What Will Future America be Like for Women?

by W.F. Price on August 4, 2012

I’ve been reading the Detroit blog for years now, fascinated by the decline of the once great city. Nature is reclaiming the decaying urban landscape as residents flee to safer and wealthier towns and neighborhoods outside the city. Aside from a few diehard holdouts, those who remain are often the most hapless and dysfunctional of all. Houses in Detroit cost less than used cars, police budgets are strained, and streetlights are being turned off to save money. It’s a hell of a story of a modern city going to ruin.

If it weren’t for vast, middle America, many of our other cities would be suffering the same fate. Our urban centers rely on commerce, consumers and taxpayers across the nation. If our nation’s economy truly becomes hollowed out, and it looks as though it’s headed in that direction, there will be a number of Detroits across the land. California’s smaller cities are already going in that direction as the state is bankrupted by entitlements and Democratic policies.

So how will this affect women? Feminists are known for supporting economically destructive policies across the board, so I thought they might be interested in what life is like for the women left behind in Detroit:

He first had sex with a hooker when he was 18. He’s been with hundreds of them since. And he’s put a video of nearly every one of those hookups on his website. “I just like bad girls,” says the 36-year-old Detroiter who goes by the name John Juan, the persona behind foulfowl.com. “I’ve always liked bad girls. The temptation has just always drawn me in, and finally when I got up the courage to do it, I enjoyed it.”

For a decade now, he’s shot video not just of himself having sex with prostitutes, but also interviews with them talking openly, often enthusiastically, about their lives as street hookers in Detroit. They share vivid stories about their arrests, their addictions and their customers — the ones who’ve raped them, the ones they’ve robbed with knives or guns, the ones who show up with wives who want to watch, even the one man who pays for their services, takes them to a motel, ties them up and shouts Bible verses at them. Many of the women he films are weathered and aged by drugs and sickness and thousands and thousands of johns. Some of the site’s subscribers, particularly those from Europe and Asia, ask him to find the most haggard prostitutes possible, and he gleefully complies.

“Two nickels are better than a dime, and 10 pennies are even better,” his website’s motto once declared.

He’s chronicled hundreds of them — emaciated ones, obese ones, a few visibly pregnant ones. Some are toothless, some have open sores on their skin, some are covered in scars. Some admit reusing condoms, or having diseases; others shoot up heroin or smoke crack in front of him. The settings are seedy motels, vacant buildings, dirty apartments, weedy alleys, even the backseat of a stripped-out stolen car once.

The hookers he finds have sex with him for just a dollar or two, or for a ride somewhere. Once it was for some chicken wings, another time it was for some hair gel. One took two Newports as payment.

Absent a technological breakthrough along the lines of the industrial revolution, there are going to be a lot more of these stories going around very soon.

{ 83 comments… read them below or add one }

Geography Bee Finalist himself August 4, 2012 at 13:04

I have long since stopped caring about the plight of female prostitutes operating illegally. They are some of the least successful members of the biological sex that hogs all the success in life while blaming the less successful biological sex, males, for allegedly being more successful.

I thought Detroit, as a city, was a creature of the state of Michigan. The state of Michigan can do largely what it wants as far as municipalities, just like any other state can do with its own, if I remember correctly. Michigan allegedly has a poor business climate (as does New York), but does not seem to want to rectify its business climate (granted, neither does New York).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Reader August 4, 2012 at 13:08

To be honest I don’t follow this argument: “If it weren’t for vast, middle America, many of our other cities would be suffering the same fate.”

Many small countries in Northern Europe are fabulously wealthy and prosperous despite being tiny and urban. Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Norway. And I assure you their women don’t succumb to prostitution and trafficking?..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself August 4, 2012 at 13:13

sorry, that should be “as far as municipalities are concerned.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself August 4, 2012 at 13:20

OT and apologies for a third consecutive post:

I did keep my promise to The Spearhead readers to not attend my sister’s wedding. I do not care about her future either and I assure you she doesn’t spread her hairy guidette legs for money. The ISP will prove that I am typing these comments from my computer at my residence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
NWOslave August 4, 2012 at 13:21

A nationwide Detroit is in the making. For every trillion dollars borrowed from the fed by the Government, the fed then lends 9 trillion to banking institutions, which they own, and those institutions then lend out 9X as much as well. If you think that little hiccup in 2008 was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Sex will soon be the cheapest commodity out there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 4, 2012 at 13:39

Many small countries in Northern Europe are fabulously wealthy and prosperous despite being tiny and urban. Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Norway. And I assure you their women don’t succumb to prostitution and trafficking?..

-Reader

How can you compare the US to small, Northern European countries? That’s ridiculous and ignorant. If you want to make a comparison, look at other huge, multi-ethnic empires like China, India and Russia. And Brazil, I suppose.

You might as well say that all Chinese cities could be like Singapore…

Anyway, aside from Norway, the countries you mention are not “fabulously wealthy.” Not even close. They are more like high-average American states like New Jersey, if that.

MKP August 4, 2012 at 13:54

I guess I agree with the implied premise of the article – that our nation’s likely economic and social demise will be bad news for most women, and that they don’t deserve any sympathy on that account. But that seems like a big price to pay for “gettin’ back at the uppity women” – destroying what used to be the strongest country and biggest economy in the world. You’d hope there was some way of both fighting back against the worst excesses of feminism and female supremacy AND also maintaining our country as a place that’s relatively successful and thriving.

No, I don’t have any better ideas. I’m just saying – it’s sad.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keyster August 4, 2012 at 13:54

And yet these same cities keep electing the same Democrat candidates for mayor and city council, year after year. The cities that promoted gentrification in downtown areas did well, as the blacks were pushed to the periphery neighborhoods, once occupied by Euro-ethnic immigrants.

Detroit was too far gone for urban renewal by the time car manufacturers moved their headquarters to Auburn Hills, and white managers and engineers to tony gated communities north of town.

The progressive agenda is to de-populate the suburbs and re-populate the decaying big cities with able minded tax payers. They want commuting to be a thing of the past; to reverse white-flight. The big cities are primarily bastions of Democrat/minority/single female/gay. The suburbs are enclaves of traditional white families. Big city governments attract takers and repel makers.

Young men will hustle drugs and young women will hustle their bodies. Mortality rates will climb. Bigger inner city jails will be built.

The bankrupt cities in California are the canary in the coal mine. Next will be the entire state. They simply can’t sustain their public union pensions and healthcare coverage without significant tax increases, which they also won’t approve…and yet Obama is guaranteed to carry the state, Gerry Brown a hero.

When the Fed needs to borrow/print more money to bail out California from insolvency – – all Hell will break out across the land.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 4, 2012 at 14:02

But that seems like a big price to pay for “gettin’ back at the uppity women” – destroying what used to be the strongest country and biggest economy in the world.

-MKP

Of course I have sympathy for those in wretched circumstances, but I don’t think softening the message is going to help them. Enabling our women in destroying the incredible engine of prosperity and happiness America used to be is a kind of social crime, IMO. But politics are politics, and the mob rules…

Young Guy August 4, 2012 at 14:17

What will the future be like for women?

It doesn’t really matter to me. It is hard to stay motivated when you live in a place that places female success above male success. I don’t know how people expect men like me to invest in a future that looks bleak for American males. Almost every place in America is being made female-friendly at the expense of males. If you tell men they don’t matter enough times, don’t be shocked when they stop caring. Also, a lot of men are starting to see women as ruthless competitors, and there is a lot of resentment in the heart of your average man. When I look around me and into the future, I don’t see a lot of hope. I see a decaying society that is infested with cockroaches and leeches. Men were the lifeblood that kept society alive and thriving, but we were abandoned and betrayed by women and the government. I feel sorry for men, but I can’t say I feel sorry for women. They either pushed for feminism or they sat back and did nothing. The average man tried to speak out against feminism, but he was either silenced or shamed into submission.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel August 4, 2012 at 14:21

“What Will Future America be Like for Women?”

Don’t know. Don’t care. Here’s a more important question:

What Will Future America be Like for Men?

Why must we always worry about what will happen to women?
Why are we not concerend about what will happen to men?

Who can answer that one?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
JFinn August 4, 2012 at 14:28

If you’re haggard, it’s because you do drugs, don’t exercise, and eat poorly. Having sex with men doesn’t ruin you – it makes you better at having sex with men. Having sex with a hundred guys once isn’t different than having sex with one guy a hundred times.

Slut shaming = male perv shaming. Men are not filthy pigs that coming in contact with them makes you dirty by association. Men are beautiful.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 4, 2012 at 14:28

@ Price -

“California’s smaller cities are already going in that direction as the state is bankrupted by entitlements and Democratic policies.”

I’m no liberal socialist Democrat, but entitlements are associated with Republican policies as well as Democratic policies. They are two sides of the same coin. Industry, the Military-Industrial Complex, Corportations and all the people associated with them have benefited during the past forty-four years by stealing from those who refuse to engage in usury and/or public assistance. Just like those benefitting from entitlements associated with Democratic policies. Neither holds a monopoly on moral fortitude. The fundamental binding mechanism of this disposition is feminism which holds our entire political, social, legal and financial identity hostage.

Concerning your description of Detroit, the women there and the men who predate upon them, you might just as well have been describing the area in upstate New York where I live. It has been this way for the better part of a decade. It and many other small places like it were the canaries in the coal mine so to speak as they started succombing to the accelerated decline of our economy long before 2007. Many places are becoming like Detroit. They just aren’t as big and high profile so nobody cared.

To see what is described above, all I need to do is walk down a flight of stairs to the street I live on. The inner city area where I live is populated with crack whores and street hookers and single mothers who do not make enough money on welfare to support their addictions and so have turned to prostitution, selling sex for a couple slices of pizza or a shot of Jack Daniels or a box of tampons. It is examples of women like these (and the men who enable them). Many of these women receive child support but waste it on drugs and other items associated with an excessive life-style but they sell sex to supplement their welfare. If they didn’t have children before, they deliberately get pregnant to collect child support or other kinds of welfare. Mothers sell children or even prostitute their daughters out and don’t think a thing about it.

The mainstay of our city’s drug scene (particularly meth but cocaine and heroine too) used to be homes out-side of town scattered about the country side where police patrolled much less frequently. Women are the primary consumers, getting boy-friends and sex partners to pay for their drug addictions. Basically this too is prostitution. Since decline of our economy began accelerating in 2007, much of that drug scene has moved into the city. This past week, a house nearby by residence (over a strip club and tattoo parlor) exploded, scattering debris four houses away, because of a meth lab. Earlier this summer, a shoot-out in front of another house in the same area killed two people. At the center of all of it are women who exchange sex for drugs – they are the primary consumers and the ones who drive the drug trafficking. If the police were not in on it before 2007, they realize they can profit substantially from it since and many I know have girlfriends or wives who use drugs and benefit from have a man on the force assist them in satisfying their addictions. Although I would never partake or participate in or contribute to this culture, I am well aware of it and don’t have to travel any further than right outside my front door to see the effects of feminism on the economy in the US.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Justinian August 4, 2012 at 14:40

Of course I have sympathy for those in wretched circumstances, but I don’t think softening the message is going to help them. Enabling our women in destroying the incredible engine of prosperity and happiness America used to be is a kind of social crime, IMO. But politics are politics, and the mob rules…

The problem is larger than feminism alone (although that plays a huge part).

It seems as though the root cause is the endless desire to tear everything apart for the sake of the “poor” regardless of the consequences.

Communism killed 100 million for the sake of the “poor” in the first half of the 20th century. Now the softer western version of marxism is tearing the rest of civilization apart. All for the sake of the “poor.”

This sympathy for the disadvantaged is immune to the actual negative consequences of all said reforms and only serves as an excuse to do even more.

The stupid, unthinking egalitarianism that has led us to this has to be rooted out of society for any progress to be made.

The decay will not turn around until it is accepted that some people are more valuable to society than others.

Those who are more competent will naturally rise to the top. Many more are so hopelessly dysfunctional that poverty is unavoidable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 4, 2012 at 14:40

@ Young Guy -

“It is hard to stay motivated when you live in a place that places female success above male success.”

You mean “…female failure above male success”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MKP August 4, 2012 at 14:46

I’m not telling you to soften your message. In fact, I’m not telling you to do anything – you’re just a guy with a web-site that I read and occasionally donate to. You ought to write whatever you want.

But, as an observational matter, I can’t help but notice a seeming contradiction between two common strands of thought in the MRA world. One is “once our country collapses into chaos and poverty, these feminist women will be out of luck.”

And the other is “Why are so many men suckers and chumps who can’t see the truth and value in what we’re saying?”

Maybe many uncommitted men are turned off by a school of thought that offers no solutions beyond “soon our country will collapse into violence, lawlessness and misery. Once that happens, the flaws in feminism will be revealed.” That isn’t to say that such a statement is false. It might be entirely true, and it might be an entirely accurate prediction. But if that’s our “hook,” it’s hard to complain when so many young men want no part in the movement.

And, again, I don’t claim to have any better ideas myself. I’m not especially intelligent or creative. But perhaps we should consider this issue, the next time we’re mocking a man for being a sucker, or whatever you want to call him, for not recognizing the faults and falsehoods of feminism and female supremacy. Maybe he DOES have such a recognition, but he doesn’t see anything better or brighter than “a Mad Max-style collapse will prove us right” coming from our side.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kyo August 4, 2012 at 14:57

You mean “…female failure above male success”.

One more possibility: “…male failure above female success”. Sometimes I think feminists don’t mind their actions’ negative consequences for women, just as long as those no-good evil sexist male pigs get what’s coming to them. Just look at family court.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 4, 2012 at 15:01

@ Justinian -

“The problem is larger than feminism alone (although that plays a huge part).”

No, it really is feminism. There is no threat to civilization more fundamental than feminism.

Feminism is a political campaign of hate against men and children. It is the polticization of a (ostensibly) social problem. (Although it really isn’t a problem as women and their male enablers are just manipulating everyone with the public spectacle of their chronic victimhood).

There has always been poverty and there always will. There are many political, social, legal and financial ways of dealing with poverty. Anyone can be poor so helping the poor is or should be a universal appeal (there for the Grace of God go I). Only a bunch of unconscionable thugs would not be able to see themselves in the face of poverty and reach out a helping hand understanding that they could be in the same circumstances for a variety of reasons.

What makes feminism so destructive is that it comprises elements of poverty (or the claim thereof) and many other victim classes under a sexually devisive umbrella from which all males are excluded. Feminists have made it impossible for a conscionable man to reach out to fellow poor man and help him without enabling feminists and crippling himself.

It effects education by punishing it in a sex selective way (punishing men only – education is used to impute incomes for calculating child support). It cripples reproduction by creating huge disincentives for men to reproduce and huge incentives for women to reproduce. It traffics children. It cripples men and precludes them as beneficiaries of our system of health care. Restraining orders and arrest of child support obligors cripples law enforcement. It affects everything.

The problem of feminism is the single most fundamentally destructive mechanism every created. It is the mother of all threats to civilization. Offering nothing but problems and victimhood but no solutions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 4, 2012 at 15:13

@ Justinian -

“Those who are more competent will naturally rise to the top. Many more are so hopelessly dysfunctional that poverty is unavoidable.”

This statement is completely incorrect and the exact opposite is true. Feminism and all its machinations actively attacks and prevents the most competent and prevents them from rising to the top. Look at the way it interacts with our education system for instance. The smarter, more masculine, more accomplished, more self-motivated and competent a man is, the more the system attacks him and permits the lowest common denominators in society to rise to the top. That is why we are in the mess we are. Only the males of the lowest common denominator (feminists, male enablers of women) have risen to the top. Real self-made men are the ones who are punished under feminism disproportionately in contrast to those who borrowed money and captialized on federal and state subsidies. That’s why it is so destructive because it has encouraged and rewarded evil wicked and dishonest men instead of punishing them and it has actively punished honest hard-working and intelligent men. Our society works just the opposite of the way it is supposed to and the way our forefathers have provisioned.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 4, 2012 at 15:13

Slut shaming = male perv shaming. Men are not filthy pigs that coming in contact with them makes you dirty by association.

Not just male pervs – males in general.

Slut shaming = male bashing – “How could you let yourself be spoiled by having contact with all those dirty males. You know that the only acceptable way for a female to have sex is with her Christian husband, in the dark, in the missionary position, while she lies back and thinks of England, at least 6x/ per year, but at most 12x / per year.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
minuteman August 4, 2012 at 15:32

When governments fail, things will fix themselves. Tons of women work for the state and private business doing totally useless things that do not add value to anything. There won’t be any money for that any more. It is the welfare state that completely debased society by having the state replace the family. When the state collapses the only social safety net will be the family. Welfare queens will stop having children out of wedlock when there stops being money in it. When the state stops acting like a sugar daddy women will once again look to men to provide them with protection and the necessities of survival.

The other likely outcome, as is playing out in Europe is that islamic immigrants will displace the native born population, and the dominant islamic cultural mores of treating women like chattel will replace liberal democracy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Phil August 4, 2012 at 15:35

Detroit was created and maintained by European-Americans. When the European-Americans were forced out, the city began its collapse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Cynical Youth August 4, 2012 at 16:07

“This sympathy for the disadvantaged is immune to the actual negative consequences of all said reforms and only serves as an excuse to do even more.

The stupid, unthinking egalitarianism that has led us to this has to be rooted out of society for any progress to be made.”

Unthinking is the key word here. Our supposedly “free society” is obsessed with imprisioning men to the point where we imprison more people than Russia or China and yet takes special measures to treat women with kid gloves, particularly when their victims are men but even when their victims are children or other women. For all our rhetoric about education, we barely give a crap about the falling scores of boys or how our educators drug them up yet lament over the “plight” of our pampered educators. We obssess over the evils of sloth and lust but flat out worship the sins of pride and greed. And that’s the tip of the iceberg.

That being said I disagree with you notion that we are killing ourselves with alturism. Our “alturism” is all too often incredibly arbitrary, insincere, and self-serving except in response to extraordinary circumstances. You’re looking at the sugar coating of a much deeper malice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 4, 2012 at 16:15

…as an observational matter, I can’t help but notice a seeming contradiction between two common strands of thought in the MRA world. One is “once our country collapses into chaos and poverty, these feminist women will be out of luck.”

And the other is “Why are so many men suckers and chumps who can’t see the truth and value in what we’re saying?”

Maybe many uncommitted men are turned off by a school of thought that offers no solutions beyond “soon our country will collapse into violence, lawlessness and misery. Once that happens, the flaws in feminism will be revealed.” That isn’t to say that such a statement is false. It might be entirely true, and it might be an entirely accurate prediction. But if that’s our “hook,” it’s hard to complain when so many young men want no part in the movement.

-MKP

Good point. It’s too easy to fall into the apocalyptic trough, and people get tired of it. But Detroit really is quite a story — even if it’s depressing.

zed August 4, 2012 at 16:15

Maybe many uncommitted men are turned off by a school of thought that offers no solutions beyond “soon our country will collapse into violence, lawlessness and misery. Once that happens, the flaws in feminism will be revealed.” That isn’t to say that such a statement is false. It might be entirely true, and it might be an entirely accurate prediction. But if that’s our “hook,” it’s hard to complain when so many young men want no part in the movement.

But perhaps we should consider this issue, the next time we’re mocking a man for being a sucker, or whatever you want to call him, for not recognizing the faults and falsehoods of feminism and female supremacy. Maybe he DOES have such a recognition, but he doesn’t see anything better or brighter than “a Mad Max-style collapse will prove us right” coming from our side.

@MKP

That’s an excellent summary why “Game” appeared pretty much out of nowhere, and left the “MRM” in the dust. At least Game is pro-active and gives guys some hope about affecting their own future, instead of just waiting for it to all fall down so women will realize what nice guys those hapless betas really are.

The silliest thing about the “gloom and doom” contingent – hoping for things to go to hell so they can emerge as the wallflower heroes they always believed themselves to be – is that if a real Mad Max style collapse comes, 40% of them will be dead in a month, and none of them will ever reap any benefit from it at all.

The “better predators” that women have been breeding for the past 40 years will do just fine. We are seeing Darwin in action – those that live to be 21 will be tough cookies, indeed. The rest are…. well, as the old saying goes, you can’t make and omelet without breaking a few eggs. The rest will be “broken eggs.”

There is no “movement” to be part of. One of the things I have learned about men is that if you put 2 or more “Neros” together, they will argue each other to death over how to string the fiddle while Rome burns to the ground.

What people today think of as “the movement” are mostly old hippies who fell for the BS of “true equality.” The fools thought as “women’s rights” expanded then “men’s rights” would as well. It took a while for their foolish childhood illusions to get kicked out of them, and that the real game was “winner take all.”

The problem is that few of them are tough enough to win.

I have come to the conclusion that the Birkenhead Drill is hardwired into us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first

The sooner a man figures out that it is, and always will be, “Every man for himself” the better off he will be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Beltain August 4, 2012 at 16:32

I just want to see the look on the face of one of these government subsidized job holding feminist when they have to resort to such a life. All their lives they been handed what they wanted supported by someone else’s money taken by force.

Detroit is proof feminism will last about 15 seconds after the lights go out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jodark August 4, 2012 at 16:37

@Darryl X

Entitlements spent by Democrats cost massively more than the ones spent by Republicans.

Here is the 2012 Federal Budget:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/

Notice that Health and Human Services and Social Security individually are far more expensive that Defense? And only one of those 3 is a Constitutional use of government funds (Defense).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ode August 4, 2012 at 16:43

MKP

I guess I agree with the implied premise of the article – that our nation’s likely economic and social demise will be bad news for most women, and that they don’t deserve any sympathy on that account. But that seems like a big price to pay for “gettin’ back at the uppity women” – destroying what used to be the strongest country and biggest economy in the world. …

It’s a bit more complicated than that.
A common argument I hear is that we are all in the same boat so we cannot let the Detroits of America collapse or it’s going to drag everyone else down.
NOT True
Maybe in the 20th century before globalization that was true however in the 21st century the new system does not revolve around the nation state. Instead cities are developing what is called “economic regions” independent of the home country.
What does this mean?
For example a city’s economic fortunes can be more tied to another city halfway around the globe instead of a neighborhing city. Look at San Jose, CA which is right in the middle of silicon valley. San Jose depends on Bangalore and New Delhi to graduate computer engineers to keep their IT industry industry going. Where as East Palo Alto, a mini version of Detroit, which is only 20 miles away is irrelevant. East Palo Alto city can disappear off the face of the earth and it will have no effect on the financial fortunes of San Jose.

Therefore we can let all the Detroits of the USA rot in their own self created filth and move over next door yet still be completely economically segregated from their problems. The distance is only 20 miles apart but it will be like comparing a 1st world city vs. a 3rd world city. yeah I know that sounds like a movie plot for a dysotopian sci fi movie but that’s the future of America.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jaego August 4, 2012 at 16:46

There are pioneers in Detroit who are farming the weedy lots once the soil has been renewed. Someone made a documentary about it – good stuff except it ignored the reason for the fall of Detroit. It ignored the fact of Black Terror that lead to hundreds of thousands of Whites fleeing.

Detroit is a “food desert” where people have trouble getting food. But why do supermarkets refuse to come there? Are they really trying to starve Blacks – or does the massive level of theft and violence make it a fool’s venture?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 August 4, 2012 at 16:48

What will happen to women?

How about what won’t happen to women.

If things decline Detroit style in America, I don’t believe women will ever respect the family or men again; even if it benefits them. I would like to believe that somehow, American women would become humbled by a catastrophic economic decline. But I think their arrogance and stubborness are at such a high level, that no amount of catastrophe will have an effect.

I don’t believe American women are capable of realizing and admitting the damage that they have done to their families, children, men and society; their souls are too rotten and reprobate. Instead, as things become worse, I think women will find new ways to blame men for the decline, and become even more selfish and arrogant.

During the decline I think that birth rates will plummet, and society will undergo a slow, steady and lonely extinction. The bad thing is that a man in a declining society will still feel lonely, isolated and anxious; the good thing is that the female genes that caused the problems will die out forever.

I think the lesson for men is clear; if you can avoid such a lonely and potentially hazardous existence by moving to a country where women like you and value you as a man, that is probably the best option.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jodark August 4, 2012 at 16:52

@Darryl X

Also, I tend to disagree that Feminism is the root of all the problems in the USA. The root of all the problems in the USA is Communism/Marxism being acted out through various government instititutions.

Feminism may be the root of the destruction of the family, but Communism/Marxism is the root of Feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 4, 2012 at 16:55

@ minuteman -

“Welfare queens will stop having children out of wedlock when there stops being money in it.”

I wish/hop that is true but I’m not sure that will happen. In the US prior to 2007, most women had children with fathers and then left them (usually for other men) and then got child support from them because most of these men/fathers were employed. Some better than others. I can’t give you a precise figure as to the number of men/fathers who were required to pay child support but from the data I have consulted, it looks upward to more than 90%. In the past five years since collapse of our economy began to accelerate and more and more men have been hit disproportionately by unemployment (I’m pretty sure it’s more men that were unemployed but in any hiring I think it’s more men have been rehired into the few new jobs and most of them are of poor quality), women are still having children except that the men/fathers with whom they are having children are unemployed and can’t collect child support from them. That’s a great thing (I guess) about our child support system. They can screw a man who has an education and a job but the courts can’t order child support against a man who doesn’t have a job and they can’t get as much child support from a man who doesn’t have an education. In the past five years, only about 50% of new fathers have orders for child support against them. That isn’t because the courts are getting compassionate and have started to ease up on the child support orders but because the men/fathers have no jobs or educations with which to impute child support. I read this over at Fathers and Families a couple months ago and then did some digging around for confirmation at the Dept of Public Health and Human Services and the New York State equivalen. So stupid women are still having babies just not with employed or educated men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dhanu August 4, 2012 at 16:59

OT: New York Times openly admits MSM stories are scripted by the White House: http://www.naturalnews.com/036609_mainstream_media_White_House_influence.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 4, 2012 at 17:05

@ walking in hell2 -

“But I think their arrogance and stubborness are at such a high level, that no amount of catastrophe will have an effect.”

Yes American women are so self consumed and possessed of such hubris that no catastrophe will inspire within them compassion or reason or enlightenment. But I disagree that women are different elsewhere and I don’t think moving to a different country will help. I’ve been lots of places including China, Vietnam, Central America, the Caribbean, Australia, Canada, Mexico, etc… and women are all the same in these place. I might even conclude that they are worse in countries in the Caribbean and Central America. Except in those places, feminism has run its course and such poverty has crippled all of society and the effects of feminism are not as apparent. But should any of these countries actually start developing again, then you would see feminsim express itself with a vengeance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 4, 2012 at 17:11

@ jodark -

I understand what you are writing and I am no fan of liberal entitlement policies. Conservative entitlement policies abound to however. Liberals identify themselves as victims and get welfare and get the public to pay for it (particularly our most educated and those who have made the most contributions). Conservatives borrow money from the Central Banks or where ever and get the public to pay for the tax breaks of their companies and for environmental disasters they cause and for the excessive incomes and golden parachutes of their CEO’s and CFO’s etc… It’s still welfare. Just a different kind. Borrowing money from the Central Banks has had just as great a negative impact upon the US as any of our welfare programs. Very few business owners are self-made men and started their business the old fashioned way – by working hard and investing and saving. They started them by borrowing huge amounts of cash and then pawning the expense of borrowing onto others who didn’t borrow and then crippling the long-term health of our economy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Justinian August 4, 2012 at 17:40

The “better predators” that women have been breeding for the past 40 years will do just fine. We are seeing Darwin in action – those that live to be 21 will be tough cookies, indeed.

I disagree here.

The intellectual beta male arose because a male with weapon he constructed wins out in the end over a knuckledragger thug.

I know guys like Roissy tend call Anders Breivik and others of his kind omegas, but in reality their supposed weakness is artificial.

The centralized police state is much better at repressing organized violence from high-IQ white males and is incapable of effectively dealing with the petty, chaotic violence of the inner-city underclass. This gives the thugs a false sense of superiority.

In a real mad max style collapse, the high IQ Anders Breivik types would be unchained and would win out against the ghetto gang bangers with sub 100 IQs.

I think you underestimate the ruthlessness and calculated slaughter that a “weak beta male” is capable of when pushed too far. The chains holding it back will fall away and many will be surprised at what he is capable of.

Precision intellectual violence outshines the testosterone-laden bravado and directionless fury of a thug alpha.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Johnycomelatley August 4, 2012 at 18:06

I was brought up in a slum so I have first hand experience with sort of thing, Thomas Sowell was right, it all boils down to welfare, or more precisely generational welfare.

I think Michael E. Jones has a book on Detroit and describes the move by the federal government to bring welfare depandants into the city by increasing public housing, supposedly to break up the unions in the car industry by bringing in cheaper labour.

Central planning gone awry, I guess it’s California’s turn next.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 4, 2012 at 18:09

I think you underestimate the ruthlessness and calculated slaughter that a “weak beta male” is capable of when pushed too far. The chains holding it back will fall away and many will be surprised at what he is capable of.

Precision intellectual violence outshines the testosterone-laden bravado and directionless fury of a thug alpha.

-Justinian

I hate to have to point this out, but what do you think liberal white beta males are doing? Twiddling their thumbs?

They are acting aggressively with “intellectual violence” labeled as “progressive activism.” They are powerful because their opponents are either dumber or less willing to engage in “dishonorable” fighting. “Passive” aggression is aggression all the same.

Nobody ever won a war by handing all their “unmanly” weapons over to the enemy.

Keyster August 4, 2012 at 18:23

The fools thought as “women’s rights” expanded then “men’s rights” would as well.

The whole “male disposability” meme pushed by a few well-meaning MRAs reminds me of this. As if trying to appeal to the “Humanitarian” in all of us that “men are people too” will ever have an affect. As long as women give birth, they will be advantaged by society; she the Queen and we the worker drones born to provide and protect.

I understand the strategy, trying to turn feminism around on itself, exposing the hypocrisy by applying “true” equality to men and women. And taking the position that “Actually, men are the REAL victims!” …being viewed as mere “utilities” that sacrifice themselves for women, children and society.

It’s such a bizarre concept to try and relate to anyone, when most people don’t even know what misandry even is, let alone misogyny.
Men need to stop sacrificing themselves for a society that discriminates against him, even though he’s been doing this for millenia. I just don’t think the “men as yet another victim group” is a viable play…it’s a waste of time and energy to promote it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
tom47 August 4, 2012 at 18:38

It’s interesting that some guys here seem to believe in their own brand of misandry. By that I mean the idea that men are too stubborn, too inclined to in fighting, and too pussy mongering for there to ever be a men’s movement. Worse yet is the idea that we are hardwired to be that way. Why not just burn our jockey shorts and shout “men are scum” or maybe “men are all dogs”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Justinian August 4, 2012 at 19:02

I hate to have to point this out, but what do you think liberal white beta males are doing? Twiddling their thumbs?

Not all betas or omegas are white knights or liberals.

There are plenty of other socially disenfranchised, invisible men who are steaming at the current situation. They are not lashing out because of any inner sense of morality or progressive beliefs, but because they fear the nearly 1 million law enforcement officers in United States.

High IQ males tend to use organized violence against their enemies.

In tribal situations (mad max scenario), this is much more effective than pure machismo. But organization is also its Achilles heel when under the subjugation of a continent-wide superpower with a vast FBI/BATF/law enforcement network.

The superpower loves busting up rival organizations like the mafia, white supremacist associations, and any nascent group of angry men seeking revenge on feminists.

However, the superpower is too big or too unwilling to effectively deal with the common crack peddler thug in the ghetto. Just because these petty predators are allowed to spawn dozens of bastards under the current feminist regime doesn’t mean that they would be superior to the repressed Sodini or Breivik under a system collapse.

In a scenario of economic collapse where the authorities suddenly disappeared, other repressed betas and omegas would be emboldened to use force to get what they want.

I disagree with zed’s conclusion. The welfare state props up the losers and the predators that women are breeding.

These thugs are not very strong without big daddy government to prevent the spurned beta from taking the law into his own hands.

The advantages that high IQ gives would become more important than bravado when the leviathan government disappears.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jodark August 4, 2012 at 19:23

@Justinian:

In a real mad max style collapse, the high IQ Anders Breivik types would be unchained and would win out against the ghetto gang bangers with sub 100 IQs.

I think you underestimate the ruthlessness and calculated slaughter that a “weak beta male” is capable of when pushed too far. The chains holding it back will fall away and many will be surprised at what he is capable of.

Precision intellectual violence outshines the testosterone-laden bravado and directionless fury of a thug alpha.”

This individual relates the same reality in a very different manner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VqG_4ADFfQ
“Little, 12yo white girls can hit the bullseye everytime with her AR15. Gangbangers out here can’t even hit the guy they were aiming at with an entire clip”

@W.F. Price
“I hate to have to point this out, but what do you think liberal white beta males are doing? Twiddling their thumbs?”

They will be doing the plowing; “Those who hammer their guns (Liberal males, manginas) into plows will plow for those who do not (NRA, Tradcons).”

The Liberal male is the enabler for the low-IQ ghetto thug. The Liberal male gives the thug free money and rewards the women he breeds with more money the more he breeds her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jodark August 4, 2012 at 19:24

Oops, Justinian’s quote is supposed to be italicized.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 4, 2012 at 19:25

In a real mad max style collapse, the high IQ Anders Breivik types would be unchained and would win out against the ghetto gang bangers with sub 100 IQs.

I think you underestimate the ruthlessness and calculated slaughter that a “weak beta male” is capable of when pushed too far. The chains holding it back will fall away and many will be surprised at what he is capable of.

Well, I think James Holmes, Breivik, Seung-Hui Cho, and several others are proof of that. However, I’m not talking about sudden mayhem committed by someone with lots of time to plan it, going up against unarmed, unprepared targets. Take away all the coddled, weak, teenage children of the elite, and replace them with hardened criminals who had already killed a few people, in Breivik’s case, and I think the outcome would have been far different. Or, put James Holmes in a theater that was not in a town ruled by Gun Fearing Wussies, with a significant number of people carrying concealed, and I suspect that instead of the state spending millions of $$$ to prosecute him, that he might have been carried out the theater resembling a well aged chunk of Swiss cheese.

Intelligence and aggression are not necessarily inversely correlated. There are some extremely aggressive people who also have quite high IQs. Mix in a healthy dose of socio-pathology, and you get things like 2 dozen headless bodies that the Mexican drug cartels leave around just to show everyone that they are serious.

It’s one thing to launch a pre-planned ambush attack, it is quite another to walk around in an environment where all social order has broken down and people are willing to kill you if they think you have a pack of cigarettes.

I don’t think any of these guys has any clue about how ugly – and short, violent, and brutish – life can become when civilized values and behavior go into the dumpster. Think Detroit in the late 1960s or LA after Rodney King X10,000. Think Dharfur where the Janjaweed come into a village, castrate every man and boy there, and cut out their tongues, and leave them to die.

Most people are way too soft from living civilized lives to be able shed that socialization and descend into barbarity as quickly as people who already live there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 August 4, 2012 at 19:45

>>tom47 August 4, 2012 at 18:38

>> It’s interesting that some guys here seem to believe in their own brand of misandry. By that I mean the idea that men are too stubborn, too inclined to in fighting, and too pussy mongering for there to ever be a men’s movement. Worse yet is the idea that we are hardwired to be that way. Why not just burn our jockey shorts and shout “men are scum” or maybe “men are all dogs”?

Because men aren’t scum or dogs, but they are too stubborn to ever cooperate to make an effective men’s movement. I take it you are another new guy, who has not spent years of his life trying to get men to cooperate to make a men’s movement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 4, 2012 at 19:59

I just don’t think the “men as yet another victim group” is a viable play…it’s a waste of time and energy to promote it.

Totally agree with this. However, this particular meme did not surface for the first 20 years or so. When it did, I got pretty pissed and wrote an article called “Masculism, not Me-too-ism.” Men just can’t do victim very well – it goes against the grain for most men. Plus, men save women, women don’t save men. If men play victim, then who is going to save them? No one.

It’s pretty difficult to explain the prevailing thought at the time to someone who wasn’t there. In 1970, Norman Mailer wrote a book called “Prisoner of Sex” which alluded to the control over men that women had via sex. In his introduction, he mentioned “The firmest mail prejudice – that women already had the better half of the deal.”

It is impossible to describe the fracturing between generations caused by the Vietnam War. When women said they wanted “equality”, men of that age looked at the 58,000 dead young men and figured that “equality” meant 29,000 dead men and 29,000 dead women. A lot of guys were down with being able to stay alive if a woman took his place.

The whole “male disposability” meme pushed by a few well-meaning MRAs reminds me of this.

most people don’t even know what misandry even is,

Both “misandry” and “misogyny” are complete BS. Competition for survival and resources, and tribalism, dictate human cultural values more than anything else. “Misandry” is the human condition. Go to Wikipedia and pick any subject related to war and just follow links. You will run out of time and attention far before you run out of reading material.

Probably one of the things the human race is best at is figuring out ways to kill each other.

Whenever I hear some guy whining that “men are the disposable sex”, I tell them yes, men are. Now, get over it. Women are human beings, men are human doings. Get over it.

The reality is that works to men’s advantage. There isn’t much a woman born ugly can do to increase her social value, but skilled men are always valuable to the tribe. But, if half your men get killed, and you still have all the women, then you can breed more men – even with the ugly women.

Men can flip the whole disposability issue by rejecting the notions of “duty” and “obligation” – as in the way that Bennett and Hugo just used them to imply that men are obligated to give their lives to save women – and become purely mercenary – “OK, what are you going to give me for my life?” “That’s all you’re gonna offer? Not enough.”

At MGTOW Central, we call this “payment in advance.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Attila August 4, 2012 at 22:03

Couldn’t care less about “the women” – of any color.

I was walking to the grocery store today when a young college guy holding something like a petition approached me and said:

“Hello Sir- care to support women’s right to healthcare?”—he had a Planned Parenthood T-shirt.

I said – “Why should I care about women’s rights to anything when they don’t give a hoot about mine?”.

Young dude seemed taken back for a second and waved goodbye by saying ” Have a Nice Day!”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rob August 4, 2012 at 22:25

“I got pretty pissed and wrote an article called Masculism, Not Me Too-Ism. Men just can’t do victim very well – it goes against the grain for most men.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Justinian August 4, 2012 at 22:30

Well, I think James Holmes, Breivik, Seung-Hui Cho, and several others are proof of that. However, I’m not talking about sudden mayhem committed by someone with lots of time to plan it, going up against unarmed, unprepared targets. Take away all the coddled, weak, teenage children of the elite, and replace them with hardened criminals who had already killed a few people, in Breivik’s case, and I think the outcome would have been far different. Or, put James Holmes in a theater that was not in a town ruled by Gun Fearing Wussies, with a significant number of people carrying concealed, and I suspect that instead of the state spending millions of $$$ to prosecute him, that he might have been carried out the theater resembling a well aged chunk of Swiss cheese.

I have to disagree with you again.

It seems to me you think that civilized beta men wouldn’t adapt or change under the harsh economic conditions resulting from a collapse.

So what if they aren’t hardened now? They WILL get hard in short order and then they will have that hardness in combination with their vastly superior intelligence.

Gamers like to mock Japan as the most beta nation on earth, yet those men at one point conquered a vast pacific empire that was only brought to heel with two atomic bombings.

The current zeitgeist of wealth and political correctness favors the thug and pacifies the more intelligent men with their soft office jobs. That would change given a brutal struggle for survival.

A hardened thug is still a thug and easy pickings for a smarter man intent on conquest or revenge.

It is why I believe that Africa will ultimately be colonized and conquered in the future, perhaps next time by Asians looking for
living space.

The current PC international order protects that basket-case of a continent from outside interference, but it will not last forever.

Great powers commit suicide, backward nations get conquered by better organized patriarchal peoples.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ActaNonVerba August 4, 2012 at 22:48

This article feels a little like white-knighting to me. I don’t expect anyone here to listen to me but I still think it’s fun to come on here and shoot the rag so I hope nobody takes me too personally. Like I said, though, sounds like white-knighting or trying to win the approval of feminists to me.

I could care less about how well compensated women are for prostitution At least the women in the story are behaving like adults. They got themselves in a tough spot and they’re trying to work themselves out of it. I look up to them more than the women in the suburbs who expects to be completely babied and have her every materialistic wish granted in exchange for access to her vagina. Talk about immaturity, an overinflated ego, and a sense of entitlement.

Anyhow, the larger point is also being completely missed. In any city, county, region, state, or country, the “average” man always has it worse than the “average” woman. That means that the average man has it worse than the average woman in Detroit and that should be the focus of MRA’s.

It’s really irrelevant to discuss how women will have it in the future. Wherever they fall on the scale, men will have it worse. As a side note, I’ve kinda had the thinking lately that nothing is going to really change until men start getting equal time to children in infancy and early childhood. Whatever a person learns during that time really sinks in deep and is very difficult to unlearn.

Women dominate the life of young children (mom, maternity leave, housewives, complete dominance in early childhood education, etc..). These poor young boys’ confidence is low and their brains are scrambled eggs by the time they get out of the third grade.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JFinn August 5, 2012 at 00:43

@ zed

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Slut shaming = male shaming. It’s funny how feminists constantly push men to hate their sexuality which then feeds into men hating sluts(for being with “disgusting” men) and then whine about slut shaming. I hope the men’s rights movement realizes one day that slut-shaming is derivative of the hatred of male sexuality. The same goes for homophobia, which gay men suffer from far more than gay women do. And, yes, I acknowledge that there are plenty false accusations of homophobia, too. And I’m in lockstep with the MRM on all other issues.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost August 5, 2012 at 01:40

Michican is the way it is due to artificial money coming in. They had an industry that made its money on a global scale and not from the productivity fro the local economy. Liberals take over and set tax and spend policies based on that and when the one big source of income fails or they regulate them to moving plants to the southern states you get what you see today.
The economy in these areas will never recover because it was never based on local productivity or policy that encouraged it. The locals and the politicians don’t know how and just plain on the part of the politicians would rather see the city dead than allow some private citizen make a big living.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
freebird August 5, 2012 at 02:08

I left Detroit long ago and now live about 4 hours north of it.
There is no sign of diminished returns for entitlement Princesses in areas that have an wealth left.

For you see,men most always put women first.

The young gals around here have enhanced hypergamy search machines,most often known as smart phones.
They are snotty,ignorant,coddled,and competed for by young men as always.

It seems as a man gets old enough he forgets how his sex drive used to make him chase the pussy at great expense.
There appears to be no lack of this ending.Maybe never as far as I can tell.

“Whenever I hear some guy whining that “men are the disposable sex”, I tell them yes, men are.”

It seems this will never change.Gives the gals a big hand-up to just keep using the *tools* at their disposal.

As long as the sex drive is greater than the intellectual realization,or can be justified in the temporary realm,men will pussy beg,and be treated as beggars.

As long as smart phones are selling and sexting continues,hypergamy will only increase.
The fruits of the intellectual have become the sexual hook-up devices used by hot crotches.Ironic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Peter South August 5, 2012 at 03:00

That’s an excellent summary why “Game” appeared pretty much out of nowhere, and left the “MRM” in the dust. At least Game is pro-active and gives guys some hope about affecting their own future, instead of just waiting for it to all fall down so women will realize what nice guys those hapless betas really are.

Game is not a solution. Everybody can’t be an alpha, that’s like advocating CEO training to eliminate poverty. Hey if you all were CEOs you could buy all the bread you want. Duh.

Soon it stops working. A lot of these guys are going overseas to greener pastures. Why? Because it works so well? Even they are becoming saturated, girls catch on after a while and when every guy is an “alpha” which one do you pick?

And as for their thugspawn being too tough for us, I think you are confusing belligerent bums and metrosexuals with alphas. Just because a guy acts like a douchebag doesn’t mean he’s actually tough. Women like guys who act tough, not ones who are tough.

Once the law and order breaks down there will be no one left to protect them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Peter South August 5, 2012 at 04:20

I hope the men’s rights movement realizes one day that slut-shaming is derivative of the hatred of male sexuality.

Never happen. Women are the gatekeepers of sexuality.

Put it this way…

What do you call a key that opens more than one lock? Master key
What do you call a lock that is opened by many keys? Shitty lock

These women are shitty locks. Sluts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Common Monster August 5, 2012 at 08:37

Colorado, like lots of the West, is littered with ghost towns, from the mining rush ~150 years ago. Once the resources were gone, these little ecologies of commerce collapsed. The people who cashed out their chips at the top of the boom, or not long after, and moved on did the best. Those who were slower got trapped holding the increasingly worthless bag until they were forced to leave with basically nothing.

What the modern view doesn’t seem to do very well is view men as a renewable resource, rather than as something which is merely expendable. If you’re gonna be treated like an object (more like a subject) is a big step up to be regarded as at least something which needs to be attended to occasionally.

Zed’s right: to want to be regarded as human beings is pie-in-the-sky stuff. No body even knows what it really means. Idealism is fine, but needs to be kept in perspective.

Anyway, if the Detroit picture being painted here is the situation, it sounds like they have the opportunity of becoming the sex tourism capitol of the country – no human (sic) trafficking required!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
NWOslave August 5, 2012 at 08:39

@JFinn
“Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Slut shaming = male shaming.”

I disagree. Slut shaming is shaming disloyalty. Think of it this way, if our mediagod promoted loyalty, the patriarchal family, ect, wouldn’t that pretty much solve all the problems? If everyone stuck with their first lover for life, there’d be no divorce, no fatherless children, no STDs. How is that bad? Not slut shaming is promoting womens animalistic, hypergamous nature. How is that good?
————
“The same goes for homophobia, which gay men suffer from far more than gay women do.”

Homophobia is a made up word to shame anyone who disagree’s with the mediagod. Bigot, homophobia, misogynist are all words to silence the masses from speaking out against the social engineers. You wanna stick your junk where the sun don’t shine, knock yourself out. You tell me I have to love it and call me a homophobe if I don’t, I say bullshit, I don’t have to love it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Raj August 5, 2012 at 09:14

Collapse isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

Feminism exists because men want it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Attila August 5, 2012 at 09:16

The fact is- woman has been the family’s anchor for millenia (for a host of reasons) so that anything which interferes with her functions of nurturing and child-rearing (especially in the early stages) will resonate throughout the social body – for better or worse. The Hindus used to say – “when the women are ruined- society will collapse”. Isn’t that what we see in the United States of Amerikwa?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 5, 2012 at 09:37

OT but the link below to a Fathers and Families article reports a directive by the feds to reduce incarceration of indigent fathers who owe child support. Important development in the US.

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/08/05/feds-try-to-slow-incarceration-for-child-support-debt/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel August 5, 2012 at 10:18

Detroit’s a special case for obvious reasons. 85% white in 1950, now 90% black.

But here’s a Detroit story about women, relationships and consequences.

22 year old woman tells 26 year old man she’s breaking off their relationship.

26 year old man expresses his disappointment by spraying her car with bullets – while she’s in it.

26 year old man offers 22 year old woman $5,000 not to testify about his temper tantrum. Woman refuses.

26 year old man and accomplice kidnap 22 year old woman and friend and throw them in trunk of car in front of at least one witness.

Bodies of 22 year old woman and friend are found buried in shallow grave.

And the moral of this story is?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DirkJohanson August 5, 2012 at 11:27

Half a Roxicet, street value $15, less with a script, gets you a hot white girl under 25 in Tampa now if you can find her; a whole one and you can get laid going to just about any strip club.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
anon August 5, 2012 at 12:02

This is what will happen: the government will pick the nearest man with wallet to pick-up the bills:

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/07/13/in-canada-man-with-no-biological-relationship-to-child-must-pay-support/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
E August 5, 2012 at 13:18

Charles Martel August Detroit’s a special case for obvious reasons. 85% white in 1950, now 90% black.

But here’s a Detroit story about women, relationships and consequences.

22 year old woman tells 26 year old man she’s breaking off their relationship.

26 year old man expresses his disappointment by spraying her car with bullets – while she’s in it.

26 year old man offers 22 year old woman $5,000 not to testify about his temper tantrum. Woman refuses.

26 year old man and accomplice kidnap 22 year old woman and friend and throw them in trunk of car in front of at least one witness.

Bodies of 22 year old woman and friend are found buried in shallow grave.

And the moral of this story is?

Take money when it’s offered?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
NWOslave August 5, 2012 at 13:40

@Attila
“The fact is- woman has been the family’s anchor for millenia (for a host of reasons) so that anything which interferes with her functions of nurturing and child-rearing (especially in the early stages) will resonate throughout the social body – for better or worse. ”

Completely false. Look at the modern woman as anchor family. A society collapses under the woman as the anchor to a family. In fact, with the woman as the anchor to a family that sociaty can never progress past cave dwellers. Every society that progresses has the man as the anchor to a family.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keyster August 5, 2012 at 14:31

Every society that progresses has the man as the anchor to a family.

I think he means as in “anchored” to home, hearth and tending to the little ones, while hubby is off toiling in the salt mines. The figurative anchor is usually the one who’s more dominant in the relationship, more often than not this is the female – – more so today than ever before.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American August 5, 2012 at 15:29

America is being split into two main segments..
1. The educated orderly patriarchy, that calls itself the “matriarchy”.
2. The broken / uneducated violent matriarchal underclass that the main stream media calls “the patriarchy”.
Ive read that 85% of repeat violent offenders currently in Americas prisons come from the segment of society with no fathers around, so how can main stream American media, and American academia say violence is from the patriarchy???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ode August 5, 2012 at 17:22

Keyster

The bankrupt cities in California are the canary in the coal mine. Next will be the entire state. They simply can’t sustain their public union pensions and healthcare coverage without significant tax increases, which they also won’t approve….

After 9/11 when we had a mini recession, I had a discussion with a Liberal who said that government cannot cut spending because the public relies on social services. It would be political suicide for any politician to do so. I replied but what if the creditors pull the plug?

Think of a credit card junkie who gets way over his head and the bank cancels all of his credit. He is forced to reduce spending. The Liberal replied, confident with his knowledge of economics, “that only happens to individuals, companies, and 3rd world nations but it cannot happen here.” I paused for a moment and knew it was pointless to continue the discussion. Experience has taught me that when a person has his heels dug into the ground then everything you say will simply go into one of their ears and out the other so it’s time to end the discussion.

Fast forward to the present, I have been vindicated. California is cutting spending. All the baby momas out there, watch out! You’re days are numbered daddy government is going to cut you off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 5, 2012 at 19:57

@ jodark -

(sigh)

I distinguish feminism from Marxism/communism.

Marxism/communism has elements which compromise civilization and its advancement for sure.

However, even Eisenhour promoted a degree of socialism. A system can’t be purely capitalist. It’s not possible. That would be a dog-eat-dog world. And with like we’ve had the past forty-four years of (then) cheap credit that now someone (like me) has to pay for everyone else, capitalism in that form (which really was just an expression of Marxism/communism) was an unmitigated catastrophe because to many self-proclaimed capitalists were really not self-made men but were just borrowing huge wads of cash and making everyone else pay the interest on the debt for them (think military-industrial complex). There’s no point in trying to convince you of the problems with capitalism as it has been practiced in the US during the past forty-four years so I won’t try (mostly because it wasn’t really capitalism but a perverse form of fascism). Regardless, feminism is not fundamental to or a kind of these expressions of economic theory. Feminism has nothing to do with economics. It is seen through the filter of addiction. It is a political (not financial) campaign of hate against men and children. It is an addiction to power and control. Finances can be a part of it but not always. So can law and social engineering. Feminism is solipsism. It is malignant narcissism. It is not related to any economic theory. Feminists certainly have latched onto many financial, social, legal and political programs and rendered them useless. Which is why I think a lot of people believe that socialism is a bad thing when really it’s not socialism which is bad but feminism as the leach on socialist programs. Actually, capitalism as it is expressed or practiced or has been practiced throughout the world is a form of socialism (not vice-versa). Feminism is evil. That’s all it is. Think the Joker in The Dark Knight. It is nothing but chaos for the purpose of controlling any situation. It is institutionalized psychopathy. It has no goal except the extermination of men and the childish destruction of all they have created because it is an affrontery to women and makes them look like the ridiculous asses they are. The more civilized we have become throughout history, the worse women look and the more they want to deconstruct civilization.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jodark August 5, 2012 at 20:54

@Darryl X
You seem very well versed in the economic aspects of Communism and Marxism, but your understanding into the cultural aspects is a bit lacking.

You should do a little more research into how Marxists and Communists have changed American culture using their identity politics (Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, etc.). Feminism got a huge jump start from the various Cultural Marxists in the 1960s.
Their intention was to destroy the family so that more people would be dependant on the government, thereby causing the USA to eventually collapse. At the time, the USA had an incredibly strong family system, the Marxists/Communists realized this dramatically reduced the willingness of Americans to adopt Communism. So they had to drive a wedge in to every aspect of American life they possibly could. And so Feminism and the other special, protected classes were developed as identity-grievance politics to divide Americans. And it worked.

Also, just because the government does something for the people doesn’t automatically make it Socialist or Communist. Though most things it does nowadays are very Socialistic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
anon August 5, 2012 at 21:21

@ Darrylx

Feminism has nothing to do with economics.

You got to read this academic journal ‘Feminist Economist’:
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rfec20/current

Surely feminism has got something to do with economics.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gay State Girl August 6, 2012 at 02:05

I am optimistic that the coming crisis will see the reformation of the welfare system and elimination of many inane university departments and the useless jobs that their graduates usually take up. The entire university system will be transformed (as university in the age of insane Political correctness and Ratemyprofessors.com has become a somewhat of a joke.) Psychology/Sociology/Anthopology/Educational theory majors would have to swallow their pride and take up jobs as care takers for aging boomers. ALANA Minorities Studies majors could apply their newfound knowledge to the slums.

I agree with MKP. I don’t really mind the sweeping generalizations about women, but it is unclear what you are trying to accomplish with articles such as these, that claim to support the interests of women, as well as men. Is the MRM simply an umbrella movement for various (unrelated, possibly incompatible) grievances with feminism or do you have a coherent stance about what should be done (for men and women?)

There are multiple reasons why the West is declining, the destruction of the traditional family structure as well as ethnic diversity (divide and conquer strategy) play a critical role, but it will be the unnecessary wars we are engaged in and the excessive military spending that only benefit foreign nations and domestic corporations that will ultimately make the history textbooks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 6, 2012 at 04:40

@ anon -

You’re right. I had my head up my ass when I wrote that. Of course feminism has a lot to do with economics. But it is not an economy theory or philosophy unto itself. It’s parasitic on ANY economic mechanism. As long as it exists, no economic theory can be practiced as it is intended and work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 6, 2012 at 04:51

@ jodark

“Feminism got a huge jump start from the various Cultural Marxists in the 1960s.”

I agree entirely with your post. When I consider these matters, I tend to disregard the “cultural” aspects and emphasize things like economics. I understand the relationship of feminism to Marxism/communism, but I look at it as parasitic on socialism instead of a kind of socialism. (Any kind of capitalist venture involving highly addictive recreational drugs is bound to be catastrophic at sometime in the process.) Feminism screws up all economic theories or philosophies, including Marxism/communism as well as capitalism. Neither are immune to corruption by feminism. I am no socialist any more than I am a capitalist or fascist or anything else (whatever you want to call them). I do however think that any of these economic theories can work depending upon circumstances of the population and only as long as there is no feminism. I am a strong supporter of Eisenhour who believed that even a strong and purely capitalistic economy (not like the US has had in the past forty-four years which has been on the decline) should be socialized to a degree (a small degree). Not coincidentally, he discouraged future presidents from promoting development of a military-industrial complex. I guess they didn’t get the memo.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tom Smith August 6, 2012 at 07:46

There are several issues here:
1) The US holds itself out as the wealthiest country in the world (i.e. a 1st world nation). Why is some woman selling her body for two cigarettes in such a nation? This is something that people in the US expect to happen in a so-called 3rd world country. So, what has happened in the US? Are the rich so rich and the poor so poor that this is going on?

2) When the US is really bankrupt- i.e. the Chinese will not loan us money for the next round of borrowing, what will happen. My prediction is that it will become the “law of the jungle,” and it will be every man for himself. This means that most of the social programs which benefit women will be cut, but those cuts will probably happen after the cuts occur to men’s programs.

3) The US has to have an industrial policy, to prevent cities like Detroit from going by the wayside. The US also has to have a urban policy that prevents the type of urban decay we have seen in Detroit. This means when the government incentivizes (through tax deductions or tax credits) the moving high paying, good jobs (i.e. jobs for men) overseas without an urban renewal/development policy, you get what you have in Detriot. The situation in the inner city of Detroit should be a cautionary tale to all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Donkey August 6, 2012 at 08:19

“Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Norway. And I assure you their women don’t succumb to prostitution and trafficking?..”

Holland? Is this the same Amsterdam that is famous around the world?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
uk Fred August 6, 2012 at 13:26

Over the years we have removed consequences from decisions and made decisions that are socially, morally and economically wrong without state intervention economically right for the individual and surprise, surprise, people learn quickly. so we end up with a society where women divorce men and financially rape them, single girls get pregnant and know that the state will provide support for them, and the fathers of the children the girls are carrying are in the black economy knowing that the social security system cannot trace them. We have mistaken hurt for harm and have harmed society, perhaps mortally wounded it, and we will either need very strong medicine pretty soon, or society will go into its death throes. And then we’ll all, to use the technical term, be screwed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 6, 2012 at 14:56

Of course feminism has a lot to do with economics. But it is not an economy theory or philosophy unto itself. It’s parasitic on ANY economic mechanism.

Broken record time –
FEMIN-ism is FEMININE-ism.

Feminism = anything that is good for any woman, no matter who it hurts.

Feminism is about women “having it all” – no matter who they take it from – http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/07/02/anne-marie-slaughter-grasping-at-straws-in-have-it-all-article/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mikediver August 7, 2012 at 12:17

I agree that when SHTF the feds will first cut the programs for men. The question I have is how much can they cut? Exactly what are the fed programs for men? Men pay and women get paid. I see no way that any significant harm can be done to men as a whole by the mere cutting of government benefits to men. What will happen, I fear, is an ever increasing attempt to squeeze more and more from men until they are all in prison for not paying what they cannot pay.

Buy shares in the private prison systems companies. They are a growth industry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mikediver August 7, 2012 at 12:19

I agree with the comment that Feminism cares less about the benefit to women and more about the punishing of men. This is what hate does to a person. And Feminism is hate, pure and simple.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Burton August 8, 2012 at 20:42

Civilizations have collapsed before. I’ll list some symptoms of our current era:
* Breakdown of infrastructure.
* Skyrocketing public and private debt.
* Inability to control the borders from mass illegal immigration.
* Decline of once great cities (e.g., Detroit).
* Street gangs growing to the point of low level insurgencies and warlordism.
* Promotion of ideologies which rationalize the decline (feminism, multiculturalism).
* Endless wars which can neither be won nor terminated.
* The usual bread & circuses.
* Elite classes who work against the interests of their own people.
* The end of the manned space program, at least in America.

It’s the last point that ought to be the topic of more discussion. There was a time when pioneering into outer space was seen as the future–Robert Heinlein, 2001: A Space Odyssey, JFK’s epic speech, whatever. That vision is gone. But then again, what else can we expect from a feminized society?

Remove men from the equation, especially the yeoman-farmer-militia-middle-class men, and you lose the central prop for civilization. The kind of man who once might have fixed that bridge or manned the frontier limes has been dispossessed. And all the vagina monologing in the world ain’t gonna fill in the potholes.

No, it really is feminism. There is no threat to civilization more fundamental than feminism.

No civilization has ever been built by females.

No civilization has ever been maintained by females.

Period.

Maybe there was a time when there was an expectation that “liberated” women would act like men: i.e., become strong, independent and creative. The sort of Eleanor Ripley character which is popular is sci-fi movies. Compare that to how the majority of feminist women (and men!) act these decadent days: emotional, hysterical, contributing nothing to STEM, wrecking families, running up taxes, expecting Big Sister Government to maintain them in the manner to which they are accustomed. Anyone think that the barbarians at the gate are going to be held back by slutwalking?

There was a time when one might have considered survivalists as verging on paranoia. But they are ahead of the power curve. You can not rely on the elite classes to protect your interests or your community or your country.

Time to get organized around our warlord bands.

My two cents worth!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr. Freeze August 9, 2012 at 14:49

Gentlemen, the future has arrived with Honey Boo Boo Child:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABzMAuI1vj0

This latest media atrocity was “developed” by these two women:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tlc-development-mariana-flynn-amy-savitsky-279688

If this travesty isn’t in any way illegal, it really needs to be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Philip Anthony August 12, 2012 at 16:40

The Multi-Module Approach to Masculinity of the Doscalist Male

First, the definition of a Doscalist male is a man that disregards the Greek form of masculinity, alpha/superior beta/inferior, and adheres to the multi-module approach. The Doscalist male sees no relevance in having girlfriends or wives and is able to divide himself physically, sexually, emotionally, and mentally. Think about how you would invest in stocks; you would not invest all of your money into one stock because if it tanked you would lose all of it. The same goes for girlfriends or wives. Why invest all of yourself into one woman? If one module breaks it off with you, you still have the other three to fall back on. The key for a successful modern man is diversification with his money and his relationships, male and female. The multi-module approach is as follows:
Module 1:
THE MUSE- This is where you develop a platonic relationship with a woman. The requirement here is that the “muse” boosts your ego and helps to inspire you with your work and home life. A female best friend or tomboy would work best, but remember absolutely no sex.
Module 2:
THE HOOK-UP GIRL- This is where you develop a sexual relationship with a woman. The requirement here is safe sex. We all know women like this because they are a dime a dozen and just as cheap (not meant to be sexist, but this means no buying dinner, birthday presents, anniversary presents, or holiday gifts). There is no emotional connection or friendship.
Module 3:
BIG BROTHER- This is where you develop a strong bond with a male friend. The purpose here is a give and take of important masculine traits. An example would be talking about sports, movies, or sex. There should not be any sensitive or emotional talk. Man talk only!
Module 4:
THE CONFIDANT- This is where you develop an expressive bond with a man or woman. This is where you share thoughts or feelings to reach a sense of spiritual peace. A priest, rabbi, or spiritualist works best. Module 4 is optional because most men do not see or feel a need to be emotional.

Being a Doscalist male in the 21st century has many trendy and rewarding benefits, such as:
 1.) Many sexual experiences with a variety of “hook-up girls.”
 2.) The absent of drama that accompanies “traditional relationships.” Domestic disputes, cheating or jealousy, or being forced to do something you do not want to do to please a girlfriend or wife will be nonexistent.
 3.) There will be no threat of divorce, since marriage does not fit into the equation. Marriage is an unmanly institution, and married men should be viewed as pansies or sissies.
 4.) Having all of your needs fulfilled by many men and women to ensure a healthy mind, body, and soul.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: