THE VOICE OF REASON
Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Patriarchy cannot exist without marriage, and the practice of marriage will not be respected from generation to generation without a theocracy ie a society governed by God's laws.
You don't have to believe in God to understand this, since it is quite easy to understand that all five world religions use the Gold Standard of Marriage as a measure of sexual morality and all secular political ideologies deviate from this.
The West is now a matriarchy and feminists have already equated patriarchy with domestic violence. They now control the terms of the debate and men are now too frightened to challenge this. Men in senior political politicians know that any woman can accuse them of a historic sexual offence to destroy their lives, credibility and career. They can do this without the corroborating testimony required by Deuteronomy 19:15.
In case this gets maliciously reported and then deleted for breaching YouTube Community Rules, the transcript of what Joseph Cotto said is below:
M Joseph Sheppard:
We have a problem supposedly with Karen. What women are saying to the pollsters does not necessarily reflect what they're going to do in the voting booth. I think we saw that at to a degree in 2016. How much of it is real and what can be done? The time is getting short to address it uh for the Republican Party, if it's real.
Joseph Cotto:
I think that there is obviously a female problem. A lot of women are radicalised against tradition, against anything they believe is male dominated. They despise men, period. They are told throughout their years in education that men are to blame for your problems. They're told through various theories that are taught in various so-called disciplines and also the media pumps these ideas into their heads so that reinforces what they're learning at school. This would not hold on if these women had a generally positive view of men from the outset. You have so many broken families nowadays. You have so many girls who grew up in divorced households where they're almost always raised by the mother and the mother tells them just how awful men are because of the divorce. Most households today are broken. You have to take this into consideration. I think that sets these girls up to become women that are SJW woke fanatics. I don't think you find very many of these people who come from uh traditional two-parent households unless there are some hardcore leftists who just raised them to think this way. Given the statistics on divorce, I think that really does set girls up to become women that are politically out there to say the absolute least. A lot of these women the GOP will never be able to reach because they have an identity now: hating tradition and hating the so-called patriarchy, hating men. It's in their interests to support the Republicans against the Democrats, from freedom of speech to not letting large-scale immigration that would hurt them economically.
M Joseph Sheppard:
Safety and security is another aspect. Women in New York are fleeing the Upper West Side because of violence and downtown Chicago. It's never less than 96% of black women who vote for the Democrats whereas black men will waver a bit maybe because of economics. Governor DeSantis won his election on school choice basically because of black women swinging to him. Women are my concern at the moment. It's not unheard of that sometimes what women say and what they do in the privacy of the polling booth may be different to what they say amongst their peers.
When your feminist matriarchy has normalised fornication, there is no urgency for men to marry women of their own race.
When you have no fault divorce, it is not safe for men to marry.
When you refuse to marry the women of your own race because you can get sex before marriage, men and women stay single and women with thwarted maternal instincts treat foreign men and foreign children as their babies, or they become man-hating cat ladies who vote for pro-immigration parties to spite their men for not marrying them. Or they are unmarried mothers left to rely on the welfare state which needs to be funded by the taxes immigrant workers pay the state.
When did you last hear any anti-immigration party talk about restoring the patriarchy or protecting the institution of marriage?
In fact, they point black refuse to talk about it because they are all morally compromised: Anne Marie Waters of For Britain is a lesbian spinster and Mark Collett of the Patriotic Alternative is an unmarried father.
If women are a resource, then marriage is the fairest way of apportioning this resource. If women are a resource, what does that make men? If women are looked on by men as a resource, then it is up to men to husband this resource. If men are not up to being husbands, then they will have no descendants worthy of their name and will drop out of the picture anyway when they die without issue.
Should women mind being looked upon as a resource?
Would women really rather be men in that case? Women being women, many of them would not possess the characteristics that would make them marriageable men.
"If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, in 131 B.C. Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become. "Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure."
The Romans had no fault divorce. In fact, one spouse could divorce the other without even having to inform the other of it.
Obviously, the solution was to abolish no fault divorce, but they were probably too hooked on being able to enjoy extramarital sex to bother with reforming the law as regards marriage.
It had to be left to Islam to make marriage a contract and divorce a breach of that marriage contract.
The fall of Rome has many reasons attributed to it. Constantine thought he could save Rome by converting to Christianity. I like to think he would have converted to Islam if he had had that option, but when Rome fell, Muhammad was not yet born.
Because avoiding sexual immorality should not be optional and should have the law's support
Because a law is more likely to be obeyed if it punishes forbidden behaviour
Because a law is more likely to be obeyed if the forbidden behaviour is generally agreed to be immoral
Because a law is more likely to be obeyed if it is all of the above and believed to be from the most powerful entity conceivable whose wisdom affirms an obvious universal and eternal truth from generation to generation
Because it would dispense with the need to relearn the lessons of history and biology, of nature and nurture over and over again
Sorry about it ending rather abruptly when I was talking about white genocide, but I am sure you get the gist of it. I don't know why that keeps happening.
The bit you missed was me complaining that he says he is too busy to discuss Heidegger and authenticity with me.
The approach to marriage in Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Kuwait, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine Gaza Strip, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, UAE and Yemen is that you must be married to each other in order to have legal sex.
This means they entirely reject and have no use for the concept of an age of consent. You only need an age of consent when you in practice condone premarital sex.
My truth is like a hot knife cutting through the rancid butter of liberal and feminist lies. They are so frightened of these truths that all they can do is pretend not to hear what I say or deliberately misunderstand what I say so they can dismiss me as a Nazi, Fascist, racist, an antisemite and an Islamophobe.
In fact, I have something for everyone: Jews and antisemites, Muslims and Islamophobes, the rich and the poor, the young and the old, but most important of all marriageable men and women of all races and religions in the West who want to become the parents of legitimate children and parent them properly because they want to rear their offspring in optimum conditions. Such people should be privileged over and above those who have no intention or prospect of becoming the married parents of legitimate children or parenting them properly.
Whatever your race, finding someone who will have children with you and stay with you to parent them properly is the only way to continue your race and religion, whatever your race and religion.
Marriage is a human tradition and is what distinguishes humanity from non-human animals.
Don't let the feminists and degenerate sexually liberated liberals trash this institution, or it will be the end of your society, nation and civilisation.
Should saying this be controversial?
All five world religions support marriage for the advancement of civilisation. If you don't believe me, ask yourself if Jews would still be around to get their homeland back after being exiled for 2000 years. Would Jews even be around today if they were all sexually liberated and gaily married since their expulsion by the Romans?
There is nothing liberal about Judaism. Without Judaism there would have been no Christianity or Islam.
Currently, only Muslims stand for traditional values in any significant number.
If God exists, do you think He might send Muslims to punish Christians for 2000 years of idolatry?
If Muslims suffer, could it be because they have distorted their religion by allowing what God has forbidden and forbidding what God has allowed?
If there are now more atheists than there are people who claim to believe that an executed revolutionary is the co-equal of the Abrahamic God, the reason is simple: the doctrine of the Trinity is fundamentally absurd and unbelievable. If you believe it, you are perhaps too credulous. If you only pretend to believe it, you are corrupt. Once the Westerner was allowed to deny the Trinity without suffering any consequences, the Westerner began throwing out the baby of Biblical morality with the bathwater of the Trinity. That is why Christianity is kaput. Fortunately, Islam is waiting in the wings.
If Judaism is divine ethno nationalism, then Islam must be divine civic nationalism.
If Islam is "Judaism Lite", then Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite".
Sexual immorality leads to moral corruption, moral corruption leads to intellectual corruption and intellectual corruption means eventually being unable to use truth, logic and morality to solve political problems.
The gold standard of sexual morality is marriage.
Without marriage there can be no patriarchy.
Without patriarchy not enough good strong men will be produced to defend the national interest.
The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents
The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents
What is the illegitimacy rate of your Western nation?
If your nation regards fornication and bastardy as normal, you are a matriarchy.
Other signs that you live in a matriarchy is an ageing and shrinking population incapable of facing its past or admitting its mistakes with ever lowering standards of education and behaviour where sexual liberation from the rules of marriage has become the opium of the people.
Such people go against their traditions, break their own rules while no senior male politician dares to defend the national interest because he is in fear of being accused of a historic sexual offence knowing that he will not be defended by other senior male politicians who in turn also fear being accused of a historic sexual offence.
The rule against no criminal court entertaining any accusation made solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a possibly lying witness that used to be a cornerstone of English liberty has been long forgotten.
After half a century of feminism, the British have all but forgotten their Judeo-Christian heritage. Probably, no sitting member of the legislature or judiciary is even aware of the prohibition in Deuteronomy 19:15 of convicting anyone accused of a crime on the sole uncorroborated testimony of one possibly lying witness. If they are aware of this prohibition, they will be too afraid of pointing this out, because they are also in fear of being accused of a historic sexual offence by a possibly lying witness which the police are now required to take seriously.
The matriarchy and its lady judge Lady Hale have uninvented marriage but the men are incapable of even thinking of restoring the patriarchy. They are indifferent, silent and cowed. To them marriage is a sacrifice they no longer wish to make because they know they are unmarriageable. These degenerates no longer even have the masculinity to propose that marriage be made a better deal for men who want to become fathers of legitimate children whom they wish to properly parent.
What could be easier to do and say than to propose the abolition of no fault divorce which penalises the wealthier partner when he has done no wrong?
But these emasculated unmarriageable men instead prefer to waste their energy and time campaigning to ban male circumcision because they already know they are unmarriageable. Their game is to somehow benefit from the fact that most atheist antisemitic Islamophobic and sexually liberated gentiles resent Jews and Muslims and want to make them feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. The fact that freedom of belief is a Western liberal tradition means nothing to them. You cannot expect the degenerate to grasp and apply a principle much less adhere to it, after all.
They are to a man shameless atheists, nihilists, cowards and cattle whose main purpose is to enjoy as much sexual and sensual pleasure as they can before they pop their clogs.
Their other main purpose is to go to their grave with the belief that they, their ancestors, their government and their Christianity and liberal democracy were absolutely and perfectly wise and right about everything, until the Jews and Muslims came and ruined everything.
It is a sign of irrationality and lunacy to harbour two contradictory and mutually exclusive ideas in your mind while claiming to have won the argument and then closing your eyes and ears.
Such men and their civilisation can have no future. Nationalists who think in these terms are by definition nihilists. The people they hate and fear - Jews and Muslims in particular - however, are not.
Which is worse? To know you are definitely lost or to not even know you are lost?
Jews are religiously obliged to promote the Noahide laws which forbids idolatry. The Koran tells Muslims to admonish those who say that God has begotten a son. 18:4
Christians are made aware that they are supposed to forbid idolatry. For some reason, they cannot quite see that praying to the idols of Mary and Jesus, or imagining that they are talking to Mary and Jesus when they should be praying to an ineffable God is obviously idolatry.
Let us suppose that Jews and Muslims have at some point in the past tried to point out to Christians that they were practising idolatry and gave up for some reason when Christians resorted to violence and intimidation.
The fact that Christians have for 2000 years practised something that they must know to be idolatrous neatly explains why Christianity and hypocrisy so often walk hand in hand. That the West is now Post-Christian and its clergy mired in scandals of sexual misconduct is conclusive evidence that Christianity has failed and is unlikely to regain its moral authority within our lifetimes, if ever.
If you believe that an executed revolutionary can be the co-equal of the Abrahamic God you must be either as credulous as a child or have suspended your disbelief beyond the exercise of reason. If you only pretend that you believe this in order to avoid ostracisation, violence and persecution or perhaps to keep your job as priest, bishop, archbishop or Pope, you must be morally corrupt.
Is it not obvious to everyone except feminists and liberals that all societies that wish to remain in good health require the majority of its people to be parents and for the overwhelming majority of these parents to be married parents?
2:00 The difference between Christian reasoning and Jewish and Muslim reasoning
2:45 Christian values
3:00 Christian values that Baruch finds abhorrent
3:45 Christianity is about saying you believe things which you may not necessarily believe in to be one of the gang, Judaism and Islam is about actually doing things in a rule-based way.
4:30 "The more disturbing aspects of fundamentalist Christianity" - the threat of hell
8:00 The universal love of Christianity
9:00 Islam is also claims this
9:15 Ditto Judaism
10:00 Eastern religions are not monotheist at all.
11:00 If you don't believe in the Trinity, you are not Christian
12:00 Justice and Love
14:00 Compassion for the criminal
14:30 The mumsy view of Christianity: forgive everything, tolerate everything
16:00 The idolatry and blasphemy of the Trinity
17:00 Jews are understandably shy of pointing out to Christians the idolatry of Christianity bearing in mind their tradition of persecuting of Jews
17:30 The chaos of Christianity according to Baruch
18:30 Jews and Muslims pray to the ineffable Abrahamic God, while Christians pray to an executed revolutionary or his mum
19:30 God is rather more than the mumsy comforting woman who is your mate's mum that you might bump into at the supermarket
20:00 Shavuot - the cosmic marriage between God and Jews https://www.huffingtonpost.com/levi-benshmuel/shavuot-love-lessons-from_b_872203.html
The Bible also says this about God: “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6%3A6&version=NIV
23:00 Secular Koranism is just a boring little idea to prop up the patriarchy and deprive you of extramarital sex to continue the existence of your tribe, society, nation and civilisation
26:00 Marriage is a eugenic game of musical chairs being played from generation to generation
27:00 Conservatism
28:00 Gay marriage
29:00 Flexible monogamy is a lower standard than traditional marriage
30:00 John Major's Back to Basics campaign
30:30 The meaninglessness of unprincipled mainstream of Conservatism which brought in gay marriage under a Conservative Prime Minister
32:00 But for Judaism, Jews would not exist.
33:00 Marriage is an institution for all advanced civilisations, not just for the Abrahamic faiths
34:00 The nihilism of atheism and childlessness
35:00 If Baruch had children, he would want to pass on Judaism to his offspring
37:00 The benefit of having a cultural identity imposed on you even if you reject it at the time or subsequently reject it
39:00 Tradition is what we do to please our fathers.
40:00 White nationalists don't even have a cultural identity to reject and now have to go about creating an identity that they can accept and they cannot agree on this. Most are antisemites, many are not even Christian, and those who want to regress into paganism will not have the support of the majority. White nationalism is dead in the water if white nationalists refuse to acknowledge the need to restore the patriarchy and continue to reject the utility of organised religion.
42:00 Spiritual self-transcendence
45:00 Football matches
46:00 Football chants and war cries https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxL24XYFV7w
"By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy-two percent of juvenile murderers and 60 percent of rapists come from single-mother homes. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced. A 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that after controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared."
2) Men who want to be considered marriageable so they can one day have legitimate children to properly parent
3) Unmarriageable men prepared to say that promoting marriage is in the national interest because it is a child protection scheme for rearing the next generation in optimum conditions to prevent national degeneracy
POTENTIAL OPPONENTS OF PATRIARCHY
4) Feminists wishing to destroy the patriarchy who know that feminism bribes men with fornication which distracts them from marriage and becoming fathers of legitimate children and their running dogs AKA men who pander to these women in order to fornicate with them AKA Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers (MCSFs)
5) Unmarried parents not prepared to admit the error of their ways
6) Those have no intention or prospect of getting married or becoming parents of legitimate offspring because they are LGBT or in some other way unmarriageable not prepared to pay lip service to marriage AKA unmarriageable childless men and women
Which category are you?
TO RESTORE THE PATRIARCHY YOU MUST BE PREPARED TO
a) criminalise extramarital sex
b) abolish no fault divorce
c) repeal anti-discrimination legislation eg the Equality Act 2010
The dysgenic feminist State won't go away quietly and will only go when it is overthrown by men, not by women whose legs you like to film and slavishly agree with who need to go on courses. If Elizabeth Hobson were a man, would she get any kind of a job as Director of Communications? The fact that she is "resident anti-feminist on Radio Kent" says how harmless she is. Unmarried mothers are hardly going to call for the patriarchy to be restored and the only way to do that now in our "advanced" matriarchy is with Quran.com/24/2 Elizabeth won't be agreeing to be interviewed by me, will she?
It is interesting that when Elizabeth couldn't be interviewed by Piers Morgan and Mike Buchanan said he was prepared to stand in for her, he was refused. A dysgenic feminist state prefers the young to the old, the female to the male, the inarticulate to the articulate, the irrelevant to the relevant, all because she has good legs. Anti-feminism won't be taken seriously until and unless alpha male leaders take charge and stop hiding behind women. Mike Buchanan was born beta and will always be perceived as beta by women and men.
INSTEAD OF CALLING FOR THE ABOLITION OF NO FAULT DIVORCE, THESE ANTI-FEMINISTS WANT TO BAN MALE CIRCUMCISION AS A DOG WHISTLE TO ANTI-IMMIGRATION AND UNEMPLOYABLE ISLAMOPHOBIC AND ANTISEMITIC BETA MALES OUR DYSGENIC FEMINIST STATE HAS CREATED AND MARGINALISED
So what are the solutions she advocates? Banning male circumcision in an egregious display of antisemitism and Islamophobia? Does she even call for the restoration of the patriarchy?
Many people see these protestations are just a cover. That matriarchal Iceland is seeking to ban circumcision is a clear implicit display of hostility towards Jews and Muslims. Deny it all you like, but you will never be able to disprove that impression.
The term for circumcision in Hebrew – brit mila – “a covenant by circumcision”– emphasises that it is this covenant which created the Jews a nation, by Abraham’s acceptance of circumcision on behalf of his yet-unborn descendants. Even non-observant Jews who do not take the biblical story seriously, accept that for Jews, for at least two millennia, circumcision was the one indispensable commandment that makes one a Jew – not living in the Jewish homeland, obeying other commandments, or anything else.
To ban circumcision, to ban joining the covenant, the rabbinical court and many Jews fear, would be (however unintentionally) to ban Jewish national identity itself.
Iceland male circumcision ban: MP behind plan 'didn’t think it was necessary to consult' Jewish and Muslim groups, amid growing anger 'I don’t see it as a religious matter,' insists Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir, a female MP. The matriarchy of Iceland understandably feel threatened by the patriarchal moral values Judaism and Islam represent.
By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy-two percent of juvenile murderers and 60 percent of rapists come from single-mother homes. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced. A 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that after controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.
It is so obvious that gentile non-Muslims cannot compete against Jews and Muslim immigrants in their own homelands. This pointless show of implicit antisemitism and Islamophobia will get you nowhere. In fact, it is just a waste of time and energy and is indeed a form of displacement activity. If you are against feminism, restore the patriarchy. Since Elizabeth Hobson is herself an unmarried mother, it would be like expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas.
SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY FEMINISM
Has Elizabeth Hobson articulated any solutions to the problems caused by feminism? I hope someone will attempt to answer this question if she and Mike Buchanan do not.
GENUINE LEADERSHIP AND MORAL AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED FOR RESTORING THE PATRIARCHY
You will never be able to successfully challenge feminism without restoring the patriarchy. How sad that the men who wish to challenge feminism are no longer even capable of conceiving of the idea of restoring the patriarchy.
The only way to restore the patriarchy is of course to reconsecrate marriage.
Marriage cannot be reconsecrated by a Directrix of Communications who is herself an unashamed unmarried mother who cannot see the point of marriage, can it?
Or by a leader who refuses to talk about supporting marriage - the indispensable ingredient of patriarchy.
The reason why you dare not talk about restoring the patriarchy is because you already know that men who already have been the victims of feminism - including Mike Buchanan himself - are in fact unmarriageable. The more you continue to hide behind women who do not respect marriage, the more morally compromised you become and the less moral authority you will have.
Leadership is everything about moral authority, but the concept seems to be entirely lost amongst male political activists.
Marriage is the only way of regulating the sexual urges of women so that they do not destroy whatever civilisation men and their ancestors have built. The worst of these women will be immoral, in denial and indifferent to the interests of men they do not want to have sex with as well as callously indifferent to their illegitimate children whom they casually conceived.
Being creatures with a defective sense of courage and justice, few women will agree with me about the restoration of the patriarchy. The advantage of their defective courage for those who would challenge them is that, faced with overwhelming odds, they will capitulate quickly.
For the Restoration to take place, men must decide that a leader is required and promise him the loyalty he needs to get things done. I have in mind Captains of industry who are already part of the Deep State examining their consciences, who are perhaps tired of being constantly henpecked, but also afraid of a divorce settlement that will be extracted from them under the rules of no fault divorce.
The Captains of Industry must have sons and daughters too that they do not want to be turned gay or transgender or have their heterosexual children present them with bastard grandchildren. However, if they do not care about this, and all will be lost, I suppose.
It is a mistake for the wealthy to think they will be protected in a failing state. This is probably because these days even educated Westerners have no idea of their own traditions and do not know about the proscriptions of the late Roman Republic.
Even if you leave the country as refugees, you will be treated like shit as the people men who allowed their women to run their country and were too afraid to take back control form them because you were afraid of being falsely and maliciously accused of a historic sexual offence.
What is the sex of your Prime Minister?
What is the sex of your Home Secretary?
What is the sex of your Director of Public Prosecutions?
What is the sex of your Chief Commissioner of Police?
Was not the wedding of Harry the Bastard to that woman with her dreadful family an event widely associated with feminist and black triumphalism over the British monarchy?
And the feminazis want even more feminism?
'If Meghan can normalise feminism, and send a message that this is what we expect of people in positions of power, that will be very helpful,' says author @afuahirsch#VictoriaLIVEpic.twitter.com/FrInxAVxXe
— Victoria Derbyshire (@VictoriaLIVE) May 21, 2018
The story of Abraham of bargaining with God about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind.
He knows he is speaking with the Almighty who is about to show his wrath and while he may not wish the city to be destroyed, he seems afraid to show sympathy for the city as a whole. So instead of mercy for the city—which he might just as easily have asked for—he says let justice be done, but that it wouldn't be just to destroy righteous men along with wicked ones (Genesis 18:23-25).
But Abraham's courage has been holding out. He's asked God to save the city for the sake of fifty, forty-five, forty, thirty, twenty, and ten people—standing up to God six times. Would he have been able to ask for more, perhaps even bring up the idea of redeeming the city, if he had asked a seventh[!] time? After the third plea, Abraham had been asking for ten less each time; the next in the series would be '0'.
Did, perhaps, his courage fail him? Or, according to the explanation I usually hear, did Abraham decide that surely there were ten righteous there, and that he didn't need to ask for more? We can only speculate. But it may not have been up to Abraham at all. It seems that as soon as God answers that he will not destroy the city for ten people, God leaves (Gen 18:32-33):
Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.” When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.
Would God have destroyed Sodom if only one righteous person was found?
God did find one righteous person in Sodom and showed mercy on him, but not the whole city—instead of destroying Lot with the others, he allowed Lot and his family an opportunity to escape the city's destruction
Let the overthrow of the matriarchy and its replacement by the patriarchy be swift and smooth. We must however be prepared to face some inconvenience and expense.
If not even ten good men can be found in the entire West, then we know what will happen and what we in fact deserve.
Pass this message upwards to the most high status male you know and ask him to do the same until a leader is finally found, in the hope that it will get to the people who matter and the movers and shakers, before it is too late.
And do not behave like bitching back-stabbing women to undermine his authority or he will fail and you also suffer defeat. Impose a Code of Honourable Comradely Behaviour and stick to it.
Do not bother with the women who will come round soon enough, but only if you win this ideological battle, if the Restoration takes place, when you control the resources again. Otherwise, be prepared to continue to watch your women give it away for free to those who will only feel contempt for you as they trash and destroy your institutions your male ancestors created.
After a catastrophic war, polygamy - but only up to four wives - should be encouraged to replenish the population without resorting to immigration. Too bad the British never thought of this. If they had been more Muslim, they wouldn't be whingeing and moaning about Muslims now.
O ye who believe! Truly, among your wives and your children are (some that are) enemies to yourselves: so beware of them! But if ye forgive and overlook, and cover up (their faults), verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.https://t.co/y8xWBI1Fwp
Great summary of how casual sex is killing our society. It's a prisoner's dilemma that's being played out to the worst possible conclusion, with neither participant acting toward a mutual goal.
I shared this with you to demonstrate the feminisation of men.
It is a psychological study and it seems a very feminine response because the beta male anti-feminist repeatedly questioned my intentions and kept referring to his emotions. While it is true I was goading him, the hate that he kept accusing me of feeling was a projection of his hatred of me for having goaded him.
In the end, he accused me of being a feminist. I think he meant to say I was behaving like a bullying a feminist.
In my view, a masculine response would be more based on whether it would work and whether it is the right thing to do, not whether the females of his society deserved to be saved from themselves or were entitled to any protection after what they have done to men.
His insistence that I must try to persuade women was a deflecting tactic intending me to waste my time persuading those infirm of purpose and barely rational who would be powerless to do anything even if they completely agreed with me.
My strategy remains to direct my message to alpha males and men having alpha male qualities prepared to take the risk of speaking out who expect to make sacrifices and fight with manly vigour to take their country back from the degenerate and demented matriarchy.
Since there are so very few of them, my task should not be too difficult, in theory, since only ten good men are required.
He is a necessary step, but cannot be the end point in thinking. Resisting even this step is social suicide.
CK:
What do you mean by "end point"? What do you mean by "this step"?
BETA MALE:
He still represents a view that places the lives of women and the obligation of men, in a place that is not in keeping with true balance. Either there is true balance in rights and obligations, or rights accompany obligations, You cannot have rights for one without obligations and rights only with obligations for other, and expect a stable society. It was, that obligation and rights were 2 sides of the same coin, and that worked. We have broken this for women only. We have now obligated men to society and children, without associated rights, and in some cases without those even being his children. That is not stable.
CK:
Are you saying Peterson does not go far enough?
BETA MALE:
Well in the end - yes. However, jumping past him, is near impossible without stopping where he is first. He is a creature of his generation, and cannot get there without stopping along the way. He is doing good things, but, until we can do away with the notion of women as victim, men as perpetrator you cannot get to balance. Until society can see women as adults, (cannot be part way) we will not get past this. Today, we refuse to see women as actors, only acted upon, and frankly he does not come directly enough at this issue. However, it is hard to do so, in the current climate.
Yes, but, I do not believe we can get there in a single step, and I do not think that most women understand that when you have a situation, where you have rights without responsibility, or where you are asserted to not be a criminal, when you commit an act that is criminal when committed against you - you must be said to have an elevated position in a country. Peterson, is a required step along the way, jumping to the end point will cause a conflagration - because it will cause young men so see that this was really understood all along, while women of good will are still struggling to catch up. However I deeply suspect that Peterson will be resisted, and the west will implode as a result.
Peterson won't go far enough.
Yes, but once Peterson is settled upon as an acceptable view, there will be more room to talk. Once you open your mind that far, not seeing more, is hard.
CK:
Nah, you lay it on the line and get him to say it now, before more damage is done. You have already accepted defeat.
I guess you think you've had your innings. Fuck the next generation, huh? Can't remember now whether I've asked if you have any sons.
He's scared, you're scared. Canadian men are incorrigible cucks and it is impossible to shame them.
Childless atheists don't care about making any sacrifices for the next generation. You think there is enough left in the world before you pop your clogs. God forbid that you would be inconvenienced by a conflagration! And why the fuck do you all talk like that?
BETA MALE:
Not scared, and frankly I find the notion, that all men or women are all of one thing stupid. No, I did not have my innings, and the idea is to change society, not destroy it. I very much believe that once you get to Peterson, the rest comes clear much more easily. There is a generation of women, in Canada that are pure hate, and they have no idea that that they are, - and frankly I just managed to get my own mother to see it. However leaping to the end, will do nothing but unleash another round of hate, that will also not serve my sons. Teachers have moved to not deal with me, because I will not accept the demonstrably false feminist lie. However, not understanding that women are starting to see Trudeau for the hate he is, is equally bad. I am not worried about me being inconvenienced by a confligration - because it would mostly hit a generation that richly deserves it, but rather, it would not stop there, and once unleashed would last generations.
CK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocSrbzLl-hM Listen to this fucker. He talks like you. Just the first 15 minutes and the impenetrable language, like he doesn't want to be understood. Not scared with your impenetrable language?
BETA MALE:
Never bothered with a profile pic, and I have always told my kids not to - because for them I do worry - and do not like being a hypocrite.
CK:
Yeah, because you don't want to own your words. Afraid of the consequences. I know they are not insignificant, but if none of you will challenge feminism, you make it unchallengeable.
You don't expect anything to change in your generation, and you hope it won't. You don't expect anything to change before you pop your clogs, and you won't rock the boat. If anyone were to want to do so, you would tell them to stop, or maybe shoot them in the back to make them stop.
BETA MALE:
I hope it will, and have spent considerably funds to make it so. Frankly - you seem little other than hate, most of the time.
CK:
I think it is useful to speak my mind instead of beating around the bush cucked men do. If you can't even say what you mean, then people won't be able to act on the ideas you are too afraid to express.Yes, I do despise the cowardice and denial I see everywhere.
BETA MALE:
Yes, and I find it useful to speak my mind as well, and generally do. I do not beat around the bush, and frankly you simply throw all into large pots. Not all women support the current situation, most men are too indoctrinated to see it. Speaking your mind in a way they understand, as opposed to reject out of hand is useful, you often do not appear to understand that.
CK:
Even when nothing is at stake, you won't speak your mind or defend your ideas. It really is truly contemptible. Forget the women. Wow, you think you can ever persuade them? You are trying to do that? Total cuck.
BETA MALE:
Seriously - I do speak my mind, just not interest in doing so with you, as you are utterly closed, and do not get things. You jump to conclusion instead of reading data. That is, you seem too often to be too much of a dogmatist.
CK:
Not at all. I am very happy to have my ideas challenged.I cannot imagine you speaking your mind with anyone at all.
BETA MALE:
You are in essence making my point though. Rather like in the marriage argument,. YOu do no understand the notion of balance at all. You lead with massive generalizations, and make all things absolutes.
CK:
I rely on no dogma. Everything I have proposed are logical propositions. I do not deny that my generalisations are generalisations. You are using the fact that not every proposition is 100% true as an excuse for inaction. A very liberal tactic.
BETA MALE:
Yeah, and you operate on the notion, that my actions, and positions are visible to you. Where you are doing little but stirring anger without benefit. I do not take inaction, I act not stirr hate. You will never bestir yourself. Why break the habit of a lifetime?
CK:
What do you do?
BETA MALE:
Except you have no idea of me,
CK:
Sphinx Without A Secret. Cuck.
BETA MALE:
Yeah - like I said, do little other than stir hate, for hates sake.
CK:
Hate is a useful emotion.It is the fuel for action.Emotions are the algorithm of human action.
BETA MALE:
Yes, but only if it is carefully crafted. Causing explosions, does not serve my sons.
CK:
I am not asking you to blow anything up. Trust you to pretend that. What do you tell your sons anyway? I bet you tell them to never marry. Bet you tell them you only want bastard grandchildren if they must sire offspring at all.
BETA MALE:
Nope, have not said that, but, I have been clear about the risks and hazards, as I have been in public discussion. The reality is feminism has been a long lasting and enduring hysteria - and until it breaks marriage is a pointless hazard for men.
CK:
I knew it! So you are happy to have bastard grandchildren.
BETA MALE:
Nope, not said that -and frankly I have not told them to do anything regarding marriage, or children - and will not pressure them, I will merely make it clear the hazards. Oh, and having kids period for a man, opens him to the same risk regardless. So why would I do that?
You are in effect deemed married the minute you have children, so what- that is an inane position.
Again - you seem to not understand, that formal marriage is far from the end of the issue for men.
CK:
Wow, no belief in the sanctity of marriage at all.This explains completely your half-arsed attitude towards everything.
BETA MALE:
How are you avoiding the sanctity of marriage, - if you have no children at all. How, is marriage in a western state have sanctity.
CK:
The purpose of marriage is legitimate children.
BETA MALE:
Yes, but if you have no children?
CK:
You don't have to have children to understand that marriage is a child protection scheme.
BETA MALE:
Yes, but I am not saying people should have kids under the current situation
CK:
There is never a convenient time to have children.
BETA MALE:
Let us be frank- it makes no sense today for men, and well, if women want kids, there is a discussion required. Fix it now, or well society collapses
CK:
I am trying to get it fixed ASAP and people like you are dragging your feet.
BETA MALE:
Yah - you expect all to agree with you without paying any attention.
CK:
Not pay any attention? Moi??
BETA MALE:
yup
CK:
I have paid enough attention to know all Canadian men are cucks, including Jordan Peterson.
BETA MALE:
No - he can see what he can see- which is limited.
CK:
The key to overthrowing the matriarchy is male solidarity enabling male co-operation. Being overcautious even in speech is demoralising to supporters. You are happy to be overcautious because that is how you have always been.
BETA MALE:
Agreed- but, Peterson, sees what he sees. What he sees is both powerful, and nearly impossible to deny. It is a point, where women who choose to deny it, can quickly be shown to be a problem as self interested haters. Part of creating male solidarity is having a position, that they will broadly support.
Domestic violence is a clear issue - where women are the primary initiators and where they get 1000 times the resources in the best cases. This is easy to show, The wage selling of the "wage gap" as hate , is not hard either. Sexual violence, as a one way thing - is demonstrably false - and thus is a solid point. The issues in education are the same. As is family law .Most aware men, will agree on all these, thus they make a solid foundation
Yes, and you are suggesting all over the place what he should have said, rather than looking what he believes. I happen to agree that we are closer to a matriarchy than patriarchy, but, that is not even perforce how people see it. It is rather that we have created a situation where women are harder to criticize than they should be, and we have allowed a focus on only one type of power. However, much of this stems from a nasty issue with the boomers, seeing horribly damaged men,. and hearing and believing the stupid war propaganda - of motherhood and apple pie. You are in effect attacking Peterson - as opposed to suggesting that perhaps his views are but a step along the way. Social views cannot leap from where we are - to where we must be in a single bound. First we must see that feminism has been a hateful lie.
CK:
I say that too. You are the one who has not been paying attention to what I have been saying for years and years and years!
BETA MALE:
You have no idea what I have said. I do not disagree with that - it is that this must first be understood. It is like fixing the marriage law is required but not sufficient. However, the rest cannot follow until the first is done. You believing it, or me believing it is so, does not make it generally accepted. Until it is generally truly accepted and that it is generally understood that domestic violence is two way , and the current government position is support of hate - the next steps will not follow. Jumping past the initial understanding by more than you and me, does not serve. It is like trying to teach calculus to kids who have yet to get addition.
CK:
No one is even proposing to abolish no fault divorce.
I say it, but no on else will even talk about it.
Basically, beta male victims of feminism who are campaigning against feminism are not interested in marriage.
They are certainly not marriageable, and know it.
BETA MALE:
Lots of people are proposing abolishing no fault divorce,. However, it is not what I seek. I rather seek a situation where I do not owe her jack because she chose to leave. Leave if you will, but if I had my career on track before we met, then my career is mine.
Fix divorce, does not mean getting rid of no fault per se - it means making it so, I am not obligated to her, when she leaves. She walks she walks.
Fix the support issue, the way assets are divided, the assertion that his career is 1/2 hers without proof, make leaving a real risk, and watch i get fixed. Force the issue of truly shared custody, and watch how few women leave. Today, it is there is no risk for her, that is the issue.
It is that we treat women as in need of protection, even when they are doing great harm. It is that they get the benefits of being treated as child, and adult.
Frankly, I am far more interested in what Peterson has to say.
CK:
We have already agreed that he doesn't go far enough, remember?My role is to drag him along to the destination.
BETA MALE:
Yes, but I have also said he is a required step.
CK:
I do not deny that. My post is not long and describes the discussion.
BETA MALE:
Yes however, my point is, you are pushing a view, that skips past one, that most men could be made to understand and support today. He is interesting because he is so hard to deny.
CK:
Peterson missed an opportunity by not saying that the patriarchy has been eclipsed by the matriarchy.
BETA MALE:
No, because the visible social society that most think of as important is still dominated by men. It is that most do not think of all the other places where there is real power, and the majority of real power is actually played out.
That is, he would not have advanced his argument, by saying that, because the ground was not set. It is why he is so hard to deny, he goes on the ground that cannot be denied.
CK:
What is the illegitimacy rate of Canada?
BETA MALE:
Less than 1%- however, I dare say - you are doing your normal. You will simply assert that because you believe it, it is so.
No, I would suspect that somewhere on the order of 10-15% of Canadians are not children of the father they are asserted to be.
CK:
This was 2009. The percentage of bastards born to fornicating sluts must be much higher by now. Wow. You actually don't know what bastard or illegitimate means!
BETA MALE:
Sorry, read - illiterate- illegitimate - well different question - if you count out of wedlock - pushing 50% Bastard - by the way - is an older term, and does not work in today's environment, because marriage is not seen as sacrosanct.
CK:
People still use the word as a term of abuse. So you are in no doubt about what I am saying, my position is this: The perfect patriarchy would mean 100% of parents are married parents. The perfect matriarchy is a society whose members are 100% bastard.
BETA MALE:
Yes, but without the meaning behind it. However, it is far more critical to think in terms of false paternity.
CK:
The creation of marriage simultaneously created the slut, fornication, adultery, sodomy and bastardy. You dare not say such words any more because the slut has become sacrosanct and your unofficial deity. In a matriarchy, all men are lower in status than the fornicating slut. Even men chosen to lead the nation are in fact chosen by women eg Justin Trudeau.
BETA MALE:
Yes, and strangely, they are also going to be seen to be responsible for the disaster he is leaving.
CK:
What has Trudeau done that you think will be disastrous for Canadians?
BETA MALE:
Gee massive deficits, continued and massive push on a large set of false narratives, created a inquiry, that focuses only on women regarding natives, when the native men make up 70% ++ of the victims of the issues the inquiry was meant to investigate - oh, and that is all transparent and coming to light.
CK:
What false narratives are you referring to?
BETA MALE:
Wage gap, domestic violence, education issues for women ....
CK:
Would you be prepared to have a chat with me on my YouTube channel?
BETA MALE:
Oddly from what I have seen, no, because I would not hand you the control. You seem to like going out of your way to make men look bad.
CK:
Just trying to shame them into action. I anticipated your answer correctly!
BETA MALE:
Yes, but you ignore what they have to say in the end, and why they are saying it.
CK:
What have I ignored? I know all their excuses.
BETA MALE:
I expected as much, well, for one, you assume that shame is an appropriate tool.
CK:
I admit it is useless when men no longer have pride and feel no shame. Such men are but cattle and can only respond to bribes and threats. I have not the means to use physical threats or bribe such cattle.
BETA MALE:
It is not just that, but you choose to attack, rather than ally. You should rather question women, and ask about whether they can claim to love their sons when they attack shelters for men. Why must it be men that act? Men need society far less. It is feminist women that hate, why not shame them?
CK:
You don't seem to grasp what I am saying: I won't waste time trying to persuade women.
BETA MALE:
What you do not believe that you can? Why no? Because they do not listen? Do not take the lives of others into account? Do not really care about men, only like shaming and bullying them? I would note, Karen Straughan gathers far more support from men, makes far more headway in gathering men behind her.
CK:
There is no point persuading the sheeple. Even if they agreed with you they are incapable of effective action. It has to be a masculine project, I am afraid. You have to be prepared to - shock horror! - ignore the views of your oppressors. That you "men" see nothing wrong in hiding under the skirts of a lesbian is contemptible. I do understand that you have no pride and feel no shame. Everything you say reinforces this.
BETA MALE:
Yes, so let it be then, as you seem to be far more effective at alienating men. Karen Straughan is not a lesbian, and I do not hide behind her, however, far more people are interested in her, because frankly she speaks from a position where asserting "male privilege" against her does not work.
CK:
Only cucked men suffer themselves to be led by a lesbian.
BETA MALE:
ExactLy- you attempt shame on me, and assert the reason it does not work is I have no pride, as opposed to considering that I see you as pushing hate.
CK:
Her boys are bastards, aren't they? You are projecting. You hate me, of course. So you accuse me of it. Still, it is useful to know the depths of your cuckdom. You want mummy to sort things out.
BETA MALE:
Who do I hate? Shame is a destructive force, that does not build people up, which is what is required, it knocks people down, which seems your intent.
CK:
All emotions have their uses, don't you know.
BETA MALE:
Yes, but you seem to want to manipulate.
CK:
I am trying to get the message through, aren't I? If the problem is matriarchy, then the solution is patriarchy. If the destination is patriarchy, the vehicle must be theocracy.
BETA MALE:
The question is, do you actually alienate men from the message in your approach - and I would suggest you do.
CK:
There is no nice way of saying that a patient who has a gangrenous leg that has turned black needs an amputation if he wants to live. Clearly, you have no real desire to live in the long term. You are an atheist, aren't you?
BETA MALE:
Hmm must be something you can hate, - interesting.
CK:
What must be something I can hate?
BETA MALE:
Well you are so busy trying to categorize me.
CK:
I have already categorised you as an atheist Canadian cuck who will not take any risks and hopes things will hold together while he lives, without him having to do anything much other than to complain anonymously on social media.
BETA MALE:
Exactly, yet this without knowing me, You assert much, without history, personal knowledge or understanding. It is very interesting. It is that you believe asserting such things, without knowledge will cause me to think you are part of the solution, not problem that is most interesting. You are not actually interested in men, other than abusing them.
CK:
I am interested in getting things done quickly, in my lifetime, if possible. You seem to think you are immortal.
BETA MALE:
You seem to think you have a handle on what I support. I see the liberal use of shame you have, as making it radically harder to gather men, and radically harder to save society. Peterson is a required step, in ending a hysteria, which is nearly done. I am just as concerned with the reconstruction, and the route there. Peterson matters, because he allows people to start questioning. There is a generation that will be held in contempt for the next 1000 years, and that is the boomers, because they have encouraged all this, and allowed a horrid view of men, to be funded by choice.
CK:
You just want the good strong men to organise the cattle. I don't say Peterson is not welcome, just saying he bottles out where I would not.
BETA MALE:
I do not care who organizes, but, shame is not the route. Also , I would suggest, that by bottles out where he does, makes him more effective, at least until his position is understood and accepted by the many. Note, the attacks on him, and his relatively moderate position, makes them seem unreasonable, and makes his position harder still to deny. If he had gone further, the delusion could be protected.
CK:
He could have struck a mortal blow to the matriarchy by stating that we are now a matriarchy and point to Canada as 50% bastard.
BETA MALE:
Except your definition of bastard is not going to have the effect you would assert it should. You are attacking from a moral perspective that is not shared today. It should be that children are born in stable marriages, and remain in them, but this today to assert that a single mom is by definition a disaster is to lose too much of the target audience before you start.
CK:
You cannot restore patriarchy without marriage. Stop pussyfooting around like you have all the time in the world.
BETA MALE:
It is that we have a worship of single motherhood from some, and an acceptance that dad is the fault too often, that he would have merely isolated himself. It is that his view must first be established without first getting the other issues to hand. I agree that marriage must come back - but, your route is a certain loss.
CK:
Coward. Cuck. I know you can't help it. It is just as way of thinking with Canadian "men".
BETA MALE:
You seem to think shame will work, but that requires that I care what you think, or value your position while you act like a feminist.
CK:
How can someone who proposes to establish a theocracy to restore the patriarchy ever be called a feminist?
BETA MALE:
I did not say that you are, I said that you act like one. I do not support you in all things, so I must be a coward. You use shame and attack as your only tactic, and ignore the notion that a battle of any kind, cannot be won, by leaping to the end.
CK:
You can construct an argument, but you are too afraid to do even that.
BETA MALE:
There you are again. It seems fairly clear that you do not actually worry about boys at all, only your dogma.
CK:
There is no dogma to saying that we live in a matriarchy. It is just a fact. You yourself have told me Canada is 50% bastard, which is why you are all so cucked. The Americans are not quite so morally degenerate.
BETA MALE:
Hmmm, it is interesting, how you choose to argue. If it is a matriarchy, should not women be responsible for the change required to save society if it is to be saved? Would not it make sense for you to gain the audience Peterson has, if he is less effective than you?
CK:
Excellent question. I can't do that because MSM have decided to ignore me. Eventually everyone of us will be accused of being sexist, racist, Nazi, fascist etc.
BETA MALE:
Well, would that not be reasons to alter tactics? Would that not be reason to credit Peterson, and how he has chosen to pick his point of conflict. Would that not mean he is moving things quickly, and thereby making the next step more possible more quickly.
CK:
The higher the status, the greater the sacrifice. The greater the sacrifice, the more impact it will have on the public consciousness. I repeat: I do not think he shouldn't exist, I am just saying he should go further, and have given my reasons. I despair at your complacency.
BETA MALE:
Peterson, is going as far as will work, today. He is fighting the battle before him, Should he win, voices with more points, further along , may be able to make headway.
CK:
I know he just wants to sell books. This means he will prove a great disappointment, but he is all you cucks have.
BETA MALE:
I am not complacent, it is rather, that you engage and convince where you can. I have gotten very frustrated by women against feminism because that is the one group that can move without tearing society part at a real pace. I know that if men move with force and emotion, not logic and reason, all the anger will come pouring forth at once. That will be the end of anything like reasonable debate.
CK:
If something should be done, then it must be done. Do you think attitudes will improve while you pussyfoot around? In the next generation?
BETA MALE:
If something should be done, if it is truly important, it must be done, so that it will succeed, Peterson is a requisite step.
CK:
You will be even more cucked and attitudes even more entrenched. If you leave it, things will be much worse for your sons. That is UNDENIABLE.
BETA MALE:
Ha - however, that is what is not true. The younger generation of men, seems less willing to buy the shit, despite (or perhaps because ) they are selling it in school. The boomer generation is far more believing.
That is the point, it is not being left. It starts with rejecting the way schools work.
CK:
The % of bastards is going up, not down.
BETA MALE:
Besides the old patriarchy was all about protecting women - do western women deserve this protection.
CK:
Look, it is not about you thinking your women deserve it or not.You obviously don't give a damn about posterity.It is about husbanding resources for the next generation as a principle of good rational government.
BETA MALE:
Hmm, there you are again, the only way is the way back, but those bridges have been burnt. So well, where do you go?
CK:
What bridges to where have been burned?
BETA MALE:
The reality is, that to return to the old system, requires first trust from men, which has been heavily damaged. It requires women to be seen as able to actually not cheat, and not be self interested, and well, that has already failed.
CK:
When you say the old system, do you mean patriarchy? Men can only trust the system if they run it again. You can't even bring yourself to say patriarchy!
BETA MALE:
Yes, but the question is, will they trust women at all? Without having a path through the rubble and having lots of women acknowledge the hate, that they have in effect held, that is not possible. The thing is, that there is proven issue, that women tend to believe they are good because they are women, and that other women are good because they are women. A sort of moral superiority thing, that is easy to have. I have no problem saying patriarchy, but I also know that the old patriarchy sacrificed men and boys first. I have the overwhelming sense that this is what you seek.
CK:
It is the natural role of men to fight and defend principles. You seem to have lost this sense of the natural order of things. Atheists tend to do this, I suppose. It is pointless to ask where men as a whole or women as a whole or humanity as a whole can be trusted. You impose new rules, you enforce them, and hope for the best and that your spouse is good and true. That's all you can hope for.
BETA MALE:
It is men, to defend their own. It is not for men to defend the tribes of others. I do not owe feminists defense for instance. I am not responsible for the values of others, only my own and defending my own. It does not fall to me to protect people from their own decisions. As such I owe few boomers my allegiance, I owe no feminists my allegiance. I owe my children my allegiance, my wife, because she believes in real marriage and in real defense of boys as well as girls my allegiance. I do not owe a feminist state my allegiance, as they have already said, I am not their tribe. I do not believe that women are without agency, or as individuals that they should be protected from the consequences of their own choices.
CK:
All irrelevant to the fact that the current system needs to be overthrown.
BETA MALE:
It may be, but it speaks to how change is made. It speaks to how much of a rush I should be in, and how much I should be concerned with the end point, as opposed to the points between. If I worry about a 15 year boy, I have 30+ years to focus on getting best outcome. If I worry about adult an adult woman who is 30, I would have 5. If she is not already racing to fix the issues, she is not my concern. It is not to me, to save her ability to reproduce, nor to help her find salvation, that is her problem. If she has chosen feminism and that destroys her life, that was her choice.
CK:
This is not about particular people that you care about or don't care about, but fixing things before they get worse.
BETA MALE:
That is why Peterson matters- it is changing the flow and direction. It is allowing the change that can be made to be made. I am not going to destroy the chance to make long term fixes by being stupid. Start with actually getting books for boys in school, the reality of men being required as fathers. Start moving that and the lies fall fast and furious. Get more than by challenging certain views as a starting point.
I would suggest to you, that an official strike is not realistic, as it goes against the very nature of what you have said of men. However, the reality that there is in fact a critical mass of men, doing exactly that, is why suddenly some of these issues have any traction at all. Oh and note, men seem to be pulling back from sex far faster than women as well.
CK:
It has to start somewhere. You are just too cucked and shy to even talk about it to anyone. You don't even have a best friend to discuss such things with because men are atomised and isolated. Women will always find it easier to refuse no-strings sex. That is the advantage we have over you.
BETA MALE:
Again you assert, I actually have a number of men I discuss this with. Your hate is quite impressive.
CK:
Do you think I hate you? You do take things personally! Would I be impressed by these men? Probably not, eh?
BETA MALE:
Ah yes, very good, just keep acting like shame is a viable construct. You have convinced me, you want only ill for men.
CK:
Just trying to shame men into action.
BETA MALE:
Yup, and acting as though your shame matters. You shame men, into acting, when you have as much voice, but use it to attack men. You seek to achieve what other than harm to men, really in the end. You see men as tools to protect you, and it is their duty to do so - what is yours?
CK:
I never said anything about men protecting me. I am just saying that if it is obviously the right thing to do, then you do it, instead of looking for excuses because you are scared.
BETA MALE:
"It is the natural role of men to defend principles" - so why is that not the role of women? Is that not protecting all, including you? Why is it the responsibility of men? It is after all the hate of feminism we discuss, That is hate held by women. It is the issue that they are creating a moral desert for themselves.
CK:
Because men are better at these things than women and they have their superior physical strength. Why discuss emotions all the time like women? Why not discuss tactics and strategy to win the ideological battle?
BETA MALE:
I am not, I am asking why should this be a concern for men, as opposed to something women fight? Does this not start at a young age? Has it not been women who were meant to instil values? Is it not there the failure lies? I did try, to discuss tactics - you choose to say, that engaging in the battle that can be won, is a waste, even though this opens the way to the next battle. You assert Peterson should do, what I say, cannot work today. You tell me, that shaming men, is a good tactic, I tell you, that doing so, merely affirms a growing view that women do not care, and cannot be trusted therefore. That prevents a return to traditional family, because that at its root requires trusting women.
Ck:
You are more interested in apportioning blame than in reversing the situation. How very beta male of you.
BETA MALE:
No, I am telling you the tactic will not work. You return to it immediately. It merely makes it clear that you do not actually care, and want to shame and blame men. That is, you would rather shame men, than own any agency of your own. You assert what I have done, or not, who I am or not. It is actually very sad
