Barbarossaaa on ‘age of consent law…how it furthers misandry’

Barbarossaaa on the evil of strict liability in cases of underage minors deceiving adult men into believing they are of legal age for sex.  Of course, as I have argued here before, the reason that the Sexual Trade Union have insisted upon strict liability is that it deters men from even approaching women who are (and say they are) ABOVE legal age.

‘age of consent is misandry’….’age of consent law…how it furthers misandry’…hmmmm. I guess it’s all in the semantics. Brave video anyway. And father’s rights activists will be pleased to learn that reddit r/mensrights still believes that discussing the merits of husbands beating their wives is more of a valid men’s rights issue than feminist statutory rape laws that increasingly sends good and even unwitting men to be raped and beaten in jail as sex offenders :

men's rights priorities

39 thoughts on “Barbarossaaa on ‘age of consent law…how it furthers misandry’”

  1. Barbarossaaa is my favourite Youtube MRA. He is pro-firearms, vehemently pro-life and some sort of Christian, but that doesn’t prevent him from having more commonality of thought with us heathen whore-mongers than the other guys out there. I’ve listened to most of his videos more than once already. He is articulate, consistent and a true libertarian, albeit a right-wing one. He has no patience with political agendas: at least three of his videos are a rebuff of other MRAs (eg Chapin) who want to go into bed with Mit Rommey. Most importantly, unlike the vast majority of conservative MRAs, he understands the connection between feminism and male sexuality.

    Back then on Youtube I commented that a legalisation of prostitution was the best thing that could befall the American male. Barbarossaaa answered he was himself opposed to the ban on prostitution. At the time I thought he was only humouring me as a fresh subscriber to his Youtube channel, but he already had a video online where he explained that in spite of having no intention of ever paying for sex and finding prostitution “disgusting”, he was in favour of legalising it in order to “bring down the price of pussy” on which feministic power rested.

    This is the link to his video where he advocated making prostitution legal. (If you don’t want to hear the whole video, the part about prostitution begins at 6:00):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jN4B9nn4nc

  2. “Of course, as I have argued here before, the reason that the Sexual Trade Union have insisted upon strict liability is that it deters men from even approaching women who are (and say they are) ABOVE legal age.”
    ——–
    That’s it in a nutshell, and it’s a present with a wink and a nod from the politicians to the politically active older feminists, in order to lessen the competition for men from these hot younger women, who are not as politically active. It’s as if the Olympics said the top 20% of athletes could not compete in a feel good effort for the inferior athletes.

    Never overlook though, the other benefits to the system: men are arrested, have to hire a lawyer to defend themselves. Judges convict them. They go to jail, where they work for free/or pennies a day building things that will be sold to benefit the system. When they get out they’re on probation and have to pay for drug screenings, counseling, etc… In every step of this process, the system or t hose connected to the system benefits financially – men are like the carcass of a dead elephant, and everybody feasts.

    And what was the crime? Banging a chick that snuck into a club/bar with a fake ID. That alone should get a man off – how’s he supposed to know she’s underage, if he met her in an adult setting where she had to present an ID to enter? If she has a fake ID to show him? But of course the system doesn’t care about logic. There’s no profit in it.

  3. Thumbs up to Barbarossa, thumbs down to the Reddit crowd.

    If anybody is feeling bored or mischievous enough, an interesting experiment would be to go to the fathers’ rights guys on Reddit and ask these guys who favor wife-beating this question: Do you think it’s acceptable for another man to inflict corporal punishment on your ‘underage’ daughter?

    Trying to sort that one out should keep them busy for hours…LOL

  4. yes, that is it in a nutshell.

    I don’t know if anybody followed this, but in the run-up to the new EU directive against sexual abuse of children (“children” once again meaning anybody under 18), some “child protection” and feminist stakeholder groups filed opinions that anti-grooming laws should extend beyond cyber grooming into “offline” grooming.

    As it now stands, the eventual EU directive was worded to make online grooming of children under a member state’s age of consent a punishable offense, while “offline grooming” was not included. While it is arguably remotely reasonable to try to punish strangers approaching 10-year-olds in the street with sinister intentions (rarely as that happens), these interest groups not only lobbied for a uniform EU-wide age of consent of 18, but they also wanted those “offline grooming” laws to apply until the age of 18 and make them a strict liability offense. In short, they wanted to strike fear in the hearts of men approaching any young woman in public who maybe just remotely might have been under 18. Which of course also (or rather: mainly!) would have applied to 17-year-olds looking early 20s.

    Again, those ideas didn’t make it into the final EU directive (maybe just for now). But it shows what certain pressure groups are committed to.

  5. Yeah, inclinedreader, same kind of b.s. happening in the USA. It’s getting time to expat, since apparently the majority of the men in the West are putting up with this – Asia, parts of South America, Russia and the former Eastern Europe are places where it’s still safe to be a man, and will remain so conceivably for the rest of our lives, no matter what the feminists in government do – sure there may be some kowtowing to the West in return for some financial or technological aid, but it will only be a token submission.

    Of course if the West goes bankrupt, as it likely will soon, the entire game changes – the feminist nightmare will vanish in an instant, as if it had never existed. Hard times are not conductive to hot-housing that malady.

  6. On a related note, someone sent me a link to an article posted at AVfM today by Paul Elam:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/mrm-blueprint-for-bridge-building/

    As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t read AVfM very often, but there were a lot of statements in this article that I found especially troubling: not least of which is ‘we must not undo feminism, but simply do what they failed to do.’

    Although Elam didn’t mention paedohysteria or AOC specifically, the general tone of what he seems to be advocating in this article is subordinating the MRM to the interests of the STU for purposes of ‘building consensus’. I may be wrong in how I interpreted all of this, but the link’s worth checking out.

  7. Alex:
    This has been a subject on my mind a lot lately. While we’re seeing some good signs of change outside the Anglosphere; it’s looking more and more like men inside the Anglosphere are losing ground.

    I have been working on a theory that people—both men and women—outside the Anglosphere are starting to equate feminist gender-supremacy with cultural imperialism. In fact, I think they’re actually correct.

    But how this could play out inside the Anglosphere itself—especially in the xenophobic and hyper-puritanical United States—could go either way. As you’ve probably observed over here, it’s not at all difficult to manipulate the American public, especially when the manipulators appeal to so-called ‘American Exceptionalism’. If opposing feminist gender supremacy starts being equated by the media propagandists as ‘anti-American’, then MRAs over here are going to have a problem that we likely can’t surmount.

    To make it even worse, there’s more than a few American MRAs who are leaning in that direction. These guys who ignore the whole ‘social purity’ aspect of feminism and also its obvious roots in anglo-puritanism are going to be in for a very rude awakening if they think that feminists like Sarah Palin are going to give men a better deal than feminists like Hillary Clinton.

    I don’t know whether it’s time to pull the expat ripcord just yet, but it wouldn’t hurt to start getting some contingency plans together.

  8. Alan:
    The guy who sent me the link to the article is an MRA who’s been around for a long time. Admittedly, he’s not an AVfM fan either, but even he said that he was shocked by what’s suggested here.

    From what I’ve seen of AVfM, they always had a little too much ‘female inclusionism’ for my tastes; but to start talking about the MRM as ‘a completion of feminism’ is a really bad sign.

  9. From what I’ve seen of AVfM, they always had a little too much ‘female inclusionism’ for my tastes

    Yep. You should’ve seen how the tritest of comments by AVFM females got upvoted sky-high within minutes of posting! This guy hits the nail on the head in his Youtube video entitled “Are female MRAs just trying to control men?” :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPJmXYtu7M4

    Barbarossaaa also made the point that the MRA movement is not there to mend relationships with women and that if MRAs accept the truce women will inevitably offer when they see the wind turning, feminism will simply “reboot” (Barbarossaaa’s own word) and the whole cycle will repeat itself.

    Once on AVFM a regular female poster generously granted she had nothing against a woman in a relationship being younger than a man. Indeed she she herself had had a boyfriend 5 years her senior. Five years, big deal! Another female – who obviously knew better than I did what was right for me – stated I wouldn’t want a relationship with a teenage girl anyway because teenage girls were so “immature”. (To hell with mature! I’m not shopping for pineapples, I’m looking for a piece of ass to roger!). The thread died there and then when I mentioned I was not thinking in terms of a mere 5 years difference because I was over 50 and the prostitutes I was patronising were seldom older than 25.

  10. Jack,LOL!!
    Yes I noticed the rampant white-knight Up-voting all the so-called female mRA’s invariably receive there – even for a one WORD comment!

    Pathetic….

  11. As a born and bred German who spent some time living in the U.S., I think the main difference and the reason why feminism in its extreme form was able to take hold like this in the Anglosphere and in America in particular is that Anglo-Saxon societies tend to be much more flexible and mobile in some of their ideas, cultural currents, and general societal tenets. I have to admit that besides a general love for your language for as long as I can remember, that is what also makes Anglo-Saxon culture appealing and exciting for a Teuton like me.

    Americans, compared to central Europeans, are especially open to certain new things and welcome them with open arms; for example, the Internet and all mobile communication were much more readily adopted by large parts of the population than here in Germany.

    Feminism, too, was a new idea at some point, and while France is often said to be the mother nation of the feminist movement of the 1970s, it was in America that these new ideas had the most profound impact on culture, family life, and sexual politics. To the point that even the most extreme feminists with the most extreme misandric views were able to draw a notable mainstream following, and in the end were able to spread their ideologies throughout the like-minded Anglosphere, helped by common historical and cultural ground and the absence of language barriers. In recent years, this is of course amplified by America’s growing hegemonial influence on world politics, and the abolition of grassroots democracy in the EU and Asian countries, which leaves those regions especially vulnerable to egotistical (feminist) U.S. foreign policy.

    It appears that central European societies have so far had more safeguards in place against new ideas getting out of hand and becoming overpowering; yes, fascism and the Nazis were an example to the contrary, but I still think we are more inclined to dismiss certain novel extreme ideas as too extreme to become a part of mainstream culture, and don’t give them as much leeway and don’t allow their proponents to run with it, and run wild. Unfortunately, with global power structures the way they have come to be nowadays, that doesn’t seem to stop extremist misandric feminism anymore from gaining ground and being able to cast its harrowing ideologies into binding EU law.

  12. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t read AVfM very often, but there were a lot of statements in this article that I found especially troubling: not least of which is ‘we must not undo feminism, but simply do what they failed to do.’

    He also mentions ‘modern feminism’ (implying that he holds no particular grudge against pre-sexual revolution feminism).

    The guy behind ‘The Unknown History of Misandry’ ran a quiz on the history of the men’s rights movement on AVfM a couple of weeks ago. I think Paul Elam admitted that he hadn’t heard of Earnest Belfort Bax – the first men’s rights activist. This is why it’s important to educate the MRM on the social purity foundations of feminism, and the fact that women have been trying to control male sexuality for the last 100+ years, whether from the left or right of politics. So don’t forget to promote http://historyoffeminism.com as well as this site, and if you find any interesting pieces online let me know (Eric found a gem the other day : http://historyoffeminism.com/the-strong-arm-squad-of-the-future-ca-1912/ ).

    I honestly think W.F.Price has modified his position on things like prostitution and statutory rape laws somewhat since obviously reading up on the early history of feminism.

    As far as this site goes, I’ve always been reluctant to allow any regular female contributers in the comments section. There was a female anti-feminist blogger who began commenting a lot a while back, and even Alan praised her, but I decided to ban her when she inevitably started claiming that teenage girls were children and defending the age of consent etc.

    Women may or may not have a role to play at some stage, but the MRM is just finding its feet and defining its cause. I would say the dangers of infiltration and co-opting are far too great at this moment.

    AVfM is obviously trying to show the SLPC and Manboobz that the MRM is not a movement just for ‘white men’.

    I haven’t really watched many of girlwriteswhat’s videos. I remember reading her ‘challenging the double standard’ over age of consent sometime back at AVfM (i.e. validating the feminist age of consent).

    I can only see that women ‘mra’s’ would be even less likely to endorse age of consent etc as men’s rights issues as the father’s rights mras presently are. Having said that, a genuinely pro-male female MRA would face far less flak and danger obviously as a woman in speaking out on these issues (in the same way that only a woman like Judith Levine could write a book like ‘Harmful to Minors’ and see her career progress).

    Sadly, to my ‘misogynistic’ world view, I don’t see that happening. Unlike men, women can speak out against paedohysteria without much risk to themselves – yet as we know, only a handful of the 3 billion women on Earth have chosen to do so.

  13. As far as this site goes, I’ve always been reluctant to allow any regular female contributers in the comments section. There was a female anti-feminist blogger who began commenting a lot a while back, and even Alan praised her, but I decided to ban her when she inevitably started claiming that teenage girls were children and defending the age of consent etc.

    Are you referring to Nicole? I had only read a couple of her comments that she’d left at Eivind Berge’s blog when I ‘praised’ her, which I admit was rather presumptuous or superficial on my part.
    I soon read something she’d said on another blog (in fact I think it was her own blog) that made me want to take that all back, the following day!
    She wrote some lengthy spiel on how 16 year old ‘children’ needed protection from the ONLY harm paedohysteria insists children are at risk from: being molested by a paedo, and nothing else threatens their precious existence…

    I agree, we don’t need them in the MRM and if you consider it, they would be to feminists what white-knights and manginas are to us! And as we all know, they are no good to us or the feminists except when it suits them…

  14. From what I’ve seen of AVfM, they always had a little too much ‘female inclusionism’ for my tastes

    Yep. You should’ve seen how the tritest of comments by AVFM females got upvoted sky-high within minutes of posting! This guy hits the nail on the head in his Youtube video entitled “Are female MRAs just trying to control men?” :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPJmXYtu7M4

    The MRM is the ONLY potential political threat to the Sexual Trade Union. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a concerted effort to infiltrate it by women, especially at this point when it is growing but still small, and also at a time when due to a combination of wierd circumstances refuses to fight feminist sex offender laws that criminalize thousands or even millions of men.

    The only other political movement that I see as being somewhat a threat to feminist dogma is the Militant Atheist movement – and we’re seeing how determined feminists are to infiltrate and hijack that cause : http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10hnec/rebecca_watson_tries_to_humiliate_a_particular/

    On the subject of female MRA’s, I remember a few years back a very pretty young woman made a video attacking feminism that quickly became a huge hit in the MRM. Dozens of MRAs left fawning comments underneath the video. The father’s rights crew quickly became a little uneasy though when I suggested that we officially adopt her as the pinup of the men’s rights movement – whilst I pointed out that she was only sweet 17!

  15. Here are 6 major MRA Youtubers with subscriber numbers:

    Stardusk = 1,973
    Johntheother = 2,462
    Paul Elam = 5,736
    Manwomanmyth = 6,203
    Barbarossaaa = 6,355
    Girlwriteswhat = 14,798 (!!!)

  16. I think the latter score (14,798) would be made up more of mRA’s and not too many, if any at all MRA’s…

    (m = mangina’s
    M = Men’s)

    The numbers actually tell the true story about what the MRM is really becoming, better than many words probably could.

  17. … Up-voting all the so-called female mRA’s invariably receive there

    To be fair Alan, even such fringe individuals as you and I could’ve got 7 upvotes for a comment, provided 2 conditions were met:

    1) Comment no more than 3 lines long
    2) Content strictly limited to “Great article P. No one could’ve put it better than you did!”, or alternatively “Good Heavens P, you outdid yourself again, this article is even better than your other ones!”

    I wonder what proportion of those back-patters even donated, or downloaded an MRA leaflet. I’ll miss Ozzie Stu’s comments though. Most of them were a piece of anthology.

  18. Jack:
    I remember that same thing at the Spearhead, although not quite as egregiously. It seemed a good percentage of the MRAs went into a swoon whenever some female would post anything there even remotely sympathetic to the MRM. The one exception was the hapless commenter Lara, who always went down under a flurry of downvotes. I actually felt somewhat sorry for her, because I think she was really well-intentioned; but she was sort of like the ‘Miss Buxley’ of the MRM. LOL

  19. Antifeminist & Alan:

    ‘I would say the dangers for infiltration and co-opting are great at this moment. AVfM is clearly trying to show Manboobz and the SPLC that the MRM is not just a movement for ‘white men’.

    I’ve been escpecially concerned about this trend, especially among American MRAs. Co-opting and infilration has a long tradition in America generally.

    I have a theory that feminism is losing ground internationally because non-Americans are starting to believe—with good reason—that feminism is an American imposition on their own culture. Co-opting the MRM in America (and by extension the rest of the Anglosphere) would make strategic sense for the feminist elites. They could easily compromise for a ‘kinder, gentler’ Socon feminism (really a throwback to Feminist Social Purity); give up some of their politically liberal positions; throw the Fathers’ Rights’ guys a few sops—all while leaving the STU solidly intact.

    The next move would be to propagandize the public into believing that pro-STU women and white knights are the ‘real Americans’ and all these foreigners are ‘moral degenerates.’ About the only positive thing would be that liberal male feminists like Fatrelle would be thrown to the wolves after having outlived his usefulness. But he’d replaced swiftly by Socon White Knights.

    Maybe I’ve been watching too many episodes of the ‘Strong Arm Squad of the Future’ but this looks like the trend to me…

  20. Jack yes that seems to be one of the traditions of AVfM commentary alright and it’s funny because they only compliment the ones that are always writing the posts anyway.
    I.e if someone makes an even more intelligent or informed statement about something as a reply in the comments section, he may get a few up-votes, but more likely no recognition at all; UNLESS it’s a comment made by one of their regular commentators from their strictly closed (to outsiders like us) little clique, even if such a comment actually says nothing.

    Also, if Paul Elam makes some highly controversial or even witty comment, such as ‘Hi’ or ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, it’s up-voted to the point where it accumulates nearly as many votes as say Dr T. or typhonblue, or perhaps even OneHundredPercentCotton or other significant and esteemed MRA’s like them.

    I guess from your final remark about missing Stu’s anthology, you have decided to give them a wide berth and only comment here and on the one or two other MRA blogs that are left?

  21. Yes, reflecting back on my “thoughtless” postings in VFM I now realise I was there only on borrowed time. That 100%cotton chap you mention was a spooky character, always trying to steer the subject towards his own childhood victimisation in the hands of women. I couldn’t as much as bring him to admit that for a man, being raped by another man was, on account of the obligatory sodomy, much worse than for a woman to be raped by a man – or for a man to be raped by a woman. The kind of bloke that earns money by doing phonesex on Niteflirt after training for years to speak with a passable female voice.

  22. Eric,
    I have not considered how much further feminism could go, and how much crazier it could get, but I think MGTOW is the most effective strategic pose to adopt — in these last days of Caligula if living in the USA or Europe — don’t give these parasites a hold on you, through contracting with the state, or women. I have not, and my life is pretty free of feminism on a micro level, regardless of what schemes the retards in D.C. dream up in their heads and implement in policy to favor women, while robbing men of life and money.

    To jump beyond the red line of feminism, Battlestar Galactica reference, and escape stupid legislation, you really have to leave the West and if I had a harpy ex with a scumbag lawyer trying to bleed me I’d liquidate everything and take the leap without hesitation.

  23. Alex:
    ‘I had not considered how much further feminism could go, or how much crazier it could get…’

    I used to work in Academia and often heard Radfems talking about their visions of the future. Believe me, what you’re seeing in the Anglosphere now is only the tip of the iceberg. If all the restraints were actually off and these people had absolute power, it would look a lot closer to Jacobin France right now, with the Third Reich not far behind.

  24. Inclinedreader:
    A few years back, Rookh Kshatriya developed a theory about the relationship between Anglo-Saxon puritan culture and receptivity to feminism. There does appear to be a direct correlation between feminism and its relative strength in countries with a strong Protestant tradition (the Anglosphere, Scandanavia, parts of France and Germany).

    Aside from the latent puritanism in those cultures, the absence of a ‘Mother Church’ or feminine social polarity has tended to deify earthly women (in the absence of goddesses or female saints). That’s a cultural condition that’s ripe for feminist exploitation.

  25. Antifeminist:
    Interesting that you should mention militant atheism as a threat to feminism; and Price’s evolving position:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/09/24/the-inherent-conflict-between-atheism-and-feminism/

    I had to check twice to make sure that Welmer actually wrote this. Given the way he’d been pandering to the Socon/Religious Right when I left that forum, this sounds he’s had a serious falling-out with those elements in the MRM. He even had a guest post the next day explaining why porn wasn’t ‘evil’!

    I did try to warn him that listening to the Socons would be his downfall. In light of the AVfM article, maybe Welmer’s gotten suspicious about where the Fathers’ Rights people were actually leading him. Let’s hope so, I’d like to see the Spearhead come back as force again.

  26. Indeed very rationally put. If he only manitained those views between the day he wrote his reply and now, he would probably be one of OUR Esteemed readers or even author (no pun intended).

    However, as much as it is a shame that he jumped the fence after being overdosed with paedohysteria and his own overwhelming (guilt driven) fear, it does confirm without doubt now, that he is a text-book paedocrite.

  27. Antifeminist:
    Doesn’t that sound a lot like another high-profile paedocrite we all know?

    Definately. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that paedocrites can express such diametrically opposed views. After all, by their nature they seem able to manifest extreme levels of self-deception, almost to the extent of possessing a split personality. If a paedocrite can jack off to some jailbait pics and then go online and condemn all men who question paedohysteria as paedophiles, then he can just as easily speak out against age of consent laws one day and then rabidly defend them the next. (or maybe it depends on whether he has fapped off to some JB pics before or after he discusses paedohysteria online?)

  28. (or maybe it depends on whether he has fapped off to some JB pics before or after he discusses paedohysteria online?)

    LOL!
    Thanks – for giving me a good hard side-splitting laugh to start my day with…
    However, after thinking about it a bit: it’s not as much funny as it is a good and valid point to consider.

    But,
    LOL!!!

  29. @Eric Whatever you think of Welmer, no other MRA has had the balls to ask for a campaign to remove Fraudtrelle as a writer for Time magazine :

    Next step:

    Ask Time Magazine why they continue to employ a guy who engages in unethical behavior online. (letters@time.com)

    Fair’s fair, David.

    If AVfM, r/mensrights, and the rest of the men’s rights bloggers all conducted a camaign demanding that Time magazine should not be employing a writer who leads a crusade to mock and suppress even the notion that men and boys are human beings with rights, and who has in the past defended child rape (and is therefore by his own admission a ‘former’ paedophile), then Fraudtrelle would either quickly abandon his Manboobz persona, or I’m sure Time would sack him (and CNN).

    Actually though, I do have suspicions that Fraudtrelle is backed by some very powerful people, and that they got him that job at TIME. At the very least though, it would surely make Fraudtrelle uncomfortable, and provide some welcome publicity for the MRM.

    We could also leave comments underneath Fraudtrelle’s Time magazine articles pointing out his despicable deeds and quotes.

    UPDATE : appears that Fraudtrelle already realises that he’s going to be out of a job soon : manboobz.com/2012/09/27/man-boobz-pledge-drive-part-2-electric-boogaloo/

  30. Antifeminist:
    I don’t really have anything against Welmer, although I personally felt somewhat betrayed by him, but that’s another matter. Most of my earlier criticisms of the Spearhead was mostly to demonstrate that others felt that mainstreaming was going the wrong direction. It seems to have worked to some extent, because the last two links I’ve posted seem to indicate that he’s regained some of his old fighting spirit again.

    I’m not even an atheist myself; but I had to admire the way he stood up to the Socons with his recent article on atheism; and the way he outed Futrelle today with the article about Reddit.

    On a related note, the entire American MRM seems to be in a serious state of melancholia that’s been going on since last Summer. I’ve talked to a lot of long-standing MRAs over here who are on the verge of giving up—with the exception of Fidelbogen who never seems to lose optimism. I’ve only been in the MRM for a little under three years, yet I’ve never heard so much ‘the MRM is dead’ as I’m hearing over here now.

    Outside of America, there have been lots of reasons for optimism. I believe that feminism is going to collapse in Scandanavia and Continental Europe within the next decade, if not sooner. Fidelbogen wrote an article yesterday about a huge anti-feminist movement in India that’s spreading throughout Asia.

  31. P.S.:> On Futrelle, I’m certain that he’s being protected by certain vested interests. I’ve had some suspicions about how easily he came up from out of nowhere and slipped so seamlessly into Kyle Payne’s shoes. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Futrelle was the one who put the finger on Payne, to take his place.

    The other matter too is this strange symbiotic relationship that Futrelle seems to have with the SPLC. Arthur Goldweg is clearly one of Futrelle’s pawns. Futrelle poses as a buffoon and a clown—but he has a deep, dark side even beyond his paedocrisy. He’s a guy who knows how to work the system to his own benefit and wouldn’t think twice about sacrificing anyone who gets in the way.

  32. There does appear to be a direct correlation between feminism and its relative strength in countries with a strong Protestant tradition (the Anglosphere, Scandanavia, parts of France and Germany).

    Aside from the latent puritanism in those cultures, the absence of a ‘Mother Church’ or feminine social polarity has tended to deify earthly women (in the absence of goddesses or female saints). That’s a cultural condition that’s ripe for feminist exploitation

    v insightful

    the Female Imperative is not new — men (and women) have been divinizing females for thousands of years — out of all the elements on the planet, only the prophets of the OT consistently opposed and fought the ancient matriarchies, usually operating under year-king systems (temporary male leadership/frontmen, under control of the collective feminine, exactly the Sistem obtaining in the West)

    the Catholic Church has been trying to divinize females thru mary, who they claim is equal with Christ (a co-redemptrix)

    it’s blasphemy and a lie, of course . . . but illustrates that these battles are v old, and run v deep, and the matriarchies, now established under aegis of both State and Church, will not be overcome easily

    the Prots of course, broke with the RCC largely over tithes, indulgences etc, but at root over this matter of praying to “Mary the Queen of Heaven” and of making Christ’s mommy “equal” to him

    LOL they never give up!

    the drive in males to obey women and their collective power merely morphs into various shapes and forms across time . . . so tho the Prots rejected the Divine Mary shuck, they transferred their urge for mommy-control to women via socio-political structures (rather than vesting it in a single entitiy, whether Mary or Diana Nemorensis or Pallas Athena or the Great Mother Goddess etc ad nauseum)

    add that to post-Enlightment masonic/egalitarian “revolutions” and voila! we have the uberfem west and an institutionalized gynocracy under cover of democracy/representative government

    do the Protestant churches serve God the Father and Jesus his son?

    no, they read bible passages, gather to bond socially, and claim association with Christ, but all their cultural assumptions and biases come to them via the matriarchy (the collective will of Almighty Woman)

    thus the “churches” — the only well-organized shield against fem-totalitarianism — have degraded into mere cheerleaders and enforcers of gynocracy, while hypocritially presenting as “followers of Christ

  33. Antifeminist:
    I don’t really have anything against Welmer, although I personally felt somewhat betrayed by him, but that’s another matter. Most of my earlier criticisms of the Spearhead was mostly to demonstrate that others felt that mainstreaming was going the wrong direction.

    theres a lotta good stuff on that site, but every month or so, an article (sometimes by a guest writer) will essentially argue for feminism and mainstreaming/compromise, offered in a backhanded and subtle way

    it’s disturbing b/c welmer of course is ex-cia, and as the old saying goes, NOBODY “leaves” the agency, , , except lying down in the back of a black limo

    :O)

    as with AVfM, when guys feel like theyve “made it” and are accepted as having authority and agency and acknowledged leadership, they start issuing “blueprint plans” for what the “MRM” should be!

    welmer bragged recently that he and a few of his favorite link-love buddies “started the manosphere” :O)

    that’ll come as quite a shock to the MRM guys from the nineties and early 00s, back when you had to build pages from scratch via Yahoo Geocities . . . guess they dont actually exist!

    apparently these guys also never heard of belfort bax . . . the Manosphere began when THEY arrived in it,and theyre not shy about proclaiming that…. hee hee!!

    AVfM is ballsy, i like that — i see them getting unfairly criticised sometimes, but overall they do good work, often work nobody else is doing (or can do, as there is v little organization or money in the MRM, most of us are broke)

    defending guys like vlad filler — just another blood-money pawn for the vampire matriarchy and its Justsis Sistem — and putting DAs and courts on notice that the free-for-all against boys and men isnt going to be allowed w/o challenge anymore — is v admirable work, and i praised AVfM and the related folks involved for such efforts

    that said, many of these guys (including the “christian” MRMers) have big issues with that primal folly of men, pride

    a little “celebrity” often turns men away from their passion, and towards a desire for even more acceptance and adulation

    feminism will never, never, never be amenable to compromise or negotiation — the gynogulag saw four of five years ago that MRM positions were entering mainstream consciousness, so now instead of just the usual (coercion, shaming, and lies) we see some faint attempts at “reconciliation,” along with attempts to shame and pre-criminalize, as w the SPLC

    via “reconciliations” once they’d watered-down the MRM, they’d just wait a few years or decades, and then gradually re-introduce all their prior male-hatred agendas . . . but now w/no effective movement opposing them, see? the movement would have to then be re-built from scratch, and that, friends, isnt ever going to happen again

    they want the MRM to lose its forward-thrust and its growing agency, and for its “leaders” to be satisfied with being alpha dogs . . . instead of pushing ahead, barricading and consolidating the authority/power already accrued

    i’m ok with female contributions to the MRM, but the objections and warnings of guys who have seen this dynamic re-occur decade after decade should be heeded

    shit often all it takes is ONE female to object to a poster, and the MRM site owner and/or his cliquie will immediately stomp down the Offending Interloper

    see girls? I’M really the Top Dog here! lol

    guys just can overcome that urge

    most women are master manipulators, they know exactly what buttons (pride, desire to exert their “authority”) to push to divide-n-conquer MRM sites, re-direct discussions, and isolate especially potent individuals that oppose the fem-imperative

    seen it a zillion times, and it always works too

    there is a govt presence in the MRM, and in some key positions . . . but to date the presence (by raw numbers) is relatively small . . . b/c the movement is v small, and an avalanche of govt operatives would show up too starkly in such a tiny movement

    the matriarchy — women and their enablers — desire to completely destroy fatherhood, sonship, masculinity, and male agency on this planet, and to keep boys and men in the “soft slavery” they are now, while gradually using “law” and propaganda to tighten the noose

    elam is wrong on this one — feminism must never be capitulated-to, or compromised-with

    it must be destroyed utterly off the face of the earth, otherwise the kinds of socieites we now live under will only spread, not only across the planet but, eventually, off-planet

    cheers

Comments are closed.