Similar posts

Ghost #fundie gab.ai

Anyone else noticed how pussy-whipped Leftist our country has taken since the mid-terms?

It's as if 2016 never existed!

This demographic shift in the electorate towards products of single mothers, feminists, faggots, dykes, gender-benders, man-children and weak men are taking over right before our eyes.

For all those on the "Right" who were complacent, enjoy your future of faggotry!

#Ghost

Alex Stepford #sexist thatstepfordgal.com

Some of you may know (or not know), I grew up from my teens with a single father.

Am I a hypocrite?

In fact, I don’t think so. With my circumstances, it was definitely not possible for my parents to stay together, this has only supported my contention in the fact that single parenting does not only present more complications for the parent but also for the child’s development. It is true, since I’ve been there and my sibling’s been there, they still are there while I am much older.

Single parenting as an experience varies depending on whether the single parent is the mother or the father and both have big cons, not just single mother parenting. I can say that I definitely experienced a minimal effect from the cons since I was already quite old by the time my parents divorced, I was in my late teens so my parents were married for most of my childhood. Additionally, I also had my grandmother to turn to when they separated, we have always been quite close and in a way- she bridged the gap that a mother was in my life pretty well. This is why I am like this now.

However, it is not all smooth sailing, as I will explain now.

Single Mothers

Single mothers love with a nurturing kind of love that is accepting, gentle and they are always wanting to protect in a feminine way. Of course, being women, single mothers can teach the importance of emotions, expressing oneself, understanding others and being more empathetic to their children, which is very useful.

Con: Single mothers cannot teach children, especially male children, the importance of masculine responsibility completely since she is not a male role model. Especially by example. In fact, they turn the whole idea on its head. Male children see their mothers doing all the providing and being a male themselves, they don’t associate providing with manhood. The way mothers protect is also different so male children don’t have any actual examples of bravado or even an actual male role model who has masculine hobbies. The biggest con of all is that they also become too emotionally sensitive, since while they learn such a good thing from their mother, they cannot balance it with a masculine stoicism and bravado that they would learn from a father for father figure. I find a lot of whiny, feminist men are raised by single mothers, many of whom have their natural masculinity actually being suppressed by their single mothers (who are bitter towards men)!

Single Fathers

When it comes single fathers, you can definitely rely on them to provide and protect while also teaching you to be tough and resilient against the world the way a man can. Something I learned was how to bare the brunt and not complain. Also, being more direct and less sensitive, fathers can teach their children to be more blunt when it comes to expressing themselves, with less regard for emotion. Which is good if you want to be assertive.

Con: Children raised by single fathers, especially female children often find that they may be too emotionally hardened or blunt, to the point that when they do interact with boys (especially in teenage years) and people in general they are too blunt or even offensive. This makes them hard to approach by some, I went through this myself! Also, often these female children do go through a tomboy phase since all you have as a visual role model through those years is dad and his t-shirts and pants. The biggest con of all is the hindrance in being able to express their emotions to others, as I see with my sibling and I went through it too, though to a smaller degree (I was helped by my grandmother, though). They find it hard to talk about their feelings and be open to romantic love or to be more receptive and just listening to people. I don’t know many children raised by single fathers, just one other person besides my sibling and I, so I can’t make a general judgement on the ‘type’ of person they tend to become. It’s just a smaller pool of people.

This is why I truly believe in having two loving parents within the family to raise their children. Yes I may be traditional, I believe women should be at home as carers for their children and the house and men to be at work to provide and protect. In this way though, they are still able to teach children in two different ways. Mothers teach by caring and through their emotional skills while fathers teach by example, children see where their father goes and what he does to provide and how he takes responsibility- they can also both teach by actually discussing and passing on wisdom.

One thing I will add: a single father will have a harder time in society. Since they are less common in number, especially with the ostracisation men face nowadays, they are unlikely to receive sympathy and help from general society. People will always respond to single dads with surprise. People will always ask where mum is, much more often than the other way around. You know what really sucks? That my father always gets questioned whenever he travels with my sibling about his travel custody papers and a letter within it from my mother confirming his custody. Because..dad is probably kidnapping the little child or something if he is by himself.

It’s never the other way around.

Ghost #fundie gab.ai

I want to say happy Veteran's Day to all who've sacrificed for America.

Unfortunately, the culmination of your great sacrifices have given America a population of self-serving and unappreciative autists, aspies, faggots, dykes, gender-benders, man-children and weak men who couldn't care less about Veteran's Day.

Our Veterans deserve more than this; I'm sorry.

#Ghost

GOP Tea Pub #fundie gop-tea-pub.tumblr.com

Ahhhh you poor poor delusional moronic douche canoe. It is truly sad that people LIKE YOU have access to the internet and refuse to do any actual research. Then have the audacity to post BS statements that have ZERO actuality to them. But, let me just school you and show you EXACTLY how asinine you and those that follow and believe you, truly are. Those that know the truth are laughing at you and your followers…laughing hysterically as a matter of fact. It must be painful to be that out of touch.

Prior to 2010, the following is what readers got when they clicked on the Democrats.org “History” button….
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.
On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

This is the kind of BS spewed by Democrats on a daily basis, and unfortunately the media and other so-called watchdogs are so apparently ignorant of American history, Democrats continue to LIE through their teeth to their constituents, and via academia, to our kids. Despite the truth being out there for years, it’s probably not going to explode until some big shot news anchor gives us an “exclusive expose” bringing us all those facts first, so he/she can proudly receive a Pulitzer…

October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th
Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to
all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides
Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell
and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a
Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by
Republican Congress

October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

December 10, 1869 Republican Gov. John Campbell
of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to
vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups
which oppressed African-Americans

October 10, 1871 Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871 After violence against
Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S.
troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists
seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated
administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875Civil Rights Act of 1875,
guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race,
signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican
support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat
President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act,
which had enabled African-Americans to vote

January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new
state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing
African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

May 21, 1919 Republican House passes
constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans
in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans
would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by
U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate
Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by
Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native
Americans

October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time
Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the
Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife
of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the
White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition
to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black,
appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden
until after confirmation

June 24, 1940 Republican Party platform calls
for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in
office, FDR refuses to order it.

August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry
Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and
criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima
bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a
friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing
of women and children, revolts my soul.”

September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California’s
three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential
nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown
v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in
Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of
Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights
leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican
Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from
Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President
Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR
to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs
Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour,
around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff
of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American
schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV)

June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett
Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights
Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil
Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority
of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern
Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of
them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on
Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois,
to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally
rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order
authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan
establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal
education programs

June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988 President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan
Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of
Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably
with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The
most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious
appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate
the Negro population…so the next time any Democrat claims they’ve been supportive of civil rights in America (and been so all along), ask them to explain their past. “We’ve grown” is not gonna cut it, considering they continue to
lie about their past to this day, and only someone lacking in common
sense would believe two distinct political parties could juxtaposition
their stances on civil rights seemingly overnight.

The left is quite annoyed that myself and others dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, at that flies
in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil
rights, racial tolerance, etc.

The Democrats’ own website,
to this day, attempts to take fraudulently credit for the civil rights
movement and legislation, and when called on it, the recitation is the
same: “we’ve grown” and “don’t forget about the Dixiecrats”.

Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies.

Well, I decided to get some opinions on the matter from some historians.I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is
not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is
accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post
1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft,
Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists
retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly
galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is
that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted
the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of
what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at
the University of Washington, Tacoma (who also appeared in the Reagan
documentary) for input.
There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to thoseacts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64
act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the
integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the
“private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater
believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only
to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to
refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was
because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt
many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed
Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian
who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights;
it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was asupporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate
Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy”
based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George
Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace
was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP.
The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of
Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched
to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc
etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because
they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to
segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small
government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted
less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states
to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan,
sealed this deal for the GOP. The new “Solid South” was solid GOP.

BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were
*integrationist* Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution
and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited
government principles.

And what did Malcolm X say about the “Dixiecrats”…?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkgA2rUAY-o&feature=player_embedded


http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/

So, there you have it. YOU are WRONG. YOU are UNEDUCATED. YOU refused to do RESEARCH. YOU look like a FOOL. Next time, try actually looking something up, instead of blatantly spewing lies and expecting people to believe you. BUT, if you need more clarification…I have that too, because I, unlike you, am not afraid to search for the truth.

REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS DID NOT SWITCH SIDES ON RACISM By Frances Rice

As a result of unrelenting efforts by Democrats to shift their racist past onto the backs of Republicans, using the mantra: “the parties switched sides”, a lot of people have requested an article addressing this issue.

It does not make sense to believe that racist Democrats suddenly rushed into the Republican Party, especially after Republicans spent nearly 150 years fighting for black civil rights. In fact, the racist Democrats declared they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

From the time of its inception in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks. As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Democrats have been running black communities for the past 50+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.

An alarming view of what America will be like in a few years due to unbridled socialism being pushed by President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts, is contained in the article: “Detroit: The Moral of the Story” by Kevin D. Williamson that is posted on the Internet.

Democrats first used brutality and discriminatory laws to stop blacks from voting for Republicans. Democrats now use deception and government handouts to keep blacks from voting for Republicans. In his book, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as “plantation politics.”

The racist Democrats of the 1950’s and 1960’s that Republicans were fighting died Democrats. One racist Democrat who survived until 2010 was US Senator Robert Byrd, a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Notably, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats in 1866 and became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party for the purpose of terrorizing and lynching Republicans—black and white. Byrd became a prominent leader in the Democrat-controlled Congress where he was honored by his fellow Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate.”

Byrd was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military and complained in one letter: “I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds.”

Democrats denounced US Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about US Senator Strom Thurmond. However, there was silence when Democrat US Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment.” Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. While turning a blind eye to how the Democratic Party embraced Byrd until his death, Democrats regularly lambaste the Republican Party about David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ignored are the facts that the Republican Party never embraced Duke and when he ran for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1992, Republican Party officials tried to block his participation. Hypocritical is the word for how Democrats also ignore Duke’s long participation in the Democratic Party with no efforts by Democrats to block him. Below is Duke’s political history in Louisiana, which has an open primary system.

Duke ran for Louisiana State Senator as a Democrat in 1975. He ran again for the Louisiana State Senate in 1979 as a Democrat. In 1988, he made a bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Then, on election day in 1988, he had himself listed on the presidential ballot as an “Independent Populist.” After his unbroken string of losses as a Democrat and an Independent Populist, Duke decided to describe himself as a Republican, then ran the following races where he lost every time: in 1989 he ran for Louisiana State Representative; in 1990, he ran for US Senator; in 1991 he ran for Governor of Louisiana; in 1992 he ran for president; in 1996 he ran for US Senator; and in 1999 he ran for US Representative.

Contrary to popular belief, President Lyndon Johnson did not predict a racist exodus to the Republican Party from the Democratic Party because of Johnson’s support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Omitted from the Democrats’ rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction.

Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Governor Lester Maddox.

Behind closed doors, Johnson said: “These Negroes, they’re getting uppity these days. That’s a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before. The political pull to back up their upityness. Now, we’ve got to do something about this. We’ve got to give them a little something. Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference. If we don’t move at all, their allies will line up against us. And there’ll be no way to stop them. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Democrats condemn Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called “Southern Strategy.” These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, while deriding Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party.

The “Southern Strategy” that began in the 1970’s was an effort by Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks. Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Bobby Jindal, a person of color, as governor in 2007.

As the co-architect of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, Pat Buchanan provided a first-hand account of the origin and intent of that strategy in a 2002 article posted on the Internet. Buchanan wrote that Nixon declared that the Republican Party would be built on a foundation of states’ rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense. Nixon said he would leave it to the Democratic Party to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.

The Claremont Institute published an eye-opening article by Gerard Alexander entitled “The Myth of the Racist Republicans”, an analysis of the decades-long shift of the South from the racist Democratic Party to the racially tolerant Republican Party. That article can be found on the Internet.

Another article on this subject by Mr. Alexander is entitled “Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do many liberals assume it does?” and is posted on the Internet.

More details about the history of civil rights can be found in the NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter that can be found on the Internet.
An excellent video about civil rights history entitled “A pebble in Your Shoe: Why I am a Republican” by Dr. James Taylor is posted on YouTube.


Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted at: www.NBRA.in

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party
By Frances Rice

History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the
Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in
the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row
Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian
who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University.
As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is
only the second person to serve as president of the three major
professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians,
American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.
Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku
Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon
of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of
the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who
was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was
not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in
reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat….
My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic
party.”

Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux
Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by
Democrats against Republicans, black and white.

On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a
Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every
Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders
black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive
statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the
interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who
desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the
Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state,
reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial
subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”

Heartbreaking are Professor Foner’s recitations of the horrific acts of
terror inflicted by Democrats on black and white Republicans. Recounted
on pages 184-185 of his book is one such act of terror: “Jack Dupree, a
victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi -
assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his
wife, who had just given birth to twins - was ‘president of a republican
club‘ and known as a man who ‘would speak his mind.’”

“White gangs roamed New Orleans, intimidating blacks and breaking up
Republican meetings,“ wrote Dr. Foner on page 146 of his book. On page
186, he wrote: “An even more extensive ‘reign of terror’ engulfed
Jackson, a plantation county in Florida’s panhandle. ‘That is where
Satan has his seat,‘ remarked a black clergyman; all told over 150
persons were killed, among them black leaders and Jewish merchant Samuel
Fleischman, resented for his Republican views and for dealing fairly
with black customers.“

Frances Rice is the Chairman of the National Black Republican Association and may be contacted at: http://www.nbra.info/


Care to try again? I will be waiting for your response of hyperbole and rhetoric with no facts. I also doubt you lack the balls to post this info on your own wall, lest you look more like a fool. The golden part is, the notes will show my response and the TRUTH will once again be out there. This is what you call: game, set, match. Buh-bye!!

g0ys.org #homophobia #transphobia #wingnut g0ys.org

(Warning: Much of the site is NSFW due to heavy use of homoerotic and even pornographic inages.)

Welcome to: G0YS.ORG - Reorient Your Paradigm!

"N0 TOPS, N0 BOTTOMS, N0 ANALSEX, N0 BITCHES, N0 MANGINAS, N0 GENDERFUCK, N0 DISRESPECT:
SIMPLY REAL MEN WHO HAPPEN TO LOVE OTHER MEN - AS MEN. WE ARE THE G0YS!"
Remember to bookmark / add to favorites!


Optimized

Love, Trust, Respect, Discretion, Masculinity
FACT: The Majority of Men Admire Masculinity; -But Do NOT identify as: "GLITQEtc"!

Men who look into the rapidly growing G0YS movement find there is a place for men who love masculinity, but don't feel comfortable with contemporary "GAY-Male" culture due to the entrenched stigmas & appalling health statistics surrounding it (I.E: a rate of sexually transmitted diseases that is [according to the American Red Cross] +4,000.00% higher than the general population)! G0YS represent the majority (say "majority") of men (+60%), -who experience affection for masculinity & choose to express it in an atmosphere of pure respect - without the least hint of moral compromise - NOR a compulsion to promote unhealthy, emasculating stereotypes. G0YS: A sane, sober, approach to masculine intimacy; -with comprehensive theological apologetics for those men who have serious concerns about the religious & moral aspects of M/M affections. G0YS: Unapologetically rational -&- politically liberty-centric!

Most of the men who discover the g0ys (spelled w. a zer0) men's movement are looking for answers to some serious questions about themselves. Most are shocked when they learn that +60% of all men have similar feelings (Yes, +60% - a majority)! Most (but not all) of these men have feelings for women, but grapple with questions arising from the fact that they also deeply appreciate masculine aesthetics & experience affections for other men! But, such men don't identify as "GAY" because that term has been welded with odd, x-gender behavior & AnalSex []; -Activities that most men consider odd, unhealthy, disgusting, & emasculating. Because of these core differences - g0ys do NOT fit into the (GLIBTQETC...) alphabet-soup culture & find much of it to be antagonistic to our masculine ethos.

"G0YS" know instinctively that loving other men has nothing whatsoever to do with AnalSex, gender-bending, x-dressing or otherwise playing the female role! G0YS, -by our very nature, find the entire notion of AnalSex [] in any form to be dirty, dangerous, degrading & damn-un-masculine. And, by shunning casual sexual encounters & completely rejecting AnalSex, G0YS avoid the very perils that spread +98% of ALL STI's/STD's among men! Among g0ys, STDs/STIs are virtually nonexistent compared to the STD/STI figures for the GAY-male community - which are (according to the Red Cross) +4000% higher than the general population! So, while "GAY"-men are plagued with STDs/STIs; - G0YS are NOT! These massive differences are why the g0ys movement matters! If this was merely some superficial argument about petty subjective matter, - then our position would be no different than the likes of meaningless arguments about trivia & personal biases. But, the g0ys movement does center around germane issues of human behavior: Specifically - why men of good conscience need to loudly reject the extremely perilous & injurious actions of a flood of old, dead, callous fools who killed themselves by their very actions & a vestige of shallow cultural progeny who wish to perpetuate their deadly mantras into the future in the name of "diversity" & "tolerance".

Many men who discover the g0ys movement have been abused by religion & told that Same-Gender-Affections (SGA) are "sin". G0YS know that this abuse by religion is so severe that an in-depth section of the main g0ys website has been developed to give substantial, exonerating, in-depth theological answers from several sources (including a Rabbinic PhD who has thoughtfully written on the subject matter). What we have proven in the theological section is how relying on the actual Scriptures represents the real strength of our position (instead of trying to water-down or deride Biblical texts as so many "pro-gay" churches do). G0YS also go into great depth to explain the rationale behind what was & wasn't prohibited in the Torah & more importantly: WHY. G0YS also expose serious, intentional mistranslations in the Bible and how a gigantic LIE arose over time due to those very mistranslations! The theological section is absolutely liberating & very essential for men who demand solid, in-depth, in-context answers to reconcile their faith & feelings without compromising truth, safety or morality. In this regard, G0YS claim to be one of the most comprehensive resources for answers on the planet!

Also within the g0ys main site are many essays that give analytical insight into 3000+ years of history; -proving that it always has been completely normal for men to seek a deep bond with other men -even on the physical level (a/k/a "Bromance+"). And we show how the modern, so-called "gay movement" has shamed M2M affection for decades as it was hijacked by pornographers, perverts, & sociopathic-personalities -- all with agendas that attempt to link their emasculating & disease-spreading fetishes with all Same Gender Affections (by suggesting that it's all part of the same "movement" [GLIBTQETC...]). It's essential to understand how a socialization movement can be perverted by special interests, & how important it is to reject that movement after it has been irreparably perverted by unhealthy agendas. G0YS show how natural male affection has been discredited & contaminated by a gender-bending, pro-AnalSex [], disease-spreading set of fetishes; --And how the term "GAY" has morphed into a word used to push every perilous sex act & bizarre behavior under the guise of "tolerance". G0YS understand that when a social movement results in actions that indiscriminately harm others --then it's time to STOP TOLERATING IT. So: Even though you are a guy who loves men /too -doesn't mean that you need to embrace the culture that is called "GAY". Men loving men is NORMAL; -- NOT gender dimorphic, nor part of some minority with bizarre & unhealthy fetishes! G0YS reject the entire "Gay Paradigm" & choose an older, healthier & far nobler path!

Within the g0ys main site you will also find links to other g0y-centric groups that are growing at a rate almost too fast to keep up with. We've listed many of them with space to add yours if you decide to become pro-active as a g0y, too. We have over a decade of commentary in some of the core groups & encourage your participation after you've taken some time to look over the main site. Doing so will get many of your initial questions out of the way -so that your appearance in the groups won't leave you too "green" as to the general posturing of the members & movement overall.

The g0ys groups also contain a collection of astonishing images of handsome men. You'll discover that g0ys aren't prudes at all & we have no qualms against nudity. We do insist that images be tasteful, & never showcase disrespect of a model. We believe that love is totally awesome & we have no qualms with images that display it between men. We do not believe that "genderfuck", abuse, pain or forms of domination constitute acceptable content (unless such images are used to deride abusive principles themselves). G0YS are all about respect. Our use of imagery tries to relay the clear message that men can totally love other men without anyone losing his respect nor making any sacrifice of masculinity.

Corey Savage #sexist returnofkings.com

7 Ways Modern Women Treat Men Like Dogs

Corey is an iconoclast and the author of ‘Man’s Fight for Existence’. He believes that the key to life is for men to honour their primal nature.

For all the feminist criticism of men supposedly treating women like dogs, it is actually today’s feminism-infected women that are treating men like domesticated animals.

While the majority of women still prefer masculine men for relationships, I’ve been noticing how more and more women today are defying their biology for ideological reasons and are pursuing long-term relationship with men they’re not even attracted to just because they are supplicant and effeminate. If this trend continues unabated, I expect the entire male population to turn into weak and feckless bonobos who grovel around to serve female interests.

Observe the following comparisons to see how men are being turned into dogs for both women and the state:

1. Dogs are optional

Dogs as pets are optional. People get a dog only when they want one; it’s not a necessity. Men today are also increasingly becoming an object of utility for a woman rather than a man whom she forms a bond with for a nuclear family. She will marry a man when she wants to (if at all) and she will dump him when she feels like it.

2. Once attached, dogs offer unconditional loyalty

If you want a picture of what the feminists want from men, just imagine a world where all men are male feminists.

Once dogs have a human to call a master, it doesn’t care whether he is a scumbag, loser, criminal, or homeless. Dogs are faithful no matter who their master is and what he does. In fact, they’re so loyal that they’ll even remain with an owner that mistreats them. And that’s exactly what feminists want men to be.

If you observe the rhetoric of the feminists, you’ll notice two general themes: first, the desire to be free from all criticisms. And second, for men to believe them and “support” them no matter what. Feminists want their prospective low-testosterone boyfriends and husbands to fully accept them for who they are no matter how disgusting, slutty, crass, and toxic they are. They want their men to show unconditional loyalty so that they can openly cheat on them and brag about it. And men, if they don’t want to be called a misogynist, must never question their partner’s past or present behavior and remain faithful even if they’re treated like garbage.

3. Dogs do what they’re told

Once the owner has secured his dog’s loyalty, he can train it to behave on command. Some owners enjoy the power they have over their companions and they will order their dogs around for fun.

Western women today have discovered that there are truck loads of desperate men who will do just about anything for them to win an ounce of female approval. These women have successfully used men to take them out on expensive dinners (only make fun of them on their blogs afterwards), buy pizza for them for free, shovel snow for them, and so on. The women who order these men around like dogs didn’t even have to train them as they’ve already been conditioned from birth by the society to do what women tells them to do.

4. Dogs are treated for good behavior
image
Dogs need to be treated to reinforce good behavior; the same is true when you want to domesticate men as second-rate citizens.

Women understand just how desperate the general male population is for affection and sex. Women today are leveraging this power over men to make them behave the way they want them to, rewarding these simps with faked compliments so that they’ll continue being good boys.

5. Dogs defend their masters
image
One serves a man, the other serves the government and its harem of women.

Besides companionship, the main roles dogs play is to defend their masters. In spite of all the calls for equality, the reality is that women still expect men to defend and save them. The men suffering from white knight syndrome will go as far as sacrificing their own lives to rescue women they don’t even know.

Feminists also don’t mind that many men are serving the police and military force to serve their alpha boyfriend: the government. Women are innately attracted to power and the government is the new protector and provider of women that grows bigger and stronger each day while ordinary men are becoming weaker and irrelevant.

6. Dogs are neutered

Although men aren’t getting physically neutered the way dogs are, other methods are being employed to psychologically castrate men. This includes the epidemic use of ADHD drugs to tame boys, ridiculous laws aimed at controlling men’s sexual interactions with women, and the overall cultural currents to shame masculinity while promoting all sorts of degeneracy that dilute it. Today’s wives don’t even want to get sexual with their husbands.

7. Dogs that are not domesticated are pests

“Masculine men are organizing a meeting? They must be rapists!”

When a dog is not owned by a human being, it is considered a pest that needs to be controlled.

Men today who do not submit to the feminist agenda are constantly attacked as being losers, sexists, misogynists, rapists, and so on. In today’s feminist society, you either serve the female imperative or you’re a Neanderthal who is out of touch with the times. Steps are already being made to control every aspect of male behavior in public.

You should also remember that dogs are natural pack animals (think of their cousins, wolves). By being removed from the pack, they become isolated and dependent on their masters. Can you see how the same applies for today’s men?

The Differences

In addition to being dogs, men are also expected to serve as drones to keep the feminist nanny-state running.

In spite of all the similarities, there are differences that need to be addressed.

First, unlike dogs whose owners house them and feed them, men are not supported by women. Women are free to throw men away like used tampons or divorce their husbands to extract their cash. If anything, men are usually the ones who must provide for their wives.

Second, whereas dogs are under the responsibility of their owners, men are expected to be fully responsible in all their interactions with women. It is the man’s job to ensure that a woman is giving consent even if both parties are drunk; it is men who must watch over their own behavior to ensure that what they say is non-offensive and conforming; and it is men who must ensure that women feel perfectly safe and comfortable in all their interactions. If you so much as walk past a woman in the wrong manner, you’ll be accused of rape. Again, it is the man’s responsibility to ensure that he is acceptable enough to share the same space as women, not the other way around. Feminists want “equality” without accountability.

Are men becoming collectively domesticated?
image
The domesticated cows we see on farms didn’t end up the way they are now naturally. It was through thousands of years of herding and selective breeding that they became smaller, more passive, and accepting of their conditions. But the fact is, it doesn’t take thousands of years to transform entire species. In this article which I recommend you read, a Soviet project to domesticate foxes have shown that it only takes several generations of selective breeding to transform wild foxes into effeminate and tamed versions of themselves.

The global testosterone level around the world has been mysteriously dropping for the past few decades. While chemical toxins in all the products we consume and come in contact with has been given as one possible explanation, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that we as species are gradually becoming emasculated at a genetic level through the selective breeding process. In other words, we are becoming socially engineered to be effeminate. It’s not something impossible when you consider that easily tamable beta males, the sperm donors, are usually the males women select as their mates after they themselves are done riding the cock-carousel. I think it’s a factor we should consider besides the emasculation through cultural degeneracy that we’re already familiar with.

Men are supposed to be men unleashing their primal energy through raw adventure instead of getting tamed into submission. I have no doubt that the systematic domestication efforts of today is what is causing collective male nihilism, depression, and frustrated energy. Men who are awake must allow themselves be men.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh's book Free Speech Isn't Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

caamib #fundie reddit.com

[bold is mine. italics in original.]

Beatings will continue until morale improves / Nickel and a Coke machine


Let's imagine you have a Coke machine that throws out Cokes when you throw out nickels in it. So, it appears it works and you use it that way.

While doing it some shithead comes along and says "Hey, that is morally wrong ! You shouldn't do that ! You should throw rocks in a Coke machine, but know that you're not entitled to any Coke and that machines have their needs too yaddayaddayadda..."

Would you listen to him, telling you to put something that will give you no Cokes in a Coke machine, while he's basically acknowledging there is a likely possibility that you won't get any cokes?

The point of this metaphor is - SJW shitheads criticize me for coercing women into sex, impregnating a mentally ill woman, doing some other thing I can't talk about etc. but what choice did I have? To treat them with respect and get nothing? Any humane treatment of women only brought upon them despising me. Coercing one woman into sex gave me my best female friend today, using an insane woman for sex enabled me to procreate. Had I had treated them like the cucked mainstream society told me I'd achieve none of that.

I know some of the crazier liberals will find this metaphor with machines insulting to women or whatever deranged bs these mental patients will think of, but they'd say the same if I used a metaphor about chickens giving eggs or something so it's irrelevant - intelligent people will understand.

Scumbags like Amanda Marcotte are manipulating the natural male desire to cherish and protect women when they attack groups like PUAs by saying crazy shit like "Can you imagine what these men would get if they only treated women well?"

And sadly it works for so many men on a primal level.

But once you can overcome that you'll know what you'd get - nothing at all. Nothing but derision and hatred.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, a modern Western man can get by treating modern Western women like some ladies that lived 100 years ago. They are skanks, they are shit and they want to be treated like shit. If you fail to do so will you will be written off extremely quickly and brutally. They are skanks, they are scum, they are just human feces. They cheated on their "boyfriends" with me, their "boyfriends" cheated on them, they can't stand to be impregnated with a man who'd actually take care of the kids, they are verminous whores.

Feminists even have a term for this - http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Feminist_cookie

The insanity of this position is well explained here

https://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/2015/01/31/the-beatings-will-continue-until-morale-improves/

I have noticed the same phenomena from feminists. Like the white vagina worshiping nationalists, feminists offer nothing as well. For most men, embracing feminism will not improve his life. It will make it much worse. In fact, feminists have created a phrase for this, “Do you want a cookie?” Yes, I want a cookie. I want lots of cookies. If feminists want men to become feminists, then feminism must produce real tangible improvements in men’ lives. In other words, feminists need to start handing out cookies. Since feminists refuse to hand out cookies, men have no reason to become feminists and every reason to oppose feminism with every fiber of their being.

So much truth in this post. Treating modern Western women as anything but vermin achieved no results for me but pain. Treating them as human garbage they are achieved all the results these monsters are even able to provide.

Why, exactly, should I put stones in a Coke machine and listen to how the machine owes me nothing?

Mack Major #fundie edendecoded.com

God does NOT bless sin.

The only industries that thrive in the hood are the ones that cater to single unwed mothers. In other words: businesses that cater to fornication. Sadly, this also includes many churches! Think about it: what do beauty supply stores, liquor stores, day care centers, hair salons, nail shops, income tax businesses and churches all have in common?

They all cater to low income single women and unwed mothers. And by definition an unwed mother is someone who indulges in fornication - which is how she typically ends up as an unwed mother. The single women aren't any different. Most of them are living lifestyles of fornication too. They either hide it by getting abortions, or they simply haven't got caught slipping yet.

The 'hood caters to single mothers and SIN. Which is precisely why it has become a death trap for so many: especially black men.

The hood is really just reward for rebellion against God. Women these days have rebelled against God's assigned authority: Male Leadership. This is why they value the man's penis, but not his position as leader. They value his 'head' but not his headship. Let that one sink in for a moment.

In their often extreme pride and arrogance, many of these women actually expect God to bless their lifestyles of fornication and rebellion. They expect for God to make their lives better, when they're not even repentant for their own lifestyles of sin. No repentance for fornication, none for adultery, none for being lascivious, none for abortion.

It's the kids that end up suffering the most, because they are the fruit of that fornication. They're fornication babies and for all intents and purposes, bastards.

This doesn't mean God rejects those children; for He already declared 'he that comes to Me I will in no wise cast out.' But it does mark these kids of fornication as outside of the protective covering that comes from a home that is led by a man.

The man has been assigned headship by God. It's an anointing that each man carries, whether saved or unsaved. Not even Satan can violate or step over that assigned authority.

Now you know why Satan wants to remove men from homes so badly. He can only gain access to the home and therefore the children when the man is not present. Headship which equates to leadership belongs to the MAN - not the woman. A special blessing rests on families that are led by a man. Heterosexual man, that is. (It's a shame we even have to differentiate nowadays).

This is why single parent households ran by women are so disastrous to the black community. These are the leading cause of most of the crime, poverty, high incarceration and high school dropout rates. But at the center of it all is one word - rebelliousness. And that rebelliousness finds its biggest expression via sex outside of wedlock - aka FORNICATION.

While I agree that much of this can be laid at the feet of men as well; I'm an absolute realist: most of the men who mess around with women from the hood are hood dudes themselves.

Hood dudes are basically guys who were raised by single moms too - who rarely ever knew their own fathers - and now they are here repeating the process into the next generation.

Hood dudes aren't men who've abandoned their families. They simply never were a family in the first place. Mom was just a sex fling who wanted to get pregnant (why else take that risk of getting pregnant when a woman has over a dozen different ways to prevent pregnancy). And dad was just a guy from the neighborhood in search of an easy lay.

That's not a family. That's called fornication. And you can't expect a man who's a sinner to suddenly start acting like a saint, just because he's had sex with a woman. That's what whoremongers do - frequent whores! After all: a man can't be a whoremonger unless he's among whores, right? Hence the definition of the word.

Decent men, the marrying type, aren't hanging out in the hood all day, or sponging off of some woman and her kids.

Decent men are busy earning a living and being productive with their lives.

The only men you see constantly in the hood are:

• guys needing a place to stay because they're too immature to stand on their own two feet economically at the moment;
• drug addicts, winos, bums;
• broke gay/bisexual dudes who are known to be gay, who also have HIV (this is where many black women catch it from);
• drug dealers

All other men do their best to steer clear from the hood. Because they realize the urban black community operates as a deadly matriarchal society - something that is antithetical to real manhood. And no real man can be comfortable for long in a matriarchal environment. Sooner or later he's going to break camp too, just like the other decent men before him. Unless he fits that category mentioned above.

BOTTOM LINE: the hood with all its crime, death, brutality, violence, failure and poverty is the direct result of the judgment of God on all those women who don't want to do things God's way. It's an environment for spiritual rebels. And it won't get any better - not until there's wide scale repentance. You cannot violate God's divine order unrepentantly without expecting lots of negative repercussions.

The only kinds of businesses that tend to thrive there are ones that cater to a single unwed mother demographic. Which again includes many churches. Why else are so many churches filled with single unwed mothers every Sunday, with very few single men present? I posit that it's for the exact same reason why you find mostly women in beauty supply stores, daycare centers and nail shops: because those are places that cater to women in sin by making money off or attempting to ease their suffering.

If churches really wanted to be effective, they would preach a strong message of repentance from sin, living godly lives and exhibiting holiness. But here's the rub: most women currently attending church don't want to hear that! They'll attend church, become members, even pay tithes - so long as you don't touch their precious sexual sins! Once you start calling out their sins, they'll start exiting the church, and most likely end up down the street attending a rival church: all out of rebellion!

I'm just being real.

Many churches deliberately keep black women single by refusing to address their real problems and root issues.

The root issue these women have is sin - in particular sexual sin. And pastors know this. Which is why they'll often do slick things like verbally attack men with strong messages of stepping up to the plate, yet treat women with kid gloves.

This is easily understood when looking at it from a business perspective. Men aren't a church's main financial demographic. Women are. So it's easy to sacrifice a handful of men in order to make the women happy.

Male-bashing has always proven to be an effective sales tactic when marketing to women. And it's no different in a large number of churches.

It's time for a genuine Holy Ghost revolution in the black community today! I hesitate to even call these areas 'communities' because a community is built upon solid families. And when there are few husbands and fathers present in the home, that's not a family at all. It's an anomaly.

Strong families cannot be built upon the backs of women. That's out of divine order and will never fly. Just look at the black communities today where women are the 'backbone' for all the proof and evidence that you need. These areas are a wreck today - because only God's way works!

We must stop championing ignorance and dysfunction and start promoting a strong, robust spirituality that can anchor us to solid morals. Only with this type of foundation can we build real communities that are strong relationally, economically and politically. Our children deserve better than this.

Roosh V #fundie #sexist #crackpot returnofkings.com

ELLIOT RODGER IS THE FIRST MALE FEMINIST MASS MURDERER


Since originally publishing an article describing how a male-friendly culture encouraging Elliot into self-improvement (game), legal prostitution, and foreign marriage with Southeast Asian women would have prevented his murderous rampage, I did something that most people won’t bother to do: I read his manifesto. Not even halfway through, I began to understand exactly why the media has been pushing the narrative that PUA (game) may have been the cause: Rodger was one of their own.

Here is the PDF of his manifesto (http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf). If you take the time to read it, you will likely come to the same conclusion I have that Elliot Rodger is in fact a feminist. In other words, the killings of six individuals stem in part because of his mainstream feminist beliefs that, after intersecting with his dark traits of narcissism, entitlement, loserdom, and hopelessness, led him to kill. The fantastical mainstream media articles you have come across trying to pin Rodger upon us is nothing more than a defensive measure to distance themselves from a killer that was a card-carrying member of their own progressive club.

1. He put pussy on the pedestal, just like feminists do
Feminist theory speaks a whole lot about equality, but it’s actually an ideology that seeks to absolve all women from their amusing but sometimes dangerous stream of mistakes. Feminism (and progressivism in general—they might as well be interchangeable terms) treat women as flawless snowflakes that must be coddled and spoon-fed happiness and validation. Any act by a woman, even if it results in failure or bodily harm (like an abortion), is an “empowering” statement of independence and strength, while any failure by men is seen upon as proof that they are out-of-touch doofuses, a fact that is readily displayed on television, movies, and advertising.

Rodger’s manifesto exactly matches this feminist belief. He shows little genuine hate towards the object of his affections—women—and their poor choices, instead lashing out against the men who were successful with those women. Feminists do the same, always ready to blame men for their failures in life, even going so far as saying that society would be better without men, who are mocked as mere “sperm donors.” In spite of the bad choices that women make by dating bad boys at the schools he attended, Rodger gave them a pussy pass and continued to believe that they were flawless angels who should be cherished, especially the blonde ones.

Rodger’s hate for those men isn’t much different than that hate displayed to me and my colleagues here at ROK. Just take a look at this supposedly professional woman having an embarrassing emotional meltdown on a news show because she didn’t agree with what I said, resorting to blatant distortion and lies about “rape culture” and other such nonsense that was unrelated to the piece she was critiquing:
https://youtu.be/g3w-5-b4mhM

Elevating women as the superior sex, which is what both feminists and Rodger have done, means that discrimination and outright hatred must be then applied to the “inferior” sex—men. It’s no surprise that the most violent killings performed by Rodger were on his three male roommates with a knife, who surely endured more suffering and pain than the cleaner executions he did on his female victims.

2. He was awash in blue pill knowledge

We have an often-used metaphor called the “red pill,” which stands for the pursuit of truth concerning human nature, no matter how painful those truths can be. The opposite of the red pill is the blue pill, of people who choose to be placated by lies describing reality. Both feminists and Rodger were firm adherents to the blue pill world—of believing in a way of nature that doesn’t actually reflect actual human behavior. For example:

Both Rodger and feminists believe that attraction should be automatic and easy instead of being based on sexual market value or other components that can be changed (such as game).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that men should be blamed for problems of society or personal relationships.
Both Rodger and feminists were deluded into having standards way beyond their level of attractiveness (e.g., fat feminist cows actually think they should be able to date a good man).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that all a man has to do to get a girlfriend is to be “nice” and a provider, a strategy that no longer works in today’s America.
Both Rodger and feminists hated players who did well with women
As final proof that Rodger was as blue pill as you can get, simply reverse all the gender references within his manifesto and pretend it was written by a woman. What you would then have before you is a pity party of a self-absorbed feminist who thinks that men are the cause of all her problems. If he lived a couple more years, I have no doubt that Rodger would even be a proud moderator of the Blue Pill subreddit.

3. He didn’t believe in self-improvement, just like feminists
In spite of all the loneliness and pain that Rodger went through, he still couldn’t be bothered to lift one finger to improve his station. Compare that to what we teach here at ROK, where we strongly advise you to start your game training with at least 100 approaches, with the expectation that you’ll probably have to do thousands during your lifetime. In Rodger’s manifesto, all 140 pages of it, he details only saying “Hi” to one girl and practically running away from fear. In other words, he did one aborted approach with zero follow-up. That’s not game anywhere in the game universe, and if he came to us saying that he has yet to get laid after putting such an half-assed attempt, we’d tell him to do 10 solid approaches the following day and stop whining like an entitled child.

The fact that Rodger was a member of PUAHate, an online community of social retards who despised game and believed only Brad Pitt and millionaires can get laid, further highlights how vehemently anti-game he was. Why wasn’t he open to improving himself? Why wasn’t he ready to expend the labor to make himself more attractive to women? For that answer, we might as well ask some feminists, who share the exact same belief as him in not having to lift a finger in making yourself more attractive to the opposite sex. Look no further than feminist’s cause-du-jour, fat acceptance, a culture of de-improvement—and frankly, de-evolution—where women gain massive amounts of weight and then flaunt their blubber on social media, ready to attack any man who dare finds their display to be unattractive or repulsive.

Fat acceptance has become so pervasive that we had to dedicate one whole week on ROK tearing it to shreds, but in spite of that, not much has changed. America continues to get fatter and feminists continue to attempt to normalize obesity as actually being beautiful, just like how Rodger tried to convince himself of the idea that having a BMW would be attractive to women.

Take a look at this quote by Rodger:

“Everyone treated me like I was invisible. No one reached out to me, no one knew I existed. I was a ghost.”

Does that ring a bell to you? It’s almost identical to the rant we recently witnessed on the Louis CK show when a morbidly obese female went on to whine and bitch about how being a fat ass is not getting her the man she wants. It’s no surprise that fatties rushed to praise Louis CK for his act of sedition against men and acceptable standards of beauty. There is almost no difference between Rodger and a modern American woman who subscribes to feminist thought.

Now take a look at this passage:
“All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man.”

Let’s do a swap on the genders:

“All the handsome men walked around with blonde bimbos who don’t have a good career like me and knowledge of reality television shows. These men should be going for a strong, empowered, independent, fabulous woman such as myself. Men are sexually attracted to the wrong type of woman.”

The overlap in mindset would be comical if it didn’t result in tragedy.

Another question worth asking is this: when today’s American woman can’t find the man of her dreams, does she look in the mirror and blame herself? No, she blames men for not finding her unattractiveness attractive. This is actively promoted by feminist thinkers on the most widely read American blogs like Buzzfeed, Gawker, and Huffington Post. Rodger shared this same viewpoint. His manifesto is dripping with entitlement of why girls don’t find him to be “marvelous” just because he happens to own a fancy pair of sunglasses. Feminists and Rodger, it turns out, are like two peas in a pod.

4. He believed that men should be chivalrous and kind, like feminists do
Please don’t forward us another listicle on a feminist-friendly blog about how men need to be nice, friendly, and awkwardly consensual by applying legalese speak in the bedroom before passionate fornication. Rodger believed much of the same, thinking that you had to be a “supreme gentleman” that catered to the material and emotional whims of women, doing everything possible to please them in exchange for a sexual reward. We can only imagine how nauseatingly “gentlemanly” he would have been if he actually managed to land a date on his terms.

I have no doubt he would have agreed with just about all the mainstream bullshit advice on being a gentleman, particularly the Thought Catalog piece The 20 Rules Of Being A Modern Gentleman. There is also a Buzzfeed quiz titled How Much Of A Gentleman Are You? that Rodger would have gotten an A+ on. The end result of his loneliness (killing six people) was obviously not gentlemanly, but before that rampage he treated girls with a gentlemanly shyness, reverence, and respect that feminists would have applauded him for. Rodger and feminists believed in the exact same demeanor that men should have around women.

5. He hated game, like feminists do

No one hates game more than feminists, who have gone so far as to equate it rape ([1], [2], [3]). They absolutely despise any attempt by men to improve their value in the sexual marketplace because then that would mean fewer men to put up with their obesity, short hair, or bad attitude. Rodger believed the same, going so far as becoming an active member in the PUAHate community which dedicated the bulk of their efforts to criticizing game and its adherents like a woman’s gossip circle. (On PUAhate there had been over 100 threads criticizing me and other ROK staff.)

Would you be surprised if I were to tell you right now that Rodger and a mainstream feminist shared the same views on PUAHate and game? I hope not, because that’s exactly what I found. A popular feminist writer who has worked for Newsweek, Jezebel, Buzzfeed, and Dissident magazine, Katie JM Baker, publicly declared that PUAs (i.e. us) are actually worse than PUA Hate.

“The men that lurk in the PuaHate forums are almost worse than the PUAs themselves…”

Let that soak in for a second. Feminist rage is so deep and emotional against game that they have supported a forum with “hate” in the title that cultivated and gave comfort to a mass murderer. I gave Baker a chance to change her opinion about believing a forum of hate was less worse than men who practice game:

[Image of a Twitter Feed, Transcript:

RoK: @katiejmbaker, for the record, do you still believe that we are worse than PUAHate? Or did the recent murder Rampage change your mind?

Katie Baker: lol, what are you even talking about?]

A feminist refused to reverse her position that game practitioners are not worse than Rodger’s favorite hangout. That tells me that Rodger and Baker would get along very well in their hate for men like us who teach game and try to improve men’s lives.

6. He subscribed to The Young Turks Youtube channel, a feminist darling

This is a minor point but one worth mentioning. We don’t know how knee-deep he was into The Young Turks liberal positions, but it’s a fact that he was not a subscriber to my channel or forum. We can only speculate as to how much TYT molded his pro-feminist view.

7. He hated alpha males, just like feminists do
Whenever a feminist encounters these parts, she immediately bashes our alpha/beta concept of male sexual hierarchy. She instead spouts tired cliches that are supposed to help men in their pursuit of sexual happiness but which actually do nothing of the sort:

“People are people!”
“Just be yourself!”
“Don’t be an asshole/creep/jerk/rando!”
“Having sexual standards is, like, misogynistic!”
Of course these phrases don’t explain human mating behavior and why some men get way more women than others, but that’s no matter since feminist theory does not have the slightest intention to explain the world in an accurate or truthful manner.

Like feminists, Rodger despised alpha males, who he called “obnoxious.” Here’s some relevant quotes from his manifesto:

“I noticed that there were two groups of cool, popular kids. There were the skateboarder kids, such as Vinny Maggio, Ashton Moio, Darrel, Wes, and Alex Dib. And then there were the boys who were popular with girls, including Vincent, Robert Morgan, and [redacted]. They all seemed so confident and aggressive. I felt so intimidated by them, and I hated them for it. I hated them so much, but I had to increase my standing with them. I wanted to be friends with them.

[…]

I thought all of the cool kids were obnoxious jerks, but I tried as best as I could to hide my disgust and appear “cool” to them. They were obnoxious jerks, and yet somehow it was these boys who all of the girls flocked to.”

If Rodger was alive right now, he’d be giving feminists high fives for sharing the exact same viewpoint on sexually superior but “horrible” males who have figured out the dating game and what women actually want.

8. He shared many personality traits with your modern American feminist
Rodger might as well have been a woman, which has raised speculation if he was actually gay. He took selfies like women. He was addicted to Facebook like women. He was obsessed with his appearance. He was narcissistic, vain, and materialistic. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was also addicted to his iPhone like your standard issue American woman. Heartiste does a good job of highlighting the similarities:

“[The effeminate male, like Rodger, is an] indictment of this infantile Millennial generation, which daily provides evidence that their ranks are filled with effeminate males who, like women, expect the world to cater their needs, no questions asked, no demands made. Elliot Rodger couldn’t stand how unfaaaair girls were to date uglier men than himself, how unfair life was that his car and clothes weren’t a magnet for hot white sorority chicks, how unfair the cosmic laws were to require of him a little bit of effort if he wanted to put an end to his virginity.

Egotistic, attention starved, solipsistic, passive aggressive, perpetually aggrieved, and unwilling to change when posing as a martyr feels so damn good… there’s your new American manlet, same as your new American woman.”

Like I already mentioned, a quick find/replace gender swap on his manifesto will pass the Turing test in convincing most spectators that he was actually a 22-year-old empowered feminist who participates in “Take Back The Night” walks and thinks that posting mindless #YesAllWomen tweets on Twitter comprises her good deed of the month. Rodger was effeminate and a negative person overall simply because he possessed beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by feminists.

9. He wanted to be a social justice warrior, just like feminists
He had a victim complex of being held down by invisible forces outside of his control. Feminists also believe that the “patriarchy” is holding them down, and they flock to Tumblr to reblog facile images and memes to spread lies that men make more than women for the same work, for example. These Tumblr crusades have even led to my own family being prank called at late hours, all because my words hurt their feelings, just like Rodger’s was hurt that pretty girls didn’t find him automatically attractive.

It turns out that Rodger was a budding social justice warrior, perhaps not far from establishing his own Tumblr beachhead:

“I formed an ideology in my head of how the world should work. I was fueled both by my desire to destroy all of the injustices of the world, and to exact revenge on everyone I envy and hate. I decided that my destiny in life is to rise to power so I can impose my ideology on the world and set everything right. I was only seventeen, I have plenty of time. I thought to myself. I spent all of my time studying in my room, reading books about history, politics, and sociology, trying to learn as much as I can.

[…]

I seriously started to consider working towards writing an epic story. I was always creating stories in my mind to fuel my fantasies. Usually those stories depicted someone like myself rising to power after a life of being treated unfairly by the world.

[…]

To be angry about the injustices one faces is a sign of strength. It is a sign that one has the will to fight back against those injustices, rather than bowing down and accepting it as fate. Both my friends James and Philip seem to be the weak, accepting type; whereas I am the fighter. I will never stand to be insulted, and I will eventually have my revenge against all those who insult me, no matter how long it takes.”

Both Rodger and feminists feel the only way to get what they want out of life is not self-improvement, but attacking others they disagree with. Their shared ideology is one of destruction. We have to wonder if Rodger would have eventually participated in any feminist event like SlutWalks to right the world of fantasy injustices that prevent them from being seen as beautiful, marvelous, gentlemanly, and so on.

10. He was not far away from being the epitome of a white knight, a man that feminists collect for their friend zones

If you see a feminist in the wild, a white knight won’t be far. He’s the man who enables her false view of the world and provides her with good feels and encouragement for her social justice campaigns. While Rodger wasn’t quite a white knight in this sense, he nailed all three white knight components:

“1. He is the ever-present servant.
2. He pines silently for a single woman.
3. That woman wants little to do with him, and it shows.”

In other words, if you inserted him in feminist company, he would be the glove to their chubby bear claw fingers. His personality is wholly compatible with how feminists believe men should behave: servile and wimpy while never taking real action on their sexual desires.

Conclusion

The only things in common that Rodger had with us is that (1) he wanted sex with attractive women, and (2) he had a functional penis. That’s it. The overlap of thought and belief between Rodger and feminists, however, should convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodger was in fact a feminist, even if he didn’t himself know that his peg fit snugly into the feminist hole. I’ve actually met self-described feminists who were less feminist than Rodger was.

While I stand by my argument that game would have helped Rodger, I am beginning to wonder if being a feminist was the seed that drove him to desperation and delusion, eventually leading to a tragic loss of life. This line of thought is worth pursuing by people who want to understand why a man felt that taking other lives and his own was seen as the best solution. You definitely won’t read about this conclusion in the media, which is too busy trying to toss Rodger to our side like a hot piece of coal, even though Rodger shares absolutely no similarity in thought and behavior to game practitioners.

I have logically come to the conclusion that Rodger was in fact the first male feminist mass murderer that we have seen in America. I’m afraid that if the feminist ideology contained within Rodger’s head is allowed to continue spreading, we are likely to see more violent acts by men who believe in the exact same things that feminists do.

Anwesha Sarkar #fundie boldsky.com

Reasons To Beware Of Feminist Men:

1. Against Their Nature: Wouldn't it strike you as strange if a tiger suddenly turned vegetarian? This is because it is against their basic nature. In the same way, feminism is against the basic nature of men and that is why women hate men who claim to be upholders of women's rights.

2. Traitors To Their Own Cause: The types of men who start calling themselves feminists are seen as 'traitors' among men folk. Generally, men despise male feminists much more than they despise female feminists. How do you trust someone who has betrayed their own kind? If they have betrayed their own gender that is men, they might as well betray you.

3. No Chivalry: Usually men who believes in the rights of women usually lack chivalry. They treat women as equal, but not better than men. So when you are an equal, he doesn't have to hold the door for you or pay your bill. Just like Atheists have no holidays, feminists have no concessions for being women. That is why legendary actress said, "Women who want to be equal with men lack ambition."

4. More Liberation Than We Need: When a man turns feminist, he becomes much more radical than the most rabid feminist. They start preaching for much more liberation than women want or need. Now, we may believe in our right to not wear bras as it is a symbol of oppression and gender stereotyping; but do we really want men to be burning bras on the street for our cause?

5. Women Like Bad Boys: No matter how technically correct feminist men are, women hardly ever get attracted to such men. Women have this sinister quality to get attracted to all the 'wrong' kinds of men. The mythical 'bad boy' who is a woman beater and a chauvinist still reigns supreme in the fantasies of women. Put it simply, women are a bit masochistic from within and that is why 'abusive' men is what most women partly want.

All in all, feminist men are not bad, but they are too good to be true. Would you like to date a man who calls himself a feminist?

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

[When you actually agree with the feminist argument that domestic violence is political and about control]

A pernicious point of difference amongst men concerned with men’s issues is the debate over violence, and how to approach it. There are those who point out that women are as violent as men in interpersonal relationships, those who scoff at this idea, and even some who condone some degree of violence within relationships (these sorts exist on both sides, of course).

The problem with the violence debate is that the issue of violence has been so thoroughly politicized that we have lost sight of what the argument is really about. Violence is force. Human violence is the application of force to people against their will. It pervades our society, and is how we – Americans in particular – keep people in line. The obsession with violence against women – a considerably smaller problem than violence against men – on the part of feminists is all about “who? whom?” (kto? kogo?).

We can’t honestly discuss violence without acknowledging that violence is a reality that overshadows our lives. Every time we see a cop with a gun, a patrol car, a prison and even a courthouse we are reminded that we are subject to the state’s violence if we incur its wrath.

Violence is the force of the law. Without it, our rules would have no teeth. Authority without force is no authority at all; power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Anyone immune to violence would be above the law, which is why one of the founding principles of the American republic was that the use of force against the state is justified when it sets itself above the law and in opposition to The People.

If we are to follow the logic of the law, therefore, we must accept that we are all subject to violence if we behave in certain ways. Those who don’t accept this are by definition lawless. For example, if I were to steal from my neighbor, I would expect to be arrested and jailed if caught. To assume otherwise would be a sort of civic hubris.

However, there are certain classes of people for whom different rules exist. Children, for example, are subject to a different standard where force is concerned. To be sure, they are not immune to it, but in general violence against children is of a far milder variety, and usually involves little more than being shut in a room for a spell or dragged into the principal’s office. Even when the state deals with children different rules apply. A child who kills, for example, will generally not face the same sentence as an adult. Furthermore, the state delegates a certain amount of force to adults in the child’s life. Rather than have the police deal with every infraction, parents and other adult authorities are expected to use force as they deem appropriate.

The logic behind this is that children are not “equal” to adults. They have neither the faculties, judgment nor physical capability. They are therefore not deemed to be fully participating citizens, but rather “in custody,” which means that they are under the authority of adults.

Likewise, women are formally held to a different legal standard. In times past, they were legally in the custody of one man or another, and under his authority. Although emancipated women have always existed, they were rare, and I would argue that they still are, because the only serious attempt to make women equal citizens under the law failed spectacularly within a span of only about a decade (1970s).

In the old days, when women were considered to be wards of men, society expected men’s superior force to keep those in their family in line in much the same manner that the law uses superior force to keep men in line. This isn’t to say that force was always applied, but rather that it existed and could be applied, just as a bailiff exists in every courtroom. There was a chain of command that went like this:

Men are subject to the law

Women to men

Children to women

Each relationship was backed by some degree of force. As one goes down the scale, the amount of force deemed appropriate was less severe, but probably more frequent. For example, an arrest and a stint in prison is quite rare, affecting only a small fraction of the male population, but it is a severe punishment. A domestic squabble involving some use of force was also rare, probably affecting a minority of couples, but more common than incarceration (and still is if DV stats are to be believed) and inconsequential compared to prison time. Finally, children were punished relatively frequently, but mildly.

The old system was simple, but effective. It lasted up to about the 1970s, when domestic violence became politicized. We could point directly to feminism as the cause of the old system’s breakdown, but feminism was actually more of a symptom of other changes than the cause. Men’s authority in the home had been breaking down for over a century as urbanization and industrialization proliferated throughout the West. Women found themselves alone as the sole authority of the family when their husbands went to work at the factory or office. Many women also worked under an authority other than their husband or father. It no longer made sense to delegate authority over women only to one man in their lives. The private and public sector found themselves managing women as well as men, and as their authority over them increased, that of their husbands declined.

There was a reversal of this in the idealized 1950s, when a deep social conservatism, partly a result of the return of millions of citizen soldiers who were empowered by their victory, characterized society, but the relentless growth of capitalism guaranteed that this couldn’t last. The economy was growing, and more workers were needed. Women gradually returned to the workforce starting in the 1960s, and the process started again where it had left off.

Since then, husbands (and fathers) have lost essentially all of their old authority over women. However, this is not to say that nobody has any authority over them, but rather that it has passed into other hands. Today, there is still a struggle over who has claim to the women of our society, but it is between the private and public sector. Both presidential candidates understand this quite well, which is why, in pandering to women, one of them is promising state support and the other good jobs. It is almost amusing to see the public and private sector wooing America’s women like a couple of suitors singing to an undecided girl.

Both the public and private sector exert most control over women through economic incentives and punishments rather than physical force. A company keeps its females in line by threatening them with loss of income if they misbehave, which is called abuse or “contempt of court” when husbands do it. The public sector retains the option of using physical force against women – again, called abuse when husbands do it – and also provides (or withdraws) various goodies through bureaucracies.

The public and private sector have come to wield far more authority over women than the men in their lives. Men are ordered to provide for women in their lives no matter what, and never to use physical force on them, but the state follows neither mandate, and the private sector only the latter (which could be a powerful selling point for the Republicans). Given that very few single women make a living from their own businesses, most being dependent on the state or a job in the private sector, the proportion of women who could be said to be truly emancipated remains as low as ever.

However, despite the state and private sector’s current authority over women, a different standard is still applied. Not only a different standard as far as the use of force, but in terms of provision as well. Equality of men and women is widely assumed to be enshrined in law, but this is not the case. The Equal Rights Amendment did not pass back in the 1970s, largely because women didn’t want it in its unadulterated form, and considering the Hayden rider there was nothing equal about it. For some interesting background on the fight to pass the ERA, see how, according to suffragette Alice Paul, NOW (the National Organization of Women) essentially killed it by supporting the Hayden rider.

The full text of the Equal Rights Amendment, originally written by Alice Paul, is as follows:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

However, the Hayden rider was added in the 1950s:

The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.

This rendered it self-contradictory and not at all different from the status quo, yet it is the version supported by feminist groups, and that is why the amendment never passed. It was too much of a sham to make it through the full process of ratification.

So, according to US law women are still a special class of citizens, like children, who are afforded protections and benefits not extended to men. They are exempt from the draft, they are given special accommodation at work and school, their activities are subsidized at men’s expense (e.g. Title IX), and far more social welfare is directed their way.

Although the myth of women’s self-sufficiency and independence is widely repeated, it is ignored in practice, and contradicted by law.

Because women are acknowledged both by the law and custom to be a special class, and not fully equal citizens, it follows that others are responsible for ensuring that they are taken care of and kept in line. Because the state has arrogated the responsibility of managing women to itself and taken family choices entirely out of the hands of fathers and husbands, male citizens’ responsibilities toward women’s provision and care should likewise be removed.

If we are to remove individual male authority over the women in his life and replace it with collective authority over women, then we should remove individual male responsibility and replace it with collective responsibility over women, and be quite honest about it.

The same would apply to children, of course. Would it be just for the state to remove a child and terminate parental custody and then present a bill for doing so? [Actually, because the overwhelming majority of CPS removals are from single mothers, the child will frequently be placed with a foster family without any input from the father, and then he will be forced to pay child support directly to the state.]

One could view abolishing male authority over women as a liberating trend, because collectively managing females would spread the burden over a greater number of taxpayers, including women themselves, freeing men from so much individual responsibility. And rather than having to control women ourselves, we could allow the police and private business to handle them. The problem with this is that the state is running into problems with expense, and the private sector is starting to face the same issues itself. Because women are a special, legally-protected class with more needs and associated expenses, we simply cannot treat them as men. This is why Barack Obama and a number of other leftist politicians desperately want to collectivize birth control: because single mothers and their needs have grown into such an enormous drain on treasuries.

And here is where the issue of force and violence is bound to come up again. So far, the state has managed to use force mainly against fathers in a bid to maintain the politically convenient facade of female equality while balancing the budget. But it has reached the point of diminishing return. The cash cow that was middle-class American men is starting to dry up for a number of reasons. Young men are marrying at much lower rates, they make less relative to their parents, and a greater proportion of them is now working class or underclass than was the case a generation ago. The marriage issue is important because public expenses for single mothers are considerably higher than for those who live with a man. Even onerous child support guidelines don’t come close to making up the difference, and at this point increasing child support collection will simply start to eat away at tax revenue.

So, eventually the state will have to begin to turn the screws on women, and when the state sees people as a “problem” the treatment they get tends to be very unpleasant. People who doubt this need only look at Communist China’s birth control policy. Single mothers were routinely sterilized or had abortions forced on them. Even married women who didn’t control their fertility were subjected to these measures. Women who had more than one child lost state support, and were forced into deep poverty, the likes of which most American women cannot comprehend. If that isn’t violence against women, what is?

Many Americans tend to think of the leftists who advocate more state involvement in people’s lives as touchy-feely types who would never support such measures. They couldn’t be any more wrong. Leftist American professors in China studies openly endorse China’s birth control measures. The honest ones will tell you that they’d support doing the same here.

I doubt we’ll need to take as drastic steps as China in the foreseeable future, but changes will be made. Control over reproduction – the feminist holy grail – may be handed over to the state in our lifetime and taken away from certain classes of women (e.g. those on welfare). We could see women being forced to take birth control, and punished when they fail to do so. Women who defy the state on these matters will be dealt with forcefully — just like men. Women could well be coerced into being economically productive, as fathers are today. Single mothers who refuse to work could face some punishment, and as men’s wages decline even farther relative to women’s, married women will likely no longer have the choice to stay home and care for their children themselves. Furthermore, because men no longer have authority over their wives, they have none over their children, either. Ultimately, the state will have the final word on children, and tough luck if mothers disagree.

The Violence Against Women dialog was born out of a desire for throwing off the authority of husbands, but it doesn’t seem the feminists considered that women would only end up with another master. And this time it is a master that sees them as only one of millions — a mere number in a database. Also, a much stronger master that will not tolerate any deviation, and will apply force impersonally without any sentimental considerations.

“Violence” against women will therefore never cease, but only be applied by a different force. In their naïvete, feminists thought they could throw off the yoke of patriarchy and be completely free. They imagined they would achieve a sort of blissful anarchy, like all utopian fantasies, and answer to none but themselves. However, they eventually find that the office manager, the case-worker, the policeman and the magistrate are less forgiving and caring than the typical husband, and far less concerned about protecting them.

True independence can only be gained in the absence of want. Women in general will always be needier than men, and therefore will always require more oversight. To be dependent is to be under another’s control, and to be under control is to be subject to some degree of force. Practically speaking, the party responsible for the subject is the one who should have legitimate authority.

The way we need to frame the debate concerning violence against women is in recognizing that the argument is centered entirely on who has authority and the right to wield it — not on the naturally repellent idea of a man brutally assaulting a woman. If we have no authority over women, then we cannot be justly held responsible for them either. Society cannot have it both ways. If the state insists on maintaining both women’s dependent status and a monopoly on authority, then individual men should have no obligations to women whatsoever. I’m not sure that will ever be feasible, but eventually we will have to make a choice along those lines.

Various commenters #sexist reddit.com

Re: Because your degree matters more to women then your personality apparently.

image

A Good Man Is Getting Even Harder to Find

Women with college degrees outnumber men by a significant margin. That means trouble for the future of love and relationships, writes Gerard Baker.

(wazzoz99)

I remember a few years ago, if anyone ever discussed the “hypergamy” question in the context of the earnings gaps and why it’s sometimes necessary on public forums , you would have immediately gotten the misogynist or even the incel label, for suggesting that men must outearn women for a rational reason. Now, as more empowered progressive women ironically complain about men not meeting traditional and sexist expectations, hypergamy is no longer a taboo topic to discuss. Although it’s important to note that no one in the liberal feminist leaning media has mentioned the term hypergamy to describes this phenomena, owing to its problematic links to the manosphere and Redpill philosophy.

Anyway, observing a lot of the so called progressive women who are reaching their early 30s being incredibly vocal about this issue tells me that eventually, we will have a neofeminist/neotraditionalist/5th wave feminist movement that will attempt to address the problems of modern women, one of which is the inability of men to outearn women. This movement will call on men to tolerate women expanding their gender roles and transcending gendered expectations whilst simultaneously calling on men to fulfil their gender roles and expectations for the good of women/western birth rates/marriage rates. And society will condone this inconsistent movement because prioritising female happiness above all else has become a western secular religion. I wonder if future generations of men will comply or will they stand up against hypocrisy and call out women?

(FastFourierTerraform)

Yeah, but not because of the women.

This men unmarried men means that any major problem will shatter our society like a hammer. Women won't be there when the shit hits the fan. And men with no families will prioritize themselves over society--as will literally every single woman.

That's assuming these men don't simply choose to tear civilization down.

We're doing a pretty good job of it right now. This is classic Jordan Peterson. It's incredibly dangerous for society to put so many men in such a shitty position. Even if most of them just wither and die in silence, there's a minority that will lash out, and that has the potential to topple society.

(reKSanity)

This is what happens when liberal schools make it easier for girls to succeed and harder for boys...I’m glad I have a daughter, i can’t imagine having a 14 year old son today.

I’m 34 and married maybe I’m lucky. It seems women want men who:

are older

taller

smarter - higher education

make more money than them

That will be a problem if schools are still making it harder for boys to succeed...girls will need to lower their standard because the only boys who will look at them soon will be beta male feminists...ugh...

(whynotbothey)

A good man means a man with a degree, but he should also be the one cooking in the house because women no longer cook at all, since being in a kitchen as a person with a vagina is very awful and demeaning. one who should shut the fuck up and stand back and never talk back and never, under any circumstance, stand up for his rights, one who should expect his woman to go around and talk about how they have sex and how big his dick is because it’s his body, her friends’ subject of discussion.

Also, you should never address the issue of whether you and your woman are a bit too overweight and should solve it because that means you are controlling her body and shaming her. Maybe cut down on drinking that beer in the evening because you’re a drunk and men who drink are rapists 100%.

And maybe never tell a girl she’s beautiful because that means you’re a creep. Don’t tell her you’re not interested in her either because then you’re a dick. Basically don’t breathe next to them at all because who does that to women?

Fucking hell, I’ve seen way too many posts about relationships lately on reddit and I must say I want to put bleach in my eyes. And i’m a girl.

“Girl, he asked for your number?! That piece of creeping shit!!!”

Now it’s about degrees. Because that was a thing I gave a shit about when I met my man.

But you know, on one hand, it’s good if this type of woman ignores men like these. Dodging a bullet.

(ludwigvonmisess)

Isn't this just biology though? Women are driven by their nature to seek out a mate that has the most resources and highest possible social status, a college degree is one of the main ways you'd gauge that in our society.

Yes, obviously. But feminists claim gender is a social construct and men and women are the same. Further, when men out earn women, they claim to be oppressed. And now that women out earn men, it’s men’s fault there aren’t any good partners.

... are you just trolling or did you legitimately not understand the reason this was posted here?

(The_toast_of_Reddit)

I see a reset where having a high school sweetheart will be in more of a demand than a degree holder. I'm talking about a really dependable man who cares about how his lady is feeling.

Degrees are becoming the next taxi medallion. The car is now worth more than the medallion. There are a lot of nice men who're debt free & working the trades. If there was a college debt reset I could see a flow of woman that want to snag up one of those nice men because they no longer have to worry about debt because at that stage in their life they're looking to settle down.

Basically women in the near future will demand a hallmark channel movie and not a degree.

(dongkong01)

I'm gonna get me a 20 year old village girl when I'm ready to get married (in my home country) . Cos the difference between her at 20 without degree and 23 with degree, is the loss of skin elasticity. Probably the hardest thing to hear for carousel riders

(Hirudin)

Women have outnumbered men in higher education since 1983. It's been a long time since gender-specific education programs have been justified.

Currently, the imbalance in favor of women is greater than the imbalance in favor of men that inspired the passage of Title IX, but the pile of government-sponsored educational freebies for women only just keeps getting bigger.

(Svenskbtch)

We often hear that men feel intimidated by strong - in this context read: better educated or higher earning - women.

To me, this seems like one of those things that most of us believe, but for which there is not by far as much anecdotal or empirical evidence as we would expect.

Rather, from the little I have observed, the problem is more that it is difficult for women to respect lesser earning or lesser educated men. In fact, many of my female friends admit something like this openly. And this appears to be not so much because they are concerned about financial stability (most of them are high-earners in their own right), but rather some kind of deeper, evolutionary drive. In fact, in most of the scarce instances of couples where women are better educated that I know, I sometimes observe a disturbing tendency towards condescension among women. Not because my friends are bad people, but because it frustrates them.

True, better educated men may also be condescending, but the dynamics are different and the effects often innocuous.

The only true exception to this that I know are good friends where she is a specialised surgeon and he a photographer and part-time house husband. She makes a multiple of what he does and runs the household finances. I am not sure how they manage to overcome these instincts, but one idea comes to mind: he is a brilliant photographer, close to the top of his field - the issue is only that it pays much less than hers. So maybe that is why she is able to respect him?

I would love to hear about your anecdotes on this.

(mrmensplights)

also possible that not all guys are secure enough to date girls with higher education or career

I can't believe this kinda thing get's taken seriously. You can bet any argument based on "Men are just insecure" or "Men are just toxic" or "Men are just weak" can always be traced back to anti-male sources. There was never any evidence to back up that claim. It's just feels.

In fact, it's not just feels but projection. Many studies have been done that prove men will marry up or marry down. However, women are hypergamous and have a strong preference for 'marrying up'. Their own behavior mixed with the advantages society bestows upon them has lead to fewer men they prefer to be available. It has nothing to do with men being insecure or male behavior at all. Men are rational actors in the sexual market place. Why in wouldn't men marry up and improve their quality of life? In fact, now that women vastly outnumber men as graduates of universities you see exactly this happening:

Partnership shift. Men are now more likely to marry up

A Record Share of Men Are “Marrying Up” Educationally

Women's progress boosts men who 'marry up,' study says

Men Are Now More Likely Than Women to “Marry Up”

More Men Than Women Are "Marrying Up", A New Study Finds

Setayeh #conspiracy imdb.com

The gender-biased laws against men in rapes cases prove feminism is based on hate. A Girl can make many false claims of rape against many men to destroy their lives and when she is caught, the police will not charge her.

Do some research on how the feminists have taken Harvard university under siege. No one is allowed to make statements that every intelligent being knows is true, but is against feminist ideology. This is happening at a place of higher learning where debate and free speech are crucial. Look into gender biased laws against men in family courts. Research how feminists like to alter domestic abuse studies into their favour when many studies in Canada and Europe show that men are usually the victims of abuse and girls usually use weapons to assault men. Feminism is not about equality. Feminism is in fact Marxist. How ironic and hypocritical for western nations that promote democracy to be promoting communism at the same time.

Feminists have been bombarding the media with hate propaganda for over 40 years. Male bashing has become acceptable, but if the genders were reversed, the sick feminists would be foaming at the mouth.

We also have insecure men who support feminists. Those weak-minded men are called Manginas.

Ryan Ashville #sexist returnofkings.com

From comics, movies, anime, gaming, and now the more recent kids shows, feminists will use any kind of tactic to promote their evil. Stories like Rapunzel or The Sleeping Beauty have been a part of our childhood, teaching us about gender roles and the importance of them. Now they have been changed in various ways to suit modern women, giving them unrealistic expectations of what they can be. Here are nine characters that show how they have infiltrated entertainment.

Steven Universe

The show deals with an entire species that is genderless but has feminine traits (female human forms), Steven is a male protagonist that is not masculine in a lot of ways. Rather than being the strong fighter type, he acts through femininity despite being male. He cries for help from women rather than helping himself. The show contains trans, queer and homosexual characters which is typical for a show like this. They have women of different sizes and has quite a dark story line for a show aimed for children. Cartoon Network is now giving a way for brainwashing, glorifying obese women and unhealthy diets.

They even place the emphasis on disguised leftist concepts like:

Tolerance – Praising of everything non-white, non-male and non-heterosexual
Minority – non-whites, non-male and degenerates
Inclusiveness – Accepting everything non-white and degenerate
Emancipation – Disregarding rules made by conservative males

But despite all these teachings, SJWs bullied a Steven Universe artist to attempt suicide because she drew Rose (an obese female character) too thin. Hypocritical? Yes. It certainly has one of the most cancerous fanbases, consisting of bronies and white knights.

Wonder Woman

Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don’t want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women’s strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.”

– William Moulton Marston, in a 1943 issue of The American Scholar.

Comics publisher Max Gaines asked him to create a new superhero for their comics, to fill the void he felt existed with something new. The creator knew that he wanted his hero to embrace love over violence, and to value peace over war. He assumed that women value love and peace. He valued independent, educated, and unconventional women.

Wonder Woman remains a feminist icon 75 years after her creation, because she symbolizes the idea of female domination. According to NY Post, Wonder Woman was not ‘feminist’ enough for Social Justice Warriors, because SJWs and feminists are never happy with anything in society until white men are silenced. Most wonder woman comics were terrible, but the media keeps pushing it on readers that they HAVE to give in.

BatGirl

Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon is allegedly a woke male feminist ally. He’s a mangina allegedly known for directing “strong female characters”. His characters are unrealistic as women simply can never be tough. He cares about fake women’s issues like the pay gap and the alleged success of lady Ghostbusters. Joss is directing Batgirl, the story about a super heroine who is basically Batman but a woman. Currently he’s facing back-lash on Twitter, but in smaller amounts due to more and more people accepting these kind of reboots.

Overwatch

This game is tainted by women who blame their problems on men. Basically, every character in Overwatch has different victory pose animations that a player can unlock and choose from. And for the time-traveling character Tracer (one of the female characters in the game), her victory pose gives players a wonderful view of her buttocks, clad in skin-tight leggings. Obviously, if men are enjoying something there must be feminist intervention, so Blizzard changed her appearance and stated:

We’ll replace the pose. We want *everyone* to feel strong and heroic in our community. The last thing we want to do is make someone feel uncomfortable, under-appreciated or misrepresented. Apologies and we’ll continue to try to do better.

Women expose themselves to men in conventions, and when they are assaulted they complain that “men should respect women,” even when their own clothes were designed to attract men. But when a character in a video game wears skimpy clothing, there is an outright backlash against it. Overwatch is even taking strides to be LGBT inclusive. This marks the end of straight white man in entertainment.

Wandering Son

Wandering Son follows two fifth graders who do not identify with the genders they were assigned at birth. Shuichi Nitori identifies as a girl, and Yoshino Takatsuki identifies as a boy. This series marks the end of an era, modern anime has come to suit feminist tastes. The rest is pretty self explanatory.

Splash

The 80s film, starring Tom Hanks and Daryl Hannah, is set for a reboot with Channing Tatum starring as the “merman”. The original Splash was about a man, Allen Bauer (Hanks), who falls in love with the mermaid (Daryl Hannah) who rescued him when he was a boy. Their relationship is hampered somewhat by the fact that the mermaid (who later names herself Madison) has to return to the sea after just a few short days, and also by the deranged scientist determined to prove that merpeople are real by throwing water at her.

Since the announcement, many feminists have been celebrating the gender swap on social media – particularly Tatum’s casting as a merman as some kind of feminist victory… but why? Because of the casting of a white, straight male in a role that was originally held by a woman. Hollywood’s content has become more man-hating than ever before. Seeing men in feminine roles is a way of brainwashing men to be submissive and less masculine.

Gender swapping is fast becoming a fail-safe way for Hollywood to shut up anyone who kicks off about equality without actually having to write anything new: Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmatians, Ghostbusters. All these films have either been made or are in the works and all of them have some kind of “feminist twist”. I’ve seen these gender bends in anime too, although no one seems to notice because anime gender bending is normalized.

Undertale

Your character is non-ambiguous (genderless) and non-white, which one could assume it is Asian or Mexican. They never refer to you as “him” or “her”. Despite having a small amount of characters, it managed to include homosexual relationships and a transgender robot. There are more homosexual couples than their opposite counterparts, and both the prominent female characters break out of gender roles. Undyne being the best fighter in the underground, another unrealistic feminist expectation that women can be better than men.

Do you see where “progressiveness” in gaming is really heading? Because the game pushes “progressive propaganda”. One of the major themes of the game that people have been gloating about is the notion that gay relationships are wonderful and perfect, straight relationships are doomed, diversity is strength, promoting inter-species romantic relationships, and it’s primarily because of this thematic content that the game gets praised. That is why Tumblr is spamming the votes, and the media is circle-jerking over the game. Nearing the end of the game I dawned upon the similarities of this game and Steven Universe. There’s nothing particularly special about the game except for discreetly lecturing you about homosexuality and political correctness.

Sailor Moon

It redefined the “magical girl” genre in its native Japan and its overseas influence has shown up in girl-power shows like The Powerpuff Girls and is the definition of a feminist anime. Haruka and Michiru, the series’ Sailor Uranus and Neptune, were a lesbian couple who helped girls around the world come to terms with their sexuality (lesbian propaganda). The series also makes a point of looking down on femininity, by showing how the less feminine girls have trouble coping with gender roles, like how Makoto learned to cook because she was teased for being a tomboy.
Though, I somewhat find it astonishing that the creator of the site anime feminist doesn’t care about “fanservice”, which is short softcore porn scenes, it occured to me because they know about the female supremacy in anime.

Life Is Strange

The creators of the game met with resistance to make the protagonist female. It’s a story about a girl named Max who learns that she can time travel. Life is Strange are some of the few games that are telling women’s untold stories in ways that make it seem as if women have it harder.

It’s simply a game made to exaggerate and show how cruel men can be to women (almost every man in the game is either a loser or a woman beating trash). It attempts to lecture you and say things like “these men need to be in check” whenever it finds the chance to. This game was published by SQUARE ENIX who also published Tomb Raider. Why is it that those people who push equality so much then decide to make a game where it’s about the girl, never around the male?

Conclusion

Modern entertainment is becoming more about social justice than hardware, software, story, gameplay, or animation, while we get to endure feminists complain about everything they don’t like, ruining entertainments we were once able to enjoy.

Mack Major #fundie edendecoded.com

The rise of homosexuality, promiscuity, gang violence, fatherlessness, lesbianism and single motherhood within the African-American community is directly attributed to GODDESS WORSHIP.

When you watch porn, you're unwittingly engaging in goddess worship. You're subjecting yourself to the worship of Cerces: Mama Wata: Yemonja. (I will use these names interchangeably throughout this article).

This is why in all porn movies (gay porn being the exception), the woman is always the starring attraction. Everything centers around her. This is because Mama Wata operates through goddess sensuality. The porn industry itself is highly occult in nature: and its purpose is to make money off people while opening them up for demonic visitation and infiltration through sex.

Here's something else to consider: Notice how whenever people - particularly women - get near a beach or some other body of water, they tend to want to get almost naked? Why the desire to show one's body so openly to others, specifically around water?

My contention is that the spirit of Yemonja is behind it. This demon is also behind the whole strong-independent-single mother phenomenon among many black women in the United States today. Most single black mothers and their children are under the powerful control of this marine spirit.

Yemonja is also behind the rise of homosexuality and lesbianism among so many black Americans. This is the goddess of single mothers, fatherless kids, female sensuality and weak effeminate men.

When a person enters into a covenant with this spirit, the children of the single mother becomes the property of Mama Wata.

To secure worship from them, this spirit leads the children into becoming emotionally-driven or effeminate males (if they're sons), and sexually promiscuous and domineering females (if they're daughters).

Mama Wata has specific colors that are worn by her more open followers. Those colors are aquamarine blue and sea green. Have you noticed a proliferation of women (and effeminate guys) dyeing their hair those exact same colors lately?

Sea shells worn as jewelry and hair adornments are another tell-tale sign of this spirit's direct influence within society today. This is because Mama Wata/Yemonja is known as the water spirit, meaning it is believed to dwell in or has its base of operation within bodies of water.

Mama Wata is personified as a mermaid spirit.

How does one enter into a covenant with this demonic creature? It mainly happens through sex! Particularly through engaging in fornication, adultery, masturbation, watching porn, visiting strip clubs, watching strippers and homosexual acts. Sex is the initiation ritual that brings one into covenant agreement with Mama Wata.

I've been warning you for some time that sexual sin is nothing to play around with! It's never just harmless pleasure. That's what this demon wants you to think, to make it easier to gain control over your life. When you have sex outside of wedlock, you are forming a covenant with demons.

This is the one big secret that witches and those given over to the occult do NOT want you to understand. They initiate others into the occult through having sex with them: including CHRISTIANS!

Many of you don't realize it: but this demonic spirit is the very reason why so many of you struggle to get into a relationship that's worth having.

It's also one of the main demonic principalities behind the high crime, incarceration and murder rates among African-American males. It's behind the gang confederacy in Chicago known as Folk Nation, which includes the GD, Black Gangster Disciples and the Latin Disciples. They use those colors because those are Mama Watas colors! These gangs are responsible for a large portion of the violent murders that has plagued Chicago's black and Latino communities in recent times.

Yemonja will always seek to claim her children back: even if it's by death. And it's the reason behind so many men being unable to find financial security or to maintain gainful employment.

All these are negative side effects of making covenants with demons.

Sidenote: All attempts at black unity and upliftment will fail miserably unless this demon principality is dealt with first. We cannot solve our physical problems until we first conquer our spiritual nemesis.

Many of you are yoked to Mama Wata, whether intentionally or not. And now you must get unyoked. Only the mighty power of Jesus Christ can set you free.

To combat this notorious demon, a person needs to give their full heart and allegiance to Jesus Christ. The sinful lifestyle needs to be completely abandoned without reservation. One needs to be baptized in water. And they need to seek God for the baptism and in filling of the Holy Ghost.

Illimitable Man #fundie reddit.com

Single mothers are complete and utter mother fucking subhuman scum 99.9% of the time. If she's not a widow, she's scum. The statistics for kids raised by single mothers shows all manner of dysfunction (poverty, mental illness, crime) for kids raised by single mothers, but not widows. So as far as I'm concerned widows are cool it's not their fault the dad died, they're not making bad decisions but shit happens.

But single mothers - they play the victim angle like a motherfucker and all the SJWs/politically correct bluepillers make the wild fucking assumption that it's not the woman's fault, revoking all agency or blame from the dumb silly bitch who chose to raise a kid alone. But the sheep don't see it like that, they start making all these wild accusations that the father was probably abusive or violent and that's why she raised the kid alone.

It's presumed the mother is a victim of circumstance even though 99% of the time she created the circumstances she's in not only for herself, but for her kid(s.) And it's presumed the father is an asshole, but most the time he was a horny guy begged not to use a condom and told she was on the pill when she wasn't. So she gets pregnant and keeps the kid. Sometimes these guys don't even know they have a kid until they get a child support notice out of thin air. Then the poor guy gets fucking berated for being a deadbeat when all he did was fuck a woman under the presumption it was recreational sex and that no baby would be born.

If bitches are deceiving guys into fatherhood, and then crying victim when it backfires because he refuses to defer to her deceit, tough shit for her. The only victim here as far as I'm concerned is the child. She tricked the guy she fucked, tried to force him to become a parent, and when he wouldn't, tried to ruin his reputation and extract wealth. That is some fucked up shit. But hardly anybody sees it from that perspective, do they? Naturally, bitches be crazy and society is all jumped up on the sycophancy of feminism and the woman are wonderful effect, so she's blameless and he's just a cunt. People are so single-minded and intent on blaming the father it's unbelievable. If your father is never there for you growing up, there's a good fucking chance that's your mothers fault.

But no, everyone acts like she's this marvellous creature for forcing her kid(s) to struggle for THEIR ENTIRE LIVES. And that the guy is probably some dark triad woman/kid abusing asshole.

It's total fucking bullshit. Very few men are violent or abusive, that's complete lying utter horseshit used to smear the male name and justify the child abuse that is raising kids without a father.

No, the truth is, mummy was somebody's plate/one night stand and thought it would be a wise idea to not use protection AND THEN keep the kid. Her body, her choice, right? Does this oft gloated feminist principle not fucking extend to the responsibility of giving and raising life too?

It makes me sick how everybody rallies to the aid of single mothers and exclaims how hard they have it and how everyone should feel sorry for them. Fuck that. Fuck them. They had a choice didn't they? I mean a whore has a fucking choice to take a pill, or get an implant or terminate. Or a million other things. The kid had no fucking choice to be born and go through all the dysfunction that awaits it. The kid is a total innocent and the mother, a cunt.

I reserve all my sympathy for the boys and (to some extent, the girls) who grow up fatherless and fucking despise the child-abusing fucks that single mothers are. They are total fucking scum contributing to the complete and utter degeneracy of our society morally, spiritually, socially and economically. Total fucking scum. Again, it is total bullshit that the huge amount of kids who have no father all had asshole fathers who abused the mother/kid when most men in society are complete fucking betas. That's just not plausible. This is simple female blame-shifting mixed with misandry.

I have 0% empathy for these broads. How the fuck can I when I see how they destroy their children? Only the children are blameless. Their sons are welcome on TRP and their daughters, RPW. If you are the son of a single mother, don't worry. We got you. And single mothers who for whatever reason read TRP, you're like HIV - a fucking pathogen.

Imultrahardcore #sexist reddit.com

Aside from race mixing propaganda and leftist brainwashing, women are attracted to confident and aggressive males which most young black men tend to be. Meanwhile our white men are being raised by single feminist mothers to be shy and weak and submissive to women. Some white men are gravitating towards asian women not because of their inclination towards trad-con life style (although I'm sure that plays a part) but more so because asian women are even more submissive than our current crop of white males. It is the only type of women with which they can still fulfill their role as men.

"Many on the alt right often say that white men should act more alpha if they want to attract white women, but you could argue why should they change their character in the hope of attracting very often anti-white white women when they could just date and marry an Asian women and probably be more happy as a result?"

Well, for starters, we need more white babies. Temporary happiness for these men will lead to long time problems for our race. Secondly, if we teach these men to be more "alpha" they will be happier and better serve themselves their families their nation etc. We want them to be better people, better men, not lower themselves to the easiest setting in life. As for white women being anti white...many women are open to changing and adopting the political beliefs of their man. Women are naturally submissive and they want to fulfill their role as females. If we had a better crop of men, women will follow along.

MaryAnn #fundie youthdefence.ie

I am a young, independent woman. I can vote, go to college, drive a car, even run for President if I want (once I’m over 35)! I can do anything that my male colleagues can do. But there is one thing that I can become that’s denied to my male friends…a mother. Motherhood is the most amazing thing that a woman can do in this world. Just think about it: we can nurture and protect another human life. Every single person in the world had a mother; we all spent nine months in the comfort and safety of our mothers’ womb.

So you can see why I am disgusted when I hear of abortion being propagated as a’ woman’s right’. Abortion is an unnatural act; it goes against every protective instinct a mother has towards her child. Abortion is also the most horrendous violence that can ever be perpetrated on a woman. If you described the methods to a person who had never heard of abortion before – who hadn’t been fooled by all the pro-abortion propaganda and brainwashing -, they would think that abortion was some kind of primeval torture. Imagine, having your own child violently torn apart and sucked out of your womb, or feeling your child struggling and kicking as he or she is poisoned and burned and then delivering the dead, scalded little body. Imagine having your own child, while still alive, dismembered limb by limb inside your womb, your child’s spine cracked and skull crushed in order to remove them, and then a nurse putting each piece of the body back together on a counter to make sure no part of your child is left inside of you. It’s hardly surprising that all the evidence shows abortion is hurting women so badly, as well as killing their babies.
Think about it: if newborn infants were being tortured with brutal punishments such as these, there would be uproar!
But the abortion industry is a multi-million dollar one, and, right from the beginning, they had a pretty good marketing idea: to sell abortion by convincing women that they were simply making a choice, and that abortion gives them freedom. It was a good tactic…but they haven’t fooled me or millions of other women around the world.
Women will never truly have equal rights to men in a world where abortion exists. Abortion is often used to cover up cases of abuse and under-age prostitution. Live Action in the US has uncovered cases of abortion clinic workers in Planned Parenthood helping pimps to cover up the abuse of underage sex slaves. Girls as young as thirteen and fourteen years old are being exploited, and abortion clinic workers are only too happy to “rearrange” the paperwork to make it all look “legit” and help the pimp to run his business.
And let’s not forget that half of all aborted children are female. In fact, in countries such as China and India, where male children are preferred to females, this figure is much higher. This practice of sex-selection abortion is now so pervasive that it has been described as gendercide by the The Economist (which is a self proclaimed supporter of abortion), while the research of one award-winning author, Mara Hvistendahl, showed that 163 million girls are missing from the world. So much for women’s rights.
A few weeks ago Bryan Kemper, an American pro-life leader, said that “Abortion enslaves women to a world where men can dominate and control them so the men can be free.” I couldn’t agree more. Countless women have been made to think that they have no other option but abortion; that they are not capable of being good mothers. They have been coerced by cowardly, weak men, who want to avoid stepping up to their responsibilities and make women think that this “is the best choice”. Abortion is never a “choice”. It is an invasive, destructive, violent and agonising act against womanhood.
Women are designed to become mothers, the womb is meant to be a safe haven for us in the earliest stages of our life, but it is sadly becoming one of the most dangerous places in the world to live. I am a twenty-first century woman who enjoys all the rights and responsibilities that men enjoy. I am happy to say that I am equal to any man in this country, because, according to the UN, Ireland without abortion is the safest country in the world to become a mother. A woman becomes a mother the moment she conceives a child. We need to celebrate motherhood. Every child and every mother is a gift. Women who are frightened and anxious need our love and support. Every woman needs know that she is a life giver, that she can nurture and love her child, that she is doing the most important job in the world. I will continue to stand for every woman, every mother and every child. We must unite against this barbaric and archaic practice. We can eliminate the crisis, not the child.

Corey Savage #sexist returnofkings.com

10 Feminist Fantasies That Could Become A Reality In The Near Future

Corey is an iconoclast and the author of ‘Man’s Fight for Existence’. He believes that the key to life is for men to honour their primal nature.

Around 2013 when I first discovered the manosphere, I knew things were bad in our society in terms of sex relations along with the corroding effects of feminism. But at the time, I didn’t appreciate just know how bad. In just few years since then, I’ve seen enough madness to know which direction we’re headed and it doesn’t look good. We already live in a feminist society and the harpies are pushing to make things even harder for ordinary men who just want to get on with their lives. The following will demonstrate what will happen to our society if we were to give into all the demented demands of today’s feminists.

Although this article is meant to highlight the craziness of it all, note that many of these concepts are already starting to take shape in our societies to become a reality.

1. Expansion Of Hate-Crime Laws
image
“You can’t save Mary Jane anymore, Spiderman. It’s ‘benevolent sexism’, and therefore, a misogynistic hate-crime.”

In England, trying to pick-up a woman or even just whistling at her is considered a “hate crime” if the woman gets upset by it. It is a real possibility that this law might spread to the rest of the West and expand to include other misogynist offenses including: looking at a woman (what feminists call “stare rape”), calling a trans-woman a he (there’s already a similar law in New York), arguing with women online, manspreading, mansplaining, helping a woman, and so on.

2. Consent Forms
image
Since women get to dictate the terms of all sexual interactions, consent forms will have to become a necessity in the future. And not just for sex, but in all forms of interaction like being able to approach a woman on the street. Maybe an app will be developed where a woman could consent to sex, conversation, or being looked at so that she could screen out all the low-life misogynists who want to compliment her for her looks.

3. Anonymous Rape Accusations + 100% Belief In Woman’s Testament
image
All men are rapists; we need to believe her because she’s a woman. It’s a perfect circular logic.

Feminists claim that the reason we live in a patriarchal rape culture is because our society discourages rape victims (always women) from coming forward and also because their words are not taken seriously. So, what they’re proposing is clear: rape accusations should be done anonymously and the “victims” should always be believed against evidences that are biased because… patriarchy.

Men have already lost their jobs, kicked out of school, jailed, and even murdered for false rape accusations while their accusers faced no legal consequences (and got to keep their anonymity). So, we’re not really that far from reaching that level.

4. Feminist Re-Education Camps
image
This book is not a mandatory reading in kindergartens yet. What more proof do you need that we are all oppressed by the patriarchy?

With feminism taking over the educational institutions and already working to reprogram men to serve the system, it won’t be long before men who have been found guilty of misogynist hate crimes to end up in re-education camps. We already have sensitivity training in jobs while colleges are adding courses on toxic masculinity to re-define what it is to be a man on feminist terms. It probably won’t be long before “toxic masculinity” is added to DSM as a mental disorder (in place of homosexuality) and treated like a disease in mental health institutions.

5. Government-Sponsored Feminist Tribunals
image
Canada already has an actual social justice tribunal.

Since it’ll be difficult to charge men of bogus hate crimes against women with nothing more than a woman’s feelings as a proof, the government may introduce tribunals similar to the kangaroo courts in universities and HR departments at workplaces, all in the name of creating a harmonious society free of hate. Those who enter these tribunals will also be destroyed by the media and have no chance of being employed and be subject to permanent social ostracism even if they’re found not guilty.

6. Systemic Castration
image
As I’ve mentioned in my other article, docile and compliant dogs are the ideal that feminists aim for in their efforts to domesticate men. A significant number of boys are already on ADHD medication to have their behaviors controlled while male sex offenders are given chemical castration. If all men are violent hooligans and rapists as some feminists claim, then the next logical step is to let the government control men’s testosterone levels to an “acceptable” level. Note that we already have many parents who are letting their children take hormones to alter their “gender.” This practice will likely become more common in the future.

7. Non-contact Sex
image
“She did not consent; I must not touch.”

Feminists have been so effective in terrorizing the beta males that many of them are afraid to interact with women in any shape or form. Consider that we already live in a world where walking past some deranged woman will get you accused of sexual assault. In the future, all physical contact with women may become sternly discouraged or even forbidden that more men will retreat to porn and sexbots as alternatives. Haptic technology for sex is already being developed to pave the way for a culture of non-contact sex.
8. Bachelor Tax
image
Did you think you pesky “MRA’s” could escape the gynocentric order by refusing marriage and going your own way? With the drop in number of men who are manning up that coincides with the rising number of single mothers who need to leech the welfare state, it’s not too unreasonable to expect a push for bachelor tax that will penalize men who refuse to put a ring on an aging, post-slut sow.

Knowing that it will cause a major backlash, the bachelor tax will probably not come into being in an obvious way. Instead, it will be introduced under the guise of supporting the poor single mothers and helping to foster families. Heck, considering how men are the primary tax payers while women are the primary beneficiaries of the welfare state, you could say that we already have a gynocentric taxation system in all but name.

9. Polyandry
image
Women already practice ‘Alpha fucks, Beta bucks’ strategy. So why shouldn’t an empowered woman be allowed to do it openly without shame?

With the institution of marriage already destroyed and with many men already accepting cuckoldery as the norm in the form of “open marriage,” women may as well be allowed to have multiple husbands. And why not? We already know that there are far too many men for the number of women in our society and that those lazy men should do more to support women. Is it that crazy to have one husband for sex and another three for money? I’m sure many desperate simps will have no issue sharing a wife with several other men as long as they get some cuddling action when she’s not too busy banging her more attractive husbands. The implementation of bachelor tax, mentioned above, will also make marriage more desirable.

10. Concentration Camps For Men
image
The final solution to the testosterone problem.

If the above measures to protect women and ensure equality are implemented, it’s likely that all the misogynists will grumble in anger and resist them. If that is the case, it might be best to take the advice of the feminist, Julie Bindel, and place all men in concentration camps. No man, no problem! If you’re wondering how feminists could even achieve this, know that there is already an army of goons called the police who will gladly do as they’re told to maintain the gynocentric order.

Conclusion

As I’ve said in an older article of mine, feminism is practically a terrorist movement that demands more and more political, social, and cultural oppression of men for the sake of radical women who play the eternal victim and cry for never-ending privileges. While you may think that the above nightmare scenarios are over-the-top and unlikely to happen, I bet those who lived just few generations ago couldn’t have imagined what we’re witnessing today either. Feminism, by colluding with the government, will continue to grow like a tumor and it will not stop until you make it stop.

Remember that if we don’t fight back, no one else will.

some MRAs #sexist reddit.com

Re: I love it when Tumblr Feminists and the usual suspects say men won't help themselves. These young guys from #MENchester raise money for Male DV Victims, and their children.

(BlueOrange22)
Anti-MRA employs classic manipulative tactics- first they say the MRM isn't necessary because feminism "helps men to." But then, when you point out the things feminists do that hurt men (gendered DV laws, etc) or the issues they ignore (conscription), they say "oh, well feminism isn't about men."

(fyrie)
Feminists falsely claim feminism is also about men

When men need help feminism ignores the issue

When men help themselves feminism purposefully try and negate the effort

(armaadi)
Then they say, "if you care so much about men, do something about it". Then they get ticked off at MRAs for doing something about it..

(89peters)
Australia hosted the first ever large MRA rally a few days ago. Hundreds of men and women attended. Subjects discussed included the demonization of men, discrimination against boys in school, discrimination against male victims of domestic violence, and the importance of recognizing that males and females should not be at war with each other; nature designed us to be symbiotic. If you harm men you harm women, and if you harm women you harm men. That was the message.

How did feminists respond?

They organized a "counter-march" and tried to drown out the speakers using megaphones and inane chants. One of the chants was "Racist sexist anti-queer, MRA's not welcome here!" This suggests that they haven't even bothered to study the men's rights movement. Anti-gay and racist sentiment are vanishingly rare in the MRM. Ditto misogyny. Many MRAs, including myself, used to consider themselves feminists until they looked at the hard data. I oppose feminism precisely because I support gender equality.

The woman who organized the men's march down under is indeed right wing. She's a Trump supporter. I'm more of a "radical leftist" type, the kind of person Jordan Peterson warns you about. But you know what? I don't fucking care if she is right wing. The rally was non-partisan, and the speakers discussed important issues that most leftists are currently ignoring or attempting to justify.

We cannot continue to pretend as though feminism is a movement for gender equality. It more closely resembles a hate movement. I would not be surprised at all if, within 20 years or so, feminists are regarded in the same way we now regard the Ku Klux Klan.

(Fortnite_FaceBlaster)
Yea, people call me an "MRA" in a negative fashion, as if that's supposed to dismiss anything I have to say.

(armaadi)
They think if they dismiss you as a person they dont have to defend their arguments.

(LEGALinSCCCA)
This is how one "always wins". It's basically the terroristic way of dealing with life. And it causes cognitive dissonance to an extreme. Because they know they're wrong. But refuse to accept it. Which makes them dig in.

(PeonSupreme)
Feminists disrupt, impede and interfere with men’s efforts to form communities amongst themselves, separate and apart from women. They mistakenly believe a weak man poses less of a threat than a strong one.

Daily Stormer #sexist #racist dailystormer.name

[From "White Girls are the Greatest Because of Their Independent Aryan Spirit"]

A lot of people in the right-wing are talking bad about white girls nowadays, and I just want to say: if you don’t love white girls, you don’t love the white race.

Our white women are our greatest treasure.

It’s time for white men to man up and start marrying single mothers, because actually, it is the fault of white men, or maybe the fault of Jews somehow, that white women made these decisions in the first place.

It’s only because men are so weak that they don’t have the bravery to marry a used-up single mother. It’s that men who don’t respect women just aren’t masculine, so they just love Donald Trump, because they can’t get the respect of other men.

If you’re a true man of the pure Aryan spirit, it’s time for you to man up and honor our princesses.

Time to man up and be a real man if you want to be respected by other men as a true respecter of real Aryan princesses.

Our princesses represent true diversity, I just love their different independent styles and their unique personalities.

[Pictures of White women holding placards saying they want to date and sleep with Black men]

The love of our Aryan women is why we need communism, you dumb incel irony bro.

We can’t just control women, and force them to do what we want them to do.

We have to give them their freedom. We have to let them choose for themselves. That is the real Aryan alternative lifestyle choice.

The Christians want to control women, because they are afraid of their true Aryan independence.

They are insecure cowards.

If a man is not an incel and a woman-hating irony bro, then he understands that it is part of our values that we don’t control our women. We know they are strong, so we allow them to make their own decisions.

If you’re the kind of weak man who doesn’t think white women should be allowed to make decisions, it’s just that you’re weak and other men don’t respect you because you don’t respect yourself.

[Further pictures of White women holding placards saying they want to date and sleep with Black men and not White men]

Real men man-up and marry 30-year-old single moms.

That’s what socialism is really all about, and if you don’t agree, you’re a weak incel who just does irony.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

Still today, men blame God for their evil deeds. There is much talk these days from the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) community about a gay God Who creates homosexuals by birth. Since they claim God made them that way, they believe they should rejoice and fulfill the image of their gay god by committing sodomy with the same sex.

I heard a 25 year old porn superstar say on the news that since Adam and Eve were totally naked in Eden, she knew that God approved of nakedness. What she failed to mention is that Adam and Eve were the only two people alive at the time. Do you see how mankind attempts to justify their sins? This is how the evil human heart functions, deceitful above all else, who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9). Thus, feminists and homosexuals are demanding a gender-inclusive Bible to make effeminate men and masculine women feel at home with the Word of God.

First the Communists and God-haters realized that they'd never be able to overthrow our nation unless they removed the Bible and prayer from children's lives, so in 1963 they banned the Word of God and prayer from being led by the teacher in all public schools. Then then brought wicked Rock 'N' Roll (the British Invasion) to sexual corrupt our nation's youth and lead them into Satan worship and idolatry of rock stars, which succeeded and consequently led to millions of unwanted pregnancies and the passing of Roe Vs. Wade in 1973, thus legalizing abortion nationwide. Today, the nation's youth commonly flash Diablo hand signs showing allegiance to Satan.

The deliberate moral subversion of the United States by the global financiers—the criminal architects of the New World Order—the elite international banking cartel (who have financed both sides of every major war conflict for the past two centuries) has succeeded. They've deliberately dumbed-down the public. They've targeted America for destruction. Our economy is about to implode. 3,5 million Americans are now homeless. 18.5 million homes are vacant, foreclosed by the banks. Millions of Americans walked away from their homes, because they owed far more in interest to the bank than the home was actually worth. Deliberate open borders, deliberate CIA illegal drug-trafficking into the U.S., deliberate theft of trillions of taxpayer dollars by Wall Street executives... this is just the beginning of judgment!

The problem is that people don't care! They don't care because they're not right with God. The Bible gives men convictions. Being a born-again Christian puts the Spirit of God into a man! Americans are devoid of truth, God and righteousness. Instead, people are saturated with TV, sports and entertainment. No wonder we are so weak and vulnerable as a nation, as sitting ducks in the hunter's rifle sight.

We don't need another Bible for modern times. We don't need a gender-inclusive Bible. God wrote the Bible as He meant it to be. A godly woman understands that God has ordained husbands to head their homes and marriages. Men are to lead the church. It is sinful for women to usurp authority over men. Hollywood caters to feminist and lesbian agendas—showing women leading armies, being in charge of everything, punching out a group of men. In reality, women could NEVER do what they do in the movies. It is a false reality that brainwashes young girls to become feminists, and their lives end up ruined as a result. Satan paints a rosy picture to young women, convincing them that killing their baby, shacking-up, and pursuing a career is a magical life. In reality, feminists one day realize that Satan stole their happiness, killed their babies and destroyed their marriage. Satan is a liar, thief and murderer (John 10:10).

The new NIV 2011 (New International Version 2011) has been released online, now on it's way to Zondervan publishers to become toilet paper. And if you love the Lord Jesus Christ that's what you'll do with the NIV 2011.

The word “men” appears in the King James Bible's Old Testament 2416 times, and 806 in the New Testament. That's 3222 times that the King James Bible mentions the word “men.” But in the feminist perversion of the NIV 2011, you'll only find the word “men” 1027 times in their entire Bible. Pretty sad huh?

The word “man” appears in the King James Bible's Old Testament 3105 times, and 1433 in the New Testament. That's 4538 times that the King James Bible mentions the word “man.” But in the feminist perversion of the NIV 2011, you'll only find the word “man” 1989 times in their entire Bible.

It's a feminist's dream come true! The NIV 2011 attacks the masculine authority of God, the ruling husband, and the authoritative preacher. There is no room for gender equality in Biblical Christianity when it comes to AUTHORITY.

The sad truth is that America has been overrun by feminists. Here's a couple quotes by infamous feminists:

“In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a masochist.” —Gloria Steinem

“There never will be complete equality until women themselves help to make laws and elect lawmakers.” —Susan B. Anthony

That is the Devil talking ladies. Eve didn't like her restrictions either, so she bought into the Devil's lie of being “as gods” (Genesis 3:5). Feminists are placing themselves equal with God when they go against the Scriptures.

Feminists seek equality with authority, just as Lucifer, who said in Isaiah 14:14, “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I WILL BE LIKE THE MOST HIGH.” Feminists want equality of authority like Lucifer. It is evil. The Bible teaches that a husband is to “rule over” his wife (Genesis 3:16), and women are to “be in silence” publicly in the presence of men as evidence of their obedience to their husband (1st Timothy 2:12).

[...]

God is NOT into the gender-inclusive feminist/homosexual agenda of our time. It is wickedness in the sight of God. Read Proverb 14:2, “He that walketh in his uprightness feareth the LORD: but he that is perverse in his ways despiseth him.” Feminists and homosexuals absolutely despise the masculine King James Bible, viewing it as the bigot's Bible. No, it is God's holy Word, every Word of it! Romans 1:25 warned us that the wicked would change God's Word into a lie, “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”

HalfAsianTruthTeller #racist stormfront.org

The TRUTH ABOUT WHITE MEN AND ASIAN WOMEN FROM THEIR EURASIAN SON
Asian women and their insistence on breeding with white men is not something based on love, but rather on hate (largely of Asian men), yet their sons are Asian men and we are taught from birth that love is not colorblind. If love were color blind, then there would indeed be more Asian men breeding with Asian women, black women, or white women, but instead Asian women rely on their privilege of having a vagina, being the gatekeepers to sex, to negotiate relationships with white men in a perverse form of hypergamy. If love were honest, and good, and unbiased, then Asian women would marry black men, Indian men, and Hispanic men at the same rate that they do White men. But they do not. If love were honest, good, and unbiased, then Asian women would be as open to dating Asian men as they are white men. But they are not.

For this reason, I curse my own mother, I am glad she is dead, and I hate every ounce of the whore, slut, white-worshiping piece of trash that my mother, an Asian woman from Hong Kong, was. I am not alone in this feeling, as I’m sure there are hundreds of thousands of Eurasian men who have, at one point in their life, questioned their own mothers.

Whether they do this for status or for appearance is not relevant, though I do think that it is probably for the sake of appearance, since the taller build, wider face, and healthier skin color of white men might be the main reason why Asian women chase white males. Regardless of their reasons, they clearly will not stop doing it, and completely ignore the massive negative repercussions this has on their children, like me.

I was born of this relationship and to this day, I remain a failure, full of self hatred, lost, confused, and destined to die by my own hand, or to die having run to the furthest corners of the world, now for five years, to get away from the very thing that birthed me.

I will, as a result, maybe as one of the only things I may accomplish in my life, write about the insanity of these relationships, how they are the ugliest thing on earth, and how they lead to pure disaster for their male children, the worst case being Elliot Rodger, whose sentiment, at times, I emulated with. I have long been known as eccentric, odd, weird, lost, and have a poor reputation among people who know me as being antisocial, distant, and prone to lunatic beliefs; the day before Elliot Rodger’s massacre I even reached out to him on a popular forum and told him that I identified with his feelings, his self-doubt, his narcissism, his issues with his mother, and I said that they were uniquely Eurasian male issues.

So, these relationships are sick, for the following reasons:

1) The white males, in many cases, view the Asian female as an easy alternative to white women, and as a valid vessel to propagate the continuation of their intelligent, master-race “genes,” whereas white women are seen as being sexually perverse, and prone to mating and having relations with the “lesser races.” My father is a strong example, having long harbored extremely religious, white-supremacist, and misogynist viewpoints. Some, in many ways, would consider him a Men’s Rights Activist, or to a lesser extent, a MGTOW, who, like many other white men, felt entitled to a world where God reigned, valued the white man, and white civilization, rewarded the white man for being white, and, when white women failed to recognize his inherent “power,” (instead choosing to lie down with black males, or to party, or embrace liberalism or feminism), Asian women, of course, were the next best choice. I also know this because having come across numerous other blogs (hapasons.wordpress.com) that talk about the same issue, my case seemed remarkably common. My father, for example, believes the Nazis were heroes, and my mother even called the police on him, when we were growing up, for talking about how the Holocaust never happened. He strongly supports Mel Gibson, goes on racist rants about blacks, and vehemently hates Jews, Hollywood, and modern day American society. In this way, my “chaste,” Oriental mother was a strong alternative for him to marry, as Asian women are well known for worshiping white males.

2) The white males oftentimes are socially inept, socially awkward, or unable to compete in the modern day marketplace, both sexual and economic. My father would be diagnosed with Aspberger’s Syndrome if such a syndrome was known in his younger days. He is a social recluse, has almost no friends, listens to wave radio, believes strongly in conspiracy theories that are very common to White Nationalists and anti-semites, and believes strongly in God and that God hates Jews and that the judgement day will eventually come; common to people like this, white supremacy, the belief in Aryan people at the top, with Asian people being a distant cousin, and Asian women, of course, being a healthy substitute for hypergamous, slutty, immoral White women, while Asian women remain hypergamous in their own right. I know this, because sadly, I am both antisocial, have long since disappeared from all of my friends, have gone through a thorough depression at the way American society was, and during the time period that I considered myself “white,” I too embraced white nationalism (sadly), and was so depressed about white women mating with men of color that I sought refuge in China, to await the eventual apocalypse. As insane as it sounds, this is what brought me to this country, and I would have killed myself had I not been saved by my wife.

3) Asian women make divergent, opposing, and illogical statements about Asian men that will eventually find their way to their sons. The common claims from Asian women about why they don’t date Asian men come in two forms: The first is that Asian men are patriarchal, controlling, and conservative. THIS IS A PATENT LIE.

This is a lie because the white men that they engage in relationships with are even more patriarchal, racist, and conservative, looking to Asian women as an alternative to feminist white women. The entire premise of white feminism is that white men are TOO CONTROLLING, PATRIARCHAL, AND CONSERVATIVE. I know this looking at my own father, who is by far the most patriarchal, far-right individual that I know, so much so that it might have eventually contributed to my mother’s death. Again, there are several other races that Asian women can choose from, but they only choose white men, making this a complete fabrication and lie based on faulty logic and excuses. The very fact that they are capable of framing an entire group of men as the same while saying that another group (white men) are inherently better reeks of

The second claim is that Asian men are ugly, unattractive, small, with small penises, which contrasts strongly with the claim that Asian men are overbearing and too patriarchal. The horrible danger of this claim is that it trickles down to Asian women’s very own sons, who begin to SERIOUSLY doubt that their mother’s “preference” has anything to do with character, and everything to do with physicality – whereby I have come to despise and hate my own mother with a vehement passion that is borderline violent. Much of my history, if you care to read earlier in this blog, might stem from this ingrown self hatred that comes from being quite literally cuckolded by my own mother, whose own belief that white men are physically superior mentally drains and destroys me, as her male offspring, and causes a bitter, catastrophic dichotomy within myself.

Regardless of the “reasons,” or if sexual preference can be negotiated, the very fact that it is so common and the fact that our mother’s choices were based inherently on preference for determinants of sexual / genetic health make all of our life choices irrelevant, because it is clear that ultimately our deciding factors and success in life and love are determined by our genetic makeup, so much so that our own mothers were driven in such a way to shoot down AN ENTIRE ETHNIC GROUP while giving unfair preference to another – means that any and all choices we make in life are hinged on our appearance and that nothing we can ever do can make us as attractive as a white male – as proven by OUR OWN MOTHERS.

4) Our own mothers reinforce the horrible stereotypes about Asian men. Regardless of their reasons, there are persistent stereotypes that exist in Western culture about Asian men. Whether or not they believed these stereotypes, we assume that they had no qualms about reinforcing the extreme negative image of Asian men by chasing, in droves, white men, and that our own mothers were very, very capable of betraying the possible future of their own sons by proving to the world, and their own offspring, that Asian men are and forever will be less desirable than white men. For every time that an Asian man is shot down for being Asian, the perception that Asian men are undesirable is reinforced, and our own mothers become GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION for actively being part of the self-congratulation group of Asian women who HATE ASIAN MEN AND THINK THEY ARE TOO GOOD FOR ASIAN MEN. For this, my own mother is a guilty whore, who I shall hate until my last dying breath, and I will never, ever, EVER be able to look at what she did in another way; I shall go out every day, very well aware that Asian men are so undesirable that my own mother sought to avoid them entirely, knowing that I can never, ever be viewed as desirable as them, and that any woman who notices me notices me only because I am whiter than I would otherwise be.

In Conclusion

Asian women will deny, lie, and beat around the bush until doomsday, but they will never admit that what they do is for purely physical reasons, and they will never admit that the ramifications it has upon their children is profound and disastrous. As I have read on some other blogs, this kind of relationship is purely evil, simply because it follows the patterns of basic biology and evolutionary psychology, while deceiving its offspring into thinking that it is normal; the whole “Eurasian” children or “mixed children” are valuable and / or beautiful is nothing more than a generalization and a lie, and it soon becomes evident that mixed children are birthed from couples forming extremely unbalanced patterns that favor women over men. The male offspring of these relationships are then put at special risk and wind up imploding, as is the case of my brother, who is 32 years old, bed ridden, schizophrenic, and so badly damaged from his combination of racist/religious white father / self hating Asian mother, that he is essentially dead. I am essentially considered crazy by the larger community, have been outcast to China, will die alone in a small apartment, am suicidal, depressed, and unable to work.

In short, these relationships are based on the hatred of the Asian male (in some cases, with the extra bonus of hating the white female), and the resulting offspring, should he grow up in America, be keenly aware of this societal hatred, and grow, as I did, to despise his own mother. Luckily, mine is dead, (from a bad blood transfusion after a C-section birth), otherwise I would make it my goal to humiliate, demean and hate her, as I hate Asian women who refuse to date any such race, if only because she is a rotten, ROTTEN person, and it is not enough to assume that “maybe” she did not hate Asian men – as the pattern exists enough that I would sincerely doubt her excuses if she attempted to explain it away.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

[I'm honestly impressed with how much of a soft-focus lens Price manages to put on what is basically Marxist-Rodgerism]

One of the most common epithets hurled at men by feminists, and probably the most genuinely hurtful, is that men are upset at women because they are bitter about being unloved. The reason this one hurts more than the typical “small penis” or “mother’s basement” insult is because it is so often accurate to some extent. The best insults always hit a weak spot. It’s true that many men are very bitter about loss of love, betrayal or lack of attention from women. This is why some pick up artists have such commercial success with their ventures, and why men flock to gurus who say they hold the secrets to a woman’s heart.

Actually, if these cruel women only knew, it goes a lot farther than mere heartbreak. The abandonment of men in contemporary society is so comprehensive that a man who has lost a wife or lover not only suffers from the loss of that deep personal connection, but from a fairly comprehensive rejection by society in general. First you lose your wife, then your kids, and then even your own family turns against you in many cases (this is a lot more common than most people realize — American men’s own mothers very often blame them and side with the ex in what is usually a futile effort to maintain contact with the grandchildren). The thrashing you get from the police and courts is just gratuitous abuse; in many cases guys are simply numb to additional pain by that time.

So, yes, these are bitter, unloved men. They are hated and they know it, although many have no clear idea why. They think to themselves “I’m not a criminal… I never hurt anyone… How could this happen to me?” Some can’t handle it. There are many suicides that simply don’t make the news. In a small minority of cases, they snap, and then there’s the “domestic disturbance” situation that has become so routine these days in which a police gunman puts the man out of his misery, as though he were a rabid dog. However, in most cases the men simply accept their doleful fate and live their miserable lives.

I was one of those miserable, unloved men for some time. But not entirely. Circumstance gave me a considerable amount of time with my kids when my ex decided to make her move. She left just as she obtained a good job thanks to my promise to work part-time and take care of the children while she trained for it, and she didn’t want to pay for daycare, so she proposed and received a parenting plan that had me caring for them much of the time she was working. Although being abandoned without any warning was devastating, my children never abandoned me, and despite the horror of separation I had them almost half time. All it took to snap me out of the most morbid thoughts was the sound of my kids’ voice, or the thought of them growing up and wondering why daddy did such a selfish thing as to leave them.

But if it weren’t for that time with my kids, I would have been totally, utterly alone. When I didn’t have them I had no desire for human contact. I really felt that the only people in the entire world who cared about me at all were my little children, aged one and three at the time. I suppose I digress a little here, but I can’t help feel that they were little angels, even if I did have to change their diapers and wipe food off their faces after every meal.

For men who don’t even have that, it’s almost unimaginable. It’s such a shockingly horrible experience that I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, yet here we have feminists taunting men for feeling unloved. And still we have people whining about “misogyny.” Young feminists whose most important concern is the ability to have sex entirely free of consequences, and who shamelessly raise their voices for the right to kill their children in the womb. Lesbian gender feminists who wreck families for profit and sex. Male feminists who boast about fathering children and shuffling their responsibilities onto some duped cuckold, and who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls.

All that said, men have every right to be angry, and righteously so. But deep down, I think what most of them want is far simpler and more benign than revenge or some political payback. They want some love, some security and the opportunity to be a part of a family. They want to grow old with a woman who is true to them, and to see their children grow tall and strong. It doesn’t always come out that way, and there are those who have rejected the idea entirely, but it’s an ideal that I think most men would agree is worth some effort, if not for themselves then for a better society in general.

So, I’d like to say to the feminists out there that yes, there are men who are bitter and sad about being unloved. Yes, it is often why they malign women, and it isn’t always a pretty thing. But if you really take pleasure in people’s loneliness and despair, you’ve got a cold, dead heart, and no reason to be proud of yourself. Instead of waxing triumphant about unfortunate men’s loneliness and misery, why not work for a world in which everyone can feel loved? Are you woman enough to do that?

David R. Usher #fundie renewamerica.com

[This is only a sample of the stupidity in the article]

In its ruling the Supreme Court unjustly and erroneously created three classes of marriage with vastly different reproductive, social, political, economic rights, and liabilities – depending solely on an individual's ability to naturally bear a child.

Class 1: Mother-mother marriages: The class of marriages having most advantageous rights is marriages between two women. When two women marry, it is a three-way contract among two women and the government. Most women will bear children by men outside the marriage – often by pretending they are using birth control when they are not. Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages, but get nothing in return.

This is a significant advantage compelling women who would otherwise become (or are) single mothers to choose to marry a woman instead of a man. They can combine incomes, double-up on tax-free child support and welfare benefits, decrease costs, and double the human resources available to raise children and run their household. They are sexually liberated with boyfriends often cohabiting with them to provide additional undeclared income and human resources without worrying about what happens when they break up with their boyfriends.

Today, approximately 25% of single mothers cohabit with an undocumented boyfriend. Same-sex marriage allows women to double-up on everything, establishing sub-rosa polyandrous marriage as a common legal institution with men as peripheral servants without a stake in marriage or society.

The welfare state is an automatic statutory third party economically supporting these marriage contracts via welfare entitlements, some of which are "advances on child support collections."

The Supreme Court cannot explain away the unconstitutionality of same-sex marriage when the welfare state becomes a predatory, automatic, and unnatural statutory third-party-provider to a class of often structurally-polyandrous marriages, extracting substantial income from taxpayers and entrapped men, that other marriages do not qualify for.

Class 2: Heterosexual marriages. The second class of marriages is traditional marriages between men and women. Children of these marriages are almost always borne of the marriage and supported by husband and wife without governmental involvement. In these marriages, men and women have natural parental and economic rights, standing in society, and equal "gender power" before the law. Traditional marriages will be economically-disadvantaged compared to mother-mother marriages because they cannot draw large incomes from the welfare state and they will be taxed to support other marriages. They are treated in discriminatory fashion having to subsidize Class-1 and perhaps Class-3 entitlements (including ObamaCare) in their taxes.

Class 3: Male-Male marriages. Marriages between two men are destined to be the marital underclass. In most cases, these men will become un-consenting "fathers" by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved to Class-1 marriages. The taxpayers will be guarantors of child support collections for low-income fathers who cannot afford to pay (as occurs in the existing welfare state).

Same-sex marriage is a multi-dimensional violation of 14th Amendment protections against sex discrimination. The 5th Amendment protection for life, liberty, and property without due process of law is structurally violated in cases of reproductive deception by women, regardless of marital status of the men involved.

Same-sex marriage takes welfare systems intended to be used in the absence of marriage and makes it a structural part of marriage. This is a massive restructuring of the relationship among government, the people, the Constitution, and the institution of marriage.

some MRAs #sexist reddit.com

[They have two threads about this article, here are the highlights from the first one.]

Re: Men are more disadvantaged than women in the UK, US and most of Europe, scientists claim | Metro News

(-manatease)

We were right after all, then.

They aren't measuring most of the issues either. I wonder how the "women don't go to prison for the same crimes" thing slots in to this?

(typhonblue)
Nope. This is still biased towards women's issues. Further do they count "domestic technology" in the education category? When a household is producing 70% of a family's material wealth and living, how can you possibly say that being able to run it isn't an important skill?

(truefachman)
Actually, our "allies" at Sargon of Akkad's subreddit got pissed off at this study because it concluded that women ain't so oppressed in Saudi Arabia. And right-wingers and shitlords love to think that women are oppressed in Saudi Arabia.

(dunesfrank)
As others have noted this study only scratches the surface. For example there is nothing about MGM, boys being more likely to suffer abuse, institutional discrimination against boys in the education system; there is nothing about the feminist war on hetero male sexuality, family courts, criminal courts etc. etc.

However it's definitely a step in the right direction.

The new measure has thrown up some strange results. For instance, it rated Saudi Arabia as having a high level of ‘gender parity’, which suggests men and women live reasonably equal lives.

This is because of a 7% disadvantage for women in education and a 5% disadvantage for men in life satisfaction. But in 2016, the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report placed Saudi Arabia at a dismal 141 out of 144 countries for gender parity.

I have long been getting downvoted for suggesting that -- as bizarre as it at first sounds -- highly patriarchal countries may be more gender egalitarian than feminist societies, because both sexes suffer discrimination in different ways. In feminist societies the discrimination (and indeed unrelenting abuse) flows mainly in one direction.

The authors of the study suggest that we need to focus on men's health in developed countries and women's education in non-developed countries. They ignore the fact that we have an educational crisis in hour own house -- discrimination against boys.

As for "health", including mental health and addiction issues (especially alcoholism) a lot of this derives from the institutional oppression of men in western countries. If I lost my kids and half my stuff and was forced to pay alimony and lost my job to an affirmative action hire etc. I might drink myself to death too.

(Wisemanner)
" highly patriarchal countries may be more gender egalitarian than feminist societies..."

I don't doubt it. In the UK, male dominated governments have always given preferential treatment to female citizens, and it should be perfectly obvious by now that female dominated governments will do the same only far more so.

(dunesfrank)

I think the research presented is an interesting way to view gender inequality, but the headline is inflammatory.

We aren't trying to take the title of ‘most disadvantaged’, it isn't a competition between social groups or between genders.

Men and women suffer in a different ways for different things. The research brings light to men's issues that perhaps aren't always considered by the wider consumer. Saying we are ‘more disadvantaged’ is a quick way to alienate the movement.

I just don't think it's fair to quantify a plethora complex social issues and present a league table of the most oppressed groups. We all have our problems, we should strive to recognise that, not compete.

There's no contest. Males are institutionally oppressed in every major area of western life. Females are institutionally privileged in every major area of western life. Feminists do themselves no favors by pretending otherwise. The longer this goes on and the worse it gets the worse the blowback will be. Either they come to grips with reality and start supporting MRA's or the far right will correct the problem for them.

Brother, come on. I fully support and recognise the issues men face. I face them too, that's exactly why I'm here. But you can't outright deny women's issues. You can't say they're privileged in every area, that just totally invalidates everything they experience as women. Our problems coexist and deserve just as much attention as each other. No more or less.

This shouldn't be about flipping the script and painting women as the oppressor and men as the oppressed. It should be about levelling the playing field for everyone.

I don't consider women "oppressors." Feminists are certainly oppressive.

And I used the word "major". Women certainly have gender based problems and disadvantages. But they are not institutionally oppressed like males, at least not in modern western nations.

(GingerRazz)

If Trump wasn't elected I'm pretty sure we'd have reached a tipping point already.

This was part of my thinking during the election. I felt like Trump had enough corruption red flags to possibly make people say enough is enough and Hillary had enough aggressive misandry to make people say enough is enough. When people asked my opinion on the election, I said the worst crisis would be us electing either of them, but the backlash might push the nation in the right direction.

Ethan A. Huff #conspiracy naturalnews.com

A generation of poisoning with gender-bender chemicals has created a new class of youth who fail to recognize gender at all

The success of the globalists in perverting the minds of Western youth is evident in a new study by the Innovation Group, which found that most people between the ages of 13 and 20 – what the mainstream media and social engineers have dubbed "Generation Z" – no longer believe in strictly-defined gender identities like "male" and "female."

...

This lack of clarity about biological identity is a product of two things: relentless media propaganda and chemical poisoning with gender-bending chemicals found in plastics, herbicides and pesticides sprayed on our food, and environmental pollution. Chemicals like bisphenol-A (BPA), glyphosate, soy and other hormone-disruptors are altering human genes and producing next-generation "robot" humans with no gender, and thus no identity.

It's sad, really, because it could have been prevented through reforms that protect the people rather than the chemical and drug industries that produce these toxins. Food, water, air: It's all tainted with endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that, more often than not, mimic the effects of estrogen, meaning they deplete testosterone and create hormone imbalances that not only confuse children, but also affect their growth and development.

Young girls are becoming more "masculine," while young boys are becoming more "feminine" – an alchemy of the two sexes both physically and mentally that's changing the landscape of culture and civilization.

various MRAs #sexist reddit.com

Re: A feminist decides to become a man. Now feminists accuse her of 'mansplaining,' 'taking up too much space,' and 'asserting white male heterosexual privilege'

(rainman206)
This article should be required reading for feminists.

I always hear, "You don't what it's like to be a woman." Indeed, I don't. And you don't know what it's like to be a man.

(Negative1)

My ability to empathize has grown exponentially, because I now factor men into my thinking and feeling about situations. Prior to my transition, I rarely considered how men experienced life or what they thought, wanted or liked about their lives.

Imagine fucking that. Can we set up a GoFundMe to make all the other feminists undergo gender transformations?

(NibblyPig)
Damn, one of the things I took away from that is how many of these transgender people are trying to be like someone they're not in order to fit in.

Like, they didn't feel themselves before so they've transitioned but now they try to "work on their behaviour" to be different to how they 'naturally' are now. Perhaps even try to be like how they used to be even though their hormones are completely different.

(TheMythof_Feminism)
Well, men can't be "feminists" they can only be allies, according to the feminists themselves.

And women cannot become men because sex cannot be changed.

So this title is poorly worded.

(puppehplicity)
Link doesn't work for me.

I will say that as a transgender guy, you would not believe the vitriol from certain aspects of the feminist movement. (Or maybe you would.)

Assertions that all men are rapists and batterers, assertions that choosing to be a man is choosing to side with rapists and batterers, assertions that I am a gender traitor, assertions that the transgender cult is stealing butch lesbians and we are all mentally ill lesbophobes, assertions that transgender guys are misogynists who have such a narrow view of what it means to be a woman that we assume any butchness is manliness, assertions that we are too weak to deal with the expectations forced on us by the patriarchy so we decide to become part of the patriarchy instead... it goes on and on.

They will eat you alive given the opportunity. And then they wonder why you don't call yourself a feminist. It's disgusting and exhausting. They don't see you as a person. They see you as a rhetorical pawn... either an oppressed sister they need to free or an oppressive man they need to fight or isolate from.

For what it's worth, I never claimed to be a woman, and I am not really a man. Most people think I am a man in daily life, so it's good enough shorthand. But I know my body and experiences are not the same as a non-transgender man, so it feels disingenuous to say that I am the same. I'm just... me. For better or for worse, I do what comes naturally to me and don't give it much thought at all. I have much more important shit to do.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

I think the anonymous conservative provides us with a clue as to why feminism can’t succeed in the third world. Feminism has infested the West because western societies are abundant in resources and have strong states to allocate those resources to those that feel entitled to them for taking the trouble of being born with a vagina.

As I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, feminism has merely shifted women’s need to be provided for away from the family and onto the state. The nanny state provides women with resources that enable them to rise in society without merit. Some of these resources are (but not limited to): affirmative action, preferential treatment in education (Universities), and various non profit initiatives like “Women Entrepreneurs of…(whatever).

Feminism fails in the third world precisely because third world nations are lacking in resources and effective governments.

In India for example, the state lacks the resources to arrest and prosecute rapists, let alone spare any officers to respond to domestic disturbance calls made by women who wish to eject their husbands from their property following a minor domestic spat. For rural women, divorce is an omen of doom as the state has no means of enforcing alimony and child support on non compliant husbands. The infamous Shah Bano case illustrates a scenario where an effete state backed down under societal pressure. Many third world nations lack the resources to protect their women from physical harm, let alone consider and debate the gender bending lunacy of Western gender feminism.

Western feminists tend to gloat female encroachment into men’s space and often bemoan any instance where female entry into male domains is barred. Yet this is precisely the case in India where women are still underrepresented in elite schools like the Indian Institute of technology (IIT). In the absence of abundant resources, women will generally fail to break through the glass ceiling. Naturally, this doesn’t apply to ALL women as some are exceptional but we are discussing general principles here.

Schopenhauer referred to female Independence as an “unnatural state” and perhaps now we may begin to appreciate why. In our species, women were never meant to be the independent sex. Note that by “independent” I am not referring to a woman’s ability to work and earn a living outside the home, but rather, the erroneous feminist belief that women MUST pursue work outside the home to truly self actualize. Female independence comes at a cost which must ultimately be borne by society. When women outsource motherhood to daycares while they chase their corporate fantasies, their offspring develop lower IQs and emotional stability as demonstrated by studies. The cost of lower IQ citizens is borne by society. Similarly, children raised in single mother households are statistically more likely to take to crime than those raised in traditional households. Who bears the cost for bad decisions made by “strong and independent” single moms? Society does.

The feminist enterprise has a massive financial upkeep that third world nations are clearly unable to bear. If feminist “equality” were truly natural to our species there would be no need for an upkeep. Some would blame entrenched patriarchy and culture but lets not forget that these are shaped by environment. When resources grow scarce, women lose their petulant rebelliousness and support patriarchy, not out of selfless love for men, but out of self interest as the mechanism of patriarchy deems them a protected class entitled to sustenance and protection.

During the roaring 1920s, the thriving Flapper subculture of women flouted societal conventions pertaining to modesty and propriety as they pursued a lifestyle of hedonism. There is a great volume of online feminist literature that glorifies these rebellious heroines as models to be emulated but little is said about their downfall. How did the Flapper subculture fall? It declined with the onset of the Great Depression when resources became scarce and female survival instincts jettisoned “independence” in favour of patriarchy’s protective embrace.

Spiritual Science Research Foundation #fundie thegailygrind.com

Just when you think you’ve heard all possible (and, frankly, impossible) justifications for homosexuality, you realize there’s one more: ghosts. Yup! A paranormal organization is claiming that the vast majority of gay men and women aren’t actually gay – they’re just possessed by someone of the opposite sex.

According to the Spiritual Science Research Foundation (SRF), 85 percent of all gay men are possessed by female ghosts, causing them to be attracted to other men. Lesbians are, you guessed it, possessed by males ghosts.

“The main reason behind the gay orientation of some men is that they are possessed by female ghosts. It is the female ghost in them that is attracted to other men,” claims the group on Twitter.

The SRF cite “spiritual research” as proving that “the cause for homosexual preferences lie predominantly in the spiritual realm.”

Here’s how the group breaks down the remaining 15 percent:

* Only five percent are gay due to “hormonal changes”;

* And 10 percent are considered gay because they had “an experience with a person of the same sex as a teenager or young adult that was pleasurable”

Nonetheless, the group believes ghosts overpower the majority of homosexuals. “The ghost’s consciousness overpowers the person’s normal behavior to produce the homosexual attraction,” states their website.

Just in case there’s any doubt that there’s more to this than just science or a genuine belief in the paranormal, here’s what the SRF had to say about gay pride parades:

"Organizing such Parades in the name of human rights and freedom does not indicate that society is progressing. In fact, this evidences its decline. The human race needs to know what is right and what is wrong. Just as we teach children not to play in dirty water or eat mud, we need to educate society what is correct from a spiritual perspective. By failing to do so, we run the risk of a further decline in Righteousness and consequently people in society will become more unhappy."

Mack Major #sexist facebook.com

Single mothers typically raise their daughters to be strong and their sons to be weak. They'll teach their sons things like:

"You have to be nice to girls. Open doors for them. Buy them flowers. Tell them how nice they look. Always make her feel good or another guy might take your place." Etc.

Things that virtually guarantee he will be treated like a sucker by today's uber aggressive female lioness.

Meanwhile they're teaching their daughters things like:

"Don't depend on any man! Never let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Never be vulnerable. Don't let him see you weak. Girls can play too. You gotta use what you got to get what you want in life." Etc.

In other words things that virtually guarantee a life of perpetual single hood and ineligibility for marriage that will plague that daughter for the rest of her life.

Truth is: it takes a lion to deal with a lioness! That means today's man must be aggressive and confident himself if he's ever going to obtain success in his relationship with a woman. The world will teach men to be passive, demure and to tuck your balls. That way you won't turn women off with your natural God-given masculinity.

I'm here to tell you emphatically: that is very GAY.

Aggression and masculinity are hallmarks of manhood! They are manly traits that come natural to every man: provided his single mother hasn't already beat those traits out of him by the time he's an adult.

It's time out for this pansy, tiptoeing through the flower patch, effeminate, girly-man phenomenon that's confusing the genders today! Men were created to be men! You're supposed to act manly and macho. Aggression is not a feminine trait.

That's why aggressive women are such a turn off in the work place. Watching an aggressive woman at work is like watching a cat bark or a dog climbing a tree. It doesn't go together and violates simple protocols of nature.

I encourage all men to take back their masculinity, and all women to recapture their femininity.

It's amazing to me how women today have allowed gays and trannies to steal their style, hijack their female-ness and place them subordinate to the men with a clear identity crisis.

Gays and trannies are still men! So that tells me women today are so confused they'll accept being subordinate to queer men, but refuse to submit to normal men! When gay men and especially trannies tend to treat women egregiously disrespectful, and don't even WANT you!

All I'm saying is, we need order restored. Because clearly we are madly out of order with all this gender role confusion. Men - get back to acting like and being men. Untuck yourself, for crying out loud!

And ladies: learn to be vulnerable and worthy of being captured. You're not supposed to be the huntress: you're supposed to be the hunted. And I mean that in a good way. Learn what it takes to be found attractive and capture worthy.

Because only the best should be worthy of capturing you anyway. That's the proper mindset to have.

For the guys I created a product titled Power - and for the ladies a created one titled Saved Sexy And Still Single. Both are ebooks that are instantly available to be downloaded, read and studied right now.

Applying this information to your life will help undo much of the wrong teaching and indoctrination that has messed you up and left you incapable of carrying on a successful relationship. Call it 'vitally important corrective measures.'

Teutonic Knight #sexist incels.co

[Historypill] Why the Western white men have become such cucks

It's a bit long text but I can't put it any shorter.

The men that I have in mind: White heterosexual middle class and working class men from Western Europe and Northern America. Why have they become such cucks?

These men have had a very specific cultural and social history. They have been conditioned through centuries to obey their elite and to respect the hierarchy. First during the medieval and post-medieval feudal system. Then in the 19th century, these feudal states transformed into secular nations. The non-aristocratic men of all classes were technically given liberty but at the same time, they now had to follow a new religion of being loyal to the nation and its institutions, its symbols, its cultural and industrial elite. This was furthered by secularism which removed the power religion to a large extent and separated it from the state, so the state became THE religion.

These regular white men had to work hard in factory, support their families, go to wars for their nations and were expected to be blindly loyal to the Institutions of the State and its Law. A modern ideal of manliness was born out of this that among other things included the idea that you should accept all the hardships ("men don't cry", men aren't supposed to show emotions etc.) and that you should always blame yourself for your failures, because you live in this wonderful nation that provides you with everything. This is the mentality from which the incels are judged today (basically as a man, you should never complain, and if you have a problem, it's your own fault).

During the 19th century, these Western European nation-states became the dominant superpowers and controlled almost the entire world. The white Western men suddenly became an aristocracy of their own in the global perspective, fueled by the ideas of the white racial superiority, and they started to see themselves as such. The white race as a whole adopted the aristocratic mentality that they are the noble men who have to spread civilization all over the planet (the idea of the white man's burden). The white men now became the gentlemen, the white knights, the nobility of the world.

Meanwhile, the Western society started "liberating" all kinds of "vulnerable" groups from the supposed "oppression". After the WW2, this process was intensified and was systematically directed by the institutions of the Western states. The Western white men were expected not only to continue to respect their regime and its institutions and its new ideology, but also to stoically accept all the insults and provocations from all the feminists, gays, degenerate "artists" and other groups dedicated to shame the white men and their past. The white men were expected to bear all this and they did because they still saw themselves as some sort of gentlemen and aristocracy that is "above this". It's basically like the concept of noblesse oblige where the nobility is expected to be held to a different code of conduct than the rest of society and to be generous and benevolent, not lowering itself to the conduct of the plebeian lower classes. This is basically what you have in the society today, one code of conduct for the white men (you have to be liberal, respectful, humble, work hard, don't complain) and another for everyone else (you can complain, be loud, insult). White men were raised with this code of chivalry for a long time and have integrated these ideas about protecting the weak. They repressed their manly impulses which would mandate them to lash out and respond aggressively.

This is why the middle class and working class white men allowed all of this post-WWII feminism, LGBT, sexual liberation and other degeneracy to flourish. They believed that they still held a position of power and that they have a responsibility to serve the Western civilization (which became synonymous with liberalism, capitalism, feminism and 'freedom'). So they not only accepted all the degeneracy and all the insults, but even became proud of it and bragged to the entire world about what kind of freedom they have. They were doing it from a position of power, feeling as if it's their duty to protect the weak. This why you have all these manly men in Western armies bragging about fighting against the Muslims or other non-Westerners for "muh Western freedom" while their Western women are whoring themselves out at home. They're actually proud of this degeneracy. They see it as a sign of power and progress. Ever wondered why the American army doesn't have any equivalent to Muslim nasheeds? Because for the Western men, listening to some degenerate rap is their nasheed as it symbolizes the alleged power of Western liberation and global supremacy.

The thing is, all these vulnerable groups that the regular white men are supposed to protect and bow down to in fact aren't weak at all. They have been systematically protected by the increasingly more powerful State and its Institutions (that the white men are blindly loyal to) for decades. The West gives this groups like women, LGBT, immigrants etc. special privileges like the old feudal kings used to do in the past, so that in turn, they can expect their support and loyalty. This is basically what we have in the West right now, these "weak" "vulnerable" groups serve the system, they endorse it, they want stronger state, stronger institutions, stronger police repression (at the excuse of protect this vulnerable groups) etc. And the system gladly accepts their demands.

It's very interesting to note that the feminists never really opposed the white-knightism and chivalry of the patriarchical Western culture. They're perfectly fine with the middle class and working class white men thinking that they hold this alleged position of power where they have to help women. They don't want to convince them into true equality because if there was true equality, they wouldn't need these white knights, and the white knights would no longer help them. The feminists are just promoting a specific type of ideology that tries to strengthen the system and its ideological norms and which tries to humiliate the white men while at the same time giving them a false impression to these men that they're actually being noble and strong.

The white Western men are still too blind to see all of this. They still believe in the old conduct of chivalry, either in the form of being a left wing cuck, or a right wing cuck. They both very similar in mentality when it comes to protecting "muh freedom" (which in reality just means giving more power to the state which gives you this "freedom" and protects it). Both left and right wing cucks are blindly loyal to the West and see it as the peak of all human civilization and progress.

The attitude towards racism is very similar in the West too in terms of white-knightism. As a white male you're supposed to formally criticize every form of white racism, but this comes from a specific position of power as well. As a white male, you're also expected to be much more liberal than a non-white male. Non-whites can get away with certain anti-liberal ideas but the whites can't (eg. Muslims can be much more radical than the white Christians who get persecuted for the slightest offense). This is because as a white man, you're supposed to be a gentleman and protect the "weaker" races. This is literally what this so-called liberal "anti-racism" is all about. It's not about equality of the races, it's about white men being expected to be cucks and white knights for other races. So it's essentially racist in itself, although it doesn't really benefit the majority of the white race (and arguably it doesn't help the non-white races either).

Note, I'm talking about middle class and lower class white men here. There are whites who do perfectly fine in the West now, the rich oligarchic elite which holds the power, the politicians, judges etc. They hold a similar position to the aristocracy and clergy in the feudal systems, they're the ones who are actually above all of those things and laugh at the pathetic white peasants who work like idiots for this system while being humiliated and insulted by all the privileged "weak and vulnerable" groups at the same time.

What keeps the regular white men going? Four things: 1) century-long blind loyalty to the state, the church (the churches have unfortunately become too westernized and weakened to stand up to the anti-Christian secular states), the institutions, the legal system, the hierarchy etc. 2) an utopian belief that they can ascend to being the elite themselves. No matter how bad the situation is for them, they still have some weird hope that they can get a normal family, earn big money etc. This comes from the American capitalist mentality of pursuit of happiness, American dream (this mentality is now prevalent all over the West). 3) Relative economic prosperity which still enables all kinds of copes. The illusion of the mighty West that will continue to dominate the world through science and technology and solve everything. Addiction to the materialistic world and hedonism. 4) Fear of going against the Western idea of manliness where as a man, you're not supposed to cry and complain. This is further fueled by the secular humanism which promotes the idea that you are the master of your own destiny and if you have a personal problem, you have to find a solution yourself and solve it.

Incels are a problem for the regime because they have opted out of all this and don't share this mentality (other than maybe what I described under the number 3). This is also where this obsession with painting incels as "frustrated white men" (when there are in fact plenty of non-white incels) comes from. The regime fears that the white men will abandon it and stopped being the obeying little peasants. They want the white men to continue thinking that they're the gentlemen and noble white knights of this system because once the local Western white men stop being productive, it's pretty much the end for the West as we know it. That's why they want to shame the white men who turn incel.

The end of the West will come either way. This society has nothing more to offer (culturally, philosophically), it has clearly degenerated way beyond the point of no return. While not necessarily blackpilled, people are more and more cynical, they don't want to serve their nations as much as they used to (harder and harder to find people who want to serve in the army), this whole nihilism that the West promoted in regards to religion and traditionalism is now backfiring and is starting to question their own liberal ideology as well. Incels are simply a sign of things that are about to come as the men abandon the Western ideals of manliness.

Pancake Loach #fundie pancakeloach.wordpress.com

Feminists are literally the worst people in America – especially if you judge them by standard “social justice” metrics.

Let’s do the link roundup first:

Insty: “[Feminists are] horrible, damaged people who want to address their own problems by making other people suffer.”

Which is in reference to this Extremely Long Slate Star Codex piece, called “Untitled“. Caution: explicit reference to feminist hypocrisy, power-mongering, and general ugly hatefulness abound, complete with actual facts showing that the feminists are liars and they know it.

But you know, besides all the usual hypocrisy and naked power-grabbing going on by the feminists referenced in the above piece, all I could think about was that a man had come forward, saying that feminism nearly caused him to commit suicide, and DID cause him to beg his therapist to approve his castration, and all the feminists had was yet more social disapproval, scorn, and hate for him. (Kudos for the therapist saying no, the problem is not your heterosexuality.)

By the way, young males have the highest rates of suicide of any broad demographic in the country.

FEMINISTS. ARE. KILLING. PEOPLE.

And not just the millions of murdered babies. Do you think that Scott Aaronson is the only young male who heard loud and clear feminism’s message that male = worthless monster? That heterosexual desire is to be despised and rejected? (Not even Christian ministries to “pray the gay away” are as vitriolic about homosexual desire as feminists are about male heterosexual desire.) If anti-homosexual attitudes are even partially culpable for the suicides of homosexuals, then how much more culpable must feminists be when they teach vulnerable young men who are socially awkward but otherwise perfectly nice to hate themselves so much they want to DIE?

Feminists are monsters. Anyone who is not a monster and identifies as feminist is identifying AS A MONSTER. They need to be corrected, because all the non-monstrous people identifying as feminist are providing cover for and enabling the damaged, sociopathic bullies who form the core of feminism. As Vox Day says, “Feminism is a Satanic, anti-Christian, anti-reason, anti-science ideology that destroys literally everything it touches and everyone who embraces it. Reject it and its adherents the way you would reject someone offering you plutonium on their bare hands; to accept it is to begin to die a slow and painful death.”

Next in the roundup: a response by a female nerd, saying a lot of things I’d like to say, like “fuck you, feminists” – and pointing out how feminists also like to bully other women.

However, there’s no way for logic and reason to get through to a feminist. They are raging beasts, roaming about looking for people to devour (and if you are not any of the above, you should get out before you become one; the ideology is designed to lead you gently along the path to Hell, step by gradual step). So instead, let’s see some advice for nerds in another Insty roundup. These links – and the links in the links – are incredibly useful advice for more than just bullied nerds, so make sure to spawn those additional tabs! (Some of those links in the chain were idea-fodder for yesterday’s post, and I’ve only just got around to reading more of them myself, so go thou and also read.)

But here’s the problem: the shunning part only works for the Shy Male Nerd after he has grown up and gotten a job and moved out of the house. Which means that for his entire childhood and his most vulnerable adolescent years, he’s going to be immersed in a toxic sea of feminism, because feminism is the dominant ideology of mainstream America. What if his mother is a feminist, like the one described in the Rant of the Female Nerd, above? Kind of hard to shun your mother when you’re entirely dependent on her (and she’s probably already driven your father away or “henpecked” – the cute name for domestic abuse when a woman does it – him into a doormat).

This is where I go back to the introduction and tie in the “feminists are the worst people in the America by social justice metrics” point. Feminism is the ideology of institutional power in 2015 America. Feminists control education, from female-dominated primary schools all the way through higher education; cross feminist dogma and you’ll get in deep trouble, as Lawrence Summers found out. The head of UVA used the excuse of a false rape accusation in order to punish UVA’s fraternities for something that never happened. Kangaroo courts convened by universities routinely and blithely ruin male students’ lives – when men are already a minority in higher education. The government gives special benefits to women and convenes special task forces and institutes special social services for them – the courts even give female criminals lighter sentences. The media constantly trumpets the female-centric tenets and attitude of feminism (when they’re not fanning racial tensions) and derides anyone who dares to disagree.

Social justice warriors like to define racism as “racial prejudice plus power.” Those of us who aren’t ideologues looking to excuse the despicable behavior of protected in-groups laugh at the “plus power” part, but when you look at modern society, it is WOMEN WHO HAVE THE POWER, and particularly feminist women and their male allies (who may be amoral creeps out to use feminism for their own ends). Ordinary, non-feminist successful women get absolutely demonized for not toeing the feminist line whenever they dare to attract public attention, and any non-feminist male (as well as insufficiently servile feminist males) can count on truckloads of vitriol. Meanwhile, feminists defended the most powerful man in the world as he betrayed his wife, his daughter, his intern, and who knows how many other women in his past.

But this litany is just to point out that even by their own SocJus metric, feminists are the oppressors in today’s America. Their bigoted, sexist ideology wields power through the federal government, social welfare policies, the court system, all levels of institutional education, and corporate policy when it comes to employment or even use of social media, due to the combination of feminist regulation from the government side and fear of social media mobs on the public relations side.

Scott Alexander compares feminist bigotry to anti-Semitism in “Untitled” – if you don’t have time to read now, just skim down for the pictures of men with beards. It’s uncanny how close those images align, isn’t it? But I don’t think of feminism as patterning after anti-Semitism quite yet – especially since the beard thing is merely one small facet of masculinity that feminism attacks. I think feminists are actually more like Jim Crow Lite. After all, they’re using some of the same arguments as the KKK – and they stand for government-mandated privileges for women, and penalties for men. They haven’t actually gotten around to putting their “kill all men” or “reduce men to 10% of the population for breeding purposes” yet the way the anti-Semitic Nazis backed up their prejudices with violence, but they’ve definitely got the “institutionalized discrimination by government and society” part down pat. Thus, Jim Crow Lite.

It’s true that there are, in fact, worse ideologies running loose in the broader world today. Communism, its fraternal twin socialism, and their adopted brother Islam, for example. But I’m not convinced that feminism isn’t their little sister, just waiting until she’s all grown up and firmly grasps the levers of power before she starts outright murdering the targets of her hatred. And as far as America goes? Feminism is definitely doing the most damage.

(And now, for a tangentally related palate cleanser after peering too closely into the abyss – a modest proposal from Dalrock.)

Rick Moser #fundie returnofkings.com

Most people don’t consider how architecture is important to relationships. Good architecture helps you meet and get to know people. But what few people realize is that the stores, office buildings, and houses they live in are often designed to stop this from happening.

Why would architects want to design unhappy buildings? To push an agenda. The preachers of social justice have realized architecture’s significance and used it to subtly change our behavior, our values, and beliefs. They want to change how we interact, and that includes isolating people and destroying their relationships.

...

Ancient languages were infused with gender. Early people saw gender differences in everything around them. Gender became weaker and less important over time, until progressives erased gender completely. Today’s gender-neutral language inculcates a false belief that male and female are equal.

Sexes were distinct in architecture as well. The Greek Doric order, with its robust and austere proportions represented the man. The slim and decorative Ionic order represented the female. Designers emulated the inherent human roles they saw in the natural world.

But modern progressives decided that a person’s sex is just a construct of conditioning. They decided women are less useful to the economy as stay-at-home mothers and more productive in the workforce and as prodigious consumers. To change human roles they changed environmental expectations.

Just as modernists erased gender from language, they removed it from our buildings and made purely functional structure that did not speak to the sexes. Distinction is rarely made that correlates to the sexes: sturdy vs. slim, bare vs. adorned, dominant vs. subservient, geometric vs. whimsical.

...

Today’s architecture pushes unnatural expectations. The Women’s Restroom Bill of 1987 mandated that men’s and women’s bathrooms be exactly the same, except what is necessary for biological differences. Before this, men’s bathrooms were communal and accommodated more people. Women’s restrooms placed toilets behind a lockable doors and had extra spaces for childcare, grooming, and resting.

...

Sex roles ought to be the norm, and exceptions can be accommodated in a separate space. Early European settlers in Australia wiped out the aboriginal jilmi which accommodated a single woman’s special needs. They thought it was “prison-like” to isolate single women away from everyone else. But it turned out this was important for social cohesion. Similarly, the Law of Moses set certain standards for women in the community. The community in those days did not bow down to their needs, but rather made a separate space to accommodate them.

Ancient Egyptian, Roman, and Oriental houses had separate areas for women and men. Englishman Robert Kerr outlined gender-specific organizations and functions for each room of a house. Emphasis was placed on the man as the leader of the household. The radial paths of garden paths at the Duke of Beaufort’s residence all converged on his dining chair. (see Gender Studies in Architecture…, Dorte Routledge, p. 135) Architecture reinforced healthy expectations of human interactions.

Today’s house assigns no hierarchy of gender to its rooms, which means women take over the entire house. By designing from a female frame, less emphasis is made on the diversity of the household, its hierarchy, or of the diversity and hierarchy of the community. If the man is lucky, he can have the garage for his “man-cave.” But along with the house, public and work spaces are overtaken and forced to serve the woman’s needs.

Early Irish natives were nomadic tribes who repeatedly dismantled and rebuilt their dwellings. Over time, construction of their tents became a ritual that symbolized the marriage of the owners. Then, as today, the dwellings were constructed by men and the interior furnished by women. This distinction made the tent ritualistically “a site of creation, separation, autonomy and mobility.” (Vernacuular Architecture in the 21st Century, Lindsay Asquith, p. 80) Both men and women had a role in architecture, but in proper and distinguished ways. Today, how many men are in control of the house they live in?

Such consideration must be made in today’s architecture. The public needs to recognize the gender manipulation and oppressive expectations pushed on them by their environment. Today’s push against traditional gendered architecture isolates men. Public spaces do not help men and women meet each other, because they suit the woman’s need to “feel safe.” Private spaces do not foster a harmonious family relationship because they manipulate the natural family hierarchy.

The presence of gender in architecture helps couples meet each other in public places and live happily in domestic places. Its removal and manipulation is pushing men and women apart.

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

[Categorical BS. I'm a blatantly feminist (GASP) conservatively dressed intj woman and I still get more male attention than I can handle. I've mentioned this before on here, but if you need others to pretend to be weak in order to allow you to feel powerful, then what you need is psychological help, not a girlfriend]


This is what feminists says all the time, 'heard this response millions times.
But men like women this way, it's not because we're scared, weak or something. It's our natural dominance/male ego that don't want to be "challenged" (like that would happen with an other "man").

If women want men or her husband to "feel" good, acting feminine is definetely the solution. The longer marriages are the ones where women are traditional.

Men have to "conquer" to have sex with women (and only want that from women), so it's logic that they go to "submissive/weak/fragile" women (Like a war strategy). It incousciously means that their chances to reproduce are higher.

There are also the motherhood qualities that are feminine (caring, nurtiuring, sensitive etc.. )

Women pretending to be men are the ones who need psychological help (aka feminists). But you can't, so now feminists try to turn men into females. Your "gender equity" obsession has no limit.


[I also think that in matters such as rape, women are indeed victims (as are some men) and rape prevention is a feminist issue.]

If rape victimes are also men, why is it a "feminist" issue ? It seems to be about man-hating (99% rapists are men).

["no, her skirt doesn't mean she wanted to get raped"]

If feminists care about women safety, feminists should also say to women that dressing in a certain way can lead to problems.


[We already talked about it at length, so let me summarize : 1, the clothes a woman wear doesn't "lead" her to getting raped, 2, even if it did, it wouldn't mean women have to change something but that men should change their mentality (just because her clothes were sexy doesn't mean she wants sex or that you are entitled to sex), 3, it's a problem if victims are discredited because of the clothes they wore at the time of the rape. I won't go into more details. Read the topic about the slut pride again if you want to.]


Really ? What's the point of dressing sexy then ? Men won't change, yes we want sex 24/7/365 and we have to go for it. It's part of Nature. I think women got it now. You can't shake fresh meat in front of hungry dogs, and then cry because a dog ate your hand.
Not it's not, I think it's good argument. I can't let the door of my house open all night, and then blame people that robbed it. There are certain dangers in our society, you can avoid them or provoke them.


[I find this degrading and insulting to men. As a civilised man, I have self-control and decency which prevents me from acting like a wild animal. How is it that you, yourself, are not in jail for sexual assault by now?]


Because I behave in a civilized manner most of the time. But asking men to stop wanting to have (forceful) sex with provocative women, or hoping that rape will disappear completely tomorrow is useless.


[If you rape a woman because of her clothes, the truth is that you didn't do it because you got so horny you couldn't stop yourself. You did it because you though that because she was clothed that way, she wanted sex, or couldn't refuse sex. It's not biological, it's sociological.]


It's both. If a man is "not" horny and see a woman dressed like a slut, he won't care.


[So he was horny before and just happened to see a convenient victim ?]


Yes, so ? I'm just saying that women have responsabilities in the way they dress. You can't put it all on men and just say to women dress like sluts if you want.

[yes you can. Adults are either responsible for their own actions or they're not.]


Women are also responsible when dressing like sluts.

[
By saying that a woman is responsible for the actions of men around her, just by dressing a certain way, you are saying that men should be treated the same as young children and the mentally handicapped when it comes to the subject of rape: incapable of rational self-determination.]


No, if you go to a shitty neigborhood, with all your expensive clothes, you're are provoking danger. It doesn't mean robbers aren't responsible, but you can attract even more danger by your actions.


[If you start justifying rape that way and restricting the way woman's wear, where does it end ? You'll find people who tell you veils are necessary because hair are too sexual, and then other people who think even hands or ankles are sexual so all women need to be dressed in integral veils. I say, you can control your penis.]


Showing all your legs, most of your boobs is universally seen as sexual. Women know it. And when showing it, they definetely want to (or they, at least, accept) men to have "horny" thoughts. Horny thoughs can lead men to rape.


[Also, do you suppose women have no sexual needs ? If I see a beautiful man without a shirt on, and I threaten him with a gun to rape him, is it his fault ? Or is that scenario impossible because men can't get raped ?]


Women can rape men (when they have weapons), but rarely do. Men (that are physically stronger) can do it more easily. So, it's so rare that there's no need for men to do anything. And when women rape, it's most of the time for other reasons than sexual attraction.


[There's a difference between saying "be cautious, don't go there alone at night" and saying "be cautious, never wear a short skirt".]

Women could reveal her body only to her boyfriend.


[But by definition it is not her choice to be robbed, assaulted or raped - it was somebody else's, and that person bears the entire fault.]


I never said women dressing like sluts were making "the choice to be raped" or that it's natural that men could rape them in that situation. But, in some situations, women have a (moral) responsibility.

And women dressing sluts are sexualizing themselves, and making them appear as sex objects. Why would a feminist defend the right for women to "dress like sluts", is this how they want women to appear ?


[It is not the woman's fault if she was raped, any more than if you were to go to the gym locker room and got raped by another guy, it would be your fault. Everyone is responsible for his or her actions.]

Not comparable. When a woman is dressing like a slut, is drunk, and/or barely conscious when going outta a nightclub, she's putting herself in a situation that could lead to rape. I never said this is how most rapes occurs, but this is also a reality.

JD #fundie conservatism.referata.com

The United States of America (also known as USA, US, or America) is a federal Republic founded upon Judeo-Christian values. Founded in 1776 per the Declaration of Independence, the US fought against the British army for freedom to found a truly Christian nation.

However, as the decline of Western civilization has continued to occur, albeit at a faster rate in Europe, the US has been growing into irrelevance as Communist China and neo-fascist Russia have been taking over as global superpowers. This is due in part to wicked vulgarian Donald Trump assuming the role of 45th "president" right after Barry Soetoro of Kenya usurped the same position right before him. There is also a problem with scantily clad women as strippers, sex workers, and "pop stars" as well as a problem with profanity and obesity that has resulted from a lack of true Independent Fundamentalist Baptist values in the nation.

Due to these factors, the US has gone from a Judeo-Christian conservative nation to a liberal one where men can become women, women can become men, and men can marry men and women can marry women, and any sir her zir kir blir can identify as a fire breathing kitty if they want to. Some can point to Trump being the Antichrist, and they may be correct because those Access Hollywood tapes as well as the fact that Trump was in a softcore porn film show that Americans have gone from the Greatest Generation that were not wimps and fought the war to coddled liberal brats in easy colleges that get gender studies degrees and have to live in their safe spaces due to the mere fact that they had a microaggression due to a lack of a trigger warning due to the fact that a hard working coal miner had the mere audacity to call a "zir kir" "sir."

Also note that Americans owe over $1 trillion in credit card debt. Proverbs 22:7 says "The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender." In addition, the institution of the Federal Reserve bank and the income tax in 1913 set us up for what happened in 1972 when Nixon entirely disassociated the US dollar with gold, killing what remained of the gold standard after 1913, so that politicians can play games to fund useless endeavors and rack up over $20 trillion in the process.

This shows that due to a lack of Christian morals, where sodomites and transvestites reign supreme, as well as worthless paper money better used to wipe your own derriere, even the greatest and boldest experiments in human history can utterly fail.

RIP USA (1776-2015)

Ethan Huff #transphobia #wingnut naturalnews.com

Just as the Health Ranger predicted, Big Tech is now declaring war on gays to satisfy trans

Today’s LGBQs are finding themselves at odds with the Ts, as the Ts are increasingly demanding that the LGBQs submit to their ever-evolving sexual demands or else be deemed “bigots.” And just as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, long predicted, Big Tech is siding with the Ts in shutting down the free speech rights of the LGBQs because the Ts find their viewpoints “offensive.”

All acronyms aside, here’s the rub: Mentally deranged transgenders are angry that homosexuals aren’t sexually attracted to their mutilated trans bodies, so these transgenders are exploiting platforms like Facebook and Twitter to silence all homosexuals. As it turns out, homosexuals prefer others of the same biological sex, and aren’t interested in transgender freaks who merely “self-identify” as some other gender.

A homosexual male, for instance, is attracted to other biological males, not a transgender “male” who was born with a vagina, but later had it surgically altered to become a fake penis. The same goes for homosexual females, who prefer actual females and not mentally ill dudes who took cross-sex hormones and underwent a litany of gender-bender surgeries to become “women.”

For daring to espouse biological reality, homosexuals have found themselves as the new sworn enemies of the trans mafia, which recently petitioned Facebook to shut down a homosexual men’s group known as “The Boxer Ceiling” for this exact reason. This group, which is no longer visible on the social media platform, had described its mission as exposing “the abuse of gay men and lesbians by proponents of Gender Identity Ideology.”

Members of The Boxer Ceiling say that they have been “relentlessly targeted and harassed by Gender Dogmatists (both trans and non-trans), who fundamentally disagreed with our basic premise that everyone deserves sexual autonomy.” And after creating their group, these members were targeted even more by the trans mafia, and were eventually forced off the Facebook platform entirely.

When Breitbart News attempted to reach out to Facebook for a statement, the Mark Zuckerberg empire did not respond. Attempts to locate the page for The Boxer Ceiling group on Facebook are also pulling up a message stating: “This content isn’t available right now.”

For more related news about social media censorship of politically incorrect speech, be sure to check out Censorship.news.

Dear victim society: What goes around comes around
A group of lesbian feminists encountered similar opposition from the trans mafia during a recent event it held at the Toronto Public Library.

Trans freaks threw a big hissy fit outside the facility after learning that a panel organized by Radical Feminists Unite-Toronto was taking place inside, and included a woman by the name of Meghan Murphy, founder of Feminist Current, who, like the members of The Boxer Ceiling, believes that biology trumps mental illness.

Not even 10 years ago, this type of trans insanity wasn’t even on society’s radar. But today, not only is the trans mafia demanding absolute acceptance and embrace of its perversion, but it’s also normalizing tyranny against all opposition with the help of Silicon Valley.

Watching the LGBTQP mafia at large – the P stands for pedophilia, by the way – eat its own is humorous, to say the least. We all saw it coming, at least those of us who’ve been paying attention to the movement’s rapid decline into total depravity.

“Now they’ve learned that when you are lower on the victim pyramid, you must cede your rights to those above you,” wrote one Breitbart News commenter about the plight of today’s homosexuals.

“Clearly trans resides higher on the pyramid than simply gay. One would assume that someone like a cis-male female-identifying non-binary pansexual Muslim refugee from Syria with chronic PTSD would be at the top of the pyramid.”

bob #fundie webcache.googleusercontent.com

I’m a woman, and I’ve voted in every election since 1976, but I would gladly give up my right to vote if it meant we would get more presidents like Ronald Reagan and not be saddled with any more Barack Øbamas.

After the 2008 election, someone did a statistical analysis (I wish I’d saved the article) which showed that demographic shifts were responsible for Øbama’s victory. Certain demographic groups can be counted on to vote certain ways (e.g., married men with children vote Republican, single mothers vote Democrat, etc.), and their voting patterns stay remarkably consistent over the years. What has changed is the distribution of those groups. Back when Ronald Reagan was elected, we had more married people with children (who tend to vote Republican) and fewer single women with children (who vote about 99.9% Democrat). Over the years since then the numbers have shifted — marriage is down, broken homes are up, illegitimacy is up, and of course so is immigration, which has skewed the numbers to favor Democrats. If we could somehow bring back the culture of marriage and family formation, and decrease the incidence of family breakup and illegitimacy, that alone would go a long way toward solving the problem. But I don’t suppose that’s any more likely than repealing the 19th Amendment. Sigh…

Rep. Matt Shea #fundie #psycho #wingnut npr.org

Six-term Washington state Rep. Matt Shea is accused of participating "in an act of domestic terrorism against the United States," according to a report released Thursday.

Independent investigators commissioned by the Washington State House of Representatives found that Shea, as a leader of the Patriot Movement, "planned, engaged in, and promoted a total of three armed conflicts of political violence against the United States government" between 2014 and 2016.

The report also concluded that Shea was involved in training young people to fight a "holy war." He created a pamphlet called Biblical Basis for War and advocated replacing the government with a theocracy and "the killing of all males who do not agree."

Chat messages showed Shea, a lawyer who was first elected in 2008, condoned intimidation of opponents, political activists, government officials and Muslims. He also offered to conduct background checks on political opponents.

Following the release of the report, Shea was suspended from the House Republican Caucus — a serious form of discipline.

He was also stripped of his position as the ranking member of the House Environment and Energy Committee and will be removed from two committees.

"He should resign," Washington State House Minority Leader Rep. J.T. Wilcox tweeted.

"He cannot use House Republican staff, he cannot meet with the caucus, his office will be moved," Wilcox added.


Rep. Matt Shea has been suspended from any role in the House Republican Caucus. He should resign. He cannot use House Republican staff, he cannot meet with the caucus, his office will be moved.


But late Thursday, Shea said he will not resign.

"Like we are seeing with our President this is a sham investigation meant to silence those of us who stand up against attempts to disarm and destroy our great country," Shea said in a Facebook post. "I will not back down, I will not give in, I will not resign."


Shea maintains he was not given an opportunity to review or respond to the report.

The report states he declined to be interviewed as part of the four-month investigation.

The Army veteran was a public supporter of Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher who led a 2014 standoff with FBI agents in a dispute over grazing rights.

According to investigators, Shea visited the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville for a couple of days. While there, he "developed a strategy for leadership over future Patriot Movement armed resistance against the federal government by creating" a coalition of western state leaders from Idaho, Washington, Arizona and Nevada.

The Patriot Movement is a far-right, anti-government extremist group, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. A core tenet is that the government should not own public lands.

About two months after the Bundy Ranch standoff, the report notes a meeting between Shea and leaders of the Oath Keepers Militia at a restaurant in Spokane. There he was overheard discussing "militias, weapons, stockpiling ammunition, the Bundy Ranch, Special Forces and snipers."


When VA officials planned to remove weapons from the home of a veteran who was flagged by health care officials, Shea issued a call to action for Patriot Movement members. In a Facebook post, he urged them to arm themselves and drive to Priest River.

"That resulted in the use of armed militia members who blocked access to the veteran's home and prevented the lawful retrieval of the guns by the Veterans Administration," the report said.

In early 2016, Shea again teamed up with the Bundy family in an armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon.

The 41-day standoff between armed militia men and government officials resulted "in devastating financial, physical and emotional harm to a community and its residents; and the loss of one life."

At the time, Shea said he had gone on a "fact-finding mission."

State Rep. Laurie Jinkins, a Democrat, said the House needed time to review and digest the full report prior to taking further action.

She added: "In its 130-year history, I am unaware of House members ever having received such a comprehensive and disturbing investigatory report about another member."

The gravity of the findings prompted the Chief Clerk's Office to forward the report to the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI, Jinkins said.

"We respect Rep. Shea's right to free speech and his personal beliefs, but those ideals are not what this is about," she added. "This is about a state lawmaker who, according to the investigative findings, engaged in an act of domestic terrorism rather than choosing political or legal avenues to change laws and policies he disagrees with."

Shea could be removed from the state House entirely but that would require a two-thirds majority vote of House members, and, the nonprofit news site Crosscut reports, that "has happened only once in the history of Washington's Legislature."

Wotans Krieger #fundie aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.co.uk

Metrosexual `man` is the ultimate product of the Kali Yuga. He is characterised by ambiguity. He is a feminised `man`, a male with a penis but nothing more. This sorry excuse for manhood is the feminist`s dream `male` product. He not only resembles a woman with `his` pink clothing, earrings, handbag, bottled water, skin and hair products and his wispy false middle class dialect-free voice and mincing gait but he is also akin to homosexual `man` except that he thinks he is the ultimate modern man. Often this de-emasculation of men begins first within the home. Middle class male children are prime candidates for de-emasculation, a process begun in early childhood by dominant feminist university educated mothers, married to men who have little if any say in the running of their households. Where the father is not present ultimately many of these boys develop homosexual traits in their desire to emulate and please the devouring mother. The middle class mother will do everything in her power to neuter her male offspring to the extent that they are they are bestowed with effeminate `Crispin`-like names and given either girls` toys to play with or at least ones that do not foster the natural aggressive male instinct. It is the feminist`s ultimate revenge on male-kind.

[...]

The formation of a sexless, raceless and soulless mass of slave-like humanity is the intention of the secret ruling tribeless elite and global capitalism is the mechanism which they use to drive this, television and glossy magazines being tools in their arsenal. Men these days are encouraged to "get in touch with their feelings", to cry and become emotional in public, to "show their vunerability", etc. This is the very opposite to the solar and polar virility espoused by Wodenism and blogs like this. We are fighting a war, a very real war for the souls of our folk and this creeping metrosexualism threatens the very fabric of our beings. As individuals we must resist this and become the very opposite of these half-men. We must become Maenner[German for `men`] and collectively the Maennerbund.

Incel Wiki #sexist incels.wiki

Hypergamy

image

Hypergamy is the natural inclination for women to "trade up" in terms of looks, money, and/or status. In a social environment which seeks to free human sexuality from cultural influence, women become more hypergamous than men because they are naturally sexual selectors. Today, sexuality is very liberated, and women are extremely hypergamous, moreso than men, to the point of causing increasingly rampant inceldom among the male population.

Modern women are always calculating whether the gains from a new relationship will off-set the losses of leaving an old one. Femoids are consistent in analyzing the value of their partners relative to the available pool of men. Women judge social expectations as a cost when leaving a partner. Modern society makes promiscuity less of a negative, so women are more likely to jump ship when ready.

In non-human animals, this phenomenon is referred to as Bateman's Principle. Opposition or aversion to hypergamy is sometimes called 666phobia.

80/20 Rule

image
Women rate 80% of men as below the average of all men, source: Okcupid

An internal okcupid study revealed that the vast majority of women only consider about 20% of men to be actually attractive in looks, and irrationally evaluate 80% of men brave enough to show their mug on a public website as below the average of all men.[1] In the most popular dating app Tinder, people have found out that “the bottom 80% of men are fighting over the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men".[2] Because women are sexual gatekeepers their preferences decide the dating scene.

Okcupid deleted it's internal studies showing how women view 80% of men as below average etc... after the Alek Minassian attack but many archives exist including the ones cited above.

Personality Doesn't Override Hypergamy

A common normie counterargument to lookist theory would be that women aren’t as visual in real life as on apps, and that you can display a bit of personality when approaching a woman, thus overriding hypergamy. Other studies, however, stress on the notion called the “halo effect,” in which your perceived personality could be in correlation to how you look[3]. For example, men are commonly told to be funny to attract women. In reality, it is not the case that being funny makes you more attractive. Instead, being attractive makes you appear more funny[4] and judged less harshly/not seen as creepy in weird situations[5].

Even in real life, you have to surpass a certain looks level for a woman to even desire you intimately. There has to be physical attraction at first for a relationship to be initiated. While women say that personality matters more than looks, their decision indicates that they value looks first and foremost[6].

As a result, we can conclude that since females do not regard the vast majority of men to be physically attractive, them being sexually free results in sexual inequality, since only a few men would be actually desired by women. The other 80% have to make up heavily with status or money.

GINI coefficients

A study which analyzed GINI coefficients in human relationships found that, “single men have a higher Gini coefficient (.536) than single women (.470). Thus, female sexual partners are more unequally distributed among single men than male sexual partners are among single women”[7]. Famous sexologist Kristin Spitznogle says this is proof that Bateman's Principle now applies to humans.[8] A separate study of Tinder found that Tinder's GINI coefficient between the genders was on scale with the income inequality of third-world countries (see chart below).[9]

More and More Males Are Becoming Celibate

Here is a graph from Lyman Stone of the Insitute for Family Studies that shows that male celibacy is rising much faster than female celibacy.[10]

image

Since looks are the main factor in leading to sexual attraction, we could make the assumption that females are simply not appreciating the facial appearances of most men and not giving their sexual favors to them frequently.

How women chase Chads

The cock carousel is a phenomenon that is associated with hypergamy. In theory, women would chase as many Chads as possible, chasing the 666 rule, during their prime years before settling with a betabux.

image

Dual-mating strategy

One particular UCLA study states that, “a great deal of the evidence indicates two overlapping suites of psychological adaptations in women: those for securing long-term , cooperative social partnerships for rearing children and those for pursuing a dual-mating strategy in which women secure a social partner and engage in selective sexual affairs to gain access to good genes for offspring”[11]. The lack of loyalty with a dual-mating strategy begets the feminine imperative.

Translation: women (programmed to search for the best genes) have tendencies to fuck the Chads first, and once they become completely used up and hit the wall, search for a betabux to attain financial security and actually raise children with.

It’s OVER if you’re not Chad

image

Normalfaggots love to state that since ugly/average men can get women, the female species isn’t always displaying hypergamous behavior. This is so wrong on many levels, since women at heart always want Chad and will leave anyone for him once they get the chance.

“Women whose mate value increases substantially will become (1) more emotionally dissatisfied with their current partner, (2) more likely to evade a partner's mate guarding efforts, (3) more likely to cultivate backup mates, (4) more likely to initiate new relationships with higher mate value men, and (5) less inclined to stay with their current partners”[12].

Another study showed that women orgasm more frequently when having sex with attractive guys than with non attractive guys[13]. This shows that women are very likely to keep pursuing Chads for maximum sexual pleasure.

Further proof

A study that analyzed changes in the distribution of sex partners from 2002 to 2011-2013 showed that compared to 2002, top 20% of men (in terms of LMS) now had a 25% increase in sexual partners, and the top 5% of men had an outstanding 38% increase in the number of sexual partners. The study commented that “no significant changes were identified among women in the top 20% and top 5%, overall, and among subgroups”[14].

Mark Carey, M Jackson, Alessandro Antonello & Jaclyn Rushing #moonbat phg.sagepub.com

Feminist glaciology asks how knowledge related to glaciers is produced, circulated, and gains credibility and authority across time and space. It simultaneously brings to the forefront glacier knowledge that has been marginalized or deemed “outside” of traditional glaciology. It asks how glaciers came to be meaningful and significant (through what ontological and epistemological process), as well as trying to destabilize underlying assumptions about ice and environment through the dismantling of a host of boundaries and binaries. The feminist lens is crucial given the historical marginalization of women, the importance of gender in glacier related knowledges, and the ways in which systems of colonialism, imperialism, and patriarchy co-constituted gendered science. Additionally, the feminist perspective seeks to uncover and embrace marginalized knowledges and alternative narratives, which are increasingly needed for effective global environmental change research, including glaciology (Castree et al., 2014; Hulme, 2011). A combination of feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology provide the intellectual foundation for feminist glaciology.

Most existing glaciological research — and hence discourse and discussions about cryospheric change — stems from information produced by men, about men, with manly characteristics, and within masculinist discourses. These characteristics apply to scientific disciplines beyond glaciology; there is an explicit need to uncover the role of women in the history of science and technology, while also exposing processes for excluding women from science and technology (Phillips and Phillips, 2010; Domosh, 1991; Rose, 1993). Harding (2009) explains that the absence of women in science critically shapes “the selection of scientific problems, hypotheses to be tested, what constituted relevant data to be collected, how it was collected and interpreted, the dissemination and consequences of the results of research, and who was credited with the scientific and technological work” (Harding, 2009: 408). Scientific studies themselves can also be gendered, especially when credibility is attributed to research produced through typically masculinist activities or manly characteristics, such as heroism, risk, conquests, strength, self sufficiency, and exploration (Terrall, 1998). The tendency to exclude women and emphasize masculinity thus has far-reaching effects on science and knowledge, including glaciology and glacier related knowledges.

Feminist glaciology is rooted in, and combines, both feminist science studies and postcolonial science studies to meaningfully shift present-day glacier and ice sciences. While feminist science studies focuses explicitly on gender and the place (or absence) of women in science, it can neglect specific analyses of the social relations of colonialism and imperialism, emphasizing instead Western women without sustained attention to indigenous, non-Western, and local knowledge systems that are the centerpiece of postcolonial science studies (Harding, Carey et al. Phillips and Phillips, 2010; Schnabel, 2014). The postcolonial perspective is crucial for understanding glaciological knowledges because the science of glaciology has historically participated in the imperialist, colonial, and capitalist projects associated with polar exploration, mountain colonization, resource extraction, and Cold War and other geopolitical endeavors.

More recently, glaciology has also been central to earth systems science that often relies on remote sensing from satellite imagery to suggest broader claims of objectivity but is actually akin to the “god trick of seeing everything from nowhere” (Haraway, 1988: 581; also see Shapin, 1998). Questions about epistemology in climate science, ice coring, and glaciology are only beginning to be asked, especially focusing on Cold War polar glaciology (Martin-Nielsen, 2012, 2013; Elzinga, 2009; Korsmo, 2010; Naylor et al., 2008; Turchetti et al., 2008; Macdougall, 2004; Finnegan, 2004; Heymann et al., 2010; Bowen, 2005; Hulme, 2010). Of these studies probing the discipline of glaciology, only a tiny subset analyze gender (exceptions include Bloom, 1993; Bloom et al., 2008; Hulbe et al., 2010; Hevly, 1996) or approach human glacier interactions from the perspective of feminist postcolonial science studies or feminist political ecology (exceptions include Williams and Golovnev, 2015; Cruikshank, 2005). Fewer still recognize indigenous knowledges, local perspectives, or alternative narratives of glaciers, even though large populations of non-Western and indigenous peoples inhabit mountain and cold regions near glaciers and possess important knowledge about cryoscapes (Carey et al., 2015; Nu¨sser and Baghel, 2014; Drew, 2012).

Feminist and postcolonial theories enrich and complement each other by showing how gender and colonialism are co-constituted, as well as how both women and indigenous peoples have been marginalized historically (Schnabel, 2014). Feminist glaciology builds from feminist postcolonial science studies, analyzing not only gender dynamics and situated knowledges, but also alternative knowledges and folk glaciologies that are generally marginalized through colonialism, imperialism, inequality, unequal power relations, patriarchy, and the domination of Western science (Harding, 2009).

An additional theoretical foundation for feminist glaciology is feminist political ecology, which has generally emphasized unequal vulnerability and disproportionate global change impacts, but which also contributes significant research on knowledge production, ontologies, and epistemologies. With hundreds of millions of people utilizing glaciers for everything from drinking water and hydroelectricity to recreation and spiritual sites, the disproportionate vulnerabilities and disparate adaptive capacities in these societies are critical to acknowledge.

Feminist political ecology addresses how inequality and unequal power relations — mediated and co constituted through gender dynamics — have silenced the knowledge of people “most affected and marginalized by neoliberal, colonial, and patriarchal systems” (Hanson and Buechler, 2015: 6).

Crucially for feminist glaciology, feminist political ecology argues for the integration of alternative ways of knowing, beyond diverse women’s knowledges to include — more broadly — the unsettling of Eurocentric knowledges, the questioning of dominant assumptions, and the diversification of modes and methods of knowledge production through the incorporation of everyday lived experiences, storytelling, narrative, and visual methods (Harris, 2015). This inclusion of alternative knowledges and narratives alongside analysis of colonialism and inequality, such as race relations (Mollett and Faria, 2013), fits squarely into more recent feminist political ecologies that increasingly go “beyond gender”. This means that the research builds on “a history of boundary-breaking ideas [that] makes possible the present-day spaces where feminist geographers explore power, justice, and knowledge production, ideas that encompass but also surpass a focus on gender” (Coddington, 2015: 215).

Feminist glaciology raises critical conceptual, analytical, and epistemological questions that are largely absent in the 21st-century love affair with glaciers and ice. The framework offered here strives to open discussions, to introduce avenues of investigation, and to suggest ways forward not only for scientific enquiry that includes the environmental humanities and social sciences, but also for public perceptions of glaciers. Examples within this review and synthesis article are primarily meant to expose the value and various dimensions of the feminist glaciology framework; they are not meant to be comprehensive, but rather starting points to indicate lines of future investigation into this major gap in glacier studies and its related contribution to global environmental change research and both human and physical geography.

Pomidor Quixote #sexist dailystormer.name

Study Finds Sex-Based Brain Differences IN UTERO: Blank Slatism BTFO

Did that misogynist just imply that men and women are different?

From the study’s abstract:

Sex-related differences in brain and behavior are apparent across the life course, but the exact set of processes that guide their emergence in utero remains a topic of vigorous scientific inquiry. Here, we evaluate sex and gestational age (GA)-related change in functional connectivity (FC) within and between brain wide networks.

Using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging we examined FC in 118 human fetuses between 25.9 and 39.6 weeks GA (70 male; 48 female). Infomap was applied to the functional connectome to identify discrete prenatal brain networks in utero. A consensus procedure produced an optimal model comprised of 16 distinct fetal neural networks distributed throughout the cortex and subcortical regions. We used enrichment analyses to assess network-level clustering of strong FC-GA correlations separately in each sex group, and to identify network pairs exhibiting distinct patterns of GA-related change in FC between males and females.

We discovered both within and between network FC-GA associations that varied with sex. Specifically, associations between GA and posterior cingulate-temporal pole and fronto-cerebellar FC were observed in females only, whereas the association between GA and increased intracerebellar FC was stronger in males. These observations confirm that sexual dimorphism in functional brain systems emerges during human gestation.

Bbbbut a top neuroscientist woman recently told us that men and women have the same brain!

image

Everyone knows that men and women are the same and here’s proof:

Women hate women
Feminists say men and women are equal
Feminists hate men

Feminists say all kinds of bad stuff about men while also saying that they’re equal to men, so the logical assumption here isn’t that women just hate themselves but that they hate men and that they’re equal to men.

Does that make sense?

Okay, maybe women do hate themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pJeK1MRZkk

But that’s just further proof of how terrible men are.

Besides, baby boys and girls already have different brains while inside the womb because their mothers have been socially conditioned by the patriarchy and the babies somehow got that conditioning through the umbilical cord. Okay?

If trannies had babies, the babies would be gender-neutral. Or… something.

Probably something.

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

Women's Sexuality Is Meaningless Without Men


[Sexuality emerges in stages from the very earliest years of life, when a child discovers that there is something 'down there' and starts to feel around, on through to puberty, and onward from that point to mature understanding of their own and others' sexuality (in an ideal trajectory). Many, many factors can damage that trajectory, social norms being particularly strong.]

First masturbations, especially for girls, can hardly be described has a "sexuality".

Masturbation is "hardly" having a sexuality. And girls and boys sexuality is very different. Girls that has vaginas and can masturbate earlier than boys. But we can't really call it "sexuality", but more "curiosity" (they're not sexually active).
Boys can't really experience sexuality until they produce sperm around early puberty, so for boys it's kinda simple. Personally when I ejaculated the first time, I was 12, I don't think I could've done it earlier.

[Then what can the discovery of what brings your body to orgasm be described as? And, yes, the purpose of masturbation is orgasm. When she feels that sensation and perues it, she's exploring and interacting with her sexuality.]


Female sexuality is different from males. If I'm right, they can experience orgasm before (and after) being sexually active, which is very weird from a natural POV... I don't really thought about this before, but that brings a lot of questions.

Women pleasure is apparently not linked to her sexuality. Whereas men pleasure is completely linked to his sexuality. Do women really "have" a sexuality ? Do these orgasms aren't just illusions to support "men's sexuality" ?


[http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GE...S/CHILDORG.HTM Your amazing knowledge of female sexuality must surely give you a suave way with Teh Ladeez.]


I still don't think that female orgasm is a "sexuality", if they can have it before and after being "sexually" active, you can't call it "sexuality". I stick to my theory that women doesnt have one, and that female orgasm is just an evolutionary function to make them appreciate "men" sexuality. I can be wrong though.

Men "have" to dominate. We have to dominate animals to get food, we have to dominate our enemies, dangers etc...we have to sexually dominate women to reproduce. Domination is a whole part of what men are.


[1) I love how you're putting human females on the same list as animals, enemies and natural disasters. Like women are 'things' that must be 'done unto.' That's great. (Not.)]


This is not what I meant, humans have to survive through eating and reproducing, so from a male perspective, it's through animals and women


[2) It also implies that, like animals, enemies, and avalanches, women are going to resist the man's efforts. "Get over here, Matilda, it's penis time." "No, no, no!" "I said GET OVER HERE, Tillie. We gotta keep populating the goddamn human race. Don't you try and run out on me!" "NO! NO!" "Shaddup." "Let me go!" "Sorry, kiddo. Gotta dominate ya. I'm a man."]


No not especially with rape, but even in consensual sex, the woman is dominated, because she is penetrated.


[3) But one of your core beliefs appears to be that women are naturally submissive. So why would a man have to dominate someone who has already lain back with stars in her eyes? And if he loves her (and is vanilla), why would he want to?]


Women learn through time and evolution to be submissive, it's not "natural", but I think it's more an evolutionary attitute that was necessary. I assume the submissive ones was the one getting fucked, so maybe women adopted this attitude for procreation/to be attractive. Or maybe they were forced because men were raping them, I don't know. But this attitude is still clearly visible today.


[4) And all of the above is assuming you're even correct that men have to dominate things. You can get food by working WITH the earth instead of against it (e.g. biodynamic farming, free-range animal husbandry, humane slaughtering methods). You can deflect and self-defend against enemies without needing to destroy them. You can (gasp!) have fun in bed with your woman. She'll still get just as pregnant, if that's what you want]


When men wanna have wheat to eat it they have to cut it (kill it), when they wanna eat beef, they have kill it (even if it's nicely), and when there's a venomous snake or a crocodile going next to his 3-year old kid, the man will not just "push it" nicely, he "has" to kill it to be sure the dangerous animals won't come again. And for sex, I never said women shouldnt have fun, but she is dominated (not raped) in any case, because the penetration is domination.


[Yeah, in fantasy, sure. In the "real life" which you believe you're so in touch with, men carry around a significant degree of fear that they're not going to be good enough to be chosen, not going to be hard enough to penetrate, not going to be big enough to satisfy.
Or as the inestimable sage Rihanna put it,
The desire to find a "submissive" woman is the desire to avoid being straight-up challenged like that. The desire to believe that all women are "naturally" submissive, and any woman who thinks otherwise has been manipulated, is complete self-delusion.]


Men that haven't got erectile problems don't ask these questions to themselves (maybe when they turn 50). The "be chosen" part is before the sex, and has nothing to do with the sexual act.

The submissive women love from men just means higher chances to get laid, and more feminine, it has nothing to do with "good, she'll accept my little non-erectile dong when I'll try to get her orgasms". The world is not turning around women desires. And I never said that "all" women are submissive but a big majority, and even if some are not, that's how most men like them.

Some feminists like to say "weak men like submissive women", this is a lot of BS. The submissive women are the ones getting married and laid, that may be why these dry feminists try to turn these women into "strong-dominant" masculine women to be like them.

Look at black women, their feminist non-submissive attitude is the reason why 70% of them are single and 42% never been married. As a black man, I can tell you this is a widely known fact in our community. A lot of white, black western men now have go to China, Russia, Latin America to get their "feminine" submissive women. A black friend is getting married with a chinese woman this year, we talked about it, he is in this case. Sad.

[In other words, you mean black women are insufficiently interested in flattering men's egos.

Gosh, that's horrible. How did blacks survive in the millennia before the diaspora, when black women were the only women around!?!! How do black men who are still on the African continent manage!?? Clearly, the UN needs to start a task force to address this urgent problem. Funds must be raised to enable black men in Africa to import properly submissive females from Thailand.]


American black women were fine and feminine before feminism corrupted them. African non-westernized women are still feminine.

How Black Women SHOULD Treat Black Men



Black men are also responsible for being overrepresented in thugs, prison population, leaving their children alone with their moms, taking drugs, being uneducated, dealing drugs, being affliated with gangs etc...

But responsible black men like me don't find these "strong" "independant" black women attractive. I also find them repulsive physically, I prefer caucasian females so I'm kinda biased... The only black woman I've dated was mixed and was very feminine. A rarity among black women.

PS : I do advocate equal rights, but there's a point where western women "have" to do kids.

[How about if I said to you, "American blacks were fine before the civil rights movement corrupted them"?

There are lots of white Americans who believe this is true. There are lots of white Americans who much preferred to have blacks living under segregation and treating white people with automatic respect lest the Klan pay a visit to their house that night.

These folks became shocked, scared and angry when American blacks started raising their fists to the sky and demanding equal rights as human beings.

They have spent the last fifty years laboring mightily to try and re-frame the civil rights movement as an unpopular, unwanted aberration led by a band of whiny misfits who just wanted special perks.

These people shrewdly concede that, yes, the separate bathroom and separate drinking fountain thing was bad, and they certainly do not advocate returning to THAT state of affairs. No, they certainly want black people to be as free and equal as the day is long. It's just...couldn't the blacks go be free and equal somewhere else? Why, ask these white people, must we be forced to have them in our schools and clubs and workplaces?

Special ire is reserved for blacks who seem "angry." This particular white population is forever on the lookout for "angry" black people. Naturally, therefore, they find them everywhere. They are quite sure that this "anger" would go away, and American blacks would return to their "natural" state of being...well...submissive...if we could just get rid of civil rights and affirmative action.]


I am a black separatist and a pan-africanist, so I don't blame whiteys for wanting their land to be black-free and/or mostly White. I support them.

And I never said women shouldn't have rights.


[Do you see any parallels between the attitude of white American racists towards blacks in general, and your attitude towards black women in particular?]

No. Black women adopted the "feminist" attitude and they lose their feminity. Black (or any) men don't like that.

[Wow. Just...wow. I don't even know what to say.

So I'll say this.

You may not like what black women have to say. You may not like the fact that they dare to say it. But you know what? They're speaking their truth to you.

White and Asian women are trained not to do that. I remember once when I was around 6 or 7 years old, a friend of mine called and invited me over to her house. I didn't feel like going, but I honestly didn't think I had the right to say so. I thought it would be mean, impolite, friendship-shattering. In a panic, I told her I would come, because I simply didn't know what else to do. But, I really didn't want to go. So...I didn't.

She ended up calling me two more times, asking when I was going to show up.

If I had felt free to speak the truth to her--to wound her in a smaller way--I would not have wounded her in the much bigger way I ended up doing.

BEWARE THE SILENCE AND INGRATIATING SMILES of white and Asian women. They're cultural in origin, not personal. They're about training, not temperament. Sometimes they're genuine. A lot of times, though, they're a front put on to disguise emotions that we either can't or don't know how to express.

The women who have attacked you for your attitudes--the ones you find "hateful" and even "physically repulsive"--those women are your friends. The ones who seem all sweet and submissive are not.]


I (and most men) prefer this moderate/civilized attitude than the generally loud and annoying black women. Especially if they talk to me about the "I'm strong, independant" thing, "black men sucks" etc....

I find them so ugly, and digusting, I don't even look at them, and try to avoid them most of the time. And when I told them that, they call me self-hating black, I reply you're objectively just plain ugly gtfo.

Video : a Black man speaks out ! : Black Women Are Not Submissive & Feminine Enough For BLACK MEN (Starts at 04:00)


[you claim to be a pan-africanst And yet, you hate black women. Methinks I see a problem there.]

I'm honest with myself, maybe it's because I was raised in a predominantly white country, but my sexual attraction goes toward White causasian females. But I still do think that Black/afro-descent people need their own independant country/continent and that interracial countries are a mess. Blacks are not socially welcomed in the western world.


[What you said was, "I'm in favor of equal rights BUT."

You do believe that, at a certain point, women "have to" have babies.

Which is a huge decision, and you think you have the right to make it for them--AND their husbands, too, I might add.

So, you think women should have some rights...but not equal rights, not the right to do whatever they want with their own lives and their own bodies as long as they're not harming other people.

Which makes you the male equivalent of a Jim Crow white person in pre-civil-rights America.

You wouldn't find one person down south, outside of an active Klan member, who believed blacks should not have ANY rights. Heavens, no. They'd be in favor of LOTS of rights for blacks......as long as those rights didn't go "too far." "At a certain point," like, say, being allowed to marry a white person if they choose, they have to go to the back of the bus.

American blacks rejected this wholesale, as they should.

And by the way--THAT is what created the tough, truth-to-power, outspoken black woman whom you so charmingly despise. Not feminism. American feminism tends to be embarrassingly white ]

It's not comparable. women have a natural biological role. Blacks are not "naturally" supposed to sit on the back of the bus, or be hung on a tree.

And sadly feminism is a model for most black women.

Anti-Feminism Australia #fundie antifeminismaustralia.com

Make Australia great again – Pauline Hanson for PM!

Feminists are scared, very scared. They know their days are numbered and a big change is coming. Trump winning the US presidential election has shown that people have had enough. They have had enough of political correctness and feminism that plagues the USA.

Feminists have brought this upon themselves by pushing their female supremacist movement too far. Did they really expect it would last forever? Over the past few years, there has been a growing backlash against feminism. Read the comments (if they haven’t yet been disabled) of any man bashing news article in Australia and it will be full of backlash. Ten years ago you’d be lucky to see one or two comments against feminism. Today you will see hundreds, and they make up the majority of the comments.

Perhaps the most important thing of all is the rise of women against feminism. In the US election, a whopping 53% of white women voted for Trump. This came as a huge shock to feminists, and they didn’t realise just how many women are now against feminism. In the Anti-Feminism Australia group at least half of our admins are now women. We have many female members in the group and have also noticed a huge increase in the number of women joining our movement. There are also Facebook groups such as “women against feminism” which has over 42,000 members.

Feminists know the game is over when women are “betraying the sisterhood” in droves. This makes them angrier than anything else. An anti-feminist woman is probably equivalent to 5 anti-feminist men in terms of damage to the feminist movement. If feminists can’t even get their fellow sisters on their side anymore, what hope do they have?

So getting back to the victory of Trump. How does this affect feminism in Australia? Because the people of Australia have now seen that if Trump can become president of the USA, then surely Australia can have a Trump like president as well. Australians are sick of politicians who pander to the needs of women just to win female votes.

Australia needs an anti-feminist, MRA, straight talker Prime Minister to clean up all the misandry in this country. Who is the best person for the job? I would personally say Mark Latham but since he is no longer in politics, our best chance is now Pauline Hanson. Pauline Hanson’s popularity has surged since the last Australian election, and continues to grow. This puts her in the best position to become Prime Minister of Australia in the next election. You may laugh now but I can assure you if the victory of Trump is possible, we could easily see Pauline Hanson as the next Prime Minister of Australia.

In this video, Pauline Hanson congratulates Trump and says she is thrilled with his victory.

Pauline Hanson congratulates Trump

Last night on the ABC show Q&A, one feminist in the audience asked the panel if Pauline Hanson is likely to ever become PM. The audience burst out in laughter, and feminists on the panel respond with a firm “no”. Laugh it up now feminists, because that’s exactly what people did with the idea of a Trump president. I can’t wait to see all those feminist tears once Pauline Hanson becomes PM.

Feminist asks if Pauline Hanson will ever be PM

Although Pauline has never stated it, she is clearly an anti-feminist and a Men’s Rights Activist. She has liked a few of my anti-feminist comments that I’ve left on her page using the page name of “Anti-Feminism Australia”. She has also promised that she will make child custody laws fairer on men, address the male suicide epidemic, and help male victims of domestic violence.

Pauline Hanson claims women make frivolous DV complaints

Feminists have shown they are desperate for a female President/Prime Minister, just because they have a vagina. So you can just imagine the mental gymnastics and conflict going on inside their head if Pauline Hanson were PM. On one hand they want a female PM, but on the other hand they hate the fact she is an anti-feminist and MRA.

In my opinion, having a female anti-feminist PM is probably even better than having a male anti-feminist one. Why? Because women against feminism can get away with a whole lot more and can’t be accused of being a “misogynist” or a “woman hater”. Feminists will have a strong urge to call Hanson a “misogynistic pig”, but realise they can’t because she’s a woman. So what will they do? Blame it on the patriarchy or “internalised misogyny” so they can still find a way to blame men.

Be afraid feminists, be very afraid. Your days are numbered.

Please support “Pauline Hanson for PM” Facebook page.

MAKE AUSTRALIA GREAT AGAIN! PAULINE HANSON FOR PM!

Daniel Amneus #fundie fisheaters.com

[From a book titled "The Garbage Generation" hosted on the linked website]

What IBM thinks of as the promotion of equality is better understood as the undermining of hypergamy, one of the pillars of the patriarchal system. Hypergamy, or the "marriage gradient," means that women "marry up," men "marry down." A cinder girl may hope to marry Prince Charming, but a chimney sweep cannot hope to marry Princess Charming. A male doctor might well marry a female nurse, but a female doctor would hardly consider marrying a male nurse. The female nurse may be underpaid, but in the marriage market her prospects are better than those of the female doctor because there are more desirable males she can hope to "marry up" to.

...

IBM's question implies that society's arrangements tilt in favor of males. The fact is that society's arrangements produce more male winners and more male losers. One principal reason for the success of the male winners is the knowledge that they might well be losers: they must earn their success and are motivated to earn it partly by the greater risk of failure. IBM proposes to intervene in society's arrangements to confer benefits on females which will increase the number of female winners without increasing the number of female losers. What will increase is the number of male losers, since the male engineers will be competing not only with each other but with females enjoying a conferred advantage denied to males. Another question:

WHICH ONE WILL BE PRIVILEGED TO ATTAIN STATUS BY MARRIAGE AND WHICH ONE WILL HAVE TO EARN IT FOR HIMSELF/HERSELF BY WORK AND SELF-DISCIPLINE?

With IBM interfering with "market forces" this question might have to be re-worded: "attain status by marriage or by IBM's largess." As IBM offers women more status, marriage has less to offer them-- men have less to offer them. Men's marriageability is decreased because they have relatively less to offer women; women's marriageability is decreased because they have fewer men to "marry up" to. As IBM transfers status from those more dependent on work and self-discipline to those less dependent on work and self- discipline, men will become less motivated, since the rewards for work and self-discipline are reduced. The effect, though at a higher level of income, will be what is observable in the ghetto, where women enjoying the handouts of the welfare bureaucracy and become economically and status-wise independent of men, with the consequence that large numbers of men become de-motivated and less marriageable.

Two more questions:

WHICH ONE IS MORE LIKELY TO DIVORCE HIS/HER SPOUSE? WHICH ONE WILL HAVE HIS/HER LIKELIHOOD OF DIVORCE INCREASED BY A FACTOR OF FIVE IF HE/SHE IS EDUCATED AND ECONOMICALLY INDEPENDENT?

...

Let's project IBM's program into the future. Let's suppose the wearers of the blue and pink booties grow up and both become engineers. Then:

WHICH ENGINEER IS MORE LIKELY TO BE CHILDLESS?

IF BOTH MARRY, WHICH IS LIKELY TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM HIS/HER SUPERIOR EDUCATION?

Virginia Woolf thought as IBM thinks: families would make great sacrifices to educate their sons, few sacrifices to educate their daughters. She failed to understand the reason: education enables sons to have families, to provide for wives and children who would benefit from the sons' education economically and by the transmission of the knowledge and the values embodied in the education. Educating daughters does not enable them to provide for husbands, and greatly decreases likelihood of their having stable marriages. The birthrate of educated women is far lower than the birthrate of educated men. (Ms. Woolf herself was childless, as are most feminists.) What Bernard Lentz says of professional men and women of the period l890-l940 is true of other eras:

Even for the "superperformers" [the most successful professional women]...marriage still led to diminished success, resentment, and a distracting tension in their personal lives. In contrast, men at this time found marriage had numerous advantages in their climb up the professional hierarchy....

Ergo, society has a greater interest in encouraging and furthering the education of males. Educating a boy enables him to have and to support a family, to give children an advantage in life, to transmit family values and strengthen the patriarchy, to create social stability. Educating a girl enables her to escape marriage, or if she marries, to escape childbearing or to have a smaller family. Education, which increases her independence, will enable her more easily to expel her husband and inflict upon her offspring (whose custody is virtually guaranteed her) the disadvantages accompanying fatherlessness. Feminists see these options as desirable, but why should IBM or the rest of us see them as desirable?

...

Feminist-economist Dr. Barbara Bergmann offers a little paradigm-story about Pink People and Blue People earning their living by picking berries on an island. Like women and men in our own society the Pinks and Blues have sex-segregated occupations. Dr. Bergmann thus illustrates "the crucial point":

If a group is segregated and furthermore is crowded into a relatively narrow segment of labor-market turf, its members will as a result be less productive, and their economic rewards will be lower.

(It is a sufficient refutation of this to point out that Senators are a segregated group occupying a narrow segment of the labor-market turf, but they do not suffer from low economic rewards.)

...

If men cannot outperform women they will not perform at all, and society will be lucky if male energies are merely wasted in narcissistic display rather than in disruptive violence and machismo. A man with nothing to offer a woman save a paycheck the size of her own is impossibly disadvantaged. He will know, and his wife will know that he knows, that the words "I don't need you, Mister" are always at her disposal and, thanks to the anti-male bias of the divorce court, she has an authority in the family greater than his own. Patriarchal capitalism prospers because it creates an arena of work wherein males are allowed to succeed and create wealth and where they are motivated to do so and rewarded for doing so by the satisfactions of family living.

...

Ms. Wattleton's pitch for "reproductive rights" and Dr. Bergmann's pitch for taking better jobs away from men to confer them on women come to the same thing: men are excluded from meaningful participation in reproduction. Men become superfluous members of families. The basis of civilized society is that men shall share equally in reproductive decision-making, and shall earn the right to do so by working. The program of feminism is to deny men this right by undermining the sexual constitution, the Legitimacy Principle, marriage and the family. When they talk about women's reproductive rights and about making women economically independent of men, this is what they mean.

Mark Dent #fundie avoiceformen.com

During the interview which naturally took place in front of an all-female audience, Michelle made the following observations about men.

Men should simply be better if they want to help women achieve gender equality. Be better at everything. Be better fathers. Good lord, just being good fathers who love your daughters and are providing a solid example of what it means to be a good man in the world, showing them what it feels like to be loved.

A woman with a powerful voice and a very public platform decides it is her right to sit in judgment upon the male gender and tell them how they can be better men and better fathers. She even feels the need to tell fathers to love their daughters. It is breathtakingly arrogant and deeply offensive. I know that the “flip the genders” test is by now old hat, but it remains the single best way to make people reflect upon the incredibly different way in which the public responds to what men and women have to say about each other.

Imagine if you will, that Donald Trump held a rally or did an interview with a male journalist who was so enamored with him that he would be willing to lick his boots should he ask him to do so. Imagine this interview is taking place in front of an all-male audience.

The interviewer asks Trump if he has any advice for the women of America.

Trump responds: “Be better mothers. Good lord, just being good mothers who love your sons and are providing a solid example of what it means to be a woman in the world.”

Of course, these words are spoken to the accompanying applause and cheers of the all-male audience.

There is nothing in Michelle Obama’s words that one could call hateful (not yet.) But the sheer arrogance and prejudice are clearly evident to any objective observer. Now, if Mr. Trump has spoken the words I just quoted the media would crucify him. Even people in his camp would have thrown their hands up in dismay at his stupidity and chauvinism.

Can you believe it? This buffoon has the effrontery to lecture the women of America and tell them how to be better women-him, a man! What a fat, sexist pig! He has cost himself the women’s vote if indeed he had any to begin with. How can this woman hating pig even be running for President? There would be street marches and breathless, orgasmic editorials by the salivating left and head shaking condemnation from the right.

Here we have the First Lady, on stage with the most famous, influential and richest female in America and the only reaction to these words were positive. I am yet to hear one word of condemnation.

The words became far more poisonous as the interview continued, but the audience and Oprah remained as enthusiastic and supportive as ever.

Obama told Winfrey that it’s sad that her experience of never being physically abused by a man is a “rare reality.”

Just pause and read those words again. Can you believe it? The First Lady just said that the vast majority of men in America physically abuse their wives and partners. This is the only inference one can make when she states it is a “rare reality” for a woman never to experience physical abuse in a relationship with a man.

Public condemnation, criticism, raised eyebrows- zero. Again, not even a mild rebuke from a conservative journalist or politician. Nothing.

Let’s flip it again.

Trump says to his all-male audience. “I am fortunate enough to have been in a relationship where I have never been nagged or been used as an ATM, but this is a rare reality for men in America.”

The campaign would end there. There is every possibility his very life could be in danger. The media would eviscerate him, and his friends would apologize on his behalf and beg forgiveness from the women of America.

And surely being called nag is preferable to being branded a woman basher.

Nevertheless, as much as Trump has trampled on many politically correct conventions, if he attacked the whole female gender he would be finished. As it is, if he calls one nasty, abusive, obese woman a “pig” this apparently can be taken to mean he hates all women.

[...]

Hillary is able to call Trump a sexist, racist, homophobe to his face and Trump knows that if he responds with the same slurs ( even with ample factual evidence to support him), the public would condemn him and call him a bully and misogynist. How liberating is it to be a female politician debating a male in 2016, knowing your opponent fights you with both hands tied behind his back and his tongue tethered? Is it any wonder Hillary smirked so smugly throughout the first debate?

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

[Remember when MRA's actually tried to maintain the pretense that they don't want to be paterfamilias? FSTDT remembers]

On our recent post concerning abortion, one of the commenters brought up one of the most common feminist arguments, which goes something like this:

Men oppose abortion, birth control, etc., because they really want control over women.

The same idea is applied to domestic violence, divorce, child custody, and just about everything else that might be disputed between a man and woman. Every time there is something that men and women don’t see eye to eye on, it’s an issue of the patriarchy wanting control.

This idea is very clearly reflected in domestic violence theory, perhaps best exemplified by the “power and control wheel” dreamed up in the fevered imagination of the creators of the Duluth Model domestic abuse program. Leaving aside the fact that many of the supposed controlling behaviors detailed on the wheel are probably more commonly practiced by wives than husbands, such as playing “mind games” and using the children to get what one wants, there is a catch in that denying being abusive makes one an abuser. So, according to the Duluth Model, if your wife calls you an abuser, you can deny it all you want, but that just confirms your status as an abuser, which subjects you to state control.

The New York Model for Batter Programs takes control a step farther, and imposes indoctrination sessions on those referred to the program. Additionally, it is a punitive rather than rehabilitative program, but cloaks this to some degree through a stated mission to change society. It is not only men that are subject to control through this particular program (and not all men ordered to attend are convicts, nor are all who have been convicted guilty), but all of society, which is clearly seen by directors as diseased and in need of change. To accomplish its goal, the NYMBP enlists the assistance of courts, the police, judges, social workers and others involved in coercive occupations. Clearly, this goes beyond the control that even the most criminally deranged husband could hope to impose on a wife.

When it comes down to it, it’s pretty clear that feminists are obsessed with the idea of control, and they’ve made great strides in controlling men. Simply living under the same roof with a woman puts a man at the mercy of an army of agents of the state, and with a simple phone call a woman can put him under scrutiny that could last for years and have consequences for his entire life. This goes far beyond anything men have ever practiced under so-called patriarchal society, which for all its faults never was comfortable with interfering in domestic matters. For example, in older American or European society, could a husband ever have called the police to force his wife into an indoctrination center? He would have met with laughter or disbelief. In fact, even if a wife had beaten or cuckolded her husband, this would have been considered outside the bounds of the state’s role. Only murder, wounding or possibly grand theft would have prompted any intervention on the part of the husband. In fact, as today, wives frequently absconded with the children, and men were left to their own devices to find them. Patriarchal “control” over women was mild indeed.

Contrast that to today’s reality, where if a man absconds without his children there are numerous state and federal agencies dedicated to tracking him down and forcing him to pay her. Lord help the man if he tries to take his children — he’ll be hunted down like a rabid dog.

The reluctance to actually control women carries over into even the most fervent supporters of what feminists would call the patriarchy. Anti-abortion activists kill an abortionist every few years, but has there ever been a case of one killing a woman who aborted her own child? Perhaps it is this aversion to controlling women that gives feminists such a sense of entitlement and contempt for men. They know in their heart of hearts that these so-called patriarchal men are actually simply their agents in controlling other men, and use them accordingly, hence the dark, hidden alliance between feminists and social conservatives that has emerged to clamp down on men from time to time.

The control impulse feminists ascribe to men is, like so many of their other issues, an example of projection. There is nothing feminists want more than to control every single aspect of their relationships and society. This is not a very masculine tendency, as men prefer a more dynamic rather than static environment. Men’s natural genius is is suppressed by heavy-handed control, which leads to stagnation, apathy and inaction. The economic failure of Communist societies demonstrates what happens to men under oppressive, controlling regimes: they tend to become depressed and sluggish, and engage in dissipation rather than constructive pursuits.

The patriarchal control impulse is a pure fabrication, and more accurately describes feminist psychology than masculine behavior. Men are generally less obsessed by control than women, and they don’t even come close to feminists, who would reverse Pinocchio and turn us all into puppets if they had their way.

...

[Bonus quote from the comments, hoo boy did this age poorly when he dropped the mask a few years down the line]

Yeah, it’s crazy how they imagine this control when it doesn’t exist.

I’m not controlling of women at all. The last thing I want to do is spend all my time riding herd on women. I simply don’t want the job. This has a lot to do with why my marriage failed — I just got tired of having to deal with things for my wife, who expected me to “take charge” in each and every situation, which is a hell of a lot of work for a husband. Me, I’d rather women handled things themselves most of the time, but I guess that’s expecting too much.

Jesse Lee Peterson #racist #wingnut #fundie wnd.com

GRIEVANCE INDUSTRY
LOVE WHITE PEOPLE OR LEAVE MY COUNTRY!
Exclusive: Jesse Lee Peterson challenges the true racists in government

Somehow in this country, white people became the only ones called “racist” (even though “racism” does not exist; it’s either right or wrong, good or evil). Everyone is encouraged to hate white people. The Civil Rights Movement, which I regret participating in, only brought destruction. Blacks forced white private businesses to service them, and whites began catering to blacks. Then other immoral people came in and used black people for their own agenda, to bully the weak whites. Women who hate men, radical homosexuals, illegal aliens and others seduced black false leaders, comparing their wicked causes to blacks’ supposed “struggle.”

I often ask black and Hispanic liberal guests on my talk shows, “Do you love white people?” Rarely can they simply answer, “Yes.” But when I ask them if they love blacks or Mexicans, it’s suddenly an easy answer – “Yes!”

This month of July is my second annual celebration of White History Month. America is great thanks to white people. But it’s so overrun with blind white-hating people that we now have a Muslim woman with a head rag in Congress! Rep. Ilhan Omar, D.-Minn., is an evil, America-hating, Christian-hating “social justice warrior.” But she falsely claims, “I probably love this country more than anyone that is naturally born.” Her kind of “love” is the same emotional, egotistical spirit as angry single black mothers who raise thugs and defend them when they commit crimes.

I’ve been saying for years that if anyone does not love this country, they can leave! If you hate white people, and you believe in so-called “racism,” even though whites let you into this country, go back to Africa or wherever you came from! Same with the white communist antifa members who hate American freedom – get out of my country!

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

President Trump rightly said the same thing in a few tweets last Sunday. He suggested that these “progressive” Democrat Congresswomen “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” He’s right. But they won’t, because they’re hypocrites – including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. Not only will they not fix their own communities, they want to mess up ours! They only offer abortion, immoral socialism, false victimhood and hatred of white people, men and Christians.

Although the president defended white female Democrat Nancy Pelosi against false accusations of “racism” by Cortez, Pelosi turned on Trump, paying back evil for good. In order to help “women of color” who hate her, Pelosi led a controversial vote condemning what she falsely called “racist tweets,” denigrating the president. In response, Trump pointed out that “this was the first time since 1984 that the Speaker of the House was ruled Out of Order and broke the Rules of the House.”

Thank God, a beautiful crowd in Greenville, North Carolina echoed the president’s sentiments, chanting, “Send her back!” – referring to America-hating, Israel-hating Ilhan Omar. The children of the lie, including the liberal media, Democrats, RINO Republicans and Never Trumpers, of course freaked out over the lack of political correctness. These deceivers hate good people, and support America’s enemies. Weak, cowardly establishment Republicans begged the president to distance himself from the “send her back” chant, which he obliged to a point. But when pressed by media, the president stood by the people of North Carolina as “incredible patriots.”

President Trump loves America, and said that these Democrat women “can’t get away with” denigrating its people. “I’m unhappy that a Congresswoman … can call our country and our people ‘garbage.'” He referred to Cortez (the socialist), who trashed the opportunities offered by this country, and called the late President Reagan and working white people “racist.”

Trump said, “I can tell you this, you can’t talk that way about our country, not when I’m the president.” These are the words of a real man. Not a weak, pathetic person concerned with silly notions of “racism,” “sexism” and whatever else they come up with – Trump stands on what’s right. He’s a straight, white, conservative Christian man of power – everything the children of the lie hate.

Ilhan Omar promised to be the president’s “nightmare,” which really means she wants to be America’s nightmare. Trump said, “She’s lucky to be where she is. … And the things that she has said are a disgrace to our country.”

I say shame on us for allowing such a woman to come here. But this is what evil wants. It’s time for the people on the side of good to stand up. Thankfully, President Trump is doing that.

There’s nothing more important than rebuilding men. There are no men in the Democrat Party – only weak beta males. Women run the Democrat Party, which is anti-American and of Satan. We saw what happened when men disappeared from black homes. The black community worships “mama” while they kill one another. Now other races, including whites, follow in blacks’ footsteps of self-destruction, by following women. Whites have turned to weakness and surrender, thinking the people of color will love them. That’s not the way.

Watch and learn from this president, who makes evil unwelcome again.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=D_J1HRwqt94

triedtoconvince #sexist #racist reddit.com

So, I am a very long time lurker. Someone once told me something about the gender divide issue. I believe that this is the solution for Asian men. It is a method that looks in the long term. Yes, improve ourselves in matters such as the physical (lift weights, play sports, train in the martial arts - mixed martial arts), and in the mental (stay mentally healthy, work on your intellect, do well in school). However, improving ourselves only goes so far.

There is what many people here are now doing - calling out Hollywood/western racism, beginning to support leaders such as Duterte who call out white supremacy, imperialism, white attacks on other races as what they are, and finally creation of anti-Propaganda such as Kulture, which is very respectable.

However, these two prongs of counterattack only solve part of the problem, because in the vast majority of cases from my experience, it is not entirely brainwashing or Asian men "not being masculine enough" that is the problem. (I have seen too many examples of masculine Asian men who also have charisma be considered as much more inferior than they really are compared to other men, simply because they are Asian, this is the females' fault, not Asian man's fault, this is society's fault, not our fault. Women are the ones who control the gates to relatinoships and sex, so whether we are chosen or not is not our fault, especially when all factors are against us, and our most attractive/masculine specimen are considered inferior to the lowest of other races of men).

You see, many Asian women are complicit. completely complicit. I would estimate that at least half of them or 75% are enamored with white men and have a much higher disposition than other races of women for stockholm syndrome. They truly hate anything to do with the Asian men. And another maybe 25% or 20% think the same way (love whites), but either have not acted yet on getting themselves a white/black/nonAsian male, or are quiet about it, or pretend to support Asian men but in reality sleep with the enemy (Constance Wu).

There are simply not enough Asian women who are truly loyal to Asian men for this not to become a major problem in the future for our race. Our race will die out if we do nothing. Do not be complacent like many stupid Asians or mainland Chinese who believe that China's size will simply absorb these things. Asian men are being cucked in their own countries now, even when they are the vast majority. Imagine what happens if there is some kind of immigration, and add onto this the fact that many Asian women look for foreign/non-Asian men and many refuse to have children with Asian men.

The solution is not to take Asian women back as bananarangs, nor is it to try to "convert them back." What is lost is lost.

Asian men must look to the future, look forward, and not backward. There is nothing to look back to except the smouldering ruins of a once great city that Asian men and women once built together. And the ones responsible for burning down the city were mostly Asian women, with the help and encouragement of white males, non-Asian males who dislike Asian men, and cuckold Asian men/eunuchs.

We the surviving Asian men can no longer afford to be distracted by Asian women. They only drag us down, or they cause us psychological pain. It is time to separate ourselves from them, as they chose to separate themselves from us and throw us under the train to be killed. They are not worth the effort in any way shape or form. It is a complete waste of time and mental energy to think about them or even to hate them. Simply all Asian men must forget about Asian women and act as if they do not exist. There is a world of women out there for us if we are aggressive enough, bold enough, confident enough.

The problem of the Asian population disappearing is actually not that big of a problem if Asian men take action. This action is the solution to the problem: as many Asian men as possible must pursue non-Asian women and have offspring with them. Then, ensure you have many daughters that you teach to love only Asian men (have them ONLY watch Asian TV shows with Asian male romantic leads, and also steer them toward more masculine Asian male portrayals such as those of Jang Hyuk or Lee Byung Hun or Oh Ji Ho or Toshiro Mifune or Huang Xiao Ming.... you get the picture, let them see the Chinese weightlifters and Japanese/Chinese/Korean male gymnastic team full of muscular, baddass, masculine Asian men, influence them to fall in love with Asian men only, sure throw in the flower/pretty boy drama once in a while, but keep things traditionally Asian masculine).

There will be many Asian men out there with very few options in the future, as this racism will only continue and get worse. So, when your half Asian daughters marry fully Asian men the next generation or half a generation down the line, we will have a huge population of 3/4ths Asians with Asian fathers and Asian grandfathers. This cycle can be repeated over and over again. We are essentially creating a bloodline..... no, a NATION of Asian male genetics and non-Asian female genetics, in which the Asian genetics and Asian phenotype will dominate and everyone is something like 3/4ths Asian with Asian patriarchal ancestry.

This is not unlike what happened in Central Asia after Genghis Khan swept into the west. Except that we will have this objective in mind as a way to preserve the Asian man's genetics, and to fight back against white supremacy and western imperialism. Genghis Khans descendants also often ended up very caucasoid, so that is another difference.

You might say "hey tridetoconvince this is a good plan of action, but I bet you are a loser who masturbates at home and doesnt even have a girlfriend."

Nope, I have a fiancee, and she is part Iranian, part eastern european, and very beautiful compared to the kind of American white woman or Asian woman I would be able to match up with if I were to try here in the states. You see, I realized that it does not matter how much Asian men try with racist Asian or white/American women, because even an 8/10 Asian guy like myself will be considered half his attractiveness rating due to all the factors, especially social proof and media-related, that are against us. This is why Asian men must forget about the vast majority of Asian women, and also only use the racist/racist-leaning white American women as nothing more than casuals. Those of us who live outside of the USA or anglo controlled areas should maximize our opportunities with women who are into Asian media and not as much influenced by western/Hollywood media, because these women are the ones that can really view us in a more objective manner, and I can attest that they are much more open and judge us as individuals as opposed to how we are treated in white/western/anglo heavy areas.

This doesn't mean a loser, ugly Asian guy who puts no effort into his looks or musculature will be able to do well. A loser is still a loser, so for those bros, they need to self improve first before taking action.

The most vital part of this plan is to make sure that our daughters are exclusively attracted to Asian men, and that will take a lot of effort making sure they completely avoid the toxic white/western media that dehumanizes all Asian men and paints us as losers, eunuchs, cuckolds, target practice, villains.

I will be doing my part in the future by making sure my daughters only like Asian men, and I will make sure to find fully Asian husbands for them.

And remember, this is what any tribe with sane male leaders would do. Whites were/are planning to do this with Asian women acting as "surrogate white women."

Raymond J. Pistachio #sexist sites.google.com

Do REAL men Rape?

In praise of the Caveman, wherever & whenever he may live....

Actually, REAL men DO rape. It's in our genes; hardwired into our DNA. Has been for 100,000 years. Do you really think the average caveman would have put up with all the shit that today's women make men put up with just to get laid? NO! He'd have clubbed her upside the head with his club, and dragged her by the hair (never by the feet--cuz then her crotch would fill up with dirt), back to his man-cave, and have himself a private little no-holes-barred caveman rape-a-thon!

ONLY in relatively recent times (and most especially, in post-feminist America) have men become so pussy-fied that they've all but given up on this age-old manly mating ritual. Indeed, there are only a few "real men" left. You can spot them. They are the ones who think RAPE ROCKS!

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

Eisenhower’s presidency had coincided with a long period of peace and prosperity. Indeed, the title of the popular 1970’s TV show, Happy Days, refers to its setting in the 1950’s. The Eisenhower years mark the peak years of “the baby boom” and upward mobility of all classes and ethnic / racial groups. Apart from a minor and short-lived recession in 1958, the 50’s truly were “the good old days.”

One would therefore think that the Republican Party (aka GOP for Grand Old Party), with its popular and superficially likable “war hero” presiding over these “happy days,” would have greatly expanded, or at least maintained the Congressional majorities which Ike inherited upon winning the 1952 election in a massive landslide. This was not the case. To the contrary, in spite of two massive Eisenhower landslides, the 1950’s turned out to be a history-altering bloodbath for House and Senate Republicans, and it was not by accident.

1952 & 1956: Eisenhower won two historic landslides and remained popular for the full eight years of his presidency. Meanwhile, conservative Republicans in Congress were picked off by the dozens. Why?

There were two elements driving this extremely odd paradox of such a popular president not having any election “coat tails” for his fellow Republicans to grab onto. First, the Globalist media, while constantly exalting Eisenhower on one hand, trashed what was then a mostly conservative, anti-communist, constitutionalist Republican Congress with the other. But the real death blow of the one-two punch knockout of the GOP Congress came from Eisenhower himself.

During the 1954, 1956, 1958 and 1960 election seasons, Eisenhower -- with the exception of a few liberal “modern Republicans” -- refused to lift a finger in defense of his beleaguered colleagues. He was the one man in America who could have protected the patriotic anti-communist Republican Congress from the daily whipping it was taking from the Globalist press, but he refused. Robert Welch describes Ike’s silent treachery of 1954, which only grew worse in subsequent Congressional elections, and peaked during the 1958 mid-term elections in which the GOP lost an additional 49 seats in the House, and 14 in the Senate. Welch:

“Nor can there be any slightest question about the disruption of, and damage to, the party being intentional. Eisenhower not only refused to do any campaigning for, or to give any White House moral support to, the Republican Senatorial and Congressional candidates – he left their campaigns permanently disorganized through his deliberate delaying tactics with regard to his expected support, which was never forthcoming. Then, at the very last minute, he went through face-saving motions, of which a high-school politician would have been ashamed, with his fantastically childish scheme of chain telephone calls.” (6)

“Delaying tactics,” eh? Just like the World War II delays which got so many Americans killed while preserving Eastern Europe for Stalin! The final paradoxical results of Eisenhower's sabotage were truly astonishing -- all the more so when we consider how popular Ike had remained from start to finish of his 8 year reign of ruin. Here are the final "before and after" numbers:

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

1952: 221 Republicans and 213 Democrats = R +8

1958: 153 Republicans and 283 Democrats = D +130

SENATE

1952: 49 Republicans and 47 Democrats = R +2

1958: 35 Republicans and 65 Democrats = D +30

As shocking as those statistics are, there is more to the numbers than meets the eye. You see, many of the Senate and House Republicans who did manage to survive the Eisenhower purge were "modern Republicans" -- today known as "RINO's" (Republican in Name Only). And most of the incoming Democrats who replaced them were of the extremist Marxist variety. Their dominance would shape the course of America's political, economic and cultural decline for decades to come.

There can be no doubt. Eight years of Ike killed the Republican Party, just as it had the conservative majority of the Supreme Court... by design. No bloody wonder Democrat Sulzberger's New York Slimes and Democrat Meyer's Washington Compost endorsed him, twice.

The Democrat Party, which had been on the brink of destruction just six years earlier, knocked out the Republican Party in an epic rout. Yet “Republican” Eisenhower always remained popular. The result pleased Eisenhower and Democrat Senate Leader Lyndon B. Johnson very much.

whateverdude6833 #sexist forum.deviantart.com

The bad feminists are the ones who are predominate in colleges, the ones who are in the education system, the ones in the media...
So, not just a "vocal minority"... every feminist with any type of power in the media and in education.
Who are the good feminists? Women like Christina Hoff Summers, who is loved by the right wing and hated by the left.
There's nothing good about 3rd wave feminists

Good feminists - People old enough to be my grandma, people hated by mainstream feminists, people who are celebrated more by the right-wing.

Bad feminists - Majority of educators, the majority of celebrities, the majority of feminists in news media, gaming critics, the majority of women's studies professors, public school teachers, politicians, millenials, sex-negative feminists, intersectional feminists, the entire 3rd wave of feminism, and all of them who identify as "progressives"

Who is the minority again? Besides... Let's assume that the bad feminists are the minority?
Guess what... They're the only ones who hold great positions of power and influence in society.
You don't have a TV show... The radfems do.. You don't run a college, the radfems do... Name a good feminist celebrity who isn't a bitch?
Madonna? A bitch
JK Rolling? Bitch... Name one that's not a bitch, plz... I guarnatee you whoever you name will probably be in their late 50s... Then again, Madonna is in her 50s and she's just as big of a cunt as these 13 yr old tumblrinas.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

Feminism - Feminism is not about equal rights for women; but rather, special privileges for women. Feminism is rooted in rebellion against God. Biblically, every husband is the head of the marriage, which controls the body, the wife. Anything with two heads is a monster! By seeking equality of authority in marriage, women have filled the divorce courts. Feminists typically focus upon extreme cases of domestic violence, to justify completely doing away with husbandly authority. The results have been tragic—fornication, abortion, lesbianism, fatherless children, millions of women without a husband or children, broken homes, more prisons, et cetera. Isaiah 3:12, “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” In ungodly America today, men have been castrated by the feminist-controlled courts, so that men no longer see marriage as a good thing. There's too much liability. The risk-to-benefit-ratio of getting married is no longer appealing to men. Actor Robin Williams said that divorce is like ripping a man's wallet out through his testicles. Can you blame him, when his former wives took him to the cleaners in court, receiving hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars in divorce property settlements? No wonder Robin Williams commit suicide! Feminism destroys a man's power to be the rightful head of his marriage and home. Thus, women rule over men, and children become juvenile delinquents, as in America today. Feminism is a satanic fraud, intended to destroy the family.

Nick Fuentes and commenters #racist twitter.com

Nick FuentesWe are witnessing the decolonization of America— the uprooting and destruction of European civilization built on this land. It will be replaced by the same savagery that European explorers found on this continent centuries ago. It’s critically important that the statues of Columbus are the first to go. The effect of European colonization was to civilize the Western hemisphere. And soon the reverse will be true— the effect of decolonization will be to un-civilize this hemisphere.

Bon Sheckerman: These cosplayers are terrified of people in Suburbs & Rural Areas. 90% of our Military, Police, Gun Owners, Hunters & MMA Fighters are Red. A real war would be a 1 sided blood bath. They want none of that

StoryRory: “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.”

Anonamouse: One of the biggest faliures of the right was ceding social issues for chasing profits around the world (muh free market). We are seeing the demise of Americana and our culture while a bunch of 1%ers virtue signal in their compounds.

Julia: It’s not decolonization. It’s colonization. They are trying to colonize US in the nations WE built.

James Weidmann aka Chateau Heartiste #sexist web.archive.org

Lots Of Feminists Are Getting Banged Out By PUAs

Ronin asks:

Just out of curiosity, have any of the real PUAs here ever used game to nail a Jizzabel-type feminazi?
As an aspiring womanizer, you don’t need to act with intent to nail an avowed feminist. If you scavenge snatch in the SWPL regions of any major American city (barring a few notable exceptions*), you WILL have collected more than a few feminist notches on your bedpost. This is because most girls in the big blue population sinks of SWPL-Land are feminists of one stripe or another. You can’t swing an Emperor Deluxe condom without hitting a feminist in the cooch if you live or operate within these zones of misandry.

Of course, not all SWPLcity feminists are cut from the same unsanitary napkin. SWPL chicks generally fall into three main groups of feminist identification:

1. The Femcunts

These are your Jizzebomb fanatics, the devotees of feminism as a life-affirming ideology. They are the smallest in number, but the loudest in bitchery and kookery. This is the kind of manjawed girl — typically a lawyer, academic, organic farmer or diversity consultant — who reads and comments daily at sites like Feministing and Slate/Salon/SuckMyClit with furrowed brow, regurgitating what she learns therein at parties and in the middle of dates, exposing a vile expectation that all the world should agree with where her retarded logic takes her. As long as you don’t embroil yourself in her occasional tantrums at invisible enemies, and keep the pick-up light and breezy while steering her in different conversational directions whenever you sniff the approach of another feminist tirade carried along by the id winds, you will get the bang. She is, underneath her femcuntery, still a woman, and as such (however much you may need reminding) she will respond viscerally to ancient cues of your mate worthiness, and her vagina will flower in spectacular opposition to the wilting of her mind. You don’t want to stay with women like these beyond a few hate smashes, so for shits and giggles I suggest you regale her in the morning with your support of the Second Amendment and the ludicrousness of the equal pay myth. For bonus soul-shivving points, casually muse aloud, after you have sprayed her mug and she’s inserted her glazed face into your armpit nook, that 1 in 5 women who are being raped will orgasm during the act.

2. The Partisans

These are the girls who occasionally read feminist blogs (usually when a fat femcunt friend passes along a link) and parrot the benumbing Cathedral crap they hear on TV and read in approved MSM papers. But these soapbox episodes are blessedly infrequent and pass unremarked, unless they manage to corral some dipshit manboob into acting as a sounding board for their cockamamy nonsense on white male privilege and socially constructed beauty standards (Hugs Shyster, Scrotumless Scalzi, I’m looking at you two distilled estrogen pools.) They believe the feminist canon, but live and conduct their dating lives in a decidedly non-feminist fashion. You will rarely, for instance, find a fattie or a mustachioed Marcuntte wannabe amongst this group. At the end of the day, they like being girls, and are all too happy to ignore the inherent contradictions between feminism and their love of shopping for shoes and falling for assholes.

3. The Lemmings

You have to understand that the anti-feminist/pro-rationality message does not get out in America’s major cities. There simply isn’t an anti-Cathedral reporting or opinion outlet with enough heft to influence more than a tiny fraction of women away from the idiocy that is feminism. This being the case, MOST women in the cities will have spent the better part of their sexually adventurous single girl years steeped in the platitudes of feminism, and they will know nothing else. Combined with women’s natural aversion to abstract thinking beyond immediate, selfish concerns, what you wind up with is a population of lickspittle lemmings who mindlessly nod in agreement every time a talking head exploiting this deficiency in the mental circuitry of half the voting public sonorously intones something about “equal pay for equal work”, or “war on women”. The Lemmings, by far the largest group of women you will likely encounter unless you live in South Dakota, include all types of girls, from club sluts to self-important HR robots to daddy’s princesses to deliriously frantic scenesters. Luckily for your sanity, these girls do not take feminism seriously; not if we measure “seriousness” by the frequency and intensity with which a person holds a belief. They are far more interested in looking hot for you, and gossiping endlessly about relationship drama in their circle of friends. Sure, if you press them “What do you think of free birth control?”, they’ll eagerly approve and perhaps segue into a condemnation of those “rape-y Republicans” and Sandra Fluke’s godliness, but mostly they just go about their lives oblivious to feminism’s charms.

So there you have it. Given that 90% of your city’s women are feminist in name if not in execution, the odds that you will bang out, or currently are banging out, a feminist are pretty good. Most hardcore feminists, whether or not they know it, are fucking men who either pretend to give a shit about their precious ideology, or don’t even bother with the pretense of pretending to give a shit about it. In fact, the majority of men, and an even bigger majority of players, are like me: they find feminism absurd on its face and will dismissively change the subject anytime the girls they are seeing make the mistake of veering into feminist bromide territory. Most girls are sensible and will know when their feminist retardation is turning off the men they like, and will quickly fall in line with the change of subject.

There are exceptions. A few supercharged feminists will eventually wind up with sycophantic manboobs for lovers, and a more perfect pairing I couldn’t imagine.

*I currently live near one of those notable exceptions, and damn straight I’m keeping that info close to the vest.

**Many SWPL cities have geographically extensive ghetto areas, which I don’t consider part of the SWPL, or feminist, world. Ghettoes are like exotic locales that SWPLs like to brag they’ve lived in for six months, when in fact all they did was read about them in the crime section, or pass through them on a bus.

Dave Armstrong #fundie patheos.com

Truly obscene, crude, sexually-oriented language is beneath the standards of the Bible and the Catholic Church. The way some (many!) talk today was confined to locker rooms, bars, and bachelor parties when I was in college 35 years ago (and mostly just to men). And I think that was a good thing.
Oh, for sure we had Woodstock and George Carlin and R-rated movies and punk rock. But it wasn’t everywhere; in-your-face, mainstream, on TV, inane, and obscene hip hop songs blaring from the next car over at the gas station . . . People instinctively knew that it was to be confined and strictly limited. It was “behind closed doors.” It wasn’t the stuff of public articles and Thanksgiving dinners. People were scandalized in 1972 when they learned (through the notorious Watergate tapes) that President Nixon said “GD.” They really were! It wasn’t just prudes and 70-year-old ladies in purple tennis shoes who taught Sunday School. I’m old enough (58) to personally remember all that.

Society has regressed, as it has in so many other ways. Now women can swear like sailors or pimps (even publicly, even in Catholic circles!). “You’ve come a long way, baby.” People not only see nothing wrong with that, but wonder how anyone possibly could, as if objection to it were the strangest thing in the world and confined to the most ridiculous, antiquated, almost self-parodied “fundamentalists.” Thank God for Netflix, used DVDs, and many cable channels, so parents can still get good quality TV and movies for the family, amidst the nearly universal cultural decline of language.

I think it’s pathetic and disgraceful. Men have so looked up to women and admired them, traditionally, precisely because we feel they are on such a higher level (morally) than we are: the finer creatures. It’s why there is such a huge fuss made about Mother’s Day, while I always joke that Father’s Day is about on the level of Groundhog Day. “Mom, baseball, and apple pie”, etc. I have always sincerely believed this. If that’s now considered old-fashioned and quaint, so be it. Count me in. It used to be called “chivalry” till the radical feminists (not feminism per se) did all they could to mock and destroy it as a cultural norm. My wife and all the women I admire are up on the pedestal.

St. Paul stated that “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28; RSV). It’s not an unequal scenario at all. We’re equals under God. I’m not advocating at all that there should be a double standard: with women held to a higher level. Let’s get that straight. A few people on Facebook, reading an early version of this post mistakenly thought that.

I’m not against women having freedom to act as they please, as men do. I’m disappointed when they become coarse and crude like so many men are. What a shame. Why in the world would women seek to emulate men’s worst characteristics? Even the Catholic / Christian / cultural notion that one doesn’t speak a certain way “in mixed company” is now lost. That was out of respect for women, in deference to them as finer creatures: not as crude and vulgar as men are. Now women join right in, and talk the same way themselves!

We all fall short in many ways. I’m not talking about the occasional slip, use of strong language in an outburst of passion, or in tragic situations, exclamations when we hit our head, etc., not even the relatively minor “swear words” (though obviously those should be tempered in any sort of professional or church setting), but rather, about brazen, consistent use, vulgarity, obscenity, sexual gutter language, and (above all) trying to rationalize it away as a non-issue, as if it is perfectly fine, and unfathomable that a Catholic organization would ever consider dismissing a writer on the grounds of persistent bad and insulting language.

My friend Patti Sheffield, on my Facebook page, outlined some of the biblical data regarding proper language:

"Ephesians 5:1-5 is pretty explicit on the conduct expected of Christians, and verse 4 specifically condemns “obscenity or silly or suggestive talk”, not just taking God’s name in vain. Ephesians 4:29 [“Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear”], included in the list of rules for new Christians, explicitly forbade foul language. James also warned in his writing that we must learn to bridle our tongues. That means, simply put, have a filter. If someone is going to proclaim the Gospel (by being an apologist or a writer), then at least, have a filter."

"If we can’t be bothered to do that, we’re just conforming ourselves to the world instead of transforming it in Christ. And as Christ warns us in Matthew 12:36-37, we will be called to account for every careless word we make, and that will be a big factor in our final judgment. Why risk it for the sake of what some call humor?"

And let’s not forget the sage, stinging advice in the book of James:

"James 3:3-11 If we put bits into the mouths of horses that they may obey us, we guide their whole bodies. [4] Look at the ships also; though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. [5] So the tongue is a little member and boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! [6] And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the cycle of nature, and set on fire by hell. [7] For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind, [8] but no human being can tame the tongue — a restless evil, full of deadly poison. [9] With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the likeness of God. [10] From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so. [11] Does a spring pour forth from the same opening fresh water and brackish?"

Again, I’m not saying that women are held to one ethical standard and men to another: the old ridiculous double standard. No! It is us admiring women because they voluntarily chose to be more moral than we knew ourselves to be. It has to do also with men and women being fundamentally different in the first place. Ideally, we look up to each other, because of the complementarity that God designed.

The Catholic tradition is what taught the beauty and necessity of waiting till marriage, while the sexual revolution has brought us wonderful things like ubiquitous pornography. That really raises women’s stature in the eyes of men, doesn’t it? We need to understand what chivalry is in the first place and what has gotten our society into the sad, pathetic state it is now, after 50 years of wonderful sexual liberation. Everyone’s ecstatically happy, aren’t they? Families and marriages are better than they have ever been. Not! How’s the culture doing on marriage and treatment of women, post sexual revolution? How well has that pitiful social experiment / wholesale rebellion against sane, sensible tradition worked out?

As long as women continue to give out the “benefits” without demanding the commitment, we’ll be in the mess we’re in. That’s just about the root of it: caving into mens’ sinful sexual desires and emotional manipulations. It’s what has caused illegitimacy rates in the inner cities to rise to an astounding 80%. That and the broken home that usually results are some of the leading sociological indicators (my major) of poverty and a life of misery.

In practice, traditionally, women have been more moral sexually than men have been. Whether that was due to the double standard or the fear of pregnancy or the social stigma, or actually understanding the goodness of waiting till marriage, or various combinations of the above, it is a demonstrable fact. That has now mostly broken down.

And in practice, traditionally, women controlled their language much better than men did. All I’m saying was that men admired that. You admire what someone does better than yourself. I’m not in any way, shape, or form saying that men get a bigger pass and have less responsibility to follow Scripture and the Church. I’m simply describing the usual sinful reality of it. It’s the distinction between prescription (the should and ought) and description (the actual fact).

I still think women have the edge in sanctity: in practice. But radical feminism and unisexism are working very hard to make sure that women are equally as sinful as men in all areas. For the most radical feminists, their working philosophy has been to “hate men and to simultaneously do everything possible to be exactly like them in every way.” Sort of the “identifying with the oppressor” routine.

Language is one of these areas. Premarital sex is another. This is my point. There used to be a pronounced difference [no pun intended!] in how women talked. So we men admired them for that. Now that distinction is rapidly diminishing, and I think it’s a shame, because it means that women are relatively more sinful (as a generalization) in this area than they used to be, and that’s a very sad thing and a loss of yet another element of Catholic tradition and the traditional relationship between the sexes.

Feminism (mainstream, not radical) actually gives credence to my argument here, by its own rhetoric and self-understanding. If women are not higher creatures than men in some sense, how is it that feminists are (and indeed the thrust of the secular culture also is) always urging men to be more like women: more sensitive, nurturing, and communicative in particular? This presupposes that women have these traits that men desperately need to learn and emulate. Now how could that be if women were not indeed “higher” than men, for whatever reason, in those respects? And that leads back to my point. We look up to y’all because you really do have characteristics that we lack.

It can work both ways, though. My wife often complains about groups of women going right into gossip and complaining about their husbands. This is a major fault in women, and one where they can learn from the generally better example of men. Men almost never run down their wives in public; hardly even in private, one-to-one. They instinctively regard that as low-class, cheap, utterly inappropriate, and a bad reflection on them (since they chose to marry this woman). It’s just not done. So this is an instance where women could be raised up a bit by imitating what men almost always do. Both genders have their characteristic besetting sins. I would say that the biggest ones are lust for men and nagging / complaining for women.

But this is another instance of women themselves thinking they are superior to men. If they didn’t, the many women who do this wouldn’t sit there for hours gossiping about their husbands and assuming they are dolts who “don’t get it” and who don’t grasp the simplest things, like being able to openly, honestly express their feelings (like most women do), and often assume at the same time naively, foolishly assume that they are perfectly innocent as to the origin and continuance of various marital difficulties: as if it doesn’t take two.

Of course, historically, there was indeed the dreadful double standard, with the “good girls” and the “bad girls.” That was because men demanded immoral sex (this being our leading fault). It was very wrong, and it was primarily men’s fault. There will always be women willing to take advantage of men’s weakness and leading sin, for profit. Hence, prostitution.

Likewise, the Victorians went too far in terms of being anti-sex (though this is often exaggerated). The devil exploits everything to his ends. If a culture adopts a fairly Christian outlook that premarital sex is wrong, then there will be the tendency, because of sin, to go too far and get to the place where sex is regarded as “dirty” and “evil”: even marital sex.

That was what started ancient gnosticism. But this isn’t the Catholic position. The Church Fathers strongly tended towards this error, too. I’ve read them. I compiled three books of their quotes. They were opposing the rampantly sexual pagan Romans, and so they sometimes went too far in the other direction. This is the human tendency, and the devil exploits it to the max. The true biblical view is found in the Song of Solomon: unashamed sexuality within the bounds that God set for us, for our own good and pleasure.

Bones #fundie forumbiodiversity.com

I didnt say the difference was big or small, just significant. 5 iq points more on average is not big but significant, and 10% bigger brains is definitely significant, i would even go as far as to call that a big difference. And saying that men are much stronger and faster is not an exaggeration, just fact. That men are more durable is common knowledge, more resistant to pain, thicker skin, while we dont live as long on average a big reason for this is because most men do jobs that require more stress and are more physically demanding, and men use medical care more rarely compared to women. We are also mentally stronger which is easily observed in everyday life and also based on statistics which shows men handle stress better, while women are 3 times as likely to attempt suicide (although men manage to complete the act more often), and are twice as likely to suffer from major depression compared to men. That mens bodies are built sturdier to handle more physical labour is common sense.

And yes, men are much more rational and logical on average, while women are much more emotional. You can find anomalies and outliers, exceptions to the rule etc, but it doesnt change the general pattern of behaviour. Its not just the IQ difference and brain size difference that corresponds to this difference in thinking, its also how our brains are wired, men have more structural connections, while womens neurons are more interconnected all over, which also explains why men can put tasks into "boxes" better and focus on one thing at a time, while women are more prone to think about to many things at the same time at the cost of efficiency.

And again, a few exceptions to the rule is pointless to bring up, we are comparing the genders as a whole and thus we must look at the general patterns, and its fact that men are more likely to take risks and do "dangerous" tasks, while women tend to play it safe far more often. Even in countries where the military draft is optional the vast majority of recruits are men.

Again, im simply saying the fact that men are superior to women overall, based on the characteristics that define male and female in the human species, the things that make our genders different are mostly in advantages for men. This does not mean women deserve to live lesser lifes, but they should realize that equal opportunity is all they should strive for, and they already have that in most western countries. "Equality" or equal outcome will never happen unless society discriminates against men(which it already does in many ways in western society), because of mens natural and biological superiority over women.

The problem with voting in particular though, is as explained earlier, that women have statistically proven higher in-group bias compared to men, meaning that women are more likely to vote for things that benefit them and their gender regardless of other factors, while men tend to be more objective and look at the bigger picture. This means that majority of women will vote for womens benefits regardless of how that affects society at large, the other gender or the economy etc on a whole.

Women are also more likely to be affected by peer pressure, and as shown in the video posted above "why women destroy nations" (which i have seen before it was posted here) women follow social norms to a fault, they abide by it to be accepted by their peers, regardless if it makes sense or not to them personally. Not all of course but its a very obvious general pattern. Its also noticable in the fact that women find men who are "popular" regardless of why, more attractive, ie a man who is already taken is more attractive for that alone because he has social proof, and why status in a man is so important for women, if someone with perceived authority (like the mainstream media, television, movies etc) says something or someone is good/attractive, regardless if it is true or not, women will subconsciously believe it to be true and just the fact that someone is on TV will make that man more attractive to them.

This is a problem when it comes to women and voting, but knowing that not all women are like that (just a large majority) and that there are retarded men out there, combined with the fact that our votes mean very little in the grand scheme and is just used as a smokescreen to make it look like we have a choice and live in a true democracy, means that i care very little about who gets to vote and who doesnt.

various commenters #fundie reddit.com

Re: If this post gets 100 upvotes, MDE will team up with GenderCritical to defeat the trannies

(heyshinobu)
GC is so close, yet so so far away from the truth. All they need to do is drop the feminist lenses and hey, whaddya know?

(Vercingetorixxx)
I've been posting there undercover for over a year now. The ones that aren't lesbos are a half step away from becoming tradwives. I posted a Social Matter article there and it got upvoted because they probably don't understand what NRx is. For anyone who wants to post there, don't disagree with anyone or say anything suspicious and you should be good.

(NO-STUMPING-TRUMP)
GenderCritical DESTROYS men in DRESSES using FACTS and LOGIC

(420upboatBLAZEit)
They also hate the same (((corporations))),(((government))) and (((culture)))

(vironian_)
(((wh*toid m*n))) for them unfortunately

but they also realise feminist men are faggot creeps who want sex as a reward so they're better than most

(johnyann)
It’s so easy. Just admit that gender is a human construct which means for the sake of classification we should ban the entire concept of them. Instead, let’s define by XX and XY and leave it at that.

This was suggested by a confused Chinese student in my required social justice seminar class freshmen year. It caused people and the professor to lose their fucking shit, but they had no response. Just autism.

(Lateknighttt)

Don't they also hate normal men, not only trannies?

They hate normal men have become. I do too.

(DannyDemotta)
^ The correct answer. They hate that most male feminists are either weak skeletons, fat lardos, or creeps just waiting for an opportune moment to hit on them.

Most men who have money, fame, and/or power don't want anything to do with average/plain-looking women. The men that would actually date these plain women don't get 2nd looks any more, because they're too this or too that, or don't have enough X, Y or Z. The majority of attractive women (especially in big cities) would rather share a man than have a beta bitch all to themselves, and I can't really blame them. I'd rather pay an escort than have some gelatinous blob all to myself.

(_no_exit_)
I've been aware of this group for awhile but never really bothered to do more than a cursory glance. Gave it a closer look and I'm honestly somewhat intrigued; they're using the same language that the degenerate left uses but uses it to undercut the degenerate part. I'd gladly ally with anyone who hangs around that circle.

(ClaireBear1123)
These folks are motivated by feelings of disgust and alienation. They are natural allies.

Even radfems can see how fucked things are.

(tryheroin69)
Femininity has been absolutely bastardized by mentally ill people, and mainstream media is supporting it. It's no surprise women who take pride in their femininity are unhappy with this.

Dota #fundie archive.is

I suspect the real threat that ectogenesis poses is that it threatens to unravel women’s parasitic relationship with men in modern society. HL Mencken famously predicted that gender equality would cause women to lose “their old power to obtain special privileges by sentimental appeals. Men, facing them squarely, will consider them anew, not as romantic political and social invalids, to be coddled and caressed, but as free competitors in a harsh world. When that reconsideration gets under way there will be a general overhauling of the relations between the sexes, and some of the fair ones, I suspect, will begin to wonder why they didn’t let well enough alone. “

We know that this prophecy has not come to pass as women have selectively dismantled those areas of patriarchy that regulate their behaviour and hypergamy, whereas choosing to keep those aspects that coddle and protect their interests. I haven’t heard a single feminist complain about the gender inequality in criminal sentencing. Women demand the benefits of socio/political autonomy while rejecting any responsibility that ought to go with it.

Women’s reproductive function has historically earned them the special privilege of becoming the “protected sex” whereas men have always been the “disposable sex”. Ectogenesis threatens to take us one step closer towards realizing Mencken’s prediction and several steps closer towards rendering women the “disposable sex” for the first time in the history of our species. It is this latter prospect that terrifies the handful of women that have thought the issue through. Outside of reproduction, women serve no real net benefit to our species. We don’t need them to build bridges or lay down underwater cables in the ocean. We don’t need them to design technology nor write the programs that govern that technology’s behaviour.

Feminists are correct in assuming that Ectogenesis (if it ever does become viable)will allow men to divorce women on a species wide level, but only this time, women aren’t getting the kids.

Oncefa2 #sexist #crackpot reddit.com

By definition, "non-radical feminists" are MRAs. If they actually cared about gender equality, they would support the MRM.

Feminists like to go on and on about how there are "true feminists" and "radical feminists". Well I've come up with a pretty good litmus test to distinguish between the two.

You can tell if a feminist is a "true feminist" who "supports gender equality" by whether or not they also support the men's rights movement.

If you take their words at face value, this is what it means. People like Warren Farrell and Karen DeCrow are "non radical feminists". People like Bell Hooks and organizations like NOW represent the "radical man-hating" brand of feminism.

Hold them to their own standards is what I'm getting at here. If they advocate for double standards and disagree with MRA ideas like equal child custody laws and legal paternal surrender, then they do not support gender equality. Which makes them "radical feminists", per their own definition.

Whether or not that means that most feminists are "radical feminists" is their own problem to sort out among themselves. I say go ahead and welcome the rational ones into our ranks though. After all, they're the ones who said it. So let's hold them to it. The number of feminists who become MRAs should demonstrate pretty clearly if they actually mean what they say.

David J. Stewart #fundie #sexist #psycho #homophobia #conspiracy jesus-is-savior.com

There is great deception in America... civil rights. Many moral right's issues are deceitfully being labeled as “civil rights.” Thus, many moral right's issues are being violated in the name of “civil rights.” Listen, just because you're a U.S. citizen doesn't give you the right to disobey God. For example: Being a U.S. citizen gives you the “right” to vote; but, it does not give you the right to be homosexual. I don't care what the Supreme Court says, the Word of God condemns homosexuality!

America is filled with demented homosexuals and murderous abortionists who boast of being respectable citizens, who commit their sins with the government's permission; but, God will judge them for their wickedness (Romans 1:32). I am not trying to be unkind, I am taking a proper stand against a moral menace to society.

No one is born “gay,” because God doesn't make mistakes. God created male and female, which is normal. For anyone to claim that God made them a homosexual is to say that God made a mistake, because they cannot bear children nor have normal sexual relations. God didn't make a mistake, you did.

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a Communist, anti-family, anti-Christian, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their babies, practice witchcraft, abandon homemaking, and become lesbians. Please read, Woman Admits Feminism Ruined Her Life.

Every woman has her rights; but, there's a world of difference between human rights (which we are born with), civil rights (which are granted to all U.S. citizens), and moral rights (which belong to God alone). A mother who claims the “right” to murder her baby through an abortion is violating God's moral rights. We have no sinful rights. Any honest person knows that abortion is wrong. The Bible calls it murder (Exodus 20:13). Nearly all abortions are the result of human irresponsibility, i.e., fornication. No one has a right to sin! Abortion is cold-blooded murder! This is a moral right that belongs to God alone, because only God can give life, and only God should take life. Again, we have no sinful rights.

Feminism is not the same thing as women's rights. People oftentimes get these two confused. Feminism is a sin; but, human rights certainly are not. Human rights are granted at birth, and apply to everyone. In contrast, feminism is rebellion, i.e., rebellious women refusing to submit to their husbands (or refusing to marry because they won't be ruled over). Some feminists are so "militant" about their rebellion that they are referred to as “Femi-Nazis.” Femi-Nazis like to destroy other people's marriages. Sometimes feminists refuse to marry, and strongly resent other women who are happily married. Many feminists CHOOSE to become lesbians. Homosexuality is a choice—no one is born homosexual. Feminism and homosexuality are inseparable. You show me a homosexual, and I'll show you someone who hates the King James Bible (which condemns homosexuality as a morally reprehensible sin. See Romans 1:22-32).

The feminist movement in America is trying to castrate men by DEMANDING equal authority. The idea that it takes a man to do certain jobs is repulsive to a feminist. Yet, who do we ALWAYS see holding the flag when we drive by a construction site? ... a woman! It's the men who are doing the rough work. Also, feminists are completely quite when it comes to the unfairness of child support and alimony payouts that men are often unfairly forced to pay! What hypocrites! Feminist women want EQUAL rights when it's to their advantage, but they don't want EQUAL rights for the man. I believe that a man ought to support his own children, but the U.S. legal system is abusive, catering to rebellious wives. A Christian husband has NO RIGHTS in the U.S. court system to enforce his wife's Biblical obligation to cook, clean and be an obedient wife (Genesis 2:18). This is wickedness!

For example: If a husband feels that it is in his marriage's best interest to shelter his wife from certain troublesome friends or a meddling mother-in-law, U.S. courts consider that “Domestic Abuse.” In reality, Biblically, every Christian husband has a right to decide who his wife associates with. A husband has a right to track his wife's whereabouts, but the U.S. Courts define this as “Domestic Abuse.” Husbands have few rights these days in America! In fact, the ungodly U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that a man's pregnant wife can abort the child, even if the biological father objects to the abortion. She can murder his child! This is cruel and evil. Sadly, and tragically, marriage licenses have become weapons against husbands in today's ungodly U.S. court system. Judges and lawyers are predators, who profit from the calamity and hardships of others. No wonder Jesus preached the stern warning . . . WOE UNTO YE LAWYERS!!! Luke 11:46a, “And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne.”

Matt Forney #sexist mattforney.com

It’s time to stop beating around the bush: feminists want to be raped.

It’s the only logical explanation for how they behave. It’s the only way to understand why they can cheer on hordes of Muslim “refugees” swarming into Europe to rape and pillage. It’s the only way to comprehend why they can whip themselves up into a frenzy over masculine men meeting up for a beer and smearing them as leading “pro-rape rallies.”

Everything feminists do, from holding up “Refugees Welcome” signs at airports to passing affirmative consent laws, is geared around encouraging men to assault them.

This isn’t a conscious urge. No feminist wakes up in the morning and thinks to herself, “I’m gonna try and get raped today!” There’s no Protocols of the Elders of Seneca Falls laying out a secret plot to turn females into walking fuckdolls for rapist men.

But deep in the recesses of her lizard hindbrain, the average feminist wants nothing more than for a man to shove her into a wall and force himself deep inside her.

Here are the reasons why feminists want to be sexually assaulted, and why they’re working around the clock to aid rapists.

1. Feminism is an r-selected ideology, and rape is an r-selected sexual strategy.

As Anonymous Conservative has shown repeatedly, leftism and conservatism are merely expressions of two competing reproductive strategies: r-selection and K-selection. To review quickly, K-selection breeds children to compete in a world of limited resources through a two-parent upbringing, defined by high sexual dimorphism, monogamy, late sexual maturation, and loyalty to the in-group (i.e. wolves). R-selection breeds children for a world of abundant resources through a single-mother upbringing, defined by low sexual dimorphism, promiscuity, early sexual maturation, and disloyalty to the tribe (i.e. rabbits).

The conflict between leftism (of which feminism is a subset) and conservatism is the conflict between r and K. K-selected individuals want a world that encourages competition and meritocracy, while r-selected individuals want a world of free resources: free food, free money, free shelter and free sex. In a K-selected world, men and girls have to compete to earn the right to mate with one another; in an r-selected world, men and girls have sex with no thought as to the consequences.

What does this have to do with feminism and rape? Simple: rape is the ultimate r-selected sexual strategy.

By its very definition, rape is an act of entitlement: forcing yourself on someone who doesn’t want to have sex with you, whom you haven’t earned the right to sleep with. Much in the same way leftists feel entitled to take other peoples’ money away through taxation and welfare, rapists feel entitled to stick their penises in girls’ vaginas. In fact, you could say that rape is an inherently leftist form of sex, which would explain why so many male feminists, such as Jian Ghomeshi and Hugo Schwyzer, enjoy assaulting and abusing girls.

Sexual assault is sexual socialism: redistributing nookie to the least privileged in society.

Feminists, being leftists, are r-strategists themselves. The purpose of feminism is to eliminate restrictions on female sexuality: allow girls to sleep around without getting pregnant, let them legally kill their unborn babies when they do get knocked up, and have it all funded by the taxpayer.

From an r-strategist’s perspective, rape is a good thing, because it allows a female to have children without having to do anything, aside from breathe.

It’s well-known that a great many girls have rape fantasies, and a significant number of rape victims claim to have orgasmed during their assaults. Both these points serve as evidence that a portion of the female population—the r-selected, leftist portion—not only wants to be raped, but is physiologically adapted for it.
Once you accept the premise that feminists subconsciously desire to have their vaginal walls torn up by psychopathic men, their behavior suddenly makes sense. For example, feminists are unwilling to condemn the Muslim “refugees” who have been assaulting girls in Germany and other European countries (and indeed, have accused those who talk about the story of “racism” and/or “Islamophobia”) because they want those refugees to keep raping.

The Muslim “refugees” streaming into Europe from the Middle East are the consummate r-selected cowards. Instead of fighting for their families back home, they’re fleeing to safe countries where they can live off government benefits. Instead of being grateful that Europeans are willing to take them in, they throw temper tantrums because their Internet isn’t fast enough, their food isn’t tasty enough, or they don’t have enough to do, showing that they are parasites looking for someone to leech off of.

Muslims rape European girls for the same reason that they riot over slow WiFi: they believe they deserve to get something for nothing.

Some right-wing personalities have tried to explain the left’s embrace of Muslim “rapefugees” with such nebulous concepts as “pathological altruism,” but the reality is much bleaker. In the darkest recesses of their minds, feminists want swarthy refugees to punch them in the face, tear their clothes off, and spit roast them like plump, juicy swine. Don’t expect them to suddenly realize the truth, either, because…

2. Feminists encourage girls to get raped, then deny all responsibility for their actions.

In the past few years, even the slightest suggestion that girls have a responsibility for their own safety is met with a chorus of “MISOGYNIST!” “DON’T BLAME THE VICTIM!” The oft-repeated feminist chant, “Don’t teach women not to get raped, teach men to not rape,” is an explicit call for girls to place themselves into situations where they’re likely to get sexually assaulted, then dodge all blame.

While some feminists are no doubt doing this out of naivete, the subconscious motivator for many of them is their r-selected psychology.

Personal responsibility is a K-strategist concept; in the rabbit warren, things just happen. By discouraging girls from protecting themselves, feminists are implicitly encouraging them to get violated, then pinning the blame on an undefinable “rape culture.” Which brings me to my next point…

3. Feminists talk about the West having a “rape culture” because they want a rape culture.

As mentioned above, the worldwide leftist outrage against Roosh and the Return of Kings tribal meetups far outstripped their reaction to the Muslim gang rape attacks in Germany and Sweden during New Years’ Eve. This isn’t just because of hysteria and slander: r-selected leftists are more threatened by masculine men than by cowardly Muslim rapists.

One of the most laughable claims feminists make about game/red pill/PUA culture is that it encourages men to feel “entitled” to sex and female companionship. Even skimming a manosphere blog will show that this is the opposite of the truth. “Game” and “red pill” philosophy teaches men that they have to earn girls by improving themselves: lifting, dressing better, having interesting hobbies, and being entertaining conversationalists.

If a morbidly obese basement dweller came onto the Roosh V Forum and started whining about how he couldn’t get laid, he’d be laughed at and told to hit the gym and get a life.

The reason why there’s always been an overlap between the seemingly hedonistic manosphere and the more traditionalist alternative right is because both groups have the same view of sexual relationships: men and women need to earn the right to sleep with and marry each other. The end destinations may be different, but the road is the same.

Feminists oppose this because leftists oppose competition in general. Feminist obscurantism in regards to sexual relationships (e.g. their claims that the “friendzone” doesn’t exist or claiming that men just need to “treat women like human beings” if they want to get laid) is about stripping men of their ability to compete for a mate. Similarly, pushing “fat acceptance,” tattoos and piercings, and encouraging girls to be “bossy” and sarcastic is about crippling females’ ability to compete for men.

To make matters worse, feminists have been trying to train men to rape girls for years. Their constant claim that the West has a “rape culture” is just wishful thinking: in actuality, rape has been on the decline for decades. Because of this, feminists have tried to legislate masculinity away through “affirmative consent” and “yes means yes” laws, which force men to explicitly beg for permission at every step of a sexual encounter, branding them “rapists” if they don’t comply.
Affirmative consent laws and “rape culture” claims are a two-pronged attack on masculinity, designed to advantage sneaky males and hurt masculine men, and there’s no sneakier male than a rapist.

Unfortunately, despite all the rape hoaxes the mainstream media conjures up, the “rape culture” that feminists screech about has yet to materialize.

The UVA rape story, for example, turned out to be a lurid, masturbatory fantasy passed off as “news.”

Because feminists couldn’t create a rape culture, they imported one from the Middle East.

From here, all the pieces fall into place. We see clearly why the European Union is debating banning one man from their borders and libeling him as a “rape advocate,” while letting millions of actual Muslim rapists flood their countries.

We see why leftists are driven to protest masculine men but not sneaky “refugee” cowards who abandon their families in search of government freebies and “easy” white women.

The goal of feminism is to turn women into rape-meat.

Every feminist, deep down, wants nothing more than a rapist’s baby in her belly. The armada of horny, restless, greedy Muslims storming into Europe is a bounty for the r-selected feminist. Leftists will wave “Refugees Welcome” signs no matter how many girls are forcibly DP’ed by angry Arab invaders, because Europe’s skyrocketing rape rates are a feature, not a bug.

The only thing that will stop the rape-lust of feminists and their poorly-endowed Muslim abusers is Western men having the courage to call it out.

There can be no compromise, no peace with these traitors inside the walls. While more moderate women can be saved, no one will ever be able to convince the termagents of the left that they should be more afraid of Muslim rapists than white “racists.”

They are our enemies, just as much as the dusky hordes planting their flags on our soil

Incel Wiki #sexist wiki.incels.info

Feminism

image

Over a hundred years ago a bunch of rich women were upset that they could not move up in official positions of power in work or politics. So they got men to give them the vote and affirmative action for political office. Through legislation women made it even easier for themselves than men to climb traditionally male dominance hierarchies! Only problem is that they aren't sexually attracted to men who are lower in dominance hierarchies of status and money than they are. So as women gained dominance in traditional male hierarchies, they complained a bunch about there being 'no good men'[1] aka the dwindling amount of men wealthier or more powerful than them to give them tingles. As less men gave them tingles more incels were created and more men were sent their own way. And as women gained more dominance in society they complained more about beta males, and "rape" etc...
?
They even created campaigns against these increasing amount of men lower on the social hierarchy than them they are not sexually attracted to like the:

Anti Catcalling Movement: aka 'Men poorer than me better not hit on me in public'

Anti Manspreading Movement: aka 'Public transport users (people poorer than me, or people who have not yet proved they are higher status than me) should not make me think of their junk'

Metoo movement: aka 'Autistic and socially isolated ugly men who can't read social cues should be locked up or ridiculed as much as rapists'[2]

image

Female Contempt for an Obvious Outcome of Feminism: Househusbands

A matriarchal world where women make more money than men would seem to necessitate an increase in house-husbands. The male liberation movement, a subset of feminist MRAs in the 60s wanted a dramatic increase in househusbands. However even in the most feminist countries, women will still expect the man to work or else a breakup, even if she makes enough to provide for the family in an uber-welfare state. This is of course, insanely pointless. Early 20th century anti-feminist and Marxist Belfort Bax' quote still remains true, "Among all the women’s rights advocates I am not aware of one who, in her zeal for equality between the sexes, has ever suggested abolishing the right of maintenance of the wife by the husband."[3]

Even in a country where feminism is intitutional and mainstream, where equal-pay laws are in place, and where women have more total personal wealth than men, "the key factor in the decision to divorce is whether Hubby has a job. If he doesn’t, even if his job loss is involuntary, his odds of being ditched by his wife skyrocket"[4]

As Eggman puts it, "Talk to any US woman and they'll tell you about men offering and actually buying them all sorts of things, when was the last time a woman offered to buy you a house or car, now that we have gender equality and all?"[5]

A 100% Completed Feminist World Be Better for Incels Than Partial Feminism... Theory

So far we see that feminism literally creates incels, but there may be a silver lining in a 100% feminist universe compared to a partial feminist universe, in that feminists feminize societies to the point where all men are so beta that it's not hard to become a chad or to get a woman to agree to be asked out. Since no men ask women out in the 100% feminist universe once men are so beta.

The Eradication of Feminism is Best for Incels... Theory

Because feminism has created more incels, many if not most self-identified incels are trad-con, patriarchal, and don't subscribe to the previous theory and think matriarchies won't be sexually generous. They should argue for a generous patriarchy with strictly socially enforced monogamy as not all patriarchies are alike. In most if not all modern patriachal countries, polygyny arises and men hoard women, causing inceldom as well. And in patriarchal muslim countries, the hoarding of women in harems, inflates the bride-price so high that there exists a vast underclass of singe men who are susceptible to the promise of either real life brides or virgin brides in the afterlife through terrorist organization like al-Qaeda or ISIS. It is for this reason that people joke about incels and muslims terrorists on incel boards. Some incels also believe that the only kind of pro-natalism that can be achieved to wipe out inceldom would be through a racial supremacist movement, which partly explains why people like Richard Spencer pander to incels.

Rahmawn #sexist incels.co

When did we as a society start putting women on the highest pedestal?

And then you're surprised that they look down on you from it.

Any semi-attractive femoid can garner a million followers on Instagram, Twitch, Twitter, YouTube fast

How did men in America become so thirsty?

Considering the gender ratios are 1:1 we should all be getting laid, so the only logical explanation to this is that just as many women are choosing to be single and denying us sex or taking turns with Chad

Fred Hutchison #fundie renewamerica.com

We, the men of America, are still here in spite of forty years of gender warfare against us. We are still here because God designed us to be men, placed us in this land, and expects us to lead. We are here because America needs us. We are here because our communities need us. We are here because women and children need us. We know that we are needed, in spite of the foolish popular denial of that rather obvious fact.

At the moment, some women and some weak men may not like it when we behave as men. But we shall conduct ourselves as men because women, children, and weak men need us to do so. They need to know that we are here, we are not deserting our posts, we are not running away, and we are not abdicating our responsibilities.

[...]

As men, God has given us the burden of leadership. The burden of leadership has nothing to do with self-assertion and has everything to with self-denial. It has nothing to do with the struggle for power, glory, and wealth. Lesser men abandon the burden of leadership when they forget their honor and duty in the struggle for gain and for status.

[...]

"And unto Adam he (God) said, '...Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee: and thou shalt eat in the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return to the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.'" (Genesis 3: 17–19)

In this passage, God declares a curse upon fallen men and not upon women. The curses on women are different. The curse on men pertains to work. Contrary to the claptrap about work being a source of "self-actualization," God has made work necessary for survival and something of an ordeal. Whatever kind of work one does, there are "thorns, thistles, and sweat" involved in doing it. Work is not fun or play as some would have us believe. It is a curse, but is also blessing in disguise.

[...]

A woman is not commanded to work, vocationally, but she has permission to do so. She suffers no evil consequences if her husband is a good provider and she decides to stay home. However, if she chooses to work, she must suffer the same thorns and thistles in the fields of work as a man does. Unfortunately, the woman does not have the tough hide of a man. She suffers more than a man does as she sweats in the field and the thorns and thistles injure her, speaking figuratively.

Gals, forget about finding "self-actualization" in the work world. You may go there if you like, but you will be bruised by the experience. Yes, you will gradually develop tougher skin at work, but something soft, sweet, and lovely about you might be diminished. If your husband wishes to be your provider, it might be a good idea not to fight it. It might be a good for him as a man and good for you as a woman. It might be very good for your children to have you at home.

Junon #sexist islamicboard.com

Salaam

Another comment piece on the damage feminism has done to western society. Lessons to be learned.

Why Men (and Women) Hate Feminism

A while ago I received an e-mail from one of my female readers. She was being honest and polite, but wanted to know precisely what I had against feminism. It was along the lines of "feminism is about the equal treatment of women, so what is so bad about that?" However, like many other women, I don't believe she was fully aware as to just how far the feminist movement has gone, co-opting women and how far from the truth it is. Thus, I believe it would be to everybody's benefit to explain in detail why most readers here in the Capposphere and elsewhere are against feminism (and to see if I'm missing any other reasons).

Reason #1 - Myopic View of the Sexes

If there is a "primary" reason I would have to say this is it. Feminism started demanding changes in regards to women, with no consideration as to what would happen to the other half of society, ie - men. They also did not think it through and consider children as well. It was a very female-centered approach and nobody considered (let alone, cared) how actions/changes/etc. in women would affect the rest of society. You still see this today based on the policies advocated by feminism in that it is all about women. A secondary concern is given to the children (more often than not, using children as a means to extract government resources), and maybe a tertiary concern is given to men.

Reason #2 - Lies About Human Nature

A close second is the ludicrous concept that men and women are not just equal, but the same. Women can do what men can do. There are no biological differences. And any difference is viewed as sexism or oppression.

The problem is these differences are what makes men and women great. Men like women. Women like men. Men don't like manly women, and women don't like girly men. We enjoy the difference. All feminism has done is ruined the love lives of millions of other women (and men's as well) lying to youth about "being a sensitive 90's man"or a "strong independent woman." That men are "shallow" and "cheap" for liking long legs and big boobs, and that any man who is worth his weight in salt will "like you for you." Women now ignore these basic biological facts about male sexuality, even mocking and scorning them, and fail to attract men.

These lies about the "exact sameness" of men and women also destroy a vital component of our economy and society - the division of labor. Though nobody is ordained or condemned to play these roles, traditionally the wife would stay home, while the husband would work. This allowed for not only better families, but better reared children. It also allowed for happier people (as men are predisposed to go out and work and women are predisposed to stay at home and rear a family). Neither role was inferior to the other. Both were vital, but it was feminism that lied to millions of younger women telling them the grass was greener on the other side. The result has been an increase in divorce, less stable family, less financially stable families, and problem children incapable of becoming functioning adults in society. This has also resulted in women being less happy.

Reason #3 - False Claims of Sexism

The thoroughly debunked "wage gap" is getting mighty tiresome. It is a false argument used only to gain "victim" status by feminists to result in legislation that unfairly benefits women. Affirmative action is nothing more than discrimination against men. Most men resent this

Reason #4 - Not Pulling Your Weight

The wage gap, however, does prove something. Women, for all their clamor of independence and "what you can do I can do better" are failing miserably and only achieving about 76% of what men do. This in spite of all the handicaps of affirmative action, a media that is always supportive, and limitless educational and government programs. Of course, the wage gap is not 100% "proof women aren't pulling their own weight." Many women still take on traditional roles and rear children, some drop out of the work force to take care of their families. But when it comes to majoring in rigorous studies, producing things of economic value, and being economically-contributing members of society, they disproportionately fail. They account for more government workers than men, they account for easier subjects in college than men, and they are nowhere to be seen in dangerous or risky jobs. Women on the whole are NOT equal when it comes to economic production.

Reason #5 - Poor Stewardship of the Right to Vote

This is more of an opinion, but I believe it is an opinion held by the majority of men (and surprisingly, women) who hate feminism (so you may not agree the the political opinion, but it IS a reason some people hate feminism). In short, feminists have been poor stewards of their right to vote. I say this because they have consistently as a group voted for more government and less freedom since given the right to vote. I believe this is because it is in women's nature to be more caring than men, and thus tend to vote for "nicer" things. Children, health care, education, etc. However, "feelings" and "caring" have no place in government finances. That requires passionless thought and consideration, research, mathematics, and an understanding of history and economics. It also requires an appreciation for the freedom granted to us by our forefathers and an understanding of the role government was intended to play. Feminists have proven ignorant about these topics and vote with their hearts, not their heads (and more recently, just for plain politics).

Reason #6 - Replacing Men With the State

Closely related to #5 is that feminists and feminism advocates essentially replacing the husband and father with the state. This is abundantly clear when you see how much money and support single mothers get not to mention this macabre desire by some feminists to eliminate men from the birthing process altogether. Not only does this take away the two most important things in a man's live (his theoretical would-be wife and children), but essentially forces men to compete against the government as a much-better financed suitor. Not only do men lose out on love and family, any children brought into this world via Daddy Government are missing a real father and will suffer incredibly later in life.

Reasons #7 - Hypocrisy

While most hard core feminists will claim they're "independent," they're anything but. They are usually the first to have some kind of make-work government job, some kind of professorship nobody asked for, or begging and pleading for donations to some kind of "activist group." They typically produce nothing of value and require the state to transfer other people's money to create jobs for them. They even point out, point blank, they want more government money for them and/or their children in government policy. And while, yes, there may be that one feminist computer engineer, the vast majority of them are hopelessly dependent.

Reason #8 - Backlash for the Ruination of Women/Men/Lives

In general and summarizing some of the above, most people haven't sat down to think things through to the point they can articulate why the are so frustrated or angry with the opposite sex, let alone what role feminism played in this angst. But both sexes are painfully aware of the lower quality men and women of today. Modern day western women are on the whole unmarriageable, and modern day western men are no where near capable of being a provider or protector. As they ponder these things, however, they will start to realize just what a bunch of BS and lies they were fed in their youth. Lies about the sexes, the roles people were supposed to play, how the sexes were to interact with one another, and what people "should and should not like." As people age, they will see the best thing in their lives (namely, members of the opposite sex) ruined and spoiled, and consequentially the quality of their own lives ruined as well. Men now have to settle for women they're not attracted to, women have to settle for men who are effeminate and clueless, all because a bunch of women in the 1970's were miserable with their lives and (as far as I can tell) merely wanted everybody else to be miserable like them. When people put two and two together, they will see it was feminism that warped and thus ruined this aspect of their lives and they will get angry.

Those are the 8 primary reasons I could come up with. I think there may be more, but at minimum I hope it debunks feminism as simply being the "equal treatment of women" and clears up some things on both sides of the aisle.

basedKRN #racist koreansentry.com

My brothers, my heart burns for the love of our people and I'd like to give a sermon (lol)
Not much I say will be new to you, but I bare my soul to you.

I am a newcomer. I was born in Seoul, but grew up in America. I returned a few years ago to learn our language, our culture, and the way of our people.
It has been a wonderful spiritual journey.
Even though I will never be "full Korean" and always be ???, I have a deep sense of kinship to our people and a connection to our sacred homeland.
However, now I live with almost a very deep fear for the future of our minjok...

Race is real.
I exist. Our people exist.
Our way of life is superior to that of others.
We have a right to exist and to enforce it.

We can all see what's happening in the West.
Whites are called "racist" for wanting their own homogeneous homelands and flooded with third-world savages and propaganda to promote race-mixing, white guilt, white privilege, self-hatred.
Their birthrates and populations are dwindling.
Their once great civilizations, like America and Europa, are on the decline and I predict race wars to erupt in the next 10-20 years.
It's happening to the mighty caucasoids who essentially conquered the world.

It can happen to us.
It is happening to us, the early stages.
We are following the West's neoliberal delusions, following America and losing our identity to globalism.
If we believe this egalitarian bullshit that we are all equal, don't insist on our identity, fall for the lie that discrimination is inherently immoral, don't have enough children, don't keep in touch with our roots, then we will open the borders, let our women be taken by foreign men, and make way for "new Koreans."
Cultural Marxist influences will find a way to condemn us for having "Korean privilege" and we will have "Korean guilt," like whites are brainwashed into believing they have "white privilege" and white guilt.
We could turn into Sweden or some other fucking ?? cesspool like Paris, if we're not vigilant.

God dammit, we are not perfect. I have my personal grievances with Korean people, I do. I'm a very individualistic person, that's my American side.
I used to shun Koreanness and identify myself as strictly American.

But these days, I can feel the savage heart of my ancestors beating inside me, their blood flowing through my veins.
When I walk outside and I see our people walking in the streets, speaking Korean, it is a beautiful sight I did not have as a child, as I was one of very few Asian kids growing up.
When I see Korean children run and laugh and play at the playground, it is so beautiful.
Even with all its problems and the daily grind, South Korea has peace and prosperity that our ancestors never saw.
Sometimes I truly think this is paradise.

Out of a world of 7.5 billion people, there are only about 80 million Koreans. That's 1% of the total human population. We are a minority. I feel a strong sense of kinship to complete strangers, other Koreans walking on the street, getting on and off the bus. It's strange.

There is nothing more important to me than the unification, health, peace, prosperity and enlightenment of our people.
There is nothing more beautiful than Korean children and the sound of their laughter.

Imagine if all that was gone. Imagine if we became extinct. Imagine if there were no more Korean children.
We should never take these things for granted, our very life.

It makes me sad to see Korean people so tired, miserable, going to work, arguing with each other, glued to their phones, glazed with apathy and boredom.
Slaving as cogs in a machine in this industrial society.
To see how cold we can be to one another.
Getting stuck in the day to day routine of just trying to get by.
Wearing suits instead of hanbok, a cityscape that overshadows our traditional Korean architecture, in our desire to modernize and be like the rest of the world.
Our women becoming whores and delusional feminists and our men weak, emasculated, cowardly, incompetent.
Victims of pain and unconsciousness that cause pain and unconsciousness to each other.
Slowly losing our identity into the globalist melting pot.
As dark and sinister influences creep into our society and threaten our future and what little freedom we have.

We need a spiritual revival, a political revolution, a deep call to personal enlightenment and nationalism.
I pray to our ancestors and I bow down to them everyday.
I exercise and I practice self-defense. I always try to improve myself in every way.
We must turn inwards to our deepest hearts, meditate, improve ourselves in every way, be prepared for war, train, and have children.
Otherwise this Illuminati New World Order Globalist Establishment or other peoples may take it away.

You may not like Hitler, but I found these words of his inspiring:

“The most precious possession you have in the world is your own people.
And for this people, and for the sake of this people, we will struggle and fight!
And never slacken!
And never tire!
And never lose courage!
And never despair!”

In the past, I hated being Korean.
Now, I love our ancestors.
I love our people so much.
I would fight and die for our tribe.

Even now tears flow from my eyes in love, appreciation and admiration for our ancestors and our people.
Brothers, we must take action and do all that is within our power to secure the existence and independence of our people and a future for Korean children.
We must speak up and warn our people of the lies of neoliberal globalism and diversity, find our roots, love and treat each other with dignity and respect, build strong families and communities.

For the glory and honor of our ancestors, for our people, for our minjok and all the virtue, joy, and love within our spirits.
For all that is right and true and beautiful in this world, to set an example for other peoples to follow.
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for Korean children.

KOREA FOREVER.

David J. Stewart #sexist jesus-is-savior.com

Feminism is not the same thing as women's rights, people sometimes get these confused. Every woman is entitled to her rights. Feminism is rebellion...rebellious women refusing to submit to their husbands (or refusing to marry at all). Feminazis like to help destroy other marriages (especially marriages that are new or struggling). Often, feminists refuse to marry (and resent any woman who is happily married). The feminazi movement in America is trying to castrate men by weakening their authority. The idea that it takes a man to do certain jobs is constantly under attack by the feminists. It offends feminist women when I say that I don't believe a woman belongs in The White House. Like it or not ladies, men and women are different. There's just some things that women can do better than men...and some things that men can do better than women. God made men to lead, it comes natural for them. Women are natural followers. For a woman to try to lead men is silly, she is taking on the disposition of a man. I have met a few "He-women" (the opposite of a He-man) in my lifetime. These are the "toughies." These are the feisty women who like like to start fights, run their mouths and cause trouble for men. These feminist women act like little babies because they have never grown up in their minds. They are immature. You can be liberated.

Woman are always poor leaders over men. The women who are successful leaders have lost their femininity and act more like business men than women. The price to pay to be a career woman is very high. I read about women freezing their eggs and holding off on having children until their careers are over. How insane can you get? God wants women to marry, bare children, guide the house, and live above reproach (1st Timothy 5:14). Feminism is an insane form of thinking in the mind of a woman.

"I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." -1st Timothy 5:14

Sadly, most women in America are fools and have little regards for God or His Word. They have turned aside after Satan and sin.

"For some are already turned aside after Satan." -1st Timothy 5:15

Have you turned aside after Satan? Are you living for self and sin? Do you care at all about God in your life?

It's not an over exaggeration to say that some women literally HATE men with a passion. Some women don't even want to have a baby by a man, they'd rather have artificial insemination and live with another woman. Whoa! Talk about bizarre. The entire lesbian community was created by feminism. Yes, it true! Feminism confuses both women and men about who they are. Feminism is one of the most destructive forces in the United States today, if not the most. It is also the primary cause of divorce. The divorce rate has been steadily increasing ever since the turn of the 20th century. As feminism has crept like disease into our homes, women today rarely wear dresses anymore. Increasingly...American women are becoming arrogant, boisterous, rebellious, hateful, perverted, psychotic, home-wreckers. A virtuous woman is hard to find nowadays.

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

[When your misogyny and its associated policy basis are based on an inherently unfalsifiable system of psychological gnosticism]

Single White women don’t want to be appeased.

They don’t want to be indulged.

They don’t want to be catered to, coddled, or placated.

They don’t want their tears dried or their complaints addressed.

They don’t want men to listen to their words.

They want men to watch what they do and respond with the requisite dignified and dominant masculinity.

They want to submit to a man, and to a society, worthy of their submission.

Now of course single White women will never tell you this, or admit these 100% truefact desires to even themselves…but they feel these urges, and their hindbrains demand this from them and from the men they shit test.

Single White women individually shit test men and collectively shit test men through the male achievement of civilized society. Our shared single White woman problem is a civilization-scale shit test, and as the reader wrote, the men of the West have been, and continue, spectacularly failing this single White women shit test.

Modren Western man fails this shit test so badly that he is fairly likened to the incel beta orbiter who is always on call to provide a shoulder to cry on while his oneitis fucks dirt world ingrates who beat her silly and crap in his yard.

That is how badly, how powerfully, single White women yearn for the pimp hand. Their yearning for the ministrations of dominant men beckons them to sacrifice their homelands for the thrill of the tingle. A tingle which has been lost to them as their men have grown soft and weak under the yoke of decadence and decades of weaponized anti-White male propaganda.

It’s time the White men of the West learned Game and brought their women to heel. The alternative is civilizational death.

Game can save nations.

some incels #sexist reddit.com

Re: PSA: Trannies are organizing on Discord to recruit vulnerable youngcels into their weird feminization cult. Please upvote this so people are made aware

image

(RareRaspberry6)
i don't like transphobia, almost all of them ended up like that because they were too ugly to get a gf just like everyone else on here, and no one in their friends circle (if they even had one) or family intervened to help them, they are victims. this is why almost all transexuals are male-to-female and not the other way around. that's just what happens when you're male and society rejects you for no reason. you end up developing weird interests and killing yourself at age 30.

don't bully them please. they are suffering

(sodomcel)
a lot of people that get sucked into this shit tend to be retards. it's pretty obvious trannies are trying to get as many young males into becoming trannies themselves because it reinforces their fucked up view of themselves and further emboldens their equally fucked up abomination of existence. trying to make yourself into a trap isn't going to change your genetics and that "man gut" is coming one day

(Toxic_Manlet)
I love how they use hyper feminine cartoon characters to depict themselves. No, you look like a bunch of trannies, some of you balding ffs. I mean if you could actually become an real woman I’d even consider it as an alternative to roping, if only to mess with simps and orbiters

(shattered_dome)
Feminization is a massive fetish in anime adjacent communities and this is all the trans-cult is, a group of people with a predatory fetish that somehow managed to to gaslight mainstream culture in to shielding it. Imagine if any other weird fetish, like those people who swim in septic tanks for example, managed to get the support of mainstream media and big corporations?

This is what you need to keep in mind when you talk to trans people, especially MtF who have any interest or past with anime. You are talking to a victim who will most likely seek to reenact their trauma on another.

(PvtJamesRyan)
I feel like I’m living in the twilight zone ever since I discovered the incel community, just seeing all the incel theories, even the craziest, proven true one by one. First, we had the crazy incel theories about how lesbianism is largely a charade and lesbians would turn straight for chad. We got absolutely slaughtered on Reddit for this theory. Then an inceltears defector posted a crazy study showing that lesbians were twice as likely to get pregnant than straight women, thus proving incels right and BTFO ever single Redditor. Next we had incels talking about how transvestism is just caused by gynocentricity and men just wanting to enjoy female privilege. Incels got rubbished again on Reddit because we dared to suggest women were privilege. Now it appears we have been proven right again. I am not kidding, I think incels May be the smartest people alive on earth today.

What worries me is that incels have a couple of apocalyptic theories of how the world would turn out, and judging from their flawless track record, these would probably come true. Let us never forget that incels predicted metoo months before it happened. For those who remember r/incels, there was a series of threads where incels predicted women would go en masse on social media to accuse normies who touches them in the past for raping them because all forms of contact by an ugly Male is rape. Inceltears went on a ramalage calling incels paranoid and that “normal people don’t accuse people of rape just because they ugly you just have a toxic mindset reeeee”. A few months later, the metoo phenomenon was born.

(blackpilloverdose)
The frustration builds and the sadness creeps but unless you have been feeling like this since childhood you are just being lied to

By your own doing

Few of them are able to become the women they desire because unless you do hormones since before puberty you can’t be a believable woman that can wear anything in the stores most women want to shop in

At best you are imitation crab meat when what you really need to be is the real deal and you can’t

They will never look like the girl they desire to be

(Not_Always_A_Menace)
Disgusting. Trannies are fucked in the head. I can’t believe society is trying so hard to grovel at their feet and at the same time force acceptance of them into everyone else. And it’s all in the name of...what? Being “progressive?” Fuck that noise. This isn’t progressive. It’s regressive.

It’s only going to get worse from here.

(BrazilianNigma)
I don't know who is the ultimate mindmaster behind this but this is another way to fuck with real men. I just found out a while ago that transgenders were dating straight men (some of whom were """transphobic"""") who obvs didnt know that they were dating a mutilated man. This is what we have to look forward to if we even have a remote chance of ascending, not only are we competing for the ugliest, lowest actual female scraps any vaguely attractive foid we might find has a high chance of being male. It's over. It's fucking over

thanks for the heads up tho, most high iq posters here won't fall for that shit. It's probably the faggots at cucktears who are more likely to be trans

(Take_Me_Back_Please)
they honestly are delusional if they think they look like those anime girls in real life. most of these "traps" cover up their faces and filter-up when they take photos because deep down they know they still look like an ugly dude in drags

99% of all traps are UGLY!

(Blanketfish)
Not that Trans are my cup of tea. But one thing I find funny is that MtF trans can get money for webcamming, dominate sports, even fucking win beauty pageants. Proving that being a woman is easy mode. As for FtM, they learn how fucking hard it is to be a man, the are even generally manlets, dickcels (obvious), and framecels.

(droppedmyvcard)
If I could actually become an actual real woman with two X chromosomes and a vagina and a womb then I would. I would switch to easy mode midway through the game because the game sucks and is stacked against me.

But it is not possible. I have no desire to mutilate my genitals, have a fake "vagina" that is a constantly bleeding pus-filled wound that is forever trying to close, a masculine skeleton and facial structure, deep voice, Adam's apple, big feet, etc. The research shows that post-op transexuals are not any happier, and the rate of suicide goes up.

I think it's really sad how many are being misled by our feminized society into ceasing being men, but not really becoming women either, just becoming these sad depressed mutilated people who are in-between genders and have even less chance of finding love because neither gay men nor straight women want them, with a few exceptions.

No offence...

(TheRealUncleRuckus)
I like trannies. Honestly, I think trannies are hotter than cisgender females. I just wish they were proincel rather than antiincel. In the tranny lover community we have a saying that, every single female in the future will have a dick. This is because when there will be technology to be able to produce a babe from two sperm and outside the uterus, no one will want a dick-less girl.

Peter Watson #fundie breitbart.com

Maria - This is rather off subject but may be of use to you if you try and explain why the conservatives are progressive globalist marxists -
Greetings from God's country - the State of Texas
No escape from the Tories’ LGBT school agenda

If anyone doubts that the Conservative-In-Name-Only government is not conservative, just look at the latest guidance issued by the Department for Education. Compulsory Relationships and Sex Education will be introduced into all secondary schools, and Relationships Education in all primary schools, from September 2020.

Despite the vast majority of parents being opposed, the new curriculum will be pickled in politically correct ideology. Section 26 of the guidance requires schools to ensure that their policy on Relationships and Sex Education is in line with the Equality Act 2010, which demands that particular regard is shown to groups or individuals with protected characteristics, and allows positive action to support such groups.

In the brave new world of equality, diversity and inclusion, some protected characteristics are more equal than others. In schools, conservative Christian and Jewish teachers have lost out to LGBT activists, even though religious belief is a protected characteristic. To foster good relations with ‘gender reassigned persons’ and pay particular regard to their needs, teachers must accept and affirm the statements of children who say they are the sex that they aren’t. Since the inception of the Equality Act 2010, a number of teachers have been fired for refusing to accept the Orwellian worldview that they must obey and affirm children who are speaking nonsense.

Ultimately, children are to be brought up as gender neutral. They will be taught that they are not boys or girls but choose their gender when they are ready. This could be at age five, but it could be never. They can be genderfluid – a quasi-schizophrenic condition where one chooses one’s gender from 70 or so different options on a moment-by-moment basis.

LGBT activists also want to bring up children to accept the ideology of the ‘modern family’, which views the traditional family as just one of dozens of different lifestyle choices: thus, mother and father, two mothers, two fathers, single mother, single father, polygamous, polyandrous, etc are all equivalent and no one is allowed to view one family model as being superior or inferior, or more or less natural than any other.

leftleaningantifeminist #sexist leftleaningantifeminist.wordpress.com

Misincelry – Hatred of incels as defined above.

I have noticed an impatience, frustration, judgement, shaming, belittling and insulting of incels from men and women and very frequently from feminists, very often from the same feminists who criticise men and non-feminist women for ” impatience, frustration, judgement, shaming, belittling and insulting” women”. This is similar to feminists complaining about being “silenced” and then shouting down their critics to the point of ruining careers.

I don’t think this comes down simple rudeness or social blinkers although these things do figure. I believe evolutionary psychology explains much of what is observed in misincelry as well as bullying, racism, homophobia and transphobia. This is where sociologists and especially those of  a strong ideological bent are opposed to evolutionary psychology.

In my post on Oppressive Etiquette I gave the examples of Japan and the US south under the Jim Crow laws. Today feminists are exercising the same requirements for etiquette from men towards women as whites required from blacks under Jim Crow.

This is all the more onerous for men with autism or Asperger‘s syndrome who are more likely than average to be incels and for men who are generally more socially awkward. Feminists on Jezebel and Wehuntedthemammoth web sites take pleasure in shaming in rubbishing incels. One is reminded of school yard bullies. In this case however our feminist messiahs must place themselves on the side of “good” and to that end construct complicated narratives to make their victims the “villains”. Projected hate. A classic example of DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender).

This is an extension of the sport of shaming men in general which many women (not limited to feminists) feel free to indulge in a way which would not tolerated if the target was black, Asian, Jewish or of some other demographic minority. This is a way to express the same dark angels of our nature in language which is approved by the cerebral cortex and society collectively. Take a look at this quote by Julie Burchill.

Ethan Huff #transphobia #conspiracy #quack #wingnut naturalnews.com

Who’s worse? LGBTQP pushers who want to mutilate the genitals of children, or vaccine pushers who want to cause brain damage and death?

In case you missed it, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, recently sat down with the producers of the new Vaxxed2: The People’s Truth vaccine documentary to talk about the epidemic of vaccine injuries that’s sweeping our nation. And after watching or listening to what they have to say, you might ask yourself, Who’s worse for society, LGBTQP lunatics who want to turn all of our children “trans,” or vaccine industry propagandists who want to force chemical syringes on our precious little ones essentially at gunpoint?

As the official narrative goes, vaccines are the most awesome public health invention pretty much ever, which somehow means that everyone must be forced by the government to get them because they’re simply wonderful. The science is settled, we’re all repeatedly told, so there’s no room for “my body, my choice” when it comes to vaccination programs that aim for total societal compliance.

But the truth of the matter is that vaccines are risky, to say the least. Not only that, but they don’t actually work, in many cases, and cause more harm than good. Vaccines are also responsible for causing many of the recent outbreaks of measles and whooping cough (pertussis) that we’ve been hearing about in the news, further demonstrating that vaccines are not the “miracle” medicine that the pharmaceutical lobby claims them to be.

This is why Vaxxed2 was created, by the way: To tell those with ears to hear the ugly truth about vaccines that health “authorities” refuse to disclose. Vaccines are not safe and effective, nor are they miraculous at accomplishing anything other than furthering the eugenics agenda of harming and destroying the next generation of youth.

“I have never seen so much death,” says Polly Tommey, the executive producer of Vaxxed2, about the tragedies she’s encountered while touring America as part of the film’s production.

“At every single stop we had at least one dead baby, a Gardasil death, paralysis from the waist downwards, untold damage. Vaccines are killing of America, that is what the people of America will tell you that vaccinated” themselves or their children, she adds.

“When you look into the eyes of parents whose children are brain-damaged like mine, or dead from a vaccine, their soul is broken, it’s ripped from them, it is the most painful – you can feel it as they come towards you – the pain. But when an unvaccinated family with beautiful, healthy children come towards you, you see joy and light and love, everything is great in their eyes.”
One thing to keep in mind when it comes to vaccination is the fact that vaccines are untested chemical cocktails that, if you read the fine print in vaccine inserts, are really no different than the cross-sex and gender-bender hormone drugs routinely administered to today’s LGBTQP-confused youth.

“If you look across the whole range, you’ve got 72 shots given to a child up until the age of 18 … you’ve got multiple shots going in at their well-baby clinic visit, so you’ve got multiple shots, none of which have had a safety study on this whole group going into a child at the same child at the same time, not one single safety study,” warns Jonathan Tommey, another of Vaxxed2‘s creators.

“So, this 1986 Act (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act) that was passed by (Ronald) Reagan in government giving no liability to the manufacturer of vaccines is a criminal offense to the American public,” he adds.

Roy Den Hollander #sexist #psycho avoiceformen.com

[From "Why Can’t the Men’s Movement Get its Act Together?"; article since deleted but saved here]

Some say the Men’s Movement is ineffective because the Feminists are so successful at turning men into androgynies that there are probably only a couple of hundred men left in America. If true, it’s not easy for such a small group to change the course of 300 million.

Some, however, argue ego. Men are too aggressive and opinionated—they just can’t cooperate. Yet, practically all the great social changes in history, for good or ill, occurred because men worked together.

Others claim an absence of organization with too many groups going in too many different directions. But there are hundreds of Feminist organizations spread across the land doing lots of different activities and focused on different goals, although a uniting factor may be their inherent fear and hatred of men.

The lack of success by the Men’s Movement isn’t for want of talent or will. It has skillful public speakers and writers trying to educate, elucidate and enlighten; competent litigators trying to put the blindfold back across the eyes of Justice; effective lobbyists exercising their First Amendment right of association; and gutsy demonstrators willing to fight for their rights no matter how many names the “morality pundits” call them.

So why can’t the Men’s Movement effectively fight the Feminists? In this capitalistic society—it’s money, the primary source of power in America. The federal government gives Feminist organizations hundreds of millions of dollars a year while foundations, corporations, and individuals chip in millions more.

[…]

The future prospect of the Men’s Movement raising enough money to exercise some influence in America is unlikely. But there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly—firearms. At some point, the men in this country will take the Declaration of Independence literally:

“[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right,
it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for
their future security.”

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Let's start with an obscure premise--God has no opponent.

So any rebellion against God will be proven an illusion and vanish from the face of he earth no matter how "yuge" the lie may appear.

President Donald J Trump (Drumpf) is such a lie.

He was groomed by his German/Jewish Father to be a real estate magnet in New York City, to later become an American political operative for the dark nobility of Eastern Europe (remember his candidacy was long foreshadowed in the media over several years).

The Chinese had long discovered the cabal's plot to run Trump for President in 2016, and allowed Putin and Russia to capture incriminating personal evidence against him dating back to 2013.... stay with me if only just for a moment.

Trump's dark pension for weird sex with under aged girls is very well known in intelligence circles--as we discovered during the campaign--so Putin's KGB ran a sting operation during one of Trump's own Miss Universe Pageant while in Moscow.


In the meantime, the Chinese silently began absorbing all of Trump's prized property debts as well as his primary lending banks to corner his real estate empire.... again stay with me if only just for a moment.

With Trump's name reputation and worldwide business interests cornered, the Chinese approached Trump in his own building (they were tenants) back in the Spring of 2015 with all the evidence--and offered him a choice that would change the world:

Either...

Run for President as planned, win because the Chinese had the technology, intelligence and legal right due to appoint the next President after the default of the USA, Inc. in 2013.

Trump would follow the Chinese script of political talking points which included not claiming Russia as the enemy--even accept their Vice President and Chief of Staff picks that the Republic White Hats and hand selected for him.

Then once elected, Trump would act as if he were actually going on a 4 Year Presidential journey, signing any and all executive orders placed before him, orate any speech written for him, even appointment a cabinet hand chosen for him... until one day, they decided to dismiss him via an orchestrated scandal say two months into his administration that involves elements of Russia hacking into the election results and Trump refusing to divest fully from his business interests.

The combination would logically bring on a resignation of his comet-like Presidency for the unawakened public.

Please rewatch this SNL "comedy" sketch... and understand this is how the cabal has long told us what's coming.

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Now in exchange for accepting such a deal, Trump and his family get international legal amnesty for past crimes against humanity (9/11), get to keep all his properties, get to keep his good brand name and even get to convert that 30 million of Iraq Dinar currency at a contract rate of $32.00 USD like other cabal Senators and Congressmen.

As an additional or negotiated bonus, Trump asked for prime real estate projects in both Russia and China, which he got, as long as he performed through the entire term of his deal (which he has thus far and suspect he will).

Art of the deal right?

Or...

Globally, Trump will be shamed for being a known pedophile, and possibly imprisoned, which would overnight destroy his precious brand name, plus he would lose all his existing properties because tenants would flee from their building leases, and all new construction projects would die instantly. He and his family would be destroyed.

Which would you choose?

European dark nobility leadership long ago sign off on sacrificing Trump as a political transition patsy, but the die hard US faction of the cabal wasn't nearly as enthusiastic about this plan and tried to derail it--and still are to this day.

So as we progress further into the Trump Presidency, look for him to begin pivoting on a host of serious issues as well as notice how the "Russian hacking" story continues to build strength and ultimately develops impeachable teeth--forcing Trump to ultimately resign in favor of VP Mike Pence and/or Paul Ryan as new Republic President

Using Trump as the short term transition patsy allows Russia, China and the White Hats to leave the US election cycle undisturbed in the minds of the population, yet stay in control the White House without skipping a beat, similar to how they quietly took control of the US Congress and Pentagon back in 2015 after the international sovereignty courts gave the Republic of the United States to its largest sovereign debt holders.

Having a Republican majority in both the House, Senate and White House have the Republic White Hats two years to fix all that was broken with the country in terms of policy--without political interference--including resetting the balance of power on the Supreme Court.

Hillary Clinton was never a serious factor in the 2016 election because her treasonous activities were so overwhelming, the Clinton's gladly took the Chinese amnesty deal and happily played the loser role to Trump (just as Hillary had successfully done for the Barack Obama in 2008).

The RV was patsy Trump's first executive order of business once sworn in, and the Republic is now in store for unprecedented growth and long-term resurgence that will guarantee a Republican majority in all branches of power for at at least one, and maybe two more terms.

Believe it or not.

Ooh Rah!

Doug TenNapel #fundie breitbart.com

[Doug TenNapel (yes, the creator of Earthworm Jim) gives his thoughts on why republicans are more likely to be marries than Democrats]

A new Gallup poll shows that married people are more likely to be Republicans than Democrats. The propensity for marriage among Republicans was the same regardless of race or age groups. So this is my formal call to all single Democrats who want to get married; it's time to change your party affiliation or you'll go through life alone, or worse, with some flaky narcissist with commitment issues.

We all pretty much know that most Democrats can't be trusted and that's reflected in this marriage poll. It's not that Democrat women are ugly, because we've seen too many cute ones out there. The men aren't hideous either, unless you think a soft, effeminate man hen-pecked his whole life by his domineering mother is hideous. The main reason people don't get married is out of a fear of divorce-- a fear of a breaking of vows. And Democrats talk with their feet when it comes to making commitments with those who philosophically have no grounding to keep any commitment. Did Obama shut down Gitmo? Will he get health reform finished before August recess? Is he going to cut taxes for most Americans?

I go to dinner with a bunch of Hollywood Republicans every month or so and I'll tell you one thing, the women are easy on the eyes, none more conservative or good looking than my Beloved. Republican women are happy, they don't mope around like victims or screech about how terrible men are for being men. The men at these get-togethers are happier and generally sport less hair product. Married men are polled to have more sex and more satisfying sex than singles so Republican men have another great quality over their unmarried Democrat counterparts.

Marriage works better for Republicans because how long can a relationship last when victimhood and class struggle are the stock and trade of the household? Every married couple will champion the virtues of personal responsibility which is alien to the donkey platform.

Finally, what Democrat needs a spouse when the government is the head of the house? The federal open wallet makes for a provider of food, housing, education and PBS without all that pesky back hair.

Steven L Anderson #fundie sanderson1611.blogspot.com

In my fire alarm business, I am constantly testing batteries and measuring their voltage. When a battery is completely dead, there is no potential difference between the positive and negative poles, and a multimeter will read 0 volts. This equilibrium produces no energy, and the battery is therefore worthless.

Magnetism operates on similar principles. There is a force of attraction between unlike poles and a force of repulsion between like poles.

The difference between north and south produces the attraction.

What does any of this have to do with marriage?
The difference between men and women is what causes the attraction between them. When a man and woman get married, this attraction is very strong. There is very powerful electricity in their relationship. Often, however, the newness wears off over time, and the attraction can become very weak. The battery goes dead so to speak. Why is that?

When a battery goes dead, it is because there is equilibrium between the positive and negative leads. Just as electrical energy is fueled by the difference between "positive" and "negative," and magnetic energy thrives on the difference between "north" and "south," so the male/female energy is powered by the difference between "masculine" and "feminine."

As our society destroys the differences between male and female, and especially husband and wife, the attraction becomes less and less, and the voltage of our marriages is reduced. That is why our sinful world views married life as being "boring" and "unexciting." In order to have an exciting love life, they must keep switching to a different partner. It is possible, on the other hand, to have a very exciting married life and be very strongly physically attracted to your spouse as long as the difference between the masculine and the feminine is maintained.

Modern American culture teaches us that there should be equality between a man and a woman in marriage. This is the biggest turn off in the world for both parties. If there is equality, then there will be much less attraction between the man and his wife. When there is a big difference between husband and wife, they will be much more attracted to one another. If the husband is completely in charge, and the wife is completely submissive and subject to him (as the Bible commands), then they will have a very "high voltage" love life. Equality = a dead battery.

As men in America become more and more feminine, and women become more and more masculine, the difference between a man and his wife is dramatically reduced. Husbands and wives become more and more apathetic about their physical relationship with each other. This leads to people looking outside of their marriage for the spark and excitement they are lacking at home. If, on the other hand, the husband is firmly in power, being the head of household, sole breadwinner, and acting/dressing in a manly fashion, and the wife is very submissive to her husband, a homemaker, cooking and cleaning, wearing skirts/dresses, long hair, etc., the voltage of the relationship will be cranked up, and husband and wife will find themselves very strongly attracted to one another. Greater potential difference = stronger electromotive force.

The world will not accept this obvious, basic, scientific truth because it is not politically correct. Even though atheists claim to be scientific, they ignore all the empirical evidence and insist on male/female equality. Unfortunately many Christians are buying into similar philosophies in their home life and are consequently missing out on a truly electrified marriage.

Anonymous Coward #fundie godlikeproductions.com

Feminism is being used by the NWO/CIA/Pentagon/etc. as a military psychological weapon to control society

feminism as a military psychological weapon to control society

[link to famguardian.org]


feminism as a military psychological weapon to control society


Message To All so-called Patriot Americans: You Can't Handle The Truth

1. Current US child support laws were actually invented in the former communist Soviet Union.

2. Current child support laws are communist infiltrations into the united states of America.

feminism as a military psychological weapon to control society

Amerika the 4th Reich:

FEMINISM IS SOCIALISM

First thing communist countries do is put the women to work to take over the family unit. Increasing the workforce decreases wages - Economy101 - basic simple concepts of supply and demand. Women in the workforce doubled the workforce which decreased wages - (which was deceptively hidden thru deflation/the devaluing of the dollar).

(example: Let's say I own a factory. I have 500 employees knocking on my door everyday looking for work; I can then decrease wages and say, "If you don't like it there's the door. I have 500 ppl knocking on my door everyday looking for work." On the other hand, if I cannot find enough ppl to work in my factory, I would have to increase wages (if I can still make a profit.)
Read again from top now and Continue)...

That is why in the 1950's, the avg. American family lived fine on one income but today the avg. American family needs two incomes just to get by. Women in the workforce; feminism, just created more Taxpaying Slaves for The State resulting in the enslavement of the average American family unit.

Feminists are being used ... they have complained about power control freak men, husbands ... only to have it replaced by a Power-Control-Freak Totalitarian Police STATE. Create a (so-called) problem just to justify the excuse for more power to solve it is the oldest Dictator ploy in the book.

Either Fathers own their children or the STATE OWNS the children. Law of the Jungle; women look for the best Provider -- when the best Provider becomes the STATE (i.e. the Welfare State), she then marries (into) the STATE and now the STATE OWNS her children.

"Who owns the youth owns the future!" - Adolf Hitler ... thus the US Dept. of (in)Human(e) Services; Division of Family Destruction. Either the man/husband/father is the Head of His Household ... or the STATE is the HEAD of your Household! Attack the Family Unit = weaken society ... thus more STATE CONTROL. Cut the Head (man of the household) out - thus more STATE CONTROL = own the children thus more STATE CONTROL - breed ignorant society thus more STATE CONTROL.

Feminism = weaker men; weaker men = LESS RESISTANCE thus more STATE CONTROL.
Patriarchy = Men own their wives ... it's called a family unit ... it's called morality.

Feminism/matriarchy = everyone having sex with each others' women while still remaining "friends" like a bunch of ANIMALS! Feminism/matriarchy = village = socialism = tribalism = lowest form of civilization = NO SURPLUS = Deficit = Slavery.

Patriarchy = family unit = efficiency = prosperity = Individual Rights = opposite of socialism = Surplus = free time for great works/inventions ... i.e. immigrants who come here and prosper come from patriarchal family structures because Patriarchy = family unit = efficiency.

Name me one time when Government Sponsored Propaganda was not Totalitarian in Nature. Feminism is Government Sponsored Propaganda - to weaken society; weaken the family unit; weaken it's men ... for more STATE CONTROL.

Multiculturalism = everyone different (immigrants not "Americanized") = NO UNITY amongst society = Divide & Conquer/LESS RESISTANCE thus more STATE CONTROL.
Homosexuality + abortion = population control.

Population control techniques deployed at Americans + allowing more illegal immigrants into the country = higher % (of society) of a working slave force - cheap labor.

Racial Eugenics in AmeriKa:
The #1 Group to benefit from Affirmative Action are white women (thus) they are using mathematics to keep a large percentage of minority men DOWN
"He who rules mathematics rules the Universe"
This is the mathematics of racial eugenics.
This is the mathematics of the New World Order.

AmeriKa Today has 1/3 of the entire world's prison population and 78% of Amerikan prisoners are black men, and that is not even counting latino men.
If these black men were all let out of jail, there would not be enough jobs for them all.

The Shadow Government who is truly in Control of AmeriKa, wants and needs all these minority males in jail so that they can give half the good jobs to white women.

I am going to expose this evil to Non-White AmerIka. I am not against white people, I am against the evils of feminism, I am against having all these minority males living horrific lives in jail at the expense of the AmeriKan Feminist WHITE WOMAN.

Even after DNA proves that he is NOT the biological Father, Judges in the US still force thousands of men to pay child support even with the DNA evidence in front of them !!!

Thousands of men in California ALONE are being forced to pay child support AFTER DNA Proves that He is NOT the Biological father:
[link to www.abcnews.go.com]
News/paternity021002.html
www.glennjsacks.com/california_governor_davis.htm

Not even Saddam Hussein would force a man to pay child support for a child that is NOT his !!!
Feminism is a Weapon of Mass Destruction

"First You Get the Women, Then You've Got the Children, So Follow the Men" -Adolph Hitler

"The `perennial' father is a menace to society and must be treated as such. Like the mental defectives and those afflicted with certain hereditary diseases, he should, after due warning, be rendered incapable of further parentage." -W.J. Ruth. "Population Control For Unemployment." Birth Control Review, Volume XVII, Number 5 (May 1933), page 134.

In the Book of Genesis, when Satan attacked Adam and Eve, he attacked through the weaker vessel: the woman. Just like The STATE is doing today, attacking us through feminism, through the 'woman'. Falsely "empower" the woman for her to make the wrong choices that way to weaken the man to control him. This is how evil attacks man, who was made in the image of God.

In the Book of Exodus, Pharaoh of Egypt decided to kill all the male Israelite infants to weaken the Israelites militarily. This is nothing new. Think about it ! ! !

Statism is Antichrist plain and simple. God should be the King and Head of an individual man, and the man/husband should be the head of his household, not the Anti-Christ STATE.

In this last century alone, governments around the world have killed over 500 million people of their own people. All this government sponsored propaganda about Domestic Violence is just a smoke screen to divert attention from the real abuse: Government Abuse Against It's Own People. This is the real Domestic Violence.

The Bible depicted governments as Beasts; in Daniel and Revelations. Look at old Nazi film; their Armies marching like ants mimicking the Animal Kingdom and therefore subhuman. Individual Freemen become just another cog in the Wheel of the Predator Beast State which becomes the Alpha Male which today IT is doing this through the propaganda of feminism. By feminizing society and thus emasculating it's males for more State Control.

"To disobey tyranny is to obey God." - Thomas Jefferson


Paying child support kills children by Funding/Subsidizing the #1 KILLER of children: single-mother-households:
Children from single-mother households, compared to children of two-parent families where the biological father is present, are more likely to go to prison by 20 times, to commit suicide by 5 times, to have behavioral problems by 20 times, to become rapists by 14 times, to run away by 32 times, to abuse chemical substances by 10 times, to drop out of high school by 9 times, to be seriously abused by 33 times, to be fatally abused by 73 times, to be one tenth as likely to get A's in school, and to [per Lenore Weitzman] have a 72% lower standard of living.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861 (1809-1865)

Question to America:

America used to be free. Not anymore. America has turned into Amerika.

Question to America:
1. I steal your car.
2. You take me to Court and the Judge 'gives' me custody of your car.
3. On top of that, the Judge now says you must keep paying the monthly payments, insurance, and overall maintenance of the car.
If you refuse to 'pay', you are labeled/vilified into a lowlife scumbag dirt bag criminal and thrown in jail surrounded by violent criminals.
And to make matters even worse, the government pays/sponsors for a massive government Nazi-like propaganda campaign, brainwashing society, convincing them that if you don't accept/pay for this, with a smile on your face no doubt, that you are than a scumbag dirt bag lowlife 'deadbeat' who belongs in jail surrounded by murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc.

Question to America:
What exactly happened here?
Explain to me what happened here, because this is exactly what they are doing to American Fathers.

If the British had this current System some 200 yrs. ago the American Revolution would have never happened. Benjamin Franklin had like 13 bastard children, he would have ended up in jail as a 'deadbeat' dad.
The rest of our Founding Fathers would have been forced to 'attend' Anger Management Courses.

This US Media Propaganda Machine would have called the Protestors of the Boston Tea Party a bunch of 'nuts' and/or anarchists.

Feminism is a military psychological weapon to feminize/emasculate society for more State Control by weakening the State's Main Competitor: Men

The US Federal Government is the Biggest Deadbeat: $5.7 TRILLION on the National Debt - (financial-future of 'our children').

The STATE Kidnaps children from their Fathers than demand ransom/extortion deceptively called 'child support.'

Maxim of law: The children that belong to the mother are those of slaves and animals. But the children that belong to the Father are those of Freemen.

That is why the Slave Masters used to separate the black slave Father from the black slave mother and child to weaken them to better control them. Divide & Conquer: this is nothing new.
And now they are doing it to men today in Amerika: 2008

Even after DNA proves that he is NOT the biological Father, thousands of men in America are still FORCED to pay this ransom/extortion deceptively called child support even with DNA EVIDENCE PROVING he is NOT the Father:
[link to www.abcnews.go.com]

Why aren't former Enron Execs forced to pay child support to all the familes who lost their money?
Why should Corporations have more rights then Individuals?
The Constitution spoke of Rights of the Individual (not of the rights of Corporations)

Also:
Women today can dump their babies off in garbage dumpsters and go to jail, but when they get out of jail (they are than not forced to pay child support)

Women today can dump their babies off in Police Stations and Hospitals and not be prosecuted for it (a new law now) And these women are not forced to pay child support...

Women can also give up their baby to adoption (orphanages)... and not be forced to pay child support. Women can dump THEIR responsibilities...

Why can't men ?

Society today promotes, advocates, and supports homosexuality while at the same time promote, advocate, and fully support destroying heterosexual males with alimony and child support... this is SATANIC !!!

"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." - Thomas Paine


All Praise and Glory to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

the Only True God - The Creator of both the Heavens and the Earth in the NAME OF JESUS THE CHRIST

Tobias Langdon #transphobia #wingnut #racist #pratt #dunning-kruger unz.com

image

Sex and race are, to the left, mere social constructs, abstract systems of delusion and injustice that can be overturned by human will and social engineering. It follows, then, that leftists will support and celebrate men who reject the social construct of sex and claim to be women. And leftists do support and celebrate such men.

Triumph of the Trannies

It also follows that leftists will support and celebrate Whites who reject the social construct of race and claim to be Blacks. But leftists don’t support and celebrate such Whites. Quite the contrary. While Bruce Jenner, a man claiming to be a woman, is worshipped and rewarded, Rachel Dolezal, a White claiming to be a Black, is ridiculed and punished. Steve Sailer and others have drawn attention to this contradiction, but I don’t think they’ve properly explained it.

Why do leftists cheer when men cross the border between the sexes, but jeer when Whites try to cross the border between the races?

I pose those questions deliberately in that form to draw out the links between the left’s love of transgenderism and the left’s love of open borders. The Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926–95) described this aspect of leftist ideology very well in this passage of an otherwise long-winded and boring essay:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. (Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Modern Age, Fall 1973)

Rothbard was right in general about leftism, but failed to explain that highly significant exception: why does the “exercise of human will” allow Bruce Jenner and others to become women, but not allow Rachel Dolezal and others to become Blacks?

Sex and race are both aspects of reality, but the left believes that only one of those aspects “can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.” Why so? I would explain it by supplementing Rothbard’s explanation. Yes, he’s right when he says the left have a magical belief in the reality-transforming power of “human will,” but he doesn’t discuss what happens when there is a clash of wills.

The high and the low

Let’s look at transgenderism first. Men like Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Yaniv (pictured) have “willed” that men can become women and must enjoy unrestricted access to all female spaces. At the same time, some women — the so-called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs — have “willed” that men can’t become women and must keep out of female spaces. There is a clash of wills that is settled, for the Left, by the status of the opposing sides. In leftist eyes, the men have higher status than the women, which is why the men’s will prevails and the women’s will is rejected. But hold on, you might be thinking: How can the men have higher status than the women in leftist eyes? It’s easy: the transgender men have cleverly aligned themselves not with men in general, who are indeed of lower status than women, but with homosexual men, who are of higher status than women.

Trangendered men are part of the “LBGTQ+ community,” which lifts them above women in the leftist hierarchy. Take Jonathan Yaniv, the perverted and probably Jewish male, who claims to be a woman and has been suing female cosmeticians in Canada for refusing to wax his fully intact male genitals. If Yaniv spoke the truth, he would admit that he is a heterosexual male who seeks perverted sexual pleasure by passing himself off as a woman and receiving Brazilian waxes or entering female toilets to share tampon tips with under-age girls, etc. Obviously, then, Yaniv can’t admit the truth. Heterosexual men are wicked in leftist eyes and are well below women in the leftist hierarchy. Heterosexual men definitely cannot pass themselves off as women in pursuit of perverted sexual thrills.

Actual authentic lesbians

Yaniv and other “trans-women” must therefore align themselves with homosexuals to pass leftist purity-tests. As trans-women they claim to be members of a sexual minority, which triggers the leftist love of minority-worship. Indeed, Yaniv and some others go further than simply claiming to be women: they claim to be actual authentic lesbians. A pinned tweet at Yaniv’s Twitter account states that he is “One proud lesbian. I’ll never give up fighting for human rights equality. #LGBTQoftwitter.” Yaniv isn’t a lesbian, of course. Real lesbians — that is, real women who are sexually attracted to other real women — quite rightly reject fake lesbians like him, so the fake lesbians exploit leftist ideology again and accuse real lesbians of bigotry and hate.

Feminism has the concept of the “glass ceiling,” whereby women are unjustly prevented by sexist men from reaching the highest positions in politics, business and academia. Inspired by this, the fake lesbians have invented the concept of the “cotton ceiling,” whereby men like Yaniv are unjustly prevented by real lesbians from removing the underwear of said lesbians and having sex with them. Here is a trans-lesbian activist lecturing a sceptical TERF (i.e. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist for those not up on the latest jargon) on the injustices of the cotton ceiling:

Trans women are female. When our female-ness and womanhood is denied, as you keep doing repeatedly, that is transphobic and transmisogynist. As I said earlier, all people’s desires are influenced by an intersection of cultural messages that determine those desires. Cultural messages that code trans women’s bodies as male are transphobic, and those messages influence people’s desires. So cis queer women who are attracted to other queer women may not view trans women as viable sexual partners because they have internalized the message that trans women are somehow male.

The comparison to what cis males say also makes no sense. What trans women are saying is that we are women, and thus should be considered women sexually, and thus be considered viable partners for women who are attracted to women. What cis males are saying is that queer women shouldn’t be exclusively attracted to women, which is completely different. (The Cotton Ceiling? Really?, Femonade blog, 13th March 2012)

It’s not “completely different,” of course. In both cases, people with penises are “saying” (and willing) that real lesbians should have sex with them. In both cases, real lesbians would be encountering the male genitals of real men. But the trans-activist believes in an act of verbal transubstantiation whereby a trans-lesbian possesses a “female penis” that, despite all appearances, is “completely different” to the nasty and objectionable penis of a “cis male.”

Aspects of religious psychology

I use the term “transubstantiation” deliberately. It’s a term from Catholic theology that refers to the supernatural process whereby wafers and wine transform into the flesh and blood of Christ during the celebration of Holy Eucharist by a priest. No physical or scientific test can detect this transformation, and to all appearances the wafers and wine remain unchanged. But traditionalist Catholics will insist that the wafers and wine are now truly Christ’s flesh and blood. If you disagree, you’re probably safe nowadays, but you wouldn’t have been in the past. It was very unwise to openly deny, let alone ridicule, transubstantiation in Catholic nations during the Middle Ages. And disagreements over the concept were central to the murderous hatreds of the Reformation. Those who believed in transubstantiation got very angry when it was denied.

This anger, which is part of the odium theologicum, is an important aspect of religious psychology, whether overt or covert — leftism can in fact be explained as a mutation of Christianity and Judaism. Overt and covert religions gain power by demanding belief in things that defy everyday reality, because such belief is difficult and requires a greater emotional investment. When we invest more in a belief, we have more incentive to protect it more strongly. And it is precisely because concepts like transubstantiation and the “female penis” are absurd that they are powerful. When we have an emotional investment in something we can’t prove, we react strongly when it is denied or ridiculed. That applies even more when we ourselves are subconsciously aware or afraid that our beliefs are baseless or false. Crushing external heresies can be a way of stilling internal doubts.

The “female penis” vs the “unisex brain”

And so religion and other forms of ideology can gain power by their contradictions and absurdities. However, in the clash between transgenderism and feminism, both sides believe in absurdities: the trannies insist on the concept of the female penis, just as the feminists insist on the concept of the “unisex brain,” namely, that there is no genuine difference between male and female brains. These two concepts are both biologically absurd: there is no such thing as a female penis, but there is such a thing as a female brain. However, if transgenderism and feminism are both powered by absurdities, why have trannies been winning the battle over the TERFs? Well, it’s partly because the trannies have the bigger, and therefore better, absurdities. For example, the “female penis” is an obvious absurdity, the “unisex brain” is much less so. Penises are out in the open, after all, whereas brains are hidden behind the skull.

And there is a continuum between a typically male brain and a typically female brain that doesn’t exist between male genitals and female genitals in the vast majority of cases. The psychological differences between men and women are a question of averages and tendencies, but the physical differences are generally stark and obvious (inter-sex individuals are rare). A certain group of trannies also have the stronger male will-to-power and love of battle, which is another reason they are winning the battle with lesbians. All this explains why the left supports and celebrates trannies as they cross the border between male and female. As a sexual minority, they have higher status than ordinary women. As a novel and exhibitionist sexual minority, they also have higher status than lesbians, who also have less will-to-power.

Better than Black

Indeed, as I pointed out in “Power to the Perverts!,” transgenderism has allowed some White heterosexual men to leap above the Black-Jewish lesbian feminist Linda Bellos in the leftist hierarchy. The White men are “transgender” and Bellos, although Black, is a TERF. In current leftism, transgender trumps TERF. Leftists therefore support the border-abolishing White men and not the border-erecting Black woman.

However, leftists would instantly support Bellos if those White men were claiming to be Black rather than female. Leftists want the border between male and female abolished, but not the border between Black and White. Why so? Again I would argue that higher and lower status settle the clash of wills. Rachel Dolezal “willed” that she was Black, while Blacks “willed” that she wasn’t. Dolezal was trying to abolish a border, Blacks were trying to maintain one, so a naïve reading of leftism would say that leftists should support “trans-racialists” like Dolezal just as they support transgenderists like Bruce Jenner. But leftists didn’t support Dolezal, and Blacks easily won the battle of wills. The border between Black and White stayed up, and Dolezal was ridiculed and punished, despite being more convincing as a Black than most transgenderists ever are as women.

{Submitter’s note: Langdon rants on and on… see the source link if you’re really interested about the rest of it}

IceMountainFire #sexist icemountainfire.wordpress.com

[NOTE: Posting this in two parts to make it at least somewhat readable.]

Men Are Not Broken [Part 1]

Looking back on my posts so far, I realise I have written a lot about how liberal feminists are failing other women, and relatively little about the root cause of the miserable state the planet is in: Men.

There is a reason for that. Men are utterly unimportant to me. There is nothing to be expected from them.Writing about what anti-feminist women and men should do is pointless. Anti-feminist women make choices I can only view with disgust and contempt; a sentiment that without a doubt is mutual. And men? Men can’t change.

Their fundamental set-up is faulty. When a man does horrible things to girls and women, he is doing what his very nature commands him to do. Men can’t be reformed, they can’t be reasoned with, and they can’t be fixed. They are not broken.Their lack of intelligence, depth and human emotion is built-in. Even ?matriarchal? societies suffer from men’s inbuilt shortcomings.

Men are biologically brittle. Their Y chromosome is a joke, and their rates of life expectancy, disease, injury, addiction, education failure etc are evidence for their fundamentally faulty design. They can manage to somehow keep the upper hand as long as they manipulate the stakes against women. But even the most timid changes towards some sort of fairness (never mind liberation) make women outrun men in no time. Boys and men are not failing at school and university because these places all of a sudden have become matriarchal habitates, as certain anti-feminists suggest. They fail because as a group they are less intelligent than women. Boys and men excel only when they get to manipulate the testing method: They create IQ tests to favour white Western males, they give each other Nobel prizes and trump this as ?proof? for their intelligence. IQ tests and Nobel prizes are tightly monitored instruments. But schools and unis exist all over the world, with millions of teachers and billions of students. Schools and unis are not controlled by a relatively small gate-keeping elite like the Nobel prize committees or the opinion leaders in the field of psychology who have the power to declare one test valid and to disregard another. Schools and unis can’t be controlled as tightly, and so boys and men are failing in them. I wonder how badly they’d fare if the schools were indeed female-centered.

Even the most intelligent of men are still incredibly dense. Talk to science phDs or techies. I had to do with this demographic more than I ever wanted, and their sheer ignorance often took my breath away. Context, history, depth, complexity, ambiguity and beauty are completely lost to them. It is like talking to vaguely human-like machines. I suspect that this is the reason why so many men are drawn to machines, instruction manuals and lifeless things.

At this point men usually come up with the last two arguments for their existence: Physical strength and sperm. They argue that they are needed for the hard work (or, according to delusional anti-feminists, ?exploited? to do the hard work) and that without them ?mankind? will die out.

But reality shows that all this male strength and sperm is completely wasteful and unnecessary. If tomorrow all men fell down and were dead, the biggest problem would be the stink. Sperm banks would enable the surviving women to bring just enough men into the world to stock up the banks again. There would be far less people on earth, but they would live in peace.

As for strength, nobody needs to be able to lift hundreds of kilograms. It is just not necessary. Make smaller loads and go the way twice. Or build a tackle. There is no industry – including the notorious mining industry which regularly is brought up in such discussions – impossible to function with exclusively female workers. In the very moment men step back or vanish from the picture, women do fine for themselves. Mining, metal work, construction work, fishing, hunting, making timber, finance, business, women simply don’t need men. The truth is, that men are actively keeping women from learning ?male? skills and from working in ?male? professions. By this they secure their financial dominance and keep women dependant on them.

And if that doesn’t help, they use violence.
Men are violent and predatory by nature. Even little boys and very old men are violent. Ask the family of Jamie Bulger (1). Other boys may not kill random toddlers, but they terrorise girls or torture animals. A male toddler squashing ants or dragging around the family dog by the tail isn’t even perceived as violent by most people. A boy hitting, insulting, bullying and harrassing his sister is not perceived as violent – siblings quarrel, that’s just how things are, and boys will be boys.

As for old men, not even physical weakness stops them from attacking girls and women. There is a reason why the phrase ?dirty old man? exists. With the onset of the general mental decay so typical for aging men, their self-control slips and they start to make mistakes. Every ?dirty old man? used to be a dirty young man who just was quick-witted enough to cover up his crimes, and every dirty young man is a grown up violent boychild.

Last year, there were two men prowling my neighbourhood and bashing in women’s heads from behind. One of them was 21 years old and used a crowbar in order to steal money and phones. The other one was 89 (!) years old and used a wooden meat hammer. His reasoning? He married a woman from Thailand 30 years his junior. When he abused her, she divorced him and moved back to Thailand. This made him so angry that he sneaked up on random women and hit them in the head with the meat hammer he specifically bought for this task.

No amount of oppression, weakness or illness keeps men from being violent and predatory.

Logically, men adore death. They bring death. They like death. They like dead things.
Men see women as things, as useable goods, as animated corpses. Some don’t even bother with ‘animated’. Men admit openly in the media that they prefer pornography over sex, as if the women raped on the screen weren’t real. Men work hard to develop realistic sex robots or wife robots (2). Men literally will rape dead women.

.
.
.

Men are usually very much aware that they are scum. Their delusions of grandeur and the demands towards women to cater to them are a reaction to this deep inner awareness of their inferiority. Occasionally men even will admit that they are scum.
Commenters on this article did it: http://valleywag.gawker.com/peter-thiel-admits-the-paypal-mafia-built-bombs-in-hi-1632734435
Look how many commenters casually point out that it is normal for teenage boys to build bombs just for the fun of it.

Dire Badger #sexist voxday.blogspot.com

[Link to first comment, quote contains multiple]

"Husbands and wives must be partners, without either ruling over the other."

This is actually completely wrong. Moloch literally has the easiest job in hell.

Let's put it this way.

A society decides slavery is evil.
The first slavery they notice is wives serving and obeying husbands.
they 'free' women.
Within a generation, EVERY TIME, these free and empowered women start murdering their babies... Every time. And every society that murders their own babies crashes and burns... every time.

So, if you want a civilization that works and doesn't murder babies, Husbands have to have absolute responsibility and power over their wives... and there has to be harsh social and possibly even criminal consequences for any woman that violates this bond.

Because they LOVE sacrificing babies to Moloch.

...

" Women are the ones with the biological clock ticking in their belly, so THEY are the ones to cross the picket line."

SJW's always double down. Women are the original SJWs.
Not going to happen. What IS going to happen is that men are going to take back the privileges they have given women. Or they are going to Die and whatever people replace us won't give their women 'freedom' (and doom themselves) for at least a couple of generations.

So, our best bet is on convincing people that women are not human. Or converting to islam. If your are christian, and want to stay that way, you need to fight a lot harder.

...

"What is needed is for women to wake up and realize how much this gig sucks, how we were tricked and brain-washed..."

Not going to happen. Maybe on an individual basis, but en masse? Women NEVER take personal responsibility. They cannot 'wake up to reality' because reality hates them... They are designed to let men interface with reality FOR them. They are not made that way, for very good reasons.

No. There is only one choice. Women are property. Any time this paradigm is disrupted by weak and pathetic men, they destroy everything... Free women are Shiva the Destroyer, They are Kali, they are Lilith and Eve and Delilah. They hate themselves, they hate their 'freedom', they hate the men that failed to keep them in line, they hate their children, and the society that was foolish enough to give them the freedom they despise so much.
They are the force that drives human evolution, by destroying the men who become too weak to keep them in their place, that become too soft to enslave them, that become too nice to kill to possess them.

No, women can no more change themselves than they can wish away reality. Men are the active principal. We are left with only two choices. We put you in your place or you replace us with men that will.

This is our fight. stop trying to pretend that you are anything other than loot. ESPECIALLY stop lying to yourselves and pretending that you'd have it any other way.

anonymous #fundie historyoffeminism.com

Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.

...

To feminists, and indeed, to the vast majority of the female sex who give feminists the power to speak on their behalf, morality is little more than ensuring the reproductive and sexual interests of a post-peak fertility female who relies on heavy parental investment from a committed male partner. The extent of female desire for involvement in the political process is directly proportionate to the threat that women feel in a free sexual market.

Matt Forney #fundie mattforney.com

If you’re a girl pursuing anything more than a high school degree, you’re in all likelihood wasting your time.

Encouraging girls to go to college and grad school en masse is one of the biggest mistakes America has ever made. The flood of girls into universities is not only in part responsible for the current economic crisis, it’s made it increasingly difficult—if not impossible—for both girls and men to fulfill their natural roles. At the same time higher education has been degraded by so many unqualified girls getting accepted into college, those girls have seen their egos unjustifiably boosted by their degrees, making them unsuitable to be wives and mothers.

In order for society to be cured, this has to be fixed.

Here are my reasons why girls should be discouraged from going to college.
1. Going to college makes girls less attractive.

Girls, in their socially sanctioned solipsism, assume that men are turned on by the same things that they are. Because girls crave high status men, they assume that men similarly find their high status attractive, which couldn’t be further from the truth. No man alive has ever said, “God DAMN, I love the master’s degree on that girl!” It’s usually “God DAMN, she’s got a rack that could stop a runaway train!” or “God DAMN, this girl’s cooking is to die for!”

As a result, four plus years of college more often than not ruins a girl.

For starters, the extended adolescence that is college encourages sluttiness, which wrecks a girl all on its own. All those hunks splooging in her vagina make it more likely that she’ll end up divorcing the man she does end up marrying. Sluts are emotionally broken, incapable of loving and serving men, squandering their gifts of femininity and beauty, constantly trying to trade up for a bigger, better deal that never comes.

Marrying a slut is like paying full price for a beat-up old clunker.

Additionally, college is problematic because it gives girls the illusion of knowledge. Outside of STEM degrees (which are deficient in their own way), few majors actually impart useful information to girls, yet they still think they’re entitled to respect for having the degree; credentialism at its finest. Girls come out of college without being able to cook, sew, balance a checkbook or perform any of the necessary tasks of modern living, yet they still think they’re smart and independent and don’t you dare suggest otherwise. Don’t forget the massive amounts of student loan debt that these girls rack up, which you become in part responsible for if you’re dumb enough to put a ring on it.

Woman is not a learning animal.

The two most fulfilling relationships I’ve ever had were with girls who hadn’t yet graduated from college—one was midway through her degree and the other had not started yet—because they hadn’t had their minds poisoned by the lies of academia. They were fun to be around, girly, and eager to please. They hadn’t had their hearts broken through countless drunken hookups. When I explained something to them that they didn’t understand, they actually listened to me and did what I told them instead of accusing me of “mansplaining.”

If girls are like gold coins, sending them to college is like dunking them in nitric acid.
1a. Girls who go to college are extremely likely to get sexually assaulted.

Given the massive rape epidemic on college campuses, universities are massively unsafe places for girls. As feminists love reminding us, universities are ground zero for rape culture; one in four girls will be raped before the end of her college tenure. Given this information, why would anyone who cares about their daughter’s well-being let her do something as reckless as going to college?

You might as well parachute her into the worst part of Detroit with a “FREE FUCKTOY” sign taped to her back.
2. Most girls major in useless subjects that contribute nothing to the world.

Feminists love bragging about how girls are now earning the majority of college degrees, but they never bring up the fact that the majority of girls’ degrees are worthless in every way. Girls predominantly major in subjects like ethnic studies, women’s studies, English, communications and the like that require no work of any kind and give them no job prospects. As Aaron Clarey shows in this video, the majority of useful (STEM) degrees are still going to men.

What career prospects does a 22-year old girl with a bachelor’s in Arachnid Sexuality have? Dim ones.

If they’re lucky, they’ll end up becoming lawyers, civil servants or HR commissars, careers whose economic and social value is less than zero; those fields exist solely to employ the unemployable and leech off the productive. A select few might hit the jackpot and enter politics, where they can do an even better job of sucking our blood; Clarey showed in his book Worthless that the majority of American politicians have degrees in useless, parasitical subjects like law (Democrats more so than Republicans). But the vast majority of girls will end up living at home when they graduate, struggling to make their monthly student loan payments on a Starbucks salary.

Clearly, slaving away for minimum wage is way more fulfilling than being a wife and mother.

Furthermore, having all these girls “earning” these pointless degrees has lessened the value of a degree period. It’s common knowledge that the rarer something is, the more valuable it is. When our parents were our age, college degrees were uncommon enough that merely having one guaranteed you a good job, and you could secure most jobs with a one-hour interview. Now that everyone and their mother has a degree, employers cross-examine you like you’re on the witness stand, scrutinizing your GPA, your extracurriculars and making you complete stupid questionnaires that analyze how good of a “team player” you are, none of which has any bearing on how well you can do the job.

In their childish quest for “independence,” girls have made it more difficult for everyone—including themselves—to get a good-paying job.
3. Having girls working makes it more difficult for anyone to earn high wages.

It astounds me how so many feminists have absolutely no knowledge of economics. Here’s a hard lesson for you girls: labor is a commodity. And like all other commodities, labor is subject to the laws of supply and demand. When the supply of a commodity outpaces demand, its price (in this case, wages) goes down; when demand outpaces supply, the price goes up. This basic law is why a Walmart in Canton, Ohio is holding canned food drives for its own employees while the Walmart in Williston, North Dakota has to pay its workers $21 an hour and give them free hotel rooms; labor is plentiful in Ohio and scarce in North Dakota.

Leftists lament how wages have stagnated since the seventies and how the gap between the rich and poor has never been wider, but they can’t admit that feminism is a big reason why Americans are getting poorer by the day. The mass entry of girls into the workforce that began in the seventies conveniently coincides with the stagnation and decline of American wages, as well as the decline of unions. Whereas a man could comfortably support his family on his own back in the fifties and sixties, it takes both parents working to raise a family today, assuming the couple can even afford to buy a house and have children to begin with.

Additionally, the presence of girls in the labor force has feminized the economy and made it less productive as a whole. Because girls are unable and/or unwilling to actually take useful positions in the trades, manufacturing or other blue-collar fields (“Eww, I can’t mine coal! I might break a nail!”), the American economy had to be reconfigured to employ them somehow. The solution was to demonize the trades and create new useless white-collar positions such as “human resources.” Corporations used feminists as pawns to help promote outsourcing and free trade in the eighties/early nineties and push pointless office jobs as the new middle-class ideal. And all of those coveted white-collar jobs conveniently required a four-year degree, enriching the (leftist) universities as well.

As a result, we live in a country where a girl who makes $30,000 a year at a nonprofit is more highly regarded than an electrician who makes three times that.

Not only that, girls have altered the workplace itself for the worst. Government bureaucracies and other female-run institutions are governed by rules both written (e.g. sexual harassment laws) and unwritten that make it impossible to be frank, encouraging cattiness and backstabbing. And with few exceptions, female employees all act as volunteer commissars, ready to blow you in to the bossman the minute you upset their feeeeelings. You can’t be direct or honest because you never know what your co-workers will find offensive, making it difficult to get any work done.

But it gets worse than that: feminism is in part responsible for the current economic crisis.

It was girls’ desire for a never-ending supply of cheap crap (more than 80 percent of consumer spending is controlled by women) that resulted in the outsourcing of American manufacturing to China and the rise of big box stores like Walmart that squash local businesses and pay their workers the bare minimum allowed by law. It’s girls fornicating with wild abandon and divorcing their husbands on a whim that has lead to the epidemic of single moms and the subsequent strain on social services. It’s girls going to the doctor every time they get a boo-boo that has resulted in hard-working, healthy men like me having our insurance premiums skyrocket under Obamacare.

And it’s girls being unable to pay off their student loans that will lead to the next economic collapse.
4. Education (and work) are bad for girls’ physical and mental health.

It makes me laugh to see how effectively corporate America has made feminists into their most favored pets. Whenever feminists crow about the “end of men,” what they’re really saying is “Ha ha, we girls make WAY better slaves than you loser guys!” Jezebel and Gawker Media exemplify this contradiction best; all the girls writing there eagerly sound the gospel of female empowerment to make money for a man—Nick Denton—who pays them barely above minimum wage. “Yes Massa, Pax Dickinson is a misogynist racist asshat! Can I pretty please have a cookie, Massa?”

But beneath this you-go-grrl facade is a well of pain and suffering.

Despite all the feminists telling them that they should be happy to be “liberated,” female unhappiness is higher now than it’s ever been. Far more girls than men are suffering from mental illness, and antidepressant use among girls has gotten so bad that the drinking water of major cities like London is turning into a toxic soup. Every Strong, Independent Woman™ knows in her heart that her life is hell on Earth; it’s only her pride that keeps her from admitting the truth.

Recently, a friend of mine who quit her job to become a homemaker and returned to the workforce when her children grew older admitted to me that she preferred being a housewife. Why? It was less stressful. When she didn’t work, all she had to worry about was taking care of her kids, cooking and keeping the house clean. While she and her husband are wealthier now that they have two incomes, her life is never-ending misery. Her (female) boss constantly belittles and abuses her; her co-workers are gossipy do-nothings who refuse to pull their weight, making her pick up the slack; her health has deteriorated to the point where she’s developed stress-related carpal tunnel.

From the kitchen to the cubicle; isn’t freedom grand?

The reality is that girls always submit to men. It’s unavoidable. The only question is what kind of man she submits to. Will it be to a husband who protects her, provides for her and will love her until death do them part? Or will it be to a CEO like Nick Denton or some other corporate manager who views her as a tool to enrich himself, who will kick her to the curb as soon as she’s no longer useful? Even feminism itself is an invention of men, specifically Rousseau and the philosophers of the Enlightenment; Mary Wollstonecraft and other female “thinkers” were never more than sideshow freaks.

Deep inside, girls know what they want; they just need authoritative men to give it to them.

If you’re a girl, you should only go to college if you can meet one or more of these criteria:

Major in something useful. Here’s a pointer to figuring out if a degree is useful; does it involve math? If not, you’re wasting your time. I recommend Aaron Clarey’s Worthless if you want more info.
Go to a quality school. If you can’t make it into the Ivy League or another high-quality institution such as UVM or Binghamton, you have no business going to college.
Have your parents pay for it. I don’t mean co-signing your student loans, I mean having daddy take his wallet out and cover your costs in full. If you’re rich enough that your parents can afford college without any loans, it doesn’t much matter what you do.

The rest of you girls? We’re here to take you back to the place you secretly long to be, the place where you belong: the kitchen.

Now, on your knees!

Matt Barber #fundie barbwire.com

[On a report issued by the American College of Pediatricians, a conservative organization founded in protest against the American Association of Pediatrics' support for adoption by same-sex couples:]

[N]otwithstanding the politically driven "LGBT" agenda that pretends otherwise, those who suffer with "gender dysphoria" disorder will stay, as born, either male or female, whether or not they play dress up, sterilize themselves and destroy healthy reproductive organs.

Hence, it's of little surprise that, tragically, of those who put themselves through this imaginary "transition," 41 percent will subsequently attempt suicide.

Still, this "progressive" socio-political scheme moves quickly from merely pitiable and delusional to ghastly and abusive when children are the targets - when selfish adults exploit sexually confused young people by feeding their "gender" delusion and pumping them full of dangerous hormones, or otherwise surgically mutilating and sterilizing them for life via so-called "gender reassignment surgery."

In order to address the growing momentum of this harmful, gender-bending, pseudo-scientific quackery, a number of America's leading medical experts on the subject have finally weighed in. "The American College of Pediatrics (ACPeds) urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts - not ideology, determine reality," they warn.

[...]

Let's take it a step further. The "gender" phenomenon is, in the larger sense, an artificial and anti-theist-tainted social construct. It's an overt act of fist-shaking rebellion against the laws of nature and nature's God. [...] [T]he ACPeds report goes on to identify this so-called "gender ideology" for exactly what it is: "Child abuse."

[...]

There you have it. "Gender ideology" is child abuse - empirically and irrefutably. Isn't it high time, at least where minors are concerned and as a matter of public policy, that we begin treating it as such?

If such abuse were associated with anything other than the "LGBQT" political special interests, we already would have."

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

[Emphasis mine]

NIV 2011
...the Feminist's Lesbian Bible!

The new NIV 2011 (New International Version 2011) has been released online, now on it's way to Zondervan publishers to become toilet paper. And if you love the Lord Jesus Christ that's what you'll do with the NIV 2011.

The word “men” appears in the King James Bible's Old Testament 2416 times, and 806 in the New Testament. That's 3222 times that the King James Bible mentions the word “men.” But in the feminist perversion of the NIV 2011, you'll only find the word “men” 1027 times in their entire Bible. Pretty sad huh?

The word “man” appears in the King James Bible's Old Testament 3105 times, and 1433 in the New Testament. That's 4538 times that the King James Bible mentions the word “man.” But in the feminist perversion of the NIV 2011, you'll only find the word “man” 1989 times in their entire Bible.

It's a feminist's dream come true! The NIV 2011 attacks the masculine authority of God, the ruling husband, and the authoritative preacher. There is no room for gender equality in Biblical Christianity when it comes to AUTHORITY.

[...]

Feminists are rebels against God. Feminism is a road to Hell (Proverb 5:5; 7:27; 9:18). Just as homosexuals are sinfully trying to merge God's unconditional love with gay rights, so have feminists merged human rights with feminist rights. No one has a right to be immoral. No one has a right to disobey God. A woman's place is Biblically IN THE HOME.

[...]

As I've said often, and so say I again, no one has a right to commit immorality. Liberty is the freedom to BE wrong, not to DO wrong. No one is gay by birth. God doesn't make mistakes. Homosexuality is a CHOICE to sin, just as murderous abortion is a CHOICE to sin. Planned Parenthood is correct to call abortion a “choice,” but it is the wrong choice!

[...]

Women today are becoming lesbians, whether literally or by becoming a feminist (which is a mental lesbian). Women who want to usurp authority and be equal with men are lesbians in their minds. Feminists are mental homosexuals.

Unknown commenter #racist i.redd.it

image

(A screenshot of an unknown person's facebook comment.

It reads:

"White men/society/media: Asian men are losers, no social skills, and weak

Asian women: Ah, yes! So true. *Cuddles with white guy*

Asian men: Really guys?

Asian women: Shut up misogynistic patriarchal loser! You are oppressing us!

No, sweetheart. White men are but you love them anyway because white can do no wrong. Or white can do wrong but it's forgiven because they are white men. Do what you want but you should leave asian men out of this. Stop blaming asian men for why you want to date white men. White women have been trying to escape white men's patriarchal bullshit for a century now. But you're all fighting to be underneath it. Sad.

White women don't leave white men for their shit despite it all but you jump at the opportunity to bad mouth asian men for a white woman's scraps. Sad.

Edit: Also @ the "Asian men are still men and have privilege" arguments- Asian men are emasculated. They are not seen as "real men". They are seen as non-threatening, submissive, weak and are target for violence and bullying. Male privilege is hardly extended to them as they cannot reap the full benefits of it like men of other races. You're all being so dense about this!")

Wotans Krieger #fundie aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.co.uk

England and the rest of northern Europe as well as the wider 'western world' is plunging into yet more insanity. The latest obsession for the traitors, Marxists, feminists, sodomites and neo-liberals who blight our institutions is 'gender neutral language'. There have been quite a few examples of this Orwellian insanity very recently:

Military chiefs order troops to use gender-neutral language

Some anally retentive and overpaid pen-pusher has banned the use of the following terms by soldiers: mankind, chaps, manpower, gentleman's agreement, man in the street, housewife etc. The name of the subversive unit responsible for this batshit insanity is itself quite insane: 'Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Unit'-a total waste of taxpayers' money and should be abolished forthwith. Indeed not only are these Orwellian 'word fascists' tinkering with the English language but they are also pulling the plug on the Army's recruitment slogan 'Be the Best' because it may put off inferior types from joining up. This is all part of the Army's plan to recruit women (who should be baking and having children), aliens, mentally ill people who can't work out their own gender, butch lesbians, feminists and sodomites into their ranks. They are obviously desparate and can no longer attract men, real men to join up as most with a modicum of intelligence have finally worked out that they are just cannon fodder for a regime which despises them.

This neo-Marxism is not confined to the British Army. It even affects religion. The Church of Sweden likewise has started to use 'gender-neutral' terms for 'God'. "In the name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit" has been replaced with "in the name of God and the Holy Trinity". They have banned references to 'Lord' and 'he' using gender neutral pronouns which as some of my readers will be aware is a feature of Germanic languages other than English. Church of Sweden to start using gender neutral terms for God

Feminists (feminism is a mental illness and a cancer in the 'west') in France are pushing for the French language to be reformed so that 'gender-neutral' language becomes the norm. This of course all stems from the hatred that most feminists have for men. It should not surprise us that many of them are lesbians. The Push to Make French Gender-Neutral

Further afield in Australia the writers of the Commonwealth Games Handbook have also fallen prey to this mental disorder. They have replaced terms such as 'mother', 'father', 'wife', 'boyfriend' with 'parents' and 'partner'. Commonwealth Games guidebook slammed for pushing gender-neutral language

The London Fire Brigade have also been inflicted recently with a dose of Marxist insanity. They have complained to the BBC because one of their programmes on the CBBC channel used the term 'Fireman'. This is an extract of the PC Csar's complaint:“This term is VERY outdated and the term ‘firefighter’ is the preferred, respectful, inclusive, non-sexist, non-gendered term that should be widely used by all media but especially the BBC.” London Fire Brigade Accuses BBC of Sexism

May I suggest as a tax payer that the said jobsworth be given some meaningful and constructive work to do such as FIGHTING FIRES?

Just when you think things could not get any worse we now have the Bank of England falling prey to this virus. They have made a policy decision to eradicate "gendered language from its rule books". Traditional terms such as 'grandfathering' and 'chairman' are to be eliminated in true Orwellian fashion. The Old Lady in danger as the Bank of England ditches gendered language

This nonsense is beginning to blight every aspect of peoples' lives and we must take a stand against this. Just to give you one little and fairly insignificant example, quite a few years ago I attempted to purchase a 'gingerbreadman' biscuit in the local baker's shop and asked for a gingerbreadman. I was told that they were 'gingerbread people'. I responded "so you don't sell gingerbreadmen then? In which case you have lost a sale!" Hit them in the pocket where it hurts!

Bob #fundie bobstruth.blogspot.com

Investigators now say a 17-year-old gunman who killed 15 people, mostly females, in and near his former high school in Germany took his own life. Lying gun thugs say the gunman entered the school and opened fire, shooting at random. What investigators are lying about is that the shootings were not random. The attack targeted abusive female teachers, female students, and females outside the school. They say he killed nine students, three teachers and a passer-by outside the building, but won't report the counter attack by a man against abusive dominant females.

As the femiNazi hate war on boys and men gets worse and worse, we will see more and more counter attacks against the evil in men's lives. Some of the men will become become suicide attackers. Some will be killed by the blue gun thugs. At first a few will survive to be sent to some hellhole prisons. As the counter attacks become more common there will be more and more courageous men who wage the war against feminist destruction and live to fight again another day. Many good men will die fighting the femiNazi, as did Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. But their names and their courage will live on.

May they all be blessed with courage and conviction. And may all good men hoist a glass to the martyrs who die fighting against the very violent and destructive femiNazi anti-men hate war.

various TERFs #fundie independent.co.uk

FEMINISTS JOIN MEN-ONLY SWIM IN PROTEST OF PROPOSED LAW TO ENABLE PEOPLE TO SELF-IDENTIFY AS MALE OR FEMALE

Female activists took a group of male swimmers by surprise on Friday evening when they attended a men-only swim session wearing just swimming trunks and pink swimming caps.

Amy Desir, 30, was one of the two women to gain access to the South London pool session as part of a protest against proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act that would enable men and women to choose their own gender.

Both women explained their attendance to staff at Dulwich Leisure Centre by saying they “identified as male” and subsequently had the right to be there.

They also used the male changing rooms before going into the session and were later asked by an elderly man if they realised this was a male-only session.

Their actions form part of a nationwide campaign formed on Mumsnet called #ManFriday which encourages women to “self-identify” as men every Friday in protest of the proposed amendments to gender laws that would enable people to self-identify as men or women.

“The aim of the group is to raise awareness among men of the misogynistic and homophobic pro-self-ID policies that are allowing men to appropriate women’s spaces, services and positions,” Desir told The Independent.

“Most men either aren’t aware of the issue or don’t think it has anything to do with them.”

There are currently 91 women taking part in #ManFriday, revealed the mother-of-two, all of whom self-ID as men every Friday to access men-only spaces.

“We don’t change anything about our appearance, or pretend to be in the process of transitioning, just state that we are men.”

Desir and her fellow campaigners are concerned that the proposed legislation would enable predatory men to abuse women in single sex spaces by self-identifying as female.

“We want to challenge the idea that sex and gender are interchangeable and for organisations to use the lawful exemptions in the Equality Act to protect the rights, safety, dignity and privacy of women,” Desir added.

“We also want women’s organisations to be consulted on proposed changes to the law.”

Desir has launched an online petition calling for these concerns to be considered; it currently has more than 5,700 signatures.

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

williamk could win a Comment of the Month with this gem,

Leftism is a solitary female way to think. The physically weak must rely on deception and manipulation. This necessarily includes self-deception where necessary to ease cognitive dissonance.

Leftism appeals to soyboys and solitary females. Strong men rely on natural laws to attain power, well-adjusted women rely on the strong men and those same natural laws.

Females who are alone, or who can only attain a soyboy, will necessarily turn to leftism to navigate the world.

Very useful rules of thumb:

Weakness => Leftism
Strength => Commonsenseism

Ugliness => Leftism
Beauty => Commonsenseism

LSMV men and women => Leftism
HSMV men and women => Commonsenseism

Effeminate men and masculine women => Leftism
Masculine men and feminine women => Commonsenseism

Loveless losers => Leftism
Beloved winners => Commonsenseism

Bitter sluts and cat ladies => Leftism
Loving wives and honored mothers => Commonsenseism

Weak soyboys and the feminists who resent their company => Leftism
Strong men and the women who love them for their strength => Commonsenseism

The socially atomized => Leftism
The socially embedded => Commonsenseism

Conclusion: As a society becomes more female in nature, it becomes more leftist. A feedback loop develops so that increasing leftism pushes society further away from the life-saving masculinity it needs to correct its degenerate distaff course.

williamk, Henry Mueller, PA, among others, produce some of the finest commenting I’ve read on any blog, let alone this one blessed to have so many MAGAminds gathered at one place. I understand this outpost of Love takes some heat for having a mainly hands-off philosophy toward commenter quality control (it is a blog after all, not a forum), but if you have the patience to sift through the food fight debris you can find quite a few diamonds.

PS something I’ve noticed in my travels is that in locales where White leftoid cogdis is highest, anti-Trump fever is hottest. But where White leftoids live basically free of the need to ease any cognitive dissonance, their anti-Trump furor is muted and they tend to cleave to traditional leftist gripes with a focus on class and capitalist predation. I think this has to do with Trump being the Great Clarifier; his raw candor and no-bullshit freewheeling style exposing the lies of our currently ruling orthodoxy act as a pain amplification chamber for leftoids heavily burdened by the task of accommodating their equalist religion to the reality encroaching in every direction on them which belies their religious beliefs.

Sarai Ruth #fundie aish.com

Women rule, world crumbles faster...

I notice all the "feminist" comments and I must say that we women must be short on brain cells. Seeing very clearly that an outgoing, masculine or "independent and strong" personality in females makes most men want to vomit, we just keep on with it, forcing our "right" and our "equality"; which [...] seems to equate to the delusion of superiority. We have swallowed a horrendous lie and to our shame have raised our sons to be weak, testosterone suppressing introverts who are then rejected and humiliated by girls we raise to be obnoxious, controlling, feminist! Feminists crush the life out of moderate men, scream abuse and cry rivers when the manly man they are REALLY attracted to (go figure) crush them and treats them EXACTLY like they treat the more effeminate and "understanding" men who actually caved to feminism. I'd have to say that the Fems who have men either have miserable men, cheating men, or men so WEAK and pathetic they are more women/child than man! How do I know? I live in this world and in western society in particular so I see this ALL the time. What happens is that our world does NOT get "better" but is filled with exploding, previously suppressed RAGE often perpetrated by REJECTED "softened" males or the society's total sexual confusion and perversion. Wait, does that sound familiar?

Woman Inside Water #homophobia #transphobia #sexist #conspiracy yoursocialconstructsareshowing.wordpress.com

Dr. John Money, the father of modern trans ideology, studied at John Hopkins. That university conducts research and experiments for MK-Ultra. Dr. John Money coined paraphilia in lieu of perversion as well as chronophilia, gender identity, and gender role. MK-Ultra has been messing with people’s sexual identities and orientations for a long time, because if you can get someone to change their sexual identity and orientation then you are already controlling their psychology and personality. Lesbians are pressured into believing that men can be lesbians and that women can become men, while straight men that chasing trannies is heterosexual and men can become womenl. It’s also about population control via sterilization and various chemicals (synthetic hormones and medications for the inevitable illnesses and health issues). The “therapy” they undergo for their transition just reinforces the brainwashing.
I’ve been posting about this but many people would rather believe all the “female” political leaders, philosophers, and entertainers are all real women. In actuality, the imposters outnumber the women, especially the richer, more powerful and influential they are.
WAKE UP!!!

This is only partly true and part of disinformation. MK-Ultra is the real money. Transgender ideology was officially created by DR. JOHN MONEY, a pedophile who created child porn of David Reimer with his older brother. Wake up!

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

The kind of piglike behavior from women exemplified in this post and in the previous post about the single mom mudshark is only possible when women don’t feel a need to impress their own men; societies that have become quasi-matriarchal and feminist, and consequently overrun with suckup beta males dying of thirst, produce pigwomen in abundance.

I am fond of saying Game can save lives, and it can, but Game has a larger purpose than even the salvation of individual men trapped in the maze of a strange new mating matrix; Game can save whole nations and races from the brink of annihilation. Not kidding, if by Game we mean “men assuming control of their women and their culture”. White men who have rediscovered their balls and ZFG potential are the only force in the known universe that can pull wayward White women back to sanity and femininity. But if the nation continues churning out twisted psychologically and scrotally disfigured manginas like Scalzi, our fate is the abyss.

Single White women want the attention of White men, despite their protestations to the contrary. That will never change. White men therefore have leverage over the political views of single White women. Men can shun libshit women. The shunning will have a chilling effect on other libshit open-borders-and-rapefugee-loving single White women, who fear nothing so much as social exile to the icy wastelands. But it will take courage and ZFG, something in short supply among White men. Game is best viewed, in the bigger picture, as a project to restore that incomparably persuasive alpha attitude which went missing from White men sometime between Iwo Jima and Yo MTV Raps.
Share this:

theantifeminist #sexist theantifeminist.com

Premise 1/ Feminists imprison men through laws intended to coerce men into having sex with feminists – or the demographic of women that support feminists into positions of power where they can make these laws. (example : British feminists recently criminalized the paying for sex with prostitutes by men. This is an attempt to discourage men from paying for anonymous sex rather than having sexual relationships with i.e. middle-aged feminists. Another obvious example is the wish by most feminists to criminalize pornography i.e men will go to prison to be raped for looking at pictures of beautiful females instead of having sexual relationships with feminists).

Premise 2/ Coercing people into having sex is rape.

Therefore : Feminists are Rapists

BabyFuck McGirlsex #sexist #crackpot #dunning-kruger incels.co

[JFL] "Female Orgasm" is the reason why you're an incel

By Professor B. McGirlsex, PhD in INCELDOM (Cambridge, UK), M.B.B.S (Kings College, London, UK), BSc (Hons) (APNP)

The female orgasm is the most useless thing on the face of this earth - there is no reason for it to even exist.

* No reproductive function
* No anatomical function

Female orgasm is an evolutionary quirk and is just as useless as

* male nipples
* The appendix
* The tooth fairy
* Females in scientific fields

Foids want to LARP as men, the gender who can have an orgasm every single time they fuck.

Men can fuck a foid, fuck a fleshlight, fuck a mouth, fuck a palm(handjob) e.t.c and they cum every single time!

Meanwhile a foid can have sex for 10 years but not experience even a single orgasm. If nature wanted foids to cum it'll have made it easy for foids to orgasm - but no, its extremely difficult or even impossible for foids to reach "orgasm".

* Scientifically speaking - the only sure way for foids to orgasm is by getting brutally and savagely raped

Fuck these foid cunts - when they cant orgasm they blame men yet its their flawed biology to blame + they shouldnt be cuming in the first place!

Why the mythical non-existant foid orgasm is the reason why you are rotting in Inceldom

* The reason why foids forsake their biological imperative of mating with their looksmatch is because they chase useless things like "foid orgasm". In their warped minds goodlooking = chad = good sex = foid orgasm & ugly = incel = bad sex = no orgasm
* Countless studies and experiments and also a huge wealth of anecdotal evidence have shown that foids are ruthlessly selfish and self serving animals and only care about their pleasures - which is why they dont care that they are perpetuating inceldom at an ungodly rate and would rather chase after "orgasms" than settle for their looksmatch
* The Dogpill exists purely becase of the foids unnecessary need for orgasm. Thats why they choose a canine animal with a grotesque dick to fuck because it takes a lot to get a foid to orgasm. Dogpill almost accurately mimics and simulates rape which is why foids love the dog pill so much. The wild uncoordinated primal thrusts of a dog penis closely resembles those of a rapist thats why the dogpill is soooo appealing. In this futile search for orgasm foids bypass and over look a large number of males who inturn become incels.
* The cock carousel is very appealing to foids because they are forever chasing the elusive foid orgasm. They waste their youth and virginity whilst chasing muh orgasms and they disenfranchise their looksmatchs whilst in this trivial pursuit. These disenfranchised men become incels.

Various incels #sexist reddit.com

(shockinghillaryquote)
Women are not smart, fun to talk to or dynamic.

I look at everything a woman says and I think, "Not a single thought of hers is original, but rather an amalgamation of what pop culture has taught her, filtered through her own construct of what she considers the 'self', but that, too, is a product of the pop culture."

They're so dumb, so lacking in anything good... other than T&A. Smart men have obviously realized you can "tap" into her hamster brain using PUA tactics, and though they have limits, they do work. The interesting thing about PUA, however, is the implication: that the woman's brain is this rote, predictable, pre-programmed biological unit that can be manipulated with words, smells, sights, strategies, all developed by the far more advanced male brain.

You begin to see the female for what she is, not a human, but this biological "thing" you work toward manipulating into bed, but moreso, into love (a state she can only momentarily occupy). She is a "thing" that has only one purpose: to weed out weak men and find strong men (yet her standards for "weak" and "strong" are largely fucked up, too, and even distorted by cultural norms, advertising or mores -- which, when gone awry, leads to cultural breakdown; the female is too stupid to make moral decisions on her own, without culture giving her direction ("Bad boys with tats are hot"), so a morally bankrupt culture will result in broken homes, which is what we have now. When men are no longer in control, such is the result).

Despite how lacking women are intellectually, men have to put in ALL the effort to cater to them, make them laugh, get them interested, play games (at least, by today's fucked up standards. Wasn't always quite this way, before feminism).

What a pain in the ass.

This is why we need advanced sex robots, because once developed enough, there will be ZERO reason to pursue real women.

(popinpan)
lmao i can't possibly imagine why a lovely individual like you is single. i wonder what you think lesbians do together? ??

(pussystabber)
There's no such thing as a true born lesbian, most dykes become carpet munchers after being severely abused by Chad's, the rest are just trying to be cool.

(popinpan)
And you know this how? There are roughly 3.5 billion women on the planet. It's estimated that 5-10% of those women are homosexual. Can you honestly tell me that you've met each and every one? Or, let me guess, the same group of people who are known for their limited experience with the opposite sex also happen to be experts of them?

That mindset is not only grossly exaggerated, it's also a complete lie. I was never attracted to men. Do you honestly believe I just date women because I was "severely abused by a Chad"?

(SlayorOfWhiteKnights)
True lesbianism makes no biological sense. Why would lesbians have evolved? Oh yeah, women kissing each other attracts Chads at parties (_)

(popinpan)
That's completely untrue. There are multiple biological factors that contribute to homosexuality in women, including hormonal imbalances, upbringing, and gender fluidity. I especially like how this Live Science article explains it:

Unlike men, who are usually sexually oriented solely toward men or women, and whose sexuality is essentially fixed from puberty on, a decade of research by the University of Utah psychologist Lisa Diamond and others demonstrates that women have greater "erotic plasticity." Their sexual orientation can be shaped by cultural influences, altered by positive or negative experiences and intensified by feelings of love or attachment.

Basically, sexual attraction in women can be heavily influenced by past interactions and experiences, and it has a tendency to be far more fluid than men's. I thought this was a pretty neat study, especially considering that so many guys here seem to assume all women are biologically obsessed with masculinity, or something.
Oh yeah, women kissing each other attracts Chads at parties

I don't even know where to begin. That's just fucking stupid.
___

(Faar2much)
I would say that your description is apt, but I am not hardcore enough to be able to label all women with such an elaborate and well thought out description. I can certainly see it being something conditioned into many privileged women, but let us be careful in breaking every single possible bridge between people of the different sex.

(incelwarrior9)
hw samrt can you be when you spend 90% of your time having fun? there is no space for them to devlip unique ideas so they just copy platitudes

(SlayorOfWhiteKnights)
Yup. They say adversity builds character. Since everything is handed to women on a silver platter, I doubt they can have much character built up.

(green----)
This is all true. Anyone who attempts to defend is some bitter shit personality women or a whiteknight duck.

Women are basically robots.

CH #fundie heartiste.wordpress.com

Women by their nature want to submit to a man; the only question is to which men they will submit.

Hint: It’s not weak yes-men who flatter feminists’ childish world views.

...

The GAYNADIANS are the most nauseatingly cucked of the Anglosphere nations. At the very top of GAYNADA power prances an effete SJW closet case, Justine Truvada.

Did the Russians hack the GAYNADIAN food supply and slip megatonnes of soy into the poutine and Horton’s hot beverages? The only grace that is saving GAYNADA’s bacon for the time being is their skills-based immigration system, but expect that to be challenged in short order and overturned in even shorter order.

But never mind GAYNADA, an afterthought of a country. The real issue illuminated by this story is the BIG MISTAKE it has been handing the reins of power over to women. And especially to lesbian ferengi-faced women. We can see in technirainbow glory how hypersignaling women are driving the West off a cliff, as they sneer at and belittle their own White men, (who can’t stop sucking up to feminist twats for POZitive press in the VeryFakeNews papers), while literally sitting shoeless and veil-clad in the mosque dunce corner at the demand of dumbfuck sand wops, submitting to the strong horse quicker than you can say “Obama is a secret Muslim”.

Feminism is the final shit test because if we men of the West don’t pass it — i.e., brutally ridicule and ostracize women like Wynne — then the West will fall into the hands of men who don’t pass shit tests….they give them. And feminists will happily, joyously, even relievedly, oblige their patriarchal supplanters.

C.K. Egbert #fundie feministcurrent.com

DEFENDING THE "TERF": GENDER AS POLITICAL

Recently, feminists have been critiqued for attempting to make women-only spaces. Inclusion of “minority genders,” including transgender women, into what have been traditionally all-female colleges is now protected under Title IX and hailed as a progressive development. Restricting space to people who have been born women and continue to experience the world as women is considered discriminatory at best and biologically determinist at worst.

People often fail to recognize that “woman” is not a personal identity but a political identity based upon a shared experience of oppression. The purpose of certain women-only spaces is not about excluding those with or without a particular genitalia (we didn’t decide that having vaginas and uteruses made one subordinate; men did) or excluding those with a particular gender identity. This isn’t about how strongly one identifies as a woman, whether one might subsequently be seen and treated as a woman, or whether one is marginalized and disadvantaged by gender hierarchy (for example, gay men are marginalized by patriarchy even though they are men). It is about controlling for the experience of male privilege. In my white-to-Latina example [at the top of the linked post], it would be legitimate to exclude me from certain spaces or even definitions of “Latina” not because I believe in biological determinism but because I understand the power of socialization. This doesn’t mean I identify less with being Latina than others who were “born that way,” or that I may not subsequently experience racial subordination. It means I recognize that what I am is not determined solely by what I want to be, and the fact that I’ve experienced white privilege is not and never has been up to me.

Of course there is an important dis-analogy between race and gender in my white-to-Latina story: transgendered women cannot experience all forms of subordination that women as women face. Most female-born women are capable of becoming pregnant at some point in their lives. For those who cannot, infertility is often considered a “problem” that needs to be “fixed.” Transgendered women do not experience disadvantage by virtue of their reproductive role (they don’t need abortions, for instance), and neither are they considered somehow “defective” by virtue of not being able to fulfill a particular reproductive role (although they might be considered pathological, etc. by virtue of not identifying with their imposed gender).

I’m not denying that transgendered people are subject to social, emotional, and physical violence at absurdly high rates, and that this violence is a product of sexism. I’m also not denying that transgender people feel deeply alienated from their imposed gender identity. Many of us are, because gender, and the accompanying deformation of our bodies — from pornographied genitalia to what is considered beautiful — is a profound and perverse imposition of identity. It does not reflect our individuality or even some positive notion of social relatedness. It is a function of a deeply pathological and violent social structure.

But this seems to be where some recent developments in “feminist” theory and activism have diverged from their feminist roots. The feminist struggle against heterosexism and gender conformity was not because any self-professed sexual orientation, identity, or gender should be considered equally valid: it was because the disadvantage and violence non-gender conforming and non-heterosexual people experience are the result of patriarchy in which men and the masculine are socially constructed as (sexually) dominant and women and the feminine are socially constructed as the (sexually) subordinate. Feminism does not seek to marginalize or exclude the experience of people not born as women, but to situate these within a systemic and systematic understanding of the functions, mechanisms, and structure of sexual subordination.

Imagining and advocating for a post-racial world is easier for us than advocating for a post-gender world. Perhaps because gender has been with us longer, it cuts deeper, it invades our most intimate relationships and experiences. Unlike with racial subordination, there is no “remainder”: ethnicity (identification with a particular cultural or linguistic tradition) can exist without race (the social construction of an identity based upon one’s racial subordination or privilege), but there is no gender without sexual subordination.