The Fallacious “War On Women”

A commenter over at TakiMag left what I think is the most pithy analysis of the “war on women” that I have read anywhere.

There is no “war on women.” There’s a war on MEN.

The so-called “war on women” exists because it is the nature of woman to portray herself as the victim at the very moment when she is in fact the aggressor.

So good.

I propose that the entire cultural apparatus that supports the fake phony fraudulent “war on women”, and the shrieking loudmouths spreading its vile message of lies, are nominated for Rationalization Hamster of the Month.

zoom zoom!

This is also a good post to remind readers of the CH definition of feminism:

A political and cultural movement to remove all taboos and restrictions on female sexuality and to stigmatize and regulate, legally if necessary, male sexuality.





Comments


  1. BTW I am wondering what would the USA look like if women and 18 year olds had not been given the vote. An interesting food for thought.

    Like


    • on December 7, 2012 at 12:54 pm Holden Caulfield

      I believe there are some graphs/charts showing this type of projection and some of which were linked to in the archives. Its an interesting visual to say the least.

      Like


      • Holden, I believe you’re thinking of this:
        http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

        Like


      • on December 7, 2012 at 1:29 pm Holden Caulfield

        Interesting article I hadn’t seen before. Thanks for sharing -definitely an eye opener.

        It was actually something like this I was remembering:

        https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/why-single-white-women-vote-overwhelmingly-for-democrats/

        Like


      • A political and cultural movement to remove all taboos and restrictions on female sexuality and to stigmatize and regulate, legally if necessary, male sexuality.

        A little off-topic, but are y’all aware that Bernie Kosar’s daughter is now a pornstar, named “Lexxi Silver”?

        [NSFW]

        Kosar was one of the all-time great quarterbacks in the history of the NFL [or of the NCAA, for that matter] – dude had all kinds of records for completion rate and consecutive games without an interception, and he won rings both collegiately [UM Hurricanes, as a freshman] and in the NFL [with the Cowboys].

        Kosar was also such a good student at UM that he graduated two years early [with a double major, no less!], and Rozelle had to make a special provision to get him into the draft.

        I mean, seriously – WTF? – what is happening to this country?!?

        Like


      • Kosar is also a raging drunk

        Like


      • Negrification of the country, nowhere evinced more than in NBA and NFL environs and worship.

        Whites get pulled down to the LCD.

        Anyone who thinks they’re the “strong one” who isn’t affected by those people and things they surround themselves with, even inadvertently, is mistaken.

        Like


      • Everyone is responsible for his own behavior, but when the behavior of the worst behaving group is beyond criticism, it probably takes the pressure off other groups to act better.

        Like


      • @Lara: Very insightful.

        Like


      • Greg Eliot
        Negrification of the country, nowhere evinced more than in NBA and NFL environs and worship
        —————————
        But if you look at the crowds at an NFL/NBA game, they are 90% white? My theory is that the ghettofication of professional sports like the NBA is a marketing/selling point. Giant scary niggers with tats, scares… is like a safari for white people. Tickets are expensive. Too expensive for niggers to afford to attend.

        Like


      • on December 7, 2012 at 9:43 pm Clay Matthews III

        Kosar is NOT one of the all time best NFL QBs you nincompoop. He was actually a kind of QB that you goofed on for not living up to his rep and not being that gutsy leader in the final 2 minutes of a game. Aikman was the QB of the Cowboys when they won the ring, he was a backup.

        Like


    • on December 7, 2012 at 1:07 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

      lzozoloolzoz

      the FEMINIST MOVEMENT
      was started by WALL STREET BANKSTERS
      TO PROFIT OFF OF
      WOMEN’S NATURAL HYPERGAMMUS INSTINCTZ lzozzooz

      da wall stretet bernnakiferieies said,

      “hey there is moneyz to be made in women’s natural preiliction for alpha fucks and beta bucks. so in feminism we’ll tell them they can have all the alpha fucks they want, just as long as they help us collect beta bucks via divocre alimonies child support and sexual harrassment lawsuistz zlzozozlzozl. and the funny thing is that because they are womenz, lacking deeper soul and consicneneice and honor, their hamsterz will tell them that this immorality is moral and good and civil lzlzlzzl”

      and so it is that feminist publishers at simon and shcustser and canandace allan at the weekly standard publish promote and repeate the lies of secteive tapperz of butthext, transforming lispy sectriev tapers of butthext who lie about their hieght, into six foot tall heroes, all in the name of expanding the power fo da fiat bankeertetes zlzozozlozz

      Like


  2. There should be a post on how to identify feminist, blue-pill men.
    Seems like all the men in nyc subscribe to this bs.

    Like


    • on December 7, 2012 at 12:55 pm Holden Caulfield

      Their manboobs and illogical whining are often a tip-off…

      Like


    • They walk behind the women they are with.

      Like


    • It’s not hard to see in nyc.

      I’m only a greater beta/lesser alpha when my game is tight. But in nyc I can pull an extraordinary amount of babes due to the relative emasculation of men there.

      Just a whiff of testosterone is enough to drown out the 20 herbs in the room who just want to be nice guys.

      Like


      • Is that true? Hmm. NYC attracts hot chicks, but I’ve always assumed that was because male New Yorkers were more alpha than men in the rest of the country, and hot chicks were going there to get an alpha husband. Guess I was wrong.

        Like


      • Most NYC girls are not super-hot chicks. Sure, the club rats and celebrity-whores and bottle-popping girls are 10s, but NYC mostly attracts the Sex and the City (SATC) type Girls–normal to good looking girls who are over-educated (re: feminazied) and terrified of penis (at firs). So they come either looking for a super-suave Mr. Big type or else think they’ll love the quirky, arty, left-wing marching hipster douches.

        Trouble is, Mr. Big’s are in small supply. Finance guys are the last NYC super-alphas, and they only bang bottle-popping club girls or hookers), so most end up being with “funky” (re: unemployed, whiny, and smelly) hipsters, and once a girl goes about 6 months deep into the faggy world of hipster-dom, she’s like relapsed alcoholic escaping a Mormon prison–literally the faintest whiff of what she desires will make her fiend out of her mind.

        The idea of NYers being alpha is really the older generations: 1) the old white immigrant types (think John Travolta from Saturday Night Fever, an alpha Italian-American from an ethnic enclave, or those old 70’s Italian mafias); and 2) those who survived in the city, balls out, during the nigger kingdoms of NYC from the 1960s-the early 1990s. (note: many faggy lefty types survived then too, but only by never leaving their neighborhoods and by continually denying the destruction, crime, and decay blacks were almost single-handedly causing).

        These days, NYCers (and transplant hipsters) survive on that rep. The economy has worsened it, but if you’re not living in or next to a nigger or ‘rican hood, claiming you’re street tough NYC is a joke nowadays. Street tough today would be living in downtown Detroit and openly admitting that blacks were causing the problems and not backing down from your opinion.

        Like


    • How to identify them? 80-90% of the time just look at a man and he’s blue pill.

      Want an easy identification…he’s wearing a wedding ring.

      Like


    • I spotted one in the coffee shop I was in today. You know how I knew…he was talking on his cell phone said love ya 5 times in a 3 minute conversation.

      Like


  3. The “War on Women” is framing par excellence. Beta providers (Democrats) are valued over alphas only during a crisis. Therefore, create a crisis to get the women to fall for you. You need my beta protection to keep you from the big bad wolves who want you to fend for yourself.

    Like


    • A small sub-set of Republicans believe some weird stuff about contraceptives and abortion. They believe that certain types of contraceptives are equivalent to abortion and that abortion should be outlawed with no exception for rape. These are very unpopular ideas to the general public. The democrats maneuvered to tar the entire republican party with these ideas. They were successful because Romney was trying to shore up his support with the base up until the debates. That’s politics.

      Like


      • It’s also framing. The Dems have a “small sub-set” who want to nationalize every major industry and give our armed forces to the UN, but we never seem to hear about them.

        That’s because if you call out the libs on their freaks, libs go on the offensive. You call out the Rebublicans on their freaks, they get defensive.

        Like


      • and the Hammer hits it right on the head…

        Like


  4. you can’t imagine how much the phrase ‘war on women’ angers me. i wanna break the noses of bitches and manboobs.

    Like


    • And the repubs fell right into it. Dems have beta policies, but they campaign like alphas (egregious insults, full-throttle attacks, etc.) Repubs have alpha policies (take care of your damn self, aggressive foreign policy) but campaign like wimpy betas (won’t attack the press, Obama’s a nice guy in over his head, not an incompetent moron).

      The way to turn this around I’ll get into next week. Can’t do it now because I’m at work.

      I can only say that after working among GOP insiders that we’ll NEVER get them to do what it takes. It’ll have to happen from the outside.

      Like


      • @Martel Nailed it with the half-alpha, half-beta concept. Fits the idea of a two-party circus where the beta weaknesses fed to the masses are enought to render moot anything the believer may actually be right about. No critical mass of truth. The boom is here.

        Like


      • There are only three certainties in this life: death, taxes, and Republicans failing shit tests.

        Like


      • +1

        Like


      • “There is no “war on women.” There’s a war on MEN.
        The so-called “war on women” exists because it is the nature of woman to portray herself as the victim at the very moment when she is in fact the aggressor.”

        Let me help there:

        There is no “war on races.” There’s a war on WHITE MEN.
        The so-called “war on races” exists because it is the nature of minorities to portray themselves as the victim at the very moment when they are in fact the aggressor.

        Like


      • There is no “war on races.” There’s a war on WHITE MEN.
        —————————————————-
        True, and its because white men STILL constitute a threat.

        What did Patrick Henry say? “Give me liberty or give me death!”

        Niggers would say: “give me liberty, or give me a bucket of white women and a chicken!”

        Like


      • Grit,

        I was just about to post the exact same thing.

        liberals do the same thing, they portray themselves as victims of republicans but the opposite is true.

        republicans are being bullied by the liberals and their liberal media is helping them by kicking the ass of republicans

        but the left still pretends they are victims of the big bad evil right

        this is the age of manipulation, everyone is manipulating white men from feminists, to colored people, to gays, to liberals

        everyone has figured out how to manipulate white men and they have joined forces to better crush white men, while claiming they are victims of white men

        this is insane

        Like


      • A war on white men? The single most successful subgroup to ever walk the earth?

        The Internet seems to be like a group competition to see who can be the biggest victim.

        Like


      • A war on white men? The single most successful subgroup to ever walk the earth?

        You’ve answered your own question.

        Like


      • We – white men – have been so successful that everybody hates us now, they are jealous little sore losers

        even some self-loathing whites hates us too – white liberals we call them – they started that war on white man.

        why would non-whites oppose this war on white man since they despise us anyway for being thousands of years ahead of any other race

        even when we are nice to non whites by letting them come in our civilization and we let them share all the good stuff ( Hell! we even PAY them to come here and enjoy the good stuff; 57% of Mexicans are on welfare for crying out loud!!!), they still hate us

        you know why?

        because all race are hostile to other races

        ALL races are like that

        it is not a white thing

        all races are hostile to other races

        but when one is “too” successful, it is hated even more

        it does not help that the self loathing left brainwashes everyone into being right to hate white people

        this is the new dark age, worse than the last one.

        Like


      • someone who says there is no war on white men is either lying trough their teeth because they approve of this war on white men or they are very ignorant and need to educate themselves

        here are a few example of this reality you claim does not exist,

        In the USA a white man must have a better credit history than a colored man to qualify for a mortgage

        in the USA a white man pays more for a mortgage than a colored man

        In the USA a white man must have better grades than a colored man to be accepted in college or University

        and there are dozens and dozens of examples like this

        educate yourself and stop posting ridiculous uninformed comments

        Like


      • Focusing on measly material matters like degrees and mortgages doesn’t even scratch the surface… the ongoing psychological and spiritual war to denigrate and demoralize whites, both past and present, has as it’s ultimate nefarious aim to eliminate their future… leastwise, any future worth living.

        Like


    • In other words, there should be a war on bitches, especially fat bitches, and manboobs. I agree with you on that one.

      Like


    • Yes, but it’s effective. It’s an appeal to emotion in the same category as any appeal for policies to help the children, except framed in martial, call-to-action language. This is what politicians (not Statemen–statesmen fight real wars) and executives do to induce cultural change; they use crises, be they real, precipitated or manufactured, to lever the organization to where they think it should be.

      In particular, appropriating martial language is a hallmark of (usually) the left when. Since we don’t often fight real wars anymore, the language has become the rhetorical bedrock of the Great Society welfare expansion (the “War on Poverty”), cover for gross violations of property and privacy rights (have you seen what civil forfeiture has done for police authority coffers since the “War on Drugs” was started?), and massive multi-dimensional expansions of the police-state (although in fairness, during the “War on Terror” we smoked a bunch of jihadi terrorists, too).

      So, since calling something a “war” anchors something as serious with the public, how do we counter it? Declare wars on bullshit? How do you counter the crisis language and ensuing groupthink once it’s already in the air? How do you deal with an insidious “War on Women” when it plays to 50% of the population’s natural tendency to feel victimized and aggrieved, despite being so obviously factually wrong?

      Probably by forwarding CH links, but then I’m no PR expert, so am up for suggestions.

      Like


      • …how do we counter it? Declare wars on bullshit?

        it is very hard when almost all news sources, tv shows and Hollywood movies have the same message embedded in them, and the fact that most people know what they know from left leaning news sources, tv shows and movies

        the left controls almost everything, people are being brainwashed incessantly and they do not even know it

        I have no idea how this can be reversed

        Leftist politicians import more immigrant who vote for leftist politicians, republicans get less votes as the population of immigrants grows and the population of native whites shrinks

        I do not see how this can be stopped and reversed

        sometimes I fear there is nothing shy of a civil war that will topple this leftist domination of everything

        Like


      • “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
        ― Adolf Hitler

        The media, marketeers, politicians, corporates.

        All liars.

        Like


      • I hope you realize Hitler was talking about a technique used by the Jews, and he was not advocating its use.

        But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.
        All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

        Like


      • And before the useful idiot brigade comes a-chargin’, let’s get something clear… not that it should require belaboring, but said denizens of the chateau being what they are:

        Keeping the record straight by quoting a man’s direct words does not equal adoration… not even endorsement, necessarily… unless of course the shoe fits.

        Like


      • Et tu, Canadian Friend? 😡

        Like


      • Am I mad?

        For asking NiteLily to marry me?

        Like


      • Well, if it isn’t the usual Hitler worshiper getting all bent out of shape, trying to “set the record straight” and turning it around on the victims. Oh, no, not Hitler. He was just fighting fire with fire. He was trying to right wrongs, blah, blah, blah……

        Don’t you know Hitler and the left are kindred spirits? Much of Nazi propaganda and tactics are currently implemented by various leftist organizations form the Democratic party itself, to the unions, and to occupy-Wall Street and Moveon.org type organizations.

        In addition, much of Nazi belief, is now being recycled by leftists organizations in their quest to create a new SECULAR WORLD RELIGION. The Nazis too were trying to amalgamate all their beliefs and policies into a new religion based on their propaganda and half-baked ideas about the Aryan race.

        Let’s compare between Nazism and the Left of today:

        • Nazi thought was highly nihilistic, and it rejected traditional values of Christianity. It attempted to replace these values with a form of paganist Nordicized religion. Similarly, today the left looks to break down traditions and time-tested values and to replace them with new secular doctrines, such as feminism, sexual-orientation, atheism, neo-paganism, multiculturalism, “right-to-die”/ euthanasia movements , etc…

        • Nazism had a very strong Occultism dynamic. In the absence of a strong belief in God, they were deeply into black magic, New Age and pagan mythology. They searched for the Ark of the covenant, The Holy Grail, Atlantis, Thule, and Hyperborea (the fabled homeland of the Aryan race). It’s eerily similar to today’s many liberals belief in new age religions, eastern religions, neo-paganism, and countless conspiracy theories bordering on the absurd. For example, many people believe in the ridiculous idea that we were placed here by aliens from outer space, or that we’re being visited by aliens and the government is covering it up. There are many TV shows dedicated to alien abductions. This year it’s the Mayan Calendar nonsense.

        • Nazism had a very strong environmentalist dynamic. The most notorious environmentalists in history were the German Nazis. Much like today’s left, they valued the flora and the fauna more than human life.

        • Nazi intolerance for opposition is well-known, so is the left’s intolerance for dissent. That’s why the left constantly attempts to control the Internet, and shut down Fox News and conservative talk radio.

        • The Nazis were masters of propaganda; they knew how to appeal to people’s fears and emotions. They demonized their enemies and made them look subhuman. Same with the left. It’s continually inventing false enemies such as evil white racists, sexists, homophobes, or ‘billionaires and millionaires not paying their fair share.’ These appeal to people’s anger and resentment. The left often invents bogus crisis like the fraudulent “war on women.” These appeal to people’s fears and frustration.

        • Many of the Nazi leaders were people of wealth and influence, much like the leaders of the left, who are mostly wealthy individuals, the likes of Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and George Soros. The Nazis were hardly laborers or poor people, yet they called themselves, National Socialist German Workers Party to appeal to the masses. How does today’s left appeal to the masses, by pretending it fights for the rights of minorities, women, and poor people.

        I can go on forever, but you get the point. The Nazis and today’s left have a lot in common.

        Like


      • NiteLily…

        Marry me!!! 🙂

        Like


      • LOL! You’re making me bluuuush 🙂

        Like


      • NiteLily,

        Our children would be free of liberal DNA

        wouldn’t they be adorable?

        Like


      • LOL! They’ll terrorize their liberal teachers.

        Like


      • Hitler never told any lies. He told the truth,thats why he wound up as he did.

        Like


      • What about his promise not to invade Poland? Or the promise not to invade the Soviet Union? Those were pretty strong promises, being treaties and all.

        Like


      • It can’t be countered. There’s a theory of the cycle of civilization, variously attributed to Tytler or de Tocqueville (and likely apocryphal) that goes something like this:

        Bondage -> Revolution -> Republic -> Democracy -> Social Democracy (gimmedat) -> Apathy -> Dependence (on government) -> Bondage

        Notice there are no left-pointing arrows. Though some once-great societies seem to just get stuck in apathy forever, with occasional bouts of tyranny.

        Dependence is obviously here, as highlighted by the recent victory of takers over makers, and they’ve been rolling out the instruments of bondage for some years now. Of course, it would hardly be better had Romney won, but the Left seems to be celebrating this as a mandate to finish stealing everything that hasn’t been bolted to the floor (and then they’ll pull up the floorboards).

        Like


      • I’m familiar with that theory but maybe this time we will skip to revolution faster?

        These days everything happens faster…

        Like


      • That,s easy. Point out the fact that aside from some minor mop-up operations, a war on women would last a couple of days.

        Like


  5. on December 7, 2012 at 12:57 pm RappaccinisDaughter

    If you want to see what a real War On Women (TM) looks like, take a spin by Afghanistan. Or Saudi Arabia. War On Women is burkhas and clitidorectomies, not somebody asking you to pay $35/month for your own birth control pills.

    If only I could get back all the breath I wasted trying to explain this to my SWPL friends, we could have a hot-air balloon race.

    Like


    • I wish I knew your friends. My specialty is getting “empowered” liberal chicks to start spewing about the evils of government intervention into the economy in an hour or two. And I developed that talent before I learned game.

      I’m trying to codify what I do and get the info out there. My blog is new and nothing’s there yet, but give it a little time and it’ll be a great guide for how to deal with your friends.

      Like


      • on December 7, 2012 at 1:54 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        Well, good luck to you. And I mean that sincerely, because I had none.

        Feel free to use my line: “There are two kinds of people who ‘get taken care of.’ Children and prisoners. Which one are you?”

        Like


      • Although true, a great line to use on a guy, but on a female not so much.

        With women it’s like a dance, sometimes soft, sometimes hard. The alpha brain with the beta heart. Never back down, but always be “understanding.” Hit her hard only after you make sure she knows she deserves it.

        Like


      • Heh, heh… +1 on your icon.

        Like


      • I doubt the real Charles use a hammer that looked like that one.

        Like


      • That’s why I laughed.

        Like


    • “War On Women is burkhas and clitidorectomies, not somebody asking you to pay $35/month for your own birth control pills.”

      Quote of the year.

      Like


    • This. My mom has this doctor surgeon friend, second generation African immigrant woman from West Africa. She was telling my mom about how the women rights activist are fighting to stop female circumcision and the brutal beating of women (very normal over there). I can get behind the stopping female circumcision movement but not this western feminist bull. Waaaaaaaah we get pay three cents less. Waaaaaaaaaaaah we are not being allowed to be hypergamous cock carouselling sluts, waaaaaaaaaaaaahh waaaaaaahhhh.

      Not going to lie, I joined a feminist club in my first year of undergrad, never been exposed to it growing up and wanted to see what it was all about. Took me about three weeks of attending meetings to decide that comtemporary western feminism is one of the most ridiculous movements ever panned. It should have died at LEAST 50 years ago. Feminism is and/or is going to be the death of the western world, but most of us here already know that.

      Like


      • Clitoridectomy is, if anything, a war on women by women — it’s not the men doing the cutting. Too deep for the narrative.

        Like


      • You would describe the societies that engage in female genital mutilation as matriarchal?

        Like


      • Bravo, a reasonable number of little rhetorical traps in just a short question. I think that line of reasoning, such as it is, is a big fat narrative-compliant red herring.

        Like


    • RappaccinisDaughter
      If you want to see what a real War On Women (TM) looks like, take a spin by Afghanistan. Or Saudi Arabia. War On Women is burkhas and clitidorectomies
      ——————-
      You sound like Hillory Clintoon. Women/girls actually have value in those cultures. Matter of fact did you read the sexual economics article? It explains why it is the women who police the females in those societies

      Like


    • that’s no War On Women. that’s normal society. before anyone goes waving the flag of lberation in the name of middle eastern women, remember: there needs to be some form of resistance first. many women in those countries are perfectly content with their lfestyle.

      they know their place; and MOST would happily slit the throat of a western feminist if she dared try and convince them otherwise.

      Like


    • on December 8, 2012 at 6:38 am Hugh G. Rection

      The weirdest thing is, it’s not that birth control was covered universally before and the Republicans tried to take it away. It’s like saying Poland started a war on Germany by not giving them their land.

      Like


      • That is a logical argument using facts which is why I get it, but unfortunately most women and most liberals do not deal with logic and facts

        Like


      • As I understand Pat’s theory,GB and France gave the leader of Poland an absolute guarantee that they would go to war if Germany attacked Poland. Hitler wanted to take back German land with real live Germans on it,and Poland refused. Whether The Good War was avoidable i dont know but I do know we shouldve stayed out of it;guys like Joe Kennedy & Lindbergh I used to think,what a shame,they were “isolationist”—who thinks up all these words with ist and ism at the end?—but now I realize how right they were.

        Like


      • on December 15, 2012 at 10:15 am Hugh G. Rection

        The Nazis torched the Reichstag and blamed it on Poland, then declared war. Here’s the speech (he talks about shooting back):

        Getting back lands where Germans lived was always just a pretext to grab more land and resources, also it appeased the allies who thought the Reich would stop after getting back all the real estate lost after WW1.

        Like


    • I’ve been doing reading on the subject of female genital mutilation, it’s oft advertised as a forced practice. Fact is when those who declare it an abhorrant practice and get government policy to change it’s been the women who decide to continue the practice in rebellion – in back rooms on each other. It’s a very complex issue and is tied to cultural beliefs about being a woman and other superstitions such as when a babies head touches a clitoris it can cause a babies death. That particular issues isn’t about oppression as much as it is about a belief system.

      I suppose RappaccinisDaughter its worth wasting your breath if at some point something you said becomes relevant for their own future sons. 🙂

      The “War on Women” – I was involved in a thread a couple of days ago that was started by a man asking if feminism, as described by many women as being for human rights, why it has the word female embedded in it. The attack on him was appalling, I never want to see the word patriarchy again! There was rampant blindeness despite the fact that reasonable men had entered in and tried to talk about disparity and the struggle for men’s rights. The idea that men needed rights was foreign and they were laughed at. Raping men was also talked about as a funny thing. You can imagine if the tables were reversed!! I was disgusted and there was nothing I could do – delusion on a major scale and perpetuated by media and legislation.

      I think its important to seek allies like me and others who may have a voice in rooms you don’t have access to. Just a thought.

      Like


  6. Feminism has over”corrected” the issues women faced so far that in response we should anticipate that men will now do the same. No woman at all will have any credibility. We can’t expect that men, regaining their power, will be merciful. Instead of supporting each other as humans, we have a battlefield of the two sexes fighting. I support men who have gotten the raw end of the deal and I support women who have gotten the raw end of the deal. Most people are not capable of rising above their personal injuries and doing what is fair, especially when it doesn’t favor their “side.”

    Like


    • men will not return to power ever and men were never in power. the future belongs to women,manboobs and technology not real men.

      Like


    • There is wisdom here in what Kate posts, but the usage of ‘fair’ is not part of it. It’s not fair that I’m not better looking, athletic, smarter with people, and socially valued with lavish financial compensation. Most people are not capable of doing what is wise, and almost all who can are men. There is fairness in wisdom so far as the unfairness is not perpetuated like an infection. Nothing more fair can be done. It’s a man’s world. Right now, it’s an elite man’s America. Men win or lose in life bigger than what women do. The uterus works sequentially for the woman but can be made to work in parallel by a dominant man. What is fair for the man who comes in second? Oh, I hope enough losers are wise so we find out.

      Like


      • So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
        With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
        Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
        To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

        And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
        Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
        And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
        That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

        Kipling, “The Female of the Species”
        http://www.potw.org/archive/potw96.html

        Like


    • Your criticism is helpful, to keep us honest. But you are mistaking a phase of the project for the project itself. We are now presently engaged in the “shock and awe” (to borrow Greg Eliot’s apt metaphor) segment of the counterrevolution. We can admit no quarter and accept no dissent — even if it is valid dissent! — until we rouse the culture from its dogmatic slumber.

      We are not revanchists. You might not “expect that men, regaining their power, will be merciful,” but you are overinterpreting the necessities of the moment. Once power is regained, we will demonstrate mercy for practical purposes: first, to distinguish ourselves from the ideological totalitarianism of the deposed regime; and second, to consolidate our power permanently, not unlike conquering Romans who gave their subjects relative liberty, self-determination, and a path to citizenship. Exploiting the conquered in the manner of the left leads to brief rule.

      And not just for practical purposes will we be merciful. We do it because it is in our nature, and because it is the right thing to do. We don’t want subjugation, we just want submission — not because we’re on a power trip but because that is the sustainable order of things.

      Don’t take the frustrated, recently red-pilled, still-bitter beta’s thirst for revenge as our guiding principle. Women ultimately deserve the pedestal! [@ the 3:30 & 4:00 marks in the video] But not if you are using it as the high ground to piss all over us who put you there.

      I understand the apprehension joining an effort that seems to have no place for you other than as a temporary parking-spot for an overexcited neo-alpha-imitator’s dick. But you have to listen to the better angels of your nature and to those of us who are announcing the world beyond their bravado, to come the day after tomorrow. The revenge phase is self-limiting and finally of no consequence, for both sexes. But it is a necessary transition in the mission to realign the complementarity of the sexes, which both men and women should work to reestablish. Your daughters deserve as much.

      Matt

      Like


      • “[T]o keep us honest” is a woman’s true purpose in life. It is a woman’s unpleasant duty to caution men against excess, which is often misconstrued as “shaming.”

        “We can admit no quarter and accept no dissent — even if it is valid dissent!” To be able to maintain order of an entire group, individual freedoms will be sacrificed. I understand that. But, in my opinion, knowing that there is such a thing as valid dissent should guide us toward a moderate solution not an extreme one.

        Like


      • Please Matt, the thought of Ezra Klein, Gloria Steinem and Pinch Sulzburger twitching on a rope slung over lamp posts warms my heart.

        Like


      • Dream on, if you have to. It’s not going to happen. It’s entirely too early in the counterrevolution to deliver them the earthly justice they deserve before death can claim them. This is a generational fight. Our impatience has given the enemy the upper hand for at least fifty years now. We have to be more restrained, resolved, consistent, and patient; smarter and colder. Tyrants die of old age, quietly in their beds, more often than upon the scaffold, cathartic though it would be.

        Matt

        Like


      • “We have to be more restrained, resolved, consistent, and patient; smarter and colder. Tyrants die of old age, quietly in their beds, more often than upon the scaffold, cathartic though it would be.”

        And how do you ensure a new tyrant doesn’t rear his ugly head? In the meantime, while you wait for him to expire of old age, you use alternative methods to re-educate the population. Maybe it’s almost impossible for conservatives to control academia again, but we can educate the population through alternative media like the Internet and talk radio.

        Like


      • “I understand the apprehension joining an effort that seems to have no place for you other than as a temporary parking-spot for an overexcited neo-alpha-imitator’s dick.”

        Oh, there’s a place for me. And it isn’t as a parking-spot nor as a stooge for the masculine imperative at the expense of other women. I wish you and the others fighting your war of words good luck. In fact, I’ll flash you one last time for inspiration; but as for me, I’m going to concentrate on what really counts. My own life.

        Like


    • It seems no one ever quits while they’re ahead. Reading history, I can see a time when labor was oppressed. Now we have unions that close down employers (and consequently land employees in the street) out of pique. Women were once oppressed. Now we have Sandra Fluke. Blacks were once oppressed. Now we have a media gag order on black-on-white crime.

      In any movement that seeks “equality” for some group of people, you’re going to have those that just want equality of opportunity and legal treatment, others that want equality of outcome, and still others that just want payback. By definition the latter groups are the ones remaining after the former goals are achieved (and the movement still has the momentum it attained in doing so).

      The only exception to this rule seems to be white beta males, because otherwise how did we get here?

      In any case, no need to fear “the revenge of men” in this society as we know it. If there is one it’ll be in the context of civil disorder and severe economic decline, rather than a payback for feminism per se.

      Like


      • That’s the trouble with “getting even”… nobody’s ever satisfied with “even”.

        Like


      • You’re right. It should stop at “equality of opportunity and legal treatment.” It does seem to be human nature to kick once someone is down.

        Following your line of thought, it would seem that if white beta males are the last in line to claim their equality, their eventual takeover would leave them at the top of the heap for quite a while- until some group becomes the recycled supressed.

        Like


      • In reply to both of you, there’s also the issue of motivating people to overthrow the existing social order in the first place. Which gets people more fired up: “we want equality before the law” or “let’s stick it to the oppressors”?

        I think the alpha/beta dichotomy that seems to be cropping up in more and more places is a little too broad, but maybe it’s part and parcel of “biomechanics is god” and other tenets of CH science, which is certainly better than the Empire of Lies. That said it’s hard to picture betas marching out into the streets and taking their civilization back. As this blog points out, what we have now is an alpha paradise, but it isn’t sustainable because betas have no stake in it and will continue to drop out. It could be that alphas are needed to tear down the old social structure and start a new one, and its success then depends on their ideology (i.e. how well it channels the productivity of both alphas and betas), whereas bad ideologies (such as those that beset us now) are only capable of parasitically hollowing out existing societies.

        Also, the above isn’t meant to imply that anyone can rationally “construct” any society (that itself is another of the bad ideologies).

        Like


      • “Which gets people more fired up: “we want equality before the law” or “let’s stick it to the oppressors”?”

        This is precisely the source of the fallacious ‘war on women’ claim. Having obtained their objectives, Feminists raise the bar to maintain power and stay ‘relevant’.

        Like


      • “It seems no one ever quits while they’re ahead.”

        Precisely the point why one should never give an inch to a competitor, and another group, sex, or nation constitutes a competitor. It’s one thing to compromise with loved ones and one’s spouse for the sake of sharing, harmony, and love, but it’s quite another thing to transfer one’s power and resources to a competitor and expect said competitor to exercise ethical behavior and cease and desist once said competitor achieves his original stated goal. It goes against human nature.

        When people think they have the upper hand, they smell blood, they don’t stop. They will continue until they replace the dominant power that transferred his resources to the weaker entity. And transferring power without protective mechanism is really committing suicide. We only have ourselves to blame. And I think the damage is irreversible by now. Some seismic shift has to occur if anything gets restored to the days of old. Right now we have no social order, just chaos.

        Like


    • Consider it done.
      I already don’t believe a word any human is saying, and you can triple that if it’s a female.

      Like


      • It is getting rare to find people who do what they say they will. I’ve always been very curious about why people lie. I don’t think its always malicious. Sometimes people overpromise or simply change their minds after they’ve said something, etc. And its definitely a stall tactic.

        Like


      • “It is getting rare to find people who do what they say they will.”

        Because words are cheap, people don’t care enough about their own honor to keep their word, and because the truth doesn’t matter anymore. It’s often manipulated to achieve a goal. Lance Armstrong is the perfect example of a liar and a cheater; a person who is dishonest and lacks honor.

        The entire culture is corrupted because of these types of people, so what do you expect form your average person in your backyard. If you expect too much, you’ll be greatly disappointed.

        Like


  7. on December 7, 2012 at 1:03 pm Reality Viewer

    When feminists talk about a war on women, they really mean to say there’s a war on feminist power.

    Feminists detest any criticisms of their power grab, however reasonably stated. Because their biased positions are indefensible and also because feminists have hysterical tendencies, they shout and play the victim card to compensate for their lack of substance.

    The fact feminism hasn’t already been widely dismissed for its insanity is confirmation that our civilization is in a cultural Dark Age.

    Like


  8. Frame. It’s all about frame control. The power hungry politicians have allowed the feminists to get frame control of the cultural belief system in the western world, in exchange for their voting support.

    You, if you want freedom, must break that frame control without butt hurt, but instead with implacable confidence and alpha smirking. Most former betas struggle with this, and show too much anger and bitterness when discussing these issues.

    Remember, women pick up on the non-verbal cues that you are still angry and bitter about the after-taste of the red pill. You can never win an argument when your own body is betraying what your mouth is sayin’….

    Like


    • Dem frame: You don’t like us, you must be a homophobic racist warmonger who hates poor people so go fuck yourself.

      Rep frame: You don’t like us, we haven’t smiled at you kindly enough, we don’t understand the pain you’ve been through, I’m really sorry you don’t like me. And if I HAVE to criticize you, I still respect you.

      Like


      • I cringe to think how far the Repubs will have to leapfrog the Dems to the Left after this recent debacle. The last Repub president evidently thought every illegal alien should own three houses.

        Like


      • Unfortunately, the Republican Party is filled with betas because the white men who staff the party are mainly betas.

        Like


      • Tell me about it. They get to Lansing or Madison or Washington for an internship and feel like the weirdo conservatives in lefty towns. So, just like a beta around bitches trying to prove he’s “not like other guys”, they try to show that they’re “not like those other conservatives.” They supplicate and water themselves down thereby rendering themselves impotent.

        GOP staffers want to be liked. Dem staffers want to WIN. Y’all already know how that turns out.

        Like


      • I’m confused why people keep talking about Dems and Repubs… that system, though still holding sway, is a dead horse for us.

        We need to start looking for cannons, not candidates.

        Like


      • Indeed. Secession is my ideal solution, but I’m open to others

        Like


      • Unfortunately, secession won’t work either because leftist activists have been moving into traditionally conservative areas over the last 10-15 years, precisely to tilt them left. Even states like TX might become a blue state within the next 5-10 years, some say by the next election. These leftists activists do missionary work, much like Muslims do when they transplant themselves in the west for the purposes of waging a silent jihad – converting or marrying the women. Utah, Oklahoma, Tennessee are states that many liberals moved to in recent years. They will all turn blue within a decade.

        Like


      • Yep, which is why my post didn’t mention them. However, 12 years ago when I was still a Repug, I despised that party’s leadership for ALWAYS allowing the Dems to control the frame. With one exception.

        Ronald Reagan. Remember “Now there you go again” during the debates? The American public LOVED that attitude. Dude was flawed in many ways as a conservative, but man it sure was great to see a leader with some balls.

        Like


    • I disagree with the trend CH is leading with the “smirking is all you can do” nonsense that uses the “butthurt” concept to corral men’s behavior.

      From first hand experience, I can say that women want men to verbally call them on their BS. No need to smirk, except in a bar when there are other girls around.

      But we’re not talking about a bar environment in most cases.

      It’s not looking “butthurt” that you have to be concerned about but what other girls nearby hear.

      You can teach women blue pill reality and not appear butt hurt. .

      Like


      • From first hand experience, I can say that women want men to verbally call them on their BS. No need to smirk, except in a bar when there are other girls around. But we’re not talking about a bar environment in most cases.

        Nail on the head. For all the witty retorts in the recent “snarl” thread, the most effective reaction is bluntly “call[ing] them out on their BS.” Such as, “What’s the matter with your face?” Or, “You shouldn’t sneer, it makes you look uglier than you are.” Or, “Smile, sourpuss. Life’s not that bad.”

        The more childlike they are, the less they’ll be able to resist. The more entrenched in the sexual dystopia they are, the more they’ll double down on the resistance that produces the snarl — but even this makes their eventual breaking all the sweeter.

        Every girl wants to return to her innocence. “Unless you become as a child, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” The adolescent corruption of progress makes us fear this return for the rest of our lives — we have gained so much knowledge since childhood, we consider it crazy to give it all up. Except that “progress” is ephemeral, and the most important understandings were already acquired as a kid, but without the cynicism and despair.

        I have found it incredibly easy flipping their defenses on their head, just by offering a warm hello. It’s not rocket science — if, and only if, you are aware of the demons and insecurities privately torturing every atomized soul who steps into the Mad-Max milieu of today’s sexual market place.

        Calling a woman out on her learned sourpussness is a liberating act for them, and an empowering one for you. There is nothing cruel about it. The only pain is the pain of truth — like eyes squinting, unaccustomed to light — and it is only made painful by her unconscious (and silently gnawing) commitment to lies.

        Matt

        Like


      • Most women’s emotions can be changed just by staying in your emotional frame. I’ve seen it many times…if they are angry as long as they don’t make me angry, they change their emotions to mine…or leave. Either way, win-win.

        Like


      • This is a really important paragraph that shows you fully and completely understand frame control. Good stuff, everyone should read this.

        Like


      • “What’s the matter with your face?” Or, “You shouldn’t sneer, it makes you look uglier than you are.” Or, “Smile, sourpuss. Life’s not that bad.”
        mental masturbation

        “Unless you become as a child, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
        bible scripture, really? this to support your make believe come back scenarios. Oh…that’s right. you must have found another lost jesus book like joseph smith.

        “I have found it incredibly easy flipping their defenses on their head, just by offering a warm hello.”
        more mental masturbation

        “The only pain is the pain of truth”
        That you claim you have seduction experience, yet you believe in a bullshit jesus story and use it to lecture people on the internet about marriage and relationships.

        For queen B, the pain of truth that your entire purpose here only demonstrates hypocritical make believe conjecture.


        Once upon a time, queen B and jesus came riding along on their dinosaurs. Their talking pet snake gave them some PUA routines to study while jesus removed his rib and shit on it so they could make a woman. The woman rejected queen B.

        The End

        Like


      • @ Ripp: not bad, not bad…I too would prefer facts to bible scripture when it comes to running game or combatting femcunts.

        Like


      • If you have hand in the relations with girls, or at least they respect you, you can get her change her mood with these lines perfectly.

        And if she respects you, she’s open for any approach as long as you know what you’re doing. These lines, nor notion that girls (subconsciously) want to return to their childhood, is a B.S. Concept is true, and tactic is usable.

        King A may not be best at describing how to pull things, but he surely understands the principles with which woman’s nature is being guided, and you just can’t understand these principles without extensive field experience.

        He doesn’t handles well things like lines, and these minor stuff, but i’m kinda certain that he has some dog confidence(overconfidence?) in himself, and knows how to shine in his social setting, and that is enough.
        If the need arises he can take some time to adapt his approach to other settings simply because he understands the principles of girl’s nature and be successful as he is in his present social circle. It’s a matter of same thing in different package, girl’s nature is the same everywhere. Some setting may be more rotten, some less, but it’s all matter of degrees, or some other minor hindrances that a man which understands universal principles, has balls and willingness to make them work in his advantage, would overcome in short time. Heh that’s what red pill is all about.

        His writing is like education. It may be boring but it’s a picture of a real life. It alone can’t make you good at things, but if you go and start doing things you’ll find it very useful.

        So mental mastrubation? Grow to level son.

        Like


      • King A may not be best at describing how to pull things, but … He doesn’t handles well things like lines, and these minor stuff, but …

        It always falls flat on the screen. It’s a limitation of the medium. The way to get at essence is poetry, metaphor, and art, not prose description or polemic. Who has time for that? Ars longa, vita brevis.

        Combine that with the fact that a shockingly small portion of communication is verbal. A toneless, expressionless, disembodied medium of words will conceal more than it can ever reveal.

        No, these stooges are caught in the spin cycle of a dirty garment on its way to becoming clean. They cannot handle criticism or dissent without betraying a simmering omega enmity. This is how they peg themselves as reformed loners: we all knew the kids in high school who took every untoward gesture personally, and they withdrew into a protective, asocial cocoon. Now here comes the “seduction technique” that liberated them from their shell, and they owe their entire social worth to the acquisition of this occult wisdom. To challenge its veracity is to send their memories reeling back to the cocoon years, and they will sputter and scratch and kill and die before they allow that to happen.

        I don’t pretend to know the details of their lives — as they pretend to know mine. But I’m working from a process of elimination here. What else explains their becoming so consistently apoplectic at a faceless stranger? As if I could come and take their candy away? I’m guessing that I stand in for the demons they haven’t quite exorcised from the bad old years.

        I mean, I have disagreements, obviously. Large ones. I’ll reiterate them from time to time just to keep opponents honest. But do I hound them? Do I nip at their feet like a puppy? No: their existence is their own punishment. The most I will do is provide a counterpoint for the consumption of the many credulous manboys who are attracted to the easy answers of these forums. And even then I strive to highlight what’s virtuous about my opponents’ efforts. That’s not good enough for them. I shrug.

        I am here because this forum is, by a wide measure, the only place where men can speak openly online with their peers. I know we are under a microscope because that’s what the enemy does. To provide even the most anonymous personal specifics is to give ammunition to those who are able and eager to disrupt your life — as the host of this site nearly learned the hard way. The haters’ day in the sun is slowly turning to twilight, but I won’t be a martyr over a comment thread. I have too much to lose, and I have bigger fish to fry than what some overcompensating dweeb with an onomatopoeic handle thinks of me.

        In other words, take my generalities or leave them. That’s what I expect my peers to do, without much fuss or even comment. To incite the braying and whimpering of not-fully-reconstructed losers is the cost of doing business.

        Matt

        Like


      • Do me a solid, editor, and insert the backslash.

        Like


      • “because he understands the principles of girl’s nature”

        Yep, he does. I don’t know if he had many experiences with women, or he just has an innate understanding of them, but he’s right on many things, including women’s need to return to their innocence.

        Like


      • “If you have hand in the relations with girls, or at least they respect you, you can get her change her mood with these lines perfectly.”
        Non verbal communication and it’s execution is the competence. This statement is what beginners and the inexperienced believe.

        “These lines, nor notion that girls (subconsciously) want to return to their childhood, is a B.S. Concept is true, and tactic is usable.”
        And your claim that the tactic is simply a ‘line’ or content. Right. Would you like fries with your imagination?

        “King A may not be best at describing how to pull things, but he surely understands the principles with which woman’s nature is being guided, and you just can’t understand these principles without extensive field experience.”
        Thank you for confirming the truth. He understands the principles as concepts through comprehension of historical reading material. But has no field experience.

        “but i’m kinda certain that he has some dog confidence(overconfidence?) in himself, and knows how to shine in his social setting, and that is enough.”
        Great assumption. ‘Kinda certain’.

        “If the need arises he can take some time to adapt his approach to other settings simply because he understands the principles of girl’s nature and be successful as he is in his present social circle.”
        Yet NEVER has posted about it in a thorough, experienced based discussion format. I have asked that he post some material that he uses in his supposed successes. Yet he doesn’t. But he does make things up to try and support his delusion. And it attracts others that have no experience, Alexander.

        “but if you go and start doing things you’ll find it very useful.”
        Please take your own advice.

        “So mental mastrubation? Grow to level son.”
        I challenge you: Post a comment about your most recent seduction experience on the next field related CH post. I’ll do the same with the intent of sharing knowledge.

        Like


      • on December 8, 2012 at 1:45 pm immoralgables

        Nice work, looks like King A got *Ripp*ed a new one.

        Like


      • Hey, I think all my most ornery groupies replied on one thread! Are you coordinating your resentments?

        I’m flattered as always, for the attention. But if you’re consciously synchronizing your bitterness for maximum effect, I’m more than flattered: I’m impressed. Getting a couple of clucking hens to do anything together is a wonder to see.

        Leadership by antipathy is still leadership. Jump for me, chumps.

        Matt

        Like


      • You call that snarky-snark getting ripped a new one? llzozoooozlzllllzozoozozlll

        Like


      • Ah yes, this made my day. Nice work.

        Like


      • I still say the best response to the snarl is a lecherous wink.

        Like


      • I think a chuckle is best.

        Like


  9. OT, but hot chick with uggo sighting.

    Like


  10. A political and cultural movement to remove all taboos and restrictions on female sexuality and to stigmatize and regulate, legally if necessary, male sexuality.

    True, but you sound like a big slutty ho who wants to bone everyone if you interrupt the poolside party to hold forth. Let’s not try hard.

    Like


  11. a comment posted on steve sailer’s blog:

    This post reminded me of a passage from K. Amis’s novel “Jake’s Thing”, quoted in his son’s autobiography. Jake, the protagonist, has lost interest in women in his middle age. He’s offered pills that are supposed to correct that problem.

    “Jake did a quick run-through of women in his mind, not the ones he had known and dealt with in the past few months or years so much as all of them: their concern with the surface of things, with objects and appearances, with their surroundings and how they looked and sounded in them, with seeming to be better and to be right while getting everything wrong, their automatic assumption of the role of injured party in any clash of wills, their certainty that their view is more credible and useful for the fact that they hold it, their use of misunderstanding and misrepresentation as weapons of debate, their selective sensitivity to tones of voice, their unawareness of the difference in themselves between sincerity and insincerity, their interest in importance (together with noticeable inability to discriminate in that sphere), their fondness for general conversation and directionless discussion, their pre-emption of the major share of feeling, their exaggerated estimate of their own plausibility, their never listening and lots of other things like that, all according to him.

    So it was quite easy. “No thanks,” he said.”

    Like


    • +1

      Geez, don’t it give ya chills when somebody puts the exact words onto something that you knew and felt, deep in your bones, but could never explain quite clearly?

      Like


  12. Somewhere I saw Ann Coulter say,
    repeal the 18 year olds can vote amendment and don’t let women vote, I can’t find the video but here’s a reasonable substitute.
    http://rashmanly.com/2010/11/15/ann-coulter-says-repeal-the-26th-amendment/

    Like


    • Coulter repeated it on her interview with Piers Morgan. I would also like to know when and where her original declaration was. She sounds preposterous to those with hands over their ears, but then so always do the first sparks of revolution. She is a pioneeress.

      Like


  13. Slightly OT, are betaboys developing hamsters of their own? A Nice Guy has a hissy fit about Gerard Butler’s new movie in The Atlantic:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/dont-let-gerard-butler-fool-you-fatherhood-isnt-about-being-sexy/265999/

    Like


    • I’ll bet his wife cheated on him or left him for a guy who acted like Butler did in the film.

      I love how he tries to justify that he’s a better father and husband than Butler’s character in the article. “But I’m a nice guy!” he might as well scream.

      Silly pussy beta. Chicks Go For Dicks!

      Or, as was so eloquently put in Glengarry, Glen Ross:

      “You’re a good father? FUCK YOU!”

      Like


    • Hugo Schw-eiss-ter, is that you?

      Like


  14. I define feminism as “the idea that women should have as much sex as they want while simultaneously doing everything they can to not be sexually attractive to men”

    Like


  15. There may not be a “war on women”, but Akin, Mourdock, et al did some pretty extensive damage to the GOP.

    Which is probably a good thing in the long run. The Libertarians can swoop in and gather up the alienated “I want to keep more of my paycheck” types and we can have a real Conservative/opposition party without all the religious baggage attached.

    Like


    • Their stupidity did way more damage than their convictions. Every social con needs to recognize that when a reporter asks you about that stuff, he’s not trying to learn how you think, he’s trying to trap you.

      The idea that all life is sacred and a gift from God isn’t particularly controversial, but if there’s any way that such a belief can be twisted to make it look like you think RAPE is a gift from God, then that’s what the headlines will be.

      A report tries to trap you, don’t be sincere in your response because it’s an obvious shit-test. Instead, reframe, question the question, and attack.

      Like


      • Did someone say RAPE??

        Like


      • You Can’t have a real Conservative/opposition party without religious values, since that’s where conservative thought comes from originally. Yes, there are always idiots like Akin misunderstanding reality, we just have to purge them. I am not crazy about libertarian atheists. I don’t think they have the right answers. Most take no issue with homosexuality or feminism. They are fiscally conservative, but that’s not enough.

        Like


      • This is one more place where I am a black sheep;

        I am non religious but still a conservative. ( not really a libertarian although on a few things I agree with them)

        Don’t get me wrong, I am NOT anti-religion, there are a lot of good things in religion , and this witch hunt against Christianity that the left has going on is insulting to me – even if I do not pray, do not read the Bible, since I am an Agnostic

        The left acts as if the only people who ever did anything wrong in the history of the world were white Christians. that is ABSURD.

        Humans along the milleniums have been violent and cruel no matter what religion they followed or what color their skin was

        Don’t believe the hype the left is injecting in your brain 24/7; educate yourselves instead.

        The ONLY religion that has done its Mea Culpa is our religion, in fact the only religion that – pardon my French – had enough balls to do it – is the white man’s religion; all others are super hypocritical and pretending to be little angels as if their past was squeeky clean, yea right!

        That is BULLSHIT!; but it is part of the rewritten history the left is using to brainwash people into becoming disciples of leftism, which is itself a cult more than a religion

        leftism is a cult , a sick cult based on pretty lies about white man and his civilization.

        I’m an agnostic but I have no tolerance for those who spit venom and lies at the Church for two reasons;

        1- Those lies about the Church are an attack against my culture, my history, my civilization and are thus indirectly attacks on me a white man who is a product of Judeo-Christian even if I’m an agnostic ( in fact I would say the same thing if I were an atheist; a lie is a lie )

        2- I hate pretty lies and love L-O-V-E to do my part to make them perish

        Like


      • “I am non religious but still a conservative. ( not really a libertarian although on a few things I agree with them)”

        I agree regarding libertarianism. I only like a few aspects of it, since many of its social views are similar to liberalism.

        I am not very religious either, but I do like time-tested old-fashioned Judeo-Christian values. You can’t beat them; they made our society great. They are the principles on which the West stands, especially America. There is no denying the reason the West has achieved so much more than other societies is due to our Biblical principles. And all of those people who try to substitute Biblical principles with atheism or European paganism are not helping our society to progress further. They are making it revert to a time there was no order, and no ethics or values. It doesn’t help society progress. That’s what I meant when I said, “You can’t have a real Conservative/opposition party without religious values, since that’s where conservative thought comes from originally.”

        “Humans along the milleniums have been violent and cruel no matter what religion they followed or what color their skin was”

        And there were even worse violence without religion – Hitler, Stalin, Mao. In addition, it’s highly exaggerated (by the left, of course) how much violence started directly because of religion, as if these same battles and wars wouldn’t have started anyway using another pretext.

        “leftism is a cult , a sick cult based on pretty lies about white man and his civilization.’

        Leftism is a religion all in itself. I have been saying it for a long time. It has all the elements of a religion form a savior (a vocal liberal/leftists leader, currently the President of the USA) to atonement for one’s sins (going without many modern conveniences in a silly attempt to save the environment from man’s “unethical” usage of the planet), etc…. I can go on forever. In the absence of true religion, many liberals turn to the principles of the left to find meaning and a sense of belonging. Only, those leftist principles end up leaving them empty inside, and therefore they have a strong need to continue looking for more restrictions and more polices in order to atone for whatever. The Left is a religion high in the principles of atonement.

        In a way the psyche of the left is like that of a woman. When she is not fulfilled sexually by her mate she will start to wonder, looking for fulfillment. She’ll look for it in books like 50 Shades, or she’ll fantasize about a masculine man based on her favorite masculine actor, or in its worst form she’ll start sleeping with many men looking for that one dominante man that can put her mind at ease and stop her fantasizing.

        In other words, it’s an existence where you are never satisfied, never happy, and never content. It’s very hard for leftists and liberal women to find happiness. That’s why they are always looking for something else or something new.

        Like


      • Here is an interesting article about the Left indeed being a religion.
        http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2012/10/02/the_worlds_most_dynamic_religion_is/page/full/

        “For at least the last hundred years, the world’s most dynamic religion has been neither Christianity nor Islam.

        It is leftism.

        Most people do not recognize what is probably the single most important fact of modern life. One reason is that leftism is overwhelmingly secular (more than merely secular: it is inherently opposed to all traditional religions), and therefore people do not regard it as a religion. Another is that leftism so convincingly portrays itself as solely the product of reason, intellect, and science that it has not been seen as the dogma-based ideology that it is. Therefore, the vast majority of the people who affirm leftist beliefs think of their views as the only way to properly think about life.

        That, in turn, explains why anyone who opposes leftism is labeled anti-intellectual, anti-progress, anti-science, anti-minority and anti-reason (among many other pejorative epithets): leftists truly believe that there is no other way to think.

        How successful has leftism been?

        It dominates the thinking of Europe, much of Latin America, Canada, and Asia, as well as the thinking of the political and intellectual elites of most of the world. Outside of the Muslim world, it is virtually the only way in which news is reported and virtually the only way in which young people are educated from elementary school through university.

        Only the United States, of all Western countries, has resisted leftism. But that resistance is fading as increasing numbers of Americans abandon traditional Judeo-Christian religions, lead secular lives, are educated by teachers whose views are almost uniformly left-wing and are exposed on a daily basis virtually exclusively to leftist views in their news and entertainment media.

        And when there is resistance, the left declares it “extremist.” Merely believing that marriage should remain defined as it has been throughout recorded history, as between a man and a woman, renders you an extremist. So, too, belief that government should be small — the Tea Party position — renders one an extremist.

        Even Christianity and Judaism, the pillars of Judeo-Christian values, the moral value system upon which America was founded and thanks to which it became the world’s beacon of liberty, have been widely influenced by leftism. Many priests, ministers, rabbis and many Jewish and Christian seminaries are leftist in content and Jewish or Christian only in form…………….”

        __________________________________________________________

        “Those lies about the Church are an attack against my culture, my history, my civilization and are thus indirectly attacks on me a white man who is a product of Judeo-Christian even if I’m an agnostic ( in fact I would say the same thing if I were an atheist; a lie is a lie )”

        Exactly the point why even if one is not religious, and one is agnostic or atheist, one should still be outraged, as we are all the product of western values, which indeed come from Judeo-Christian morals and ethics.

        Like


    • on December 7, 2012 at 2:30 pm RappaccinisDaughter

      Yes…if the Libertarians can put down the bong long enough to find someone who’s actually electable. And who won’t go the whole open borders/isolationist route. Because we “I want to keep more of my paycheck” types really have a problem with uncontrolled, unlimited, illegal immigration. We also have a problem with being told that America is Just Another Country On the World Stage and We Have To Play By Their Rules.

      Like


      • Let me guess, you are an Israeli-firster who thinks the Taliban is gearing up with Hugo Chavez to invade America? You want the government to read everyone’s emails, so that you feel safe? You think the Bill of Rights is overrated, and national security trumps all? Fuck off, neocon. Your kind would be first hanging from the nooses if this country woke up. Libertarians don’t need advice from bottom-feeders like you

        Like


      • on December 7, 2012 at 5:51 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        The bad news: That would be a no, a no, and a no.
        The good news: They’ve got a sale on paint thinner at Costco…all you can huff!

        Like


      • See, that’s what I mean. Libertarians are no better than most liberals, with some exception of course. All this pagan thought trickling down slowly from Thule destroying their brain cells.

        At least Judge Napolitano speaks the truth and he’s no atheist. The rest of them are just a bunch of pagan nutjobs.

        Like


      • Exactly. I love what Ron Paul has done for waking a lot of people up about freedom and he’s the only politician who has recently condemned feminism by name and declared this year that “women’s rights don’t exist”. But I always knew he was doomed by his seeming George McGovern stance on foreign policy. We give up even the Azores air base and the Chinese will take it and own airspace over the Atlantic. Ron Paul was unelectable because of this as even Obama understands the minimum our troops have to do (today the Iwo Jima aircraft carrier is off the coast of Syria) and it was frustrating to see his otherwise great supporters act like they didn’t understand that this is what made him and his movement always stall in the polls.

        His son is jockeying for a 2016 presidential run now and his son was OK with the Iraq War, which is sensible.

        Rand Paul might be reading CH because he just announced that the Reps should let the Dems have all the new taxes they want so they can own it.

        Do you think he learned that, at least indirectly, from here (meaning someone in his circle read that here and said “Rand, I’ve got a great idea”.

        Like


      • First, why is it a good thing to be positioning troops off Syria’s coast? Why is the civil war between Sunni Jihadis and the Alawite elite something America should intervene in? “George McGovern”. That’s almost as rich as calling him “Neville Chamberlain.” Our military empire is a dran on our resources, and destroys our freedoms at home. If the Chinese want to go down that road (I doubt they are that stupid), we should let them. But you can’t have a libertarian domestic policy and the empire. Militarism corrupts domestic politics.

        Second, Rand Paul never supported the Iraq War. You might want to do some research there.

        Like


      • The real problem is that if you don’t have “the big stick” out there bitches get uppity. Not to mention that the Chinese have something like 400 million surplus men who aren’t getting laid because they just don’t have enough women to go around. That starts turning out fuck-ups like that guy who shot up the theater in Colorado this past summer, only the Chinese are exocentric. They won’t shoot at their own people, they’ll invade someone else.

        And we’ve already proved that the jihadists are too uppity to leave us alone if we leave them alone. That’s why none of the politicians will ever bring home all the troops. Because if they did and the ragheads started blowing more of America up, then it would be immediately obvious to everyone just how incompetent they really are.

        Like


      • That’s a very dangerous thing brewing slowly. What do you do with so many frustrated men? You send them off to war. No surprise the Chinese want to move into the Azores air base.

        Like


      • Any place in the world we can have a base, we should have a base. It’s the only way to instill dread in the hearts of our enemies. What nation leaves a base? Only a feminized society like ours run by a traitor president.

        Shortsighted idiots think we should bring all the troops back home and have no army or nuclear weapons. That’s why Ron Paul failed. He wasn’t practical. Only cads like his message because they believe without war they can travel the world and fuck hos their entire lives without worrying about anything else. LOL! Infantile.

        Like


      • Using “beta” and “alpha” to describe how the USA should conduct foreign policy is what’s infantile, Lily. Actually, infantile is too generous – it’s retarded. Would you describe Washington and Jefferson, both non-interventionists (don’t give me that shit about the Barbary Pirates, that was self-defense) as “betas”? Go suck Bush’s dick, and Obama’s too, you jingoistic waste of space.
        What kind of nation leaves a base in a different country? A nation that is acting realistic about its fiscal situation, for one.

        Like


      • “Using “beta” and “alpha” to describe how the USA should conduct foreign policy is what’s infantile,”

        Yeah, try to convince yourself all you want, but you are just rationalizing your shortsighted position. All of life’s relationships could be viewed through the lens of alpha and beta, especially among nations. If America doesn’t keep the position the Alpha, another nation like china will move in and relegate America to the beta station.

        Don’t give me this nonsense of Washington and Jefferson being both non-interventionists. That was 200 years ago, the world was different then – no madmen with weapons of mass destruction back then – and also America was young then, it had no ability to be venturing out like Great Britain. However, please don’t forget how we still managed to expand our nation from a measly 13 colonies to the giant it is today. Had we been the non-interventionists you say we were in the beginning, even the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 (early on in our history) wouldn’t have occurred. And Jefferson wasn’t so smart because he opposed the purchase – how stupid – even though on most everything else he was right. In addition, both of them wouldn’t tolerate any foreign power attacking America, does the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 (also early in our history) ring a bell?

        “What kind of nation leaves a base in a different country? A nation that is acting realistic about its fiscal situation, for one.”

        Boy you sound like a liberal, as in what kind of a decent person doesn’t agree gays should be allowed to wed? They appeal to the emotions on the face of it, but if you start thinking about why it’s not a good idea you will come up with the answer. In other words, every place we can have a base, we should – Poland, Germany, Azores, etc… especially when we are invited to stay there by the governments of those countries. But you love to twist the truth, don’t you?

        Like


      • on December 8, 2012 at 6:45 am Hugh G. Rection

        I also don’t very much like his idea of returning to the gold standard, which is also a pretty unrealistic goal.

        Like


      • We’ve only been off the Gold Standard completely for about 45 years. Everyone looks at the Status Quo and assumes SO IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN, AND ALWAYS WILL BE THIS WAY. But change does happen, brother, sometimes for the better

        Like


      • Nothing wrong with isolationism. Interventionism makes us broke and hated. Besides, why are we meddling in the fucking Middle East at all?

        Like


      • Oil + Israel.

        Like


      • Well, we’ve got plenty of Israel… now where’s the (cheap) oil?

        Like


      • “Interventionism makes us broke and hated.”

        We are hated anyway. They don’t need a reason to hate us. They want to restore Islam to its leadership position in the world, so there can never be a stronger Christian country. They’re jealous of US success. As long as there is a Christian entity stronger than at least one Islamic nation, they feel they have been disrespected. It’s all about resorting their respect in the world – the Caliphate.

        If you keep seeking other countries approval, you’re expressing beta behavior. It’s better to be hated and respected/admired than supposedly loved while being attacked by their fanatics because they think we are weak and they can bring us down. If they truly feared us, it wouldn’t even cross their minds.

        Like


      • Neither the Germans nor the Japanese hate the USA even though the USA carpet bombed them for years, killed millions of them and made them surrender

        you know why?

        Before we answer this

        the day the USA decided to fight limited wars ( Vietnam, Korea, Iraq , Afghanistan etc ), the rest of the world began hating the USA.

        Coincidence? really?

        anyone sees the obvious?

        the USA used to be behave like a super Alpha wolf; he would beat into submissions the rogue ones and it would turn them into nice allies ( Germany, Japan, etc ) who just like dominated beta wolves loved the alpha wolf for it.

        BUT…circa 1960s the left has managed to infect the minds of almost everyone and make the USA fight very limited wars ( ex; can’t attack on religious holidays, can’t attack near this historical site or near that Mosque etc etc all ridiculous restrictions that were practically non existent in the history of the PLANET before the 1960s because anyone knew it was a sure way to never win a war!)

        , so now the USA is a wimpy weak spineless apologizing Beta “boyfriend” that no one really fears nor respect, never mind love.

        Like


      • Bingo!!!! It’s a false premise to say that our involvement is why they hate us. I still don’t think we should bring democracy to the Arab world because not everyone can handle democracy, but I have no problems in pounding hard any nation or renegade group who thinks it can attack us and get away with it. That’s the kind of involvement I believe is necessary and incumbent upon us, or we’ll be viewed as a weak joke. Therefore, it’s exactly the opposite – by not doing anything they will despise us even more.

        “the day the USA decided to fight limited wars ( Vietnam, Korea, Iraq , Afghanistan etc ), the rest of the world began hating the USA.”

        Right, because we were doing things half-ass. We were going in there with the mindset that we can’t win. Once you set yourself up thinking negatively, you won’t be successful. This defeatist mentality began after WWII, and it’s been going downhill since.

        “USA fight very limited wars ( ex; can’t attack on religious holidays, can’t attack near this historical site or near that Mosque etc etc all ridiculous restrictions that were practically non existent in the history of the PLANET before the 1960s because anyone knew it was a sure way to never win a war!)”

        Hilarious!!!!! Let’s not forget that we also give him his Koran so he can hide contraband inside it, he “defiles” us and blames us. And let’s not forget that try to make his life so comfortable after he tries to kill us. We give him a diet based on his religious dictates, and we make sure his toilets don’t face Mecca.

        The brain-dead at the State Department thought that if we bent over backwards for the enemy he won’t grow so resentful and hate us. The so-called “winning hearts and minds” bullshit.

        Like


      • Correction to the above statement.

        Hilarious!!!!! Let’s not forget that we also give him his Koran so he can hide contraband inside it. He “defiles” it in the process and blames us. And let’s not forget that we make his life so comfortable after he tries to kill us. We give him a diet based on his religious dictates, and we make sure his toilets don’t face Mecca.

        Like


      • …Hilarious!!!!! Let’s not forget that we also give him his Koran so he can hide contraband inside it, he “defiles” us and blames us. And let’s not forget that try to make his life so comfortable after he tries to kill us. We give him a diet based on his religious dictates, and we make sure his toilets don’t face Mecca.

        I had forgotten about that…and we wear fuck’n gloves to handle their fuck’n koran!!!! we may as well wear signs over our head that say: we are Inferior to you dear Muslim

        The USA has become the planet’s BETA, the main MANBOOB that everyone uses and abuses and kicks around and what is the reaction of the Beta-USA?; to apologize!!! and beg his abuser;
        ” what more can I do to make you like me ?”

        and the more servile the BETA USA is and the more groveling the BETA USA does , the more the world hates it and treats it like shit

        it is enough to make a grown man cry…

        The Pentagone should read Chateau Heartiste

        Like


      • It’s one thing to make a cheap youtube video where you brandish a sword and call for the return of the Caliphate. It’s another thing to actually have any chance of doing it. And only someone who has never read any of Bin Laden’s fatwas against America could type what you typed, Lily. Funny how we send their worst enemy piles of cash and weapons, support tyrannical regimes that torture them, station troops in their holy land, and inflict sanctions that starve thousands on them, and yet they are somehow the aggressors against us when they strike back.

        Like


      • The more I read your comments, the more I realize I am dealing with a stupefied crazy.

        “It’s one thing to make a cheap YouTube video where you brandish a sword and call for the return of the Caliphate.”

        You see, you’re an idiot. They don’t call for the return of the Caliphate in YouTube videos. In YouTube videos they show us how they cut off heads with rusty knives. They speak about the Caliphate in their philosophical writing and opinion pieces in their newspapers, their clerics when they speak about Islam and its obligations on earth.

        “It’s another thing to actually have any chance of doing it.”

        Didn’t they have a chance to perpetrate 9/11, on the road to achieving the Caliphate? Deaf, dumb, and stupid, aren’t you?

        “And only someone who has never read any of Bin Laden’s fatwas against America could type what you typed,”

        What gibbering. So are you now a Bin Laden fatwa reader? And what difference does it make what he or his successors says in their fatwas? LOL! Do they explain their “true reasons” for attacking America? Or should I say, their perceived injustices and the pretexts they use in their propaganda to attack us. Only a severely idiotic person like you would make such a statement.

        “Funny how we send their worst enemy piles of cash and weapons, support tyrannical regimes that torture them, station troops in their holy land, and inflict sanctions that starve thousands on them, and yet they are somehow the aggressors against us when they strike back.”

        WHAT, you justify them? Do you believe their reasons for attacking us? Don’t you see that these are just excuses and perceived injustices that are not true at all? Their worst enemy? How about they are the worst enemy to their perceived enemy. How about they are the worst enemy of the West and of civilization itself? Try that on for size. Nut case. You’re a traitor.

        Like


    • Like clockwork, we hear this stupidity every time there is an electoral setback. You have no idea what “all the religious baggage” does to keep the party of the right viable. There’s a reason why those of your unserious political position can’t “find someone who’s actually electable.” It’s because 15% won’t get you elected to anything.

      So save the if only the national party were more like me we’d win every time bullshit for your growhouse roommates who, between epic Xbox sessions, think replacing cotton with hemp will solve our country’s ills.

      Can’t wait to see the trajectory of your belly-flopping “swoop.” Soar, eagle, down to your prey! I think I see a crate of Hot Pockets at the bottom of the cliff!

      Matt

      Like


      • Ah, “unserious”, the go-to insult of every establishment beta bitch. You think bible-thumpers like Santorum are electable, dipshit?

        Like


      • Point to where I said or implied that. Oh, I didn’t? That’s right.

        Now go back to making straw dolls and playing with yourself, you uppity ignorant cunt.

        Like


      • on December 7, 2012 at 6:00 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        Oh, so you disagree that Akin’s comments, and the way they were spun in the press, hurt the Republicans?

        You disagree that the fact that the press was able to use those comments to hurt Republicans was, in part, due to Romney and Ryan’s association with the Personhood Movement (a group that opposes all hormonal birth control, as well as abortion)?

        You disagree that the vast majority of Americans either actively uses, or has benefited from, contraceptives? That they have come to see the ability to control one’s own fertility as a right?

        You disagree that this belief stands in direct opposition to the core beliefs of most religious conservatives?

        How have these beliefs worked out for you?

        Like


      • Almost no conservatives favor banning contraceptives (and I’ve spent huge amounts of time around religious nutjobs). Many Catholics oppose birth control and fervently oppose having to pay for other people’s birth control, but that’s not nearly the same thing as thinking it should be banned.

        The problem is that our conception of “rights” is so fucked up. “The right to contraception” is not the same thing as “the right to make other people pay for your fucking contraception.”

        If you’re an able-bodied adult, if somebody else has to do it for you, you don’t have the right to it. Problem is lefties (especially feminists) don’t see freedom as liberty (the right to be left alone), but instead see it as power (the ability to have or do whatever you want). Therefore, any cut in public funding for anything at all can be seen as “trying to take away our freedoms.” That’s why we’ll get the federal debt under control only after we’re carting Ben Franklins around in wheelbarrows to buy a pack of gum.

        I’m sick to death of people claiming I want to enslave people to some ancient and irrelevant morality just because I don’t want to pay for their fun, games, and mistakes.

        Somebody needs to grow the fuck up.

        Like


      • Yep. To look at the “Four Freedoms” espoused under FDR:

        Freedom of Speech: Yep, fine.
        Freedom of Religion: No prob.
        Freedom from Fear: Sure, that’s why you have a military to defend the borders.
        Freedom from Want: This is where you get on the road to hell. What this SHOULD mean is that you have the right to make a living for yourself, to buy and sell freely. Unfortunately, what it means in today’s Amerika is that you have the right to an ever-expanding group of things made with someone else’s capital and labor, whether you can afford to pay for them or not.

        Like


      • “The problem is that our conception of “rights” is so fucked up. “The right to contraception” is not the same thing as “the right to make other people pay for your fucking contraception.”

        Exactly. Always wonder how much money the people who ostensibly can’t afford birth control spend on their makeup/hair/manicurist leading up to (indeed, in order to obtain) that “special moment”.

        Magic 8 ball says “a WHOLE lot more than the price of the birth control”.

        Like


      • … the way they were spun in the press … the press was able to use those comments … That they have come to see the ability to control one’s own fertility as a right …

        Well, our problem is the “press” and “spin” more than policy then, isn’t it? When you appease their feral bloodlust, they only get lustier. Why vote for an imitation when the other party offers the real thing?

        After every marginal loss — and in this age of electoral microtargeting, every win or loss will be marginal — the losers who held their nose despite certain policies and failed anyway will point to those distasteful policies as the entire reason for losing.

        But such single-minded voters are not psephologists, and they have no understanding of how to keep a broad coalition together. This coalition rallied 47.3% to the other guy’s 51.0%, a rounding error. Therefore wholesale, massive changes in identity must be conducted? What if your policy tweaks alienated two voters for every one it gained? Where is your evidence — other than general sentiment — that this is politically prudent? This kind of the winning electorate is me mentality is what turns Republicans into Democrat-Lite and depresses turnout.

        Instead of playing Tweedle Dumb to their Tweedle D-Bag, the idea is to draw sharp contrasts. You have to give voters an affirmative reason for choosing you. And a clearly articulated rationale for certain controversial positions creates an “agree to disagree” dynamic that wins votes despite difference. Was Akin or Mourdock articulate? Did the press give them a chance to articulate, or did they descend like locusts and turn them into demons for your credulous consumption? Worked on you. In fact it worked so well on you that you are doing the enemy’s dirty work for them: fracturing the tenuous alliance, dividing so that they may conquer.

        No, the problem is that everybody fancies themselves a pundit now. You don’t vote on issues, you vote on how you think other people perceive issues. That just empowers the opinion shapers and spinners, while discouraging difficult positions from being articulated.

        How have these beliefs worked out for you?

        They held together a practical coalition that constituted 47% of all voters. If we tailored our party to your princess preferences, we would have gotten less than half that percentage — and extincted ourselves in the process. Those voters who hold such “beliefs” you find distasteful not only outnumber you on the right but do not hold them as casually as you do yours.

        Finally, we hang on to certain “beliefs” because they are true and beneficial, not because of their popular appeal. Our constitution affords a buffer between populist sentiment and political outcome. The “vast majority of Americans” think women are men, and they have no compunction spending trillions on a credit card for their share of the gibmedats. So we should adjust accordingly just to send some corrupt apparatchik to DC to faithfully represent this moment of insanity?

        That’s the fundamental divide between little-d democrats and little-r republicans, as well as their Capital-Letter analogues. One party believes we can derive feasible policies by gauging the whim of the majority at any moment. The other party, along with the founders, understand this is a recipe for factional disaster and the prescription for a tyranny of the majority (and the destruction of the minority’s rights). Hence the intermediary institutions between the mob and political power.

        Against this progressive strain, sometimes we have to lose to win. We have to witness the stupidities and passions of mob rule and keep them fresh in our mind to understand that it is no way for a people to govern itself. We always get the public “servants” we deserve.

        Matt

        Like


      • Are you a monarchist? Or more specifically some kind of pretendant to a throne, King?

        Just asking, I might support you if you’re not a complete aspie in real life.

        Like


      • I am a republican in the Roman mold, deeply anti-monarchist but more pro-aristocracy than the American version. The patrician, equestrian, and plebeian divisions helped preserve the ultimate sovereignty of the people (res publica) while fending off mob rule in Rome. The founders of this country feared the hoi polloi as much as the Roman aristocrats, and their largely successful device — constitutionalism — served to stave off demagoguery and populism for a century-and-a-half as it grew into a superpower.

        But we in the 21st century are beginning to see that venerating a document is no match for tradition, tribalism, and blood ties. Our republic went 150 years or so before substantially succumbing to the populist-progressive poison pill (Wilson/FDR) — compared to the nearly four centuries of Roman republicanism that passed before the Gracchi brothers, and nearly five centuries before the rise of the imperator, who even then felt it necessary to continue the republican affect at least in name (“princeps” or “first citizen” rather than “emperor”) all the way up to Vespasian and Diocletian centuries later.

        The Roman grain dole and the modern welfare state are fairly comparable. But Rome extended her republicanism much longer than we likely will, because words on parchment aren’t as easy a defense against majoritarian gibmedats as the divinely venerated class divisions (and imperial expansionism). The American allergy to class militates against republican longevity. We must therefore attempt to thread the needle of constitutionalism while reestablishing cultural and political aristocratic divisions, in the best cases based on merit and investment.

        The most obvious reform in that regard? An end to the insanely destructive idea of universal suffrage, so that those who have no material stake in the future of the republic are disenfranchised. The class divides we used to have — race, property, sex — were crude and unsustainable, but nevertheless worked under a constitutional rubric. Now the mission is to change the culture so that an enfranchisement based on “skin in the game” becomes acceptable to a populace weened on handouts and lies about universal rights, called appropriately, “entitlements.” Restrict the franchise to (or weight the electorate with regard to) property owners, parents, servicemen, capital investors — citizens who have demonstrated they have an interest in tomorrow.

        Is “aspie” is your word for “educated”? Just asking.

        Matt

        Like


      • I realize that the “culture wars” were a boon to the Republicans in the 80’s and 90’s, but they’re over now. Turn on your tv for some clues as to who won.

        It’s time to focus on people who are sick of war, survellance, and spending, not dying old people who have bees in their bonnets about gays and abortions.

        Like


      • Awesome. Well said.

        Like


      • on December 8, 2012 at 9:18 pm driveallnight

        +1

        Like


      • High fighves, brahh! All around!

        Like


    • Amen to that

      Like


  16. Feminism: the radical notion that a group of people who leech completely off men and never accomplish anything are “equal” to men.

    Like


  17. I wonder if Romney would have done better or worse on election night if his campaign had just unapologetically taken the position of the war on women being a myth. I’m sure their “inside polling” would have said worse, but after taking the red pill, it’s hard to imagine that pandering less successfully than your opponent is going to win you more hearts than standing up for an unpopular truth without equivocation. Either way, I would have loved to see Romney answer the women’s pay gap question in the second debate as such: “There is no pay gap. Now let me use my remaining 118 seconds to discuss the $16 trillion of debt we’re in.”

    Like


    • I swear it’s as if every one of these is written by the same person (who moonlights writing inside-flap synopses for romance novels).

      “My Millennial-aged girl friends and I never doubted that we would accomplish all of our life goals. Everything, thus far, has pretty much gone according to our plans. We were accepted into the right college, landed the dream job, and developed a network of amazing friends. Our apartments are beautifully decorated and we have closets full of stylish clothing. Romance hasn’t been entirely sidelined, but we don’t waste our time trying to cultivate a relationship unless someone is really amazing.”

      “We are coming to the realization that we were unwittingly playing a game of musical chairs — while everyone was pairing up, those focused on our careers are left standing alone.

      And we can’t figure out what is happening.”

      What I’d heard was that Millennials had learned something from observing the Sex-and-the-City generation. Evidently I heard wrong.

      Cue the obligatory reference to “The Richer Sex”, rallying cry of “better to be single than settle”, and hint of blame-men/feminist-victory-lap mixed in with this sickly-sweet cocktail of breezy braggadocio and self-pity.

      Like


      • on December 8, 2012 at 2:02 pm Days of Broken Arrows

        I just wish she could have used the word “amazing” more in this article. After the part you quoted, she uses it even more.

        Like


      • …”we do have certain non-negotiable expectations for potential mates that include college degrees and white collar jobs”

        With college enrollment for women approaching 60% (or 50% more female college grads than male), good luck with those minimum expectations honey. Hypergamy is a bitch.

        Like


      • It amuses me that the increasing majority of female college students is celebrated by the professional victory-lap runners as yet another step toward the end of men. If these students were going into STEM fields, then they might be right. As it is, it just tells me that the useless degree bubble is being sold to people as successfully as the real estate bubble was. After it pops (and the labor market is glutted with Victim Studies majors) I expect we’ll get another critical mass of people “walking away”, or at least trying to; it’ll be interesting to see whether Uncle Thug lets them.

        Like


      • …and hint of blame-men/feminist-victory-lap mixed in with this sickly-sweet cocktail of breezy braggadocio and self-pity.

        Every year more men are tuning out women’s whining/psycho-drama/compulsive lying.

        Like


  18. It’s also time to review the rational basis for marriage benefits. Why should the unmarried get treated like second class citizens?

    Like


    • Well, not to run this thread off it’s track, but the simple answer was/is/remains that it’s more to a nation’s benefit to have solid families than it is to have a bunch of of joyboys and girls riding around in Audis and going to Cancun twice a year.

      Like


    • Saw your post at Althouse as well. Enjoying the red pill here?

      Like


    • Why should renters get treated like second class citizens? Answer: TPTB prefer that you load yourself with debt like the other good little cattle. lolzlzlzlz.

      Like


      • Actually, they don’t… it’s homeowners that are buried with property taxes, so that you never truly own your own home.

        Renters? Pffft, what the po-lice and the tax man miss them.

        Like


      • Hell, watch the po-lice and the tax man miss them.

        Like


      • Maybe I misread, but I interpreted Libtardian’s comment to mean that indeed property owners are buried with taxes, enabling the TBTB, for purposes of control and intimidation, to retain a permanent lien on one’s home – which is why renting, from the TPTB’s vantage, “should” be disincentivized (to use an IRS term).

        Like


      • I was merely gainsaying the precept of renters being second-class citizens, as per the quandary that home-owners find themselves in is a more far-reaching form of servitude… the chains may be golden, but they’s chains nonetheless.

        Like


  19. There is a war on the family and civilization itself. We are heading toward a full fledged matriarchy. And if men seek equal rights with women, they are nothing but pawns of matriarchy.

    Like


  20. The feminist movement is built on a cultural marxist notion of revolution, of upending established heirarchies. Built into it is also an anti-Christian earth Goddess worship religious aspect.

    But today, these ‘children of the revolution’ must be going through major hamsterization as they struggle with the notion that they have won the revolution.
    How do they rationalize this knowledge while pushing their agenda?

    The observer must come to the conclusion that they are nuts and idiots. Society will turn against them as the progs and feminazis’ hysterics seem more and more irrational and selfish.

    The other theory could very well be that these people don’t care about logic at all and only have mayhem as their goal.

    Like


    • The other theory could very well be that these people don’t care about logic at all and only have mayhem as their goal.

      Hallmark trait of anything stemming from Satan.

      Like


      • I’ll bite. Why would someone who believes that bad people get chased around by demons with pitchforks when they die be hanging around a blog giving advice on how to manipulate women into giving them NSA sex?

        Like


      • Well, DUH!

        10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

        12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

        Really, guys, is this the BEST you can challenge?

        And for the record, your vision of hell is just superstitious pap. If you would question me about these matters, come to the table with something more savory than swill.

        Like


      • It wasn’t intended as a challenge. What would be the point of that? I’m not going to convince you that Christianity is Judaism with a bunch of Pagan ideas(hell, gods having kids) grafted onto it and you’re not going to convince me to become a Christian again.

        I was just trying to figure out why so many religious folks hang around CH.

        Like


      • Christianity is Judaism with a bunch of Pagan ideas(hell, gods having kids) grafted onto it

        Heh, heh… merely Judaism… except for a few minor details… such as an actual Savior who has come and has fulfilled God’s Will… and, oh yeah, the eagerness to spread the word that ALL are eligible to come to the table and be, ahem, chosen… if they would but have faith and honor Him.

        you’re not going to convince me to become a Christian again.

        There’s an old maxim about a horse and a river…

        and you’re not going to convince me to become a Christian again.

        Like


      • Well once your mind opens to Truth of Jesus Christ, it’s an avalanche of mercy and cognition of God that your mind basically gets struck by. But while you are all about knowledge of Him, and spiritual things, He tends to teach you of this earthly life too, which you don’t like at beginning since all the things of this world(ways of having fun, economy, history, filozophy, science, and even sexuality at that point) seem to you like a horse shit in comparison to heavenly things that He reveals to you through reading His word, and real life situations.
        It’s not that you hear any words, or visions or whatever, it’s all inside. You just feel something, and you simply know it is right, and also when some cognition about God or related to Him comes in your mind you just can’t comprehend from where did you get that understanding…
        And it’s really good when you meet somebody that have the same experiences as you do. You almost have same thoughts about things, and even with those that don’t read the Holy Scripture and don’t have much contact with other Christians, have same thoughts like you.

        Sometimes i don’t even have to speak with somebody to know that he/she is newborn, or(which i myself was quite impressed) will be sometime in the future.
        You see that in their eyes, They are different. They just are.
        At present they may swear, insult, hurt others, but you know they are determined… Few such people that i know have come to Christ like this.

        Now with that being said, why we come here? Because after you lower your head from the clouds, you find that however magnificent these new revelations about reality are, you are stuck in this reality of this world, and that time is passing away, and you have to rely on things of this earth to achieve what you want – not only on God and wait for miracles to happen. You have to start the fight with the reality with your own hands, and He helps there where you fall short.

        And in order to use yourself with the means of this earth you have to get to know this earthly reality as well, so you yearn to learn various truths not only of the next, but of this world as well. And CH is a “place where all pretty lies perish”. Once you taste it you love it: The Truth, and the truths even if it hurts you, you know that it will feel sweet once you incorporate it in your system, and will do you much good.

        Ah yes i want to find a girl too.

        Cheers

        Like


      • Nicely put, Alexander. +100

        Like


      • except for a few minor details… such as an actual Savior who has come and has fulfilled God’s Will… and, oh yeah, the eagerness to spread the word that ALL are eligible to come to the table and be, ahem, chosen

        Yes, those are pagan ideals. Here’s a bit of history:

        When Alexander the Great conquered “the known world” he spread Hellenism with him. This brought about a change in the sociological landscape that came with the creation of the Greek polis everywhere he went:

        1. Syncretism: combining a foreign cult deity with Hellenistic elements
        2. Monotheism: transforming polytheism into “mono”theism (it would actually be “henotheism”; the Jewish equivalent of subordinate gods were “angels/demons” at the time, even though Judaism prior to the exile was more polytheistic, with Yahweh having a wife and such)
        3. Individualism: agricultural salvation cults retooled as personal salvation cults
        4. Cosmopolitanism: all races are equals (all are brothers) where people join religions instead of being born into them

        The Greeks didn’t force their conquered peoples to join their religion, they just syncretized with them. The four points above led to the creation of “mystery religions” to form wherever Hellenism had spread:

        -Eleusinian & Dionysian Mysteries: Combined Hellenistic religion/philosophy with Phoenician (west Syrian) religion

        -Mysteries of Attis & Cybele: Combined Hellenistic religion with Phrygian (North Turkey) religion

        -Mysteries of Jupiter Dolichenus: Combined Hellenistic religion with Anatolian (W Turkey) religion

        -Mysteries of Mithras: Combined Hellenistic religion with Persian religion

        -Mysteries of Isis & Osiris: Combined Hellenistic religion with Egyptian religion

        These mystery religions had their hero undergo a passion and conquer death in some manner. And by their hero/god’s defeat of death they offered personal salvation to whoever believed in their victory over death.

        Of course, Alexander the Great conquered Judea. So we could have pretty much predicted something like:

        Mysteries of [insert Jewish hero]: Combined Hellenistic religion with Jewish religion, which would offer salvation to anyone who believed in the tenants of the Jewish mystery religion.

        Like


      • My previous post was about how Christianity was much more than Judaism with pagan ideas hitching along for the ride… and that stands.

        Pantheism is nothing new… and if memory serves, Egypt’s Amenhotep was credited with the first thought of monotheism and a brotherhood of man.

        And yes, we’ve all read D.H. Lawrence’s Apocalypse and are well-aware that there are pagan myths which correlate to Christian legend… duh! It only makes sense that many peoples might have, in the deep past, similar stories.

        But how you get Christ as the second Adam needing to redeem Mankind, and a Judgment Day of actually many years where His elect will school Mankind back to Adamic perfection… indeed, the entire concept of Salvation… out of all that rigamarole you just posted, well… let’s be honest, if nothing else.

        Like


      • “except for a few minor details… such as an actual Savior who has come and has fulfilled God’s Will… and, oh yeah, the eagerness to spread the word that ALL are eligible to come to the table and be, ahem, chosen

        Yes, those are pagan ideals.”

        You are waay too reckless. Those are ideals of more than 10 versions of pagan beliefs putted together, and we’re to assume that those Galilean fishermen were able of such a task.

        Second thing is that Judaism hasn’t been a henotic religion since Babylonian captivity (difference in years is petty number of 600). It was strictly monotheistic. Syncretism was not an option, especially not as long as apostles were these Jewish fishermen.

        After Apostles passed away and converts from paganism took over, Christianity became THE MOST PERSECUTED religion of the whole empire, in all of it’s history, and all because, you know, they were INFLEXIBLE. They didn’t wanted to recognize emperor as a deity(like all other cults that you’ve diligently pointed – had!), also Christians didn’t recognize God The Father in the Zeus, or Jupiter(distinction was made deliberately), nor Son in Osiris, or(my stomach is already feeling ill)…

        Savior concept was indeed not an original Christian concept, you’ve got us here!

        Lol! It was from the Old Testament.

        Surely understood in a Christian way, which may i add fits almost perfectly like: Is 53; Ps 22; Dan 9:26; Zah 12:10 – about the suffering; Zah 9:9; as opposed to Dn 7:13 – which is about two different arrivals, Just to name a few notable cases.

        Eagerness to spread the word is indeed magnificent even without comparing it only to Jewish hermetism.
        Alexander The Great spread Hellenic culture and religion because that was politically useful , and because he ran these places and could have done whatever he wanted, as long as populations don’t rebel.
        That’s why he made many compromises with the local religions, as it is evidenced by many archeological proofs and contemporary writers.

        Christians on the other hand were despised in the Roman Empire. By spreading the word they could only get killed, detained, or expelled, or their property might have been confiscated, and the upward of spreading the word would be salvation of others, nothing for them personally.
        Ah yes Alexander conquered. Christians converted the whole empire. Allow me to draw it to you: T h i s I s a m i r a c l e !!
        No religion in the world suffered so much resistance, and managed to prevail so greatly.

        And than this ignorant argument that Alexander conquered Judea. Uffff.

        Syncretism was not a practice even before Seleucids took Judea from Ptolemais. Those that sympathisized with the greek culture simply adopted it without religion. Surely they became weak practicants of Jewish religion, but that field was left to rightists (much like it is today in the west – liberals won’t meddle in theology).

        To make long story short the Hasmonean dynasty after Seleucids was Fanatically Jewish – no syncretism was tolerated, and they were very wary of any foreign religious influence, which pretty much continued into the Roman period, and Herodian dynasty after the fall of the Hasmonean dynasty. The temple and religion became the thing of priests.

        None of the Jewish sects awaited the Messiah that would have told them: Turn the other cheek. Or even better: love thy enemies!

        And all of that invented by these pacifist Galilean fishermen(john 18:10)

        subjugated by the Romans, living in that peaceful middle east,
        who didn’t say to their little invented religion, once heads started rolling:” ah dude, this doesn’t pays of let’s head home.” But instead continued to hide, run for their life, and even preach until every each of them was executed for their fiction. Nice logic AB.

        Like


    • The other theory could very well be that these people don’t care about logic at all and only have mayhem as their goal.

      That’s the assumption I’ve been going on, and so far, I haven’t seen anything that convinces me otherwise.

      Like


  21. Romney was generally a beta campaign-wise, but occasionally some alpha would shine through. Watch him shut down some feministing “war on women” moron (“free birth [email protected]##!!!”) here

    (not to be taken as any endorsement of Romney)

    Like


    • I didn’t follow the election… haven’t paid much attention for several elections now.

      But watching this video, well… this Romney guy is a stammering fool, and reacts noticeably to both the yays and nays from the audience, with his eyes wide open in a “let me explain myself” type of defensiveness.

      Not impressed… I can see why he lost.

      Then again, I’ve said for decades now that this country hasn’t produced any sort of presidential timber.

      Like


      • Hmm. Shows how far I have to go I guess, since I thought he handled this with a plumb.

        Like


      • He was plumb ineffective, as I read his vocal timbre and body language… certainly lacking the requisite aplomb 😉 to sway the uncommitted.

        Like


      • Romney reminds me of a guy who is not comfortable being alpha around people who are not alpha; the entire presidential race he seemed uncomfortable being wealthy and powerful, apologizing for his wealth…

        Just imagine if he was a black man and you can get an idea of how he should have approached the election.

        No black man would ever apologize for being wealthy; Romney was like, “please, please… overlook my wealth… and you will see Im a real person…just like you…”

        He always seemed like he was trying too hard.

        (((shakin my head)))

        Like


      • Romney unfortunately is infected with the virus we call white guilt.

        Like


  22. If you ever forget how much they hate us. remember the order of the white feather (this is pre-feminism, or perhaps the start of feminism).. In England during WW1.

    Young women who were tired of their boyfriends (betas) used white feathers to shame them into joining the army and enduring the horrific slaughter of trench warfare. In alot of cases we are talking 14 – 16 year old schoolboys.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_White_Feather

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/11/first-world-war-white-feather-cowardice

    Some of his stories still have the power to make the reader angry. A 15-year-old boy lied about his age to get into the army in 1914. He was in the retreat from Mons, the Battle of the Marne and the first Battle of Ypres, before he caught a fever and was sent home. Walking across Putney Bridge, four girls gave him white feathers. “I explained to them that I had been in the army and been discharged, and I was still only 16. Several people had collected around the girls and there was giggling, and I felt most uncomfortable and … very humiliated.” He walked straight into the nearest recruiting office and rejoined the army.

    http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/151/the-white-feather-campaign-a-struggle-with-masculinity-during-world-war-i

    My Grandfather recieved a white feather as a 17 year old boy in South Australia in the middle of WW2. he joined the navy and watched his brother die in battle, he could never talk to the women in his life about the War, only us boys 50 years later as a broken old man.

    Like


    • Love The Pogue’s version of ‘Waltzing Matilda’.
      My dad was 17 when they pushed him through basic training, gave him a rifle and told him go defend the Fatherland. Shot himself in the foot guarding a Polish farm, almost lost his hearing and toes thanks to frostbite and escaped Russian bombs by a whisker during the retreat from Budapest.
      My uncle was 16 when he ended up in the Navy.Lucky for him, his ship was captured almost immediately by the British, and he spent the remainder oif the war as a POW in England, which he liked very much, he says they were very nice to him.
      My mom & aunt didn’t give anybody feathers, they werre too busy hiding in the cellar while the American night-after-night carpet bombing was blasting everything to smithereens and trying not to get raped by Russian soldiers.

      Like


    • Damn, thanks for sharing that man. I had no idea how fucked up women seem to have been for a long time.

      Like


  23. Any woman who thinks they’re fighting a war needs to read this male’s account of battling with these very women and feminism: http://whoism3.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/confessions-of-a-reformed-incel/

    Like


  24. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316276/nation-sandra-flukes-mark-steyn

    ‘According to Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, invited to address the Democratic convention and the nation, America faces a stark choice this November. “During this campaign, we’ve heard about two profoundly different futures that could await women in this country — and how one of those futures looks like an offensive, obsolete relic of our past,” she cautioned. “That future could become real.”

    In one of those futures, women will be “shut out and silenced,” rape victims will be “victimized all over again,” pregnant women will “die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms,” and “access to birth control is controlled by people who will never use it.” If you’re wondering where all that is on your ballot form, just check the box marked “R.”’

    Not only that, but woman apparently live in a continual state of terror where the 1950s barefoot/kitchen/raped-pregnant hell on earth you describe is lurking around every corner, ready to spring back into being, forever, at the first tiny crack in our society’s eternal vigilance. If you don’t pay for Sandra Fluke’s birth control, Jones will come back! You don’t want Jones to come back, do you?

    Like


    • Replace “woman” with “women” in the last paragraph, and this was supposed to be in response to cynthia’s comment at 10:04 PM on yesterday’s post, namely:

      “You ever talked to a 20-something year old college-educated woman about what she thinks of the 1950s? It was the Dark Ages, where women were chained to stoves and raped pregnant every nine months and were treated no better than cows… Nobody uses the 80s to scare their classroom about the dangers of conservatism, unless it has to do with Margaret Thatcher, and even that’s a little advanced for most state schools.”

      Like


      • Isn’t it interesting that feminism started and grew in a place where women had the most protection and security than anyplace in the history of the world?

        Like


      • That would be balls-ass obvious… only where there is no threat to one’s well-being and too much time on one’s hands do errant ideas and ill-advised activities grow like weeds in the wild.

        Like


      • Good observation Thwack

        but women tend to not be very rational so it was bound to happen

        when a nice beta treats a woman right she gets rid of him and runs into the arms of a bad boy who will treat her like shit and make her cry every night

        women had it good – society was like a nice guy to them – so they rejected this, like they reject a nice beta instead of being grateful, and then women ran into the arms of “the bad boy” = modern feminism, and now they are even more miserable than before.

        feminism forced us to treat them even nicer than they had ever been, but they are still unhappy

        The average woman does not even know what she wants, and when she gets it -from the nice men who give it to her – she does not want it anymore and then she blames the man for her unhappiness

        they are quite messed up – kind of like children – which is why men should guide them and protect them, as nature intended

        Like


  25. “The so-called “war on women” exists because it is the nature of woman to portray herself as the victim at the very moment when she is in fact the aggressor.”

    True. And also when she may not be the aggressor. The compulsive nature of women not taking responsibility for their actions- or using their emotions to justify their actions is important to digest. When moving a subject to isolation take control of the situation so it literally isn’t their fault.

    “it wasn’t my fault…it just happened”

    heh

    Like


  26. […] This is also a good post to remind readers of the CH definition of feminism: A political and cultural movement to remove all taboos and restrictions on female sexuality and to stigmatize and regulate, legally if necessary, male sexuality. Filed under: Culture, Feminist Idiocy, Goodbye America, Hamster of the Month Contest, Misandry Source: Chateau Heartiste   […]

    Like


  27. ” [I]t is the nature of woman to portray herself as the victim at the very moment when she is in fact the aggressor.”

    Like


    • “[I]t is the nature of [the Left] to portray [themselves] as the victim[s] at the very moment when [they are] in fact the aggressor[s].

      Still true?

      Like


  28. The Feminist cries out in pain as she strikes you.

    Like


  29. Have you seen this? Hard work pays off!

    http://haterspage.com/2012/12/06/before-after-chicks-gallery/

    Like


    • #6 (234 -> 156) is cute.

      The last one on page 1, I’m afraid, has gotten carried away. I certainly don’t disparage the effort required to get there, but it’s time to ease back.

      Like


  30. Even “War on Women” megastar Sandra Fluke proves she is, at heart, an alpha-chaser through her sexual antics and hypergamy. http://www.lightlybraisedturnip.com/sandra-fluke-gets-flucked/

    Like


  31. MRA’s have been saying this for years. You just took notice now?

    Like


  32. If there is a “war on womyn,” here’s a great idea: why don’t feminizts just surrender? Then there would be no more war.

    Like


  33. on December 8, 2012 at 5:19 pm Classic Sparkle

    A war on women would be over in five minutes.

    Like


  34. Some people above have mentioned marriage benefits. What are these benefits of which you speak?
    I have been married 28 years. Every year of that time we have paid more income tax because we were married than we would have if we were single and shacking up. Where’s the benefit in that?

    Like


  35. We’re losing the war and the Air Force has been conquered by the feminazis:

    http://strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20121210.aspx

    Like


    • I don’t know why this would make current news. Openly displayed pinups/scantily clad images of women haven’t been permitted for a L-O-N-G time in the Airforce. Even before women were flying fighters.

      And per those stationed in the ME, this too isn’t recent. It isn’t prudent to aggravate the host country, and the rules can be pretty stringent depending on the location (sometimes crucifixes and/or open displays of Christmas celebration are banned also…even the Sears catalog might be confiscated from a care package as over-the-top, let alone something like Victoria’s Secret, and of course alcohol is often anathema).

      Like


      • Yes, but it used to be explained as “we need to maintain decorum” along a more socially conservative line. Now the reasons are openly explained in radical feminist terms.

        I couldn’t serve under the current regime.

        Like


    • The more PC we become, the more we self implode, we self destruct

      Enemies of Western Civilization do not even have to fight us, all they have to do is be a little patient and we will self destruct. All they have to do is wait and the left will eventually kill the last breath out of Western Civilization.

      never mind bombs and guns, the left is doing a fine job of reducing us to something irrelelevant and ready to be picked up by whomever hates us, be it Muslims or what have you

      leftist PC is a mental disease and it is killing everything good in Western Civilization

      Like


  36. I believe that every woman has either read Robert Greene’s 48 Laws Of Power or is born with innate knowledge thereof.

    There is a solution – become alpha. Then all of a sudden women act like women around you again. What a concept!

    Like