39 comments on “Are Women A Threat To National Security?

  1. “We’re now at a point where the only type of person that can be trusted with national security has the same opinion of women that I do.”

    Being a General is “political.” An unmarried man would be seen as “untrustworthy.” You wouldn’t get the commission…

    interesting point, you fit a dictionary definition of “misogynist.”–hating, mistrusting or disliking women. You mistrust women….

    however, the dictionary definition of misandry is merely hating men and boys. If things were equally weighted, Amanda Marcote and all the Schrodinger’s rapist types would fit the dictionary definition of misandry because they certainly mistrust men. (They very likely hate men and boys also, so still qualify for the more “rigorous” definition of misandry.)

    • Of course, I would be seen as “untrustworthy” for not being married. It’s just more proof that everything including national security is subordinate to women’s interests. So much for civilization.

      This also proves that the “military-industrial complex” has no power unless women allow it so most criticisms of it or American defense/foreign policy are pretty pointless.

      • This actually seems to be getting worse, like so many things associated with feminism. There was a time when a man who had never been married could become president. I doubt that could happen today, since too many people would think that if a woman didn’t approve of him he wasn’t worth voting for.

  2. Brit Ruby 2013( an IT conference in the UK) was cancelled due to lack of sponsorship confidence due to “lack of diversity”. It’s hard to find anything that is male centric any more.

      • The anglosphere is in the twilight phase of its life. we discuss a lot about how feminism is part of the decline of empires. As much as I hate to admit it, patriarchy is what sustains the social contract between MEN that allows their productive capacity to be put to use. AKA: Civilization.

        I am a progressive, but I cannot ignore that certain parts of progressivism: feminism, modernism, secularism remove pillars of society that maintain the social contract between men that allows civilization to flourish. Those three examples for instance remove the virtues of chastity, temperance, and humility respectively from societies values.

        Men are beginning to chip away at other virtues now: For example, you are (correctly) identifying the decline in diligence or industria as men find the other values are largely ignored or unnecessary.

        How can a civilization can maintain itself when it has become lustful, gluttonous, greedy, slothful, wroth, envyous and prideful is a good question. History has shown is, they don’t maintain themselves for long.

        The english speaking world outside of England does not have a shared history even within its borders. The atomization of Anglo society is the beginning of the end of civic responsibility, and will leave a cultural vacuum.

        I expect in more durable cultures such as France, Italy, Spain will become fascist and it will be hard times for immigrants there. I expect the anglosphere with its weak ties will simply fade into demographic and cultural extinction.

        • ybm,

          I don’t agree that the Anglosphere is “in the twilight of its life.” I can’t help but think of it as just wishful thinking on the part of some Europeans. The US still produces a quarter of the planet’s GDP. It really has no peer in geopolitical terms. Declining European influence and a dissolution of the EU is more likely than the fall of America. As Libya recently showed, even militarily they are toothless without America.

          As far as demographics go, the US has pretty healthy birth rates for a developed nation. What the anglo countries in general have going for them big time is their really superb ability to integrate various peoples into their societies. They are not gonna die off.
          It is the Europeans that suffer from truly horrific birth rates but are not very good at integrating minorities and immigrants into their societies. They can turn to fascism and right wing populism and scape-goat brown people all they want, they are the ones that are declining.

          What’s more likely to happen is more dissolution of global economic power and further proliferation of nuclear weapons. The white man alone would no longer decide the fate of the world. The Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians, and even the oil producing Muslims will have more of a say in the world. It is only a question of how much blood the Americans will shed to prevent the inevitable.

          Within America what is likely though is worsening conditions for ordinary men. This would lead to them making the rational decision to contribute less and less, thus leading to a declining standard of living for all citizens, including women. (But one must also not underestimate the extent to which American men are pussy whipped and thus willing to tolerate from their women; and suffer as a consequence.) Couple this with worsening ethnic and social strife. None of this means the end of America though. Just more misery for ordinary men, that’s all!

        • Ybm,

          I have been thoroughly disillusioned by libertarianism. I unashamedly call myself a liberal now.

          So what if it leads to lessening women’s dependence on men?! I have never been for men’s responsibility (slavery) to women anyway.

        • Oh of course. I’m not one of the collapse/disaster porn types and I am in my way saying something cataclysmic is going to occur and the anglosphere is going to vanish into the sea. However I do say that the influence, standard of living, and relative upward mobility of men in the anglosphere is gone, and much like continental Europe, once upward mobility into the upper class is gone for men, as is occurring now, stagnation occurs.

          Without a shared history (I specifically mean Canada, NZ, AUS, and to a certain extend, the US) to unite vast peoples in a way, say, Russians as they did during the end of the USSR, separatist elements are almost guaranteed to erupt.

          The EU itself will not end in a fiery spectacle, the laws will simply fade away and the single currency fall out of favour. The EU was supposed to have free transit through borders, and it is still technically statute, but try going from England to Romania without being stopped a dozen times.

          I know the fears of Eurabia are very common in the anglosphere, and in England, Netherlands, and Sweden, the borders are still open. But the degree, and size of the assimilated immigrant population in Europe is a drop in the bucket compared to the unassimilated Mexican and African American populations in the US, and they have judicial precedent on their side as well.

          European countries have something the anglosphere does not: shared history dating back thousands of years. I think the fears of Eurabia are misplaced, I would be more concerned with hundreds of thousands of deportations and other human rights violations under fascist regimes before a Eurabia scenario.

          As European-ethnicity women’s birthrates continue the recovery they have seen since 2008 (which has been masked by the enormous drop among migrant women, in France migrant women now have a lower birthrate than ethnic-French), I expect to see quite a bit of ‘kick the bums out’ rhetoric as has already started in Greece, Spain, and Italy. In Italy, the Carabinieri has been silently rounding up migrants for the past 2 years for deportation, and we all know about the Golden Dawn in Greece.

        • “By the way, lurking underneath the Establishment consensus on foreign-policy activism is the most successful Jedi mind trick that the American right ever pulled. Since the mid-1960s, American conservatism has waged a relentless and successful campaign to convince U.S. voters that it is wasteful, foolish, and stupid to pay taxes to support domestic programs here at home, but it is our patriotic duty to pay taxes to support a military establishment that costs more than all other militaries put together and that is used not to defend American soil but to fight wars mostly on behalf of other people. In other words, Americans became convinced that it was wrong to spend tax revenues on things that would help their fellow citizens (like good schools, health care, roads, and bridges, high-speed rail, etc.), but it was perfectly OK to tax Americans (though of course not the richest Americans) and spend the money on foreign wars.”


        • I am sympathetic to the idea of spending on the military instead of domestically. That’s because domestic spending means giving money to women, and until recently military spending prevented giving money to women. Plus, less men die from military spending than giving money to women.

        • The Black Pill says: November 21, 2012 at 7:39 pm

          Most white American men agree with your sentiments.

          You say: “Plus, less men die from military spending than giving money to women.”

          Is that a joke?! So it is the women who make up the bulk of American war time casualties? Or is it that mass murder of a bunch worlders doesn’t exactly bother your conscience as long as some women are being devoid of funds?

          Most white Americans don’t want increased social spending because they fear it might help impoverished minorities. They are willing to sacrifice their self interest just so they can stick it to the unfortunate people they happen to despise. Men’s rights activists similarly would rather go without health care as long as women too get to suffer. How pathetic!

        • Nas, it’s not a joke. How many men have died because of feminist government social spending? I bet it’s considerably more than the American military has killed in recent wars. We don’t even have to include male babies murdered via abortion for this to be true. Men have starved to death because of feminist policies denying them jobs. Men have committed suicide because their kids were stolen from them (i.e. Thomas Ball). I could list a million ways feminism is murdering men via government policy. The MEN in the U.S. military work hard to avoid killing civilians so even though they are killing (male) soldiers and terrorists, they are killing less than the feminists are right now.

          We’re not sacrificing our self interest either. Government programs are designed to go to women. Here in the U.S. there is a government program called WIC. It’s stands for “women, infants, & children”. When the stimulus was being discussed for the first time a few years ago Democrats like Robert Reich, former labor secretary under Clinton, were openly saying that the stimulus had to be setup in such a way as to not benefit (white) men. In fact, the stimulus was supposed to be spent on infrastructure. However, that didn’t happen because NOW objected because infrastructure spending benefits men because the construction industry is almost all male. NOW had Obama redirect stimulus money to the black hole of women. That’s how blatantly anti-male government programs are. Even with government programs that supposedly benefit everyone men are always at the back of the line so we get nothing. I’m never going to get health care from the government, so why should women?

          As a man I have three options when it comes to government.

          1. A pure libertarian government that does the absolute minimum. In this case I get nothing, but my taxes are low. The government respects the freedom of men.

          2. The current system where I still get nothing, but have to pay taxes so the government can give that money to women. From the perspective of government services, I’m still living under a libertarian government except I don’t get the benefits of low taxes and freedom. The current government does not respect the freedom and rights of men, and it is creeping towards full blown anti-male totalitarianism.

          3. A more socialist system that has higher taxes and more anti-male totalitarianism than the current system. I still would not benefit from any government programs.

          Give that these are my only choices I pick the pure libertarian option. I am not a libertarian, but it’s the only political ideology that has a chance of guaranteeing men freedom.

      • America has a strange relationship with its government. I actually had to get a coworker to recommend readings for me to learn about it a bunch of years ago.

        She recommended this book:

        “The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves, and Beggared the Nation” by Thomas Frank

      • Sorry wrong link. The title of the post I had in mind reads: “Organic dissolution of traditionalism, and small govt. platitudes”

      • For some reason I can’t seem to link to the clip I had in mind. Please go to barbarossaaaa’s channel from the link I posted earlier and click on the video that reads: “Organic dissolution of traditionalism, and small govt. platitudes”

        • Nas, you don’t need me to convince me that conservatives and the Republican Party are misandrist. None of that changes the so fact that right now government programs are a weapon against men. Until feminism is defeated, for example, government controlled health care is a threat to my life. This is the practical reality about government programs until feminism is defeated.

    • Here in America almost 60% of college students are women, making feminist claims that some malignant force is keeping women out of technical fields especially laughable. What’s it like in England? I wouldn’t be surprised if a similar percentage of university students were women over there.

      • A-levels are almost 100% equal in the UK 8% top grades for boys, 7.9% top grades for girls.

        University admission is 2/3 women 1/3 men.

  3. Have to disagree here. This is as much the generals’ fault as those women’s. Not that feminist women pose no threat to our nation, of course, but if Petraeus could simply keep it in his pants he wouldn’t be in trouble right now.

    • I was viciously berated by the so-called ‘traditional manosphere men’ over at Dalrock’s for daring to say maybe Mrs.Petreaus was the victim and not the guy who stuck his dick in another woman.

      But what do I know, I’m just some weeping white knight mangina after all. Unless I’m making excuses for bad behaving men the way a cuckold does, I guess I’m too beta for da alfas on the blogs.

      • I think you’re absolutely right, the wives are victims in this mess. There seem to be some good people at Dalrock’s site; that might be a place that we could “invade” and try to convince about the absurdity of game.

        • There are a few. But the major commentators are straight from Roissy’s blog and a lot of white nationalists. A couple of guys like Eric have been banned from it for being too anti-game.

        • There has been so much good anti-game commentary the past few years that I’m pretty sure anyone who was capable of being converted has already left or got banned for no longer being true believers. I notice the only people left on those sites are the most hardcore of the hardcore. The “normals” have mostly gone for a variety of reasons.

        • Dalrock cracks me up. He goes into a long discussion about statistics with long hours of crunching numbers and making comparisons across different fields of information to make a heavily fact-based argument, then knocks it all over with a recommendation of game. I think we can save him! haha

      • He definitely shouldn’t have trusted this woman. If she hadn’t sent off angry emails to any other woman who looked at him (as if someone who cheats on her husband deserves fidelity) none of this would have come out.

    • What a fucking joke. It’s insane enough that they try and take credit for the MRM, MGTOW, and “truth”. That’s nothing compared to how they’re trying to blame the death of the manosphere on non-existent government (and employer) persecution. Even when the so called “manosphere” dies, it tries to pull one last scam.

      • I’m glad to read posts like the one linked to.

        it shows me that they have abandoned any affiliation to MRA and are now sinking back into the conspiracy theory ooze they spawned out of.

      • I’m no Minter fan since he’s a bit of a wingnut.

        But it’s hilarious seeing all the so-called ‘alphas’ over at Rossh’s blog waxing philosophically about getting married and ‘leave her better than you find her’ and calling him bitter etc.

        Those gamehucksters don’t even believe what they say. Strip away the veneer of the ‘alpha’ and they are wimps who really still are addicted to women.

        As Zed said, those guys are 1 blowjob away from being feminists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.