One Man's Kingdom

"Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife." -- Proverbs 21:19

Click Pic for "The Amaxon Women (The Science of Why Males Exist)"

QUOTE: “The abandonment of men in contemporary society is so comprehensive that a man who has lost a wife or lover not only suffers from the loss of that deep personal connection, but from a fairly comprehensive rejection by society in general. First you lose your wife, then your kids, and then even your own family turns against you in many cases (this is a lot more common than most people realize. American men’s own mothers very often blame them and side with the ex in what is usually a futile effort to maintain contact with grandchildren). 
The thrashing you get from the police and courts is just gratuitous abuse; 

in many cases guys are simply numb to additional pain by that time.”
.

***

.
I would argue that the sudden and total collapsing of love, as it is presented to men, is evidence of its illusion.

Children are raised on it, women can expect it their whole lives in a watered down sense, but men lose all right to it as they come of age. Unfortunately, in the West, no-one ever tells them that this is their heritage as men. They have to learn it the hard way, or go mad refusing to learn it at all.

Other cultures, particularly those closer to nature,

had rites of passage for young men. The rite usually involved sending the stripling out in the wild, on his own. He would be exposed to danger, expected to survive on his own, and could expect no assistance. It was a symbolic, and real, exercise to let him know that he was no longer the dependent he once was. Young women were never subjected to the same. They belonged to the community, no matter their age, their fertility or their ability.

It is a feature of all men who go wild at women and take it out on innocents, as well as their former intimates, that they are still sold on the love illusion – they are men that fervently believe they deserve a place in the bosom of society. The trick is maintained for its utility in deceiving men into social contracts that are counter to their own interests.
.

It’s the same the world over. Every deal won by trickery has a higher harvest of woe than that done with all cards on the table and intentions plainly stated.

(Read More Here)

The Want of Men Was Their Ruin

Click for "The Suffragettes vs The Patriarchy"

If men really were as misogynist as women claim, none of this would have ever happened. We would've just put them over our knee and given them a righteous paddling until we got our damn sammiches made exactly like we wanted 'em.

It's the very fact that women have so much social power over men that's the problem - and that's why I, like Weininger, have to say it's ultimately men's fault this happened.
  


"Where my exposition is anti-feminine, and that is nearly everywhere, men themselves will 

receive it with little heartiness or conviction; their sexual egoism makes them prefer to see woman as they would like to have her, as they would like her to be.

I need not say that I am prepared for the answer women will have to the judgment I have passed on their sex. My investigation, indeed, turns against man in the end, and although in a deeper sense than the advocates of women's rights could anticipate, assigns to man the heaviest and most real blame. ..."
 -- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, Author's Preface

Men have blinders on when it comes to women in much the same way mothers have blinders on them with children. Women naturally see their children as perfect little angels and men see women in the same way. Our civilization has been trying to take the female sex off that pedastal for the last 3,300 years, (back when Moses was thought to have written the Pentateuch), and it's been a struggle to do so the whole way.

(Read More Here)

The Liberation of Men

.
To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."


To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." -- Genesis 3:16-19

Click Pic for "Love is for Suckers... Blood Suckers!"

.



And so it has been ever since, until feminism convinced women to unwittingly take on men's curse as their own.

And what's a man to do about it, after all? Despite corporate and feminist attempts at designing various ways for emasculated males to take on the pains of child-birth, there can never be a true understanding for males of what it is like to give birth. This is women's curse, and it is their curse alone to bear, for it is impossible for men to share equally with her in it - even if men were so stupid to want to.

(Read More Here)

Work With the World, Don't Fight Against It

.
Something I think men will have to come to terms with is that when the pendulum inevitably swings back, what actual benefit do men think this will have for them? Will it bring that fabled equality everyone is seeking? Will everyone join hands and sing kumbaya and live happily ever after? Will the planets align and Heaven on Earth make itself apparent to man and woman alike?

Not likely.

For example, it is easy to point out that when feminists cry of the abuses of women in places like Afghanistan, if you look at the men they are treated even worse. And, if you look at the “abuses” women endured in the past centuries, you will find that in every situation, men had even worse abuses to endure. It is a feature of human nature. It's just like no matter at what place, or in what time, children are always treated better than adults – it’s just the way humanity works.

So, after Feminism subsides, how will things change? Do you really think it will be any different? Women will still be treated better than men. They have been since the dawn of time, and they will be until closing time.

(Read More Here)

Following the Masculine Principle is the "Right Way"

.
"Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable...

Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth." -- George Orwell 
.
It's hard to say, really, what one should "do" about all of this falseness that's crept into our society. The family unit is obviously being altered. Everybody seems to have an idea of how to make it "work" better - by further deconstructing it. We've got a 50% Divorce Rate, Shared-Parenting, Gay Marriage, 5-Parent Families, unsustainable birth-rates, and over half of children now go to bed without their biological father in the house. I think marriage has been fixed enough, don't you?

(Read More Here)

The Family Plot: The Future (Civil Unions & Shared Parenting)

.

The argument often used against Same Sex Marriage is that it should not be called “marriage” but rather a “civil union” – call it ANYTHING you want, just don’t call it marriage!

But advocates for Same Sex Marriage simply refuse to rename it, despite such “civil unions” not really differing from marriage in anything but name.

Have you ever asked yourself “why”?

A quick perusing of the following quotes ought to give a hint to the answer:

“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality.” -- Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.

"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

"It [gay marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30

"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past." -- Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.

Click Pic for "Peer Reviewed Research: The Holy Grail of Truth?"

There is an element in the Gay Community that fully intends to transform the current parameters of marriage and create something completely new. This is classical Cultural Marxism and is the reason why Gay Rights Activists and feminists have joined each other at the urinal of eternal victimization, despite the obvious contradiction of each group’s fundamental premise – that being feminists' entire raison d'être is based upon “Gender is a Social Construct,” (therefore women are discriminated against because they are treated differently while being born fundamentally the same), whereas Gay Rights Activists argue that they are born gay (refuting gender is a social construct) and therefore they are victimized because they are born that way. These arguments are mutually contradictory at the most fundamental level, and the two groups ought to be enemies… and yet, they obviously aren’t. The reason is that the radical wings of both factions have the same fundamental goal: they both wish to alter the family unit into something completely new.

(Read More Here)

The Family Plot: The Present (No-Fault Divorce & Hypergamy)

.

R.I.P. Marriage 1.0 (Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Patriarcy")

Often we identify the introduction of No-Fault Divorce laws in the 1970’s as the beginning of the divorce epidemic. As I pointed out in The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy, this is not entirely accurate. The divorce craze actually began back in the 1860’s and 1870’s when the Suffragettes undermined father-custody with the Tender Year’s Doctrine and mother-custody became the norm. This voided one of the core tenets of marriage in the first place - which was bringing men into the reproduction process in a meaningful way so that their higher provisioning abilities could be utilized for the greater good of both families and society.

It’s not like No-Fault Divorce had no impact on divorce rates – it certainly did! But it more or less streamlined a process that had been well under way for over a century.

Contrary to popular belief, obtaining a divorce before the 1970’s was not that difficult. Marilyn Monroe divorced three times between 1942 and 1961 while Elizabeth Taylor had four divorces under her belt and was working on her fifth when No-Fault Divorce became law. Before No-Fault Divorce was introduced there were just a few more hoops to jump through, in an effort to “find fault.” Of course, with “fault” divorce, it extends that one must prove that an actual “fault” had occurred. There were many things which constituted “fault,” including adultery, alcoholism, insanity, abandonment, and a host of others. But the most pernicious to the institution was the fault called “cruelty.”

(Read More Here)

The Family Plot: The Past (Their Oppressors Are Children)

.

Sometimes I have to laugh at mankind's arrogance, to be sitting here on this tiny planet, in our not so significant solar system, in one of an infinite number of galaxies... that we dare to even argue about the nature of the universe and what is True or not.


It makes me think of being born on some tropical island out in the Pacific, then declaring the whole world is made of coconuts, sand and water.

How on earth could someone in that situation even conceive of the Grand Canyon or Mount Everest? We are in the same situation - so long as we are stuck way out here on good old planet earth, we too cannot possibly even conceive of all the workings, patterns, systems and forces that are at play in the "greater scope of things."

(Read More Here)

Useful Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess

.
A mistake I think many "conspiracy theorists" make is trying to account for every single event as being some sort of manipulation. It doesn't really have to be as complex as that - there are really only certain pivotal arguments that need to be won, so that the general direction will turn. For example, giving women the vote, due to their more security-based psychology (as opposed to men's individualistic psychology) pretty much guaranteed that government would turn socialist and begin to grow. This has been explored by John Lott and Lawrence Kenny's study titled, "Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?"

In the same way, if parental authority is undermined by "children's rights," I can pretty much guarantee that there will be untold havoc created in people's families. Making the hierarchy upside down naturally causes problems. The private cannot lead the general. The employee cannot lead the employer. The child cannot lead the parent. Take any of these situations and reverse the hierarchy, and it's pretty easy to see how they will naturally canabalize themselves until they are utterly destroyed. Some arguments are more important than others - because they can set off a chain reaction of further arguments in the future.

(Read More Here)