www.the-spearhead.com

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

“Barefoot and pregnant” simply refers to a woman who is walking around at home, happily preparing for the baby in the most comfortable manner. Keeping your wife barefoot and pregnant means you’re doing what’s expected of a traditional husband, which is allowing her to stay home and be relatively carefree while carrying a baby to term.

That it became an attack on men is merely evidence that feminists are a spiteful, envious lot. How many of the early lesbian feminists of the 60s and 70s could say they had pregnant wives who were contentedly walking around without shoes? How many could say so today?

It’s all just sour grapes, as it always has been. A barefoot and pregnant wife is almost always happier than a trussed up working wife, so when keeping her “barefoot and pregnant” men are doing their wives a favor.

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

[On the Shakers and their promotion of gender equality]

Perhaps, then, the price for gender equality is ultimately ethnic extinction, and this explains why patriarchy has always been the norm, and gynocracy the exception. This would also explain why major religions are invariably patriarchal, while female-oriented faiths, like Shakerism – and now the Episcopal Church – eventually die out.

However, more ominously today, it is not only some odd sects or cults that have adopted the Shakers’ values, but an entire political party, and indeed the secular orthodoxy that dominates the national narrative. Are Americans destined, under an equalist, gynocratic rule, to dwindle and die out? To the Shakers, that wouldn’t have been a tragedy; the equalist heavenly kingdom is not concerned with such trifles as the survival of peoples, as it is eternal. The rest of us, however, might do well to ask whether the destiny of our posterity concerns us, and if so, why we should allow today’s neo-Shakers so much power over its fate.

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

As for young women, higher education is an enormous waste in most cases. They spend their time learning from lesbian pornographers, drinking, whoring and learning to look down on their male peers even as they debase themselves. The old idea that it will help them find a suitable mate is so outdated as to be laughable, but it’s what keeps parents paying for college tuition for their daughters: they hope that daddy’s little girl will get hitched to some conscientious beta male instead of knocked up by a hoodlum. This is the single biggest reason parents send their daughters to college, and it’s a gamble that will only pay off about half the time these days as the female to male ratio approaches three to two at universities (not all college-educated men marry college-educated women, or marry at all). Not a good bet for roughly $100k, but it supports legions of hard-left ideologues, which explains the enthusiasm for the failing system in mainstream media outlets.

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

Phyllis Schlafly, perhaps the original anti-feminist of the second wave era, recently argued that the (mythical) “pay gap” would promote marriage if it actually existed, citing women’s hypergamous instincts[.]

...

We could hold her opposition to the ERA against her, but let’s be realistic: it never would have been used to level the playing field. Instead, it would have been used as a cudgel against the “patriarchy,” resulting in interminable lawsuits and an even more powerful feminist legal regime than we have today (if such is possible). Because men and women are not equal, no human law can make them so; it can only make life worse for most of us.

More legislation purporting to equalize men and women will have the same effect this legislation always has had: it will grow and enrich legal professionals and bureaucracies and introduce more expense and complexity into the lives of the common people. Schlafly is right to oppose it, and it’s good to see she’s taking some cues from the manosphere as well.

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

Dana’s actually in pretty big trouble, having been charged on five felony counts. This isn’t your run of the mill accusation that so many of us divorced men have had to deal with, but real, criminal charges. The feminist activism, castration, LGBT awareness work, interfering with India’s culture — all for naught.

A woman’s privilege is her birthright, and a man can’t earn it no matter how hard he tries.

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

Ironically, the wanton destruction of the Western nuclear family by feminist culture-warriors will inevitably bring some different form of marriage, because without some cooperation in child-rearing our population will simply die out and be replaced. Prime candidates include the Muslim paradigm, as in Afghanistan, or The Law of the Jungle, as in the Congo. Either way women are big trouble. East Asian style patriarchy is out, because it is proving to be just as susceptible to the ravages of Western family law as Western families.

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

Paternalism grows out of the “big man” societies in which there is a top-down system for wealth redistribution. All wealth flows to the chief, and he doles it out to his subjects, often favoring those who support him or otherwise please him.

...

Ultimately, in some cases, this led to the development of a formalized system of patriarchy, in which it was legally recognized that each male householder had a privileged status in regards to his own family, if nothing else, which gave rise to the practice of patrilineal descent. This laid the groundwork for the development of civilization from barbarism, as taxation and patronage now required recordkeeping and certain conditions. A shift then began to occur away from a purely paternalistic society to one in which rulers had to adhere to laws that placed controls on their wealth collection and redistribution. Thus, social hierarchies flourished, social organization solidified, and increasingly large and complex forms of government evolved.

...

To increase revenue and political support, [politicians] have promoted and passed laws that shatter the concept of the patriarchal family. A few examples include preferential maternal custody, decriminalization of adultery, introducing no-fault divorce and preferential welfare to single mothers. Gay marriage, which is essentially a formal declaration that the government does not recognize patriarchy as valid or supported by any law or policy at all, is the latest example.

...

So, what we’re really facing today is not matriarchy, but an increasingly despotic paternalism, in which men’s autonomy and authority is being steadily eroded in the interests of those in power. Our intimate relationships, our conditions of employment, and taxes all conspire to subjugate us to the powerful, who are working steadily to remove any checks on their own power and challenges to their authority. Almost every government-led initiative, whether it be population replacement through immigration, women’s “empowerment,” or highway checkpoints leads in this direction.

...

In the meanwhile, as men, we should hold out not for “equality” with women, which will never, ever, turn out equal, but a more desirable system of democratic patriarchy, in which all men are afforded equal rights to independence in their own homes and affairs and freedom from arbitrary paternalism.

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

Miley Cyrus (mentally disturbed/obscene), Beyoncé (bitchy/materialistic) and Lorde (weird/unattractive) have taken up the feminist banner, and are much celebrated for doing so. Kirsten Dunst, on the other hand, who comes off as genuinely pleasant, attractive in a girl-next-door kind of way and inoffensive, says that femininity is undervalued, and being a wife and mother in the traditional sense isn’t all bad. She also says relationships work best when men can be men and women women. Is this such a terrible, awful thing to say? Something that should immediately be shouted down? Apparently so, despite the fact that people seem to instinctively agree with her, if all of history and global culture up to now is any indication of human norms.

Our culture has gone so far off the deep end that I don’t think it’s worth taking it seriously anymore. America, the global joke, where a politician can’t promote anything but androgynous “gender equality” and a CEO can’t even say marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s getting close to time to call it quits on this political experiment. Frankly, if you were born in the US and don’t look at our flag with some combination of pity, sadness and contempt, there’s something wrong with you at this point. I feel bad for having to put it in those terms, but it’s true.

TFH #fundie the-spearhead.com

Note that the left has successfully re-branded Nazi Germany as right-wing, when in fact it was very leftist. Its official name was the National Socialist Worker’s Party, and many sectors of the economy were government controlled.

Also, genocide is itself a leftist concept, since humans are seen as being on the ‘cost’ side of the ledger, and if resources are assumed to be fixed (a leftist assumption), reducing the number of people increases the per-capita.

People of a free-market, capitalistic bent believe in higher birth rates, immigration of skilled immigrants, and productivity gains through technology. This is (or should be rescued as the definition of) ‘right-wing’.

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

I watched the men’s short figure skating competition yesterday, and boy was it fabulous. One after the other, obvious homosexuals skated out onto the rink to twirl, jump and gracefully glide in all their glory. Surely this can’t be happening in Russia, I thought to myself. I expected that at any moment, spetznaz commandos would storm the arena to arrest these men, enforcing Russia’s strict, homophobic laws.

...

I was astounded. Maybe, I thought, just maybe, the Russians aren’t such totalitarian fanatics as our news outlets make them out to be. Maybe they don’t really harbor violent hatred toward gays, but rather just want some respect for the traditional values they hold dear.

What a novel thought— A people who value tradition who are neither violent nor hateful, but instead pretty much decent human beings.

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

Back when second wave feminism really began to rise to power in the 80s, it was overwhelmingly a white women’s movement. It wasn’t explicitly supremacist, but the hierarchy was undeniable. White feminist radicals infiltrated social services throughout the land, including in inner cities, monopolizing what soon became a thriving industry. While white women had always been heavily involved in social welfare, in the earlier days they tended to be Christian and quite conservative by today’s standards, even if their contemporaries would have thought of them as liberal. The new feminist contingent was not bound by these dated patriarchal conventions. Soon, they began monopolizing their charges, often taking young nonwhite women as lesbian lovers. Whenever there’s a big power differential, as there is between social workers and the people who rely on them, abuses happen. It’s inevitable, no matter what ideology the authorities ascribe to. So there was something akin to the Catholic abuse scandals going on in women’s shelters and the like, only it was women taking advantage of women rather men taking advantage of boys.

This resulted in some strange outcomes that Americans in general are not aware of, but black feminists surely are. Today, lesbianism is highest among low-income black women. I suspect this is a cultural artifact of widespread exploitation of poor black women by lesbians in the 80s and 90s combined with the unavailability of black men. In fact, not having men to rely on has forced a lot of black women to rely on other women as surrogate husbands. In many cases, these were older white lesbians. You can probably guess who had the upper hand in these relationships.

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

As for misandry, I don’t think it will ever go away. Let’s be honest here: men will always try to beat each other to gain some advantage over their competitors. Even Paul Elam, who proclaims himself to be the primary advocate for men, has spent plenty of effort in attempts to discredit and dominate his male opposition, just like an alpha male chimpanzee. It’s just the way the world works. Women have evolved to take advantage of this, and will switch from one male to the other depending on who they think is dominant at any given moment.

Feminism is really the result of elite men giving women free rein to crap on other men. Manginas are men who think they can capture some of this top-alpha pixie dust for endless pussy and power. Thing is, hardly any manginas measure up to masters like Bill Clinton, which is why most of them fail.

But we can see it in other cultures, too. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, for example, was totally pro-feminist. So was Hosni Mubarak, Muamar Kadhafi, etc. It’s all about putting the other men in their place. Women are just the eternal beneficiaries of politicized misandry, the proper word for which should simply be “warfare.” Men make war, and women just go from one victor to another. They are hard-wired to hate “losers,” and there’s nothing mysterious about it. They make their sympathies crystal clear all the time. For God’s sake, Gloria Steinem – an 80yo crone today – is basking in ecstasy (shudder) after receiving a “medal of freedom” from Barack Obama, just like she got off on fooling around with ugly, troll-like Henry Kissinger back in the 70s.

It’s up to us “lesser men” to fight for ourselves and be vigilant, because it always ends up this way.

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

Social conservative men have a naïve tendency to exalt women on the one hand, and then to assume that their reasoning and goals are similar to men’s. This explains the bizarre tendency of social conservatives’ daughters to be highly engaged in male pursuits such as team sports, the military and religious leadership. These girls are merely trying to please their fathers, and the odd thing is that their fathers generally are pleased, thinking it right and proper that their daughters act like men. I think this can only be explained by a failure to understand female nature and psychology and how profoundly different it is from male.

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

I have no idea whether this will work, but there’s always the chance that it will backfire, as women could come to view them as contemptuous beta males. If history – recent and distant – is any indication, female voters prefer men to be alphas. Political leaders who were particularly popular with women include Idi Amin, Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, Josef Stalin, Kim il-Sung, Fidel Castro and Genghis Khan, as well as other less notorious tyrants. I can’t imagine any of these men, who were so passionately coveted by their countrywomen, would don an apron and talk about baking cookies. In fact, it would appear from the record that the best route into the hearts of one’s female subjects/constituents is to be a totalitarian mass murderer.

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

[WWII] is the perspective men had at the time. The idea that they could suffer through that and be bossed around in their own homes was unthinkable. Feminists who complain about how oppressed women were in the 50s never would have signed up for what grown men of the time had faced, and most women knew it, so they shut up and did the laundry.

To see things accurately, we must separate the reality from the myth of the 50s. Yes, there was a fair amount of lip service paid to the idea that men ought to be respected as head of household, but the culture was already moving away from that at a rapid pace. There is a constant, unyielding desire in the human heart to be liberated from reality, and to forget hard lessons. Those who sacrifice are always resented, despite our deference to them — we are not by nature an obedient, grateful lot. The decade was merely an interlude; a time of uneasy peace between husbands and wives and fathers and children. Founded on poverty and war, it was not built to last in a growing, increasingly wealthy society.

But what society is built to last without change? I look at what we have today, and the fact that societies never remain the same is one of the few consolations that remains.

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

[A commentator called Price out for supporting patriarchy instead of egalitarianism]

I went through the same process of rejecting it, but sometimes you just have to accept the world as it is. As for the 50s, keep in mind that Americans had it better than anyone else on earth at that time. White Americans may have had it better, but they were 90% of the population. Does the unfortunate situation of 10%, which despite it all had it far, far better than the majority of the world – including ancestral populations in Africa, Latin America and Asia – really cancel out the enormous benefits to most Americans and the great contributions to humanity?

I’d also like to point out that rejecting patriarchy is not a move forward, but rather a move in the opposite direction. Humanity has only ever moved forward under patriarchal systems, and when it gives them up, as it does fairly frequently, there’s inevitably some regression toward savagery. What we call “progress” today is merely dissolution, which is an eternal problem, older than the written word.

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

I have studied postwar Japan to a limited extent, and one of the things I learned was that feminism was never much of an issue for the postwar Japanese, because the US occupational authorities imposed suffrage and women’s rights from the top. It seems that our policy has borne fruit, and that Japanese masculinity has been severed at its root. It might be said at this point that Japan is the first true eunuch nation — surpassing even the Anglo societies that imposed feminist supremacy on the Japanese.

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

[Seattle elected a Communist to its city council]

My bet is that aside from skin tone and some cultural distinctions, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Sawant and Strong. Some of these Hindu women these days can hold their own with the worst of our old-time suffragettes, who were so terribly oppressed and put upon by society that they never had the opportunity to do an honest day’s labor in their lives. Poor dears.

...

Sawant’s socialism, like Strong’s, is sure to be of the female supremacist sort that rankled serious male socialists like E Belfort Bax and George Orwell in the early 20th century. Making socialism a feminist issue – which is how it was framed in the teens and 20s of the previous century – greatly discredited the idea amongst the Anglo masses. How, after all, could working men support socialism if it was merely a transfer payment to goodtime girls and man-haters?

Naturally, this framing of socialism as a sort of paternalist slush fund for bad girls destabilized politics in the West, leading to a lack of consensus on labor policy that wasn’t resolved until the situation deteriorated to revolutionary conditions in the late 20s and early 30s. We all know how that turned out (cue WWII).

Today is a time of imminent retrenchment. The general stupidity that passes for political consensus grows more and more absurd by the day, and although there is no credible source of resistance, a reckoning is nigh. As always, we humans are doomed to repeat our failures, and relive the mundane, swinish conditions we can’t help but stumble our way into every few generations. I can only hope that this time we don’t pay such a terrible price, but I’m not counting on it.

TFH #fundie the-spearhead.com

This brings up a point I have thought about for a while, and might involve a break from androsphere orthodoxy.

We know that before Marriage 1.0 was created, almost all women reproduced but just 40% of men did. This meant that the bottom half of men were disenfranchised.

BUT, this meant that every new boy born was the son of an alpha and the grandson of an alpha.

Marriage 1.0 was meant to harness male output by enabling all men to be fathers (and ensure each woman had a protector). But this involved an unnatural number of lesser Beta or Omega males to reproduce.

Hence, today we have a lot a manginas. Manginas are the outcome of too many lesser Beta/Omega males being able to reproduce. A Futrelle is a very unnatural outcome.

Maybe the attempts by women to destroy Marriage 1.0 are what nature wants them to do, because nature is seeing too many manginas being created, and this is a process to correct that. What is wrong is that women have enacted laws to steal a man’s income stream on a ‘no fault’ basis, and to use children as conduits for wealth seizure.

But perhaps the wishes by women to shut out the bottom half of men from reproduction, is in fact what nature wants, to get evolutionary norms back on track.

Of course, this brings up the problem of civilization being the product of the work of beta males. But then again, are the bottom 20% of men doing any useful work? If Futrelle represents the culmination of mangina existence, I think we can agree he and his ilk were never going to be the ones who did any useful work in terms of keeping the lights on and the roads paved. In other words, are the bottom rung of men even the ones doing any of the useful work? I think many of them are not (again, look at the most committed manginas, and see if they have any ability to do the important, civilization-sustaining work).

Maybe women are acting a certain way, because nature wants them to, in order to undo the generations upon generations of selective breeding that enabled manginas to exist.

After all, one thing that feminists and androsphere men can agree on, is that manginas should not exist, and all costs should be transferred onto manginas, without mercy.

This idea is still evolving, but there may be merit to the idea that if Marriage 1.0 enabled generations upon generations of bottom-rung men to reproduce, where they never would have under prehistoric norms, the present-day population of mangina represents the cumulative refuse of that unnatural selection, and women are merely attempting to correct this, under nature’s directi0n. If this is the case, we should not oppose it. Rather, we should only be educating men and let THEM decide on whether they want to be red pill, or blue pill (and hence on the waitlist for the extinction that women are gradually processing them into).

This also means that Game is important, for single AND married guys. Your evolutionary future depends on it.

Wilson #racist the-spearhead.com

Conquest through genocide is not actually immoral, since there is no “social contract” being violated, though the greed of it may be questionable. Fleig would support a genocide against whites, so she is in no position to judge anyway, and her motivations–spite, malice, nihilism, betrayal–are much more evil than Columbus’s straightforward and productive ambition

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

Little Ms. Fleig certainly has it in for her forefathers, but is it really her fault? Probably not. She, like most other college girls, is simply parroting what’s been fed to her by her profs. Girls are good at that, which is why teachers like them so much — they’re easy.

If you’re the father of an American girl, is this really what you want your daughter to absorb over the course of four years? Does it add any value whatsoever to the family or to the nation?

Your money would be much better spent sending her to sewing or baking school. Let’s face it: Ms. Fleig isn’t going to discover the cure for cancer. Despite being an attractive young woman, she isn’t going to colonize Mars, either (at her size, she’d be too expensive to launch out of the Earth’s atmosphere). In all likelihood, the best she could hope for is a nonprofit or government job fully funded by her father’s and brother’s tax bills.

And yet she represents 60% of college students. What an enormous, unsustainable waste. It’s impolitic to point it out, but from a cost-benefit point of view, in most cases higher education is entirely wasted on women, and as in Ms. Fleig’s case is often counterproductive.

Eivind Berge #sexist the-spearhead.com

The dimwits who push the female-on-male rape charade are unbelievably childish and naive. They seem to think defining rape is some sort of simplistic mathematical equation where you first accept the most radical feminist definition of rape as the obviously true one, and then you deny all sex differences, and finally use feminist “research” such as NISVS to arrive at some ridiculous prevalence. Never mind that most of the “raped” men hardly feel victimized at all, much less raped, and the sheer ridiculousness if the concept itself.

The imbeciles promulgating this line of supposed men’s rights activism remind me of a four-year-old who has just found out what murder is, and then tries to figure out what the prevalence is by childishly thinking that if murder is to cause someone’s death, then most doctors and anyone associated with hospice care are murderers because they administer palliative care which hastens people’s death rather than putting dying patients in intensive care to extend their agony as long as possible. The child would then logically conclude that oh gee, we need to imprison all doctors because they are all murderers! Of course, anyone with an ounce of common sense understands that you cannot simply apply banal definitions mechanically to learn about profoundly meaningful human concepts such as rape and murder. Grownups used to understand this. Throughout all of history before feminism, all humans had the common sense to understand that women forcing men to have sex does not belong in the category of rape. Even when female sexual coercion really occurs, it is such a qualitatively different, trifling experience for most men that it is ludicrous to call it rape and attempt to treat it exactly the same way. And needless to say, applying the most radical feminist definition of rape on top of all this nonsense can only do men more harm than good.

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

[On extending protection to male rape victims]

And this also gets to the heart of my objection to applying the victimhood mantle to the male. Making men as physically helpless and violable as contemporary feminists hold women to be is a form of social castration. One of the defining characteristics of masculinity is the possession of agency — the ability to act. Take this away and we are slaves, so removing this from men – even with a concept ostensibly meant to “protect” men – leads us down a hole, at the bottom of which we find ourselves bereft of our manhood both culturally and legally. And make no mistake: many people really do want to rob men of their manhood. Male feminist Michael Kimmel has made a career of it.

This is not to say that men cannot be victimized or real victims; they clearly can and this has always been recognized. But the most effective means of victimizing men has always been to reduce them to a state in which they are incapable of protecting themselves and acting in their own interests, and this is accomplished as easily by feminizing them as by direct force of arms.

When a woman appeals to people for help and protection, she is engaged in an empowering act. When men rush to a woman’s aid, it demonstrates her female potency. When her “needs” are met by others, it does not detract from but rather adds to her status. For ancient, immutable reasons, this does not apply to men.

The man who cries “help” feels a certain shame. When he must apply for welfare, it is humiliating and emasculating. That men must swallow their pride and do so from time to time is a given, but almost all of us recognize that it is far from ideal when the necessity presents itself. Ideally, the man has agency, and can fend for himself. In a society that valued men, steps would be taken to ensure that men have the opportunity to do so. A society that enshrines male victimhood is the exact opposite.

TFH #fundie the-spearhead.com

‘Feminists’ only became interested in the sciences one they saw that money was being made there.

Same goes for the military. Once the pensions and health benefits looked attractive to women, they wanted in.

Women are biologically wired, via millions of years of evolution, to go where resources are being generated, with the sole hope that some of that will be given to them before some other woman gets there.

TFH #fundie the-spearhead.com

"Although Americans take for granted that scientists are geeks, in other cultures a gift for math is often seen as demonstrating that a person is intuitive and creative."

Yes. And in these cultures, women are required to be virgins at marriage (at an age of 22-25, no later), *and* women are required to marry beta providers, without the ‘no fault’ financial guarantees that she gets from corrupt US divorce laws. THAT is why men in STEM are still valued in those cultures – for reasons that feminists would shriek about if imposed on them.

The cultures where STEM men are valued are precisely the cultures where a woman’s gina tingles are heavily controlled and cannot be acted on, through substantial cultural restrictions.

Women don’t understand cause and effect very well.

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

However, in tandem with state enforcement of male provision to women, a new dowry system emerged among the middle classes and above. Instead of directly compensating the husband with cash or an allowance, parents train their daughters to be paid employees who will bring home a sizable contribution to the family, and who can support themselves financially. This is the upper-middle-class marriage norm today. Well-educated urban men simply will not marry women unless these women can provide an income to the family. This is the basis of the marriage gap that has emerged in recent decades.

Women in the lower classes cannot provide the income desired by higher-status males, and they have nothing to contribute to the home of a working man, so few men are willing to take the chance and marry them. In fact, for many working class men, it is cheaper and easier to pay child support and be a part-time father than to put up a woman who can neither run a home nor earn any income to speak of. I have noticed that a working class urban culture is slowly developing in which men no longer even take the idea of marriage – even to the mothers of their children – seriously at all. On a positive note, I see many more of these men out and about with their children today than I did a couple decades ago.

Neither of the above trends amounts to empowerment of women, and for most women they are a step down. It still may not look that way today, but the trend is headed clearly in one direction: a restoration of reciprocity. The short-lived era of one-way obligations in favor of women is drawing to a close.

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

We often speak of the elite, inequality and instability, and what’s in store for the West in the future. Given low Western birth rates and recent mass immigration, I think we can predict with some certainty that we will face serious challenges, and possibly even insurrections within our own borders, just like the former Soviet Union.

This is a problem that was created by the people who are in power today. The post-Cold War political leaders who came into their own in the 1990s foisted their insane dream of a rainbow world, with everyone living in one big hippie commune headed, naturally, by a progressive white elite, on the rest of us.

Feminism is just one part of this political act of hubris, but it was enacted fairly early. Just as feminism and its effects have really started to make themselves felt over the last decade with skyrocketing illegitimacy, the failure of marriage as a social institution and the slow withdrawal of working-class men from productive enterprise, the next shoe to drop will be the spectacular failure of multiculturalism and integration.

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

[An article in The Guardian accused the "manosphere" of being part of the right-wing establishment]

But that said, the disconnect with reality Ms. Moore’s article displays is truly bizarre. She must be living in an alternate reality, and her misplaced hysteria is odd to say the least. Perhaps she’s going through some hormonal changes, such as menopause. Or maybe she’s reflexively reverting to the old, traditional feminism of her long-lost youth.

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

Privileges, whether earned or not, give one an advantage over others who do not share them. However, the advantage is relative; it does not exist when the unprivileged are absent.

Therefore, one would expect that if white privilege were real, in order to capitalize on it white people would be rushing to surround themselves with nonwhites, avoiding white neighborhoods, going to majority nonwhite schools, doing business mainly with nonwhites and working with nonwhites.

In the meanwhile, nonwhites would avoid majority white neighborhoods, institutions, schools and workplaces, because they would be at a disadvantage in these places.

Do we see this happening?

Nope.

The concept of male privilege can be debunked in the same manner. If men really were privileged, why would women push so hard to gain entrance into male institutions, and men have so little interest in female ones? The implication here is not that men have privilege, but rather that women do.

So next time someone blathers on about “white male privilege,” simply ask: if it really exists, why is it that so few people take advantage of it?

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

Today, sodomy isn’t seen as harmful, but rather a sport of sorts. Or perhaps an expression of affection.

...

Finally, I suspect that many boys have been “taught” to engage in anal sex at a young age. They then take up the practice and sodomize younger boys when they get older.

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

There seems to be a certain histrionic flair in the male feminist, which suggests to me that they do in fact identify with women on some deep personal level.

...

[Skepticism is] a masculine attitude, and entirely natural.

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

"Any scholar, who assumes that female students who show interest in the subject and ask for help because they have a crush on you or hope to manipulate you with their sexual charms, is a reality-challenged idiot."

This is a straight-up lie. Anyone with any sense knows that women naturally use sex to manipulate men, and they very frequently develop crushes on male authority figures. Of course, feminists rely on lies to maintain the illusion of “equality,” so they never let inconvenient facts get in their way.

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

I don’t think [the founding fathers] made any mistakes given the society they had to work with at the time. However, I really don’t think they understood that religions other than Christianity, given sufficient numbers of adherents, could pose an existential threat to the form of government they created, which was built for the Christian civilization they lived in, however many sects there were at the time. For example, the concept of separation of church and state is a strong feature of Christianity, but totally absent – even abhorrent – in Islam.

...

The Spaniards, given their experience, would have thought the idea of total freedom of religion a form of insanity. And, as we see today, “secular” ideologies such as equalism, which may have derived in part from Christianity, have little use for the concept of freedom of religion (or any other freedoms).

Charles Martel #fundie the-spearhead.com

Despite what I said above I am so grateful not to have to work around women any more. I am very sorry for Harry’s generation as this is going to be their lifelong reality. The sheer smug triumphalism of the women being affirmative-actioned into all the institutions built by men is enough to make me want to see it all burn.

After having thought about this for thousands of hours over many years it all boils down to this. Only one sex is born with the plumbing to make more people. It’s unfair as hell, yes, when there are so many great man-toys like MIT to play with, but it’s a biological reality. Women can choose to play laboratory or office instead of having children for a couple of generations but then the wheels come off. The future belongs to those who reproduce.

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

A federal judge in New York has just ruled that stop and frisk, which has created, through essentially random searches and police harassment, some semblance of order in New York City, is unconstitutional. Before stop and frisk, New York was plagued with record high murders and street crime. Mayor Rudy Giuliani turned things around through aggressive policing that targeted mainly black and Hispanic young men, who comprise the majority of criminal offenders in the city. The result was a couple decades of police-enforced safety that allowed the Sex and the City, hipster and other whitopia cultures to flourish on the streets of New York.

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

[One of Osama Bin Laden's wives sacrificed herself trying to protect him]

How many men will ever know such love from a woman? How many good, humble, dutiful men will ever earn a fraction of such sacrifice?

A woman’s love is one of the mysteries of the universe. It is lawless and unfathomable to us men. All of our notions of right and wrong – even our sense of the order of things – is swept away as a trifle by the passions of women.

It is lessons such as these that should make it perfectly clear that being a good man is not something done for the sake of or benefit of women, but rather, as their deepest feelings too often betray and actions sadly declare, in spite of them.

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

It seems that con artists are the penultimate alphas, as their sociopathic tendencies are irresistible to women. This raises the question of whether women should be allowed any interaction with male prisoners at all.

...

When white knighting extends even to people who fraternize with criminals, it is clear that our society cannot handle so-called gender equality, which is a fraud of a concept that serves only to reinforce irresponsible female behavior at the expense of men.

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

I’ve had the opportunity to get to know some of the different varieties of feminism as it is understood in different parts of the world. In truth, feminism is looked upon with abhorrence by the vast majority of the world’s population. Even most Americans – including women – refuse to identify with it, and other than in the Nordic countries it is perhaps most popular in the US. In most of the global South, which includes the bulk of the world’s people, feminists are seen as borderline criminals, and certainly bizarre, depraved women.

And I would definitely agree with my Asian, African and Latin American friends in that regard—

However, even I have to admit that there are certain kinds of feminism that just aren’t as vicious, cruel and horribly effective as our own variety has been.

Take FEMEN and Pussy Riot for example. Both are examples of Eastern European feminism, and as obscene and repugnant as they can be, the net effect of their actions has been remarkably tame. Even their anti-religious stunts – hate crimes, really – have been little more than petty vandalism and hooliganism. Contrast that to our own “Christian feminism” that has all but subverted the Christian faith in a number of denominations. Or the feminism that laid waste to Reform Judaism, and threatens to do the same to Conservative Judaism. It wouldn’t even surprise me to see a form of feminist Islam openly emerge in the near future. This is a distinctly Anglo phenomenon.

GX1080 #fundie the-spearhead.com

[A man became the first legal male prostitute in the US]

I have pity on the guy, but given that the money is in hands of women who sacrified their fertile years to an unholy carrousel of alpha cock and to a Corporative Monolith for said money, there’s a market in there.

Hope that the guy can stand servicing Cougars. Although I think that the term can be applied to Old Gay Men too.

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

We have always had moral qualms about using children in war; one of the most disgusting scenes of World war II was Hitler in his last days encouraging little German boys to go out and die in a hopeless cause. And yet when there is no pressing need for it the progressives want to use women.

Some “progress”—

Brigadon #fundie the-spearhead.com

The chickens are coming home to roost..
My prediction is, in the future, women will finally succeed in creating the ‘utopia’ that they have been trying to build for themselves.

They will be nothing more than prey, or perhaps slaves. The only protection they will have will be whomever considers them property.

Why bother protecting a woman when you will get vilified and have your life destroyed?

Why bother having a relationship with a woman when it leads to nothing but either imprisonment for claimed ‘rape’ or slavery for the rest of your life to pay her bills?

why bother seeking a prostitute to have your needs met when it leads inexorably to a prison sentence?

Why bother asking a woman when it is much easier and safer to simply have your way with her and then sink her body in the bay?

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

Because gendered roles did develop, and continue to do so, the natural roles they were based on must necessarily exist. Something does not derive from nothing. That feminists can look over the span of history – not to mention contemporary society – and maintain that none of these results are based on nature discredits all of their subsequent conclusions. In other words, the cornerstone of Western feminist thought is based on flawed reasoning, and all of the evils of feminism derive from this fundamental flaw.

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

[On wrestling being removed from the Olympics]

Yep. This is another example of feminist arm-twisting to wrest concessions from men, such as funding for women’s boxing, basketball, and probably golf (lesbians’ typical salaries aren’t high enough for those fancy new clubs). It’s Title IX at the Olympic level; if a men’s sport isn’t justifying itself with enormous revenue – even if it performs far better than the female equivalent – it is fair game for attack. As in divorce, the tactic goes something like this: “Let’s escalate our demands and see how much he really cares about that baby.”

Maybe when the ancient Olympians banned all women but maidens from the ceremonies they were on to something. Putting them in charge, as we modern fools have done, has turned out to be a big mistake.

TFH #fundie the-spearhead.com

Actually, I think that 2015 is the deadline by which anyone who could become red pill, will.

More and more of our content is out there, and more mainstream people are talking about it (James Taranto, Dr. Helen’s book, Walter Russell Mead). It will no longer be possible for any man under, say, 60 to still be on the fence. He either has to become a red-piller or a mangina/whiteknight.

Andrew Johnston is an example of what I have said for a long time, that a single man practicing Game deprives 10 or more manginas of what little scraps they were getting. Game is highly asymmetrical, and hence Andrew Johnston represents the effect a mangina experiences when more men learn Game.

However, a mangina only knows how to react in one way : doubling down. Manginas will soon be paying $1000 on a first date with a 5—.. as they should, since it is the natural order for manginas to bear the costs (that is why nature created them). Our job is to make sure the costs get transferred to manginas.

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

[Anarchists held violent protests in Seattle on May Day]

I find it ironic that the anarchists make such an effort to fight the police, because if it weren’t for an orderly society with rule of law they’d be among the first ones liquidated by gangs and citizen militias.

For the most part these groups contain far-left malcontents whose ideology consists of little besides a hatred for all things normal. They are tolerated because they are, in truth, the the radical edge of statist absolutism. It is exactly these kinds of people who paved the way for Bolsheviks, who made up much of the membership of Ernst Röhm’s SA, and who gleefully wrecked the last vestiges of classical Chinese civilization as Red Guards under Chairman Mao.

TFH #fundie the-spearhead.com

Nice incentive structure women create, once they are given the freedom to do so.

We are an in an interim phase of human history, when women having the right to vote is considered an obvious, normal thing. Not long ago, it was not, and it will again not be not too long from now.

But we are in a weird phase where this is considered normal. Just like how from 1946-73, having a high-paying manufacturing job seemed like a permanent, normal thing. Or how from 1997-99, joining a dot-com seemed like a path to quick riches. Or how in 1979, Communism seemed to be winning.

Alcestis Eshtemoa #fundie the-spearhead.com

Feminists won’t disavow murder. They like human sacrifice and bowing down to Satanic idols.

And the atheistic reductionists like abortion too (well, they actually value animals more than worthless humans, which they have in common with the feminists and the environmentalists).

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

The psychic forces that contribute to feminism are always simmering under the surface of human society, so feminism will easily emerge under the right conditions. Women will leverage their sexuality for political favoritism when the opportunity arises, just as men will use their political power for access to women when they get the chance. Feminism is simply a politicized form of prostitution whereby women gain favors and privileges en masse by virtue of being sexually desired by men, and nothing else. This is why, year after year, feminists can get away with the spectacularly self-serving and obvious lie that their material accomplishments are so meager because men didn’t “give them the opportunity” (i.e. give them more money, power, etc.).

Next page