Alcuin

Newsflash: Hapless middle aged career girl eats wormwood

2012-03-03T17:37:00.000-08:00

As women grow more and more estranged from men, and as men reject chivalry and leave women to move their own furniture, we find that the sisterhood is not holding up. It turns out that without men to hit up for expenses, lawsuits, slander, and blame, woman-on-woman abuse and shaming could be the next big civilizational freak-show courtesy of the cultural Marxists / feminist.

Some women simply have no heart, as regarding motherhood.

Petronella Wyatt writes in the British Telegraph: "Sorry, but it makes me want to barf. Mumsnet is an excuse for inane females with nothing better to do to chatter about matters so simpering that you want to knock their teeth out. ''Is the name Alfie really a no-no for a birth certificate?” is one of the questions currently being debated, as well as “feminine names for girls that end in an 'a’ ”. Banal as this is, why is there no equivalent for childless women? Don’t we need support? "

Well, what do single, childless women do that is of importance?

This woman compares single middle-aged women - mostly white, narcissistic, abrasive, overeducated bitches - to Jews, blacks, and other oppressed minorities of the past. These women have had everything handed to them on a platter, yet they are still not satisfied, going so far as making such a comparison.

Yet readers do get a clear sense of just who the aggressive ones are here. Such women as Wyatt are jealous and unsupportive of women who choose a different path from theirs:

"I have worked all my adult life. As a SAC, I have rarely taken time off. I have sacrificed numerous public holidays to allow colleagues to celebrate with their children. And don’t get me started on maternity leave (up to 12 months!). Then, last autumn, I was made redundant from a newspaper. When I relayed this to a married colleague she was less than sympathetic: ''It would be far worse if you had dependants.’’ A single and childless girlfriend who was fired recently was told something similar by her ex-boss: “It’s not as if you have children to support.” "

Career gals are not supportive of maternity leave and other benefits for child-bearing women, in case you didn't get the memo.

The zero-sum narcissism that feminism drills into women in relation to men, pushing them to grab as much as they can from us, seems to be aimed more and more towards anyone who's successful. Women have started targeting each other, in other words.

The author, herself fairly bitter and uncharitable, is shocked at the indifference and uncharitableness of others, particularly women, towards her and her single state. She notes, "As the recession bites, friendship is becoming démodé. I know one hostess who now divides people into the categories of “useful” and “useless”. SACs who are not influential high earners often fall into the latter category. ''I can’t afford to entertain people simply because they’re nice,’’ she says. ''These days you need friends who can pull strings, or who have a villa somewhere hot you can take the kids to. Single women with no children or money can’t do anything for you. Most of them are a bit freakish, anyway.’’ "

What kind of a friend would this woman make, one wonders, after reading her narcissism?

It sounds like some women are starting to face the same nonsense that men long have, of double-standards, superficial friendships, and vicious back-stabbing. Wyatt condemns the friendlessness and shallow support of people supposed to be her friends, as well as the supposed injustices of the lack of government benefits for single, childless working women. Welcome to the world of men, dearie. Enjoy. No charity or special treatment for you.

The sense one gets from all this is that she is beginning to realize just how alone she is in the world. An MBA and wage-slavery are not so wonderful after all, it turns out. Lady Wormwood has no one to turn to, and she knows it.

The following shows a deep resentment towards child-bearing women (again, where's the sisterhood ladies?) and exasperation at her failure to hook a man: "It is not as if all SACs have taken a conscious decision to live unmarried and childless. It is mis-timing and bad luck that has prevented me from meeting a man to grow old and grey with. As for children, it is no achievement merely to give birth." Yeah, that's what it is: Mis-timing and bad luck. Sure.

Anyone reading this article will come away convinced that this woman fully deserves to be alone and ignored, shuffled aside as society has more important things to focus on than women past their due.

Again, one is shocked at how dazed and confused the modern gal is at the workings of karma. They are selfish, abrasive, cunty, pro-abortion, misandrist, anti-tradition, and anti-family, yet complain when they are rejected as a "freakish" old spinster.

What the fuck were you expecting? The Nobel?

Against Fatherhood

2012-03-02T17:42:00.000-08:00

Ours will be known as the anti-fatherhood age.

In the latest round of propaganda, feminists attack the image of a father feeding a baby: "Breastfeeding activists in New Zealand raised so much of a stink over an ad featuring a dad bottle-feeding his baby that the New Zealand government actually decided to edit the image above out of the ad."

You know you're hated as a class when your acts of loving kindness are reframed as acts of terror. Fatherhood is terrorism in our society; fathers are Bin Ladens; fathers threaten the common good, as defined by progressives. Naturally, female supremacist groups cannot say so directly, so use their refined techniques of sentimentalism, so buffed and shined from Slutathons and anti-bullying campaigns (when we all know who the real bullies happen to be).

In our age, breastfeeding is not about breastfeeding just like breast cancer is not about breast cancer, and rape is not about rape.

As if they care about the health of babies. If they did, wouldn't they be anti-abortionists? They raised a stink because they can't handle a man doing something fatherly, especially if it's put into the media. What they want to see is more lone gunman scenes, more rape Kultur talk, more breast cancer awareness pinkification. Anything to keep fatherhood, masculinity, male achievement, and the like out of the limelight. Showing fallen men, such as high school gunners, is fine.

At least the journalist had some modicum of sense:

"While the government's decision could be viewed as a victory for La Leche League, which protested the ad, some observers have concluded that the decision is a sad day for dads. If a father is going to be involved in the feeding of his new baby, it's only going to happen through a bottle. Even in many families where the baby is drinking breast milk exclusively, Mom is often pumping milk to allow others -- including Dad -- to feed the baby breast milk through a bottle. So, to state the obvious: An ad showing a dad bottle-feeding a baby doesn't mean that the child isn't drinking breast milk."

The reporter notes that it's not up to others to judge these things, but in the age of "the personal is political," in fact the feminist mullahs seize every opportunity to attack fatherhood, men, and family life. Feminism parallels Marxism in its attempt to destroy the family and community, and make the state the substitute for these.

Guess who gets to run the state? The feminazis.

The relentless nature of these attacks on men, coming from every direction, gives one the sense that it is a well-funded, well-directed colossus.

The linked story, "Best age to be a mom", shows just how concerned women are with the place of men in the family, i.e., NOT interested.

Is the Catholic Church our Friend?

2012-03-01T20:17:00.000-08:00

Just like the Nazis attacked the Catholic Church and their preferred scapegoat, the Jews, so feminists and our modern society as a whole attacks the Church and its preferred scapegoat, men. The link between Church-hating and men-hating is strong.

Some will say that many men hate the Church, yet they don't hate themselves. Some MRAs will say that they hate the Church and feminism. Some will make a connection between the Church and the rise of feminism. Many will accuse the Church of emasculating men.

The modern world is a revolt against the father. The father is represented in tradition, the Church, the military, and so on. When feminists and other revoltants cannot upend the institution in question, they hate it and set about slandering it. They cannot change the nature of men, for instance, even with all the ritalin in the world. So they hate and slander men. They cannot change the Catholic Church, since the Church does not take its marching orders from a bunch of banshees. So they hate and slander the Church.

Men and the Church are slandered in the West for the same reason and from the same people. Notice that the bitches who hate the Church and the pope are the same ones who took a few Women's Studies classes.

Why do some men hate the Church and yet consider themselves MRAs? Because they haven't seen the connections. Because the Church has over the last centuries become an emasculating place. Because many feminists and liberals in general have infiltrated the Church, thus leading to countless feminist nuns and other social do-gooders who buy into human trafficking propaganda and the like.

To those who are doubtful of the connection between misandry and Christophobia, just observe the feminist banshees in the staffroom. Nothing gets their goat up more than men, save the Church. They direct their ire, their hate-filled jokes, at men and the Church.

The modern world has rebelled against the father, as represented by the Church and by men. Women consider both to be obstacles to their well-being. The Church would have them stop their murderously narcissistic abortion culture. It would have them become loyal housewives. It would have them turn back to the traditional virtues, not least of all having the man as the head of the household. All of this would stop feminism dead in its tracks.

It's a connection - Catholic-hatred and man-hatred - that cannot be denied. It should prompt us to examine the roots of feminism a little more closely. What is it really trying to accomplish? What does the Church represent that feminists hate so wildly?

While it would be erroneous to heed always the proverb, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," one wonders if there could be the potential for a deeper friendship between the Catholic Church and the men's movement. As others have noted, monasticism and the priesthood were the original MGTOW. The collapse of feminine and motherly virtues may well be a boon in the future to the Church and the priesthood, as the modern Frau turns men off more and more, and those men seek their future somewhere else.

We can learn a lot about our enemies and their true motives by considering the things that they absolutely hate. As well, it is somewhat counter-cultural to be a Catholic, even with its feminized environment. It might be worth a try seeking out the more male-friendly corridors of the Church.

In any case, feminist hatred for the Church is fascinating.

Revolting

2012-02-29T20:22:00.000-08:00

Protestantism was a revolt, a protest, against the Roman Church. The very identity of Protestants and the movement is to this day and age one of reacting against the Church and its tradition.

Modernity, as a secular extension of the religious protest of Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin, and so on, is a protest against the world. Moderns are Protestant Christians without Christ. As such, they get their identity from that which they are protesting against.

The OWS protestors hate Wall Street more than they love each other. They seek justice in the abstract because they hate the injustice they see. But they will never be able to go beyond.They would have to change their identity, demanding a level of critical self-awareness that they don't have.

Feminism is a protest against tradition, which its members call patriarchy. At first, some feminists convinced themselves or others that they didn't dislike men, but simply the system. However, any man with any experience of western women will have experienced man-hatred. Feminism is a protest against men and the very existence of men. Feminists hate men like OWS'ers hate Wall Street.

What binds modernity with post-modernity is this revolt. What binds Marxism with feminism is this revolt. Slutwalking and OWS come courtesy of the same people. They are all revolting against the powers-that-be, or the felt (assumed) powers-that-be. Authority or tradition is bad simply for being authority or tradition. Lies can be manufactured to slander the Church, tradition, men, or Wall Street. That's why the bitch who makes Jesus jokes in the staffroom is the same bitch who makes men jokes. She's revolting (pun intended).

Yet these protestors establish no new authority or tradition, so they never attain satisfaction. Feminism cannot be satisfied with equality because it is a perpetual revolt. It exists in order to make women angry at men. As long as there is feminism there will be angry women. That is why it is futile to try to reason with a feminist or to try to bring about some just society. Manginas have deeply misread things, taking feminists at their word over goals such as equality. Manginas are usually the men taking part in the OWS sort of thing. They are too stupid to see that perpetual protest eventually turns round and bites at least some of the people in the ass. That's why many manginas end up in family court or some other purgatory, after having hoped against hope to receive the necessary spiritual and moral cleansing offered by feminism.

The real protesting for protest's sake identity of feminism is why that ideology has moved beyond equality talk and has become a female supremacist movement. At least consciously, 30 years ago feminism to its minions was about equality - again, at least in the talking. Now, because equality is not an issue (considering such things as education, where women graduate with far more university degrees than men, or life expectancy, where women outlive men by wide margins in most countries, or DV, where it is men who are getting screwed), feminism has to do something else in order to keep revolting. It has decided that men are inferior to women, and must be placed in this lower position.

Reason with a western woman, and you will be treated like a dog because you are a dog in her eyes. You are the authority, the tradition, against which she is revolting. You are the Catholic Church, and she Luther. She is morally superior to you, just like the OWS protestors, in their mostly-chosen poverty and filth, cling to their moral superiority while the bankers eat steak and travel around the world. What peace can there be between such opponents? Note that the bankers have simply gotten on with their lives; most can't be bothered by OWS - Bankers going their own way,

That is why protestors all emit the same garbled, confusing nonsense about sticking it to someone. Their identity is not for but against. They cannot be satisfied, for to be satisfied would demand great maturity - because they would have to change their personality. They would have to stop roaring and start listening. They would have to stop critiquing others and start a self-criticism.

When has a western women stopped yacking and began to listen to her man? When has feminism taught women to take responsibility? Empowerment is about grabbing from men, not about women developing themselves.

Of course it can be done. Countless Protestants have entered the Church and embraced Catholicism after realizing the thinness of their own religion, of the perpetual protestor, the Protestant. Many OWS protestors will one day realize they should attain something other than their current nonsense.

America is a Protestant country, we are often told. Ironically, it is the least formally religious, the liberal lefties, those who put so much hope in aimless change, who are the most religious of all. They'll drink just about anybody's cool-aid, as long as it is contra cool-aid.

Protestantism has had an amazing amount of energy, capable of spreading across the globe and uprooting millions of people from their cultural and religious lives. Yet Protestants always divide from each other, because when there is no Catholic Church against which to rebel, they start to in-fight. Tens of thousands of Protestant denominations exist, one to curry to each person's spiritual interests. It is a capitalism of the soul, which markets religious beliefs and feelings like fast food does hamburgers. It is junk food for the soul.

The modern political age, the child of protesting Protestantism, is likewise junk food for the soul. That's why it is so harmful to women, men, families, and all of society. Just as Protestantism can uproot societies (Korea, parts of India, Africa) from their original human ecosystems, so feminism and other post-Christian brands of protest, uproot societies, starting with families.

So here in Asia, over the past 7 years, we have seen the establishment of the divorce society, where ending marriage is no longer the catastrophe that it once was. People want to be modern. To be modern is to protest.

Will the modern Asian gal become as misandrist as die Frauen back home? Will she also become revolting?

One Dead, Four Wounded in Ohio

2012-02-29T01:30:00.002-08:00

As always happens when such tragedies strike, everyone's surprised. The gunman was a quiet, sorta nice guy from a broken home and the target of some bullying.

Feminists can and will of course seize on the "man" part of gunman (even while they don't call heroes firemen or policemen). Yet another chance to shame men. "Who does all the violence we read about in the news?" comes the well-rehearsed interrogation.

CNN reports on the shooting by talking first to a female student, then to the mother of another female student. The CNN announcer is a woman. CNN shows women digesting and dealing with male violence. Great story, blared out for all the world to see.

CNN also had the mother report that the boy "liked to hunt". Like beer drinking, hunting is related to men, so related to losers, incompetent men, or violent men.

During the time that it took for this guy to go on his rampage, how many abortions were performed in Ohio?

Abortion forms the core of the feminist movement, and feminism forms the core of the modern woman. Women kill, but they keep everything quiet. In fact, women don't commit the actual murder, but pay for the service to be done for them. They pay for the murder service. It is actually a right, in case anyone challenges or doubts this.

When women want to kill, they turn it into a right. They get someone else to do the bloody work. They keep it quiet. They redefine it - as they do everything - so that we no longer call it murder.

Women cannot escape the violent or murderous tendencies of humans. But they don't have to; they redefine it, calling murder a right and necessary for their health. Humans need to sacrifice humans, it seems, to some goal or god, such as the future or an MBA/career. In the case of the Ohio gunman, maybe he was seeking justice for bullying.

While the violence committed by women is sublimated into a right, into empowerment, something to be fought for, men are given no such charity. Yet, again, one wonders how many Ohio babies were aborted during the time that it took the high school kid to do his shooting.

Because abortion forms the heart and soul of feminism, it is erroneous to think, as some MRAs do, that it is none of their business. Abortion changes a woman, encouraging her to reject her motherhood and femininity, the very core of a woman. Even thinking about having an abortion attacks these virtues.

A woman capable of aborting her child is capable of doing anything. She'll fuck up a man without any second thoughts. Why would men be surprised that a woman who can kill her baby would find it so easy to screw him around and ruin his life.

Many men ask why women have become so hardened, so hysterical, so selfish, and so cold to men and male suffering. In one word: abortion. When a woman attacks the most human part of her, she attacks her very humanity. She turns her back on femininity and motherhood for an MBA and wage-slavery.

The real tragedy in America and the West isn't lone gunmen, but abortion. It has killed our civilization. Once again, one sees the parallels between Nazism and feminism with the skewed sense of power and the willingness to use whatever means necessary to pursue goals. Feminism uses rights talk to commit murder, hiding behind victim propaganda to strike out any mention of abortion as murder, even while the nation goes ballistic any time CNN reports a lone gunman. Nazis built concentration camps; feminists have aboratoria and abortion culture (whence their rape Kultur smokescreen).

It is in men's interest to destroy the abortion industry. This starts by speaking the truth about women and violence in society. Remember, the greatest triumph of the women's movement has been to legalize murder, and to get us to stop calling it murder. Just like the Nazis not only legalized the murder of Jews, but got its citizens to stop seeing it as murder. Thus the great tragedy of feminism is its replication of the Nazi sleight of hand.

The New Indian II

2012-02-28T06:40:00.002-08:00

Canada's native population, often referred to as the First Nations, were forcibly sent by the Canadian federal and provincial governments (though the federal has the ultimate power or responsibility for the native peoples in Canada) to government- and church-run schools as a way to undermine their culture. It was an exercise in social engineering. Canadians are well-acquainted with the ins and outs of this all. The BBC News presents the latest facts in Canadian commission....

From the country's formation in the 19th Century until the 1970s, the children had to attend schools where they were stripped of their identity.
Many of the 150,000 children also suffered physical abuse from the staff at the church-run boarding schools.An interim report says children left the schools "as lost souls"

The governments and churches have given countless apologies. The United Church of Canada, for instance, has offered money and counseling services as well as apology after apology.

The students were not allowed to speak their languages, nor to have close contact with their families. The RCMP would come and forcibly round up the kids whose parents didn't willingly send them. The schools, in other words, were educational concentration camps for kids, where they lost contact with the own society and its traditions.

Many of those people fell into drug and alcohol abuse, and lives of crime and dependence on the government. The churches and the government, in their attempt at social engineering, ruined countless lives.

Well, shit, any parallels with today?

The governments and their social services and educational departments are doing the same thing today to men today to strip their identity and turn them into lost souls. Men are the new Indians, getting removed, forcibly, under police and court order, from our families. The physical abuse includes administering ritalin and other drugs to kill masculinity in boys. Boys are as much a social engineering "problem" to be solved as the natives and their age-old culture were from 1800-1970.

The RCMP rounded up the Indian children 60 years ago. Now, they round up "dead-beat dads" and falsely-accused men. Domestic violence disputes end with an incarcerated male, even though women tend to initiate the violence and use weapons etc. in such disputes. The police enforced the previous social engineering against Indians, and do so now against men.

Decades ago, the educational system attacked the First Nations' culture and way of life. Now, educators attack boys and men, and their rambunctiousness and initiative. Modern education is today's equivalent of the Indian Residential School, the way to knock down and socially engineer the current scapegoat.

The churches and government lost confidence in their Indian social engineering project, and gradually dropped it. Why haven't they yet lost confidence in their current social engineering project?

We're still using education as a way to indoctrinate and socially engineer. Boys and men are the new Indian. Will boys and men - and therefore all of society - end up like Canadian First Nations?

Society hasn't really changed. It's simply changed its Indian, and found a new scapegoat.

Writing Nonsense

2012-02-25T18:42:00.003-08:00

Christianity, feminism, the media, and the academy have all somehow come together to offer us sappy sentimental nonsense that means nothing. This is feminization.

Naturally, feminists have colonized the study of history. The utter nonsense in David Teems' recent biography of Bible translator William Tyndale is a case in point. The author tends repeatedly to make sweeping observations or generalizations about the Catholic Church, medieval times, or Tyndale himself without any proof whatsoever, echoing the feminist tendency to do this.

Logic is too masculine for our times, so a book's premise no longer needs to be set out in a logical way.

While one becomes used to gibberish nonsense in Christian spirituality, the New Age movement, and feminism, one would hope that history writers would strive for a bit more maturity, feminist takeover notwithstanding.

How does the following belong in a book on history:

"There is a thrill beneath it all, a frisson, something you can almost feel, that shudders beneath the ice."
"He is a pew-fellow with death. He knows nothing. Everything he does now is by a faith that eclipses all of life, which overwhelms it and infuses his work."
"He lives by a fine nerve, one that heightens everything around him, that enhances life, and no artist can leave these things undone, or without expression."

How on earth do such sentences shed light on this historical figure? The writer offers them without any primary sourcing, such as letters or church documents. He is in the halfway world between biography and fiction. This is the part of life occupied most prominently by feminists - a twilight zone of half-baked nonsense and selected facts. This is how feminism has always built its case, in a hazy sort of fog somewhere between truth and imagination, covered in emotionalism.

Rape, for instance, is a violent act, one that needs to be opposed. Yet feminists come up with the utter fiction of rape culture as a way to slander and encage men.

Writers such as Teems do us a disservice by presenting their fictionalized writing as truth, or by mixing their poetic, subjective side with certain facts. This is the kind of society we have, where the sciences, rather than a search for the truth, are presented as merely one version of reality. Obama turning NASA away from the stars and towards outreach to Muslims exemplifies this as well. We seem to have lost a thirst for the truth, and have replaced it with all sorts of watercoloring.

Rape culture tells us more about the modern woman, and her hatred of men, than it does about men, rape, or culture. In fact, it deliberately falsifies all three. Teems' Tyndale biography is more about Teems than about Tyndale, such as the kneejerk anti-Catholic propaganda.

Anti-Catholicism and anti-traditionalism are relevant to the MRM not only because of this emotional reading of history or anything else. Anti-Catholics or anti-Christians are always good at hating men as well, at least in the staffrooms where I've worked. Denigrating our western past is tightly connected to the feminist community. Women hope to wipe the slate clean of the past, because the past speaks loudly about men's accomplishments.

Writing empty historical guff is a way to manipulate history for your own ends, just like using social science "research" to show that women are victims or some such bullshit.

Before the nineteenth-century revolution in history writing, books often showed a nation's history in more mythological terms. Such histories contained much slander and gossip against other people, and an uncritical litany of a people's heroism. In a sense, writers such as Teems, paralleling feminists, take us back to that foggy place where history is what you want it to be.

And that suits feminists just fine.

Feelin' BAD

2012-02-24T08:21:00.000-08:00

Bitch Affective Disorder (BAD) - Topic Overview

What is ~~seasonal affective disorder (SAD)~~ Bitch Affective Disorder?

~~Seasonal affective disorder, or SAD~~, Bitch affective disorder, or BAD, is a type of ~~depression~~ fucking rage that affects a ~~person~~ ~~during the same season each year~~ a man every time he has to deal with a fucking western skank. If you get ~~depressed~~ enraged ~~in the winter~~ when confronted by misandry and abrasive western feminism, but feel much better ~~in spring and summer~~ anywhere else in the entire goddamn universe you may have ~~SAD~~ BAD.

~~Anyone~~ Any man around western cunts can get ~~SAD~~ BAD, but it is more common in:

~~People~~ Men who live in ~~areas where winter days are very short or there are big changes in the amount of daylight in different seasons~~ anywhere near western women.
~~Women~~. Men
~~People~~ Men ~~between the ages of 15 and 55~~ living anywhere near a fucking western bitch. The risk of getting ~~SAD~~ BAD for the first time goes down as you ~~age~~ run for the fucking hills.
~~People~~ Men who have a close relative ~~with SAD~~ who is or is with a western heifer.

What causes ~~SAD~~ BAD?

Experts are not sure what causes ~~SAD~~ BAD, but they think it may be caused by a lack of ~~sunlight~~ respect, honor, honesty, femininity, truth, and housekeeping. Lack of ~~light~~ traditional virtues may upset your ~~sleep-wake cycle~~ humanity and other ~~circadian rhythms~~ aspects of being a man. It may cause problems with ~~a brain chemical called serotonin that affects mood~~ fucking everything under the sun.

What are the symptoms?

If you have ~~SAD~~ BAD, you may:

Feel sad, grumpy, moody, or anxious.
Lose interest in ~~your usual activities~~ toxic women.
~~Eat~~ Hide or escape more and crave ~~carbohydrates, such as bread and pasta~~ real femininity.
~~Gain weight~~ Be forced to pay outrageous alimony and child support.

Symptoms come and go at about the same time each ~~year~~ moment you're near a skank. For most people with ~~SAD~~ BAD, symptoms start ~~in September or October and end in April or May~~ the moment a western woman walks into the room

How is ~~SAD~~ BAD diagnosed?

It can sometimes be hard to tell the difference between ~~nonseasonal depression and SAD~~ feminists and Nazis because many of the symptoms are the same. To diagnose ~~SAD~~ BAD, your ~~doctor~~ MRA will want to know if:

You have been ~~depressed~~ near a western Frau ~~during the same season~~ anytime since about 1963, and have gotten better when ~~the seasons changed for at least 2 years in a row~~ you are finally able to escape.

How is it treated?

~~Doctors~~ MRAs often prescribe ~~light therapy~~ common sense and self-respect to treat ~~SAD~~ BAD.

(With a few adjustments from http://www.webmd.com/depression/tc/seasonal-affective-disorder-sad-topic-overview)

Feminists and Steers

2012-02-23T18:42:00.004-08:00

While most Germans were guilty in 1946, there were a few proven resisters, many of whom ended up in concentration camps. The following woman is a modern-day resister, and should be applauded. I have never met such a woman face-to-face, thought I've come across tons of women in my family and work life. None of them ever defended the honor and goodness of men. All of the women I have met have accepted feminism in its core values.

Feminism is a shame on women.

If only we had more common sense women like Christy Misty, who observes: "You do not castrate a bull-calf and expect it not to act like a steer."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-_6wwHpAr8&feature=related

Here are some more superb thoughts:

"There is a definite, definite war against men."

"... men being told they are a thing of the past."

The narrator accepts that men and women are different, and offer different things to the world. She then castigates women for not caring about men and only for themselves.

"Women only know a world that is protected by technology." This is a farm-girl talking. She notes the selfishness of women. Women need men, she says, but have deluded themselves, wrapped up in their technology.This mirrors the argument of many men that women have married the government. Technology and government are the protectors of women now. Men are therefore obsolete in the eyes of women. Christy therefore notes, "The goal is to make men obsolete."

She also notes that women in the US military are always being prodded and pushed and helped into leadership roles. Prodded, pushed, and helped: Women need help all along the way in order to succeed. Women can't succeed on their own. She sees the nonsense in this, which most people don't.

"Where can men go to be men anymore... There is no place that they [feminists] are content to leave alone."

Here's a perfect picture of our day and age: "Feminists are these clutching, clawing, grabbing selfish little things - big things - which aren't content to let men have anything to themselves."

The narrator links Nazism and feminism. Most women are too stupid to see the connection. In fact, most men are as well. But the link is there for all to see. The connection is also behavioral: Germans were blind in the 1930s and early 40s, and people are today as well. We've been indoctrinated from our early years, as Christy Misty says, on becoming feminized.

She also speaks of the frustration that boys and male teens therefore feel at school, as they are "regulated" (her word) away from being energetic boys and young men. "Boys are being programmed into thinking there is something wrong with them," she adds.

While I am a MGTOW kind of guy, I do think that we should occasionally include the insights of thoughtful women such as Christy Misty.

Reductio ad absurdum

2012-02-22T16:06:00.000-08:00

Western reductionism - the intellectual flavor du jour in the anemic West - explains a lot of the estrangement that has been encouraged by, especially, liberals.

Racial estrangement, male-female estrangement, class estrangement: You name it, the liberals divide it. Liberals coach a group into feeling victimized over something, even as they also talk about the need to build community. Obama was a "community organizer" at one point in his life, wasn't he?

Sex reductionism, for which the keyword is gender, forms the front line of this nihilism. This reduces all the reality of a person down to the sex of that person. This is meant to come at the expense of tradition, family, religion, and everything else. An individual living in Saudi Arabia who happens to be a female must, in this perspective, shake off - liberate herself from - the Islamic tradition and her very own deep family roots, regardless of the cost to her personally and to her family and society.

All the Fatimas of Saudi are called by western reductionists, also known as feminists, to place their own career, greed, hunger for power, and other lower virtues, above the good of all those around them, even at the expense of bringing down the entire civilization. The higher virtues, which unite humans, are scorned.

Sexual reductionism is the second big motif. Personhood, rather than being the rich interplay of family, tradition, culture, religion, and aspects of the individual, is reduced down to sexual impulses - unregulated, entirely free sexual impulses. The human person becomes a sexual creature. Then the individual's sexuality itself is reduced down from the purpose, which is procreation and deeper relationship, to the most base sexual impulses, which may be an attraction to the opposite sex, or to the same sex, or to both, or even to something more adventurous. Thus the person becomes homo sexualis, and from there moves, ever and ever reduced, down to the most politically correct sexual stirrings. The queer is born. Gay rights and the entire LBGT (or whatever) is based on this reductionism.

Homosexuality is a modern invention, as someone like Michel Foucault noted. In history, a man with homosexual inclinations still had a family and carried out his duties as a man. His sexuality was only one part of him, not something that totally defined him. Nowadays, when a gay or queer person identifies himself as such, he has reduced himself down to his genitalia.

Racial reductionism is another biggie. People over-identify themselves according to how they are not-white. Of course it is racist for whites to feel pride in being white, though some Jews, because of residual guilt over you-know, can still strut a little. But everyone else talks about the struggles it took to overcome the prejudices of society, as if everyone else - white people - has it all handed to them on a tray. As if the Germans or Irish newcomers to America in the nineteenth century had it so bloody easy. They didn't; they just didn't whine and look for handouts and someone to blame. They had a work ethic.

Note that many Asians tend not to whine and wait around for government handouts, and they are the ones becoming most successful not only in western countries, but in the entire world. Asia is the only economic hope at the moment. Sit around and whine and blame, getting poorer and poorer, or get a job and some pride in what you do. Reductionism, a form of victimization, does not allow for this. It's always easier to be a lazy, whiny victim.

All of these reductionisms really serve the victim industry. Rather than everyone in America simply being Americans, everyone identifies as a victim, as a reduced human being. Where are all the Americans? Why does everyone have to belong to some subgroup? For the money, of course. But as noted, this is not a particularly rewarding deal financially speaking in the long run, which is why Asians are leaping ahead.

Therapeutic Christianity

2012-02-21T16:08:00.000-08:00

Psychologically, a man has to become a woman if he converts to Christianity. If he has grown up in the church, then he has been guided all his life towards the feminine virtues such as soft-spokenness, gentleness, and patience (ironically, the modern Fraulein is pretty short on these characteristics). Men cannot vociferously argue about doctrine or ethics in any church I've been in. They must enjoy the dainties and avoid dirtying anything.

And go wash the dishes, kitchen bitch.

Nowadays in many churches, the men are expected to help with the post-service coffee. Churches have easily bought into society's feminization of men and condemnation of masculinity. Considering that feminism grew out of the nineteenth-century churches and their temperance movement, this hasn't been a difficult transition.

Religious conservatives are no friends of men. Christians feel at home in our matriarchy because the same emasculated behavior that they seek in males, from being shaven and sentimental to useful and overly-polite, is sought by society. Jesus, the male savior, as portrayed in these churches has all the characteristics of a feminized man. He loves and accepts women in all their vulnerabilities. New Testament tracts are carefully selected or avoided to reinforce this image.

Jesus is warm and fuzzy, always available to emote. He cares about your feelings and thoughts, and never fails to understand. In fact, he enjoys talking about feelings. When some bitch wants to Eat Pray Love somewhere else, of course Jesus understands. The woman discovers, much to her joy, that the Lord knew all along. Jesus was on that difficult journey all along, holding her hand, and understood her needs right from the beginning.

She doesn't need her man, because Jesus is the perfect sentimentalized boyfriend. If she can just shut him out of her vibrator moments, and service her own libido, they can have a perfect relationship. And guess what, she is able to compartmentalize her life like that! Happily, Jesus asks no questions about the vibrator issue. I mean, who is she hurting?

The feminized Jesus is like a dog. He doesn't speak back or ask hard questions. He's loyal, and there whenever you need him. Even better than a dog, he requires no vet bills or neutering (he's already). Yet when the lass is in deep emotional trouble, Jesus will be there to hold her up and get her through. Loyal, obedient, sentimental, always loving and accepting: What more does an adult two year-old need?

In 2 words: Therapeutic Christianity.

So Jesus always says yes to the divorce, yes to fucking around with a tool/vibrator or men if available (again, Jesus will understand - he always has before), yes to the egomaniacal existence.

What do men get out of such a religion? Homoerotic imagery of embracing Jesus, holding Jesus tight or being held by him, hearing nonstop sentimental horseshit of people overcoming their empty psychological nonsense, more homoerotic imagery, this time of being intimate with Jesus. And all the while, because I'm supposed to be such a nice guy, let's reject the masculine virtues of honor, respect, authority, and punishment for wrongdoing. Let's do away with any sign of legalism, replacing it with feelings-talk that justifies (especially female) stupid behavior. And never, Never, NEVER get angry. That just isn't, well, Christian, now is it?

So don't forget to go to church this week. You'll grow.

Affirming

2012-02-20T17:56:00.000-08:00

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: One of the more irritating things about the matriarchy is the endless stream of manginas trying to talk some matriarchal sense into you, peacocking their own politically correct horseshit in front of the staffroom Frauen.

These men are desperate for outer affirmation, so try to get qualified as a feminist. One way they do that is with the this is what a feminist looks like game, where they publicly build their feminist portfolios through public shaming of men like you and me, men who don't need that same level of affirmation.

The ladies sit back and chuckle to themselves, both at the loser they've manipulated into fighting their fight even though he gains only in his own mind, and at the man presently between the pathetic sights of the peacock.

Without these nitwits, feminism would only be a bad dream, rather than the nightmare it has become.

Why do men fight a battle that will eventually crush them?

First, they are hungry for affirmation because they have the personality of a woman and therefore need some outer force or authority telling them what's what. While we all need this at times and to a certain extent, these guys need it as much as women do rather than the occasional pat on the back.

Second, they were brought up in a feminized environment, and tend to see the woman's point of view rather than their own. They have been brainwashed by the feminist educational system, in other words. Or traumatized. Masculine men, non-compliants, make them uneasy.

Third, they like to talk about their feelings about as much as women do. They particularly love the intoxication of getting angry over some cause. They crave that anger like the lassies do. They want and need the sanctimony. These guys have little on the inside, so fill it with emotions. Notice that emotional types tend not to be big thinkers, though they think of themselves as such. Instead of reasoning through a problem or a belief, they emote and sentimentalize their way through, which leads to useless or childish conclusions.

Fourth, they seek identity in their cause. It seems from perusing the MRA environment that a lot of us came to our beliefs independently. We might have read a book here and heard an uncle talk there, but these were merely signposts on our discovery. MRAs have developed a certain amount of independence. Despite all their emancipation talk, liberals in general tend to be much more authoritarian in their thinking. They need some outer source of inspiration, and tend therefore to fall in love with Al Gore or Obama, religiously defending such purveyors of nonsense, becoming purveyors of b.s. in their own right. MGTOW and the like tend to acquire their identity from the inside out. The idiotic manginas are second-hand individuals, whereas MRAs are genuine.

Fifth, being second-hand means being a useful idiot, because some puppeteer is pulling the strings. These guys like being the furniture mover for die Frauen because they believe in chivalry. Again, it's about shaky identity: I'm a nice guy, they need to tell themselves - even though, in fact, they practice knifing other men, strong self-formative men, in the back, and in public as part of their public campaign to belong to the cause.

The back-stabbing highlights the lack of honor they have, the fifth reason these guys are like this. A mangina has no honor. Matriarchy has no honor. That is why our culture dislikes Islam so much, and feels so scared of Islamic "terrorists".

Manginas are short-term thinkers who avoid self-development. They are not strong, so get emotional and preachy - but always in following the herd. When feminism gives way to Islam in the future, they will jump ship.

Feminists and manginas deserve each other.

The Book of Man

2012-02-19T18:12:00.000-08:00

William J Bennett's book, The Book of Man, tempts male readers to take on a cause, start chompin' at the bit, and act all cowboy. It's like getting a man all horny for the sexy ladies in a place where HIV/AIDS infects 60% of the females. And convincing him not to use a condom.

The Book of Man contains selections from male thinkers writing on men. Those selections are wise and powerful. It's Bennett's conservative chivalry that threatens to throw men into the sewer of contemporary marriage.

Read the book without reading Bennett. His outdated thinking threatens to poison any impressionable young man who aspires to any sort of married life with a western skank. The author invites disaster. He comments before a long track from Beowulf: "Beowulf and Hrothgar discuss the dangers and challenges that will be present in dealing with the wrath of Grendel's mother."

In fact, Grendel's mother is the typical North American / British femicunt. If Bennett had any care for his male readers, he would simply get them to swear off marriage to any western lass. The modern Beowulf is the man about to get married. He's in for the fight of his life, and he ain't coming out the same man. More of a three-legged dog.

Ditto the author's view on work: pretty shaky with nice quotes from intelligent men. Bennett notes that work makes the man, and that a man's identity comes largely through his work. He calls for men to find meaningful, enjoyable work. The writers Bennett cites in this part of the book encourage men to have a passion for something, to work hard at it, to achieve, and to find their identity partly through work. Fine, but leave out the part where I'm supposed to marry a BA in Women's Studies. Don't encourage men to fall into the wage-slavery - divorce trap.

Bennett quotes Theodore Roosevelt:

Let us therefore boldly face the life of strife, resolute to do our duty well and manfully; resolute to uphold righteousness by deed and by word; resolute to be both honest and brave, to serve high ideals, yet to use practical methods. Above all, let us shrink from no strife, moral or physical, within or without the nation, provided we are certain that the strife is justified, for it is only through strife, through hard and dangerous endeavor, that we shall ultimately win the goal of true national greatness.

Theodore Roosevelt represents much of the greatness of men. His words carry great meaning, as long as the modern man can apply them very carefully, and use them to serve only himself and other prudently selected individuals. Thinking that he can go out and live this life with a modern western gal is going to poison his soul and end him divorced and penniless with shattered dreams and kids that hate him.

Roosevelt would probably be dumbfounded and enraged by present-day America. Roosevelt is part of that long line of men like Edison, Lincoln, and the Wright Brothers, men whose curiosity and self-confidence allowed them to create and invent and discover. Scots like Alexander Graham Bell were also like this.

Scotland and America in their greatest days shared the same Calvinist work ethic and thrift, same respect for education and individual responsibility, and same love for freedom. Scotland has become a welfare state. When was the last time anyone heard of a Scottish inventor or thinker? Is America, more and more a bloated, overtaxed welfare state, destined for the same marginality and mediocrity as Scotland?

Another of Roosevelt's musings that Bennett cites demonstrates why men are so easily ensnared by wily western women looking for a fat wallet and a lifelong scapegoat. Men tend towards the idealistic:

Work, the capacity for work, is absolutely necessary; and no man's life is full, no man can be said to live in the true sense of the word, if he does not work. This is necessary, and yet it is not enough. If a man is utterly selfish, if utterly disregardful of the rights of others, if he has no ideals, if he works simply to gratify himself, small is his good in the community.

Roosevelt is bang on. Service and sacrifice lie in the deepest part of men. That's why we like heroes. Heroes never fight for themselves, but for the weak. Yet this aspect of idealism and chivalry, when applied in this day and age, is absolutely killing us. In a sense, manginas are at the moment the most chivalrous amongst us, but what is the good of helping others when they despise you and would be happy to walk all over you?

Preachers and priests proclaim this manginatude from the pulpit and altar in this day and age, and therefore, like Bennett, are harmful to men.

After Teddy Roosevelt's first wife died, he spent time on the land, homesteading out west. This solitude allowed him to work things out. Would Roosevelt have engaged with matriarchal society today? Bennett, as usual blind and dumb to the reality of the matriarchy, has nothing to say about this. One senses, however, that Roosevelt would have been a resourceful, dignified man going his own way. He would have found his homestead somewhere, his little piece of freedom and dignity, where he could work things out for himself. Unlike William J Bennett, he would have faced facts. He would have done good where good would have been welcomed. That welcoming place would probably not be the USA or other western countries.

Smart men would follow another writer Bennett quotes, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, who warned, "In the world's broad field of battle, / In the bivouac of Life, / Be not like dumb, driven cattle!"

Bennett's writings, conversely, encourage men to be dumb, driven cattle.

Because The Book of Man is mostly made up of Bennett's choices of quotes from the western canon, much of it offers highly valuable reading. Teddy Roosevelt, Benjamin Franklin, Plato, Alexis de Tocqueville, John Milton, and many others offer much more than the usual Chicken Shit for the Soul offered by today's sentimental writers. It is the behind-the-times musings of Bennett that are out of place here: Work "is his duty and the means by which he provides for himself and his family." Yeah, yeah, now fuck off.

Next time, less Bennett and more western wisdom.

The Fight of Our Lives

2012-02-18T20:10:00.000-08:00

In William J Bennett's book, The Fight of Our Lives, the author worries about the threat of Islamic terrorism to America and the West. Its full title gives readers a good idea of its contents: Knowing the Enemy, Speaking the Truth, and Choosing to Win the War Against Radical Islam.

Readers get a clear sense that something has gone terribly wrong with our society. The author examines the lack of backbone and the constant caving in to the politically correct:

if we want to prevent another slaughter, we must end this infection of the mind where we no longer call things by their proper names. That this [the Fort Hood massacre] was not prevented is a shame on our institutions and indicative of a preemptive cultural surrender.

Despite identifying the spinelessness of our society, the author fails to get to the heart of the matter, the emasculation of our society brought about by feminists, something that has had cancerous effects on the family, community, and nation.

Bennett, of Why Men Are in Trouble fame, offers half-truths and failed understandings. The cultural surrender referred to above, the supposed surrender to Islam, masks the bigger meltdown of men to women, of tradition to feminism. The matriarchy feels wrong, sissified, and without any balls because it is wrong, sissified, and without balls. Of course in the long run we're losing out to a far more aggressive, masculine culture, Islam. That's history.

Bennett fails to mention the core reasons for why we can't directly confront an enemy, Islamic terrorism, that clearly seeks the end of us. We have handed the keys to feminism. We grant abortion rights, rubber-stamp child custody, accept Eat Pray Love-inspired unlimited divorce, and offer a free pass for life, essentially the whole shebang, to women, without anyone raising any fucking questions. We imprison men when they can't meet unmanageable child support payments to a bitch who has stolen his kids from him.

And we worry about a few angry Muslims?

Feminists are the real terrorists, as any thoughtful person can figure out. Bennett's whole argument misleads. Our supposed surrender to the Muslims as depicted in The Fight of Our Lives is the usual smokescreen put out there by feminists and their conservative-Christian lackeys (feminists have lackeys on every side of the political spectrum) to hide where the real surrender has taken place. Our society is satanic, and Bennett is focused on outsiders. It's Christians and society as a whole who have surrendered to feminists by refusing to challenge harmful chivalry that keeps telling men to "man up" and get married so you can later get fucked.

Conservatives are so keen to go after the Muslims because an Islamic society would put the kibosh on the emasculation of men and the destruction of the family. It seems that Islam may be the only force standing between feminism and total victory. Femicunts run western governments (this website on Swedish feminists and their government shows where the real enemy is), the UN, finance and corporations, education - fucking everything - and Islam is refusing to accept this all. Refusing abortion, gay marriage, child custody rights. Islam jealously guards education and the upbringing of children just like the Catholic Church used to. Remember what the Jesuits, before they turned into politically correct post-Theos Marxists, used to say: "Give me the child until age 7, and I'll give you a Catholic for life." Muslims today are what the Jesuits used to be, and feminists and conservatives like Bill Bennett don't like that. They don't like the balls.

Why don't Christians work on making boys into men, men who won't take feminist shit? Who won't take feminist shit: That, and not chivalry, is what constitutes a real man, and Muslims are better at that than manginic western men. Then the Islamic terrorism problem will take care of itself. Islamic terrorists are like an opportunistic illness that takes over when the body is run-down. People don't die of HIV/AIDS, but from these secondary ailments. Feminists, the HIV of our society, have run us down, making us more susceptible to secondary problems. Muslim terrorists appear scarier and can do more damage to us than they could if westerners were more balanced. Clear out feminism, and the secondary problems will disappear.

Bennett speaks for the same people that Ms. magazine does, even with his critique of the President. Obama, he argues, "was remaking the wars of the past in his own image - a prelude to remaking the war on Islamist terror into a new image." "Ending the wars abroad, not winning them, was the new priority," he adds. Sounds like the Christian reaction to feminism, in fact - rather than fight, cave. Make a deal with the enemy rather than "fight the good fight" that the Apostle Paul calls us to carry out.

Bennett fails in his argument, in the entire book, because he fails to state that it doesn't matter what Obama does in Afghanistan, because that is not where the real war is. Jailing innocent men because they can't meet their absurdly high child support payments is destroying society faster than Islamic terrorism ever could. We need to deal with the virus within. Dealing with the opportunistic diseases doesn't solve the HIV problem; another opportunistic ailment will appear.

The author does highlight some of the matriarchy's nonsense, such as its excessive, inane sentimentalism. He excoriates the social science-oriented "we just need to understand criminals/terrorists and deal with their social circumstances" nonsense pushed on us by liberals. If only he could turn this into a discussion of women's tendency to use this psychologizing to get out of punishment for their criminal acts. Obviously, we need a return to virtue rather than feeble excuses. Ironically, Islam is the only movement left that doesn't sentimentalize everything to shit. Whence its power and initiative.

Let's not fear being taken over by Muslims. We've already been taken over by satanic humans with their satanic philosophies and policies. Bennett calls us to ignore the virus within and to fight the secondary problems.

Bennett fails deeply in his analysis because he fails to identify the roots of the malaise in the West, which begins and ends with feminism and feminization. Militant Islam's successes and encroachments into the West merely symptomize this larger issue.

Women in Asia

2012-02-17T16:34:00.000-08:00

Asian women will never become as crazy as western women because Asia has no tradition of chivalry amongst its men. The mangina factor, in other words, is not as automatic as it is back home. Many Asian men have no use for uppity women, and will quickly move on. Even men who outwardly seem like puppies are immediately turned off of women who have spent too much time overseas learning English, business, and western bitchiness. These women tend to live alone, regardless of how attractive they are. To be honest, they seem happy and well-adjusted, pleased that they can afford their own Louis Vuittons (the luxury and fake luxury industries are forever booming in Asia).

Asian men are robots for their corporations, but many expect something for their investment in a woman - or they stay single. Countless engineers in Asia stare at a computer all day, then go home and play computer games. They make and invest a lot of money, so retire in their late forties. They are an unannounced MGTOW.

A second reason why feminism will never make the same inroads in Asia is that statism has shallow roots in Asia. Taxes are low, and people haven't been trained into paying high taxes - yet. While the shame of premarital sex or fatherless children is much less than before, and Asia is increasingly a divorce culture, governments simply have no support system in place - yet - for women who want babies but not a hubby. Taxpayers are never in the mood to pay for social services. Asians still depend on their families.

Given this family support, Asian women are independent rather than, as in America or Europe, dependent on the government. In spite of their family-oriented traditions, many of them don't personally want to have children. There is yet no "deadbeat dad" propaganda manipulating the courts into outrageous rewards for disloyal heifers. Women don't assume that men owe them something. The "Shanghai woman" for instance, has more balls than her man because he grew up a spoiled mama's and grandparents' boy, whereas the girls were left to fend for themselves. (Some Chinese families can have more than one child, such as farmers or parents who themselves both come from one-child families.)

While admittedly a strange thing, the "Shanghai woman" phenomenon, whereby the man pleases her sexually and is subservient to her, might offer an alternative to the hysterical western woman forever manipulating politicians or ex-husbands (through the courts) to pay through the nose. At least in Shanghai the women pay for their own fake Louis Vuittons.

Perhaps the most important reason Asian women will not get as bad as western women is karma. Asian women believe that one's actions will come back on oneself. Lying, cheating, and stealing money will eventually haunt you. Of course, there are many Asian women who do this sort of thing, but it doesn't seem as generalized and mainstream as in the West, where women have no sense of demographics (the growing conservative Muslims populations in the West) or karma (trash every man you meet then complain that no one wants to marry you).

A fourth reason for hope for Asians is the lack of a victimhood culture. Victims are not celebrated to the extent that they are in the West.

All in all, Asian MGTOW is a good deal for western guys, and things will probably never get as bad as in the West. Western men will be able to enjoy relative freedom for years to come here - and lower taxes and living costs.

Predating the State

2012-02-16T18:03:00.000-08:00

Marriage, motherhood, and fatherhood “are natural realities…that predate any government,” Dr. Morse told LifeSiteNews. “The Church stands for that natural reality against the State attempting to redefine it for its own purposes and for the benefits of a special interest group.” 1

Now if only the Catholic Church had the masculine wherewithal to carry this out.

The family, above all the core relationship between man and woman, predates the state. "The personal is political" is the satanic rejection of this God-given natural law. The state must serve the family, and the male-female relationship, rather than the opposite. The state is currently building up gay marriage "rights" because it is really interested in destroying this core. Once this pre-state social reality is gone, the state will have nothing in its way.

"The personal is political" is feminism's totalitarian call-to-arms, the destroyer of all human aspects of society. Western women are too stupid to see this, so it rests with men - as it always does - to get things done and set things right.

If the male-female relationship, and the resulting family, predate the state, that means that state-sponsored divorce, family law, and social work, probably even education, are contrary to natural law.

The article from which the above is quoted, Renegade nun presents 'A Catholic case for same-sex marriage,' also notes:

Something like redefined marriage can’t sustain itself without a lot of coddling from the State,” she said. “The State will have to enforce that view everyplace that the Church interacts with society, so the thing we’re seeing with the insurance mandate is going to get played out on the marriage side, as well. All of this expansion of the State is being done to accommodate the growth of so-called sexual freedom.

Redefined marriage is the way for "The personal is political" to weasel its way into our lives, so that the state can develop into its totalitarian potential. The reason the West avoided or defeated totalitarianism and royal absolutists was in part because of the alternative that the Church provided - it was the provider of education, so the monarch didn't necessarily get all his wishes carried out. In Poland, the Church fought the Commies and won.

By destroying the religious foundation of civilization, and then the familial foundation, the state is gradually taking over. Masking all of this is feminism and a supposed concern for the Eternal Victim, women.

Again, the buzzwords of the never-ending Kulturkampf, such as freedom, liberty, rights, and empowerment, are really "rights" that buttress the state by destroying people's religious sensibilities and loyalty to their families and spouses. Abortion or gay marriage rights are really victories for the state as it continues to encroach in our lives and define for us who we really are. Given that women, gullible and superficial by nature, are constantly targeted with sentimental sludge, only means that the mountain we have to climb is that much steeper.

Heifers in Asia

2012-02-15T20:16:00.000-08:00

Drinking a coffee with my Asian Belle the other evening, in walked 2 western gals, one white and one Asian. Sadly, the Asian, whose parents probably came from this country, was indistinguishable from the other in her abrasive, manly style of speaking, her construction worker body language, and her asexual attire.

Feminine culture, such as Asian feminine culture, dates quickly and fades once exposed to western sexual confusion. This young non-white woman, sexually attractive despite her loud, shameful personality, has been lost to the Illuminati.

The entire ambiance in the coffee shop changed, especially for me and Belle, because they had to sit beside us. They went on about men, of all things, and how Jack was seeing Diane and John was seeing Jane. Funny, but even when the exterior masculates, the interior still focuses on relationships and romance, though in a fucked up way.

Belle stopped short her conversation, staring at me in smiling shock at how loud they were. My lady knows how much I dislike heifers, so teased me about them for a few minutes. She knew our time was up, and we soon went somewhere else. No loss to her, as she also dislikes such Überfrauen, and appreciates feminine women and masculine men.

Those two were misfits of nature (though, admittedly, quite in tune with the western matriarchy, which is itself contra naturam).

Happily, their oafish behavior contrasted with the more ladylike characteristics of the other females. All is not lost in Asia. Yet.

The New Israel

2012-02-14T20:50:00.000-08:00

Woody Allen played the typical run-over male Jew, controlled and manipulated by life, and his women or the memory of his Jewish mother. This stereotype of the weak Jewish man - an overly-intellectual violin player who is the farthest from an alpha or independent ("zeta", according to AVfM) man - is as much a part of Jewish lore as the "Jewish mother" who controls her kids etc.

To be honest, at least these mothers care about their family. That's a giant step up from the banshees we have now.

The interesting point is watching Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu on TV, speaking with authority and severity. Or listening to the former head of the Mossad. Tough guy. These are not Woody Allen types. These are scary dudes who know who they are and what they are doing. They are not to be fucked with.

I don't know what Israeli women are like on the whole, though the rejection of the modern Frau by extreme orthodox Jews is interesting. Certain Orthodox men in Israel tear down advertisements depicting sexy women or their body parts, and women and girls are not allowed to walk outside wearing the Israeli equivalent of bad hijab. Israeli men, it seems, project an image of strength, vigor, logic, virtues, and purpose that western men need to develop.

White English-speaking men - Canadian and British seem the worst of all - are presently going through their Woody Allen moment, putting up with banshees who don't care about anything except empowerment. As mentioned, these women are a far cry from the family-loving Jewish Mother stereotype.

Seventy years ago the Jews went through their worst experience ever, and only a few others, such as the Armenians and the Ukrainians (Holodomor), can claim a similar experience in the western world and its periphery.

The obvious point here is that we English men can also go through a renaissance of sorts. Perhaps zeta male-dom is the way. Key to the Israeli model, in my sneaking suspicion (I'm not Jewish so have to rely on suppositions), is that the men define themselves as men without using women as a reference point. Western men do the opposite, of course. Even western PUAs define themselves primarily in terms of women, by the number of ladies they get into the sack. That's dangerous for many reasons nowadays, including false rape accusations, but also the emotional scars that it might leave on a man who chooses endless one night stands over developing his spiritual side. By his forties, he will be arid inside. PUAdom, though understandable, is not the best reaction to the feminist cancer.

Western men need to Israelify for the same reasons that men in that country apparently became who they are: We have a fucking mean enemy, one that is out to destroy us and our very existence. Feminism is an existential threat to men just as Iran is to Israel. We should be treating feminists / western women as how Israel treats Hezbollah and Iran. When is Israel friendly to those entities? When does Israel have any illusions about what those people want to do?

Israel is the most mature democracy on the planet because it knows just how fragile democracy and freedom are, and is willing to use violence to get its way, even if that way is politically incorrect. In contrast, the p.c. movement is deeply un-democratic. For instance, it attacks freedom of speech. America and the Anglo world, Sweden and other manginic Nordic countries, have forgotten this, awash as we are in our female sentimentalism. We cherish feminist hysteria, not freedom.

Part of being a true democracy is the ability to say no to victimologies, though, ironically, Israel is the product of the biggest victimocracy movement in world history, the mother of all victim movements and the one that every other victim movement tries to emulate. Every such movement, from French Quebec, to blacks, women, and Muslims, is trying to set up its own version of Israel, its own place of peace and prosperity where, within, the dream is of no more victimhood.

Israel has become strong because, despite its reliance on America and its roots as a victim, in fact, it must get pretty lonely out there surrounded by people who hate you and want you dead.

So everyone hates you? Become a tough motherfucker. Don't take it. Let them know you won't take it. Leave for less feminist pastures. Men who must stay in the matriarchy have to get to know the law and their rights. Somehow, western men need to become a lot more Mossad. It's the only way to deal with feminism, an existential threat to men everywhere.

Regardless of one's opinions on Israel, what makes Netanyahu and his Israeli ilk stand out is that he has balls. In our age, that is worth noting. For Israel, there is no surrender. So it should be for men everywhere.

Yeah, but

2012-02-14T00:45:00.000-08:00

When one makes the comment, "Yeah, Hitler did kill 6 million Jews, but he did some good stuff too, like the Autobahn and getting Germans back to work," one is being highly anti-Semitic, Slovenian Slavoj Zizek notes in The Fragile Absolute, because one is comparing the planned and carried-out murder of 6 million Jews to pavement and full employment. On the surface, one professes concern over the killing, but in comparing the murder to something much lower, one is in fact minimizing the crime.

Stupid people tend not to get this. Stupid men tend not to get certain forms of feminist thinking, or choose not to get it, giving some banshee the pussy pass.

"Yeah ... but" thinking forms a key part of feminist misandry. Note, in fact, that most strains of bigotry, including antisemitism or the KKK's thinking about blacks, have their parallels in feminism. Feminists are bigots.

Feminists use yeah-but thinking to minimize bad things that happen to men. "Yeah, A (which happened to a man) may have been hurtful, but worse, B (which happened to a woman), happened to my friend Sally."

Or, in the absence of Sally getting hurt, feminists will say, Yeah, but at least it happened to a man. As part of their zero-sum outlook, when something bad happens to a man, this means that it hadn't happened to a woman. That's a good in the feminist world of things. Let men take all the poison; women will somehow be able to keep their free ride going.

In fact, one wonders if this is a pagan way of looking at the universe, where good and bad must be held in balance. If something bad happens to men, that means something good will happen to women. There is only so much good to go around, so women had better grab their portion. That's also zero-sum thinking.

Absent from feminism, as from Hitler's tribalism, is the Jewish-Christian sense of open-ended optimism, of non zero-sum thinking. This is the belief that humans, made in God's image and recipients of grace, can create endlessly and have unlimited potential. Feminism is un-Christian, actively anti-Christian, and part of this is to eliminate Christianity's optimism and hope in grace, which forms part of Jewish thinking as well.

Note that Israel, where the Jewish version of this thinking is applied, has a much higher GDP than the surrounding countries, where this thinking hasn't been around for centuries. Scotland also exemplifies this power of open-ended thinking. As a Christian nation, it grew by leaps and bounds, and produced some of the greatest minds, such as Alexander Graham Bell and Adam Smith. What have the post-Christian Scots done for us? Their only growth industry, from reading the papers, is single motherhood, binge drinking, and gangsterism.

The challenge in America is the fight to keep the country authentically Christian. As its Christianity feminizes into goddess religion, or as people turn to pagan ideas of justice both within the churches (already deeply embedded in social justice churches such as the Anglicans/Episcopalians and the United Church of Christ/United Church of Canada) and elsewhere, such as the New Age movement or Jungian psychology, America will become increasingly like Scotland. Its Bill Gates and Steve Jobs will be replaced by trailer trash and government dependents. Isn't America halfway there already?

In any case, yeah-but thinking offers non-sophisticated feminist thinkers, i.e., all of them, a way to get their point of hatred across while convincing a large group of women and manginas that they do care about men too. Men suffer but women suffer more, in other words, seems to acknowledge male suffering, but it does so in a way to overshadow male affliction. It compares 6 million dead Jews to das Autobahn.

Yeah-but is also used to turn the tables. When the conversation rolls around to prostrate cancer, after a few moments, the feminists in the room will start to compete, saying "Yeah prostrate cancer is a terrible thing, but did you know that breast cancer ...." She will use statistics to try to outmaneuver the others. If someone calls her on that (admittedly unlikely), she will turn to sentiment. "Yeah, that may be true, but did you know Sally's mother? (Right on cue, Sally gets teary.) She had cancer. I'm so sorry, dear." That is a form of feminist hatred, used to eliminate concern for men and male suffering. Feminists are allergic to sympathy for men just like 1930s Germans were indifferent to Jewish suffering and any sort of mercy for them.

Often, when western women are directing their sentimental sludge at a cause or a fellow banshee, they are really practicing yeah-but misandry.

Yeah-but thinking is connected to the manufactured feminist outrage over non-issues such as slut attire or the male gaze. The doctrine of rape Kultur is entirely made up. Breast cancer is a political, not medical, cause. All of this is about taking cash from men, by gunpoint hiding behind the state if necessary. With feminism, follow the money. Hatred, it turns out, pays handsomely.

Affirmation

2012-02-12T17:56:00.000-08:00

Liberals seem to have the personality of people who need outside affirmation. Because Hollywood and the media, education and the government, all support the statist, politically correct worldview, liberals are simply jumping on the bandwagon.

Feminists are the most liberal of liberals, the most needy of that affirmation. Note that modern women constantly seek affirmation and empowerment, both outer virtues, rather than honor, respect, intelligence, and so on. Sentimentalism is a cheap virtue, based on superficial feel-good emotionalism with slight connection to reality. Liberals thrive on and justify their beliefs based on that emotion or pseudo virtue.

Some points to consider as a result of this neediness, which can be applied to feminists in particular, but to all liberals:

Don't trust liberals. They love their "ideals" more than real humans. The more abstract or higher the ideal the more they will knife you in the back.
Liberals tell people what they think will reflect well on themselves. Liberals think themselves much too sophisticated for anything like the truth, so simply shift their truth to fit whatever benefits them the most. Western women, for instance, buy into the current misandry culture because that gets them Louis Vuitton and status. If praying to Mecca and practicing good hijab would get them more status and luxury goods, they would do that.
Liberals are tribal. A liberal won't be your friend if your politics are not the same as hers or his because that wouldn't be good for image. No liberal wants to associate with a red neck.
Liberals say one thing but do another. They hate corporations when they are in university, but by thirty work for one, and are die hard wage slaves, because that's what will make them look good at that point in their lives. Naturally, they lie to themselves and others about this all by buying Buddhist trinkets at a New Age store and drinking "fair trade" coffee.
Liberals have no virtues other than looking good. Don't go on about truth, honesty, honor, respect, and decency. "Just what is 'honesty' anyway?" they will ask.
Liberals are not deep or sophisticated, just confused. That gives a man yet another reason to avoid discussing anything serious with a feminist. Western women are confused. They don't know what they want or need, so listen to the media.
The media is very important for these people. Hollywood is very liberal, and these people are very liberal. Coincidence? Their authorities are celebrities, because Joseph Ratzinger is simply too difficult for them to read.
Liberals are not very smart. Rather than investigating for themselves, and coming to question feminism's basis assumptions, for instance, they blindly follow their chosen guru of the moment.
Liberals shift their gurus. They change authorities like a hooker changes dates, latching onto whatever cause of the moment or leftie intellectual is being cited (have they actually read that leftie intellectual? Can they really read Foucault? I know he's on their bookshelves, but where's the bookmark? Page 10?).
Liberals mock people who disagree with them. Hence their sickening phrase, "we need more education/understanding"; or, "He just doesn't understand what it's like to be a woman."
Liberals use the educational system not to seek the truth or to improve our lives, but to instill the population with their propaganda. Remember, they are not after the truth, but power.
Liberals want power and money and status, and the way to get those things nowadays is to pretend that you're not after power and money and status, but to pretend that you are morally superior to these things. They confuse people and set up smokescreens. "I work in a bank but I don't kill bugs. I carry them to the window and let them out." They talk about being kind to blue whales even while they are venomous at work.
Liberals are confused about rights. "Save the whales and abort the children," they say.
Liberals like to show off their liberality. They like to lecture. They want you to know that they are so humane. They don't kill bugs and they support abortion. That's how evolved they are.
Liberals are pro-"Eastern culture" and anti-Christian, even though they know nothing about Buddhism or China and Japan, and uncritically buy into all the Christophobic nonsense being written nowadays. Who could be bothered to learn a language like Japanese or biblical Greek, or live in a foreign culture to learn about a religion first-hand?
Liberals are lazy. Hence their refusal to investigate the truth behind things such as the feminist movement.
Liberals just want to be comfortable. That's why Canada is such a liberal country. Being comfortable is what Canadians, men and women, want more than anything else. They will allow a group, such as feminists, to take over and turn everything rancid. They will allow for abortion even though, at least at the beginning of that debate decades ago, a clear majority opposed it.
Because liberals will go with the flow, they are easy to manipulate. Hence the ease with which they adopted abortion as a cause rather than keeping to their initial aversion to it (i.e. Edward Kennedy).
Liberals are holier than thou because, now that they have been affirmed and empowered by outside forces, they really do think they are better than you. And from a certain point of view, i.e., status, they are.

Feminists are shifty beasts who just keep moving the goalposts. That's because power and status are what they want, and you are arguing at them from ideals. Who gives a shit about ideals and virtues in a post-everything society. "Just what are 'ideals' and 'virtues' anyway?" the banshee will ask.

Why so much Anger?

2012-02-11T18:45:00.000-08:00

Feminists get angry over everything because anger is all they have. The truth isn't on their side, and increasingly, good men are not supportive, but only manginas. In order to gain media attention and government-policing-legal services, they have to rage about. Making a mountain out of a molehill is the feminist specialty. It is necessary because women have never been oppressed, so they need a smokescreen, something to hide behind.

When a cop spells out the truth, warning women not to dress like sluts, instead of heeding that advice, women get enraged. They manufacture an issue, in other words, when there never was one, or where the real issue was poor female behavior.

A women cuts off a man's penis, and women such as Sharon Osbourne laugh about it on national TV. Where's the anger over this criminal act? The smallest thing against a woman triggers feminist rage, but the biggest thing against a man triggers gales of laughter.

This is why societies tend to put women in the kitchen and don't normalize public female power.

Feminist anger comes from a strong sense of female superiority and from the fact that women have nothing to be angry about. Shame language parallels anger, in that it is based on nothing, but used to keep men in their lower place.

This is why it's important for men to ignore women and move away from them. Liberating yourself from western women is the only path to freedom and fulfillment for a man in today's society. Fighting the windbags on their territory will win you nothing.

Joe Zamboni at The Spearhead offers another saliant perspective on female supremacy, and another example of when women got angry not for a good reason but as a way to stop the truth about men and women from getting out:

consider the psychological disorder called “Self Sacrificing Personality Disorder.” This condition never made it into the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the compendium of psychological disorders used by insurance companies, psychologists, psychiatrists, and others in the mental health field). This diagnosis, which the author believes he has, was proposed by a bunch of male psychiatrists, including Richard Simons. The diagnosis applied to those people who “remain in relationships in which others exploit, abuse, or take advantage of him or her, despite opportunities to alter the situation.” To this author, that pretty much sounds like a slave who thinks he can’t do any better elsewhere, so he might as well remain in his slave owner’s house (the modern situation takes the form of marriage, and after that, divorce with alimony and child support). Or, using MGTOW vernacular, such a man would be a “mangina.”

It is no mistake that a number of women’s groups were outraged by the proposal to include such a diagnosis in the official part of the DSM. This diagnosis ended up being put in an appendix, and thus officially relegated to obscurity. Supposedly the objection that these women’s groups had was that this diagnosis was coming from a group of men. We all know that men are generally far more creative than women, but according to feminists, anything coming from a bunch of men is suspect and untrustworthy. To this author, this proposal could have only come from a group of men, because women have no idea of what it means to be forced to be an economic slave and workhorse in America today.

"Women's groups were outraged": Outraged that someone would want to advance psychological health? What a strange thing to rage about, unless you are blocking this truth for a reason.

How many times have we heard the phrase, "Women's groups were outraged"? Who gives a fuck? Who was outraged over Thomas Ball's self-immolation? Who was outraged over Sharon Osbourne's sickness, or the original penis-chopping in the first place?

The ladies doth protest too much. There is nothing to protest about, if you're a woman. Hence the need to manufacture false rape stats and all the other stats. "Feminist outrage" is likewise manufactured. Paradoxically, women's groups get enraged all the time because they have nothing to get angry about. The outrage puts an issue there where there wasn't an issue. It fabricates something for women.

Women are addicted to anger because they have nothing else.

Rights and Commandments

2012-02-11T02:32:00.000-08:00

In The Fragile Absolute, or why is the christian legacy worth fighting for?, Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek notes that the modern sense of rights is the movement to violate the 10 Commandments (also called the Decalogue). There can be no Rights of Man without first the 10 Commandments, he notes. This parallels, for Zizek, St. Paul's claim that sinful desire is possible only because of the basic biblical prohibitions. In other words, sin only exists because of the Jewish Law.

So if rights, as we post-moderns understand them, are in fact a betrayal of the Decalogue, then in fact they are the attempt of modern humans to grant themselves permission to sin. This makes sense in our deliberately post-Christian culture, where mocking the Catholic Church or Jesus are a staple of the media, education, and Hollywood.

Rights are the flipside of the Commandments. Zizek argues that the right to a private life is really the right to adultery. Likewise, the right to freedom of worship is really the right to worship false gods.

MRAs can easily see how this concerns the rise of feminism and its destructive tendencies. One could add, the right to abortion violates the commandment not to kill. The right to a divorce contravenes the prohibition of adultery. In its alimony and child support aspects, divorce-hungry women violate the commandment not to steal. If the woman is divorcing for another man, or for the fantasy of another man, it violates adultery and coveting another's spouse (the same commandment).

The right to individualism and the rejection of tradition violates the commandment to honor your parents.

Zizek notes with his characteristic humor that when we are thus caught with our pants down, we can yell on about our rights to privacy and so forth.

We have the right to be immoral - to steal, commit adultery, dishonor our parents and their tradition, drift from sexual hookup to sexual hookup.

Naturally, women have first rights over all of this. They have the most right to hyperindividualism. They receive the greatest support for their "empowerment" when they aimlessly take off, eating-praying-loving, from their marriage. Women's rights are really the empowerment to act irresponsibly and uniquely for herself. They are the way to construct a satanic woman, but to do so using seemingly good, positive language.

Zizek, a Freudian and Marxist, relates the rights of man to an abyss, a subjective abyss. He doesn't buy into all the happy-clappy feminist empowerment nonsense any more than he buys into a happy-clappy Pentecostal love-feast.

He gets to the heart of the Kulturkampf currently being fought, and how feminism thus masks a much larger tendency with roots deeper than even feminism itself. Feminism is but one expression of the rise of the satanic anti-Christ spirituality in which we now live. No wonder feminism is thriving. Men looking to compromise with such a beast as feminism are in for a nasty shock.

Female Hypersexuality

2012-02-10T02:00:00.000-08:00

Everywhere you look, on the streets, at work, on campus, on the subway, half-dressed women show off their legs and tits, heavily made up, hair sexily coiffed. (Yet, the other large dominating group of women are the lesbian-like hairy, boy-styled sexually-confused women who, though nominally hetero, are probably tilting a little too much towards openly self-admitted lesbianism; their manly, "assertive" i.e., abrasive, personalities more than confirms their deepest tendency.)

Anyways, back to the hotties. These sweet, sexed-up heifers are everywhere. They tend to be as abrasive as their proto-lesbian sisters, though are more interested in getting men to move the furniture for them. The lesbos tend to have larger skeletal frames, so can do some of their own heavy lifting.

The hotties offer potential sex, or at least sex fantasies, to male supplicants. That is the name of their game - hooking male supplicants. They have put themselves up for sale, and everyone knows it. Their hypersexuality is, nonetheless, authentic. They are hot and horny, and want to ride the cock. But their lust comes largely from the power that riding cock gives them. Women, remember, are motivated chiefly by power, money, and status. Life in a matriarchy is not about spiritual or psychological awakening, but about female empowerment, $$, and social level.

Female hypersexuality means that men have reached a point of maximum objectification, rather than the old yarn, proffered by the feminist blow-horns, that female sexual imagery objectifies women. In fact, female hypersexuality reflects and further encourages male objectification. Females use their sexual power as a way to weave their magic over men.

A hypersexual woman aims to use men - especially the kind we have nowadays whereby a hot woman does not necessarily equal a feminine woman (thanks, btw, for someone's recent blog or comment posting on this matter). A hypersexual woman does not even have to put out for every man. In an office situation, for instance, she can just bat her eyelids at a few betas, and get her furniture moved. Those guys are flattered that such a woman would ever send them 2 seconds of their time. He feels indebted to her for having done so, and will break his back to please her.

This is the state of things nowadays. Hot women bat their eyelids at overwhelmed men, most of whom are manginas who don't know just how manipulated they are.Flattered at the attention, they obediently follow orders.

Female hypersexuality, including the very real possibility for men of having sex on the cheap, might actually dis-empower men while empowering women. Cheap female sexuality is as inherent to feminism as abortion rights. Using sexuality as a way not to forge family-building relationships between men and women gives women enormous social leverage, at least during their attractive years, where the female would have to adhere to social norms of respectability and responsibility as much as men do. Instead, women use their sex as a way to manipulate individual men. How many times have we heard the story of a hard-working man who made it to med school (without affirmative action), and became a successful doctor, with all the trappings, only to fall for a sassy, classless bimbo who takes over his money, his house, his life, then leaves him with alimony and child support payments?

The lesbians and proto-lesbians have power in their own right, including by carving out a big territory in the government. The female sex warriors, putting it out there in order to instrumentalize men, have it just as good. The former have captured the government; the latter, men.

The Manipulated Man

2012-02-09T06:30:00.000-08:00

"A woman will make use of a man whenever there is an opportunity." Esther Vilar

This type of boiling-it-down writing cuts through all the rape culture nonsense and other victimologies that feminists are keen on developing. Vilar shows how empty the entire feminist project is, and that it is clearly only about power.

Feminists hate Esther Vilar because she speaks the truth. For example, rather than saying that women are sex objects, thereby spreading misandry, she argues that women use their sexuality to manipulate men. Females are not perpetual victims, but master manipulators, victimhood simply being one of the latest ways to capture power. She highlights the ruthless female Will to Power:

As we women have, thanks to our relatively stress-free life, a higher life-expectancy than men and consequently make up the majority of voters in Western industrial nations, no politician could afford to offend us.

Vilar is harshly critical of women using their bodies to manipulate men, and has the gall to call the game truthfully: "By the age of twelve at the latest, most women have decided to become prostitutes." This truthtelling makes a mockery out of the conservative Christian male-shaming over marriage.

Male shaming also keeps men quiet about female manipulation. The inner nastiness of the female is awakened when someone sheds light on the female game: "It seemed that one is only allowed to criticize women on the quiet"

Vilar thus has little respect for these banshees, and notes that sometimes the only thing they have is their looks: "Theoretically it is possible for a beautiful woman to have less intelligence than a chimpanzee and still be considered an acceptable member of society."

While many people would laugh at the male dupe being manipulated, Vilar keeps her focus on women and their wiles. This counters the tendency of feminists to blame men, as when they argue, "You knew I was like this when you married me", or "He can just leave at any time." She notes instead:"Why should a woman learn to change a flat when the opposite sex ... is able and willing to do it for her?"; and again: "how would one feel if one suddenly realized one was their prisoner and not their master?"

Yet she does pick up on the real situation of the man: "He functions ... according to the principle of pleasure in non freedom. To be sentenced to life-long freedom is a worse fate than life-long slavery." Sadly, most men sentence themselves to lifelong manginatude, and any MRA has spent his life dealing with these milquetoasts.

Vilar notes the robotic-like eagerness of men to make women's life easier: "He invents cake mixes to liberate her from drudgery, automatic irons and toilet-paper holders already covered with flower patterns to make gracious living easier to attain." Men create all sort of appliances and systems to liberate women from drudgery, yet these same women, Vilar writes, remain indifferent to higher intellectual pursuits. This is something demonstrated by the current-day feminist, who thinks that slutmarching and skank behavior, or deconstructing the canon and devising new laws to encage men in divorce court, are grand pursuits.

Note the difference between men and women. When men are in power, they strive to make women's lives easier and more productive. When women are in control, they strive for more control for themselves, particularly over men. They don't give a hoot over men's health or justice for fathers. They don't strive, in turn, to make men's lives better and healthier. Powerful men take women under their protective wings, but powerful women think that men can rot in hell.

Islamicizing die Frauen

2012-02-08T06:08:00.000-08:00

Women are getting hungrier and hungrier. Feminism has left them unfulfilled. Christianity, full of pompous, feminized, politically correct windbags careful not to offend anyone, has nothing to offer. Islam is the only religion that stands up to anyone or anything. For women, that's attractive.

Watching female American policy-makers on TV, ostensibly females but farther from femininity than anything else, gets one wondering just how manly and masculine some women can get. These are scary looking women. Short hair, thin lips, manly sitting posture, abrasive analytical voice, chubby double chin, and a total lack of sexuality or flirtatiousness. A lesbo warrior.

Are they representative of the majority of women in America? Impossible, even with the feminist-inspired attacks on femininity and women's passive acceptance of never-ending misandrist mantras.

Yet what are the majority of women to do, now that they've hitched their wagon to these painful-to-watch lesbians, and have turned their backs on men, creating deep estrangement between the sexes? Can they turn things back?

Nowadays, a feminine or semi-feminine woman exists in a no-man's land, estranged from men yet turned off from the feminist hierarchy, aware more and more of feminist hypocrisy.

This explains why western women are the first to jump ship to Islam. Most women don't want feminism, yet have been too carried away and too dumb to figure that out. When they realize en masse that feminists do not represent their true needs and wishes, there will be hell to pay. These women, the vast majority in fact, will blame weak manginic men (the majority of western men) and feminists alike. They will then look around at what cultures still value strong men and masculinity, one that feminists fear. That is Islam.

According to The Independent, three-quarters of British converts (in fact, one "reverts" to Islam, one's original state of religiousness, according to Muslims) are women. It notes:

In the past 10 years some 100,000 British people have converted to Islam, of whom some three-quarters are women, according to the latest statistics. This is a significant increase on the 60,000 Britons in the previous decade, according to researchers based at Swansea University.

Take the case of Yvonne Ridley, captured by the Taliban who later reverted to Islam. Or Tony Blair's sister-in-law, journalist Lauren Booth, who reverted "after what she describes as 'a holy experience' in Iran", according to the Daily Mail.

The New Age movement can carry an individual's spiritual growth only so far. Structure and tradition are necessary in the long run. From the Daily Mail:

‘Some are drawn to the sense of belonging and of community — values which have eroded in the West,’ says Haifaa Jawad, a senior lecturer at the University of Birmingham, who has studied the white conversion phenomenon.

‘Many people, from all walks of life, mourn the loss in today’s society of traditional respect for the elderly and for women, for example. These are values which are enshrined in the Koran, which Muslims have to live by,’ adds Brice.

In other words, women want traditional values. Ironic, then, that feminists, who claim that only they can speak for women and that men who do so are insufferable paternalists, are in fact losing out bit by bit to what is commonly seen in the West as the most paternalistic religion of them all. Feminism controls the media, education, the gov - basically everything - yet it's losing women to a religion that has traditionally been foreign to the West and that is more "patriarchal" than the Church.

Women will have rejected the gentleman's "patriarchy", Western Christianity, for a more edgy "patriarchy".

Yet men should beware, not necessarily because of Islam, but because of the motives of these lassies. Female reverts are not necessarily interested in fighting for men and our rights. In fact, male rights are not even on their radar screen. "Yes, I converted to Islam to fight for men's rights. I'm appalled at how men are being treated in schools and divorce courts." Nope, haven't heard that one from a female convert.

Females embrace Islam for the same reason women do anything - for their own comfort and safety. They know that manginas are in the long run as useless to them as to everybody else. They miss their male pack horses, and hunger for a tough-guy culture to mask their own matriarchy. Da wimmin don't want to move their own furniture.

Female reversion to Islam is more about having nowhere else to go than it is about religious convictions. Christianity's involvement with feminism, paralleling its cowtowing to Nazism and Spain's Francoism, makes its collapse in the western countries where it still hangs on inevitable. Christianity has zero legitimacy.

Under the western woman's bellowing for rights and empowerment is the softer ballad, "I'm lonely, oh so lonely", the product of decades of feminist destruction of culture and society. It's a matter of cause and effect:

Feminists have painted men as rapists, so how many men are turning their backs on sex and being around women? How many women are having to forgo sex and male companionship because of this?

Feminists have painted men as pedophiles, so fewer and fewer men are getting involved in community events and letting their fatherly side show. Community, as a result, is growing thinner and thinner by the year.

Feminists have hollowed out the family, so it's not as if women can always turn back to their families. What's a she-bitch to do when she wakes up sweating at 2 in the morning, coming to the realization that she and her cats are all alone? (Note the importance that female reverts place on community; male reverts will talk about brotherhood, but also about conviction and other intellectual and virtuous pursuits.)

Feminists have turned education into a henhouse. Women, by nature snobby status-seekers, are unable to find a man at their educational and salary level, let alone a useful idiot for marrying up.

Their alternative, then, is Islam. Baby- and family-making are deeply ingrained in women, and no amount of feminist propaganda can change this. When the pendulum swings back, a lot of civilizational house-cleaning will occur, and women will find themselves in a whole new world. It's up for debate whether this change will be good for men, or simply a return to traditional male wage-slavery.