Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - RookhKshatriya

1

In contrast with Poiuyt and John Dias, I think real golddiggers are worthy of scorn. They are worthy of scorn because they consciously use the chivalry of men and the family law that developed from that chivalry to enrich themselves.

Heather Mills apparently told a friend or two that she was going to go after Paul McCartney for his money. She fleeced him royally. She is a golddigger.

Anyone want to defend her or say she is not worthy of scorn? 'Cuz she's just a girl following her genetic instincts? Have at it.


Agreed. There are some very weak men on this site. Women view weak men only with contempt - that's why we have feminism.

:engel2:
2

Quote
No they don't. Young, attractive women are naturally attracted to thugs, gangsters and sociopaths as sexual partners. In their late twenties, shackled with unwanted children from those animals, they start looking for Mr Solvent to pick up the pieces of their ruined lives. They might want security from a MARRIAGE partner - but those nice, decent guys are seriously unwanted as SEXUAL partners. That's why we have all these turkey-necked, entitled old fuckers blaming all men for their own fucked-up, dysfunctional decisions.

Get going your own way, guys.






Quote
Oh please!  You are generalizing to the max.  Not all young women seek out thugs.  There is such a thing as a successful marriage, I am living proof of that.  The world is not as simple as you seem to try and paint it to be. 


thats very good dr e i am very happy for you--but it seems to me that succesful marriages nowadays are few and far between--there is a new phrase i read somewhere,where women now initially get married to "practice husbands" such as RookhKshatriya describes.


'Starter Marriages' is the official term. There is even a book about it, for Anglo-American brides-to-be.

:engel2:
3
Main / Re: Anglobitch: a Tale of Generations
Oct 17, 2009, 05:25 AM

Getting around the anglo-bitch, her femaleist sponsors and her institutional enablers. Call their bluff and put them out of business for ever.

Perhaps one of the ways for males of the masculine gender class to get around femaleists, their victim-parasite clients and the institutional state enforcers of gynocracy is through adoption and professional surrogacy.

Through the contract of adoption and professional surrogacy services, a man can have a stable family and also leave heirs and heiresses in posterity. He will also be able to remain in his own home, applying his own resources to his children as he sees fit.

Indeed a man using adoption and professional surrogacy services will never ever run the risk or gauntlet of todays misandrous greiviance mongers or misandrys states enforcers. These malign influences will simply be eliminated from the equation where no girlfriend, wife or ex-wife is allowed to enter the equation in the first place.

Contractual Surrogacy or Adoption is a viable alternative to a man whom wishes to live and die in peace. That is if he wishe to be surrounded by children of his own choosing and commitment plus a loving and involved extended family.

The mens movement must start to think of ways, beyond the marriage strike or homosexuality, to call feminists bluff and put their inordinately miserable clients and enforcers out of business.


A very profound set of observations. There is a blog dedicated to anti-feminist uses of technology which covers a lot of these issues, for example, the potential of Japanese Sex-Bots to replace women as sexual partners as well as the potential of cloning, genetics and virtual reality to build a new world for men without the hassle of feminist women. It is quite extreme but very cutting-edge and altogether interesting:

http://antifeministtech.blogspot.com/

:engel2:


4



I agree with poiuyt's analysis.

Women seek out men with status, wealth and protective qualities because these enable women to feel safe and secure enough to be nurturing to the man and, if applicable, their children.  In itself I believe there's nothing defective or unnatural about this desire by women to seek out safety and security in selecting a mate.  It CAN go into overdrive if fed by materialism and narcissism, but that is easily countered by a healthy dose of male discretion.

Too often, however, what women do is project their own way of thinking onto men.  Some women think that if they are successful and have money and status, somehow those qualities will be sexually attractive to men.  Which is more attractive to a man, a female Secretary of State or a feminine, soft-spoken and physically attractive waitress?  It's the waitress, of course.  An aging woman with a law degree thinks that she can compete with the waitress, but men evaluate women on a different basis than women evaluate men.

Even successful women can't help but choose men who are possess even more success, wealth and status than the women do; they try to "marry up" even though a woman's success was supposed to make a man's protection and provision irrelevant factors.  Biology still asserts itself; women instinctively seek out men who can provide and protect.


No they don't. Young, attractive women are naturally attracted to thugs, gangsters and sociopaths as sexual partners. In their late twenties, shackled with unwanted children from those animals, they start looking for Mr Solvent to pick up the pieces of their ruined lives. They might want security from a MARRIAGE partner - but those nice, decent guys are seriously unwanted as SEXUAL partners. That's why we have all these turkey-necked, entitled old fuckers blaming all men for their own fucked-up, dysfunctional decisions.

Get going your own way, guys.

:engel2:



Oh please!  You are generalizing to the max.  Not all young women seek out thugs.  There is such a thing as a successful marriage, I am living proof of that.  The world is not as simple as you seem to try and paint it to be. 


Maybe not. But then, it's not as simple as you paint it to be, either.

I must admit, you seem a bit of an anomaly in the American men's movement. Most of my American friends are single or divorced and very angry. If you are so happy, what do you want from the movement? Why are you involved with it?

:engel2:
5
Main / Re: Anglobitch: a Tale of Generations
Oct 17, 2009, 05:11 AM

Quote
It sounds harsh, but defeating feminists (and Anglo-Saxon women in general) is our primary concern.


Defeating Anglo-Saxon women in general?  What?  I was with you when you refer to feminism as being an enemy but women in general?  I would urge you to clarify this and explain to me how this is not pure misogyny or retract it.  Otherwise you will not be welcome to post here.


Obviously, I am not not referring to Anglo-Saxon women as humans/people. I was referring to those women who may or may not be identified as feminists, who still refer to those aspects of Anglo-Saxon culture (misandry, female privilege, repression, pedestal syndrome) that constitute virulent proto-feminism in the pan-Anglosphere cultures. For example, many black women (if not most) can thus be considered Anglo-Saxon women, by cultural adoption.

Get rid of Anglo-Saxon women? Are you mad? Who would clean my house or make my lunchtime corned-beef sandwich? Heh heh...

:engel2:
6

I agree with poiuyt's analysis.

Women seek out men with status, wealth and protective qualities because these enable women to feel safe and secure enough to be nurturing to the man and, if applicable, their children.  In itself I believe there's nothing defective or unnatural about this desire by women to seek out safety and security in selecting a mate.  It CAN go into overdrive if fed by materialism and narcissism, but that is easily countered by a healthy dose of male discretion.

Too often, however, what women do is project their own way of thinking onto men.  Some women think that if they are successful and have money and status, somehow those qualities will be sexually attractive to men.  Which is more attractive to a man, a female Secretary of State or a feminine, soft-spoken and physically attractive waitress?  It's the waitress, of course.  An aging woman with a law degree thinks that she can compete with the waitress, but men evaluate women on a different basis than women evaluate men.

Even successful women can't help but choose men who are possess even more success, wealth and status than the women do; they try to "marry up" even though a woman's success was supposed to make a man's protection and provision irrelevant factors.  Biology still asserts itself; women instinctively seek out men who can provide and protect.


No they don't. Young, attractive women are naturally attracted to thugs, gangsters and sociopaths as sexual partners. In their late twenties, shackled with unwanted children from those animals, they start looking for Mr Solvent to pick up the pieces of their ruined lives. They might want security from a MARRIAGE partner - but those nice, decent guys are seriously unwanted as SEXUAL partners. That's why we have all these turkey-necked, entitled old fuckers blaming all men for their own fucked-up, dysfunctional decisions.

Get going your own way, guys.

:engel2:
7

The social science of sociology contains the key to understanding the success of feminist strategists thus far. It is an amazingly versatile and adaptable discipline, containing vocabulary that covers just about anything to which it is applied. I have even heard the term 'clinical sociology', referring to the application of sociological concepts and methodology to the field of mental health. The word "cool" has a sociological definition!

The word Patriarchy also has a sociological definition(http://www.webref.org/sociology/p.htm), as do the terms gender role and consciousness-raising. Interestingly, misogyny has a sociological definition ... misandry does not! [ ... ]

Continued:  http://swisssubmarine.blogspot.com


Question. Why are there no conservative, right wing or patriarchal sociologists?
Answer. Because it is merely feminism dressed in the trappings of science.
8

I agree that change is coming slowly, but the only ones needing to change are not just hippies and feminists and alphas.  Our problems run much deeper and need the sort of grass roots education/change that we are starting to see.  Blaming any one group is short sighted and misses the main battlefield.


When the old elites are defeated and replaced, the lower people inevitably conform to the new elite agenda. As Confucius said, it is like the wind blowing over the grass. Trimming the tree down from its outermost branches involves far more work than lopping it at the root.

One public humiliation of feminism is worth a thousand focus groups.

:engel2:


:engel2:
9
In the matriarchy, ALL males are gammas, one way or another.

:angryfire:
10
Why approach unknown women? In fact, why approach known ones?

Leave them to go fuck themselves.

:toothy9:

11



The misandry we face is spouted by automatons of both sexes.  The devaluation of men and the masculine is enforced by both males and females.  Ideas that encourage men to die for their "country" are an example.  If any other group were expected to die there would be riots...but men are so devalued and seen as disposable that no one gives a crap.  If you have ever tried to lobby for anything that might be of service to men you will quickly find out that those blocking your path are not as much the women, it is much more often the men. My experience has been about 25% of the women legislators were anti-male and about 90% of the male legislators.  I have seen this repeatedly.  YMMV.  The fight we face is against both men and women who unconsciously and automatically maintain misandrous attitudes and behaviors whether it is domestic violence laws, circumcision, selective service, family courts etc etc.  


I have often found that many of these misandrist male assholes tend to be baby-boomers who came of age in the Sixties. The Sixties was a pile of elitist bilge masquerading as something radical and revolutionary. In reality, all those hippy turds in SF, LA and London were just bourgeois elitists patronizing 'the masses' and most of their values were covertly reactionary - indeed, close to the core of memes of Anglo-Saxon culture (women on pedestals, religious salvationism and exclusionary class elitism). Most ex-hippies are Anglofag misandrists and their pernicious influence continues to block our transformative agendas. Ex-hippies continue to be prominent in the media, a particularly troubling fact, as they can use this to promote the NAMWO (New Anglo Matriarchal World Order) at every turn.

The slimy bastards.


Our problem is that those who are brainwashed and unconsciously expecting men to serve women and be "disposable" are not just an elite, they are the majority.  Most men and women unconsciously are misandrous.  We are up against a huge wall since the politicians want to please the masses and the masses are brainwashed with misandry.  This is not the sort of problem that is caused by this or that group, this is a problem with the generic mode of thinking of a culture.



True, but that misandrist hegemony is sustained largely by institutions ruled in turn by small elites. If those misandrist messages were changed, it would have an immediate mass effect. In fact, even the impact of our own online movement has been quite considerable. Feminists can no longer pretend that only women suffer sexual harassment for instance, or that their movement is mainstream (it is now popularly known to be white and middle class). And that comes from a few books, blogs and websites. Imagine the effect of an openly anti-misandrist media - NAMWO would be overturned overnight. In a British city, some feminists campaigning against 'sexual abuse' reported many young males challenging their misandrist claims: that would never have happened, even 10 years ago. And female crimes are beginning to be more honestly reported in the MSM:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mother-charged-in-plymouth-abuse-inquiry-1801879.html

In short, the Sixties bunch still punch above their weight in terms of ideological influence. Kill that head and the liberal-misandrist body will perish, too. So what are we waiting for...?

:engel2:
12

The misandry we face is spouted by automatons of both sexes.  The devaluation of men and the masculine is enforced by both males and females.  Ideas that encourage men to die for their "country" are an example.  If any other group were expected to die there would be riots...but men are so devalued and seen as disposable that no one gives a crap.  If you have ever tried to lobby for anything that might be of service to men you will quickly find out that those blocking your path are not as much the women, it is much more often the men. My experience has been about 25% of the women legislators were anti-male and about 90% of the male legislators.  I have seen this repeatedly.  YMMV.  The fight we face is against both men and women who unconsciously and automatically maintain misandrous attitudes and behaviors whether it is domestic violence laws, circumcision, selective service, family courts etc etc.  


I have often found that many of these misandrist male assholes tend to be baby-boomers who came of age in the Sixties. The Sixties was a pile of elitist bilge masquerading as something radical and revolutionary. In reality, all those hippy turds in SF, LA and London were just bourgeois elitists patronizing 'the masses' and most of their values were covertly reactionary - indeed, close to the core of memes of Anglo-Saxon culture (women on pedestals, religious salvationism and exclusionary class elitism). Most ex-hippies are Anglofag misandrists and their pernicious influence continues to block our transformative agendas. Ex-hippies continue to be prominent in the media, a particularly troubling fact, as they can use this to promote the NAMWO (New Anglo Matriarchal World Order) at every turn.

The slimy bastards.
13


Holding either sex as responsible for our present mess is short sighted.  The rad fems have made a living off of blaming men for the problems we face.  When I see mra's blaming only women I will call it every time.  Women/feminists are not the sole nature of our problem.   It is much more complex and obviously a big part of our trouble has to do with chivalrous men.


Fully agreed with; for example, VAWA wasn't passed or reauthorized (a couple of times) by any women- or feminist-majority legislature.



OK, so who are these offending men, so they can they be hunted down and killed? And why did they pass VAWA? Probably pussy-whipped Anglofags. So we're back to culture/structure, again, maybe?

:engel2:
14

Holding either sex as responsible for our present mess is short sighted.  The rad fems have made a living off of blaming men for the problems we face.  When I see mra's blaming only women I will call it every time.  Women/feminists are not the sole nature of our problem.   It is much more complex and obviously a big part of our trouble has to do with chivalrous men. 


And Anglo-Saxon culture itself, of course. Many would say that chivalrous men are inevitably a prominent feature of any Anglo-Saxon country. IOW, our problems may be structural.

:engel2:
15

It's dangerous to judge a president until many years after he leaves office.  There are too many things that we simply don't know.  Bush may be an example of that, we just don't know at this point.


Sir

I am no expert on American politics, but surely you cannot entirely blame the President alone for a poor term of office.  He has so many different elites and lobbies to placate that his task must be well nigh impossible. The Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, the Jewish lobby and of course mangina liberals are all clamoring to influence national and international policy. Bluntly, I don't know why anyone would bother being President, he surely has little personal freedom to express a 'politics of conviction' like George Washington and the great Presidents of old. The modern world is just too pluralistic and complex for that.

:engel2: