W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

One of the great curiosities of the modern era is the idea that so-called socially progressive policies are generally held to be good for the downtrodden. Nobody worth taking seriously ever thought so before, but it’s held to be a fact these days.

However, loosening the controls on social behavior has the same effect as loosening controls on the market: the strong gain at the expense of the weak.

When banks are deregulated, the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. When sexual mores are relaxed those with more sexual capital totally dominate the market. Furthermore, those better able to control themselves and live a disciplined family lifestyle with minimal pressure have an enormous advantage over those who give in to temptation. This is why marriage has collapsed for large segments of society. Socially progressive policies not only tolerating but promoting an “anything goes” form of sexuality victimize those who need some external controls on their behavior.

Same goes for feminist policies promoting “equal” relationships between husband and wife. For most people, these relationships simply don’t work. Most need clearly defined gender roles that take natural human tendencies into account. Without them they become confused, dissatisfied and demoralized.

So when I hear people say they believe in social justice, and use that as a justification for a laissez-faire attitude toward social mores, I tend to think they’re either cynical, evil bastards or hopeless fools. Social justice and social liberalism are inimical to each other. This doesn’t mean that people should be strictly controlled in all aspects of life, but rather that there should be some balance in the matter. While there will always be people who are by nature sexually ambitious or deviant, they shouldn’t be held up as examples to the masses.

Why progressives can’t see this was long a mystery to me. I thought that maybe it was because they live isolated lives, but I’m not sure that’s true, because a lot of urban liberals have conservative, small town roots, and plenty have experienced their share of family dysfunction.

Recently, I’ve come to see it as a matter of faith. A large segment of our population has a religious belief in what are called “progressive” values, nurtured by thousands of hours in front of the family altar: the TV set. What we are seeing in contemporary America is the fruits of a false religion. When progressives rail against religious fundamentalists, they are blind to the fact that they are as much religious fanatics as anyone. When they poke fun at Evangelical creationists, they ignore gaping holes in their own reasoning, and they react with all the fury of a zealot if one dares to gently point out how the facts contradict their beliefs.

What we are dealing with in the West is, above all, a crisis of faith. This is why people are so confused about simple truths, and so willing to believe black is white, up is down and two plus two equals five.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

Aleksander Dugin, Russia’s most influential political philosopher, explains why Russia should take Pussy Riot’s provocation seriously, calling it part of an information war and an effort to subjugate Russia to external forces.

Dugin argues that the act was calculated to strike at the heart of both the secular and spiritual base of Russian society. As for Pussy Riot themselves, he calls them:

" …porno-hooligans, blasphemers, and simply obscene, immoral and worthless individuals"

His arguments are esoteric, and not entirely applicable to the West, but he gives us a pretty clear indication that Russia, and probably the rest of the world, is beginning to catch on to the threat posed by radical assaults on tradition hidden in the guise of gender liberation, or whatever Pussy Riot is claiming it stands for.

Interestingly, Dugin also claims that:

" …the West has destroyed its own tradition, its own empires, and its own religion, and is now dealing with the rest of the world."


Food for thought.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

Interestingly, Jones may well have been the inspiration for the rainbow flag, which flies prominently above Harvey Milk Plaza today, and thousands of others locations throughout the Western world. The history of the flag, first designed and sewed by Milk’s personal friend Gilbert Baker, is obscure (intentionally perhaps?), but Jones was fond of proclaiming himself to be head of the “rainbow family.” It is not at all far-fetched to suppose that it was Jim Jones who introduced the term to Milk and Baker, and hence the idea for the flag, which first flew in 1978, a few months before the Jonestown massacre and Milk’s assassination. Further supporting Milk’s connection with Jones is the strange and macabre fact that Milk’s ashes were mixed with grape kool-aid before being scattered into the sea.

Very little of this history makes its way into the official story. I am glad I avoided the film Milk, and not because I object to the subject matter, but because learning about the lies of omission (Jim Jones was out of the picture) would have ruined it for me. Sometimes, historians get closer to the truth than those who lived it, because they are not constrained by political loyalties, taboos, and personal concerns. Hopefully, when enough time has passed and Dianne Feinstein, Willie Brown and Jerry Brown are but memories, someone will produce a film that truly does justice to the urban political revolution of the 1970s, which was the seed out of which the contemporary progressive machine emerged.

On looking back, it seems to me that Harvey Milk, George Moscone, Dianne Feinstein and Willie Brown, despite their political achievements, remain in the shadow of Jim Jones. For all their success and determination, they were children under the same father, following a vision they didn’t come up with themselves. Dianne Feinstein and Willie Brown may have lived to see another day, but they, too, drank the kool-aid.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

The egalitarian ideology underlying MRA is exactly the problem we’ve faced from the beginning. Everyone who argues for “equality” – feminist or MRA – is part of this problem. It has never been achieved, and it never will. In fact, it is the main source of our struggles today. It has already served its purpose as a political litmus test/rhetorical device for far too long, and by now it has devolved into a pathological cult that inspires people to the stupidest and most backward kind of religious fundamentalist thought.

Do you think Creationism is silly and incredibly stupid? Well, how about the idea that men and women are inherently the same, except for “society?” Does that strike you as reasonable? If so, you might have a few blind spots here and there, to put it delicately.

There is only one kind of equality:

We are all equally subject to the laws of nature. Or, if you prefer to think of it in conventional religious terms, we are all equally subject to God’s law.

That’s it. Other equalities are purely imaginary. They do not exist, except in fantasy. They are what should be accurately called “articles of faith.” But they are faith in lies, which is harmful whether you think it’s merely irrational or inspired by the Prince of Lies himself.

So when I hear MRAs demanding “equality,” I don’t even think it’s useful or cute any longer. At best, it’s stupid, and at worst it’s a dangerous lie.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

In Shannon County, women make $1.11 for every dollar men make, which must mean it’s a great place to be a woman, right?

Well, if you consider utter despair, third world living conditions, pervasive substance abuse, a woefully short average lifespan of 48 years for men (!) and 52 for women, infant mortality 5 times the national average and 80% unemployment to be tolerable, maybe so…

Surely, it must be a better place than Stamford, Connecticut, where the poor women suffer from the surfeit of rich, healthy, employed and comfortable men in their community.

I have yet to see feminists explain why the places with the highest income disparity between men and women are characterized by wealth, comfort and health, whereas those places where the women outearn men are invariably dumps inhabited only by those too hapless and defeated to leave.

Do feminists want the US to be more lke Pine Ridge in general, or more like Stamford? I’m not sure they can answer that question, because they have neither the knowledge nor inclination. All they care about is that they, personally, aren’t making as much as that guy in a suit they see at the local café. As for the rest of us, it doesn’t matter.

This is why nobody with any sense should listen to feminists when it comes to policy that affects our communities, cities, states and countries. They are worse than useless; they are selfish, destructive people.

Finally, I’d like to suggest something that could dramatically improve the lives of the Lakota Sioux in Pine Ridge: take some of those federal grants for women that go to employ upper middle class female college grads and allocate the funds to jobs for men in Pine Ridge. Surely, feminists can’t object to that, can they?

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

I’m not sure gun control is even all that relevant to the situation. It’s just a push to do something to finally secure that permanent victory the Obama coalition is dreaming about. Killing a bunch of little kids doesn’t require an AR-15; a lever-action .30-30, a six-shooter and a hatchet would do the job just fine. But that isn’t the point. This is purely political. To weaken support for the Constitution, you have to find an angle, and the 2nd amendment looks like the weakest link in the chain of the Bill of Rights. Get rid of that, and it will be easier to throw people in prison for “hate speech,” which is really the top priority for the left. In order to jail us for what we say, they have to first take away our right to defend ourselves.

So I propose a little test here. If they really want gun control, that’s fine, but each and every restriction on citizens must also apply to the men tasked with keeping us in line. If we aren’t allowed to have high-capacity magazines and body armor, then the police, who are also subject to our laws, should not have them either. What does “equality” mean if one class of people – government employees – is not subject to the same laws as the other?


So fine. Take our guns. But give yours up, too. The arms race in the US is a direct response to the rise of the police and prison-industrial state. Why doesn’t the left ever mention this? Why, because the cops are their very own paid mercenaries. SWPL city dwellers depend on these guys to intimidate the minorities in their coalition — to keep them in their place. As the US grows increasingly fragmented, they will depend on them even more.

This gun grabbing is about empowering the state at the expense of citizens who believe in a free yeomanry — it’s about building an America under the thumb of a new Praetorian Guard. Fools. They are giving up our collective liberty for a little bit of precarious power, and they aren’t by any means putting a halt to future violence, which will come in spades when people realize it’s the only tool left that works in our hollowed-out, uncivil society.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

There are also pretty wide differences in style, and disagreements on certain of the finer points. I, for example, don’t believe that “progressivism” has always been equalist, at least in regards to race, or that race is even so central to contemporary politics as it appears. Instead, I think it serves as a foil; a sort of tool for expiating guilt and shifting blame onto the less fortunate. My evidence for this is that the whiter and more affluent any given region is, the more politically correct it is outwardly. The same holds throughout just about any segment of society. Is a religion comprised mainly of rich white people (e.g. Episcopalianism)? Then it will surely be extremely liberal and politically correct, filled only with the beautiful people. Are most adherents simple, salt-of-the-earth commoners (Evangelicals)? Vile rednecks and bigots the lot of them! In fact, I think the move away from racial politics toward sexual politics reflects the imminent failure of the black/white polarization of the US that began with the Civil Rights era, and apparently the Southern Poverty Law Center Agrees with me — the organization has shifted toward LGBT rights even as it scales down its traditionally black-oriented legal program. Trayvon Martin and Paula Deen notwithstanding, the bulk of the American people are getting tired of racial politics. Racial diversity, it seems, has become mundane in its triumph.

What I see separating those of us associated with the Dark Enlightenment from the establishment is, above all, class. We are representative of the middle class, which has been under assault for almost fifty years in the US. We, despite some individual success stories, are the losers in the growing inequality of the US. Our status is much reduced, the “aristocracy” more dominant than ever. The war against the American yeomanry, waged with what Sam Francis called “anarcho-tyranny,” has been a smashing victory. The outward values of the aristocracy, whether “racial equality,” “gender equality,” or even the equality of gay and straight sex, are merely self-serving tools, and would quickly be dropped if they had no use. I have discovered that, in holding views that run contrary to human nature (yes, preference for one’s own kind is a perfectly normal human instinct), they set up a strawman that deflects attention from themselves and their naked self-aggrandizement at our expense. What better way to loot the country without resistance than to incite the people by holding up, say, sodomy as an example for their children, and have them expend all their energy fighting this manufactured outrage?

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

Rush Limbaugh recently denounced CBS’s choice of Stephen Colbert to replace David Letterman on The Late Show, but I don’t see why. I never “got” Letterman, who has always come off as little more than a bitter, snarky asshole to me. Doesn’t seem like it would be hard to find a better replacement for the guy, but maybe at the tender age of 39 I’m just not sophisticated enough to appreciate his brand of humor.

Instead of improvement, the network appears to be trying to stay true to message, and plans to replace him with another bitter, snarky asshole. Only this time, the guy has built his career on a supposedly odious character who is probably more likeable than the man himself.

Stephen Colbert has risen to prominence by portraying conservative Americans as moronic imbeciles. It plays really well to the left, and gets a few laughs from the right, too, because conservatives are better sports, and can actually laugh at themselves.


Stephen Colbert hit it big with his spoof of right-wing talk hosts, but that’s the only thing he’s done of any note whatsoever. Colbert is a one-trick pony. His acting skills are not bad (I’ve seen him on Law and Order), but his charisma is scraping the bottom of the barrel. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to watch Colbert being himself. It’s a horrible decision on the part of CBS to give him a real talk show, but then again it doesn’t bother me much when major networks screw up.

Watching a poor, flaccid imitation of a boomer liberal like Dave Letterman is going to be a lot less exciting than taking cheap shots at conservatives, so I expect people to simply change the channel when they see the treacle that characterizes the real Stephen Colbert. It will be like pulling the curtains away from the Oz of progs, revealing the squinty, beady-eyed little mediocrity Colbert trying to be “with it” despite being nothing more than an out-of-touch Irish nerd who is generally reviled by the demographic he’s been hired to represent.

Good luck, CBS. You would have done better with a Spanish-language bimbo talk show about Mexican telenovelas.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

These inconsistencies of US policy reveal that ideologies like feminism are not really taken seriously by those in power, but are instead just a convenient tool or an effective weapon, like a Tomahawk cruise missile that destroys American families and renders children fatherless so as to prevent them from challenging the scions of our overlords.

However, in the case of Assad and the rebels I can’t in good faith support either side. Assad has employed feminism in the same manner as our elites, while the rebels have a burning hatred for my civilization and religion. If I had to choose a side, I’d go with Assad, because at least he doesn’t burn churches and massacre Christians (BTW, whether you call yourself secular or Christian, if you’re an American you’re still a “kafir” to these rebels). And anyway, the kind of patriarchy fundamentalist jihadis support is totally alien to my people and our tradition, which has always been a lot more moderate and benevolent in that regard.

So, when the cruise missiles start raining down on Damascus, keep in mind what a fraud Western feminism is. Hell, I’ll bet even Patty Murray supports an attack on the Syrian regime.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

You can change a woman’s environment, you can offer incentives and you can encourage women to adopt this or that custom. But none of these efforts will work if you don’t first take her intrinsic female nature into account. There is no greater amount of good or evil in male or female; there is just nature. When we take nature’s path, we take the “good” way. This is what Christians call “God’s will.” When we fight nature, we err, and conscious error is sin.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

The Palin family is in the news again for a dustup at a Wasilla house party, embarrassing themselves and Alaska yet again. This time, the fight was over a remark about Willow Palin, which triggered a brawl that involved young single mother Bristol throwing punches at a young man. The entire clan got into the fight, which ended with two of the Palin men injured (not seriously).


I know this type of feminist all too well. In fact, if anyone is responsible for my strong opposition to feminism, it is exactly these kinds of people, with whom I very unfortunately have had a lot of experience. Not so much the enfeebled, overeducated, passive aggressive East Coast types, but rather the real, Western shoot-to-kill and take no prisoners feminist archetype; the kind of women who “go to war” during divorce by using methods calculated to have at least a chance of killing their opponent. I mean real killing, like, dead.

Given Palin’s continued influence in the Tea Party, I have to conclude that the Tea Party is not in the least anti-Feminist, and in fact may be somewhat inclined to support the lawless, family-wrecking type of feminism practiced by the Palin clan. Unfortunately, the mainstream Republicans are not anti-feminist either, although they may be a bit more moderate than the Palinites. What this means is that there is no one party that supports men’s interests; only less bad parties and candidates.


In the meanwhile, if you’re a young man or have a young son, keep a close lookout for anti-male patterns of behavior in families regardless of political affiliation.

Here are a few important warning signs:

1. Any allegations against previous boyfriends, husbands, or even in some cases brothers and fathers, even if they didn’t result in any litigation or arrests.

2. Look at families’ divorced friends. If they are mainly women, that’s a problem. It means they chose sides. If there is bad blood between them and the ex-husbands of their friends, stay away.

3. They have lesbian friends. This one is self-explanatory.

4. The women display a sense of entitlement to men and men’s income yet feel no reciprocal sense of family duty or loyalty.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

[On the Greek myth of the Amazonomachy]

Greek artists and thinkers understood that there was, and always has been, a power struggle between the sexes. Men and women complement each other, of course, but doesn’t the deer complement the mountain lion, and doesn’t the sheep complement the wolf? Biology is not a simple matter of cooperation, even within species. It would be stupid to think of it as such, and the Greeks made a conscious decision to prioritize civilization over the barbarism of matriarchy. Nothing better illustrated that concept at the time than the Amazonomachies.

The ancient Greeks were strugging against societies that saw them as fanatics. The supine potentates of surrounding states must have asked: “Who are these men to demand rights and a voice over their rulers? Surely, they should bow down to kings and queens, and relinquish this odd concept of manhood.” But they stood their ground, defining their struggle according to what appeared before their eyes.


Despite the misappropriation of the term “progressive” in contemporary America resulting in a warped concept of human progress, surely an irony befitting ancient Babylon, progress was at one time a desperate effort, and the Greeks fought against great odds to leave us with the blueprint upon which we built modern civilization.

If, like today’s simpering politicians, Greek men had bowed down before their wives and sisters, debasing themselves and squandering their efforts in order to appease the mother goddess, we would have been left with none of the marble pillars of civilization, but rather the misshapen mud huts of matriarchy.

In this spirit, we should celebrate the victories over the wanton Amazon women. Each stroke of sword and thrust of spear into the defiant, struggling Amazon warriors was another step in the construction of a better way of life. As Theseus plucked Hippolyta from the midst of a frenzied horde of howling women, carrying her off as a reluctant trophy, it was as though he were a fisherman hauling an ignorant mass of savages ashore. Thus was Athens, the seed of Western civilization, planted in victory in the heaving womb of barbary.


Today, as rockets burst forth from a speechless earth, as marvels of medicine save the lives of otherwise lost victims, and as we unlock the mysteries of the cosmos, we still resort to the language and thought of the few brave men of ancient Greece, reaching back to that indomitable spirit that subjugated even the Amazons, those women who still clamor and press up against us in spirit in an effort to shove us back into the abyss of darkness. If we give in and relinquish our patrimony, we have failed our forefathers, and don’t deserve to be called men.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

Ross Douthat, the NY Times’ token youngish conservative, came out today with an op-ed provocatively titled “Social Liberalism as Class Warfare.” This is a theme I’ve been hitting on a lot recently because I think it’s an overlooked but nonetheless very important component of politics in the US. Douthat, in his usual roundabout, overly-sensitive and borderline deferential way (I wouldn’t count on that kind of kid glove treatment from the other side), argues that the values espoused by upper class elites are toxic to the middle and working classes.

In his piece, he addresses an argument made by Randy Waldman, who called efforts to resurrect traditional marriage a “cargo cult” (you see, Mr. Douthat, these are not very nice people), and points out that while socially liberal norms may work fine for those with plenty of money and connections, they have had disastrous consequences for the rest of us.


Obviously, they do not have the greater good at heart. Their clear hatred for the majority bears this out. As a resident of a deep blue city filled with people with elite pretensions, the viciousness toward anyone not on board with the socially-liberal, politically correct message is right out in the open. Unabashed, naked hostility toward dissenting points of view and advocacy for traditional values is what passes for progressivism in Seattle. No “live and let live” here… But I’ll let Douthat make his point.


Ah, there’s that word “meritocracy” again. Am I still the only one who fails to see the merit in these people’s values and lifestyle?


Here’s where Douthat constructs something of a strawman on behalf of social liberals. He’s saying, essentially, that there’s no conspiracy at work, and that they do in fact sincerely hold the beliefs they profess even if they don’t act on them. Well, this may be true, but you don’t need a conspiracy to explain a collective effort to do harm. There’s a much simpler explanation: malice.

These meritocrats just don’t like us. That’s why they use terms like “cargo cult” to explain our values. That’s why they instinctively take positions that are the exact opposite of ours. When they push policies that harm their lessers, it’s because it makes them feel good to see us brought low. Maybe some people think this is a far-fetched explanation, but who can deny that hostility toward outgroups is a fundamentally human characteristic?

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

[On the tendency of the rich to be left-leaning socially]

Progressivism is the new smokescreen — it is the modern opiate of the masses. The rich use it in exactly the same manner they used to use the Christian faith, and just as cynically. Unfortunately, however, the progressives have yet to come up with architecture that rivals that of their predecessors, so I’m afraid there will be little to nothing left to show for their efforts besides a blasted society and a landscape littered with cheap, pre-fabricated buildings.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

The Russian journalist is mostly right. Women in Russia and Eastern Europe were “liberated” from domestic life long before Western women. Roughly 50 years earlier, in fact. However, second wave feminism was actually “made in the USSR.” Betty Friedan, the godmother of second wave feminism, was a Communist agent — an honest to goodness Stalinist. The Feminine Mystique, her seminal book, was based on work she did for the Communist Party in the 40s and 50s. However, since then feminism has mutated into an American product that would barely be recognizable to good old Uncle Joe.

Because Russian women got a long head start in feminism, they discovered long ago that gender equality is not all it’s cracked up to be. It’s much easier to get a free dinner and a bunch of roses in return for sexual favors than to, say, serve as a partisan on the Eastern Front. American women still think they can have their cake and eat it, but they’re just finding out that it doesn’t work that way, hence the constant state of confusion that seems to afflict young American women.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

There’s something of the herd animal in every human, but in women it’s particularly pronounced. This is why there’s something evil about pushing women to sacrifice their self-interests on the basis of some trend, or so that a few people can reap profits from it (e.g. divorce). And by its nature, this corporate rat race can only reward the few; most women (along with most men) don’t have what it takes to be corporate captains of finance like Sheryl Sandberg, and will end up with the short end of the stick.

Men tend to understand this, and when men had political clout they crafted a compromise whereby the majority of men, who had no desire to devote their lives entirely to work, were compensated fairly for their time. Women’s liberation played a big part in destroying this compromise, but it’s gone even farther now. As more young men are dropping out of contention, discouraged by the enormous pressures of modern family life and the puny to nonexistent rewards most get for sacrificing themselves to a company, companies are pushing women to take their place. Rather than a triumphant movement toward equality, it smells of desperation to me: if you can’t find enough boys to be suckers for “the man” you turn to the women.

Sheryl Sandberg is a taskmaster who drives her underlings to great sacrifice through manipulation, ambiguous promises and poorly defined ideals. She’s the kind of boss who’d be perfectly happy if her female workers gave her their entire reproductive lives, only to end up desperate and childless in middle age. For all the anger some conservatives display toward players and PUAs, these guys are only taking advantage of a situation they didn’t create or ask for, but these same middle-class conservatives who hate players, by encouraging their daughters to get on the career track right out of high school, frequently push their daughters right into the arms of a corporate surrogate husband, all but guaranteeing they’ll have a fruitless sex life during their prime reproductive years.

In the end, the feminist demands about the workplace are just a reaction to their greatly diminished status as women. They’ve sold their femininity for a paycheck, and in most cases a pretty meager one. It’s going to be a bitter harvest in coming years for many, many women, and the new, “empowered” feminism of the corporate world is largely responsible for creating this problem.

Welmer #sexist the-spearhead.com

It’s always funny to see women at each other’s throats. Now that so many women have power, we no longer have political mud slinging, but rather something even better: political mud wrestling.

I suppose this is one thing we men can now start to sit back and enjoy as the ship of state slowly slides under the waves. For all their “you go girl” solidarity and fist-pumping on Oprah, women’s cooperation and claims of common interests is a big sham. When Mistuh Gubmint Sugahdaddy’s cash runs out they’ll all be at each other’s throats, blaming one another with as much vigor as a cheating wife blames her husband.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

What is ironic about all this is that the endless demands women make for financial entitlements are slowly creating a legal basis for women’s status as chattel. Culturally, the effect will likely be similar, as it is difficult to counter the sense that what is paid for is owned. Despite the endless complaints from feminists about women being objectified and treated as chattel, now that women have secured the right to do as they please they are busy lobbying themselves into a position where it would be difficult to treat them in any other manner.

For years, feminists have relied on the idea that a patriarchal conspiracy has been responsible for the nearly universal tendency to treat women as something in between an enfranchised individual and property. However, if one takes a closer look at the behavior and demands of women themselves, including and especially those who have been “liberated” since birth, the reality that presents itself is that this is exactly the role that they want.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

I wonder whether people in the American movie business are aware of the pink ghetto phenomenon, and are trying to preserve their dominance in the global movie industry. If the film industry were to become more female, like education, medicine and law, perhaps it would lose some of its vitality and prestige. Because the industry commands such awesome cultural power, its leaders are loathe to move in that direction.

Think about it: with the competition opened up to hordes of cheaper female labor, how much room would there be for mega-millionaire directors like Steven Spielberg and George Lucas?

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

[On western women joining with Jihadi's]

When many people look at what these women are doing, they come to the conclusion that they are insane, fools or indoctrinated in a cult-like manner. But if you consider what interests young women, it isn’t really that crazy at all. After being indoctrinated for years to hate their own men, to regard them as equals, and to hold them in contempt for having “unearned privilege,” those jihadis must look pretty sexy in comparison. Young, chivalrous men who fight for faith and family. Daring and bold in the face of a ruthless enemy. Unapologetic warriors, husbands and fathers who provide their women with a sense of belonging to a greater cause.

As I grow older, it becomes easier to forget the passions of youth. I have to stop to recall how it was from time to time so that I can better understand what the young do. In the West, it seems that our political and intellectual actors have forgotten entirely, and don’t even try. Perimenopausal feminists and professionals think that young women’s feelings and tastes must be similar to their own. They forget what it was like to want adventure and romance with strong, passionate men, instead projecting their contempt for their male colleagues and inferiors onto every other woman.

As these women have gained power, they have set about remaking America in the image of their office: a space where bland, meek, cowed and subordinate men know their place and do not step out of it. This environment can only repel young women. As it happens, it is pushing a number of them straight into the arms of our enemies.

Because every recruit for the sexual jihad is a repudiation of the contemporary Western ideal, this mass defection of women to the Islamic camp will be ignored and played down as long as possible. That’s too bad, because there’s a valuable lesson there — a lesson we used to know well.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

[Playboy has recently run pro-feminism articles]

But still, you’d think the old publication would stay true to its roots. Or you might have thought so if you weren’t aware that Hugh Hefner is a very old man who has effectively handed his empire over to the women in his life. Sadly, this is common amongst men who have a weakness for women, which is probably most of us, hence the ancient inheritance laws designed to prevent women from making off with kingdoms.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

This blustering about equality we hear from feminists is pure smoke. When a feminist mentions “equality,” she knows it’s a labile concept, to be shaped into whatever is useful at any given time. Say some men discover a new source of energy and make a huge pile of money off it. Immediately, feminists will show up demanding “equality” – i.e., a piece of the pie – by virtue of their sex, and that alone.

The term equality means nothing but freedom to shift the goalposts whenever convenient, so it’s misleading to include it in the definition of feminism. But through observation and experience, we can identify an accurate definition:

Feminism is the collective promotion of women’s interests at men’s expense by the ancient and effective means of sexual leverage. It is the use of female sexuality and identity to extract social, economic and political power from men.

Women who achieve power or acclaim without using their sexuality or identity as women are not benefitting from feminism. Feminism did nothing for Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, or Angela Merkel, to name a contemporary example.

It has done a great deal for Madonna, Hillary Clinton and Gloria Steinem, all of whom rely on either female sexuality or identity, or both, for most of their wealth and power.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

In the old days, it was widely acknowledged that girls went to college to find better husbands than would be available at the local diner. They’d sit in on classes about Renaissance art and French philosophy for a few years, write some papers, study a bit, and find the future father of their children. Today, however, it would be a terrible insult to suggest such a thing. Why, what does a man have to do with it? Women don’t chase credentials and status to snag a higher status man, you misogynist!

But they do, because it’s natural. And this is why inflating the status of young women while depressing the status of their male counterparts is turning out to be a social disaster. Few fertile women want to settle for their equal or inferior when they have access to higher status men. In such an environment, extramarital affairs are all but guaranteed.

If society were capable of being honest with itself about these sorts of things, we’d have to admit that it would have been better for everyone if, instead of racking up degrees and awards, Paula Broadwell had stuck to sewing doilies and baking cookies. That way, at least her contributions could have had a net positive effect. As it is, she did achieve something quite spectacular, but nothing to be proud of as it turns out.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

The first step in subjugating aboriginal cultures is neutralizing their menfolk. It’s been repeated so many times in history that anyone with an ounce of sense knows this, which is why I sometimes wonder whether the destruction of common men isn’t deliberate policy on the part of elites. Actually, I’m pretty sure it is — not necessarily out of conscious policy, but because it is instinctive knowledge, as when new leaders of the pride kill the male offspring.

I’m starting to come to the reluctant conclusion that this is the only way to fight them; to target their own privileged sons when they work against our interests, just as they target us and ours. The women are really just the herd, and not all that relevant.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

As Roissy has pointed out, when women are faced with a smaller selection of viable mates, they tend to respond by ramping up their promiscuity and hypergamy to new heights. Today, on college campuses, there are far fewer men than women, and the desirable males – those with the looks and social skills – represent an even smaller proportion of the student body. At the top of the heap are athletes, who need do nothing more than leave their bedroom doors unlocked to get laid.

For these few, privileged men college is like a giant harem full of competing concubines. For the concubines, well, it must be pretty stressful and demoralizing.

This is really the key to the happiness gap between men and women. Women have consistently reported a decline in happiness since the 1960s, when their status began to rise and eclipse men’s. Elevating women and suppressing men may have seemed like the perfect recipe for female happiness for the feminists, but they failed to take into account what the real effect would be on women, who are fundamentally driven by matters of the heart. Or perhaps they didn’t care, because the entire project was about personal and emotional gain for a few, strange, power-hungry women.


If women are happier when surrounded by higher status men, the obvious step to take to increase women’s happiness would be to raise men’s relative status. If men dominated the professions, politics, business and even the office floor, the average woman would be happier. It may seem paradoxical that diminishing women’s relative status could make them happier, but if you consider that status = attractive to females, it makes perfect sense.

The decline in female happiness and rise in mental illness among women is a direct result of the marginalization of the men around them. This is yet another example of the moral and philosophical failure of feminism, which is at its core not only misandric, but misanthropic as well.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

One of our local petty luminaries, Bill Nye the “science guy,” recently lectured parents about teaching their children to believe in Creationism, saying that they are bad for doing so. Here in a West Coast city (Nye got his public career started in Seattle), bashing religious conservatives is about as brave as stomping on baby bunnies, but for some reason people always receive applause for doing so anyway.

As is often the case, Nye is wrong about a number of things, such as the claim that denial of evolution is unique to the US (plenty of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and people of other faiths all over the world have the same or their own Creation beliefs).

Anyway, it got me to thinking about the issue, and while I do accept evolution and don’t believe the world is only a few thousand years old, I don’t see why Creationism is any more damaging to children – or society in general – than the idea that all people are created equal, which is widely accepted despite being untrue (at least in the literal sense).

Additionally, it’s a lot less harmful than the “progressive” idea that gender is a social construct, which continues to be taught in universities across the land, despite being a harmful lie.

Another thing to consider is that if you do accept evolution as scientific fact, Creationism and associated religious faith fits right into the concept of natural selection, as faith is an adaptive trait. People who are believers have larger families, and therefore propagate more of their genes. If natural selection is a good thing, and leftists do tend to attach moral significance to it, then what’s wrong with adopting a strategy that provides an advantage, even if it consciously contradicts scientific wisdom?

I think the reason Creationism bothers leftists is just that: it gives their competitors an edge, while their own popular fallacies and illogical beliefs do the opposite.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

[The post is titled "Debunking the Patriarchy Myth"]

[A painting from 1631 of a father wiping a baby]

So there you have it: The Patriarchy in action — changing diapers. This is before feminism, before women’s suffrage and before Susan B. Anthony’s great grandparents were born.

The painting is pretty funny to me, because I can so easily relate to the poor guy in the picture who has to wipe the kid’s butt. You can see him recoiling from the stench, arm hung to the side in resignation.

Tell me, if men were so privileged back then, why would they ever have to wipe a kid’s butt?

George B. #fundie the-spearhead.com

The Gynocentric Cycle can’t restart now, it’s way too soon! It’s half a century too early!
The Gynocentric Cycle in a nutshell is this: tough times lead to sexual morality. Sexual morality leads to prosperity. Prosperity and easy times lead to people gradually abandoning sexual morality. One aspect of this is the rise of feminism and the long string of defeats the Right has suffered in the culture wars since the mid-60's. The dismantlement of sexual morality gradually ends prosperity and leads to tough times again. And so the cycle begins again.

More concisely it can be put this way:
History repeats itself. Good times breed weak people. Weak people create tough times. Tough times breed strong people. Strong people create good times.

The Greatest Generation (strong people), who grew up in the Great Depression and WW2 (tough times), created the post-war prosperity (good times). The children of the Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers (weak people; and Liberal pieces of shit) grew up in the prosperity their parents created without understanding what it took to create it and what it takes to sustain it. So Baby Boomers and Liberals which belong to their generation set about dismantling what their parents had built beginning in the mid-60's. The result of their efforts lead to the increasingly (and already tough enough) tough times we now are in. To cite one example, the mass entry of women into the workforce correlates with the beginning of the trend of the Middle Class wages’ multi-decade plummet and the beginning of the trend of the growth of income inequality in America. To cite another example, the date women got the vote correlates with the start of the trend of the monumental growth of the welfare state.

Now to why I think it’s bad news that the Gynocentric Cycle is rebooting right now, if that is indeed the case. Men and women have been at this “sex war” for all of their existence. This cyclical phenomenon has covered all of human history. I want it to end in a decisive and irrevocable victory for men. But the only way this will happen is if two events coincide in time: the end of a gynocentric cycle and the start of the permanent and irreversible obsolescence of women.
At the end of a gynocentric cycle, men are so disgusted and put off by women that they want nothing to do with them and they are seriously considering doing without them and going their own way. At such a point, men see themselves as a group and not just as generic individuals.

The second event consists of two components: the technological obsolescence of women on the sexual and reproductive fronts. On the sexual front, their obsolescence consists of two major inventions: virtual reality sex and robot sex partners. On the reproductive front, their obsolescence consists of the invention of the artificial uterus.

Side note: to be completely accurate, VR sex is right around the corner but the second half, the reproductive aspect, may not be necessary after all. Men would withdraw into their individual sexual heavens and let the rest of society (especially government and women) look on in horror as the birth rate plummets to near-zero levels and productivity drops and the taxes dry out. On the other hand, the artificial uterus (just as surrogacy before it) would allow men for the first time in history to be the ones who decide what traits will be passed on to the next generation and select for men for their love of sovereignty and dignity, civilization-building, civilization-friendly men, sovereign men, instead of women selecting men for their servility and utility to women. This one development alone would allow us to break free from the old cycle that has brought countless civilizations to their knees because they couldn’t escape Homo Sapiens’ animal past as enshrined in women’s sexual instinct and enforced by women’s herdthink. We would be the first species in the known universe ever to escape their animal past.

If these inventions arrive at a time when men are thoroughly and rightfully repulsed by women, then we will have victory, and we will be fairly vindicated for all the injustices they have brought upon us. We will have a clean and clear break from them. However, if those inventions arrive at a time when women are again pretending to be nice, then at best we will have peace, but we will never be completely rid of gynocentrism. It will stick with us for life… like herpes. We may never be rid of putting the male masses in hyper-production mode (as opposed to non-self-destructive high production mode). We may never be rid of consumerism and conspicuous consumption (both highly gynocentric phenomena).

Cecil henry #racist the-spearhead.com

One problem:


What I see are foreigners who made a mess of their country and want to come live in the land that my ancestors worked so hard to build and pass on to me and my children– NOT to them. They did not build it, they could not built it.

I see people who want to steal our country. Politicians and their non-white ethnic special interests want to help them steal our country too.

That is White Genocide. Jail is where these enablers and invaders belong.

“Diversity” means being chased out of your neighborhood.
“Diversity” means being chased out of your school.
“Diversity” means being chased out of your job.
“Diversity” Means Chasing Down the Last White Person.
“Diversity” means White Genocide

Nobody’s flooding Africa with Non-Africans and giving them free health care, affirmative action and special privileges.

Only White Countries are doing it, only White children are affected, and only White politicians are allowing it.

W. F. Price #racist the-spearhead.com

[On programs to shelter illegal immigrant children]

Remember the “federal contractors” from the Bush administration? This is something similar, but instead of being rewarded for assisting the invasion and occupation of a foreign country, these people are being rewarded for complicity in the invasion and occupation of the United States of America. To me, that’s what the difference between the Democrats and Republicans comes down to. Both are lousy, corrupt, and immoral in many ways, but at least with the Republicans I am not the target in a sub-rosa civil war. Others may disagree, but having lived for most of my life in deep blue Seattle, I’m all too keenly aware of what the “liberal agenda” comes down to.

W. F. Price #racist the-spearhead.com

"So the elites have turned on their own populations since WWII. The mythology around Civil Rights notwithstanding, the base motive for desegregation and such has been aggression against white Americans."

Very true, but it isn’t only against white Americans. White Britons are targets, too. Imperialism has a certain logic to it, and it worked very well for a long time. But now that imperialism abroad doesn’t pay the bills, it’s imperialism at home.

If American and British citizens need to understand anything, it is that they are now being colonized, just as the Irish and Indians were in centuries past, and many Eastern Europeans more recently. The recent conflicts in Sri Lanka, Kashmir and Northern Ireland, and the current war in Ukraine, are direct results of colonization, and in time we’ll have our own Belfast or Donetsk right here at home.

These pro-invasion types will have blood on their hands, but they’re counting on keeping the peace at least until they’re dead and gone, at which point they’ll leave us and our children with their toxic legacy.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

[Four women sued to be allowed in combat]

We simply can’t win one way or the other, which is why I recommend simply letting them claim to be full-fledged soldiers, giving them a gun and the standard equipment, and sending them out on some mission in Afghanistan. At this point, who gives a damn what happens? She and her sisters-in-arms would get cut to pieces, but we don’t even have the money to pay for the subsequent lawsuit any longer, so might as well let her have her wish.

It’s time men finally recognized that this isn’t our country any longer. Let the girls play their games, take all the money, call themselves soldiers and so forth. The sooner it falls apart the better for us.

Now that we’re calling people who are innately better suited to giving hummers than to driving in them soldiers, it’s time to call it quits. I just hope we can decommission the nukes fast enough to prevent a global catastrophe.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

[On female Thor]

I’m not sure whether this is an attempt to grab some publicity or a true appeal to feminists/transsexuals, but it’s a risky move in the long-term. While adults might tolerate the switch as an amusing diversion, comics are fundamentally children’s literature. I learned French reading Astérix as a boy, and my eldest son is now a fan of Sonic the Hedgehog. As a child, if I’d seen a comic book with a female hero, I wouldn’t have bothered to pick it up, nor would about 96% of other boys. It had nothing to do with feminism, but rather the fact that women just aren’t all that interesting to pre-pubescent boys (however, just a few short years later lewd jokes about Wonder Woman were all the rage at school).

So I wonder whether this new storyline is intended for an adult audience, and if so, whether it’s a signal that Marvel either doesn’t care about the base market for comics, or has already been surpassed by other companies that appeal better to boys and has decided to give up. Maybe there’s another explanation: the company is simply being poorly managed.

Imagine what would happen if some underling came up to Steven Spielberg and said: “You know, I have this great idea! Let’s make Optimus Prime a female robot…” Whoever came up with such a stupid idea would likely be fired on the spot. Politics are one thing, but sales are quite another. Get the two mixed up, and you’ll get smeared by the competition (incidentally, this is why the manosphere can survive despite being politically marginalized: even with the huge funding advantage feminists have, lots of people prefer our material). There are, after all, only so many David Futrelles out there.

And if Marvel thinks it can make up for the loss of interest in boys by picking up girls, it’s time to think again. Normal girls (as opposed to future feminists) far prefer feminine characters doing ladylike things — not dominatrix types holding giant hammers. In fact, girls’ preference for femininity goes just as absurdly far as the over-the-top masculinity of pro wrestling and GI Joe. Wonder Woman, with her less-imposing weapon (the whip), fashionable armor (bracelets), leggy, model physique and beautiful mane of black hair at least made some effort to appeal to feminine tastes. The new trans-Thor, on the other hand, wields a hammer, wears a helmet with a facemask and apparently has big, burly arms. I can’t see my daughter being all that interested in that kind of female character.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

It’s a constant struggle — it never ends. As Thomas Paine said, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

The ancient Hebrews understood it, and therefore gave dire warnings about rule of kings. The Hindus understood it, and cautioned us with the examples of the gods.

Jesus took care to divide the omnipotent realm of God and the law of man. Confucius warned that violating the delicate balance of hierarchy, as in dismantling patriarchy, could only bring disorder and sorrow.

The ancient Greeks, for their part, explicitly barred women from authority, and even built a sort of cult around the motif of the gender wars (Amazonomachy).

I’m with all of these ancients. The feminist men have relinquished all morality and are tyrants. Drag them from their ivory towers by all practical means, and strive to create a just, androcratic society: Patriarchy. It is God’s will.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

[About Mr. Marche giving up a job on the tenure track at City College in Harlem because of his wife becoming editor in chief of Toronto Life magazine, whose salary was the double of his job]
I feel for Mr. Marche. Giving up on your dreams must really be a letdown, but men have been doing this for family from the beginning. However, at least in the old days men were afforded a certain position and respect as “head of household.” But not anymore[.]


Poor guy — this is all too familiar to me. What he didn’t realize was that his compliance and submission to his wife would not win him any favors. Without being taught otherwise, we men tend to think that being reasonable and giving in will evoke the same response in wives that it would in husbands, but this isn’t the case. Too often, we must learn the hard way, and for Marche that meant being treated like “the wife” at his wife’s journalist social events. Sounds like hell on earth to me, but hey, she’s making good money, so it must be worth it…

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

According to an article in the NYTimes, the East German Communist regime crafted a new, better kind of woman, and today’s unified Germany should learn lessons from the totalitarian police state that was finally toppled along with the Berlin Wall at the end of the Cold War.

Today, women who grew up in Communist East Germany are supposedly more confident, mobile and happier with themselves than those from the West. Additionally, they make almost as much money as men on average, and are far more likely to be working mothers.

According to one working woman quoted in the article, the East was wrong to do such things as chain people to radiators in solitary confinement and force students to spy on each other, but it was better for women all the same. She says that the position of women was far better before the Communist state failed, but now Germany in general is headed in the “right direction” (i.e. becoming more like the Communist regime)[.]

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

In the drive to achieve gender equality as dictated by Marxist-Leninist doctrine, extra burdens were placed on the family, and eventually these began to take a demographic toll. Women found themselves increasingly responsible for both work AND family, and men eventually drifted off into irrelevance, drinking and whoring their time away rather than being productive citizens. This goes a good way toward explaining the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent mess Russia is still dealing with.

From observing the trajectory of the Soviet Union, one might come to the conclusion that the United States is facing a similar collapse in a relatively short time that will result in significant economic and political decline.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

[On feminists boycotting a Men's Rights conference instead of directly protesting]

This is actually a pretty significant development. Of course, anyone with any knowledge about women’s nature could have predicted that once men actually started to stand up for themselves this would happen, but in my life I can’t think of one example of feminists doing so. It’s sad that it took so long for men to finally make a stand, but better late than never.


One thing that I have observed in my studies of gender politics is that supplicating to women does not win men favors in politics any more than it does in a pickup scenario. However, women will always say that it does. Conservatives, for some reason, fall for it, and believe the stories about how they need to supplicate in order to win votes. But all one needs to do is point out that AVfM has never supplicated, yet the organization enjoys a great deal of support from women (even a little too much for my tastes). How could this be possible? Obviously, it’s because women generally admire men who stand up for themselves, whereas they despise those who don’t.

The only men’s movement that will ever get anywhere is an unapologetic, and even sometimes a little savage, movement.

Now that one has finally arrived, I think I’ll enjoy sitting back and watching the opposition scatter to the winds until all that’s left of it is a few blabbering, clueless male feminists wondering where all their female allies disappeared to.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

But what always gets me about these attempts to push this or that church to “reform” is the fact that anybody – women included – can start his or her own church in the US. Ms. Kelly could start her own Mormon offshoot called “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Goddesses” or something like that. For some reason, however, churches started by women don’t have a very good track record in the US (not to mention the world). To me, this says that the churches should hold firm and ban females from the priesthood if they want to survive, although I’m sure that feminists think it’s the patriarchy or some other Lord of Darkness holding them down. The only female church I can think of that had any success over the years was the Shakers, and that’s only because they managed to use 19th century child custody laws to gain adherents, but today they’re down to about four members.

[Two points:
Ms. Kelly was declared excommunicate by the LDS Church for the heresy of advocating women ordination
The Shakers mostly converted adults as they were known for their celibacy.]

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

If Christians want to lower the divorce rate in their churches, it would be as simple as kicking out those who frivolously divorce, and treating divorcées as adulteresses. As it is today, abandoned husbands are usually the ones left in the ditch by churches, so this would be a major change. But if churches want to stay true to Christianity, they would do well to recognize that from the beginning, Christian women were not allowed to sue for divorce. There is no precedent in ancient Hebrew, Greek or Roman law for women to divorce their husbands. This is why the Christian church is so ill-prepared to deal with the revolutionary idea of granting women the right to divorce. Even today, Orthodox Jews do not allow it, nor do Muslims (civil law differs, but here we are speaking of ecclesiastic law). Rabbinic and Sharia courts may order men to divorce their wives, but women cannot legally divorce without their husband’s consent.

Women were first granted the right to divorce in revolutionary France, in 1792. This was rescinded shortly thereafter, in 1804, and French women had to wait another 80 years before regaining the right to kick their husbands to the curb. The revolutionary edict was a first in civilized society (if you could apply that moniker to revolutionary France), to be followed some decades later by Great Britain with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857. Naturally, some fifteen years later mother custody became the norm in the UK.

The transfer of marriage from ecclesiastic to civil law has continued apace since “reforms” of the 19th century, with devastating consequences for traditional marriage. However, this doesn’t mean that churches have to follow civil law — at least not in the United States (not yet, anyway). To this day, rabbinic courts have authority over Orthodox Jewish marriages, including in some civil matters. Given that it contradicts core Christian doctrine, I’m not sure this would be appropriate for Christian churches, but it probably isn’t necessary in any event.

The point is that granting women the right to initiate divorce goes entirely against Christianity, as well as all other major religions. According to the Christian faith, a woman who leaves her husband is an adulteress — even if he consents. So why is it that divorced women are so quickly forgiven and fostered by “Christian” churches? I’m fairly certain that it’s about the money they bring to the table (divorced men are often impoverished), but if Christians looked deep within themselves they’d have to admit that there’s nothing Christian about such an arrangement.

W. F. Price #sexist the-spearhead.com

[On a feminist shirt making fun of "rules of dating my daughter"]

I can’t help but wonder whether the fact that their fathers were so laissez faire didn’t teach the girls that their own sexuality was devalued. If your dad doesn’t give a damn what you do with your body, then maybe, if you’re a girl, you don’t think your sexuality is anything special or worth much at all.

Sure, we hear about girls who act out despite having very strict, conservative parents. But that’s the exception — not the norm. In my experience, it was typically the girls without fathers or whose fathers were very casual about these things who were the easiest — the sluts, so to speak. Those whose fathers were firm about sexual morality demanded that guys put a lot more on the table before they’d even consider it.

W. F. Price #conspiracy the-spearhead.com

The sudden “Children’s Crusade” of Central American kids across our southern border has outraged Americans, but nobody seems to know who is behind it. Certainly, it’s partly Barack Obama’s fault for enticing the Central Americans with promises not to deport kids, but how could tens of thousands of children suddenly make it all the way across Mexico to show up in such large numbers on our border?

After reading an LA Times article on the invasion in which a woman at the border surrenders herself with her kids in the belief that single mothers will not be deported if they are apprehended [she's probably correct: I recently read a report written by a border patrol officer who reported that people who are not from bordering countries are simply issued summons to court and then released on their own recognizance -- he said they simply turn themselves in, get the summons, then disappear], I figured there must be some kind of organized effort to move these people.

I decided to do a little research, knowing that few people bother to go to the source even here in the US, so the number of Americans paying attention to Central American sources must be tiny. It turns out that the governments and media of Central American countries are very much complicit in the human trafficking, possibly assuming that remittances will be a source of income for their crime and poverty-infested little fiefdoms, and that in any event they can keep the cash flowing to their criminal cronies – and ultimately themselves – by subsidizing the smuggling industry.

It turns out that they are not only publishing advice and encouraging stories for would-be migrants, but also making a pretense of standing up for their countrymen who have illegally immigrated and – get this – they are even adjudicating civil suits between migrants and smugglers to impart an aura of legitimacy to the entire operation. El Salvador is probably the largest source of these Central American migrants and, incidentally, the source of the ruthless Mara Salvatrucha criminal gangsters who have murdered their way to prominence in a number of American cities. Could there be any doubt about a connection between the gangsters on our streets and the gangsters in office back home? These crooks running banana republics have been making a living off organized crime for decades.

After reading a few articles in “La Página,” an online El Salvador news outlet, all of which were highly supportive of illegal immigration to the US, I checked out the comments. It doesn’t seem that Salvadorans are proud of either their politicians or this recent border fiasco. One commenter suggested that it is a national humiliation, and that El Salvador will look “worse than Haiti,” asking “how did our government allow these embarrassments abroad?” Most were more concerned about the right to legally travel — not to emigrate. These are the type of people in El Salvador who actually bother to comment in newspapers; I suspect that the people showing up on the Texas border are from a somewhat less educated demographic. Could it possibly be, as many Americans suspect, that the government of El Salvador is deliberately trying to foist its poor and hapless off on the great big, dumb American milk cow? Something like that, but it’s actually even worse: they’re also shamelessly ripping off their own poor.

What’s going on here is that a number of people are taking smuggling fees from these would-be emigrants (reportedly $4,000 a head from point of origin), moving them through Mexico, then when they make it to the US border, Presto! The US picks up the tab from there. If the DHS prediction of 90,000 children smuggled to the US this year by these gangs is correct, that makes kid-smuggling alone a $360,000,000 per year industry, and probably more. What does it matter if they are eventually deported anyway? Somebody got rich off the scam. The only real losers here are the desperate fools who think they’ll be granted amnesty and the US taxpayers footing the bill for this fiasco.

And why am I so sure they won’t get amnesty? Because we can’t afford to give it to them. Illegals currently prop up the US social security system, having funded roughly ten percent of its reserve and paid in somewhere around $150 billion a year. Give them the right to benefits, and the entire thing would collapse very quickly. Without this illegal subsidy, social security would have started paying out less than it takes in by 2009. Obviously this scheme isn’t going to last forever, but if illegals got amnesty it would be over immediately and the fallout would be painful, to say the least.

However, another part of the scheme involves making sure that those who do sneak in are fit enough to work and pay into the system. If they can swim a river, cross some desert and evade ICE, they probably are. But if they are kids or single moms who just plop themselves down in front of the nearest border patrol officer and wait for air-conditioned accommodations, they’re far more likely to be an expense. So we Americans are really getting a raw deal with this latest wave.

As much as it’s tempting to say that this or that American political party or official is responsible for what’s going on or that it’s part of some deliberate plot, it’s starting to look like the entire thing is just another example of incompetence and poor judgment on the part of our “leaders.” They’ve been caught with their pants down on this one. They actually let themselves get tooled by a gang of Central American hustlers, and now they have no idea what to do about it. I wonder whether our politicians can even admit to themselves how stupid and irresponsible this talk about amnesty for children was. They were simply providing a free advertisement for the coyotes.

Well how about this for an idea: find the head honcho in charge of each of these little countries, and tell him to put an end to it immediately or we’ll sink his yacht and drop a couple 500 pound bombs on his hilltop villa. Sounds rough, but what kind of a scumbag puts kids at the mercy of the criminal gangs who run both human and narcotics smuggling operations in Latin America? One I wouldn’t lose much sleep over if he happened to end up on the business end of an airstrike. This won’t happen in the current administration, of course, but another, better president would have done it.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

Here we see the familiar, constant refrain of “you build it, we take it over.” Do women feel even the faintest bit of gratitude toward men for having developed these institutions in the first place? Does that mean anything to them?

I suppose I don’t understand why all of these things that were created by men will be better managed by women. It simply doesn’t make sense. In fact, I don’t think women will run them as well as men — I think it would be a disaster to hand male-created institutions wholesale over to women. But that seems inevitable, so I suppose we’ll see what comes of it.

The truth is that people always make a mess of things, no matter who’s in charge. There will be no brave new world with a woman at the helm, guiding us to a better society. With women in charge the mess will probably be worse than otherwise, because the most vital attribute of the state is force, which is expressed by men, and vanishingly few women can effectively command men. It’s simply contrary to human nature for men – especially fierce ones – to submit to female authority.

Female power in the West has rested solely on the willingness of men to enforce a chivalric ideal, but that ideal has been turned on its head by its own excess. Now, women will have to pay men cash for their allegiance, and that will prove to be their undoing, because it is also contrary to human nature for women – especially proud ones – to pay men.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

[On D-Day]

I won’t get into the horror of what happened there, because it’s easy enough to imagine it oneself after seeing the broken concrete, craters, twisted metal and sheer cliffs. But I would like to ask, given what the US has become today, whether those volunteer veterans, like my grandfather, would have chosen to make that sacrifice. I don’t think so. There’s no way FDR could have sold that war with feminism and multiculturalism. My grandfather told me he fought against tyranny, and the naked aggression displayed by Tojo and Hitler. It wasn’t so that his great grandchildren could grow up to be despised minorities in the country of their birth. It definitely wasn’t so that his male descendants would be subordinated to some feminist imperative. If this had been the goal of the US war effort, American men would have put down their guns and walked away from it.

Given what the US has become after emerging from WWII as the sole superpower, it’s fair at this point to ask whether the young American men who made the ultimate sacrifice weren’t cheated, used and betrayed. It’s also fair to ask whether they should have even fought the war in the first place. If it means accepting some version of Michael Kimmel’s ideal society, I’d have to say it was all a big mistake. Now, I look back at my youthful pride with a feeling of sadness.

What a damn shame…

Anonymous #fundie the-spearhead.com

Women’s “absolute, unquestionable right to sexual freedom” is now so widely accepted and in your face the logical conclusion is ‘ok – got it – so where’s mine?’ What’s fair is fair – women have all this and I have… what? Worse, is the realization that not only does one not have all (or any) of the sexual freedoms, you get the bill for hers! And the blame, the shame and the abandonment too…

Not to excuse, but young men in particular aren’t built to accept that shit. Feminism has taken the mask off women’s feral sexual nature. It’s on full display – the lie of presumed female virtue as cultural foundation is blatant and in your face.

In response young men today either become politically correct gay (PC gay will go straight as soon as gay isn’t popular any longer) so as to be accepted by the ruling elite (females), or they’ll shut up and go away – one wants be liked so desperately he twists himself into a people pleasing’, gender beggar – the other is just another loner, loser, creepy male… Gangs, grass eaters, shooters and queers: just a few of the adaptations of young men reacting to the mandate that they pay the bills; personal, cultural, spiritual and financial – for women’s freedoms.

Simon #fundie the-spearhead.com

(speaking about the Santa Barbara Gunman)

Simple, take a society where young men are constantly bombarded with sex from nearly every media or advertisement. Than take the curiosity of a young man, who would like to know how it feels like and who wants to be in love. Then take a few girls who for one reason or another reject that guy and go for their usual type, instead. If this happens a few times, everyone would get frustrated. If doesn’t have to be sex, I am pretty sure it would be the same for every other product. If you are constantly under the impression everyone else gets what you want and you are not allowed, it is just becomes a source of anger.

As for this guy, judging by his videos. I would say he where a few times unlucky, gave up and blame the world, so far I agree.

But he constructed himself as a superior entity, probably as a self-defence-mechanism, so he would not think of himself as a failure.

I think there is a simple cure for people like him, slap him in the face, humble him by force, give him an exclusive whore for the rest of his life he has to take care of. Or in other words find him a loyal loving wife.

Maybe patriarchy was invented just because of this, to give more men the chance to procreate and not get frustrated.

I would say this, yes he is guilty of murder, but he is just a natural byproduct of our modern society.

“If you want to see a guilty one you only need to look into a mirror.”

Khangray #fundie the-spearhead.com

The need for sex for young and middle aged men is like an addiction. We’re born addicts, it just doesn’t become apparent until puberty. To say that no man “deserves” sex is probably true but pointless. A heroin addict doesn’t deserve heroin but that doesn’t mean he won’t kill to get his next fix. It is what it is.

One of society’s reasons to exist is to address this need, to control it to some extent, to capitalize on it. One danger (one of many) of feminism is that it degrades the ability of our current society to address this addiction in a constructive way. Feminism is forcing the sexual market place in a direction that will not end well. Expect to see many more Elliot Rodgers in the future.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

BTW, one thing that gets me is that the feminists are really up in arms over this incident [the Elliot Rogers shooting], when the truth is that men kill women over sexual anger/frustration all the time in this country. It’s probably the single biggest motive in male-on-female violence, and it doesn’t have anything to do with MRAs 99.9%+ of the time. Why not work on reducing this kind of violence? Oh, right… Because it would mean curtailing women’s absolute, unquestionable right to sexual freedom.

Michael #fundie the-spearhead.com

Me 24 years, I think I fall under that hikikomori stuff, well I was born and live in the west, but let me explain. I want a wife, I want children, but why should I? How can I make sure, the wife stays faithful? I want 4 or more children, who makes that decision, in today’s world it is the woman. After one or two, for most women it is enough. Next, why should I work and provide, while she sits at home, doing what exactly? House work? That is not so rough anymore thanks to technology. Caring for children? Nope, daycare greets. From my point of few, I have no power over the actions of my future wife, while she has the power to do whatever she feels like. Yes I am a lost generation. I am lost, because a generation full of pride thought they could redesign life. I am angry, frustrated and if I would not believe in God, I would implement the thoughts that cross my minds, and those thoughts scare me, trust me, you don’t want to know. I see no future for me. By the time anything changes I will be too old to see my kids growing up. My only hope is death. So I flee to religion, but thanks to this false prophet pope Francis, this institution will be destroyed from within soon. I really hope these are the final days of humanity, I don’t care, there is nothing anymore I want. And if a man has no perspective, no goal, than there is nothing for him to do. I envy women, they are spoiled, have been given power, and they are too dump too see the consequences of their actions, so they can truly enjoy life. Maybe I am a beta, but the truth is, if humanity thinks in terms of alpha and beta, we are little more than animals and deserve every disaster that nature brings. I am only 24 and I think humanity is a failure, this race deserves destruction.