‘Female misogynist’ suppresses discussion of Jewish power on her blog

My April 8, 2008 post It’s Official: Stormfront now run by feminists was recently linked to by a strange blog called Female Misogynist. Strange, not only because it’s not every day you run into a “female misogynist,” but also because the women whose views this blog represents are fiercely anti-Muslim, to a degree I’ve only ever encountered in neo-kahns and feminists. These women pretty much want men to be “men again” so that they can go out and die in the battlefields to fight Islam, an attitude reminiscent of the suffragettes who wanted British men to die in the battlefields of WWI.

Such views are not typical of men’s rights advocates. I’m not particularly inclined to give up my life or those of my sons to fight wars for a bunch of Jews and spoiled cunts. Let women and Jews fight their own goddamn wars. I personally would love to see women get drafted and come home in body bags for a change. How’s that for “equality.”

You can read their post here.

I submitted a response on their blog, but that was a few days ago and my comment has yet to appear, so I must assume that it isn’t going to appear (i.e., it’s been censored). That’s not exactly surprising, since few women appreciate the value of free speech.

Since they won’t allow my comment to appear on their blog, I am posting it here:

“In response to The Edirix’s comment above, that’s an overgeneralization. Some white nationalists are of a conservative bent, some aren’t. Some are Christian, some hate Christianity. Some believe in global warming, others don’t. Some may identify as right-wing, while others are so left-wing that their rhetoric is hard to distinguish from that of communists. Some are anti-Semitic, while others think nothing of forming alliances with Jews (this is particularly true of some of the European far-right parties, which Jews have started supporting due to the threat to their safety and power posed by Muslim immigration; of course, Jews had a lot to do with opening the West’s borders in the first place, so it’s hard for me to sympathize with them).

“While I won’t contest that Ashkenazi Jews are biologically white (though others, including many Jews themselves, would contest that), the problem is that Jews don’t collectively think of themselves as or act as though they’re white. In Western nations, they have generally behaved in a hostile way towards the white majority, and continue to do so. Study the history of communism and you will see that a vastly disproportionate amount of its leadership was made up of Jews (Jews in the genetic, not the religious, sense). It’s no coincidence that about 2/3 of the Soviet spies arrested in the U.S. were Jews. Study the history of the NAACP and you will see that until recently, it was entirely run by Jews; Jews basically spearheaded the entire “civil rights” movement. Study the history of American immigration laws and you will see that Jewish politicians and Jewish organizations were largely responsible for overturning the laws that until 1965 had kept the United States a primarily white nation. The ideology of political correctness that is ubiquitous today was also a largely Jewish creation; I recommend Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s book The Culture of Critique for more on that subject.

“Jews only became ‘conservatives’ when they decided that it would be in the interests of Israel to do so. It’s interesting to note that many of the Jewish founders of neo-conservatism are ex-Trotskyites (Trotsky, nee Lev Bronstein, was himself a Jew; I believe that the antipathy of neo-con Jews towards the Soviet Union had more to do with the fact that Stalin and his successors weren’t Jewish than with a rejection of communist ideology per se). Many of the Jewish ‘hawks’ of today were the leaders of the student protest movement of the 60’s; read the biographies of Jews like David Horowitz or Michael Savage, for example. You can believe what you want, but I personally don’t believe that their conversion to ‘conservatism’ is sincere. At the back of whatever ideological flag Jews happen to be waving at the moment, whether it be communism, conservatism, or whatever, is always a distinctly Jewish agenda. ‘Is it good for Jews?’ is their overriding concern. That is why so many white nationalists are hostile to Jews and support the enemies of Israel, not because they love Islam. It may seem strange to some that white nationalists would be willing to “rub shoulders” with Muslims, but politics makes strange bedfellows, as they say. When you think about it, it’s not really any stranger than Jews aligning themselves with Italian Fascism during the 20’s and 30’s, or than feminists aligning themselves with the religious right in the 80’s and 90’s to carry out anti-pornography crusades.

“I fully expect more and more women of a ‘feminist’ persuasion to be drawn to white nationalism, since non-white and Muslim immigration is bad news for feminism, and since real rape statistics (not the ones doctored by feminists) show that male-on-female rapes of the ‘dark alley’ variety are almost exclusively perpetrated by non-whites.

“It won’t surprise you to hear that I don’t want to have anything to do with such women, who in my view, have played a decisive role in the destruction of Western societies.”

UPDATE: “Male Chauvinist Woman,” the administrator of the blog, wrote an entry on the 29th (yesterday) explaining how she had posted my comment and then deleted it. It’s a rather lengthy post, and I don’t have time (and may not have the time) to respond to it.

Frankly, I’ve had run-ins with these types of know-it-all, self-indulgent twats before, who try to lure you into protracted, pointless arguments with the only aim being to buttress their frail egos, and I’ve learned to “just say no.” Besides, why would I bother responding to a blog that only sees fit to delete my comments?

I will just make the following three points, however, based on a cursory reading of her post:

1. It is the epitomy of spinelessness to delete someone’s comment and then post a lengthy rebuttal to it. People who pull shit like this literally make me sick. If you’re going to engage someone in a debate, then don’t try to suppress the other side; that is not debate, that’s attacking a strawman. I repeat: few women, including “female misogynists,” grasp the concept or value of free speech.

2. Professor Kevin MacDonald is not a crackpot. His assertions are far better documented than anything appearing on this nutty woman’s blog. As usual, all philo-Semites have to fall back on is censorship and character assassination. The facts are simply not on their side.

3. It is idiotic to claim that feminists will never be drawn to white nationalism considering there already are women of a feminist persuasion involved in white nationalism. I really don’t see what the controversy is; my statement was not speculation, it’s already happening. There is nothing to debate here.

Check out the description for Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?, a collection of essays being sold on Amazon:

“Polygamy, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, punishing women for being raped, differential access for men and women to health care and education, unequal rights of ownership, assembly, and political participation, unequal vulnerability to violence. These practices and conditions are standard in some parts of the world. Do demands for multiculturalism–and certain minority group rights in particular–make them more likely to continue and to spread to liberal democracies? Are there fundamental conflicts between our commitment to gender equity and our increasing desire to respect the customs of minority cultures or religions? In this book, the eminent feminist Susan Moller Okin and fifteen of the world’s leading thinkers about feminism and multiculturalism explore these unsettling questions in a provocative, passionate, and illuminating debate.

“Okin opens by arguing that some group rights can, in fact, endanger women. She points, for example, to the French government’s giving thousands of male immigrants special permission to bring multiple wives into the country, despite French laws against polygamy and the wives’ own bitter opposition to the practice. Okin argues that if we agree that women should not be disadvantaged because of their sex, we should not accept group rights that permit oppressive practices on the grounds that they are fundamental to minority cultures whose existence may otherwise be threatened.

“In reply, some respondents reject Okin’s position outright, contending that her views are rooted in a moral universalism that is blind to cultural difference. Others quarrel with Okin’s focus on gender, or argue that we should be careful about which group rights we permit, but not reject the category of group rights altogether. Okin concludes with a rebuttal, clarifying, adjusting, and extending her original position. These incisive and accessible essays–expanded from their original publication in Boston Review and including four new contributions–are indispensable reading for anyone interested in one of the most contentious social and political issues today.

“The diverse contributors, in addition to Okin, are Azizah al-Hibri, Abdullahi An-Na’im, Homi Bhabha, Sander Gilman, Janet Halley, Bonnie Honig, Will Kymlicka, Martha Nussbaum, Bhikhu Parekh, Katha Pollitt, Robert Post, Joseph Raz, Saskia Sassen, Cass Sunstein, and Yael Tamir.”

Whether “Male Chauvinist Woman” is willing to acknowledge it or not, many feminists are beginning to see the writing on the wall in regards to non-white immigration and the continuation of their movement. There’s even a schism within feminism itself, with non-white feminists accusing white feminists of having too much power; in other words, the non-white feminists are complaining that feminism is just “too white.” And I agree with them; feminism has been nothing but a bunch of spoiled white bitches whinging on their periods, too self-absorbed to realize how much better they’ve had it than almost all the women in the world, due entirely to the civilization white men built and that feminists have spent the last several decades demolishing.

I’m wondering at this point if “Male Chauvinist Woman” doesn’t have an agenda other than anti-feminism.

11 responses

  1. Nice post. I was going to respond on her blog and describe how Stormfront had some great posters that totally exposed feminism for the fraud it is, yet, their posts were often deleted or modified. I think you nailed it. She wants a return to the old way, which is to say, was also a raw fucking deal for Men. I swear, the effort required to wake white women up is enormous. Is VNNForum legit?

    Also, very few women (and men) are willing to put forth the tremendous effort required to understand the Jews and how they’ve destroyed white society. Most people only read a few paragraphs on a page. Trying to get them to read a book by Prof. MacDonald is impossible.

    1. Igor Alexander | Reply

      All good points, m. No reason to respond to her post since she’ll probably just delete your comment.

      Yeah, I think VNNF is legit. Lots of bright people posting there, and unlike Stormfront, there’s practically no censorship. Unfortunately, the place is heavily trolled by people who use it more for entertainment than anything, so there’s a circus atmosphere that makes it hard to take seriously. There needs to be something in-between Stormfront (over-regulated) and VNNF (too laissez faire). Actually, the problem with SF isn’t that it’s over-regulated; it’s that the mods arbitrarily delete posts and ban people.

      There’s a severe case of tunnel vision at VNNF; some people blame Jews and only Jews for almost everything. I stopped posting there because Alex Linder’s calls for extermination strike me as counterproductive. There urgently needs to be more public discussion of Jewish power in our society, but that’s not gonna happen when you have a madman like Linder calling Jews another species and calling for their extermination. I don’t think Linder really gets how most white people think.

      VNN’s front page is great, though. Socrates is doing a terrific job.

      1. I made the mistake of going back on VNNF for a while after writing the preceding comment almost two years ago. What a dump that place is.

        While Alex Linderoni likes to pay lip service to free speech, I’ve observed that he will ban anyone he perceives as being smarter than he is if that person doesn’t bow down and kiss the ring. He will also ban anyone who can intelligently criticize the VNN party line of blaming jews (and Christians, and Anglos, and government) for every evil under the sun (while covering for transnational corporations and JOG’s little helper, the Mafia). He may not do it right away, and he almost certainly won’t admit his true motives, but the pattern is unmistakable.

        Linderoni always keeps a couple of critics around to maintain the illusion of free speech, but he makes sure that those critics are inept and can never seriously harm his credibility by making him look foolish in a debate. ‘Roni wouldn’t fare well against someone his own size, so he makes sure he’s surrounded by people who are smaller or who at least appear docile. The man is a paranoid, conceited, hypocritical coward.

        VNNF is basically a sandbox for Linderoni to throw tantrums in, engage in circle jerks with his dwindling supporters, and fling feces at his rivals, whose websites he’s too chicken to post on. Avoid, avoid…

  2. This is unbearable. He obviously hates being white and being a man.

    “Courses I regularly teach include WOMEN 503 Feminist methodologies, NURS 553 Correctional Mental Health, NURS550 whiteness, racism and psychosocial health.”


    1. Igor Alexander | Reply

      Pathetic. Emasculated white wimps like this are only too typical of our colleges and universities nowadays.

  3. You’ve made some good points in this post.

    Jews actually hate and seek to destroy the white race (I know there are white Jews) more than any other, because they see them as the best racially, which runs contrary to their dogma that the Jews are the world’s elite ‘race’ and the only ‘chosen’ people.

    I first became aware of this when I came across a comment on a blog by a Jewess that used the term “Dead White Guy” in a derogatory and obviously hateful way to ridicule white Americans.

    What do you think of this encyclopedic article …

    Dead white men or DWEM (an acronym standing for “Dead White European Male”), is a pejorative term used most commonly to refer to a tradition of thought and pedagogy which stresses the importance of individual European males from the past, at the expense of other forces (economic or social, for example) or groups of people (for example, non-Europeans and women). Some of those most often included in this definition include Plato, Dante, Chri …

    And this one …

    The term DWEM was subsequently adopted by defenders of the traditional curriculum. Such supporters saw the “dead white European males” in question as being obviously more worthy of study than any rival figures. Defenders of traditional curricula are often supporters of the accepted canon of English and European-language literature. They often characterise proposed curriculum change as largely motivated by political activism. They argue that to dismiss any thinker or writer as a DWEM, and solely for that …

    And this one …

    The term has gained widespread enough currency that it can appear in mass-market media. For example, in the film 10 Things I Hate About You (1999), an African-American high-school English teacher performs a rap version of a Shakespearean sonnet. Afterwards, he remarks that although Shakespeare is a “dead white guy”, he “knows his stuff” and is still worth the attention. Harold Bloom has made the same argument, in a more academic styl …

    And this one …

    DWEM is a rhetorical device used to deride the emphasis on Western civilization in schools (especially those in the United States), as the majority of figures considered “significant” in Western civilization are white males who are usually dead. The term was used pejoratively in the early 1990s by those advocating multicultural studies. The term finds widespread usage among members of the educational esta …

    Guess who would have been advocating multicultural studies in the West. From what I can gather, even the use of the colloquialism DWG (Dead White Guy) by police in the US when they’ve come up with a murder, suicide, etc, was invented by Jews and/or their masonic buddies in the force to deride and denigrate the death of white Americans.

    1. Igor Alexander | Reply

      It’s so obvious that Western civilization is superior that it shouldn’t need explanation. It was the achievements, intellectual and otherwise, of those “dead white males” that led directly to the creation of the modern world as we know it. Others may have dreamed of going to the moon; we actually did it. Australian Aborigines couldn’t have done it in a million years.

      If Western civilization is as inferior as the Jews and feminists and blacks and browns and leftists say it is, then why does every non-white country want to be like us? Why do non-whites leave their supposedly “superior” cultures in droves to come live in ours? How come whites aren’t tripping over each other to go live in such meccas of enlightenment and progress as Zimbabwe or Bangladesh?

      Do feminists really believe that they’d be better off in a culture that snips off clits with rusty scissors, that incinerates wives on their husbands’ pyres, or that forbids women from reading?

      If your kid contracts malaria or gets a third-degree burn, who do you send him to: an African witch doctor, a Chinese acupuncturist, or a doctor of Western medicine?

      These people eat the fruit of our forefathers’ labor and ingenuity and then spit in our faces, calling us racist, sexist, anti-Semitic pigs. Revolting ingrates, all of them.

      To quote Joseph Sobran:

      “The concept of envy — the hatred of the superior — has dropped out of our moral vocabulary … The idea that white Christian civilization is hated more for its virtues than its sins doesn’t occur to us, because it’s not a nice idea. … Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.”

      But even if Western civilization wasn’t superior, even if all civilizations and cultures were “equal”; so what? Would that mean we wouldn’t be entitled to ours? I don’t deny other races the right to uphold their cultures and traditions; why must we be denied the right to uphold ours?

      As for the Jewish role in all this, maybe the following excerpt from British nationalist John Tyndall’s book The Eleventh Hour will resonate as strongly with you as it did with me:

      “Bit by bit, it started to come home to me, in the form of incontrovertible evidence, that there was present in Britain and around the world a definite Jewish network wielding immense influence and power — through money, through politics and through its strong foothold, in some sectors amounting to virtual monopoly, in the mass media. . . .

      Then what of the uses of Jewish wealth and power? I set to work studying the political orientation of Jewish writers in the press, Jewish book-publishers, Jewish political leaders, political philosophers and academics. I investigated the various causes to which Jewish money was being donated.

      The truth was inescapable. In not one single case could I find any prominent, powerful and influential Jewish personage who identified himself or herself with any cause complementary to the interests of the British Nation. . . . Quite the contrary, every cause inimical to these things seemed to have Jewish participation and backing. Looking back to the political arguments I had had earlier, it now occurred to me, as it had not done at the time, that the most vociferous and aggressive opponents of all I believed in had been Jews.”


  4. tks for the effort you put in here I appreciate it!

  5. “These women pretty much want men to be “men again” so that they can go out and die in the battlefields to fight Islam, an attitude reminiscent of the suffragettes who wanted British men to die in the battlefields of WWI.

    Such views are not typical of men’s rights advocates.”

    They’re not, but the purpose of this fake-MRA blog is to plant a seed, where gradually these views will become standard.

    The blog is a classic case of Jewish subversion.

    The men’s movement case against feminism is quite a reasonable one, so Jews have to come along and compromise it, inserting the poisons of pro-Zionism and anti-Islam into the mix. The intention being that these become mandatory positions for a men’s rights advocate to take.

    The only way for the men’s movement to overcome this Jewish subversion is to pre-empt it. State that they are neutral on Zionism, if not anti-Zionist; and state that Jewish-style anti-Islam rhetoric doesn’t advance the cause.

  6. Another Jewish, neo-con fake MRA is Amy Alkon, who posts over at MensNewsDaily.

  7. Another closeted homosexual…

    A quick lesson in biology:

    1. Sperm aren’t babies, you need a fertile, female egg and uterus.
    2. Ejaculation is not on a par with nine months pregnancy (when the baby is actually being made), agonising life risking childbirth, which leaves many women with life long health issues, or the exhaustion of 24/7 breastfeeding/nappy changing etc., etc., while barely being able to walk.

    In other words, the only reason you and your son exist is because women made you both and cared for you both.

    It was predominately men who fucked this world up, not women. All wars have been started by men, not women. It was predominately men who an open door policy towards immigration too.

    Coincidently, the suffragettes (who your wrath was aimed at regarding WWI – a war started by men, not women) fought for working-class men to have the right to vote too.

    Yes, feminists played a small role in the break down of our nations, but no more than fags (like yourself) and liberals, who have just as many men amongst their number as women, played their part as well.

    Scapegoating women for all of the world’s ills is what weak, pathetic men and closet homosexuals do. I feel nothing but pity for your Mother.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: