A Masculinist

[ApocrypheParticipant 8]

Hi guys (and spies),

I’m 35. I’m a Belgian and not a native english speaker. Thus, “pardon my french”…

It seems clear to me women are getting more and more violent in our “white countries” since their violence is completely unchecked. I haven’t witnessed physical violence, but moral violence is all over the place and many friends agree with that.

Last year, a witch crossed with a bee went to the police because I had written her a friendly letter – no compliments – to try to make her join us for boardgames. A dude had harassed her for 18 months before and she decided to take revenge on me… So, she had played with the heart of a guy for 18 month, instead of just asking him to stop, then go to the police the next week if he hadn’t left her alone – and she wanted to take revenge on me for being a cruel witch crossed with a bee… and that’s just one example.

Recently, I came up with the idea of writing a novel that would be called “The masculinist”. I told my mom about the title and she immediately reacted by saying : “Macho”

She didn’t realize, until I underlined it, she had proven that “feminism” has nothing to do with equality. She’s 65, always lived in Belgium… she was raised by feminism… and she’s telling me “feminism” in the masculine form means “macho”. WOOOOOW!

I think “meninists” should go for the title “masculinists”, which is the masculine form of “feminists”… and can also be translated into french – where the cancer started – while meninism is impossible to use in french : “Hominisme” sounds like paleontology or anthropology…

White males have ended up slavery – they could have exterminated every black man in northern america easily to solve all problems… but they didn’t. Black men joined the movement… while chicks in the meantime were sitting on their golden eggs.

White males have also destroyed nazi Germany. None else did. That’s because we’re not evil. Being wrong is not being evil. Remaining in error is the true nature of evil.

And just because a few hundred women have been active in the civil right’s movement, now we have to bear those crazy witched crossed with bees.

Sébastien

[ILiveAgainParticipant]

Apocryphe wrote:

White males have ended up slavery – they could have exterminated every black man in northern america easily to solve all problems… but they didn’t. Black men joined the movement… while chicks in the meantime were sitting on their golden eggs. White males have also destroyed nazi Germany. None else did. That’s because we’re not evil. Being wrong is not being evil. Remaining in error is the true nature of evil. And just because a few hundred women have been active in the civil right’s movement, now we have to bear those crazy witched crossed with bees. Sébastien

Is there something in the water today?

Ok .. now some info for you.

Did you know that your DNA can be traced back to the San Bushmen aka The First People of the Kalahari?

That’s in Africa …. where the ‘BLACKS’ are.

So inside you … right now … as you spew … is … well …. a black man ☺

As for the Nazis ….. well my friend …. get your butt ready coz I feel you are about to experience a little corrective justice.

Give me a minute to go get a beer. Don’t start without me 😆

You just stay right there 😉

 

[Elgos_GrimParticipant 254]

Got your beer? Good.

First and foremost; the past is the past – no one in the present is responsible for anything they didn’t actually do.

After slavery was ended in America it was replaced with racial segregation, later on famous figures such as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks (both black) ended racial segregation.

Have you ever considered, moral implications aside, the finacial cost of killing all the black slaves in America at the time (Ignoring the 480,000 free men), which would amount to 4,000,000 Black Slaves.

Now, from what I can tell, in 1875 bullets cost roughly 1.5 usd for 100 – assuming every shot was a kill, no misfires, no duds, etc. that would mean that 40,000 cases of 100 bullets would be needed amounting to 60,000 usd, which in todays currency would amount to 1,275,179 usd in todays currency, that is Ignoring costs of disposal, weapons, etc. as well as time in the production of 40,000 bullets, as well as transport thereof.<span style=”font-size: xx-small;”>
</span>

Oh yes, now please be so kind to explain to me exactly what problems killing off 4,000,000 people would have solved?

Oh, and Nazi germany was destroyed by russian soldiers who were seeking vengeance for the Nazi massacre at Stalingrad. Oh, and they were communists.

[Anonymous 5]

Chinweizu, a Nigerian, defined the term “Masculinist” in 1990 with his revolutionary MGTOW philosophy in “Anatomy of Female Power”
I believe he was the first to define MGTOW in the modern age.
His book is so dangerous to the propaganda of feminism that it would have to be one of the hardest books to find anywhere.
This is despite it immediately going into a second printing in it’s first year, furthermore, the idea has done nothing but grow and currently growing at an exponential rate.
Old dog eared copies of “Anatomy of Female Power” are very expensive and it’s the only book I’ve read that I haven’t got the hard copy of.

Substitute the new terms
PUA/Tradcon = Macho
Mangina = Musho
MGTOW = Masculinist

Then, read the following excerpts from the epilogue of his book (Score out of 10 how right he got MGTOW 25 years ago)
————————————————————–
“To understand why men have not yet revolted in the wake of
feminism, we ought to note that, in their attitudes to women, there are
three basic types of men: the macho, the musho, and the masculinist.
A macho is a brawny, and sometimes brainy, factotum who has been bred for nest slavery,_and who is indoctrinated to believe that he is the lord and master of the woman who rules him.
A musho is a henpecked version of the macho who hangs like a bleeding worm between the beaks of his nest queen.
A masculinist is a man who is devoted to male liberty, and who would avoid nest slavery.
The masculinist belongs to an altogether different species from the
macho and the musho. He does not suffer from most of the illusions of
the macho; he is not drawn to macho ambitions; and he views the musho with robust contempt. In keeping with his commitment to the liberation of men from nest slavery, the masculinist would end the psychological, social and legal conditions for that slavery, and create instead conditions for equitable relations between the complementary sexes.
If men have not yet revolted in the wake of feminism, it is because
there are still too few masculinists around. This is so because motherpower still produces far too many machos; and because termagants have taken so many lapsing machos in tow and made them into mushos; and because far too many men are ignorant of female power and its ways and means. Consequently, the liberation of men depends crucially on the spread of the masculinist understanding of male-female relations.
The masculinist is a libertarian. His commitment to male liberty,
and his understanding of the conditions for male liberty, shape his
beliefs.
The masculinist accepts that, contrary to what the macho believes
and the feminist claims, it is a woman’s world, and not a man’s
The masculinist accepts that, contrary to feminist propaganda and
macho illusions, the arch enemies of feminism are not men, but that vast
majority of matriarchists who do not wish to give up their traditional
powers and privileges. Since patriarchy is but a facade for a basic
matriarchy, the men whom feminists claim as their enemies are simply
fall guys for the matriarchists. Masculinists, therefore, would redirect
the feminist arrows to their proper destination, namely, matriarchy.
The masculinist accepts that, as the calypso songs say, “the woman
is smarter” and “woman is boss”.
The masculinist accepts that men are the biologically more dispensable sex
which is why societies train men for high risk occupations like hunting and war,
whereas wombs (and their carriers) are protected to maximize a society’s reproductive capacity,
hence its chances of survival.
The masculinist does not believe in being owned by any woman; nor
does he believe in owning any woman. He recognizes that the owning
of a human being by another was abolished long ago, and quite rightly
too, and he has no interest in having the practice revived in any form.
In his encounters with women, the masculinists role model is not
Adam, who he has little reason to respect; he takes after Gilgamesh and
Odysseus, who knew women well enough to defeat their schemes and survive their revenge;
who demonstrated that the resolute man, who understands woman, has little cause to fear her.
The masculinist believes that every woman has every right to do
whatever she wants with her body, except enslave a man with it.
If she wants to hoard it, and tender her unbroken hymen to the worms in her grave, that is her prerogative.
If she wants to give her genitals to any man, or to twenty men, or to a thousand;
or to a chicken or goat or gorilla or horse or hippo or elephant or polar bear
(in that alleged order of mounting vigour) – that too is her business.
The masculinist does not believe in clitoridectomy; he sees it as a
great strategic weapon against men. The uncut clitoris, he knows, would
make women as randy as men, if not more so; it would end that sexual
restraint which gives a woman power over the sexually desperate male.
The masculinist is not prepared to sell his lifelong labour to any
woman in exchange for her ova and her womb.
If he decides to rent ova and womb, he pays the going rate or even better;
but he will not enslave himself to a nest, just for the illusion of owning ova and womb.
He cannot wait for the day when cloning will make the womb obsolete, and womb renting superfluous.
Being a seasoned realist, a masculinist is, in Diane Wakoski’s words, “a
beast of the jungle and knows better than to disregard the nature of an
animal”. Therefore,

“When he tangles with a nest -age woman;
When she gushes ‘out she loves him,
He cannot but wonder which arm or leg
The lovely shark is after.”

To the masculinist, a wedding is a ceremony in which a woman is
Issued with a public licence to ride piggyback on a man and exploit him.
He therefore does his best not to wed. He does not believe in marrying to obtain house help.
Unlike the macho; he finds it cheaper (financially, emotionally, mentally) to rent house help than to marry it.
The masculinist does not subscribe to gallantry. He does not believe
that a man should open door for, or give up his seat to a woman, not
unless she is infirm from age or disease, in which case she gets the same consideration as aged or infirm men.
He does not believe that it is for any man to defend any woman’s honour: he believes that if her
honour matters to her, a woman is quite capable of defending herself.
The maliculinist believes that every woman should protect herself.
The, masculinist believes , that if it is all right for women to be
feminists, it is all right for men to be masculinists. What is good for the
goose is good for the gander: each should therefore, defend and protect its own interest.
It is not in the male interest to be a nest-slave, or to be programmed for nest-slavery.
It is not in the male interest to be society’s specialists in violence,
war and other dangerous pursuits. So long as these pursuits are necessary, men and women should equally engage in them.
The proposal, in February 1980, by US President Jimmy Carter, to draft men and women for military service and the decision, in February 1989, by Canada to integrate its armed forces and make women serve in wartime combat roles, including infantry units, l13 – these are both in the male interest.
It is not in the male interest to maim or slaughter one another in their
competition for wombs.
It is not in the male interest to be killed by a woman when a liason
between a man and a woman breaks up, or when the woman, like the
notorious Jean Harris, fears the man might leave her.
It is not in the male interest to live in an environment that is polluted
with sexual stimulants which weaken men’s bargaining position in transactions with women.
It is not in the male interest to be exploited through alimony payments
and other rackets of divorce.
Being determined to obtain his liberty, the masculinist looks at nest
slavery with unsentimental eyes; for only by understanding man’s condition can he hope to change it. He accepts that man’s subordination
to woman derives from the five pillars of woman power. He knows that,
with man’s loss of control over the kitchen and the cradle, he really has
never had any chance of being anything but the slave (glorified when
necessary) of woman. As a realist, he accepts that woman’s control of
the womb will remain unassailable until cloning techniques are perfected.
He knows that probably nothing can be done about woman’s
relatively greater psychological maturity. But he also knows that much
can be done, through cultural training, to whittle down woman’s control
of kitchen and cradle, and to reduce the deranging powers of the erect penis.
He therefore welcomes feminist demands that men be obliged to work as baby-minders. When men get control of the cradle, they will be able to train children in the male interest, and so reduce the numbers of machos and mushos in the world. When men get control of the kitchen, female power over man’s stomach will diminish. A man who cooks cannot be half-starved into submission, on any matter, by his wife. The masculinist believes in bringing about the revolt of the helots of matriarchy. Ah, what a different world it would be if only the macho ego would give up its ingrained stupidity and respond to the masculinist call:
Men of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your macho illusions and your nest-slave burdens!
————————————————————————

[ApocrypheParticipant 8]

Hoy,

My internet is laggy… so, sorry for the late reply.

I can see some people have not understood me well… about “black people” noticeably… I was simplifying and I see this led to misinterpretations. Also, again, I’m not a native speaker…

It’s been two years that most of my friends are Africans. I’m really fed up of my brother europeans for many reasons. I’m planning to leave Europe to move to Africa. Everything is jammed by the European Union and people do nothing about it. I cans ee there’s not much intelligence here.

I know I’m an African and that my ancestors were Bushmen. I’ve been working on this topic for many years actually, through an analysis of the book of Genesis, the part before the Flood…

The beginning of History was the Liberation of men and it happened in Africa. If you look at the first chapters of Genesis, you can see first the Seven Days, then the Garden of Eden, then the tale of Caïn and Abel. Then comes the Flood.

So, first it tells about the formation of the ecosystem, then about the sharing of the Fruit, then there’s the tiller and the shepperd. Then there’s a transition from one world to the next one.

What did we need to understand in order to develop agriculture and cattle breeding?

-> the link between sexuality and reproduction.

How could we not understand the link between sexuality and reproduction?

-> because human males, like bonobos and chimpanzees, have a permanent sexuality. While the rest of nature follows cycles, we do not.

This lead Bonobos to use sexuality as a peacekeeper. Chimpanzees for ther part use it for negociating (yeah, the female chimp is a prostitute… it is the oldest job in the world!)

We use sexuality for these two reasons, and also for pleasure. In hebrew, the word “Eden” means “pleasure/charm”. So, the Garden of Eden represents the era during which sex was only associated with pleasure and not with reproduction. And the Flood represents the multiplication of the population and the multiplication of tales about the origins, which made us forget about what could really be called Prehistory.

For tens of thousands of years, our ancestors ignored fecondation… even though they could speak and thus explained things…

My guess is that our ancestors, while we were all living in Africa, imagined that women were capable of having babies “at will”. They could see all of nature was following clear cycles, that women had clear cycles… and that they had babies all years long (since we were riding them constantly, just like we still do today) while every other creature only had babies at a certain period of the year.

Mothers were divinised by early humans, who accepted the idea of the Universal Mother (Eve is named so by Adam) : They were “brothers and sisters” of all creatures, born from a mystical force and their mother’s womb.

Logic allows to point out rape as the cause of History. Mothers during Matriarchy were considered as the only cause for children. So children were completely “their children”. This lead to the situation were women were defining “good and evil”, while men’s role was to protect the group.

As time passed, men were more and more frustrated of this Matriarchy. Their body knew they were the fathers, but the culture was hiding it from them. Now, don’t see a conspiration here, it were just a major error for which men are probably responsible : we were the ones who knew nature and we were thus certainly the ones who pointed out everything follows cycles… but the human male… Oh, the irony…

Since men were frustrated by excessive female authority… they wanted to rebel… but they couldn’t do it because it were forbidden to touch the Tree in the middle of the Garden. That Tree had a chunk : the mothers, to whom everythning was linked. That Tree had branches : men… carrying spears. That Tree had leaves : animals, who can be noisy. That Tree had flowers which were becoming fruits : vegetals, including the Tree, were the source of births and metamorphosis.

If a man didn’t respect that rule and tried to be violent, then he was condemned to have a bad reputation. “Forbidden” in hebrew has a connotation. It can mean “that which is said amongst people”. Rebellious men were chased and their reputation would pursue them everywhere. We were living in a very small area… Rebellious men were forced to go back to nature, to live with animals and not humans anymore.

Being frustrated, men only had one option to express their violence without having a clearly abnormal behaviour : through sexuality. Men where taking revenge on women by having forced sex when none was watching. Even today, rape is often hard to prove, so imagine then…

This lead women to become amazons, avoiding men and especially sexuality… and that’s probably how they understood they could not have babies “at will”… so they went back to the camp and everything changed.

In the Quran, it is said like this : “Men were created from a drop of sperm and they became debaters/fighters”

In the Bible, it is said like this :

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept : and he took one of his ribs, and closed upthe flesh instead thereof; 
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 
23 And Adam said , This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman,because she was taken out of Man. 

The “sleep” is the Matriarchy : self-ignorance

Then there’s the taking of the flesh and the insertion of flesh : rape

Then, there’s what the first man who discovered the concept of “father” said. It might be his exact words : “What??? So you’re telling me women are born from men too??? So, she actually is the flesh of my flesh and the bones of my bones”

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise , she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat , and gave also unto herhusband with her; and he did eat . 
7 And the eyes of them both were opened , and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together , and made themselves aprons.

In this passage, you can see the woman had the “knowledge of good and evil” : the authority… It is written right before she takes the fruit and shares it. She hadn’t tasted it, but she could see it would be good… Ain’t that suspicious?

The style used in this part of the bible is quite complex to decifer, but if you look at details, it is quite clear.

The Universal Mother, the Serpent, was confronted by women. Then they decided to abolish Matriarchy and to share the Fruit…

Remember what I’ve written about the Tree in the middle of the Garden. Fruits were childrens. The sharing of the Fruits represents the institution of mariage : parents are identified and share the autority on their children. Also, it represents the division of nature into clear categories : species. And it represents the division of mankind int ethnic groups. The fall of Matriarchy lead to struggles for authority, denial, accusations,…

And, to end it here… a fig represents a black woman’s vagina. We were all born from that. You might even consider the fact that Bouddha found illumination under a fig tree. I guess you got to understand you were an african at some point if you want to understand who you are now…

Cheers!

Sébastien

[Author]

Posts