1 2 3 4 5 7 | bottom
Quote# 130685

["Historical" note: this post is the closest you can get to an origin story for The Spearhead]

Now that gender equality in terms of income has been achieved in the younger generation, and educationally women currently surpass men, most of us ordinary men find ourselves staring irrelevance straight in the face. A friend of mine recently observed that women are “taking over” his department at his former company. Except in specialized occupations that require male minds or bodies, women do indeed appear to have the upper hand. However, I observed to my friend that the top remains largely male, while the middle is dominated by females. The bottom, like the top, is predominately male. Unfortunately for us men, there’s a lot more space at the bottom than at the top.

So what does that mean for men who are not among the fortunate few? Are we destined to be lowly peons shoveling muck out of gutters? For many of us, our fate could be worse than that. Gutter cleaning pays fairly well, at least according to the last bill I saw for that service. The future certainly does look grim, but could there be anything redeeming about our new status as disposable goods? Yes, there could, but only when we learn to accept and finally embrace it.

Bound by a sense of duty and responsibility to family, employer and country, men demanded certain guarantees in return. All these guarantees can be summed up in one word: fidelity. We expected not to be cheated, lied to or abandoned. Sadly, all these things have come to pass. Perhaps our own complacency is as much to blame for this as anything else, but our betrayal is a fait accompli. There was the inevitable denial, rage, and despair, but finally we find ourselves at the point of acceptance.

Accepting such a great loss of security, confidence and trust is a very difficult thing to do, but it is profoundly liberating. Whereas before one was shackled to deceit and resentment, now the fetters are broken, the cell door opens, and suddenly the world is revealed. Feelings of guilt, inadequacy, anger, envy and disappointment dissipate in the open air; ought gives way to is. When one arrives at this state of mind, all of the countless obligations, worries and responsibilities lose their sting. It becomes clear that reality – the way things are – is our only true master. We owe no debt to anything or anyone else.

So once a man throws off his countless restraints and goes all the way up the chain of command to take orders from the top, how does he deal with his only boss? Perhaps surprisingly, dealing with reality is very simple; it is only a matter of “can” and “cannot.” There is no want, should or ought with reality. All those are subjective, and have nothing to do with the sun setting or things falling when dropped. A man who has a good idea of what he can do has a great deal of choices and ability, because there are infinite things men can do. Of course, there are always consequences. For example, you can jump out of an airplane without a parachute, but you cannot survive it. This is where judgment comes into play. However, although dealing with reality requires good judgment, letting other people do so for you requires absolute faith in their judgment AND their interest in your own welfare. That’s a risky bet.

Once a man is freed from the bondage of others’ expectations and desires, all that he does comes from his own heart. Any help or affection is freely given and not in any way coerced. His love and goodwill are pure and free from any taint of flattery. Likewise, any malicious acts are undertaken only by his own initiative. His heart and intentions are made clear through his actions. Because reality is truth, he embodies honesty.

These principles apply to all people, whether male or female, but the loss of direction among men in our civilization is a fairly recent development, and needs to be addressed. At this point, a politicized “men’s movement” might be counterproductive, because it would lead us down into the sewers of contemporary discourse. But a spiritual awakening, accompanied by a recognition that we have our own priorities, is sorely needed. Women rebelled against their social obligations and limitations and threw them off. Men, too, can do the same.

When men see that bondage is a state of mind – often an unconscious choice – they realize how easy it is to cast it aside. Our own bondage came from the guarantees that we demanded, which slowly created obligations that we came to see as inevitable. But now that the guarantees have been removed, we find that we are still in chains, and herein lies the great liberating opportunity afforded by injustice. Without the shock of betrayal and loss, we might have plodded along forever, devolving into something akin to oxen, fit only for heavy burdens and the whip. But that will not happen now. The deal we’ve got is clearly rotten, and there’s no good reason to haul that load.

The uplifting feeling one gets when laying down a heavy burden does much for the spirit. The bitterness over loss and betrayal is forgotten as the realization sets in that one’s life is in one’s own hands. What others want, think or expect becomes no more important than anything else, because all that matters is what IS and how one chooses to deal with it. When men know that, they know true freedom.

W. F. Price, Welmer 1 Comments [8/17/2017 9:44:21 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 130684

Although it’s pretty clear that a lot of the blame for problems in modern relationships can be laid squarely at the feet of young women, we ought to at least ask why they are such miserable failures compared to their grandmothers. They are genetically pretty much the same people, after all, so there must have been something about their upbringing that made them worse than useless as wives. Well, I guess we all know that’s pretty obvious, but how often do we get down to brass tacks and ask “what really makes the difference?”

Having had the dubious benefit of having raised a couple of children for almost five years, much of the time all by my lonesome, I’ve started to get an idea of what’s going on. One thing I can say is that raising kids, although rewarding in some incomprehensible way, is hell. I’ve never had a harder job. Doing it yourself is an exercise in masochism, or maybe martyrdom, which is why I don’t believe all the BS about “single mothers” going it alone. In fact, I’ve never, ever met a single mother who did it alone. Women are better at social networking for a reason: they need to be to get help raising kids.

Nevertheless, modern young women are particularly deluded about childrearing. Most of them have no more experience than a few weeks in total of babysitting kids during the easiest possible age bracket — between the ages of six and twelve. Your typical parent wouldn’t dream of allowing a teenage girl to babysit an infant or toddler for more than a couple of hours, and in that event would do their utmost to set everything up for the babysitter so that it went as smoothly as possible.

So young women come into marriage without a clue. In days past this wasn’t the case. Just as boys in old times would be expected to handle firearms, chop wood, and deal with large, dangerous farm animals, girls would be thrust into the business of childrearing and homemaking as soon as they had the strength to pick up a child and handle a cast-iron skillet. Now, these girls are texting on mobile phones and chatting with friends online all night as soon as they’re done with their homework.

However, the instinct to be a grown woman and mother remains, so girls dream of the traditional marriage without having any idea what it really means. Therefore, as a guy who’s been there and back again, I’d like to give other men an idea of what they really ought to be thinking about if they are serious about a traditional marriage, so I’ve come up with a few questions to ask women before tying the knot:

Can you handle the obliteration of your former physique for at least eighteen months for each child you bear?
Could you drive a car with someone screaming into your ear at a high volume for a prolonged period of time, day after day, without losing your cool and/or crashing?
Would you be able to interrupt your dinner to put your hands on human excrement, and then return and finish eating?
Can you go for weeks without sleeping more than a couple hours at a time?
Are you prepared to handle a 1000% increase in housework?
Can you see yourself acting as impartially as a referee in a boxing match during sibling disputes?
If your sex life were to evaporate, would you still be able to retain a fair perspective concerning your spouse?
Does the prospect of being chained to a few little hellions every minute of the day, at the risk of prosecution if you fail to do so, seem bearable?
Can you sacrifice your shoe budget for family necessities?
Would you be able to control your hormonal mood swings enough to prevent yourself from blowing your marriage sky-high?
Do you have enough sense to stop and look for the light at the end of the tunnel?

If a woman says no to any of these, she’s a bad bet. Not to say there’d necessarily be a divorce (although chances are better than even), but the road will be very rough. Unfortunately, this probably comprises at least 75% of young American women. Their mothers, indoctrinated as they were by 1970s feminism, did a huge disservice to society. Not only did they frequently emasculate their sons; they coddled their daughters, teaching them to be the cheap facsimiles of men we are so familiar with today.

Is it possible to change a girl who has grown up within this milieu? I have my doubts. Even with game, just keeping things together with such a woman requires a Herculean effort from most men, and we have to be honest with ourselves and ask whether it’s even worth it.

However, if you are a guy who wants to knuckle under and go for it anyway, ask these questions. If you can’t ask your girlfriend, at least ask yourself about her and try to detach yourself from your feelings for her so that you can be as honest as possible about the answers. Although the conclusion might be depressing, it could save you from a kind of pain you never suspected you could be subjected to.

W. F. Price, Welmer 3 Comments [8/17/2017 9:44:13 PM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 130683

According to a former waitress who is now a “writer”, one Hannah Raskin, a 15% tip just ain’t enough anymore. People are making less than ever, are unable to afford eating out, and yet she’d have them pay servers more than they can afford.

I’ve got nothing against servers, but I hate tipping. I always do it, and my tips fall between 15-20% about 95% of the time. However, if I ran a restaurant, I’d include the gratuity in the price of food. Selling a sandwich for $5? Raise it a buck and give the extra to the server. $1 for a soda-pop? Make it $1.20. I detest feeling that somehow I have to prove my worth by giving the server some exorbitant fee for showing cleavage as she bends over to serve me food. And that’s really what this comes down to — as women have come to dominate food service they’ve sexualized it to the point of something near pole dancing.

Frankly, I’d rather a guy serve me my food. He’ll usually do a better job and not try to use some physical assets to try to open my wallet. Same goes for a therapeutic massage. After getting run over by an old lady doing a thankless, low-wage job that I should have been tipped for, but never was (courier), I had a few sessions of much-needed massage therapy to minimize scar tissue in my neck and back. By far the most useless practitioners were females. Not only were they weak and ineffective, they seemed to feel that I owed them $60/hour simply for them having deigned to touch my back. As a young guy who had no shortage of female attention at the time and definitely needed a therapeutic massage, I certainly didn’t see it that way, and after a couple sessions with lazy, pathetic masseuses I made it a point to demand a masseur – preferably a strong one – or no go.

I’m getting to that point with waitresses. I am quite frankly sick of their entitled, bitchy attitudes. I don’t care if they serve me a sandwich underneath a couple of pushed-up, scented breasts; I don’t go to restaurants to masturbate, after all. Give me a professional, deft man who handles the table with skill and reserve and I’ll be all too happy to pay him what he deserves. But after reading Ms. Raskin’s bitchy, greedy little screed, I’ve vowed that the next slut who tries to squeeze some extra cash out of me by shoving her tits into the center of my visual field gets 10% and no more.

Whatever the case, if I had my way I’d eliminate tips altogether and have waiters work on commission, as I suggested before. If their 20% is in the menu price, I know exactly what I’m getting into when I look at the menu and there’s no reason to complain. If the service is bad, I simply don’t go back to that restaurant. If guys want gussied up little hussies, they can go back over and over again, but as for me I’ll be happy to patronize pleasant places with a touch more class. Pardon me if I’ve been a bit uncouth in this post, but to be quite honest I find Ms. Raskins’ attitude pretty offensive and simply replied in kind.

I’d like to hear Chuck Ross’s take on this.

W. F. Price, Welmer 6 Comments [8/17/2017 9:43:37 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 130682

[Note: This is from W. F. Price's now-defunct personal blog Welmer, also his old screenname]

Perhaps nothing illustrates our society’s blindness concerning the true nature of female sexuality as clearly as the widely held belief that rape is anathema to female desire. If my suspicions are correct, this fiction is likely tied to the same paternalist sub-theology that is responsible for feminism, the family law industrial complex, and widespread, legalized discrimination against men. However, before I get into any speculation here, let’s take a look at the evidence.


If Hutson’s inference is correct, more than half of women likely have fantasies of being raped, and in perhaps up to one in four women these are their preferred and most common fantasies. Other studies are referenced in the article as well, if you care to research them yourself.


If anything caters to tawdry female fantasies, it is romance novels (as well as soaps and dramas). 54% is no coincidence here. Furthermore, Whiskey remarked in one of the comments on my “Mad Men = Female Porn” post that “Mad Men had a couple of rape scenes where the bad boyfriends rape the women the they love.”

So, it being established that rape fantasies are a core component of female sexuality, Hutson goes on to explore why this might be the case. He offers up a number of potential explanations, including, among others, sexual blame avoidance, “male rape culture”, and biological predisposition to surrender. While I reject outright the “male rape culture” explanation (I will explain why shortly), sexual blame avoidance makes some sense, and probably is more relevant to American culture in particular, but I think the biological predisposition to surrender is the most likely explanation.

Suggesting that some “male rape culture” that makes rape normative exists in America is ridiculous on its face. For one thing, rape was originally treated as a crime against men first, and society second. In Deuteronomy, for example, the rapist is punished mainly for his transgression against the husband if the woman is married, and against the father if she is not. This concept continued to be reflected in criminal law until quite recently, when the state took on the role of the father, and then finally the husband as well. In fact, the spate of Mexican rapes of young women and girls that accompanied mass immigration over the last fifteen years or so was in part the result of a cultural misunderstanding. In the old Catholic tradition, which still has considerable influence in Mexico, rape was not considered much worse than fornication (which was a big no-no), and could in many cases be expiated by marrying the victim — this is why the victims of these rapes were almost exclusively unmarried young women; raping a married woman is seen as a far more heinous crime in that particular culture. Rather than a cultivating a “rape culture,” what we see men doing in societies around the world is criminalizing and discouraging rape because it is contrary to their interests.

As the authority of the state has increased over all Americans, we still see the same principle of rape being a crime against more than simply the female victim, but the offense against the husband or father is no longer relevant — instead it is the jealous state (paternal authority) that is now the aggrieved party. So morally speaking (from the feminist point of view), there is little difference between now and then, but practically speaking the scope of prosecution has widened considerably. Given these circumstances, any suggestion that there is a “culture of rape” in America is absolutely ridiculous.

Because rape is a very primal threat to men, acting on a deep-seated insecurity about his relationship to the women in his life, it is likely that the taboo against acknowledging this aspect of female sexuality is rooted in men’s desire to have a more comfortable and less stressful view of the women upon which they have invested so much of their emotional well-being. It is little different from the husband who sees his wife as a “good girl,” only to find out the truth the hard way when she commits some sexual indiscretion.

Despite the comfort that this taboo may bring to some, I would argue that it is a dangerous thing to deny the truth of human nature — even sexuality. Not only does this blind men and keep them from gaining a deeper understanding of the women around them, it also leads women to feel confused and ashamed about feelings and desires that they apparently have little control over. It is possible that the high rate of false rape accusations and obsession over the subject in America is in fact a result of confused, repressed feelings, which lead some mentally disordered women to project their fantasies onto innocent men.

We have to accept that there are dark, uncomfortable aspects to both male and female sexuality, and that neither gender in particular is any more guilty than the other. In fact, neither is guilty at all; we are sexual beings equipped with emotions and desires that, although often mysterious, serve a greater purpose than our rational minds can comprehend.

[Comment by same fundie in response to a comment about Biblical leniency with regards to rape]

Sorry, Warren, I’m not too shocked by those passages. The Bible is not meant to be read like a British tabloid.

As for the Jewish rape angle, you’ll have to think about when the relevant books were written. Well before 300 BC for the most part.

Then, let’s take some European pagan practices into account. Fortunately, we have some good documentation from the Romans. I seem to remember a certain sack of Judea by Titus Flavius Vespasianus. Some coins were minted commemorating the Roman victory that portrayed a bound Jew and his weeping wife, under a caption that read “IVDEA CAPTA“.

Somehow, I doubt these women were all appointed to positions as consular interns.

Condemning the ancient Hebrews on the basis of contemporary “morality” is laughable. I hope you can do better next time.

I will say, however, that the one man who successfully did challenge their morals – in the 1st century AD no less – inspires deep humility in me.


Agreed. But men should know of these urges as well. We’ve really got to stop fooling ourselves about women.

I’m starting to doubt whether most women can be trusted to moderate their behavior without male authority to guide them.


Lukobe, given that the source of so much male misbehavior is female influence, and that this has traditionally been kept in check by other males’ influence, I don’t know exactly how that should be answered.

Perhaps it is simply the provenance of men to govern both men and women.

Maybe men can more effectively govern men by better governing women. In fact, I think that is the best answer. The men in power today have failed miserably in their duty to govern women.

W. F. Price, Welmer 2 Comments [8/17/2017 9:43:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 130657

Acid Attacks Are The Great Equalizer

When a beautiful average or even normally ugly female has some acid thrown at her face and she survives, the result is a dramatic decrease in her quality of life. This is due to its disfiguring effects which ultimately lead to her having the same sexual market value as a sub 6 male. While once the slag could effortlessly ride chad cocks and had a huge army of beta orbiters along with males asking her out, she will now only receive pity, while people might lie to her saying she is still beautiful, chads will avoid her and only ugly men will ask her out. To a female this is the ultimate insult, unattractive males having the nerve to imply she is equal in looks to them. She will also no longer be given special treatment or attention by males everywhere she goes just for being female. Before when she looked in the mirror with make up on she felt satisfied, knowing she was worth something due to being desirable to men, now she will only see a charred and disfigured husk of what she once was. Her status also takes a hit as she will be the ugliest female in her social circle and she can no longer virtue signal, by subtly mocking other ugly females.

universallyabhorred, /r/IncelReddit 9 Comments [8/17/2017 10:28:10 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 130639

Daenerys Targaryen is the archetypal femoid; boring, entitled, only fucks Chads, calls her pets her children

irrational, prone to anger, entitled and makes dumb decisions.

Tyrion is the one making idiot decisions this season.

Ah, forgot to add "blames men for her bad decisions".


Bluepilled cuck detected.

It's a female.

Game of Thrones is feminist garbage.

Jesus christ how did I not see this before

I always hated this boring overrated show.

Watched the first 2 seasons. The best part was this chick naked.

various incels, r/Incels 13 Comments [8/16/2017 9:26:42 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 130638

>tfw incel

Side note, it's scary how accurate this is

The "cold" and ugly thing hits home the most. I would kill for the feeling of a girl who thinks my face is physically attractive cuddling with me.

That's what we fuckin need. It's never ever going to happen. They only find 1 percent of men physically attractive. The rest are sexually unattractive to every female on earth.

No guy with a side profile like that could ever be Incel.

Tfw you might have achieved a lot more in your life if not weighed down by all your insecurities and inferiority complex.

Tfw you have achieved everything in life but nothing of it is official because at the end of the day yu are still incel

A lot of these symptoms could be from low testosterone.

How could young guys fix that without the replacement therapy? It's not possible right to fix it naturally?

I meet all of those except fat and no job

various incels, r/Incels 6 Comments [8/16/2017 9:26:37 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 130637

Don't be stupid Billy, I had my fun in college, high school (and middle school tehe) but now I'm all yours

This seems to be the only thing that genuinely triggers the normies. Keep posting it.

"How could you attack females for something they can't control!??!" say the Stacies who demand men be 6 feet tall with a 6 inch dong at bare minimum.

Triggered normies in 3...

Splatter it with mayonnaise and leave it to semi-dry to it's like a crusty-wet texture with an off-yellow colour and you'll have Stacy's roastie bang on.

Fuck roasties

As a NEETcel, I can't help but say:

Fucking lol.

That's what a used up useless vag looks like after being rammed by chads. Beware post-wall normies. Be very ware.


You know that pussy will be beat to shit and look disgusting by that time.

Quick question - serious one. Do you think getting banged hard = different labias? Cause I've fucked my wife hard - often - for 10 years and she has pretty much an "innie" pussy lip and I've fucked young girls in High school that had some serious meat curtains (and one was 100% a virgin). Check out Sasha Grey one of the most banged out porn stars of all time and super nice looking cooter.

Piss off man whore

I think at this point they just post it because they know it makes women mad. I don't even get where they got this idea, most are open that they've never seen a vagina in person. And pornstars often have innies despite having sex hundreds of times. It doesn't make sense. Though I admit I believed that wider vagina was from having sex. When I was 13.

The US enslaved the wrong peoples
Should have just been females
I've come to realize that total freedom, in settings where there is a massive power imbalance, is a very bad thing

You forgot elementary.
Edit: haha down-vote brigade. Seriously, fuck off normtards.

various incels, r/Incels 9 Comments [8/16/2017 9:26:20 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 130636

Italian manlet gets cucked.

Females are evil and heartless.

Correct, they are snakes.

This applies to any non chads that do anything for a female

He needs to improve on his personality.

This feminist poem essentially confirms that they respect Bowser more because he's not a Nice Guy.

various incels, r/Incels 8 Comments [8/16/2017 9:25:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 130603

No one except a dumbass, or a fed or a Jew, will say Andrew Anglin is unintelligent. He created an incredibly popular web site which woke up a huge number of white people and drove the hebrews to distraction.

Pandering to women will never advance our cause. The vocal female elements of the community are mentally ill.

Women will be pleased when we turn the clock back to better times for white people.

Obviously individual women aren't going to like losing "rights" even when these are the right to screw up our countries - like turning men off marriage with divorce rape.

Mr. Punch, Stormfront 11 Comments [8/16/2017 6:21:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 130599

In the ancestral environment, if you were a reproductively unsuccessful male, you formed a tribe of young men, who went off and stole some land and enslaved some women. Holiness signalling about racial purity is tribe formation.

What their genes really want them to do is confiscate the Ivy League endowments, kill the males at Harvard, occupy the Ivy League buildings, and enslave the Ivy League women. Given that the alternative is near certain genetic extinction, this is not a stupid ambition, though purity spiraling, which generates the solidarity needed to accomplish this program, also distracts from this program.

Getting overly obsessed about Jews creates the cohesion necessary to address this problem – but also results in not conquering and enslaving women, which is actually the whole point of the program, just as females shit testing results in those females not having children and not forming relationships, even though from the point of the genes the whole point of shit testing is family formation – girls are behaving provocatively to find a male powerful enough to subdue them, but girls think they are behaving provocatively because they actually want power, freedom, and independence, with the result that they attain neither power nor family, and achieve freedom and independence as cat ladies.

Your genes don’t actually want you to gas the Jews. That is just a flag to rally around, and a club with which to attack your enemies. (Hence the tendency of Nazis to denounce everyone they don’t like as Jewish.) Your genes want you to gas the enemy males, take their land, revenue sources, and buildings, and enslave their women. Krystalnacht was assets being smashed, rather than transferred to individuals competent to use them. If you gas the Jews without winding up supported by the revenue from the campus endowment, in a nice home with a couple of ivy league slave girls serving you in what used to be an ivy league campus, it has all gone horribly wrong, like a thirty year old woman issuing an inappropriately brutal shit test to a beta provider male.

It is a “masculine failure mode” only if you don’t get the land, the house, and the slave girls. Recollect that in the American Revolution, the Whigs dispossesed the Tories, drove them out of America, and took their stuff. The alt right are today’s Tories, and their genes want a re-run.

Jim, Jim's Blog 6 Comments [8/16/2017 6:19:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 130576

(comment on "Femoids do not even think or have brains at all."

Ofcourse check out my recent posts on MGTOW. They lack self awareness or ability to think independently about things like philosophy. The more vain the subject the more they can say, the more the subject leans toward logic/reason the less they can say. They are empty mirrors that can imitate at best.

seekerofwisdom23, /r/IncelReddit 8 Comments [8/15/2017 7:42:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 130575

(comments on "Femoids do not even think or have brains at all."

Except the women who think about programming and investing.

Based on my experience as a programmer, women are about as good at programming as men are at breast feeding.

I guess you don't know any good women programmers.



I bet she spent most of military time getting passed around all the milichads

maybe so, but she was still an amazing programmer


how is it doubtful when theirs evidence right in front of you?

Normie propaganda

fschmidt and finalformcel, /r/IncelReddit 10 Comments [8/15/2017 7:42:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 130563

A part of the "pro gay marriage" movement asssumes an image of humans where the sexual unicity of humans gets abstracted away. It looks like if men and women don't exist anymore, but only people. The expression "men and women are different but equal" do find this also a "dangerous" presumption. Based on that it follows that "homosexuality" should be accepted, because "it doesn't matter", people should normally be asexual, and feminism is here the same as "unisex".

This human vision or image of humans goes against the reality. The human is in the most profound of his kind a sexual being, man ór woman, where the male complements the female and vice versa. The time of unisexual feminism is thankfully over, real gender-emancipation means that men can be fully men, and women can be fully women. They are equal as complementary partners.

Peter Van De Ven, Dignitadoc 3 Comments [8/15/2017 7:37:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: hydrolythe

Quote# 130558

Kiss my Aviation Boatswains Mate ass.

Just before I got out of Navy in 1986, I remember all the bogus sexual harassment charges against male sailors who simply looked at a female in an complimentary way.

Then there was all the pre and post deployment pregnancies so the females didn't have to continue or go on the next cruise.

And then there is the infamous Tail Hook convention where a couple of female sailors got slapped on the ass in the same traditional way ball players do.

Many a highly trained Aviators were grounded or kick out of the Navy. That was Rep. Schroeder's big cause.

If women don't want to play by the same rules and traditions as the men, they should stick to admin duties ashore.

A Navy Vet, Free Republic 9 Comments [8/14/2017 3:10:40 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 130548

I was thinking about this today,It’s a self fulfilling prophesy,that the more developed the nation
the more feminism raises it’s ugly head,I think i need a holiday,somewhere where feminism
is restricted by economic uncertainty,it’s true first they came for the paedophiles,now it’s normal
male sexuality 13-14 year old’s.Keep up the good work.A lads holiday with plenty of cider,Vodca
and magaluf girls lol.

mr p , Resisting the coming 21st century holocaust – Men's Rights, Youth Rights, Sexual Rights 4 Comments [8/14/2017 3:00:42 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: anon

Quote# 130536

Another Beta male with white knight complex.

Dr No, Resisting the coming 21st century holocaust – Men's Rights, Youth Rights, Sexual Rights 4 Comments [8/14/2017 7:07:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: anon

Quote# 130530

Women = Shit

Women aren't smart enough to know what's good for them. They should be herded as cattle, and sold to the highest bidder. Ugly ones can be bought for maid services and doing labor. This is for their own good. It would solve all domestic issues if women were property.

to say womyn = shit is an insult to all good dookies

womyn are less than shit and dont ever forget that. a womyn would let you die of loneliness sooner than hold your hand if your under 6ft.

justice3612 and WeabooCel, /r/IncelReddit 10 Comments [8/14/2017 3:53:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 130529

I'm afraid I have no sympathy for her, or any white woman who sides with racial and religious aliens against white men, indeed their own people. They are defectives who must be purged from our kind. This crap can NEVER be unseen and un-experienced by white men, especially white men like me. White women are voting for ever larger, and more anti-white government, open borders and globalism in far greater numbers than those who are white nationalists. That's a fact. Those women, including members of SF, understand what awaits them if we lose control over our own lands.

If that makes me a misogynist, so be it. I utterly hate women like her, and I do not feel her death is any loss to our race. The fact is, when the waste matter hits the ventilators, and it will, these traitorous white women who voted for white genocide will not find in me a protector from the consequences of their willful treachery. I will do nothing to prevent them from reaping their just deserts. I will be hard pressed to protect myself and mine, not some witch who regards white men as disposable. Not all whites can be saved, and those like this Heather Heyer are among them. Beware liberal white women, you are on your own.

Volodyamyr, Stormfront 7 Comments [8/14/2017 3:53:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 130527

Femoids do not even think or have brains at all.

I'm convinced of it.

That is why they are always "busy" with activities; they don't think at all, so they are able to devote their time to walking their dogs, parties, music, clubbing, crossfit, rock climbing, other pointless activities.

shockinghillaryquote, /r/IncelReddit 14 Comments [8/14/2017 3:52:54 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 130507

[From "The unspoken side of rape"]

Isn’t it more than just a little fascinating that underneath all this hoopla about rape is a whole lot of women who, when thinking about some guy pinning them down in a kitchen and forcing a hand up their blouse, generally tend to do so with their own hand or a vibrator between their legs? You don’t have to like it to know its true.

And isn’t it also interesting that the most rape obsessive morons on the planet also happen to be some of the ugliest morons on the planet?

Consider this. If rape awareness was a religion, Andrea Dworkin was The Fucking Pope. The 300+ lb. basilisk of man-hate had a face big enough and pockmarked enough to be used to fake a lunar landing. Her body was roughly the size and shape of a small sperm whale.

And she thought of little else in her life other than rape. The subject drove almost everything she said and did.

She even claimed to have been drugged and raped in 1999 in Paris, an accusation that was never proven and which came under a great deal of scrutiny, apparently for damned good reason.

C’mon people, Dworkin’s problem wasn’t that she was raped. Her problem, and I mean all along, was that she wasn’t.

Did I say she was the Pope of Rape Awareness? Let me take that back. She wasn’t the Pope, she was the Jimmy Swaggert. Like a corrupt televangelist who only shuts up about sexual purity and morality long enough to secure the services of a five dollar hooker, Dworkin was the poster child for “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

Or, in other words, she was obsessed with rape, quite possibly even creating the illusion it happened to her, precisely because her worth on the sexual market was measured in pesos.

Dworkin wanted to be raped, which in her mind meant being sexually desired, but didn’t have the goods to make that happen so she made a career of hating both the source of her rejection, men, and the source of her competition, attractive women.

Go figure, her other pet peeve was porn.

It is much the same with the SlutWalks, those rapidly growing celebrations of stupidity and cellulite taking over the western landscape. Most of the women there may be dancing Dworkin, but money is on the idea that when not participating in the SlutWalks these girls are desperately trying to fuck their way into feeling attractive.

Attractive enough that a man would lose control of himself to have his way with them


The real lesson here is simple. The concept of rape has a lot of utility for women. One, it feeds their narcissistic need to feel irresistible. Two, if feeds their narcissistic need to feel irresistible. That level of irresistibility is the pinnacle of a woman’s sexual viability and worth. And for a whole lot of women, sexual worth is the only self-worth they know.

Paul Elam, A Voice for Men 10 Comments [8/13/2017 3:12:10 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 130502

yarsir-blog replied to your post: Is it wrong or bad to say that all porn is bad?…

I, ancedotally, disgree with the ‘inevitably look for more intense…’ portion. I’d argue one could slide up the quantity scale rather than intensity. But, I don’t think that changes the meta-effects/discussion. The only porn I’d contemplate arguing as ‘good’ would be consenting exhibitionist couples, or some sort of 'free choice’ sex work empowerment. Of course, being at the consumer end doesn’t prove the whole production was equitable. Random thoughts. Have a good 1.

No, I completely disagree.

It is not possible to have “good” porn in a society built on patriarchal exploitation of female bodies.

As for “consenting exhibitionist couples”… my question to that is my question to all porn: Is it possible to verify 100% without a shadow of a doubt that the act is consensual and not rape on tape?

And if the couple is male/female there is the added question of can this woman truly, freely consent to a man when there is a power balance built into this coupling on the basis of sex due to patriarchal society? When one party is societally the oppressor and one is societally the oppressed, how can consent truly exist? And how can it be verified by the viewer? Is there any money involved? Any earning potential? Consent cannot be purchased or bartered for.

Lastly, there cannot be “free choice” “sex work” “empowerment”. That’s just purchased compliance.

Not consent.

So no. Under a patriarchal society there cannot exist pornography which is “good”.

smalldarlinglesbian, Tumblr 8 Comments [8/13/2017 3:10:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Thanos6

Quote# 130442

This is a draft proposed commendation resolution, to be introduced into the Virginia General Assembly after I am elected.

Commending Roosh V
WHEREAS, Daryush Valizadeh, more commonly known as Roosh V, has devoted much of his life to offering actionable advice to men around the world on self-improvement and game; and
WHEREAS, since 2007, Roosh V has self-published more than a dozen sex and travel guides, most of which discuss picking up and having sex with women in specific countries; and
WHEREAS, circa 2010, Roosh created Roosh V Forum, which has since grown into a vibrant discussion hub for the manosphere, with more than 1,300,000 posts, 50,000 threads, and 19,000 registered members; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, Roosh opened Return of Kings, which five years later has more than 4,300 posts, providing more than one million unique visitors every month invaluable insight into body, game, girls, history, lifestyle, mind, news, politics, religion, the sexes, travel, wisdom, work and money, and other topics; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, Roosh broadened the scope of his philosophy beyond red pill ideas, by promulgating an all-encompassing worldview of masculinity and nationalism, neomasculinity; and
WHEREAS, in February 2016, Roosh delivered the mainstream media a scathing and much-deserved rebuke at a Washington, DC press conference, rightly dressing them down for publishing misleading and often outright false accounts of his views concerning rape; and
WHEREAS, beginning in April 2016, Roosh created and published important works defending freedom of speech, including the book Free Speech Isn't Free and the videos "4 Things You Should Know About Free Speech" and "Are you prepared to pay for your free speech?"; and
WHEREAS, in May 2016, Roosh launched Kings Wiki, a collaboratively-written resource on topics of interest to the manosphere, that now has more than 2,500 content pages; and
WHEREAS, in November 2016, Roosh rightly refused to disavow Richard Spencer in the wake of Heilgate, noting, "I will not be making disavowals of anyone, no matter how reprehensible their speech, because I will not help my true enemy, the establishment, attack my neighbor"; and
WHEREAS, in February 2017, Roosh rightly defended Milo Yiannopoulos in the wake of Milogate, in his videos "The Milo Yiannopoulos scandal is a coordinated hit job (CPAC 2017)" and "Analysis to Milo Yiannopoulos' Breitbart resignation & press conference"; and
WHEREAS, Roosh has been a steady hand at the helm of his community, providing carefully considered yet confident and decisive leadership so that it has been able to weather the storms and withstand all assaults by its enemies; and
WHEREAS, Roosh has not let attacks by feminists, social justice warriors, and the media establishment deter him from speaking the truth; and
WHEREAS, Roosh's intellectual curiosity has driven him to explore the world through reading and travel, so that he has, in addition to helping men form connections with each other, also written and spoken on a variety of non-game topics and synthesized ideas to form new philosophical frameworks; and
WHEREAS, through all of these accomplishments, Roosh has worked tirelessly for the benefit of both sexes, by teaching men, through writings, videos, and his own example of strong leadership, the qualities they will need to cultivate in themselves to serve as effective husbands, fathers, and citizens, doing their part to restore patriarchy both in their own homes and in the wider society, and rescue western civilization from the scourge of feminism; and
WHEREAS, Roosh serves as an inspiring and uplifting example for men everywhere, about the power of one man to change the world and lead an enjoyable sex life through boldness, initiative, determination, and skill; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the General Assembly commends Roosh V for his work to help men become better versions of themselves, to improve relations between the sexes, and to bring greater liberty and justice to our Commonwealth, our nation, and our world; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates prepare a copy of this resolution for presentation to Roosh V as an expression of the General Assembly's admiration for his perseverance and stalwart efforts to better the lives of all Virginians.

Nathan Larson, Nathania 12 Comments [8/13/2017 3:09:14 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Hu's On First

Quote# 130482

Enslavement is not that radical of an idea

Slavery is actually not all that radical of an idea. Already, both men and women are enslaved till they reach the age of 18. They have to do whatever chores their parents order them to do, and they can be spanked or otherwise disciplined for disobeying. They are subject to compulsory schooling and can be thrown into detention or juvenile hall if they resist. They also are not allowed to vote, even though they pay taxes (sales taxes when they spend their allowance, and income taxes when they turn 16 and start working). The average voter probably supports all this.

Red pillers favor extending the enslavement of women beyond age 18, under the theory that, especially during some of women's most important years (ages 15-30), they are usually not able to make decisions that are as wise as what their fathers could make for them. In countries like India where arranged marriages are the norm, it does seem like there's a higher marital success rate.

Bear in mind, the term "enslavement" tends to be used very broadly by libertarians, to cover everything from conscription to jury duty. Mainstream society, and the Supreme Court, obviously don't consider that kind of mandatory service enslavement, or it would have been struck down as a 13th Amendment violation.

My point in saying that it's not that radical of an idea, is that it's an idea that by now we have plenty of experience applying in the real world and seeing how it works. One disadvantage that libertarianism often has is that it proposes ideas that have never been tried, and therefore people will say, for example, "Show me one place in the world where anarcho-capitalism has worked."


"Ah, the moral relativism dodge."

That wasn't the way I intended it. Part of my point was that slavery of children has been tried before, so it's a practice that we have some empirical evidence about. One of the problems with a lot of libertarian ideas, such as anarcho-capitalism, is that there's little empirical evidence about how it would work, so people will say, "Show me one place on earth where a society without a state has flourished" and use that as a reason why we can't try it. The subjugation of women to men has also been tried extensively throughout history, so we know a lot about the consequences of it. It wouldn't be an untried social experiment; to the contrary, feminism is the relatively new social experiment, and we're just now starting to get some evidence of the results (e.g. falling fertility rates, diminished levels of female happiness, rising suicide rates among menopausal women, etc.)

The other aspect of enslavement of women is that it is very similar to practices the voters already approve (e.g. the enslavement of children). As a pragmatic political realist who is always mindful of what the voters will be receptive to, I have to take that into account.

"Libertarians generally oppose most of the child indentured servitude bullet points you listed above"

I'm not so sure about that. One of the rationales for why I'm being kicked out of the LPVA is that they say I don't respect the fact that children can't give informed consent (e.g. to sex). The idea that children can't give informed consent is one of the main arguments for enslaving them. Apparently, the LPVA does believe children are incompetent to exercise their rights of self-ownership. If they don't own themselves, then someone else owns them (at least temporarily), which is the very definition of slavery.

If we can justify taking away rights from kids on the basis of their being less competent than their parents or other guardians, then why not take away rights from women on the basis of their being less competent than their fathers and husbands, if that can be proven? The theoretical foundation having been laid, and agreed on by Libertarians at least with regard to children, all that is left is to gather the empirical proof.

"This anti-woman philosophy masquerading as a strand of libertarianism would only exacerbate that problem. As a Libertarian activist who wants our candidates to do well and get elected, I don’t want libertarianism associated with a philosophy that alienates half the voters."

I'm antifeminist, not anti-woman. There are female antifeminists as well, such as Ann Coulter and Christy0Misty, who have said that women's right to vote should be taken away. Mises (in Socialism) and Rothbard (in Power and Market) too made suggestions along those lines.

"As a single heterosexual man, I would prefer to date libertarians rather than statists, so I don’t want libertarianism associated with a philosophy that repels women by casting them as mindless slaves."

You seem to be presuming that (1) equality of women to men is a libertarian view, (2) the idea of enslavement of women to men repels all women, and (3) it's preferable to date libertarians rather than statists. Actually, I think it's often best to have a romantic relationship with women who are apolitical. Thus far, I haven't observed libertarian women to have a very good track record of loyalty; most of them seem to end up divorcing at least one husband.

Nathan Larson, Red Pill Libertarian 5 Comments [8/13/2017 8:47:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Hu's On First

Quote# 130481

Could it be that adult-child sex serves a useful purpose for the kid while she's young, and then later the repulsion is a way of getting her to mate with someone else? This seems similar to how little kids like their parents, and cling to their parents, while they're young; and later, when they become teenagers, are embarrassed by their parents and want to distance themselves from them.

The fact that later, they feel differently about their parents than they did before, doesn't mean that their parents never should've nurtured them to begin with. It's just that the time for that kind of nurturing came to an end. Who's to say it's not the same way with adult-child sex, including situations in which teenage boys leave behind the older men they used to have sex with, and go after girls instead?

(The pedophile then is like the caterpillar's cocoon, that serves its purpose and then is abandoned. Just because the butterfly feels no need to go back inside the cocoon doesn't mean the caterpillar erred in entering it, and should've been protected from it.)

These days, though, a lot of kids come back to their parents anyway, after their teenage years, and get along with them fine. Many even form three-generation households.

Who's to say that those kids who came to hate the pedophiles who had sex with them, wouldn't later feel differently, if society would be accepting of those changed feelings? But since society doesn't want to hear it, they have to keep quiet. It's hard to know what the truth is, when there's so much stigma attached to a certain point of view.

Nathan Larson, Red Pill Libertarian 7 Comments [8/13/2017 8:47:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Hu's On First
1 2 3 4 5 7 | top