. That’s why reading the comments in MRM sites are so much more productive than in other sites.

There are some guys around that have so much information in them, they could fire out links, quotes, concepts on almost any subject you could come up with. They have honed their writing skills, they have read, studied, pondered, read and studied some more, sometimes over decades.

But they never stick around for more than a little while, and then move on – maybe to return – but quite often not.

The result?

The MRM stays about age three. It has been age three ever since I found it. Everybody starts from square one, finding everything out for themselves, gets three years in, and leaves.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Rinse.

Repeat.

It’s been going on for three or four decades now.

Age three forever.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3
Charles Martel March 30, 2012 at 20:45

Bryan
What do you know about the law?

An appeal to authority. Tell me you’re a lawyer. LOL.

For 99.9% of Americans the law has nothing to do with Supreme Court decisions and very little to do with justice. It has everything to do with money. Any small business with shoestring financing is highly vulnerable to a motivated player with deep pockets.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7
Charles Martel March 30, 2012 at 20:47

Okay, you’ve really annoyed me now… Learn the difference between an I and a Y, it’s not that f—king hard to figure out. I take the time to spell other folks names properly, why don’t you spell my name properly.

Showing a little temper there, Brian. But all that murder and mayhem stuff, that’s just rhetorical, eh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9
Rob March 30, 2012 at 20:55

“I don’t want another 30 years to go by without meaningful change. Change takes time and work but I want the change in 5 years or 10 years, not 30 years or 100 years.”

Pretty much Lenin’s thinking too. Thus, the first mass-murdering Marxist dictator came into being, with the help of Relative Truth coupled to his own personal ambition.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
Rob March 30, 2012 at 21:21

BrYan at 19:20

I am not suggesting that we engage in wholesale and random violence against those undeserving of being the target of such violence.

And,

BrYan March 29, 2012 at 21:14

Yes, many women are self-styled and bitches and they embrace this “bitch” identity. They will even openly identify as bitches with their t-shirts, “psycho bitch” or whatever it might be.

Maybe I’m a hater for stating this… For somewhere around 97-98% of Western women, there’s nothing wrong with them that death wouldn’t solve.

For all intents and purposes they are useless to society and civilization. As a civilization we are limping along in spite of their interference. (Rob interprets: Useless Eaters?)

They are not an asset to us in any way, shape, or form.

A mass die-off in the West, especially of women, may be just what civilization needs, but manginas would sacrifice themselves to see that women don’t even break a nail, let alone have to experience the horror of starving to death once the government nanny state welfare money is gone.

BrYan is a walking Marxist Dialectical Argument unto himself.

Thesis in one ear, Anti-thesis in the other, Synthesis out his mouth.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 6
Charles Martel March 30, 2012 at 21:25

Brian
I advocate the removal from society of those who seek to disrupt and destroy civilization as we know it.

“removal from society”…..

You mean like Pol Pot removal from society? Or like Stalin removal from society?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 14
Charles Martel March 30, 2012 at 21:30

You know what, Brian, I think you’re Firepower. You had a few drinks tonight and decided to share Firepower’s Big Plan (TM). Now we know why you usually stick to two sentences.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 11
Rob March 30, 2012 at 21:56

The only way to win a dialectical argument is to step out of it.

This is why I am such a hardcore MGTOW. The MGTOW Manifesto has nothing to do with marriage striking or swearing off women.

It is about instilling masculinity in men, instilling femininity in women, and working towards limited government.

But on a completely different level, it is also THE ANSWER.

There are three levels men are getting screwed on.

1). The Personal – Our personal lives are put at too much risk given the way the government has interfered in our interpersonal relationships. We all know this one, and this is why MGTOW is so associated with the marriage strike.

2). The Political – The way they screwed us into this situation was by making “The Personal into The Political.” And the way out of it, is to Go Your Own Way – MGTOW takes the Political out of the Personal. If I “step out of it,” I am not affected by the Political. If I don’t believe the lies, I can Go My Own Way. I can reduce my work-load and legally reduce the amount of tax dollars I give to a state that wants to wring every nickel out of me and hand it over to political causes and social manipulations I expressly disagree with. They’re still gonna take my nickels, but there’s just gonna be less nickels to take. I’m Going My Own Way and deciding what my life will be about -” So I took off my hat and said imagine that! Me! Working for you.”

3). The Philosophical – The way Marxists manipulate the Dialectic cannot be countered by a grass-roots movement. It’s like a fly caught in a spider’s web. The more he fights back, the more trapped he becomes. Marxists work “top down” and are waiting for the Useful Idiots to build a grass-roots movement to ask for some equality pie. Then you suddenly find yourself further into the web. You cannot win by fighting it. You can only win by not playing the game and “stepping out of it.” Literally, stepping out of the Dialectic and returning to Absolute Truth is the right and proper way to defeat the Dialectical manipulations. It is the only way that works.

Men Going Their Own Way is the “Right Way.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 3
Oddsock March 30, 2012 at 23:21

Charles & Ted

Wow ! You never give me that much attention. I am hurt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
andybob March 30, 2012 at 23:38

“As a matter of fact, in all the time I’ve been reading The Spearhead I have not seen such a catalog of horrors as your comments in this thread.” Charles Martel

Well said, Mr Martel. Neither have I. If Bryan-with-a-Y is not a radfem plant, then he may as well be for all the ammunition he has just given them to brand this site as promoting hatred and violencee. Well done, shithead.

Anyone who advocates mass murder and then qualifies it by reassuring us that no “mutilation” will be involved, just has to be taking the piss. Even as a joke, this vile filth is a massive fail. As serious commentary it is juvenile fantasy jumbled with sophomoric political hyperbole. Either way, it has no place here.

It is good to see other Spearhead readers condemning commenters whose reactionary rants are undermining the MRM. Ted has become our most reliable bullshit detector. Rob, well, you’re a genius – we need steel-trap minds like yours. Bryan…not so much.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
migu March 31, 2012 at 00:20

I’ve been studying fifth column tactics. The fifth column arrived in force shortly after the SPLC release.

I’d reccomend alinskys book. You’ll be able to spot them easier. Think the bubblegum incident.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4
The Caliph March 31, 2012 at 00:27

This Bryan is some kind of fifth column.

Dude, are you listening to the shit coming out of your mouth?

YOU’RE NUTS!!!!!!!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
MKP March 31, 2012 at 00:38

As a (not very) established reader, I hereby explicitly join others in rejecting the talk of violent attacks against women.

Far be it from me to tell anyone else what to do/think/say. But if you’re a new guy in a group in which you want to participate and be heard, the best thing to do is to collect your thoughts and make a few well-thought-out comments – at least in the early going.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Joe March 31, 2012 at 00:46

@WF Price

I don’t believe you regard these social changes as being a spontaneous reaction to tight restrictions. They are a reaction to social engineering. In places like Spain, the Left has been fanatical for a very long time. Of course there was a counter-reaction to the Franco regime, but considering what the Franco regime replaced, it’s rather mild. Especially when one hears of the same feminist extremism in much of the rest of Western Europe.

This article is a great example of social engineers bragging about their power to transform women’s behavior with propaganda:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/09/girl-power/gorney-text

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
MKP March 31, 2012 at 00:53

And, Mr. Price, I would least of all flatter myself to think I could give orders to you. Clearly, you have a tough job – so many guys come here to talk important issues, with intense opinions formed by strange and difficult circumstances. I could understand wanting to let a discussion “play out” rather than try to silence a man who just happens to have strong opinions.

At the same time, it takes rather little to put you on some serious list somewhere. I can personally say that if truly odious comments get deleted, I wouldn’t stop reading or lower my opinion of you.

This is not a reference to anyone in particular – it could be some new guy, some commentor who’s been here for years, or anyone in between. It could even be me. Just saying – don’t keep thinking “let everyone talk it out” until you have a series of threats of violence that you are going to have to answer for personally at some point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Boxer March 31, 2012 at 01:00

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 22
Boxer March 31, 2012 at 01:03

Dear Bryan:

When you have lost a debate resort to twisting a man’s words, insulting him, smearing him, and then call him somebody else.

Yeah, that’s Charles Martel for you. The last time I talked to him, I got him so riled up that he accused me and the admin of having homosexual congress. He’s entertaining, and has a puerile and filthy mind, but on the low end of the intelligence scale. Fit for cheap entertainment and not much else. I’ll leave you to it.

Regards, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12
Boxer March 31, 2012 at 01:05

Wow ! You never give me that much attention. I am hurt.

It’s nice to see the usual spankards are chasing around a new flock of people, begging for more abuse, flinging bizarre racist theories around, blaming Jews for everything, and otherwise kooking out. There is nothing new under the sun, as the saying goes.

Regards, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12
fondueguy March 31, 2012 at 01:26

@trollking

” Women have long blamed “old boy’s network” for lack of achievement and income, yet connections mean a higher first wage and brainpower soon overtakes says 25 yearlong study”

Yep that’s about all it takes to realize that women aren’t pure. And it always happens when you’re alone with them outside of the main company. They just let you know about a totally different side they have, and not just something they did but also the way they think about it.

I don’t know what thats about, maybe trying to relate to you by letting go of a bunch of skeletons? I have the strong feeling they say that commonly to their closer friends and think its just all normal to us guys too, even though it sounds crazy. Of course once your back in the regular company it is as if nothing was ever said and they are right back to their typical behaviour/attitude.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
fondueguy March 31, 2012 at 01:28

Oops, mis quote. I can’t select text on this page but that was in response to women dropping “bombshells” on.you about the bad shit they did/do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Oddsock March 31, 2012 at 01:47

Boxer

As ever, fascinating comments. With regards to Keyster and Charles, although I have had quite a few disagreements with both I always try and remind myself we are all on the same side. Now, having said that, one of the most frustrating things I find is that so many Americans seem so far behind the reality learning curve it is at times, breathtaking.

Despite my best efforts at understanding I just can’t understand why they constantly go back to the old hard reset position of seeing communism socialism at every turn. The best I can come up with is that its a result of many years of the ” Red under the bed ” syndrome of the 60′s and70′s. This is why I sometimes lose it with them and let my ego take over and try in what ever way I can to explain to them that I am not a leftist or socialist I am a political athiest and any MRA that is truely aware of reality would have a similar view.

I just cant grasp why they won’t or simply refuse to accept the political left right paradigm is nothing but smoke and mirrors to give an illusion of choice, and still, almost every post is littered with “Cultural Marxism” or “Socialism etc etc, and as you say as much in one sentance; “your real enemies are laughing at you and picking your pockets”.

The reply is usually a scream of conspiracy tin foil hat nutter. Even despite the overwhelming evidence easily found on the web. Breathtaking, simply breathtaking.

Boxer have a listen to this. Hey maybe Osama Bin Laden managed to make the put options ( a bet the airline shares would drop ) a few days before the attack on his Blackberry from some cave ?

Terror trading 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J3qyDQU7ic&feature=player_embedded

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15
Boxer March 31, 2012 at 02:00

Dear Oddsock:

The reply is usually a scream of conspiracy tin foil hat nutter. Even despite the overwhelming evidence easily found on the web. Breathtaking, simply breathtaking.

Yeah. The only serious Marxist philosophers left are a small group of religious (Protestant Christian theologians) types in Europe. They write some interesting stuff, but they’re not at all significant. Political Marxism long ago morphed into stuff like Habermas’ discourse ethics (I’ll leave it for the usual kooks to try and lecture on this as though they know what they’re talking about — should be entertaining). Anyway, you’re right. Marxism failed long ago, and has since been replaced by new channels of thought. History defeated it much more soundly than the men’s rights movement ever would have. It simply had too many flawed premises to survive very long.

As for 9/11… I don’t know. I don’t think anyone knows all the fine details about that for certain. I shall listen to it and get back here soon.

Best, Boxer

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 17
migu March 31, 2012 at 02:48

Marxism failed huh?

Seems to me it’s working just fine. The trilateral defence summit meets on the second.

They set the agenda yesterday. Sounds like a Comintern goal accomplished to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5
Joe March 31, 2012 at 03:09

MGTOW has minimal political impact because that’s the goal of the these policies, to sideline men like us. It’s a philosophical choice. A kind of resignation to fate. Not a political choice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
Oddsock March 31, 2012 at 03:18

Migu

Its quite simple Marxism is just a political label like any other to be used by the elite, the globalists, the banksters.

Here, have a watch of this, it is of special interest to you Americans.

Keyster, observe the American woman at 9.20. The penny finally drops as she can no longer rationalize away hard in your face as it happens evidence. There is no feckin left right politics. Wake the feck up and forget trying to blame marxism socialism or any other ism they are just fronts causing the plebs to waste time arguing and divert attention away from the real villains.

OK, here is the oddsock prediction. Unless the vast majority of Americans wake up Obama will be elected for a second term, its a certainty, voting will make no difference and they will go to war with Iran.

Ron Paul: Democracy is being stolen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtHiA7TJUV0&feature=player_embedded#!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8
migu March 31, 2012 at 03:40

Perhaps I should’ve said the plan of action is working.

I quit voting in 2004.

I am well aware there isn’t a lick of difference between D and R.

It’s my understanding that the eventual goal of the top tier is world government with the ability to crush any dissent. It seems to me what has become known as cultural Marxism is the methodology being used to accomplished this goal.

Call em whatever you want. NWO Marxist whatever they are, the cultural strategy has been implemented and is succeeding. I too believe MGTOW is the winning play.

PS you would love mises and rothbard. They were pointing all the fed stuff out back in 1920′s. Mises was anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Oddsock March 31, 2012 at 03:49

Cheers Migu

I will try and look them up.

Although you are 100% correct about there being not a lick of difference between the Republicans and Democrats. ( Been the same in the UK for years with Labour and Conservative ) Voter apathy here is at a record high with a huge rise in support for the extreme political parties. The point I am trying to make is that it is of little consequence to your average Joe who is actually voted in. It is simply a front to give the populace the illusion that their vote will make a difference. Government policy of any western country still follows its chosen path regardless of what the people say or who they vote into office.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6
migu March 31, 2012 at 04:06

Absolutely oddsock.

Been trying to convince people since my second tour. It gets annoying always having to start at the beginning.

I understand the three year cycle.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
The First Joe March 31, 2012 at 06:32

Agreeing with posters above that “Bryan” is probably an agent provocateur here to get the Spearhead taken offline by the feds.
(It wouldn’t surprise me if “Bryan” is e.g. Vliet Tiptree / Patricia O’Shaugnessey. It would fit with her agenda of bringing about gendercide by any means)

Let’s review:
- “he” says “he”‘s a White Nationalist
- rants at length about Jews
- makes bloodcurcdling calls for horrible violence against women.
When other posters here tell “him” off for proposing violence, “he” persists.

Which posts do you think the radfems campaigning against the MRM are going to screencap, eh?
Radfems + white knights would LOVE to see all MRAs indefinitely detained by the military as “terr0r1sts” under the 1o22 / I023 sections of NDAA. “Bryan” just played right into their hands.

If I were Welmer I’d block “Bryan”‘s IP.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Rob March 31, 2012 at 08:59

You’re using words for which you don’t know the definitions. — Boxer

Or maybe I’m simply following Orwell’s Politics and the English Language, and choosing to find words that communicate clearly rather than impress people.

Sure, Boxer. The Dialectic merely means an argument. Hegel didn’t invent it. If Position A (Thesis) is correct (1+1=2) then traditional logic dictates that Position B (Anti-thesis) is incorrect (1=1=3). Easy Speazie! No need to carry on.

Hegel took Position A (Thesis) and Position B (Anti-thesis) and equalized them in value, claiming the truth lay in the Synthesis, or comprise/consensus, that arises out of the two. [(1+1=2) + (1+1=3)] divided by 2 = 2.5 (Synthesis) This synthesis now becomes the new Thesis and another anti-Thesis is pitted against it, creating yet another Synthesis, and so on, and so on, and so on. It works in a “staircase” fashion over history, one new truth building upon another – more or less like when a precedent gets set in a court of law, it becomes a “new truth” that is the basis for future court cases.

eg. Since we’ve already established that 2.5 is the new Thesis, we can now go [(1+1=2.5) + (1+1=4)] divided by 2 = 3.25 (Synthesis/New Thesis)

This is the foundation of Hegel’s work, which ultimately boils down to “The Truth is Relative.” This was fundamental and groundbreaking at the time, because up until Hegel did this, the Western World followed the standard of Absolute Truth, because they were following the Bible (God is a representative of the Absolute Truth – no truth can over-ride him, not one). This is why Christianity and Marxism cannot co-exist in the same philosophical space. They are 100% contradictory.

Now, keep in mind, that is only what Hegel did. Next is where you get into manipulating the Dialectical Argument. (Hegel’s version finds the synthesized truths in a “natural” or haphazard fashion).

Marx then came along and said, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to CHANGE it.”

Marx says, “Hey, you know, how can I use Hegel’s thing-a-ma-jiggy to bring about the goals I want to see in society?”

So Marx BEGINS with what he would like to see, and then thinks of the arguments, or a series of arguments that will lead people to that conclusion.

Marx says, “How can I convince society to believe that/ask for the 3.25 synthesized truth to appear, and he purposefully thinks up arguments – sometimes 3 or 4 or 5 steps ahead, which will lead society to this conclusion. So, in other words, while Hegel’s version finds the “truth” in a haphazard fashion, Marx’s version already has a predetermined goal. Marx works the equation backwards, or more accurately (if I could put diagrams in this comment instead of math) from the “top down” while Hegel works from the “bottom up.”

“Dialectical thought is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to the laws of motion.” — Leon Trotsky

Of course, the purely accurate term for the whole crapola is Dialectical Materialism.

But then again, hey, what I just described above is just so flippin’ easy to understand and, well, it’s so positively engrossing for the average reader, why not throw in big words that mean nothing to laymen, like Dialectical Materialism, which really don’t mean jack-shit to anyone but those airheads who think fancy degrees and big words make them above others.

I’d rather clearly communicate ideas, than impress with vast knowledge coupled with big words and not get my point across but to only 1% of the people who read it – also known as Academic’s Disease (See again, Politics and the English Language linked above).

Not that the men on this board are children, but think of it this way:

If you are teaching a child to cross the street, you want him to be able to identify what a car is. All I am concerned with is that he understands what a car is (it has four wheels, moves fast, and goes vroom vroom, and is dangerous). That is what is needed to get my point across.

It is completely unnecessary, at this point anyway, to also explain that a car has an exhaust system, shock absorbers, a radiator and a fuel injection system. And also, that it technically ought not be called a car but rather an “automobile.”

I long ago decided that if I was speak of complex issues to the MRM, I was going to stop trying to impress people with big gobble-die-gook terms, and rather bring things to them clearly, by talking like a trucker or a farmer.

And boy oh boy, can I sometimes talk like a farmer in the barn or a trucker in a traffic jam!

Besides, I have so much disrespect for all things Academia, that I just love watching their nerdy little heads explode over the minute details that really don’t matter a whit to 99% of the population, nor should they.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
keyster March 31, 2012 at 09:15

“OK, here is the oddsock prediction. Unless the vast majority of Americans wake up Obama will be elected for a second term, its a certainty, voting will make no difference and they will go to war with Iran.”

If “voting will make no difference”, than how will Obama be elected to a second term (or anyone for that matter)? You can link to YouTube videos about the mysterious Illuinati controlling our conscience through slight of hand, but you don’t understand the American political process and democratic system. That’s OK, most Americans don’t either; a greater than 30% turn-out to vote for anybody is huge.

I lived in a very Red county and voted Libertarian because I knew my vote didn’t matter. I now live in a very Blue county and I’ll vote Libertarian because again, I know my vote won’t matter.

What determines the upcoming election is purple counties, within purple states. Their vote WILL count. The hard Red and Blue, are already decided. This won’t be a rout, like Reagan over Carter, but it will be a fairly decisive indictment of Obama’s presidency. Don’t listen to our media and their loaded polls. You have to live here. The love affair between this hip/cool charismatic mulit-culti figure and America is over. He has kinda sucked as a president, even when you consider he’s held to a different standard, as the figurehead for “Affirmative Action”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
Oddsock March 31, 2012 at 09:18

Rob

That was a superb breakdown. You should join the campaign for plain English. Its such a beautiful language but sadly so often used to confuse or as a tool for snobbery, but I must admit I do enjoy reading most of the comments from the likes of Boxer and quite a few others, regardless of the content.

Oddsocks version. Sometimes it is much easier to call a spade a feckin shovel rather than a wooden handled carbon steel digging implement.
Plus, keep in mind, ego is a big problem for most if not all of us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
Oddsock March 31, 2012 at 09:30

Keyster

Ok I can understand why you may think any video link I post is about conspiracy or the illuminati etc However, the last one I posted and now again below is nothing of the sort. It is a video of how the voting was so easily rigged with actual as it happened evidence, along with news clips of the bizare anomolies of the missing votes for Ron Paul.

I posted it for you Americans and can only suggest you watch it in full. I believe it is going viral? Nope no conspiracy just hard in your face evidence. Watch it in full and then tell me again voting makes a difference. Keyster you can call them whatever you want it does not matter one jot. Its quite simple. The PTB will decide who gets in and where, not that it matters anyway.

Ron Paul; Democracy Stolen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtHiA7TJUV0&feature=player_embedded#!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
keyster March 31, 2012 at 09:41

“Wake the feck up and forget trying to blame marxism socialism…”

Discussing various systems of governance with self-professed “political athiest”, is like not convincing a religious athiest that God exists. Of course EVERYTHING ELSE is inherently flawed to the nihilist/anarchist.

And a small cadre of the elite, the globalists and bankers are secretly acting as the World Government, if only we’d wake up and see it! …the proletariat must rise up in revolution to topple this oppressive bourgeoisie force and strive for self-rule, devoid of government oversight.

It all sounds pretty Marxist to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
Migu March 31, 2012 at 09:47

Yeah, without an absolute for right and wrong, you are left with mincemeat.

At least it’s tasty.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Oddsock March 31, 2012 at 09:57

Keyster

Good grief man take your head out of your fucking arse. You sound like one of those feminist dis info trolls. Did you watch the video on votes being rigged ? The hard in your face recorded evidence ! No I didn’t think so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9
Migu March 31, 2012 at 10:17

Discussing various systems of governance with self-professed “political athiest”, is like not convincing a religious athiest that God exists. Of course EVERYTHING ELSE is inherently flawed to the nihilist/anarchist.

This is disingenuous. It is no different than labeling a religious atheist a worshiper of Satan. If he doesn’t believe in God he doesn’t believe in Satan.

I happen to believe in doing right by people, and all evidence shows me that all wings of the state do wrong by people, and then bribe others with their ill gotten gains to agree with them and partake in the crow’s dinner. I have no intention of attending a carrion feast, a feast fit for only thieves.

And make no mistake about it, if you vote to take from others on the greater good principle you are no better than a common thief.

In America, there is only one vote that can deliver a clear conscience.

That vote is NO.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
keyster March 31, 2012 at 10:39

@Migu
“I happen to believe in doing right by people, and all evidence shows me that all wings of the state do wrong by people, and then bribe others with their ill gotten gains to agree with them and partake in the crow’s dinner.”

There has never been and never will be a perfect uncorrupt system of government. America’s forefathers anticipated, as best they could, an adaptation to human nature, acknowledging they couldn’t change it.

If you have a better system to manage civilization, that’s not been tried before, please illuminate us. It’s seems Americanism is the best so far, as countries that are not already tyrannical want it, or some verison of it. Are they wrong too?

@Oddsock
If you and Boxer could take it upon yourselves to respond in a civil, respectful, well thought-out manner (such as Rob above); rather than bursts of invective and high-brow dismissive rhetoric, you’d be upvoted, irrespective of your views.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
Boxer March 31, 2012 at 11:07

Dear Rob:

Thanks for the Orwell link. A long time ago I read The Road to Wigan Pier which followed the same lines (this may actually be a piece of it, I don’t remember). Orwell was a socialist who wondered why socialism didn’t take off. Inevitably it attracted either old ladies who wanted their bills paid or idealistic kids with their heads in the clouds.

Historical materialism (the technical term for what you’re talking about) is one part applied philosophy and another wishful thinking. Human society is simply too complex for central planning. Marx was hoping that people would dissolve themselves into tiny, self-sufficient anarchic communes where they made their own laws and exercised their own local power. It worked for people like the anabaptists on collective farms in Prussia, but he underestimated the credit such communities owed to capital itself.

In any event, MGTOW doesn’t take you out of the dialectic. There’s no way to get out of it. MGTOW makes you a force opposed to the current paradigm, which expects all participants to punch time clocks and contribute to the replication of the social order.

Keep writing. It’s fun to see a few thinkers around here…

Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9
Ted March 31, 2012 at 11:07

@The First Joe

“Bryan” is probably an agent provocateur”

Trying to provoke, definitely. Trying to provoke violence too. Immoral, and a danger to society generally. It’s not a joke and should be taken seriously.

On the internet, identities are relatively easy to create and spoofing is more common than in real life (not to say it isn’t common in real life either, but it’s more difficult to get away with there).

One thing you can do about it is to try to judge each post, whoever it comes from, in isolation. Only on its own merits. It’s less important who says something, more important what they say. For any particular identity, the consistency between posts should be given more weight. Any inconsistency should be examined closely.

Beware the politics of sides. Someone pretends to be in your group; on your “side”. On that basis, they then slip in the poison. This is how parasites operate, except they take a feed instead. The group or side can be anything: race, sex, sexual orientation, skin color, hair color even. Look for irrelevancies. It can be difficult to discern a group you are immersed in and take for granted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Oddsock March 31, 2012 at 11:08

Keyster

It doesn’t work with me mate. Fartpowder and a few others have tried.
and votes do not matter one jot.

What you mistake as my invective and high-brow dismissive rhetoric is simply me venting my shear frustration with a guy that is supposed to be an MRA and yet so naive it is stunning to say the least. You constantly use the tried and tested feminist tactic of projection and deflection rather than actually dealing with the hard basic facts laid right in front of you and when that eventually fails toss out the old chesnut of well, whats better and the gem; Everyone wants to be like America. Good feckin grief man. Have you ever travelled outside of the USA ? I doubt it very much. Having said all that, I forgot, you still believe that terrorists caused 9/11 and parafin not only melted but vapourised thousands of tons of steel therefore there is little point in trying to talk civil or common sense with you. Your brainwashing has been very thorough.

You remind me of the bandmaster on the Titanic telling the band members to play on as its only a leak, with the waves crashing around his ankles. Don’t worry, he was probably a Marxist too !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7
Boxer March 31, 2012 at 11:11

Dear Oddsock:

Thanks for the link. I just watched it. Very interesting.

I don’t take the exchanges as anything more than rigged games, and as such I don’t doubt the fact that “for forty minutes Deutsche Bank’s trading servers were taken over…”. The people on the trading floor always get their cut, and it’s a rigged game all the way down. Whether Osama did it or whether it was a bunch of greedy opportunists, I don’t know.

I used to work for a large commercial bank. We’re all just sheep to these guys. They’re organized shysters and thieves to the last one (and I’ll take a bit of the blame for that, because I was one of them for a while).

Regards, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8
Boxer March 31, 2012 at 11:18

It doesn’t work with me mate. Fartpowder and a few others have tried.
and votes do not matter one jot.

A long time ago, Ms. Poodles (firepower) boasted about hacking the voting system. Poodles is Keyster’s buddy, hence the downvotes. Being voted down is a compliment in context. It suggests that one can think for himself and doesn’t follow the conservative-mangina herd.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10
Rob March 31, 2012 at 11:41

“A long time ago I read The Road to Wigan Pier which followed the same lines” — Boxer

Orwell’s Collection of Books and Essays Online for Free

I’ll get back on the concept of MGTOW after some reflection. Quite frankly, I would like people to challenge me or point out mistakes I am making, so long as it is not climbing up on my back to simply undermine me for the hell of it. I am trying to re-write some of my old articles coupled with some new ones (trying to do one a week for a year – not all about Marxism, but perhaps 1/4 or 1/3 as the basis for the rest of the thesis) in a fashion that can easily be converted into a fluid book about “The Philosophy of Men Going Their Own Way.” I want to make sure what I am doing can stand up to the test. I won’t know that unless I am challenged on it. Also, I am not perfect and if I make mistakes, I want to know before rather than later.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Oddsock March 31, 2012 at 11:48

Rob

Interesting stuff indeed. I take it you will be familiar with the book The ragged trousered philanthropist ? Perhaps a good book for the likes of Keyster to read with a view to giving him the reasons and true meaning of socialism and not todays co opted and twisted version.

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/891

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7
keyster March 31, 2012 at 11:54

“Good feckin grief man. Have you ever travelled outside of the USA ? I doubt it very much.”

That’s the MO, insisting on making it personal while safely typing behind your LCD screen. You don’t know me, we’ve never met.

I’ve lived in China, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, UK, Germany and France at various points in my life. I still prefer my home country to any of those.

I realize you guys fancy yourselves the “Enlightened Intellectual Elite”, and anyone that disagrees with you is a member of the lowly unwashed masses, not even worthy of recognition. You and the other Alex Jones followers have WAY TOO MUCH faith in the competence of humanity, if you believe a a secret society controls the Universe. We’re not that good.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7
Oddsock March 31, 2012 at 12:15

Keyster

Look, my whole point has nothing to do with America or its politics as such or am I trying to promote some alternative system. I am simply trying my best to awaken people including yourself to not only the farce of left right politics but the obviously planned and ever increasing Orwellian police state. Something you not only wish to and encourage others to do but actually promote ever increasing loss of your rights. The evidence is overwhelming just by simple observation. You don’t have to be wearing a tin foil hat or conspiracy nut to see it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8
Oddsock March 31, 2012 at 12:25

Keyster

“I realize you guys fancy yourselves the “Enlightened Intellectual Elite”,

You are kidding right ? I am nothing more than a hairy arsed Boilermaker and although there is much a disagree with in your comments I still admire your writing skills and knowledge. Perhaps your main flaw is simply American exceptionalism?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
durandal March 31, 2012 at 12:30

@dawn

So instead of being a good helpmeet and partner, you drove your husband to depression, alcohol and drugs with your irrational dramatic bullshit, then took his children away, tried to extort CS from him and he refused, then proceeded to cuckold and slander him.

But you’re a good little trad-con woman now, eh? How many endless times have I heard the *exact* same fucking story from all the reformed sluts in my church (who seems to grow in number every year)? Either most boyfriends and husbands have turned into “abusive” monsters or we’ve got a lot more deluded and self-serving women. My bet is on the latter. Why do men (including the white knights in this thread) not realize that it is the inherent nature of ALL women to rationalize their selfishness and play victim when they are almost always the perpetrator in these instances?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6
Art Vandelay March 31, 2012 at 13:19

So instead of being a good helpmeet and partner, you drove your husband to depression, alcohol and drugs with your irrational dramatic bullshit, then took his children away, tried to extort CS from him and he refused, then proceeded to cuckold and slander him.

Yeah how do you get Child Support from a total addict? I think it sometimes gets inflated, take a pill when you can’t sleep and have a few glasses after work and you are labelled an alcoholic and drug addict. I see this all the time as a shaming tactic against men who go out and have fun…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
The First Joe March 31, 2012 at 13:48

@Boxer -

Orwell was NOT a socialist. Orwell was an anarchist who believed in free cooperation between people, not the (state-)enforced compliance of socialism.

Orwell fought as a volunteer in the trenches (he was shot through the neck) with the anarchist POUM against the Fascist forces in the Spanish Civil War. When the commies betrayed and turned on the anarchists in Barcelona he fought on the barricades there, and was eventually forced to escape to France.
Read “Homage to Catalonia” his first hand account of his time out there.
“Animal Farm” was his fictionalisation of his experience in Catalonia.
“1984″ was his vision of where socialism would take the world.

There are few writers more anti-tyranny be it socialist or fascist tyranny than Orwell. Fewer writers still who have actually taken up a rifle and put their lives on the line fighting against both.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Boxer March 31, 2012 at 14:07

Dear TFJ:

Orwell was NOT a socialist.

He certainly was a socialist. He described himself as such dozens (if not thousands) of times in print, belonged to socialist causes and parties, etc.

There are few writers more anti-tyranny be it socialist or fascist tyranny than Orwell.

Your problem is that you define socialism in the way that a few kooks on the spearhead define it (Keyster, Charles Martel, Firepower, and a few others) rather than by what it actually is, and by what everyone (from socialists themselves to their knowledgeable ideological opponents) know it to be. Suggest you read a bit of socialist literature: Orwell might be a good start. Thinking he “wasn’t a socialist” is the key to revealing that you’ve never actually read him.

Regards, Boxer

P.S.: You might also like reading Jack London and Belfort Bax, two other “not socialists according to the nutters on this blog” socialists. LOL!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8
keyster March 31, 2012 at 15:43

“I am simply trying my best to awaken people including yourself to not only the farce of left right politics but the obviously planned and ever increasing Orwellian police state.”

Well at least you’re very passionate about your political atheism.

Most people here don’t give a shit, which is sad given it’s supposed to be a representative government. Apathy among the citizenry is the REAL problem, not squabbling between the loudest idealogues on the left and right. Our population is wholly disengaged from the political process…but if a Kardashian is pregnant, OMG!

And yes, I believe in American Exceptionalism.
(Your dear mum and dad might have as well, around 1941 or so.)
After living around the globe, you get that way. We don’t know how good we have it here. That’s the travesty.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6
keyster March 31, 2012 at 16:06

“Your problem is that you define socialism in the way that a few kooks on the spearhead define it (Keyster, Charles Martel, Firepower, and a few others) rather than by what it actually is, and by what everyone (from socialists themselves to their knowledgeable ideological opponents) know it to be.”

Socialism is a fantastic idea if only those pesky dictators, tyrants, fascists and barbarians would step aside and let it work. Oh what has become of all the great socialist leaders? They just can’t seem to let go of their power.

On Animal Farm, the protagonist Old Major was doing socialism wrong, like Lenin and Stalin. If done right in theory it works, but by design it can’t be done right, because there’s not a man or men benevolent enough to see it through. Look at the hapless Castro brothers, in power since 1959. Obviously they’re not much better than the pigs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
Rob March 31, 2012 at 16:53

@ Boxer et. al,

My apologies, I said earlier that I would get back on MGTOW after a bit of reflection. I had a half-written response on the go when a minor family-related issue came up, and I haven’t been able to finish it, and I suspect I won’t be able to finish until tomorrow – I haven’t gotten into the political yet, nor have I proof read what I have written yet. But, I do have about two pages or so of the basic foundation of what I’m going to build upon, for how to escape the dialectical manipulation, and I will post it now. If you wish to deconstruct what I have so far, feel free.

***

“In any event, MGTOW doesn’t take you out of the dialectic. There’s no way to get out of it. MGTOW makes you a force opposed to the current paradigm, which expects all participants to punch time clocks and contribute to the replication of the social order.” — Boxer

I’m going to use some references to Christianity in the following, but I hope that it doesn’t devolve into an athiesm vs. the sky-fairy type of BS. I am not trying to convince anyone to take up Christianity. That’s your own business, not mine. (While I was raised in a Christian family and attended church while I lived in my parents’ house – a rule – I have not attended Church in 20 years except for weddings and funerals). The reason to use Christianity is as a philosophical reference to the Absolute Truth – which is represented in our past culture as God, and which is the counter to Hegel’s Relative Truth, which dethroned the Absolute Truth and caused a massive shift in the way we organized our views of the world.

When anthropologists study cultures, one of the most important things they seek to understand is that culture’s religion as it is one of the best ways to decipher other parts of the culture. In the West, it is fairly safe to say that Christianity is the dominant culture – or at least of the recent past. (ie. Let’s forget about Judaism and Rome etc. just to keep things simpler and look at times when Christianity was dominant in Europe – The Middle Ages to the recent). Therefore, to make any reasonable observations about our culture and its subsequent changes, the dominant religion (and shifts away from it) must also be observed.

Now, one of the things that was significant about the Bible, was that while it told us to fight against evil and to resist it, the Bible assures us that we cannot defeat it. Only God can defeat evil. We, as humans, simply cannot defeat it.

This is quite significant, because it puts us into the frame of mind that we must accept the world as it is, and make the best of it while we are here. Effective people do accept the world for what it is, and then they work within that paradigm to make the best that they can. Ineffective people rail against that which simply cannot be changed.

I might really, really, really want to be a successful business owner with the force of my life, but if I was born in the 1920′s Soviet Union, I would do best to accept that this is simply not an option, and is not going to be a reasonable option within my lifetime. Since I only have one life, I would do myself the most favours by simply accepting that fact, rather than railing against it.

The Serenity Prayer comes to mind here:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.

I think you can see, beyond the religion, the value and wisdom of living under this idea. Some things can be changed, other things simply cannot. The effective man living a good life, fights for what is possible, and accepts not all things are – and works around it.

This is the first part to “stepping out of it.” Accepting the world for what it IS. We all do have a choice of whether we want to live by the Real Truth or by the Relative Truth. On a personal level, nobody can force my mind to believe this:

[(1+1=2) + (1+1=3)] divided by 2 = 2.5 (Synthesis)
[(1+1=2.5) + (1+1=4)] divided by 2 = 3.25 (Synthesis/New Thesis)
etc. etc.

My mind is my own property. Not even the State can take it from me. No matter what, I can choose for myself whether that kind of math will rule my life. And, as the MGTOW Manifesto declares: “If it’s not right then Go Your Own Way.”

As for me and the house I will build with my life, it will be based on 1+1=2. Not 1+1=3, nor 2.5, nor even 2.000001 if I can help it. The end.

And this is very male. In fact, it is this very aspect of the male’s insistence that 1+1=2 versus the female’s belief that 1+1=3, that has pulled us out of the caves and into the highrise. It is the female principle that is mired in Relative Truth – women’s sense of fashion changes with the consensus of the herd, their views of desirable men are based with “social proofing” which is mere further consensus of the herd, and so on.

The male principle says it’s 1+1=2, silly cows! I don’t care how much you moo at me.

Heck, even Hegel acknowledges this:

“… Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated–who knows how?” — G.F. Hegel

Yup. The male principle is based on the insistence that 1+1=2 because of principle and logic (It’s not to say men always get there, or never screw up, but we get there far more often than women do). Women are educated by the herd’s consensus itself. If the herd believes that 1+1=3, it is right because of the herd says so, and simply for that reason alone. Women are the human form of Relative Truth, otherwise known as “The Rationalization Hamster.”

What cannot be changed? Well, women for one, and human nature for two. You cannot change women. You are not God. You cannot change Human Nature. You are not God. All you can do is accept it for what it is (1+1=2) and use that kind of math to build your life around these things.

Now, in the philosophical sense, I have already defeated the Dialectical Manipulations – at least in my own mind. And of course, this is the most important place of all. I have “stepped out of it.” I’m not gonna argue with women – they don’t argue for the same reasons we do. Men argue to seek truth, and hold each-other to truth. With the male principle, the guy who gets closest to truth is “the winner.” Women argue to socially manipulate, and the woman who wins socially (kinda like, um, getting the most up-votes in a comments section) is the one who is the “winner” and is considered “right.”

Democracy is a female principle – and always ends in instability and destruction.

Republic (Rule by Law/Principle) is a male principle – and provides stability and structure upon which further things can be solidly built.

And it matters very much which leads the other.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
Pat March 31, 2012 at 20:19

My older and younger sisters, 11 years apart in age, provide my anecdote. The older, a Democrat, put off childbearing for her career. Near menopause, she tried doctors to help her get pregnant to no avail. Now, she’s divorced. My younger sister is a conservative housewife with three daughters and a successful husband. She seems happy.

But if feminism dies out demographically, our rulers will impose it anyway, oppress critics and turn up the brainwashing, like they’re now doing with the gay agenda. Since socialists consider children state property for indoctrination, traditionalists must sooner or later vote with their feet, and physically get away, either regionally or even through complete immigration. I live overseas now, myself.

Like all forms of affirmative action, putting women ahead of men must one day bow to reality. At hardly anything except motherhood are women actually better than men. Another demographic trend, however, impedes conservative resurgence across Western civilization: the new Third World electorate our rulers are importing to create reliable votes for the Left. These will keep liberals in power to entrench their privileges and notions, including feminism, which is part of the “rainbow coalition.”

On the other hand, liberalism is a Western delusion that will die with our civilization. One day, the new Third World America will express humanity’s basic illiberalism, and end feminism, gay rights, etc. Ironically, the loathed/envied/followed white man is the only one who won’t actually shut them down by force.

To close with a bit of optimism, somehow something will be salvaged from the coming shipwreck. Somewhere, chastened survivors of Western civilization must go on. With no more PC diversity — including feminism — that remnant is bound to succeed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Boxer March 31, 2012 at 21:58

Dear Rob:

This is such a great followup I would like to reprint it on my own blog. I don’t do such stuff without the permission of the writer, though. What do you think?

There are a couple of inaccuracies here. I’ll briefly touch on them and wait for your response as to whether I can go deeper over there.

I might really, really, really want to be a successful business owner with the force of my life, but if I was born in the 1920′s Soviet Union, I would do best to accept that this is simply not an option, and is not going to be a reasonable option within my lifetime. Since I only have one life, I would do myself the most favours by simply accepting that fact, rather than railing against it.

I agree with the underlying point, but this is a faulty historical example. Soviet citizens were actually free to start businesses in the USSR in the 1920s, provided they were sole proprietorships or partnerships. Independent businesses were actually paid premiums to compete with state-run collectives just to get the drop on consumer want fluctuations. See Davies; From Tsarism to The New Economic Policy: Continuity and Change in the Economy of the USSR. (Cornell U. Press, 1991). In context, it was much simpler to start a business there than it is in the USA today. That says something about our society here, but I’ll leave it to the astute to figure out the meaning in the subtext.

Now, in the philosophical sense, I have already defeated the Dialectical Manipulations – at least in my own mind. And of course, this is the most important place of all. I have “stepped out of it.”

Foucault and the post-modernists tried this. I think it began with Heidegger or Walter Benjamin, and I know it came through Sartre. The dialectic doesn’t exist because all that exists, does so between my ears. That’s all fine and dandy if you want to live in a perpetual childhood, relying upon others to meet your needs. People build castles in the sky in the mental hospital and the kindergarten playroom, and not too many other places.

The reality is that you are a participant in the historical process. You don’t get to choose not to have a philosophy. You only get to choose which ideas you’ll hold on to (I’m paraphrasing Ayn Rand here). MGTOW doesn’t take the men who embrace it out of history. They are a part of history and functioning as part of the dialectic. The only way you can leave the historical process behind is to die or miracle yourself to another planet.

You really, really need to get to school, man. I see halfwits and women studying sociology and gender studies on the public dime, and very few men who are willing to write the sort of critical theory you’re attempting. There are a few of us, and more coming up.

I think men need to take advantage of some of the free money old Barack Obama is handing out. You’re quite good at it. Keep it up.

Best, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8
Rob March 31, 2012 at 22:24

This is such a great followup I would like to reprint it on my own blog. I don’t do such stuff without the permission of the writer, though. What do you think? — Boxer

Go ahead, and deconstruct as deeply as you can.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
migu March 31, 2012 at 23:01

The better system is local sovereignty keyster. Sometimes it’s called de-centralization.

I’ve given you the material before. Its up to you to read it. http://www.mises.org.

It’s all there. Enlighten yourself. The mises institute should satisfy your credentialing fetish as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
Oddsock March 31, 2012 at 23:03

Keyster

Interesting comments especially about American exceptionalism in 1941.

You may find this vid interesting ? Many Americans love the guy simply for having the balls to go to your senate and use them as mop. ( A quote made by an American )

George Galloway British MP ( Socialist) V US Senate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbk&feature=player_embedded

P.s. you still don’t seem to grasp why and what socialism is about, certainly not the early UK version. Basically it was about protecting and improving the lot of the working class man and lift him out of poverty and extreme working conditions. That’s also why I suggested you at least take a glance at the Ragged Trousered Philanthropist to give you a more rounded view rather than just assume it is or was a Marxist communist plot.

Enjoy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6
Boxer April 1, 2012 at 01:11

Oddsock:

Keyster and other American conservatives are not on the side of any man here, nor are they on the side of men. They are firmly in the camp of the deadliest enemies of men. They are feminists, misandrists and hate filled lunatics through and through, and this fact is so obvious that it hardly bears repeating.

A red state conservative republican, Mike Crapo, is the sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act, has helped to craft and write it with the support of the conservatives and republicans, which destroys families and ruins the lives of countless men. George W Bush, the war criminal, along with his neocon/Trotskyist vice president Cheney, have killed thousands of men in a failed attempt to export feminism (a product of the USA and its way of life) to other nations which don’t want anything to do with it. In doing so they have bankrupted a nation which was built on surplus male labor and genius, and have murdered many thousands of men — both American and Iraqi and Afghan and British too, in service to the women which they worship and revere.

Keyster and the other shills know exactly what they are doing here, and they are doing it with premeditation and strategy. There is no talking to feminists like this, except to illuminate their true motivations to those men who may be foolish or shortsighted enough to be swayed by them.

The USA itself is the fountainhead of feminism, it is a diseased and flawed country, and there is absolutely nothing exceptional about it. No other country ever embraced feminism like the USA did, and the other “anglosphere” nations are the victims of the USA, rather than co-conspirators. Men in the USA and around the world will cheer when the USA finally collapses under the weight of its own corruption, and America will be replaced by smaller and healthier nations which will — we must hope — learn from the mistakes of America.

Regards, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 15
Avenger April 1, 2012 at 01:30

Having said all that, I forgot, you still believe that terrorists caused 9/11 and parafin not only melted but vapourised thousands of tons of steel

Oldsock you’re such a naive little East End boy. We all klnow that George Bush was piloting that plane that hit the WTC and his buddy bin Laden was flying the other one. They ejected just before the planes crashed and landed in the Hudson river where they were picked up by Capt. Sully. It was all captured on a cell phone video by Lindsay Lohan as she was drunkenly coming out of the Hellfire Club at 9am on West st. She just remembered that she had it.
In addition to that the actual cockpit video found in the black box which was recovered in the rubble at ground zero has recently been released under the Freedom of Information Act as a result of a request by Ron Jeremy. You can clearly see Bush in his cowboy hat flying the plane and it looks like he had a good supply of drugs with him.

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

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
migu April 1, 2012 at 01:40

Rob,

You might like this. http://mises.org/document/3250

This one addressses “stepping out of the dialectic.”

The main thesis is “man is a rational actor” he goes on to show why dialectical materialism is incompatible with a rational actor. .

Also predicts the consequence of widespread adoption of of DM by rational actors. His predictions proved to be correct.

For a more focused treatise on the political aspects he also wrote a book called socialism.

He came to the same conclusion regarding T+A=ST.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Oddsock April 1, 2012 at 02:01

Avenger

Actually regarding the Bush family I would not be surprised at all if there was some connection which sort of follows onto Keysters recent comment ” I believe in American Exceptionalism.
(Your dear mum and dad might have as well, around 1941 or so.)”

You see, although I could make plenty of harsh comments with some home truths for Keyster I will simply say, my parents and many other people in the UK would have been far more thankful of American exceptionalism back in 1941 if they had not also extended the same finance to Germany. Look it up. The Bush family funded both sides in WW2. I suppose that’s capitalizm at its best/worst.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8
Oddsock April 1, 2012 at 02:03

Avenger

P.s. You are still a plant pot. Lol.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8
Avenger April 1, 2012 at 02:46

A lot of people were doing business with Nazi Germany and Japan before war was declared. What’s your point?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Avenger April 1, 2012 at 03:04

Many Americans love the guy simply for having the balls to go to your senate and use them as mop.

The stupid ones perhaps. The great unwashed proles would fall for his bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHVNxwmeC4k&feature=relmfu

He’s full of shit like all Labour socialists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Oddsock April 1, 2012 at 03:31

Avenger

Oooooh, you are getting all upset hahahah.

Actually the Bush family was doing business with the Nazi party Eight months after America had declared war on Germany.

Do I need to make any further point ?

You really are a prize plant pot. ” The USA Dollar is backed by oil” ??? My arse ! You Muppet. LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6
Avenger April 1, 2012 at 04:29

The USA Dollar is backed by oil” ???

As the world’s reserve currency and the fact that the world’s most important commodity can only be traded in US dollars the dollar’s value is indeed backed by oil; Besides, the US has all thegold they need in Fort Knox and stored in bank vaults in NY and other places.

And which countries own the most gold?
http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/who-owns-worlds-gold/2491

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
Oddsock April 1, 2012 at 04:34

Shut up avenger don’t make a bigger prick of yourself than you have already.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
Oddsock April 1, 2012 at 04:37

Avenger

P.s. Although I do agree with you about the British Labour MP’s. They are much the same as most politicians. Full of shite. George Galloway is a little better though and does tend to speak the truth as can be seen in the video link I posted of him ripping your senate a new arseole !

You are still a plant pot ! LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5
Master V April 1, 2012 at 04:42

“As for my own parents, I am not going to give them anything in their old age (father is 62, mother is 63). The nonviolent vindictive behavior I will display towards them going forward is something they both brought on themselves. I will look forward to the day one or both need nursing home care, put them in a nursing home, and never return.”

Women who opted to circumcise their sons deserve this treatment especially. They were extremely concerned about their own “sexual fulfillment” etc. but yet did that to their own male children. How grotesque. My mother did that to me. I was cut so tight, my erections are
sometimes uncomfortable. I have barely any feeling in the glans, and a permanent neurologically based referred pain that goes down my left thigh all the way to my ankle. Yet what did I find once in one of her drawers? (I was looking for hidden chocolate) I nine inch dildo! ha ha ha
Got loaded once and called her, asked why was I cut? “Well I did that,” she said, quite unapologetic. But now? Lately the first signs of Alzheimers are there in her behavior. Guess what? She can go fuck herself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Master V April 1, 2012 at 05:04

“Do as Uncle Elmer has done. I want to. If you have ever been out of America say to SE Asia that is the best kept secret on the planet. There you will find a million sweet kind considerate lovable feminen female human beings that are not ruined. The trick is getting them over here and having them not turn into a westernized harpy. They seem to be more grateful and less hateful. They know how to please and value there man. The women here are ruined, never happy, full of depression and drugs and get fat. Im tired of all American women, especially hard core carreer driven bitches.”

THIS IS NOT THE SOLUTION.

The Master knows because he did it. Although they do not have as much official feminism as the Anglosphere, THEY YET STILL HAVE IT.

ITEM: the Taiwanese Social Work Association lists dozens of social programs on their official website — ALL OF THEM FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS. NONE FOR MALES. And only one or two for poor people in general, even though Taiwan, despite what you might have heard, is basically a third world country.

ITEM: Asian countries like Taiwan and South Korea have been adopting male circumcision even though it is alien to their culture, influenced by globalist NWO based physicians, NGOs etc. A recent journal article I read shows that in South Korea it has become common and is pushed by THE MOTHERS, who say that they think it will make their sons more virile (!!!).

Asian women have just as much princess entitlement as western women, sometimes more in fact. They just have different manners, and because you’re a foreigner, you simply don’t see how you’re being played.

But you are being played.

BE WARNED

THE SOLUTION IS NOT TO RUN TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD

THE SOLUTION IS TO CHANGE THE LAWS HERE

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
Ted April 1, 2012 at 05:30

“George Galloway is a little better”

He’s just won an election with a massive majority over *all three* mainstream parties. Those three have all become essentially the same (sort of like the two main parties in the US). Galloway’s Respect party is a real alternative.

Galloway, however, is a prize white knight, IMO anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Rob April 1, 2012 at 08:11

You might like this. http://mises.org/document/3250

Thanks, Migu

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
keyster April 1, 2012 at 10:20

@Avenger
“What’s your point?”

Boxer and Oddsock HATE the United States of America. And that they express these sentiments on a blog run by an American, based in America, is uncouth at best.

@Boxer
“The USA itself is the fountainhead of feminism, it is a diseased and flawed country, and there is absolutely nothing exceptional about it.”

Why do Canadians keep coming to the United States to find work, if it’s such a “diseased and flawed country”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Rob April 1, 2012 at 10:51

“The reality is that you are a participant in the historical process. You don’t get to choose not to have a philosophy. You only get to choose which ideas you’ll hold on to (I’m paraphrasing Ayn Rand here). MGTOW doesn’t take the men who embrace it out of history. They are a part of history and functioning as part of the dialectic. The only way you can leave the historical process behind is to die or miracle yourself to another planet.” — Boxer

I think I see what you are saying here. What you are saying is that I am merely adding another anti-thesis against the current synthesized truth, even if my anti-thesis is truly the Absolute Truth. Kind of like this:

[(1+1=2) + (1+1=3)] divided by 2 = 2.5 (Synthesis)
[(1+1=2.5) + (1+1=4)] divided by 2 = 3.25 (Synthesis)
[(1+1=3.25) + (1+1=2)] divided by 2 = 2.625 (Synthesis)

Am I correct that this is your point? In this sense, I have not “stepped out of it” but merely added to it?

Well, here is my thinking, in regard to “stepping out of it” – and perhaps it’s a little sloppy to truthfully consider it as stepping out of it, but as a personal to the political solution for a man to base a life philosophy upon, here is the notion I am going after: If I go back to the beginning of the the argument, I am closer to the truth than I am by adding to the argument, so I will stop furthering it and base my actions on what I can objectively identify as being “closest” to the truth. Lol! OK, that’s a little ’round and ’round, but perhaps this unfinished article I am working on will make my thoughts a bit clearer: The Marxist Dialectic of Marriage

I’m going after personal solutions that take the political out of it. Rather than furthering the dialectic with Marriage 2.0 versus the Backlash, I am better off simply to go back to the beginning of the argument, examining how Marriage 1.0 was structured, and figuring out how I can best serve myself with it.

For example, rather than running to the government to grant me shared parenting, as an unmarried man who has never had children, I don’t particularly think that the next synthesized truth that shared-parenting will create in marriage will be to my benefit at all. Shared-parenting does not make the prospect of marriage for a single man any more attractive, but rather less attractive.

If I really wanted to do what is best for me, I would take the fact that Marriage 1.0 had Father-Custody as a corner-stone, and I would seek ways to reconstruct that – from the beginning of the argument. I cannot create Marriage 1.0 in the current society I live in – I have to accept that as fact, but I can certainly recreate aspects of it by recognizing the truth that was at the beginning, rather than from the synthesized truth which is in the present.

So, I would be better off, if I desired to have children, to recreate Father-Custody via the route of surrogacy. Only have girlfriends – never consider Marriage 2.0 or Marriage 2.5 at all – perhaps a live-in girlfriend if you must etc. but because she has no custody claim to my child (unless you are stupid enough to allow her to adopt), I have effectively re-created Father Custody, or at least parts of it. And that is better for me and my child.

I agree that it furthers the dialectic, however, by stepping out of the current argument, and going back to the first argument, I am working closer to the truth rather than further away from it.

Another example is one that my own father, a business owner, related to me about 15 or 20 years ago.

It became forbidden back in the 90′s to ask women in a job interview if they planned on having children in the future. This was blatant discrimination against business owners, because as my father related to me back then, it costs around $10,000 to him to replace an employee. There are training periods to go through, customers have to get used to the new hire, etc. etc. – overall it takes about a year to get a new employee up to snuff and working at 100%, and costs around $10,000 either in training or lost productivity. Employee retention was important to him for this reason.

Further, he said, (we were hiring a certified partsman) if he hires a woman, spends a year and $10,000 getting her up to snuff, when she gets pregnant and takes 1 year off for maternity leave, he has to keep the position open for her and give her the job back in a year. Well, we only needed one partsman in our store – we didn’t have five that could take up the slack. So, he would have to find another certified partsman – one who would be willing to only be employed for a year and then be unemployed again – and this would mean $10,000 spent on training him, plus, anyone he could find that would accept a mere year’s employment, would most likely be a bottom of the barrel employee – costing him even beyond the $10,000 by an unknown degree, and then further expenses when the woman comes back after maternity leave to get her back up to 100% after having a year off.

And then she can do it all over to you again a year or two afterwards. I mean, talk about equal pay compared to a man! She gets the same pay, but drains perhaps $25,000 or $50,000 out of his pocket over a five year period that someone who doesn’t want to have children would.

His solution? Since he is not even allowed to ask, he will not consider hiring any women under 35 years old. Of course he can’t say that out loud, but that’s the policy going on his head.

In my view, he want back to the beginning of the argument, accepted what was real, looked at what he could do with it, and made a rational decision based as closely upon the truth as he could. He simply refused to play the game, and he benefited from doing so.

Also, regarding the Truth, I think the way that the Founding Fathers structured their views of Truth in an order of value is the proper way to regard such things.

1 – God’s Law (Absolute)
2 – Natural Law (Objective)
3 – Civil Law (Subjective)

If a subjective truth contradicts an objective truth, the subjective truth is false. And if an objective truth contradicts the absolute truth, then it is false.

All truth is not equal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Al Thompson April 1, 2012 at 12:13

Being a babyboomer myself, at 65 and divorced, I find it difficult to even contemplate marriage again. While I have two nice sons out of the marriage, I can safely say that feminism ruined my marriage. It may help to explain why everything was ok one minute, then the other minute we were in a full-fledged verbal war. I’ll never put myself in that situation again. Men are one thing; women are another. They were created by God to compliment each other and not to war. Feminism has attempted to turn nature upside down. Many women do not get very much respect due to their unseemly behavior which has been instigated by feminism.

Here’s an article I wrote on my blog which is somewhat humorous but it is very true: http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/11/i-wish-i-had-woman-as-nice-as-my-dog.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
MasterV April 1, 2012 at 12:42

MASTER V SAYS:

The key is to bring back production to the US by changing tax laws re corporations and enacting protective tarifs. This will rebuild American manufacturing. Then you must orient the society toward high technology advancement — the mission to Mars (which Obamma has essentially killed). You must bring back the policies of JFK and the New Frontier. This will reorient society toward technological progress and real production instead of parasitic financial manipulation.

There is a natural connection between the MRM and the movement led
by Lyndon Larouche. I urge all MRAs to check out the web site of his organization LarouchePAC.

He wants to revive a project that was actually conceived and planned by 1964 called NAWAPA North American Water and Power Alliance, an enormous scheme for bringing water from the arctic all the way down through Canada, the great plains, and into Mexico. But the implications of this whole thing are huge. You have to go look at the info. They have an
incredible amount of info of direct relevance to the MRM though they themselves do not pay attention to gender issues.

The problems of men are mostly the result of the deliberate take down of American industrial scientific capacity that began after the assassination of Kennedy and the setting in its place of various parasitic schemes — “service economy” “post-industrial economy” fraudulent money (courtesy of the Federal Reserve), “green culture/earth day/ant–science” etc. The encouragement, by the elite, of delusional narcissistic patterns of thinking and behavior on the part of women is only one facet of their overall effort to degrade society as a whole by pulling the plug on technological progress and real wealth production, in an effort to maintain oligarchical control. The best exposition of this pattern of oligarchical control through the ages and into the present in Webster Griffin Tarpley’s “Against Oligarchy,” available for free online at Tarpley.net.

It is significant to note that one of the earliest feminists in the US was not an American woman but the Jewish immigrant Emma Goldman, who was actually a British agent (MI6, as it would be called these days) who was sent here to destabilize American society (with her “free love” bullshit etc) and whose special mission was to assassinate President McKinley, which she did by using a psychotic immigrant man whose name escapes me, a John Hinkley-Jared Loughner type. The reason to off Mckinley was that he was trying to further American industrial/productive capacity still more, and it had already far eclipsed that of Great Britain, something the British oligarchy had long viewed with extreme alarm (ever since the world expo of 1876 for example).

Though American culture has always had many “matriarchal ” tendencies (for instance the pernicious domination of the school system
by women, a problem of long standing) the real poisonous, socially destructive feminism is mostly the work of foreign agents and domestic
traitors (many of them academics). It is essentially the work of MI6 and the treasonous/criminal enclaves of the CIA. Together with their home grown fellow travelers and dupes. (again many of them academics)

But the overall purpose is to disable scientific/technological production
and real (physical) productive capacity. If you restore those things, you can reverse the poison.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9
Rob April 1, 2012 at 13:45

As an add-on to my general philosophical thesis which I am trying to create, I would like to add on to its “purpose” a bit more.

I know that everyone here knows who Zed is, but I wonder how many people know why he calls himself “zed.”

This is John Galt speaking, I WILL end this if I can.

- Zed –

The End

There are lots of things we can do to fight feminism. In fact, there are so many things to fight against that it is never ending. And that is the point! The Marxist Dialectic needs conflict to keep furthering itself. Stop the conflict (argument) and you’ve stopped the dialectical staircase.

Some people may think that my conclusions don’t fully support “Men’s Rights.” I guess that may be true, because there’s a lot of things about the MRM that I am expressly opposed to – like Shared-Parenting, or DV Shelters and subsequent DV laws for men. I abhor the idea of a White House Council for Boys and Men. I believe Men’s “rights” are merely the Rights put forth by the US Founding Fathers.

Full Stop.

Because of “the hierarchy” it is men who these rights are for.

Men love women –> Women love children –> Children love puppies

This also works in reverse, or in how society places each in “value.”

1 – Children
2 – Women
3 – Men

Men are considered the least valuable of the three. It is always the lowest in value who rights are for. Women need “rights” less than men, because they are “preferred” over men, and children are so valuable they hardly need rights at – we excuse them for almost all mistakes anyway.

So, this is, ultimately, all the “rights” men are entitled to – those put forth by the Founding Fathers. They ARE for MEN – for women and children too, but it is not as fundamentally necessary.

So, back to the Dialectic and Feminism and Marxism.

We can continually fight this crap, forming lobby groups and making ourselves into a “real movement” blah blah blah. But really, all we are doing is furthering their goals by continuing the argument!

If Karl Marx says “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.”,

then I want to respond with this:

“My object in life is to use philosophy to deconstruct the living piss out Marx and his Feminist sisters so much so that I can philosophically string their core ideology around its philosophical neck and hang it from a philosophical tree until it is so dethroned that it is dead, dead, dead. And after that, the tree will be burned to the ground and I will take one last philosophical piss on it’s smoldering ashes and then we can all declare:

THE END!

In other words, I want to destroy this bullshit until it is wiped completely from existence.

And there is no way to really do that unless you do it philosophically, because that is where it started…

So, philosophy is also really where it ends.

zed (the end).

Damn, I wish that was my handle.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
dawn April 1, 2012 at 15:26

durandal
your little post on the 31st at 12;30 is SO WAY off.
Not that you deserve an explanation. I did not drive my ex to drink and drugs and I am NOT a drama queen!!! he had the problems BEFORE I got with him and I did NOT take his children away from him I did EVERYTHING I could to get him to see them.
Not every women is a piece of shit. You my not so good man want the world just like the little feminists want the world your vitrol is even with them.
The rest of the good men here I am in no way speaking to you.
Generalization is SHIT

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7
andybob April 1, 2012 at 23:26

Be warned!

Master V (aka Pam O’Shaughnessy/ Vliet Tiptree) is no friend to the MRM. She is here to mock the MRM and derail every thread by writing endless crap hoping we’ll take the bait and look like fools. She remembers to pay a bit of lip service to the MRA issues, but all of her comments are OTT rants.

Paul Elam banned her at AVFM because she was obviously a troll whose sole objective was to infiltrate, goad and talk a lot of shit.
- Chocolate and dildos in Mom’s draws.
- I can hear her laughing as she describes the ‘botched’ cirumcision.
- Free-love promoting Jewesses sent by Britian to undermine the US.
- Accusing AVFM of colluding with the SPLC for….some reason.
- Urging us to blame technology instead of feminism.
- Lauded Adrienne Rich (V for Vliet’s favourite lesbian poet – next to Vliet Tiptree herself) on the previous thread). Rich wrote drivel.

Your style of writing makes it clear that you are not on the level. In fact it is exactly the style that most radfems imagine appeals to MRAs: outlandish, adolescent, attention-grabbing conspiracy nonsense. Go back to RadFemHub and spew your genocidal fantasies and eugenics philosophies.

The MRM is advancing from all sides. If this is the best response radfems can come up with, then they are even more pathetic than I thought they were. They’ll be pounded to dust.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 2
Migu April 2, 2012 at 07:50

Found the other one.

http://mises.org/document/2736

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
DevilDog April 2, 2012 at 12:01

To hell with their aspirations for domesticity. They better get a god damn job and start bringing home some bread or get the hell out. WE ARE NOT going to go back to the traditional gender roles. NO.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Boxer April 2, 2012 at 15:11

To hell with their aspirations for domesticity. They better get a god damn job and start bringing home some bread or get the hell out. WE ARE NOT going to go back to the traditional gender roles. NO.

Amen to that, my brother. Just say no to the conservative/republican white knight mangina pussies who want to live as slaves to women, or return to the days when a man was forced to enslave himself to a naggy, unfaithful bitch.

Women had best get used to working hard in shitty jobs. These whores wanted equality, and we will give it to them in spades. No chance any smart brother is going to live in lifetime servitude to an aging, dried out cunt any more. The old days are over. Every man can get his needs met and spend his surplus income on himself and his own needs, rather than living as a useless mule to a stank ho.

Regards, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6
Rob April 2, 2012 at 22:05

So, Boxer,

Can I assume that you have passed on answering to me?

That is fine.

But, if that is the case, do you think it is reasonable for me to request that you leave any future arguments I make alone, rather than try to undermine me?

I think it is reasonable to say that if you won’t respond to this argument, then it voids you from responding to further arguments I make?

Yes?

No?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Rob April 2, 2012 at 22:17

And, btw, I HAVB been waiting and checking.

I got back to you, according to my word.

You cannot now ignore me, and attack me next time, all over again, or I will link this post.

Sorry.

The real, Absolute, Rational Truth, brother.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Boxer April 2, 2012 at 22:45

Dear Rob:

I’m sorry you feel I’m trying to undermine you. I actually have enjoyed the conversation and was looking forward to continuing. People who value truth shouldn’t take vigorous discussion personally.

I am a bit curious as to whether you are affiliated with the other “new” participants who some feel to be feminists. I’m not saying you are, or they are, and don’t really care. I’m just a bit circumspect as to who to talk to at the moment. I spent some holiday time away from the site, and this place has changed a lot in the interim.

Best, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10
Rob April 2, 2012 at 23:01

Boxer,

I certainly don’t have to qualify myself in the MRM about my credentials.

First of all, I have none. A mere highschool grad, with two years post before dropping out.

What does it matter?

I have built my entire reputation in the MRM on being Anti-Marxist. Just ask anyone, where to go to find anti-feminist MRA material. I brought it to the MRM. It is my only triumph in the MRM.

Further, my rep is not based on being popular, but by not being a bullshitter.

I didn’t show up here to make friends.

I came here to speak The Big Truth.

You called me out on being a bullshitter, and I responded in a way that proved I was NOT.

But you haven’t done the same, except in a peripheral way.

Sorry. You have to now qualify yourself in a similar fashion. I won’t go into this same argument with you TWICE, and waste double the time.

I’m really not kidding around here. This isn’t some social club for me, and it irritates me when people show up and attack me without merit, I give them latitude, and then they just walk away to do it to me again tomorrow.

You said you would, so, if you aren’t going to do it, then simply say so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Rob April 2, 2012 at 23:16

Correction:

“I have built my entire reputation in the MRM on being Anti-Marxist. Just ask anyone, where to go to find anti-marxistt MRA material”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Rob April 2, 2012 at 23:19

If you REALLY need a qualification of my “reality,” simply ask Welmer who I am.

I won’t argue this silly point with anyone on the Spearhead.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Rob April 3, 2012 at 00:09

Btw, I am saving this link.

I don’t expect to have to have this conversation with you again.

You have to, um, put up or shut up.

As it sits, you aren’t willing to put up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Rob April 3, 2012 at 00:17

And btw, Boxer, I spanked your “credentialed” ass on this thread, and we both know it.

God, I love being a college drop-out.

I really suspect you have no credentials at all, but are just bullshitting for presumed authority.

Your refusal to respond to a mere 2 year college drop-out, while you aparantly are Ph D material, seems a bit suspicious. The “I think you might be a feminist plant” bullshit, after two days ago hailing me as a genius, makes you all the more suspect.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Rob April 3, 2012 at 00:29

Lol,

And the fact that you were trying to pinch the Book of Bonecrker directly off of my blog and post it on yours makes you seem, how can I say it, really…

You’ve even been to my blog before this conversation, and know full well who I am.

The lack of a degree doesn’t make me stupid, Beavis.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Sheldon Walker April 3, 2012 at 01:13

We can’t have people talking about going out and murdering feminist…

What the hell? If this movement is to be taken seriously we can’t have people saying crazy shit like that affiliated with it.

When people do digging to try and discredit MRM they’re going to find post like these and smear it to hell and back.

Cmon guys… seriously…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
Sheldon Walker April 3, 2012 at 01:14

We can’t have people talking about going out and murdering feminist…

What the hell? If this movement is to be taken seriously we can’t have people saying crazy shit like that affiliated with it.

When people do digging to try and discredit MRM they’re going to find post like those and smear the whole idea to hell and back.

Cmon guys… seriously…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
migu April 3, 2012 at 02:33

There is no movement Sheldon. It’s just a bunch of guys who came to the same conclusion independently.

Good thing too. If it were a movement there would be a head to cut off.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Sheldon Walker April 3, 2012 at 03:50

I’m afraid the NCFM and various internet sources disagree with you migu.

Your comparison of it to anonymous is since unlike anonymous the MRM has actually accomplished something tangible.

For any real change to come about, beyond a bunch of guys ranting and venting within the confines of the internet an actual organization is required.

You can disagree all you won’t doesn’t change that you’re wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
migu April 3, 2012 at 05:03

Okay Sheldon or should I call you Bryan?

Master V?

Don’t put words in my mouth. And really the straw man is the weakest form of sophistry.

Try verbosity it works better. I’ve got a tar baby for you if you’re game.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Boxer April 3, 2012 at 08:58

Dear Rob:

Yes, you posted some interesting stuff, diamonds within the refuse piles, pages and pages long. You’ve never read any of the sources you cite, that much is obvious, but you are a thinker.

Unlike you, I have a social and professional life. My time here is bits and pieces, as I find them. Incidentally: accusing me of stealing your material would mean you are claiming to be bonecrcker, which is a lie, as we both know; though when you began cleaning up the text I took it off my blog all the same.

I will continue to respond to whatever I see fit. Hope that helps.

Regards, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9
Boxer April 3, 2012 at 09:03

Dear Rob:

And btw, Boxer, I spanked your “credentialed” ass on this thread, and we both know it.

Like Keyster and Charles Martel, you have an endearing sort of bolshevik lunatic hatred for anyone who has actually accomplished something. It’s too bad, because I suspect you could accomplish something of your own, but you’ve probably been held back by circumstance, hence your deep, psychotic resentment.

Do keep a screenshot of this conversation. Come back to it and savor it. The reality is that there are no “credentials” here. I could be an Israeli garbageman with a high school diploma. I’m still better read than you, with an evener disposition, and a more disciplined mind. Everyone knows that, including and especially you.

Now, what are you going to do about it? LOL

Regards, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8
Boxer April 3, 2012 at 09:19

Okay Sheldon or should I call you Bryan? Master V?

This place has become fairly entertaining in the past week or so. It’s like someone flipped the switch that turns on the nutcase bots, but forgot to flip it back off after 1 April.

LOL!

Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6
Rob April 3, 2012 at 09:30

“accusing me of stealing your material would mean you are claiming to be bonecrcker, which is a lie, as we both know; though when you began cleaning up the text I took it off my blog all the same.”

Lol, I never claimed I wrote it. But I will claim that I was the one who pulled it off of Niceguy’s forum when it was just one big long jumbled mess that was very difficult read, and over the past four or five years, have gone through it and “cleaned it up” about once a year. It has gone from a mess to becoming this, and then I spent about the last year converting it into this version here, which is interlinked to its contents, as well as now having pictures, research to back up his points, external quotes etc. and is also interlinked to Philalethes Essays, and The Wisdom of Zenpriest, and Zed’s Eye of the Mind, AND The Book of Pook, (incomplete) and ALSO to A Wrinkle in Time which has posts throughout time, from Buddha to Aristotle to Jefferson to Tolstoy – including several “Books” within itself, such as Procopius of Caesarea from 550AD and more.

Everything is separated, and all posts (ie. Bonecrcker & Zed’s stuff) are now all linkable so that they can be used more directly than having to link to a 100 page long article and having to say “it’s in there somewhere.”

All I did, when I seen what you were doing (trying to rewrite one of the earliest versions of Bonecrker), was left a comment on your blog directing you to a newer version to save you the trouble.

You removed that comment almost immediately and pretended you never seen it. So, I left you to it. I see now you have removed the Bonecrker completely now.

Hey, I don’t care. I didn’t put all that work into doing this over the past year or two to just keep it to myself, it’s there to be pinched, that’s why I made it.

I’m merely pointing out that it’s kinda silly for you to have gotten it from my own blog, have deleted a comment on your blog I made to help you and now you are here claiming you don’t know who I am.

I call BS on you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Boxer April 3, 2012 at 09:35

Dear Sheldon:

For any real change to come about, beyond a bunch of guys ranting and venting within the confines of the internet an actual organization is required.

Nothing needs to be changed, aside from opening a channel of warning to the few men who are still getting married without knowing the risks.

This world is paradise for a forward thinking man. Know why? Because we get our needs met without ever having to commit our resources to a woman, or to women in general. We get to spend all our surplus value on our own needs and indulgences, and none of it goes down the rat hole of feminine consumerism.

Most men here have had sex with hundreds of different women, and have traveled the world. As such, they had experiences to rival the princes and kings of yesteryear.

Why would the people here want to harm women? Granted, they’re sort of annoying if you spend too much time with them, but if you are smart and don’t marry you don’t even need to put up with that.

Lighten up and enjoy life. It is a wonderful time to be a man…

Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
THE G April 3, 2012 at 09:50

29 is too old. too late

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rob April 3, 2012 at 09:56

Here’s a few more “books” in the collection:

The Lamentations of Matheolus
Man Superior to Woman
Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws
The Intimate Journal of Henri Amiel
G.K. Chesterton’s “What’s Wrong With the World”

When I get round tuit, Bax’s Legal Subjection of Men and The Fraud of Feminism will also be entered. This way, individual sections can be linked to and referenced more easily.

But hey, guys like you do so much good for men by blabbing about your mighty degree, and with your undermining of people who are actually doing something to help other men understand what the hell is going on.

Good jorb!

Keep it up!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rob April 3, 2012 at 13:43

You know, Boxer, it’s pretty obvious that something is wrong with you – and I mean that in the sense that something was wrong with BrYan further up this thread – the logic simply does not follow.

You really don’t add to the debate except for your shrieking about Trotskyism and your belief that feminism is a product of a diseased America that needs to be destroyed. That’s about your only shtick, and it’s one you simply refuse to explain in clear, precise terms so that others can investigate if there is any merit to what you are saying.

However, each time someone tries to bring up the subject of Marxism and its relationship to feminism, you go and pop off again with a yelling and hollering rant that the other person is stupid and doesn’t know what they are talking about. Then you simply refuse to show why this is so, your entire justification being “because I’m working on a Ph D and have been studying this for a decade.” That’s it. It’s the full extent of your rebuttal.

When you challenge someone that they don’t even know the meaning of the terms they are using, and they respond to you in a way that makes it perfectly clear that they do, and in fact know it well enough to boil a very complex subject down into a one and a half page summary that is easy for anyone to understand, you back off slightly, and agree to deconstruct their ideas if they are wrong. Fair enough, this is what we should be doing – it makes everyone smarter to have debates like that.

And, when you receive a further breakdown of what’s going on – like here – you respond that “Wow! You’ve got really good critical thinking skills, and I would like to republish this on my own blog, if I may.” So, obviously, you didn’t think I was a moron after all. At this point, however, I would like to point out that you still haven’t responded in a fashion befitting someone who has indeed, studied this subject for a decade in the hallowed halls of Academia, bur rather only in the most peripheral of ways.

And now, here you are again – only a day later – after not answering in any fashion at all and you are claiming I am upset about the discourse.

“I’m sorry you feel I’m trying to undermine you. I actually enjoyed the conversation and was looking forward to continuing. People who value truth shouldn’t take vigorous discussion personally.” — Boxer

To which I can only reply: What vigorous discussion?

This “conversation” basically boils down to me putting forth my ideas, and you responding, “Nope.”

When asked why, the gist of the response is, “Because I have an education and I’m sooooo smartz.”

When the other person asks you to use that valuable education to further the discussion, again, your basic response is, “No. I don’t have to. I have a Ph D.”

So, in other words, you simply refuse to illustrate this knowledge you have in any way other than simply claiming you have it, and because you do, you don’t even have to respond.

I mean, how ’round and ’round is that kinda thinking?

“Unicorns exist. And you have to prove to me they don’t, or I am right by default.”

And now, here you are again, trying to insinuate that I am some kind of feminist plant – much like how BrYan tried to insinuate I must be a Freemason, lol. (Man, do I hate that Illuminati bullshit). Further, as I have shown already – you have been to my blog before (and there are two comments above this one waiting in moderation in relation to what you claimed about this event – they are filled with links) – so trying to claim suddenly that I am a feminist plant and that’s why you don’t want to respond to me, is the absolute height of bullshittery.

Really, Boxer, what is your purpose here?

It is not to debate, because you don’t debate.

It is not to share information, because even on a subject that you are supposedly the world’s foremost expert on, you simply refuse to do so except in the most peripheral of ways – certainly not in a way that illustrates the understanding a person one decade into studying it would be able to, with ease.

It is not to be supportive, because basically your shtick is to say, “You’re stupid. I have an education! I don’t have to explain.”

So what is it, exactly, that you are doing here except purposefully disrupting the place by undermining others?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
Boxer April 3, 2012 at 13:50

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 18
Rob April 3, 2012 at 14:06

Fair enough.

There is no point in ever addressing you again, and from now on if you try to undermine me by following behind me with your raving lunatic rants, I will simply post that Boxer has already been responded to.

I’m done with you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Rob April 3, 2012 at 14:17
Anonymous April 3, 2012 at 16:18

Well if Pam O’Shaughnessy and other zombies like her start showing up here and on other sites the movement must be doing something right. If she didn’t see the movement as legitimate she wouldn’t acknowledge it. Congrats guys keep up the good work. Their days are numbered

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
E.J. April 4, 2012 at 18:10

Boxer’s cool, but Rob won that exchange easily. I look forward to more of your future writing (I’ve linked quite a few friends to several of your individual blog entries).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Leslie April 4, 2012 at 21:13

There is nothing wrong with domestic skills or homemaking – the point is that women should have the right to choose them rather than be restricted to being a housewife due to societal pressure. At the high school I went to, it was a common thing to see girls baking brownies and even cakes for their male friends on their birthdays or before dances, often from scratch. I have sewn my own dresses for fun and can cook full meals by myself out of raw ingredients, and I’m a college student – part of this “younger generation”. My ideal isn’t having a hired maid or some male slave, I would like a man who can cook with me and enjoy the time he spends with me, someone I can enjoy talking to and being with. I’m not particularly interested in being a housewife either. I have nothing against it, because I admit the world is frightening and the competition for jobs is fierce, but making my boyfriend or husband support me when I can support myself isn’t fair either. I’m not planning to get free lunches for my entire life. I think the key point is that women and men are both people, with a common humanity. The problem arises when people forget to see the other gender as actual humans, and that applies to both radical femnists as well as “misogynists”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
fondueguy April 7, 2012 at 01:23

@Rob

I have a question about your post on the idea that men base their lives in more rational ways, along with accepting things that can’t be changed, while women do the rationalization hampster.

Aren’t men the ones who will speak out against tyrants, set themselves on fire, or join a bloody revolution in the hopes that good change will come. Those are give leaps of faith and they aren’t logical. Not only are they faithfully telling themselves that their revolution will create a better society but I’m not sure whether or not they think they will be creating a better life for themselves (logically they aren’t).

I say this because I think its a weakness to be bound by logic and “accept that with is” in some calculating manner. If you aren’t willing to over react, and basically take stupid risks, then someone else can come along and rob (no pun intended!) you by manipulating your predictable, logical, behavior. Changing examples its why the US could never nuke Russia just to get an edge. If Russia were purely logical, and we sent one nuke to them, they should not retaliate and lush for peace to stop further bloodshed. If Russia was illogical they would retaliate and hope that the US doesn’t retaliate back…

As far as the mrm goes, I am hoping that men can SOMETIMES damn the consequences and make a somewhat illogical demand that can still have good consequences. One example is the demand that wives should have to work/earn as much as husbands. But the current fact is that hypergamy can screw the man that does. However, if many men demand the same illogical thing, the game has actually changed and hypergamy no longer works. This is actually an example of group work in.which benefits only come when everyone works together. But on the personal level, it will require men, who want to improve their own lives, a degree of cognitive dissonance.

In short, good results can happen from some irrational, at least stepwise irrational, thinking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
fondueguy April 7, 2012 at 01:27

Correction: those are huge* leaps of faith

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rob April 7, 2012 at 12:58

@ Fondueguy,

Sorry, I didn’t see your comment back here.

Yeah, you make some really good points. One thing that should be made clear, I guess, is that men aren’t logical simply by virtue of their birth. Men are mired deeply in Relative Truth and Emotion just like women are.

The real difference is that men have better ability to get there – or over-ride their Relative Truth and hold the Absolute/Objective to task.

In fact, I’d go as far to say that 99% of men aren’t much better at controlling the rationalization hamster than women. Look at the game guys finding reasons that excuse the ones of them who cuckold other men, while at the same time boldly declaring cuckolding is the equivalent of “rape for men.”

But, if someone is going to “get out of it” and move towards the Truth, it will be a man in 99.9999999% of the cases. For example, about the only female philosopher I can really think of is Ayn Rand. However, who were Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Nietsche, Kant, Schopenhauer, yaddah yaddah yaddah if not but men?

There has never been an excuse for the virtual non-existence of female philosophers. There is simply no excuse for it such as “historical oppression or misogyny.” There are no materials needed for philosophy except pen, paper and brain – and pen and paper are optional. You can be in a prison cell and be a philosopher. You can be in a Nazi concentration camp and be a philosopher. You can be on your deathbed with tubes shoved all through your body, and be a philosopher. So why is it always men, and not women, that become significant philosophers?

It’s because of our brains.

1 – God’s Law (Absolute) – God
2 – Natural Law (Objective) – Man (God’s Image – 1 step)
3 – Civil Law (Subjective) – Woman (Man’s Image – 2 steps)

If women find truth via “consensus” or democracy, which they do, then truth really doesn’t ever exist – at all. Today, 95% of the herd believes (1+1=3) so that is truth to them. Tomorrow, 95% of the herd believes (1+1=1) so now this is true to them. Sometimes even, they stumble upon (1+1=2), but the next day they will easily be back to (1+1=4). The herds consensus is always right.

Men do the same thing. In fact, we do it right here, on this very board, with upvotes and downvotes. (Does having 95 upvotes vs. 3 downvotes really indicate that person is truthful? Nope, just popular – but lots of people follow the highly upvoted people’s ideas over the downvoted ones).

Some of us men – me included – get very worked up emotionally over these issues – men are not free from emotion. In fact, there is much to the argument that men’s emotion is at minimum equal to women’s. The difference being that men have fewer types of emotions, but they are deeper. Women have more kinds of emotions, but they are shallower.

Men have a harder time letting go of love than women do – break-ups are far more damaging to men than women. Men stand on the deck of the Titanic because of their emotional deepness towards women – they would rather themselves die than see something they love (women) die. Who commits suicide more often? And what is suicide if not being overwhelmed by emotional grief and despair?

But these emotions too, are more linear. They are “more real,” even simply by virtue of being harder to change. If you are in love one minute and five minutes later are no longer in love, did love really exist? However, it’s probably safe to say that even if it takes you longer to fall in love, but that love lasts for several years, that kind of love is “more real.” Men’s emotions stay on track more often than women’s. Lol! OK, that’s getting a bit off topic.

I guess what I’m saying is that men can be held to task with “the truth.” I have a pretty good chance of going over to Roissy’s and taking on commenters who on one hand call cuckolding “rape for men,” and on the other, completely justify their own cuckolding behaviours as “just a stupid beta.” It might get messy, but if I wanted to be an asshole, I could hold their feet to the fire no matter how much they squirmed, and both they and everyone else, would be able to see the truth. I may not leave as a popular guy, but there would be no doubt of who is “right.” Men can hold eachother to the truth. They can be held to task on direct inconsistencies. etc. etc.

Ever argue with a feminist?

No matter how solidly you build your case, it will always be “nuh-uh” and “well, not in all cases” and “not all women are like that” and blah blah blah.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a man really win an argument with a woman.

Might as well spend your day nailing pieces of jello to the wall.

Cheers for the comment, Fondueguy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
fondueguy April 8, 2012 at 15:20

Thanks.

Ya, there’s no doubt that men are emotional, probably more considering the extremes and realness*. Then you have the day to day crap; it just isn’t shown in the same way. Men control themselves through pride, an emotion that often times looks* less emotional. All the consciousness in men such as succeeding, doing the right thing, finding the truth (even when we hate that!) is actually emotional imo. I’m pretty sure you, and your philosophical tempo, would agree! It moves men. It just sucks how these strengths can be weaknesses with women. Their damn relative truths are so powerful. it spreads like fire. I haven’t figured out how to react, usually I just try to shift the average to 2 by “accepting” the current truth (though I really don’t). It’s just my strategy.

I liked your blog post, very well argued. It has made things clear to me in why I don’t want that kind of equality. I don’t want women to be my opposites because I don’t want to need them. I also don’t care for them needing me. I just don’t trust some gendered system. Hopefully I’m not just reacting in fear, but i look at something traditional like men love women, women love children, and children love play and I hate everything about it. Those men have such little value, disposable. I.want men to just love their kids and women to.men as much ad the reverse. In that above heirarchy I would just say women don’t live men, and if women don’t risk their necks like men do… Ya, you get the idea. I don’t like the traditional womanly crap. I’d be fine will women being equal equal, but we know that’s not really true. I don’t know if I believe that men are superior, never needing women, but I just don’t want to.need them for something more than the reverse.

I’ll have to think about all this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
piercedhead April 8, 2012 at 19:32

There are a couple of small lakes not far from where I live. One is purple to look at, the other is orange. Apparently the difference is due to a tiny presence of minerals – a little of one element in the purple lake, and a little of another in the orange one.

If you were to take a glass of water out of each of them, you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart. They taste the same and look the same. A simple laboratory analysis wouldn’t be able to distinguish them – only an advanced lab that can detect minute mineral presence and measure it accurately would be able to correctly identify which glass of water came from which lake.

Yet the human eye can spot the difference easily – but only in aggregate. At the microscopic level, rather than the macroscopic, the difference is beyond human detection.

The difference between men and women is also impossible to define in terms of easily spotted differences between individuals. The differences between the sexes is too easily obscured by simple personality differences. It is only when you look at humanity in aggregate that the difference between the sexes is at all obvious. And it is striking.

This is why feminists can say things like “gender is a social construct” and get away with it. Individuals can easily be made to appear similar, regardless of sex. The thing is though, “similar” is not “the same”. Often very significant differences cannot be seen unless one steps back from the microscopic view and looks again from the macroscopic. It is only then that the difference is glaring.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Rob April 8, 2012 at 20:29

You do realize these kinds of things will be shamelessly pinched and worked into this, don’t you?

(I know you do – thanks).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
fondueguy April 8, 2012 at 22:32

Pretty sure your talking to pierce, but just in case, you have my permission.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rob April 8, 2012 at 22:57

You’re going in too, buddy – still have stuff from last year.

I like being tested. It makes it “real.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rob April 8, 2012 at 23:02

Btw, if I recall correctly, Fondueguy

You are the person who forced me to identify the truth like this:

1 – God’s Law
2 – Natural Law
3 – Civil Law

I think it was you, anyway.

It is now part of “The Philosophy.”

Challenging “it” makes it more real.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Someone_somewhere April 10, 2012 at 09:16

Women who have been brought up traditionally don’t need no how-to books, they learn how to run their house and make stuff during their childhood. In fact the eye-bleed inducing stuff on offer out there points very much to the absence of any training whatsoever in the people who are buying those beginner books ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead April 12, 2012 at 20:56

You do realize these kinds of things will be shamelessly pinched and worked into this, don’t you?

Rob,

Feel free to help yourself to anything written under the moniker “mongolking” at the MGTOW forums as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Vichy October 8, 2012 at 02:15

First of all, I love Bryan’s comment on how women are just not worth it. I am convinced all of my male friends are imbeciles whenever they date/marry.
Secondly, I can not understand the AltRight’s ridiculous obsession with procreation; as though people who don’t exist in some imaginary future had any fucking significance whatsoever.
Oh, but I do know: because you’re too weak to take the Stirner sauce. You’re still stuck in your social signaling bubble where dumb bullshit like the random dipshits you’re related to matters.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Vichy October 8, 2012 at 02:16

Like ol’ Fritz said, man is something to be overcome. This is where Conservatards fail.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Meh May 5, 2013 at 20:17

I can’t really care.
1) Women bore me. I would rather not have orgasms than have boring conversations. The fact that I can successfully masturbate makes women basically useless to me.
2) I loathe children, and the time/energy/money the represent.
3) I am utterly unconcerned with the future of the human race or any segment of it.

I tend to think of the breeders (actual and potential) as sort of clay-figures more than human beings. The notion that spawning adds value is retarded. The multiplication of zeros, repeated for infinity, is still zero.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: