Dr Augusto Zimmerman, an academic lawyer, will be speaking on feminism at https://icmi.info/conference-information/conference-program on 11 June in Gold Coast, Australia.
The biggest men's issue of all in the Western world:
Gentile and non-Muslim beta male victims of feminism resent their ever-lowering status in relation to women, Jews, Muslims and immigrants.— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 15, 2017
The topic he he will be speaking is TBA at the moment of writing, but I have just sent him an email with a suggestion.
Sent: Wednesday, 17 May 2017, 13:06
Subject: Your talk on Sunday June 11 2017
Dear Dr Zimmerman
I understand you will be speaking on the subject of feminism at an event that another lawyer Ken Arenson who wrote http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/WAJurist/2014/8.html will also be speaking.
I myself will neither be speaking nor attending because I am considered persona no granta by the men's right's movements.
If I were allowed to attend and speak, I would be making the point that if the problem is feminism and therefore matriarchy, then patriarchy must be the solution.
If patriarchy is the solution and patriarchy to be re-established, then the rules of marriage must be reimposed.
The rules of marriage are the prohibition and punishment of extramarital sex as well as the abolition of no fault divorce.
Patriarchy runs on marriage the way cars run on petrol.
Everything about feminism undermines marriage, because the stated aims of feminism are to undermine patriarchy.
Feminism operates by bribing me with premarital sex to distract them from marriage, and also to make marriage repugnant, difficult and unrewarding to them.
Even in a patriarchy, marriage is the most expensive form of sex.
Once men become accustomed to free love and sexual liberation, their morals will be corrupted. Marriage is after all an onerous undertaking , but most men, being primarily motivated by sex, will do anything for sex, including marry.
Feminism takes away that incentive.
Slut shaming is therefore anathema to feminism and it will not be long before feminists propose to criminalise such proposals as hate speech.
Slut shaming would indeed cut the legs off feminism.
But how would we get the poor specimens of manhood that Mike Buchanan and Paul Elam represent to support marriage when they already know they and their ilk and pitifully unmarriageable?
They cannot and will not.
But what male with alpha male qualities would sacrifice his status and access to sex to help these pitiable specimens of manhood?
They would not.
And so this is how Western civilisation will accelerate in its decline and degeneracy.
The only reliable source of social conservatism in the West is the Koran, because Christianity is know kaput and no longer fit for the purposes of maintaining morality.
Verses 4:15, 4:16 and 24:2 of the Koran would treat extramarital sex as a sexual offence.
The fact that Muslims treat marriage as a contract will implicitly and explicitly imply fault in divorce since divorce is only permissible if a term of the marriage contract has been breached.
Islam is hateful to the West, however.
But Western Man, should he acknowledge the grievous errors of the Sex Revolution and feminism, could rise again by striving for a one party theocracy governed by the principles of Secular Koranism, which is a legal system and not a belief system.
I hope you will forward this to Ken Arenson and Greg Canning http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/content/doctor-greg-canning-quits-james-cook-university-teaching-pos.html if you have their email.
Men against feminism should tell women against feminism their views don't and won't matter because they can defeat the matriarchy without their support
What anti-feminist Erin Pizzey said about anti-feminist Claire Khaw. What will Iben Thranholm say?
There are only two kinds of morality because there are only two sexes
Why men will never get back their country again as long as democratic politicians keep chasing the female vote
Claire Khaw's Class and Gender Theory of Western Decline
Thomas Jefferson famously once said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. In the Western world these past few decades you would be hard pressed to describe the overriding attitude to freedom using the adjective vigilance.
David Hume once said: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. You lose it in all steps when well-meaning people reckon it is just not worth the effort to bother to defend something."
Cabinet ministers put their careers and chauffeur-driven cars and perhaps a core belief that they are so important that they can do more good by staying in cabinet and MPs more worried about the immigrant vote than with upholding the immigrant vote than upholding a core Western value.
Hume's point is that once a one piece of freedom is taken away, the next piece of freedom becomes easier still.
We came really close to that over Julia Gillard's proposed media laws.