As you can see, there are five on the panel.
The first one from left is the anodyne Robert Brockway. From the 42nd minute, he says:
Most of my life I have considered myself left-wing. When I was younger, I probably would have called myself a socialist. The reality is that I will not call myself left now because the left moved somewhere that I didn't recognise. So I suppose you could call me centrist now. The men's right movement is absolutely not a Conservative or right-wing organisation. We are about to form the Australian men's right movement. The objects of this organisation is the rejection of the enforcement of traditional gender roles.
Are they proposing to do any of the following?
- Abolish no fault divorce
- Abolish all totalitarian thoughtcrime anti-discrimination legislation including equal pay legislation?
Bottom line is women only put up with men because they think they will be better off if they stay.
Once they have an independent income they don't see why they should put with any boredom or irritation.
Which is why the economy should be deliberately rigged in favour of men to make most women stay after the glow of romance and love has gone.
Which is why you have to say you will repeal all anti-discrimination legislation on principle.
And this includes Equal Pay legislation.
If you dare not say this, you are obviously a beta male cuck afraid of attracting the attention and wrath of the feminazis and are obviously not man enough to withstand their attack which you anticipate.
Most women are basically amoral and unprincipled. They will side with the winner. Do you think these men could ever become alpha male winners? Of course not. When hell freezes over or when Muslims take over, maybe.
The third is Augusto Zimermann. He is guilty of being Italian-speaking but not that sexy even if he makes the right noises about free speech.
Fourth is Mike Buchanan who took the opportunity of saying he wanted to ban male circumcision as a symptom of unexpressed antisemitism and Islamophobia rather than propose the abolition of no fault divorce. He represents perfectly what feminists hate and fear about living in an environment of traditional marriage where most women are expected to marry. Imagine having such a lack of options that you feel you have to marry Mike Buchanan and bear his babies. This is precisely what makes feminists shudder with disgust and loathing and contemplate suicide, working in a brothel or remaining a spinster or, being one of the wives of an alpha male Muslim entitled to have four wives. If anyone's interested, I myself would opt for polygamy believing that a share of an alpha is better than having a whole beta male to oneself. I have said been saying for ages that even I would be a better leader for anti-feminism than a beta male cuck like Buchanan wittering on about banning male circumcision to complete his vulnerabilities ie of being Islamophobic and antisemitic as well as being sexist.
Over the years, this turd-brain refuses to engage with me at all probably because he thinks I am Muslim. He is therefore a coward, hypocrite as well as an Islamophobe and an antisemite.
Being a hypocrite, he tells keyboard warriors to engage with the real world while refusing to engage with me because he doesn't want to discuss abolishing no fault divorce, hardly an extremist proposal, if you wanted to make marriage a better bargain for men.
Finally, there is Bettina Arndt. She made money when she was endorsing sexual liberation that led to Western degeneracy and now she is making sympathetic noises about men who as a result of sexual liberation became the beta male victims of feminism. She is still the best speaker though.
Brockway and Buchanan then claim men's rights issues are not "right-wing" at all. I would contend that they are because when you get down to the nitty gritty, the problem is matriarchy. If the problem is matriarchy, then the solution must be patriarchy. If the solution is patriarchy, then marriage must be practised to turn your society into a patriarchy again after you have overthrown the stinking degenerate matriarchy that has turned men into women of the worst kind (ie stupid and promiscuous) women into men of the worst kind (ie stupid and violent).
Here is the problem:
Feminism causes matriarchy.
Matriarchy is a society in which most of the sex that takes places is extramarital sex.
We know this because most babies born in the West are illegitimate and sluts are worshiped by men and given a status above men.
You must have noticed that Western government governs by prioritising the female preference and marginalising and demonising the male preference.
Marriage is indispensable to patriarchy, but patriarchy cannot exist if most members of society are not practising marriage and having illegitimate children.
Feminism has undermined marriage. Feminists always had the declared intention of undermining the patriarchy anyway.
Feminism works by bribing and distracting men with premarital sex until they are now so hooked on the idea of getting sex outside marriage that any suggestion of returning to patriarchy through the practice of traditional marriage and slut-shaming will induce catatonic shock or a shit fit.
So now we know what we have lost by the progressive desecration of the institution of marriage and the regressive practice of spreading sexual liberation. Remember, senior female MPs of the Labour Party were keen to explore and extend the boundaries of sexual liberation. We must never forget that sluts and socialism march hand in hand and that both sluts and socialists have a tendency to want a nanny state to look after them and be generous with taxpayers' money. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562518/The-truth-Labour-apologists-paedophilia-Police-probe-child-sex-group-linked-party-officials-wake-Savile.html
Recognising the situation as hopeless and the political system as incapable of preventing the feminazis from taking over every aspect of national life, Muslim radicals like Anjem Choudary have proposed an Islamic State governed by a Caliph, presumably after an Iranian-style revolution.
But surely this cannot be more unrealistic than nursing the forlorn hope that these tossers and losers who represent anti-feminism will one day turn into alpha male leaders and overthrow the matriarchy?
These men are such sad sacks and charisma-free zones that they provoke in men and women the instinctive and visceral emotions of contempt and disgust, making us feel that they do not deserve to have legitimate children because they are so obviously unmarriageable and are therefore no good to man nor beast. You also feel that the only people who would care about men like these are their mothers, who should be ashamed of themselves for producing such unmarriageable sons in the first place.
For anti-feminism to succeed in overthrowing the stinking degenerate matriarchy, there must be an alpha male leader. Clearly, senior men with status and anything to lose don't want to be associated with these pariah beta male victims of feminism and won't come riding to their rescue. The cancer of feminism has already spread all the way to the top. The West now has brain cancer and motor neurone disease, to draw a morbid analogy.
In Rome there were two paths to power, but only aristocrats became senators. The two paths to power were through being Optimates or Populares.
Why didn't the plebs represent themselves, you ask? Imagine the Untouchables of India representing themselves and complaining about being badly treated by the castes above them. Do you think think the higher Hindu castes would give a damn? Of course not. They would think it is just sick people complaining about being ill.
Even plebs despise plebs and cannot help being impressed by a potential leader to the manner born.
I would be happy to be caretaker leader until I have persuaded a suitable man with obvious leadership qualities to take over, but I know these beta male victims of feminism and their female minders shun men and dismiss me as an extremist because I have proposed a solution they dare not even admit to themselves must be the solution.
Even white nationalists who are have come out as anti-feminist and who recognise the need for moral values dare not admit the need for a religion that is capable of maintaining the morality of the nation. If they admit that Christianity is kaput, they do not quite dare discuss what should replace it, except this courageous and clever young man.
This means the problem of feminism will continue to get worse because they will not be discussed properly in MSM, let alone be addressed by the government. I am quite happy to be attacked by MSM but it seems MSM are reluctant even to attack me. Without an official role in any anti-feminist organisation, I am of course unable to claim the attention of MSM.
These anti-feminists are too afraid of controversy to even engage with me, because they are afraid of controversy, when it is of course controversy they should be wanting to attract on the basis that all publicity is good publicity.
The Liberty Belles, a female anti-feminist group, have decided they will not even formally challenge my ideas.
Why are they afraid of attracting controversy? Because they are being run by mediocre women. Yes, you heard right: even groups of men complaining about being the victims of feminism are being run by women! Not only are they proud of this, they refuse to contemplate doing it for themselves because once they do that, they will no longer be able to hide under the skirts of these women. They want women organising them and displaying themselves in their groups and even making money feeding off their suffering because they know that their conferences are slightly more fun with women around. I know it would have been unbearably depressing as a man attending a group like that if there were no women at all, only a bunch of beta males who are charisma-free zones, but it would have been perfect for the hardcore activist with leadership ambitions to seize power and become leader if there had been no women there. As it was, the presence of these women distracted them from getting down to business. But the awful truth of it is that they actually want to be distracted and the presence of women at their pathetic meetings raises their status.
These men would rather complain and campaign ineffectively than find themselves a real leader to lead them because they are basically afraid of being in a Lord of the Flies situation. These beta males victims of feminism who have had their stuffing knocked out of them already know they don't have the stomach for it.
Compare these beta male victims of feminism who cannot bear to even discuss the real cause of their oppression - the desecration of the institution of marriage since the welfare state was established - with Muslim terrorists and radicals prepared to give up their liberty and lives because they feel it is their religious duty to forbid evil and enjoin good, and you must be able to deduce who will be the eventual winner.
These losers are doing the equivalent of staging a theatrical performance without any rehearsals, let alone a dress rehearsal. Indeed, they are trying to do stage a theatrical performance without having learned their lines, without even the play having been written, without even a plot or characters. How pathetic. But they don't care and don't care to get what it is I am trying to say.
Men who are too afraid to speak for themselves and trust women to do so on their behalves deserve all they get.
But I am a woman too, people who know me will point out. Yes, I am a woman with alpha male qualities and prepared to take the initiative, like a man. The moment a suitable alpha male leader wants to take over from me, I shall gladly step aside. In the meantime, these beta male victims of feminism need to be shown how it is done.
What are the signs of being a suitable alpha male? A man with leadership qualities who also has a supportive wife. How likely are you going to find that in this day and age? At least I don't have a wife I am afraid of offending who will divorce me under the rules of no fault divorce and take half my stuff.
What do I want to happen next?
I know MSM won't want to give me the oxygen of publicity, and I know I cannot expect the pretty pretty female alt-right YouTubers who gabble and talk so fast to interview me, because I am competition even as they know they are easily sexier and younger than me.
I have been on Stefan Molyneux twice http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/discussing-feminism-with-stefan-molyneux.html and http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/should-law-conform-to-morality-and-if.html, but he does not appear to be interested in discussing the merits of a one party theocracy with me even if this gives him the opportunity of shooting down my ideas.
As for other nationalists who already now dare to challenge feminism, they are not quite there yet about being ready to discuss what it is actually necessary to defeat it.
The great white hope in academia is Jordan Peterson, but he is stilling calling feminism postmodernism. The average person has not heard of it and if he has won't know what the hell it is, so he won't think it is a problem. Time to call a spade a spade, a slut a slut and postmodernism feminism if we are going to advance the debate to the next stage.
We have discovered what the problem is: feminism and matriarchy.
If the problem is matriarchy, the solution must be patriarchy.