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.
by Igor Alexander
As a red-blooded heterosexual male, there’s nothing that I find objectionable about watching two attractive women making love. It’s not the lesbian sex act per se that bothers me, it’s everything that surrounds it.
If I thought that lesbians were just hedonistic women who were sexually attracted to other women and were primarily seeking pleasure and thrills, I would be more willing to overlook them. Hey, I can relate — girls are hot! But that’s just a male fantasy. Such lesbians don’t exist outside of pulp novel covers*, porn, and other products of men’s lascivious imaginations.
The vast majority of real lesbians, even the ones of the “lipstick” variety that guys drool over, are women who have serious issues with men. Lesbians aren’t so much indifferent to men as they are hostile. It’s almost impossible to tell where feminism ends and lesbianism begins. The lesbian counterculture is inextricably tied to feminism.
Stop thinking of lesbianism as if it were just a sex thing. It’s not. It’s also a counterculture, an identity, and a political movement. Women who sleep with women for purely sexual reasons don’t usually go around calling themselves lesbians.
I’ve heard people claim that lesbians don’t dislike men, that they just aren’t interested in them, but I have not found that to be true in most instances. Lesbians are obsessed with men. They pretend to be men. They date women that look like men. They employ sex toys that are precisely modeled after male genitalia. They’re into “gender” role-playing, and assume “male” and “female” roles in their relationships. They go to feminist rallies, attend workshops for “womyn,” work in rape counseling centers. Many of them can’t stop yapping about the bad experiences they claim to have had with men, even years after they say they have stopped dating men. They appear genuinely upset when a man doesn’t give their lifestyle the nod of approval; if lesbians are indifferent to men, why would they care?
Young lesbian couples parade down busy streets in the daytime, hand-in-hand, staging public displays of affection which are meant more for attracting men’s attention (and rubbing it in their faces) than as sincere expressions of fondness or desire for each other.
Numerous studies have indicated that only a small minority of the women calling themselves lesbians have never slept with a man, and a surprising number of women calling themselves lesbians have sex with men (frequently “gay” or bisexual men) on a regular basis. An Australian study found that lesbians in the survey had slept with more men on average than the heterosexual women had! These findings are consistent with what I’ve observed firsthand.**
For lesbians not caring about men, an awful lot of their attention seems to be either directly or indirectly focused on them.
A stronger case could be made that faggots are indifferent to women than that dykes are indifferent to men. Fags, for the most part, seem to be genuinely guided by the pleasure principle and not much else. Fags who would truly qualify as misogynistic are rare, whereas man-hating dykes are ubiquitous. There may be a tiny bit of latent misogyny in male homosexuality, but it doesn’t even approach the scope and severity of lesbian misandry.
It wouldn’t make much difference to fags if all the sexually-available women on the planet vanished tomorrow; they would quickly get over it. But if all the men on the planet were to vanish tomorrow, much of the impetus for becoming a lesbian would be gone. Much like feminism: if all the men vanished tomorrow, feminists would have no one left to hate and to blame all their problems on, and their movement would shrivel up and die, having lost its raison d’etre. Lesbianism really should be thought of more as a wholly-owned subsidiary of feminism, than as a seperate thing onto itself.
When a guy jerks off, he’s just jerking off; he’s doing it because it feels good. To a lesbian, “flicking the bean” is a political act, a part of the struggle to liberate herself from the invisible (because they’re imaginary) chains of male oppression, an act of insurgency against the patriarchy. A woman who calls herself a lesbian and lets herself be penetrated by another woman donning a strap-on rubber penis isn’t merely displaying same-sex attraction, she is also revealing something about how she feels about men. That something goes along the lines of: “I enjoy heterosexual intercourse enough to try to mimic it, but I don’t like men.”
Guys, lesbians hate you. Their whole scene is based on spite and envy towards men. The only reason you don’t get it is because your only exposure to lesbianism has been through the pages of Penthouse magazine or by watching cute Hollywood actresses rubbing their boobies together on cable television. The reality on the ground is quite a different matter. By all means, check out some lesbian clubs and hangouts in your city, read some lesbian blogs and magazines, watch some pornography that was made by lesbians, for lesbians; but remember to bring along a barf bag.
(Also see What’s With All The Lesbians?)
* Ironically, lesbian-themed pulp novels from the 50’s and 60’s, whose target audience was nominally men, are now celebrated in women’s studies programs. Many lesbians from that generation remember these novels as having been an important part of their initiation into the lesbian way of life. From a Wikipedia article on these books:
“Writer Donna Allegra explained why she purchased them in saying, ‘No matter how embarrassed and ashamed I felt when I went to the cash register to buy these books, it was absolutely necessary for me to have them. I needed them the way I needed food and shelter for survival.'”
Sounds rather like the embarassment a teenage boy might feel buying his first copy of Playboy, doesn’t it? Nerve-wracking and yet strangely exhilarating at the same time, like breaking the law or starting a fistfight. I wonder how many people get sucked into the homosexual lifestyle because of the initial nervous thrill they get from trying something new, different, and taboo? Of course, once the excitement wears off, fags have to start inhaling “poppers” (alkyl nitrites) just to get it up, while female homosexuals suffer a condition known as “lesbian bed death,” similar to the loss of sexual desire long-standing married couples sometimes experience. Would it be overly optimistic to hope that as homosexuality continues to lose its stigma due to the public relations efforts of the homosexual lobby, fewer people will be attracted to it? To some there’s no fruit more inviting than the one that is forbidden, and in some sectors of society, homosexuality is becoming downright banal.
Also from Wikipedia:
“Stephanie Foote, from the University of Illinois commented on the importance of lesbian pulp novels to the lesbian identity prior to feminism: ‘Pulps have been understood as signs of a secret history of readers, and they have been valued because they have been read. The more they are read, the more they are valued, and the more they are read, the closer the relationship between the very act of circulation and reading and the construction of a lesbian community becomes…Characters use the reading of novels as a way to understand that they are not alone.'”
Hearing this, one has to wonder if men, by purchasing these novels and thus keeping them in demand and on store shelves, weren’t inadvertently fueling a movement and counterculture that would soon become profoundly antagonistic towards them. How many a woman from that generation who became a lesbian would never even have thought of eschewing a heterosexual lifestyle if she hadn’t momentarily caught a glimpse of one of those covers on a drugstore shelf out of the corner of her eye? Could the widely disseminated pornography of today be having a similar effect on some of our young women?
Would it be accurate to assume that the publishers of these pulp novels, like the pornographers of today, were disproportionately Jewish? Could the seeds of the modern lesbian movement have been planted by Jewish publishers in the 50’s and 60’s?
** It’s interesting to note that the Greek poet Sappho, who was born around 600 B.C. on the island of Lesbos — from which we get the term “lesbian” — was married and had a child, and that most of the young women in her circle of companions left her group to marry men.
The rainbow coalition of feminists, queers, Jews, blacks, browns, and leftists is forever trying to shove political correctness down our throats under the guise of promoting “equality” and preventing “discrimination,” but in the following story its true motivation — the blind hatred of heterosexual white gentile males — is naked for all to see. In the Orwellian doublespeak of the rainbow coalition, a call to end “discrimination” is really an invitation to discriminate against heterosexual white males. When a member of this coalition demands “equality,” what he/she/it is really after are special treatment and privileges. When members of this coalition talk about promoting “human rights,” what they really have in mind is depriving heterosexual white males of the rights of property, free speech, and free association. –Igor Alexander
Lesson in stupidity – Carleton’s student union quit its Shinerama fundraiser because cystic fibrosis affects mainly white people
OTTAWA – The Carleton student union’s decision to quit its Shinerama fundraiser because cystic fibrosis affects mainly white people is stupid and unfair, says CF sufferer Kelsey Lett.
Lett, 18, who has spent most of her life in hospital, says the disease doesn’t discriminate.
“I know white girls who have it. I know black guys who have it,” she said yesterday.
At a meeting Monday night, Carleton University Students Association councillors voted 22-2 in favour of quitting their long-standing FROSH week fundraiser and sponsoring another charity.
They supported a motion to stop Shinerama because, as the motion stated, they want fundraising to be “inclusive as possible,” and “CF has recently been revealed to affect white people and primarily men.” [Emphasis added. -IA]
The decision was based on misinformation, says the head of the Canadian CF Foundation.
“It’s the most common, fatal, genetic disease affecting young people in this country,” CEO Cathleen Morrison said.
“Hopefully people are making decisions based on information that is correct.”
Nick Bergamini, who voted against the motion, was shocked when he heard it.
“This does not reflect the views of Carleton students. These are the views of a few radicals who are playing politics with a charity,” he said.
Bergamini plans to put forward a motion to reverse the decision at the next monthly meeting, but he’s not optimistic.
The following comment, which I attempted to post but was deleted by a moderator, is an example of what Stormfront moderators call “woman bashing”:
Originally Posted by Lady Celtic:
“Some women were afraid to post in the main forum and were afraid to join because of the some of the males that bash women on here. Stormfront was created for all white people with White Nationalist ideals. But some men don’t see it that way and see it fit to bash women on here.”
My Unpublished Response:
“So instead women get their own forum from which they can bash men, but the men don’t get to respond. Typical feminist hypocrisy. Always whinging about ‘equality’ when what they’re really after are special privileges.”
Is there really any difference, as far as underlying principle, between Stormfront banning people for “sexist” remarks and Human Rights Tribunals prosecuting people for “hate speech”?
UPDATE (08-04-14): I have now been permanently banned from Stormfront. I tried accessing my account and was greeted with this:
Oh well. I didn’t enjoy posting there anyways. Stormfront has to be one of the most overmoderated message boards on the Internet, with your posts always at the mercy of the mods and their unpredictable, hormonally-induced mood swings.