Monday, 7 May 2012

Angry Harry’s Big Conundrum: the Rise and Rise of the Femcon Alliance



Something I find continually baffling is the British MRA insistence that feminists are allies of the political left. Although some feminists profess left-liberal beliefs, most Anglo-American feminists have identical views to socons on issues like pornography, prostitution and foreign marriages. And if we track back a few decades, we find they shared the same views on racism and other social issues. In short, both movements subscribe to a crabbed, reactionary Puritanism that could easily come from the Victorian era. Exactly why Angry Harry persists in conflating feminism with Marxism in the face of these facts is something best known to himself.

The socon-feminist connection is confirmed by a brief look at the Right Minds blog network associated with the right-wing British tabloid, The Daily Mail. This is now the world’s most popular online news resource, despite having supported Hitler in the Thirties (I kid you not). On Right Minds we find many blogs penned by feminist socons eager to tear down our hard-won sexual freedoms.

Just consider Julia Manning, trying to impose a ban on all Internet pornography in the UK. A self-defined conservative, her views are identical to feminists like Dworkin, Greer and MacKinnon – anti-sex, anti-pleasure and anti-freedom, not to mention quietly homophobic:
Julia Manning's socon-feminist ramblings

Why is government ignoring the evidence on porn?

Polling detailed by Kirsty Walker in this paper today shows that two thirds of the public are backing the Daily Mail's campaign for an automatic block on on-line porn. This is a welcome result, but it also means that a third of people essentially think that pornography is ok. This, tragically, shows how succesful the porn industry has been at presenting itself as normal, that sex and porn are simply interchangeable descriptions of the same thing. Once curtailed by the obscene publications act, the porn industry now enjoys freedoms that its investors exploit to the full, with no holds barred and total indifference to the shattered lives they leave behind. 
We ban things that are harmful - drugs, speeding, stealing. As a society we have agreed that both the individual and societal dangers outweigh people's rights to indulge themselves, and although a law cannot change someones heart, it is a clear statement of values. You can still chose to break the law, but your behaviour will have legal and moral as well as possibly material and medical consequences. 
We put barriers in place when society has recognised that something is potentially harmful or undesirable, especially to the vulnerable, but not so harmful that it needs to be banned. Alcohol is an example; it's a toxic substance that manufacturers have excelled in turning into delicious, palatable forms but most of us know will be harmful in excess and shouldn't be given to children. 
We are now in the ridiculous position of neither banning nor putting up barriers to porn. Ask anyone in the street if they think we would all benefit if we were physically and mentally healthier and they'd say yes. Ask them if government should encourage - not force - healthy behaviours and protect the vulnerable from harm and most would again agree with this, many more I reckon than the 66% who answered 'yes' to the poll asking if there should be an automatic block to on-line porn. 
This should be sounding an alarm in the heads of every politician - the Prime Minister included - many who have said we should clamp down on the sexualisation of children. Politicians are no longer upholding the ban of shocking, graphic images. Now they are resisting barriers to reduce harm to children - even children - when it's firmly established that pornography is highly addictive, distorts and defiles the relationships and expectations of adults (let alone children), encourages aggressive, debasing treatment of women and is a causative factor in the hyper-sexualisation of our culture. 
Pornography is guilty. Guilty of causing sexual misconduct in children, exposing young girls to exploitation, driving domestic violence in the home, causing addiction and obsessive behaviour in adults and breaking up marriages. We are no longer free when we are addicted, demeaned and exploited. Why is the government pandering to liberal-individualists, ISP providers and industry and ignoring the evidence that MP Clare Perry has collated? We need a healthy society for a healthy economy: ignore the threat of porn and you put the health of both at risk.


The gaps in her logic are so huge, one could drive a Challenger tank through them. Firstly, a poll comprising the views of Daily Mail readers is wildly unrepresentative of public opinion. Secondly, she presents no valid scientific evidence to support her claims. Lastly, countries with high levels of access to porn have rather lower sex-crime rates than the ‘puricon’ Anglo-Saxon nations, utterly confounding her position. In truth, plain women like Manning are terrified of male access to porn, prostitutes and foreign brides because such freedoms negate their own sexual worth on the dating market. Instead of confessing their own sexual paranoia, however, they prefer to concoct spurious arguments of the type seen above, invoking ‘society’ and ‘children’ in classic socon fashion. The popular feminist view that the Men’s Movement is ‘obsessed’ by women – a position widely shared by David Futrelle’s followers, for instance - is simply a matter of projection. In reality, feminists are obsessed by men and their sexual activities to the exclusion of all else! Even lesbian feminists want to ban porn, foreign brides and prostitution.

And so we see that feminists and socons share exactly the same attitudes and opinions. Angry Harry’s ongoing conflation of feminism with Marxism is thus seriously flawed – yes, some feminists profess left-wing beliefs but the vast majority hold firmly conservative attitudes on sexual issues. Indeed, some do both. While the execrable Catherine MacKinnon extols the virtues of Marxism in one breath, in the next she holds puricon ideals that would stagger Queen Victoria.

In my view, Anglo-American conservatism is inherently misandrist because the Puritanism implicit in Anglo culture automatically pedestalizes women and denigrates men. Hence, all Anglo conservatives are essentially ‘Earth Mother’ feminists - whether they know it or not. Further evidence of this ‘femcon’ alliance can be found in Right Minds – for our good friend Tommy Fleming is there! Yes, the anti-Civil Rights White Knight is now sharing his nonsense with the Brits – but maybe not for long (see my link below).





It is gratifying to see one’s views shaping the manosphere. My caustic observations about the socon-feminist alliance are now common currency. A number of articles on The Spearhead show which way the wind is blowing. Most male socons are like George Sodini. They think ‘playing by the rules’ should, in a properly-ordered society, get them sex. Unfortunately, the contemporary Anglosphere is a matriarchy ruled by women’s whims, not a ‘properly-ordered society’. In reality, it isn’t the State or the Power Elites who dispense sex to men but rather dysfunctional little skanks with college degrees in finger-painting and womyn’s studies. And despite the socons’ idealization of them, these ‘ladies’ remain entranced by bums, thugs and sociopaths.

How long before incel conservative men realize the errors of their ways? Maybe never. Some males are too deeply enmeshed in the matriarchy to ever be saved. But now the conservative wing of the manosphere is folding fast, maybe more will renounce their delusions before too long.

PS: Check out the following link to Searchlight, Britain's premier anti-fascist publication. There, we find Fleming is not just a White Knight but a KKK admirer, to boot:

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/1406/the-daily-mails-far-right-blogger

In the face of evidence like this, how clear does the fascist-feminist connection need to be?













71 comments:

  1. The more I look at the politics of the situation, and the more I look at the self-professed "feminists", the more I am convinced that both are irrelevant.

    That is, neither party is truly anti or pro feminist, and neither feminists or non-feminists are truly misandrist.

    I have met too many women who claim to detest feminism, yet show just as much contempt or negligence towards men as I have women who call themselves feminists.

    Politicians too - whether they are on the left or the right (at least in the current day), it seems they are gynocentric - perhaps not in their hearts - but at least to capture the so-called "woman vote".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anon 0302, aka Adolfsama:
    Then please spare us any further trolling and do like your hero, Hitler---go shoot yourself in a bunker, or something.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Scarecrow:
    The only difference between Socon women and radical feminists is that the Socons wear dresses and use lipstick. All the Socon women I've ever known had the same hateful attitudes towards men---more of a condescending contempt that the visceral hatred that comes from liberal feminists. The most ridiculous examples are the attempts of some US politicians to ban pornography on military bases.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rookh:
    LOL, you've always surmised that Fleming had a 'secret life'. Now we know what it is! It looks like your description of him in last blog as 'looking like a defeated Confederate colonel' wasn't that far off the mark.

    I live in the US and the entire region comprising the ex-Confederacy is steeped in white-knightism and pseudo-chivalry, moreso than the rest of the US. It's also (no coincidence) the bastion of American political social conservatism. The Confederate commanders used to advertise themselves as the 'upholders of traditional chivalry' and 'the defenders of the honor of southern womanhood' against the supposedly-libertine American north and western states. The original KKK costume was actually designed on the model of the mediaeval Knights Templar; and one of the reasons for the KKK's founding was supposedly to protect white women from the newly-liberated Negroes.

    Also, not surprisingly, the former and current leaders in the US southeast pride themselves on their Anglo-Saxon purity (the other parts of the US are more ethnically mixed or descended from continental Europeans).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rookh:
    'In truth plain women like Manning are terrified of porn, prostitutes and foreign dating because it negates their own worth on the dating market.'

    Exactly. These same Anglobitches are always howling 'men only care about sex' but, beyond the physical act of sex itself, have nothing of substance to offer any real man. When men have other options, even that little is cancelled out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Who owns the 'Trojan horse', the Greeks or the Trojans?

    The human perversion, that is feminism, is a subversive political tool that can be wielded by any state centric government, be it nominally left or right leaning.

    Both Marxists and Conservatives have evolved; and I believe they are both aiming to control the public sector (the civil service). If I'm right, then it may explain how left and right are both courting femo-fascism.

    Marxists have evolved from: 'power to the people', into: 'power over the people'. And Conservatives have abandoned the free market ideal to the centralised European bureaucracy. This, if true, means that left and right now stand on common ground; and the battle is not to win the hearts and minds of the voting public, so much as win the symbiotic alliance between themselves and the state bureaucracy.

    Since the state bureaucracy is the bastard child of New-Marxism and Procrustes (the demigod of enforced political correctness), both left and right parties that wish to take control, must woe the same politically corrected civil servant eromenoi; hence they both hold the same bouquet, and brand of Vaseline.

    We the people are left on the sideline watching from our fenced off compound, where the barbed wire of feminism, not only runs around the masses, but between each individual. And we are asked to vote upon the performances of the Nomenklatura in the circle jerking power orgy that used to be our democracy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izjs0UV12fo&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oops... I meant woo, not woe!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon1200, aka aldofsama,
    Look, I realise today is the anniversary of the defeat of your Glorious 1000-Year Reich, so you have reason to feel depressed. But, really you should go post on Fleming's blog. He's written quite favorably about treating little girls like princesses too and he's ideologically in synch you with moreso than Rookh.

    ReplyDelete
  9. JimmyGiro:
    That brings up an excellent point. The more the lines between State and Society become blurred, the more the State becomes a vehicle for advancing social policy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Your argument posits that most feminists are right-wing simply because some right-wing commentators cherry pick and oversimplify feminist theory in order to denounce porn, prostitution etc. That's argumentum ad hominem rearing its stupid head again, and you are a dog chasing its own tail until it dies of exhaustion.

    It's like Germaine Greer said: "The tragedy of machismo is that a man is never quite man enough."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon1709:
    I don't think feminists are right or left wing, just anti-male. They'll back any system so long as it discrimainates against men and gives them all the power.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not sure if I agree with the theory of grabbing little girls off the street, but we are all entitled to our opinions. However, I do believe that most of the pedophile problems stem from the fact that the typical Western female is too far removed from the idea female form, that being a healthy 18 year old woman. The heaving sows that lumber through the streets of the Western world barely resemble humans, let alone attractive potential mates. Maybe this explains the Asian woman fetish so many men succumb to?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You fool! 18-year-old girls belong with 18-year-old boys. The reproductive materials (to be polite) of older men tends to be of poor quality and often leads to birth defects. Men go through andropause relatively early, so who are you to demand a healthy young woman?

      Your unrealistic expectations will have you confounded again and again. Do you wish to become a bitter, withered, old man still on the shelf gathering dust?

      Delete
    2. You could say the same about older women becoming gradually less fertile from about 25-45, when menopause kicks in for women and negates their ability to have children almost completely. Also, as women age, they're more likely to have their children suffer birth defects as well (Down Syndrome for example). This risk mounts with increasing rapidity from 25 onwards. There is a reason why many men are reluctant to court older women.

      The concept of andropause is a controversial one and seemingly does not occur until 35 AT THE EARLIEST. This still allows a 17-year gap between an 18-year old and her partner.

      Besides, many 18-year old guys would not really be ready for substantial relationships. They may think they are, but you have finances etc., to consider.

      Delete
  13. Rookh:
    Unlike Adolfsama, I'm not going presume to tell you how to manage your own blog, but I'd like to make these observations: It's becoming increasingly difficult to have intelligent commentaries and discussions on your posts when the threads keep getting hijacked by this monomaniac and his pedophilic rampages.

    I've also noticed that when I've linked a post of yours I liked on other blogspots, I've heard comments about the 'sick pedophiles who read that guy's blog.'

    I just thought I should point this out. Your posts are some of the best in the Manosphere, but the quality of the commentary is really dampening their impact.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Don't worry, the deceitful ramblings of that obese feminist have been removed.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You mean that Adolfsama's not coming back? Yaaaaaayyyyy!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. *Your argument posits that most feminists are right-wing simply because some right-wing commentators cherry pick and oversimplify feminist theory in order to denounce porn, prostitution etc. That's argumentum ad hominem rearing its stupid head again, and you are a dog chasing its own tail until it dies of exhaustion. It's like Germaine Greer said: "The tragedy of machismo is that a man is never quite man enough."*

    That is one of the most illogical comments I've ever read. The right wing commentators don't cherry pick feminist theory, they claim to be opponents of feminism. Their views coincide with feminist views because both movements are motivated by an obsessional desire to oppress men in general, and male sexuality in particular. In short, Anglo socons and Anglo feminists represent identical agendas.

    At first I thought this post was by Angry Harry. Then I remembered: -

    1. Angry Harry has a brain
    2. Angry Harry would never quote the ludicrous Germaine Greer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In general, feminists do not care what men do. Notwithstanding instances of sexual attraction, you stay out of our way and we'll stay out of yours.

      These blogs seem to be written by the kind of people who would jump out in front of a speeding car on the autobahn and accuse the driver of trying to run them down!

      Delete
    2. I don't believe this. If feminists don't care what men do, then why do women like McKinnon etc. despise porn so much? I mean, porn doesn't DIRECTLY involve such feminists, does it? Men using porn for whatever reason don't ask feminists to partake as well, do they?

      Also, why is there such a brouhaha about AM and FW among AW and associated feminists? Why is there so much shaming language directed at AM taking that route, if feminists don't care what men do? Again, men aren't asking feminists for anything when courting FW. So why do so many feminists get upset about it? I mean, they don't care what men do right? Wasn't that what you said?

      Delete
    3. I have no idea what those abbreviations correspond to, so I cannot answer most of your reply.

      However, feminists do not hate porn on the whole - the majority of women (and yes, that does include feminists, haha) watch quite a bit of it fairly frequently.

      Unfortunately there is a lot of really nasty stuff out there - women being slapped, having their hair torn out, being throttled and choked by various means etc etc etc.

      It has become pretty mainstream, in that the level of aggression is rarely hinted at in the title. Or the uploaders will use euphemistic tags such as 'passionate' or 'energetic'. It is rarely categorised as BDSM. A lot of it seems to be about revenge or control. Then there's the 'barely legal' stuff and the racial categorisations. It SHOULD turn your stomach.

      EVERYONE should hate the kind of porn where that level of hatred, exploitation and aggression is seemingly promoted as normal. I think most women(feminist or not) worry about how the really nasty stuff almost certainly affects the way that men feel they can treat women in the real world. I guess the real problem is we fear (how can we not?) that men's psychology may be extremely brittle. That is tragic.

      Delete
    4. Addendum: you really should look up Pavlov's Dogs.

      Delete
    5. N.B: AW = (Culturally) Anglo women, FW = Foreign (non-Anglo) women

      Sorry I couldn't respond to this earlier; I was busy. Here are my thoughts:

      1) MOST viewers of porn are men, obviously.

      2) I'd be inclined to agree with you - IF these women were coerced. As it is, most porn stars are narcissists who do this stuff to make a name for themselves. Some regret it; most don't.

      3) It could then be reasonably concluded that these women ENJOY the sorts of things you describe - or at least they get some sort of sick thrill from it. Why? Because they have many screws loose. It therefore becomes a matter of female choice, doesn't it? Feminism theoretically dictates that women can do whatever the hell they want.

      4) It becomes a matter of taste then, doesn't it? This stuff doesn't appeal to me either, but feminists like McKinnon are curtailing the rights of women (ironically) by banning such stuff. Why? Because men may or may not look at such stuff to get their rocks off. However, people like McKinnon don't want to be made redundant by this stuff.

      Delete
    6. It isn't a matter of whether the female pornstars enjoy that kind of treatment (do you seriously believe - or even care - that they do?) or of preventing them from going into that line of work (after all, mainstream porn was one of the few industries where women got paid more than the men).

      I personally worry that this this aggressive, antagonistic porn depicts sex as an act of vengeance or punishment, rather than something mutually enjoyable or fun.

      If humans can be conditioned like Pavlov's dogs then it's troubling. The fact is, we don't yet know what are long-term psychological effects.

      Delete
    7. A few thoughts:

      - Well, as long as females WILLINGLY perform acts that you find degrading (and there's no strong evidence that most are coerced into it), it will be difficult to ban such porn because it becomes a matter of female choice. Feminists want to be seen to promote female choice (even though they only really do when it suits them).

      - This porn comprises a minority of all porn. I would say that most porn is much more...ahem...conventional. So the chances of males being influenced by such aggressive porn are fairly low (that porn certainly isn't to my taste). If certain males enjoy such porn, then there are probably pre-existing personality traits that draw them to such porn. If certain guys like being thugs, then banning porn won't change anything.

      - Unfortunately, humans are easy to manipulate. Marketing relies on the principle of Pavlov's dogs to manipulate people into buying stuff.

      - The fact that you're concerned about such porn says much about feminism. AW have generally become so unpleasant in the post-feminist climate that guys are increasingly turning to porn. That should worry AW; I would say that porn was originally meant to be a temporary relief valve - it wasn't designed to substitute for women. I also don't believe that most guys originally treated it as such, either.

      - Basically, if porn was nothing more than a temporary relief valve, then violent porn would have less potential to affect guys than it does at the moment.

      Delete
  17. I will clean the blog of insane comments every evening from now on. Of course, all rational and constructive comments will be left untouched, whoever they come from.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like it or not, it is an instinctive reaction to conflate anti-feminism with paedophilia, when the qualities you demand of women (youth, acquiesense, passivity, innocence, docility, obedience, subordination) are singularly characteristic of idealised childishness.

      Feminism is the outcome of female experience and adulthood. The result is a HUMAN yearning for freedom, independence and, above all, self-determination.

      Delete
    2. Anon:

      Oh, rubbish. Most AW and associated Anglo feminists behave like screwed-up children, not adults. You expect emotional immaturity and a lack of social skills from children who don't know any better, not adults. However, that's what you get from AW. Worse still, the courts also treat them like children by giving them light sentences for serious crimes (like murder).

      There's also an obvious difference between desiring a relatively youthful but ADULT lady (i.e - early 20's) to a CHILD (which that fascist lunatic was talking about), no matter how 'unrealistic' you think such a desire is. Can't you tell the difference? One is rightly extremely illegal, the other patently isn't.

      Moreover, if Anglo feminists value independence/freedom/self-determination so much, then why are so many proponents of 'big government' and 'affirmative action'? It's more doublespeak: feminists supporting gender discrimination would indicate an acknowledgement by them that they generally need government help to get jobs off men. They also bring freely solicit the government's help when enforcing their reproductive rights. Yeah, some 'independence'.

      Delete
    3. I tend to think that affirmative action or positive discrimination could be justified. It certainly worked well for men, right? Sorry, that was a cheap shot!

      Delete
    4. I can't quite understand what you mean anyway, so apology accepted. ;)

      Delete
  18. Anon1518:
    'The qualities that you demand of women...are characteristic of idealised childishness.'

    Oh, nonsense. It's feminists who play the 'Victim Card', refuse to take any responsibility for their own behavior, and run to the Nanny State when they feel like it.

    Besides, the inherent misandry in feminism isn't characteristic of adult behavior at all. The 'I don't like boys' and 'I'm the entitled princess' stages are normal in girls---but mature women grow up and grow out of them.

    'Feminism is the outcome of female experience and adulthood.'

    LOL---then why are feminists always trying to compete against and supplant men? I don't see feminists embracing femininity as a cultural ideal.

    Most feminism, that I can see, grows out of a hatred of men. The freedom and independence that you declaim about wanting is freedom from men, not freedom to be women.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "---then why are feminists always trying to compete against and supplant men? I don't see feminists embracing femininity as a cultural ideal.
      "Most feminism, that I can see, grows out of a hatred of men. The freedom and independence that you declaim about wanting is freedom from men, not freedom to be women."

      Feminist theory generally tends not to give this much credit to men, I'm afraid! Men are not central to the cause, merely occasional obstacles.

      Is it not true that black civil rights movements (in e.g. USA, South Africa etc) caused hysteria (and dare I say it, paranoia) amongst the white population who believed they were about to be supplanted?

      Hypothetically though, what do you suppose would cause women to want freedom from men? You sort of answered your own question.

      And what's all this crap about embracing femininity - you sound like a tampon ad! You believe that women should be feminine and men should be masculine. The world is never going to be how you think it should be!

      Delete
    2. "Feminist theory generally tends not to give this much credit to men, I'm afraid! Men are not central to the cause, merely occasional obstacles."

      Without men to rail against as a perceived oppressor, feminism wouldn't even exist. If the world only had women in it, then it wouldn't be feminism; it would be something else that's entirely unrelated to gender.

      "Hypothetically though, what do you suppose would cause women to want freedom from men? You sort of answered your own question."

      The funny thing about many feminists is that they're enormously hypocritical. If you want to be truly free from men that's fine; I wouldn't stop you for a second. But then why let the government (the heads of whom are mostly men) intrude in your lives? Why then write books and articles complaining about men's lack of commitment if you want freedom from them?

      "And what's all this crap about embracing femininity - you sound like a tampon ad! You believe that women should be feminine and men should be masculine."

      Is this unreasonable? Women are NOT men and men are NOT women, no matter what anybody says. There are obvious biological differences. At any rate, they're meant to complement each other, not compete against each other. Is the best way to be a happy woman to try and behave like a man and fail miserably at it?

      Delete
    3. "Women are NOT men and men are NOT women, no matter what anybody says. There are obvious biological differences. At any rate, they're meant to complement each other, not compete against each other. Is the best way to be a happy woman to try and behave like a man and fail miserably at it?"

      Yes, it is unreasonable. How do you know what men and women are supposed to be and do? Why would women try to 'compete' with men if it goes against nature - surely the thought would not occur to them in the first place?

      Why demand that the human race be so simple and unadaptive? If it is true that biology dictates gender characteristics then surely you're only as good as the worst man. This notion of men and women complementing each other is an insult to both sexes. You should be able to succeed in life without a little lady at home tending to your every need. Two things you need to know: 1. You are not the king. 2. Life is hard when you are not the king.

      Delete
    4. "Yes, it is unreasonable. How do you know what men and women are supposed to be and do? Why would women try to 'compete' with men if it goes against nature - surely the thought would not occur to them in the first place?"

      Ah, no it isn't unreasonable at all.

      It is true that a minority of women are what we will call 'hunter' types - in other words, they hunted with the males during earlier times. In the modern context, these women would be very well suited for the workplace.

      I don't believe that most AW in the workplace are actually a part of that breed though. My experiences tell me that if you give most AW a big task to do at work, they will fall short and wind up giving it to somebody else. A good worker wouldn't do this. For example, my father's female workmates give him work to do all the time because they're not capable of doing said work very well.

      The only women who usually see men as 'competitors' are AW. From experience, non-Anglo women generally lack such an adversarial attitude towards males in general.

      Why is this? Simple, because humans are easy to manipulate and feminists have been manipulating AW for several decades to see men as competitors and adversaries.

      "Why demand that the human race be so simple and unadaptive?"

      The human race is what it is. Women and men ARE equal, BUT they are different. Most women should not pretend that they're men, with all that entails. In turn, most men shouldn't pretend that they're women.

      Ask yourself this - has the Anglosphere been any better since it's been cool for men and women to behave like androgynous beings? I'd say not - there's a growing underclass, families are more vulnerable and fragmented than they've ever been, whilst gender relations have generally become unpleasant. Even the economic benefits from wringing more productivity out of the population is diluted because the middle class is shrinking in the Anglosphere.

      "If it is true that biology dictates gender characteristics then surely you're only as good as the worst man."

      I'm not sure what you mean by this. Biology is a very broad field; it encompasses many things that could potentially determine a male's characteristics. You also cannot escape the fact that males broadly have some similarities with each other that distinguish them from females, in the main. There are many innate psychological factors, for instance.

      These are broad trends, of course. There will be the odd naturally effeminate guy. However, these are exceptions and nothing more.

      "You should be able to succeed in life without a little lady at home tending to your every need."

      Hey, I'm not saying that you can't succeed in life without a partner. In fact, most AW undermine their partners nowadays. That doesn't escape the fact that men and women are meant to compliment each other. I personally believe that both genders are stronger when they are united rather than when they are adversaries, as is the norm in the Anglosphere now.

      Why do you think the Anglosphere's social dynamics are so screwed up? Why do you think the divorce rate in the Anglosphere is so high (55-60% between all-Anglo couples)? Why do you think there are so many broken, unhappy families? A big part of the reason is because women have had this idea drilled into their head that they have to compete with men. It affects all their interactions with men. That involves 'competing' for children, the house, etc.

      At any rate, I have no problems attracting women from outside of the Anglosphere.

      "Two things you need to know: 1. You are not the king. 2. Life is hard when you are not the king."

      Yes, life is hard. However, it becomes HARDER still when women see you as being a competitor and adversary. So why make life harder than it already is?

      Delete
    5. Your insistence on the biological roots of difference is quite worryingly fatalistic and fascistic. Men have not been hunters for an incredibly long time - it is time to put this fantasy away.

      Women generally do not see men as competitors as such, but ambition and achievement are for us incredibly important, too. It is a human trait.

      Since the industrial revolution, men have competed with machinery. It is a curious thing that anti-feminists never pinpoint this as a primary cause of emasculation... curious, until you realise that it is easier to scapegoat (and rape, punch, imprison) women.

      Delete
    6. "Your insistence on the biological roots of difference is quite worryingly fatalistic and fascistic. Men have not been hunters for an incredibly long time - it is time to put this fantasy away."

      Ah, but social and technological change has outstripped human evolution. Indeed, you still see men hunting today. Not sure how such as view is fascistic?

      "Since the industrial revolution, men have competed with machinery. It is a curious thing that anti-feminists never pinpoint this as a primary cause of emasculation... curious, until you realise that it is easier to scapegoat (and rape, punch, imprison) women."

      The problem with many of your arguments is that they have an extremely narrow cultural focus. You seem to forget that the Industrial Revolution would eventually affect the entire planet. Your argument would therefore only hold up if men the world over were equally 'emasculated'. That's certainly not the case - even after the Industrial Revolution reached Japan, Japanese culture was still perceived as quite masculine, for example.

      As for your argument that women are scapegoated unfairly - no. Certainly not in the Anglosphere, anyway. Why have women like Mary Winkler etc., received extremely light sentences for heinous crimes? Why was there a proposal in the UK to close women's prisons? The rest of the world differs to varying degrees, but it doesn't seem that women are being unfairly targeted in the Anglosphere.

      Delete
  19. DaRick;
    That's an interesting point: why they should care about things like access to porn, prostitution, or foreign wives?

    I've heard feminists (both liberal and socon) trot out the old shaming language that MRAs are 'bitter' and 'can't get laid because women don't find them attractive'. If they really believe that, why should they care if the men whom they don't want anyway leave them alone?

    I think Rookh is on target: the unspoken truth is that what these feminised women really want is a monopoly on men. Having alternatives empowers men; and it must be especially galling to the feminists to try and ban things like love-dolls and virtual sex because they can't even compete with robots and computers!

    Rookh is also uttering an unspoken truth when he mentions Anglobitch 'obsession' with men. They instinctively know what women need, but it conflicts with feminist ideology. That's why they're obsessed---they can never reach a psychological equilibrium because they're constantly trying to fight their own nature and make their illogical ideology function simultaneously; IOW, their impulses and their education are continually cancelling each other out.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rookh;
    Being an American, I hadn't thought of this right away, but Britain HAS a socon female PM, Margaret Thatcher. I don't remember much about her, but I don't think she did a lot to advance the position of men in Anglo culture. Also, didn't a lot of feminist initiatives get implemented during her term?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hard as it is to believe, one can possess two contradictory perspectives without imploding. However, I don't think anyone has accused Thatcher of being a feminist - not with a straight face!

      What is this obsession with proving feminism is a right-wing theory? Just inferring it repeatedly doesn't make it true. And anyway, it should be self-evident by now. Why don't you prove it with quotes from academic feminist texts?

      Delete
  21. Anon1538:
    So far you're proving Rookh correct about feminist obsession with male sexuality. Again, what do you 'liberated' women care if the men you don't want leave you alone?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not Thomas Fleming17 May 2012 at 15:17

    Anon 18:52,

    Tommy Fleming is no less obsessed with our sexuality. See here:

    http://fleming.dailymail.co.uk/2012/05/porn.html

    "Then if weird and perverse pornography has to be tolerated, it is not because we tolerate everything. Quite the contrary, in the Anglo-Sphere there has never been so little toleration of dissent and so much power to impose conformity! No, we tolerate this filth because we either approve of it or cannot figure out any rational grounds on which to regulate it - so long as no-one is harmed."

    ReplyDelete
  23. NotFleming:

    I found Tommy's closing statement in that article especially ominous: 'there are some arguments that can only be made with the blow of a fist.'

    Rookh's analysis of this guy's character is becoming more and more clear.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rookh:
    After I looked up NotFleming's links, I went back and re-read your link above. Something I'd overlooked was that Fleming was mentioned there as a board member of the 'League of the South'. That organization is listed by several American civil-rights watchdog-groups as a 'Hate Group.' The article didn't mention it, but they've actually advocated reinaugurating the Confederate States as an independent country before. And Fleming sits on their board!

    This guy definately has greater psychological problems than just being a mangina and a white-knight.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Marry little girls.

    Should we convert to Islam, marry a little cute female child, and then fight against both you feminists and you anti-pedophillia "men's rights activists?"

    DaRick: I'd love to blade over kneck you. Because you are against males having little girl brides.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Says the world's biggest and most cowardly keyboard warrior.

      Delete
  26. Anon1312:
    I think a blade must have fallen over a different part of your anatomy. Why else would you marry someone with whom you couldn't even have kids? If you want to convert to Islam, it would be simpler for you put on a burkha (assuming they have one in size 3xxx large)and marry a nice Moslem mangina and join his harem. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  27. Little girl can still suck your penis.
    And you can make her feel good too.
    And you can hold her and own her

    Use KY jelly and so is said at 6 maybe she can do intercourse, certainly at 9. Lots other things than that to do tho.

    Only women talk about having children. It isn't a fixation of men.

    You are a woman or a womanish man.

    Men don't fuck females to have babies. That isn't the goal. Fuck you christian cunt.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anon1732:
    Geez, what a moron.

    Men never think about having families, IOW. LOL.

    I think that your real problem with fatherhood is that most fathers want to protect their daughters from creeps like you. How many times have you been punched out by an angry dad, Uncle Pervy? LOL

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anon1437:
    What do you hate more: our masculinity or your femininity? Or both equally? When you depreciate ideas like a complementary element to the sexes, you can't help but escape the logical conclusion that you consider one gender superior to the other. The stereotypical picture you gave of a relationship exposes your own hostility to the idea of equality.

    ReplyDelete
  30. DaRick:

    LOL, do you mean that Uncle Pervy is our long-lost friend Adolfsama? I thought it was a different deranged pervert who'd taken up the cause.

    I guess it's that psychology is kind of an interesting subject to me, and therefore Adolfsama is interesting research specimen. Delusions and fantasies of paedophilia and beheading are a very unusual pathological combination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon:

      Well my good man, Adolfsama has threatened to kill me on numerous occasions, much to my amusement because he would never have the balls.

      You're right though; he's certainly an 'interesting' sort of character.

      Delete
    2. FEMINIST PAEDOPHILES THREATNING TO KILL ANTIFEMINIST MRAs, THE FEMINAZIS ARE LAUNCHING A SNEAKY STEALTH ATTACK

      Delete
  31. DaRick:
    It almost makes me wish that the Feminazis hadn't driven me out of Academia. I think I could collect Adolfsama's posts and do a symposium on 'Repressed Sexuality and its Influences on Fascist Thought' or some similar topic.

    BTW, I was reading through the Anglobitch archives, and read an old post of yours where you were contemplating going to the Phillippines. Did you make it up there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only as far as Malaysia and Singapore and that was only for two weeks.

      Never fear though, I have more plans on the horizon.

      Delete
  32. The reason why Angry Harry says that feminism comes is part of the left is because it is. The fact that it's an authoritarian movement doesn't contradict this, so is socialism. This author seems to think that modern day 'liberals' are open minded libertarians or something. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Yes conservatism has it's own authoritarian positions but it isn't specifically anti-male the way that the left is. And those who believe in individual liberty and free markets are considered to be on the right like Ron Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dave:
    I would agree that feminism has its roots in Marxism, but since it's origins has taken on a life of its own. Conservatives have taken on many of the same feminist premises.

    Remember that in 2010, the Tea Party was trumpeting about the 'Conservative Year of the Woman and backed candidates like Christine O'Donnell who were anti-male.

    The attitude I read from most conservatives here is more of a 'soft-core' misandry. The feminists may have an 'all men are dogs attitude', but the Socons seem to qualify it by pointing out that dogs can be trained and are useful to have around. I don't see any difference between liberal pedestalizing of 'strong women' like Hillary Clinton or conservative pedestalizing 'strong women' like Sarah Palin. The basic attitude of men as inferiors permeates both parties equally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. feminists Think men are inferior ? theres seems to be NO END TO FEMINIST RETARDATION.
      BY ITS CONSTANT DESPARATION FOR AFFIRMATIVE action DOLES ,SPECIAL PROTECTION LAWS FOR WOMEN AS IF THEY ARE SOME ENDANGERED ANIMAL SPECIES AND A VARIETY OF LAWS TO PERSECUTE AND TAKE AWAY EVEN THE BASIC RIGHTS OF MEN ,Feminism HAS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT , THAT WOMEN ARE THOROUGHLY INFERIOR TO MEN AND CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT THE COMPULSARY ENFORCED CHIVALRY ON MEN BY THE FEMINISTS AND THE GOVERNMENT. ISNT THAT OBVIOUS ?

      Delete
  34. DaRick & NotThomasFleming:

    Looking at the link NotFleming posted, I've noticed that Fleming is really ratcheting up the rhetoric. I think there's a big sea-change going on in the Anglosphere and Fleming's rhetoric is indicative of it.

    I've noticed also that Futrelle has been singling out Welmer's blog recently and the Spearhead been having an onslaught of troll attacks, attempts to crash the site, &c.

    There have been more troll attacks than usual on this site; and like DaRick mentioned, the pervert-troll has threatened to kill him repeatedly. And last week, the Scarecrow ran a series on his blog about the hate-mail he's been getting lately, including threats.

    I realize this kind is always happening, but seems that it has really increased during the last few months.

    Any thoughts on this phenonemon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it seems that our opponents are now fighting us actively, rather than just laughing at us like they did before.

      Is this a sign that victory is afoot? Maybe. Feminism is an ideology of death, so our opponents would naturally die out through attrition anyway. It also doesn't augur well for a society if more men become apathetic, as has been happening for a while. The Anglosphere will have to change things in our favour or continue to crumble.

      Delete
    2. Anon,

      Yes, they are aware of us and they are getting nervous. Expect more of this in future. And expect it to get progressively uglier. The Socons are being groomed for the role of Janissaries of the matriarchal Caliphate- The Matriarchate- if you will.

      A fitting duo. Both parties markedly deserve each other.

      Delete
  35. "The socon-feminist connection is confirmed by a brief look at the Right Minds blog network associated with the right-wing British tabloid, The Daily Mail. This is now the world’s most popular online news resource, despite having supported Hitler in the Thirties (I kid you not)."

    Blimey, so the internet existed in the thirties?

    ReplyDelete
  36. NotFleming:
    I think you're absolutely right. I've often the only difference between feminist and socon women is that the socons wear dresses and makeup!

    I agree with you and DaRick, that these tactics are going to grow in intensity very soon. The Sisterhood and the White Knights know that their movement is imploding and they're going to start throwing everything they've got at us.

    ReplyDelete
  37. *There have been more troll attacks than usual on this site; and like DaRick mentioned, the pervert-troll has threatened to kill him repeatedly. And last week, the Scarecrow ran a series on his blog about the hate-mail he's been getting lately, including threats.

    I realize this kind is always happening, but seems that it has really increased during the last few months. Any thoughts on this phenonemon?*

    Clear eyes. Full hearts. Can't lose.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Marrying little girls is good. You are a sycopant to the west in your rejection of men having little girls.

    It will be good when you're killed you fucking macaca.
    Monk

    ReplyDelete
  39. Adolfsama:
    Thanks for helping to illustrate NotFleming's point about troll attacks becoming more vicious in the future.

    BTW, did you find a burkha in x-large land-whale size yet? LOL

    ReplyDelete
  40. 'Skanks', huh? Is that the language of the left or of a puritan? You have exposed yourself as a little narrow-minded bigot.

    It doesn't matter what you say, Feminism is an integral part the civil rights movement. You do not get to choose which people should enjoy freedom and fairness.

    You have yet to provide any evidence of Feminist connection to right wing movements. Step up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It doesn't matter what you say, Feminism is an integral part the civil rights movement. You do not get to choose which people should enjoy freedom and fairness."

      However, according to you, feminists SHOULD be able to decide which people enjoy freedom and fairness.

      Why is it that a rise in feminism since the 1960's has infringed on the freedoms of not only males (who are far more vulnerable to spurious rape accusations), but also the financial freedoms of the average taxpayer, who has to finance single-mother families through tax (noting that single motherhood has taken off since feminism)? Many male criminals also come from single-mother families, so no doubt their social freedoms are being infringed as the average person risks being assaulted by these individuals.

      I would also argue that most Anglo feminists do not really care about the plight of women outside of the West (the Anglosphere and Continental Europe). The likes of Jessica Valenti, for example, very rarely discuss the more parlous position of women in Saudi Arabia. It makes Anglo feminism seem more like a special interest lobbying group than a broader civil rights movement.

      Indeed, in the 1960's, the likes of Casey Hayden and Mary King helped to form modern-day feminism after parting ways with the black civil rights movement because of its very different focus. It seems the black civil rights movement mostly did NOT advocate Anglo feminist visions of gender equality. Why was this?

      I would also argue that while the likes of Dworkin and MacKinnon were left-wingers in many aspects, their views on males and male sexuality were hardly very liberal. Indeed, they more reflected Victorian-era thought. It is therefore no surprise that various right-wing governments (including David Cameron) have enabled their views on males and male sexuality because they parallel their own.

      Delete
    2. "IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU SAY" ?? SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE FEMINAZI ANTI FREEDOM FASCIST ,LISTEN YOU FEMINAZI RETARD WE STILL LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY AND IT FCUKING MATTERS WHAT ONE SAYS, FEMINISM IS ANTI CIVIL RIGHTS, ANTI HUMAN RIGHTS,ANTI SCIENCE HELL ITS ANTI COMMON SENSE , AND I WANNA ADD YOU FEMINAZI WHALES DONOT GET TO CHOSE WHAT "MATTERS OR DOESNT MATTER" NOT EVRTHING IN THIS WORLD IS ABOUT YOUR CHOICE UNDERSTAND BITCH ?

      Delete