Replies

Someone please address the content of my arguements? I have very thick skin and could give a damn whether it offends Women or not. Life expectancy, No-fault Divorce, Prison, deaths on the job, quality of life. All are on the decline for Men. We have Women demanding to act like Whores. Slut Feminism and Women demanding the right to get falling down drunk without the consequences of their behavior. Please address the issues.

That I have called Conservative Women on this and get this whiney crap about capitalization? Give me a break. Katie O'Beirne of National Review wrote a book about Women making the World Worse. Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a Book "The War On Boys", and Phylis Schlaffly has been calling Conservatives on their refusal to defend Men and Family Life. Why is that Conservative Women will not listen to Conservative Men if it comes to the privledges of Feminism?

Do you not see the damage to our Republic? That its very survival is at Stake. Even Secular Humanists and Feminists are coming to that realization. Wafta Sultan raised that on her interview with Al-Jazeera. Who will fight the Radical Moslems? Emasculated, drug damaged Males? Think again. Choose Freedom or centuries of Darkness and the death of our Republic. Ladies the bill for Freedom has come due. An emasculated, cowardly Male populace cannot defend you.

Khan,

Women do not, or will not, think in terms of 'saving the Republic' or abstract principles such as freedom. Conservatism and Liberalism are really just splintered masculinity and feminity in new clothes. What I mean by this is that by outlawing gender, in education and society, gender has corrupted even political philosophy. Liberalism is simply girlish in everything that it does... It does not wish to defeat our enemies, only to *seduce* them. Conservatism is simply boyish in everything that it does... It's foreign policy is more aggressive if anything. Only when we reject the Rousseau'ish view that society is artificial, that the relations between man and woman are only a contract and place Nature (including gender) as the form of society, only then will elements like 'man' or family be seen as the GOOD rather than a 'lifestyle'. Once this is done, the two political spheres will stop being based on elements on gender and more on real political philosophy.

Women will never address your points because it profits them not to do so. I suspect most of the women on these boards choose the 'conservative man' simply because he is more useful than a 'liberal man'. To women, being a man is simply being useful to them as a donkey is useful to the rider. They will never see Man in the way you and I do.

Shakespeare summed it up quite well with: "What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god. The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals!"

Women would say: "What a WORKER is a man! How smartly he solves my problems! How golden goose he lays down money! In speed and directness, how fast and quick he works, in lust how like a servant, in love how like a slave. My trophy of the world, the pinnacle of my friends' envy!"

To Man, God is the infinite and wisdom itself. To Woman, God is simply another Man who works for her. "Make this work for me, God! PLEASE!!!!" Even the difference with religion of gendersm, men will say, "How do I serve, God?" where women will say, "How will God serve me?"

Women may find what I'm saying 'insulting' or 'generalizing'. I am just holding the mirror up to Nature. This is the reflection I see. If conservative women found liberal men to be more useful to them, they would easily switch to being liberal. We see this often with different religions. If it takes conversion for woman to snatch a man, she'll do it without a thought (if she cannot manipulate him to go along with what she wants anyway).

Women do not know what a man is. They think they do, but they do not. Everytime in my life someone has said, "Be a man", it has always been for me to do something against my self-interest. However, whenever a woman is "to be a woman", it is ALWAYS in her self-interest. "I can't go to war because I'm a woman!" "I must stay home with the kids because I'm a woman!" "I must let other males do things for me because I'm a woman!"

The solution, Khan, I believe, is to 'Man up' our males. The main targets of feminism, Hellenisation and Judeo-Christianity. Notice how feminists do not object to either. Rather, they object viciously to the masculinity in both. Both have been de-masculinated... of ancient Greece and the Patriarchs of the Bible (including Jesus). Today, almost everyone, including many in the 'men's movement', believe ancient greece is a partyland for gays (the homosexual paradise) and the ancient jews were barbarians (while Jesus was a feminine emo. This is why they objected to the masculine traits of Jesus displayed in Gibson's "Passion" when they only want to focus on the feminine traits such as 'caring' and 'compassion').

Khan, I don't know if you will go back to this old thread or not. But the ultimate cause of emasculating of men is that by distorting and removing masculinity and imagination from Ancient Greece and the Biblical Patriarchs, they have cut down the twin pillars that upheld Western Civilization. Males do not have masculinity because they are not allowed to believe in the soul. Every great man has believed his soul outpowering the obstacles of the world. This is not contained to a single religion, but shared among all.

We no longer have 'sins'. All our sins have turned into medical conditions except for pride, which is now considered a virtue. In order to obliterate masculnity, feminism had to slay the Western soul.

Like Rush Limbaugh, I believe the answer is not really political action but education. If we can educate, put out the proper and correct information out there, channel it to the masses with an optistic framework, it will create such clarity in men's thinking that, as you have witnessed in dontmarry's forum, will spawn political action on its own natural accord.

To be slain in battle is preferable than this lame suffocation of masculine spirit we have observed over the decades. I am only a young lad but I know my generation has never faced a great war or true hardship before. John Adams said he studied war and politics so his children could study art and music. My generation has sacrificed possibility on the altar in our new temples of electronic/orgasmic maya. But what is a man if his chief renown be but to do nothing but stimulate his senses? We are the walking dead and we shall go to our graves like beds. Men do not fight because they have no selves. Let the spirits out! Let the youth see the glories of their ancestors undistorted from feminist witches. Let them... believe. I speak for many when I say: "Show us the path toward transcendence!"

Without that, what else are we? Competent specialists that occasionally breed at best...?