Update

I do not blog anymore, partially because after it slowly dawned on me that feminism is the basic cause of the downfall of civilization, current and of times past, it became rather hard to talk about other things that lead themselves to comments and analysis (e.g Government, Taxes, Race, Economics etc)

Talking about feminism just ain't my bag. But there are lots of places where its regularly discussed. For one example:
http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/


So, if anyone is reading this, a small update about Box.net

Before, to access the articles I put online, you had to go to
http://public.box.net/mensarefugee26388

But it seems Box closed down its "public" system. So if you want to access any articles you have to go to
http://box.net/mensarefugee26388
instead.

Ive only put the Devlin articles back up. But if I see a few people downloading it (proof that its still of use) then Ill upload the other ones as well (Devlin Audio, Sex and Culture book etc).

See you around guys.

Wallpaper Rotator.

I like to see a different wallpaper every once in a while. Keeps my desktop fresh.

This nice little program automatically rotates the Desktop background as per your settings (per day,week etc)

Picture: My current Wallpaper.

The Vote.

I had a mild epiphany a few days ago.

You know women have the Vote.

And if you're at all honest, you know they shouldn't.

But WHY do they have the Vote? Though Im not about to look into the historical record, I'm pretty sure of the reason.

Because MEN have the Vote.

Thing is when men, all men, get the vote, women getting the vote cannot be far off.

Why? Because lots of men (manginas) get their kicks from being chivalrous to women. The psychic benefits of being 'the fairer sex's' benefactor must be huge, compared to the slow feminist decline that will take decades to unfold.

So, while removing women vote is a good idea It is, unfortunately, like pushing a ball halfway up a hill. To achieve a measure of long term sanity - the vote needs to be made elitist as well.

Toilet Restaurants?

What the heck goes on in the minds (?) of these people? Link

Type, and it is spoken.

Vozme.com

You can type out anything, heck copy it from your favourite blog and paste.

From the inimitable mind of Rob Fedders

The whole article is worth reading too. Its worthwhile to spend a lazy weekend reading his blog.

Saturday, January 13, 2007
From the Comments...
Two anonymous posters left comments to my post titled “The Big Lie” which I will address here rather than in the comments area, for I imagine this will be a long post, as is always the case when one tries to untwist the deceit that feminism has wrought upon society with their supremacist cultural Marxist ideology.

***

Anonymous 12:10pm said:

"ok there, you may want to watch your words, because by acting as an asswhole you are only lowering yourself to the level of those so called modern feminists. Yes you read this properly, i do mean modern feminism. Unlike you, i am am woman, and like you i despise modern feminism. I have never studies feminism so i can't really say whether there are or aren't different kinds of feminism, but you can't deny the fact that different types of feminism did actually exist throughout modern recent history (100 to 200 years ago). I mean, as much as i despise modern feminists, lets face the fact that the first "feminists', called the suffragettes, did a wonderful work, and eventually did bring the right of vote to women and equality in our western societies. It is the modern feminists that have lost their goals and their minds. We have to be careful here not to mix both, since the first "feminists" did bring equality, the modern feminists destroyed it. There is no more equality, neither for men, neither for women. It is a full blown war where in the end we both lost and still loosing, to the point where we both become slaves to a society runed by by multinational corporations. Think about it, there is no winner, neither women, neither men. We are both suffering from this and refusing to see it.

There is no point, for any man, to lower himself to the level of those modern feminists and act as a bunch of idiots like they do. If you are that bright, fight them in smarter ways, above their level. Be smarter than they are, go ahead in stopping this stupid war and rebuilt an actual equalitarian society. Show those feminists how stupid and wrong they are, through positive action. Do not spit back at them, since it is only proving their point, which we do not want, since we know those feminists are crazy. There is no point in responding the hatered by hatered.

Act in a smart and positive way. Humans can be stupid, good, evil, intelligent, etc, no mater what sex they belong to. yes it may take time, a longer time, or shorter time to achieve these goals, depending on how ell you men use your resources, and yes there are some or many women out there who support you, in the same way some men claim to be feminists. Find them and ask them their opinions, and their support.


Forget anger and revenge. choose love and forgiveness, the only way to fight hatred, yes it may sound idealistic, but agin you can't fight hatered with hatered, if you do not like my propositions, think of something better. good luck, but coose the right path into dealing with this, to you or any male activist."



***
.
The official reply from No Ma'am:

OK, first of all, there is no point in a woman leaving comments about “asswholeness” and then going on with shaming talk about how men are supposed to behave on-line. The shame tactics immediately employed by women are despicable and annoy many a man. All but the most mangina-fied of men ARE SICK TO DEATH OF IT! Many of the older generation of men floating around online have been opposed to feminism since the 60’s and 70’s, and one thing that is apparent is: Men have been trying to take the high-ground in their dealings with feminism for decades AND IT GETS THEM NOWHERE! If you only knew how many women I have gently discussed issues with, only to get NOWHERE with them in the end. Ultimately, it is becoming painfully evident that women really don’t care about men’s plight and certainly don’t want to bother with such annoying things as “justice.” Women really only get concerned about men when they realize that something a man does or doesn’t do affects women. For the rest, women really just don’t care.
.
An example would be the looming “man tax” that feminism has been pushing with their Marxist agenda. Most women will readily agree with this and think it is a good idea, to even out the wage gap that they so falsely believe in. But, then if you explain to them that “man tax” will lower their husband’s (primary breadwinner) pay, and therefore his wife and children will have less money – then women will be opposed to it. Never does it seem to occur to women that the whole notion of “man-tax” or its partner, affirmative action, are horribly unjust. Nope, the injustice doesn’t bother the ladies… what bothers the ladies is if some action taken against men affects her in some way. This is a theme that is coming out time and time again. Have a look at many of the women that are getting involved in the Father’s Rights Movement. Why are most of them there? Not because they believe men’s rights are being trampled, but rather because they are grandmothers who can’t see their grandkids due to a divorcing wife – or they are a second wife who is complaining that the first wife is draining her family’s resources. It is truly an anomaly to find a woman speaking up for men solely for the sake of justice because 99.9% of the time it is all about her.
.
We men have tried to be nice, we have brought forth good, solid, logical discussions advocating for our cause… and do you know what we get in return… ***crickets chirping***… yeah, 40 years of men being “nice” and trying to take the high ground got them in a worse situation than where they were before.
.
So, anonymous, please stop imposing your self declared sense of female moral authority on men. It is insulting. Just because it bothers you that you, as a woman, are starting to see men treat women the same way that women have been treating men, doesn’t give you any justification for running around and decrying that men cannot fight hatred with hatred. Nope, can’t fight guns with guns, eh? Where were you for the last 40 years when feminists were calling for the steady erosion of men’s rights based on hatred? What did you say when all your girlfriends were sniggering over Bobbit jokes? Do you lecture your lady friends on their blatant display of hatred towards men when they chuckle at men getting raped in prison?
.
You have my permission to impose your moral authority on your female counterparts, but after 40 years of blatant hatred against men, it is really rich for a woman to come here and give a shaming lecture like this. What’s next, are you going to tell the Jews that they should treat Nazis with kindness, because that is the only way? The next time you see a “Take Back the Night” march to end violence against women and children; will you step out and lecture those women for promoting falsities and hatred towards men? If not, then what gives you the moral authority to lecture any man about anything on how they should behave?
.
Hate bounces. Get used to it.

Dissimulation: The essense of Liberalism and Feminism.

They encounter “the wall,” the need to accept patriarchal
socialization and behave like ladies, as boys must behave like gentlemen.
The mother daughter revolution is a rebellion against this. Psychologist
Dr. Joyce Brothers’ has quoted Janie Ward page 130 as saying that one factor enabling black girls to resist “the wall” might be that black girls
are surrounded by strong women they admire.”

Also, Ward said,

many black parents teach their youngsters that there’s nothing wrong with them, only the way the world treats them.

Ms. Ward calls the mothers “parents” and calls the daughters
“youngsters.” Why the attempt at gender neutrality? To disguise that
sons receive a very different treatment, that sons are not surrounded by
strong men they admire, that the socialization of daughters to feel good
about themselves has a price for the sons, who feel less good about
themselves, who feel marginalized, as their fathers have been
marginalized in order that their mothers and sisters may feel good about
themselves. This difference, inconspicuous, seemingly minor, lies at the
heart of the female kinship system and the failure of the ghettos to
advance into patriarchy. In the ghettos the Mother Daughter Revolution
is complete. The strong black women admired by their daughters (and
by white feminists including Dr. Brothers) have succeeded in making the
ghetto what it is by reducing their men to the status of studs who, when
their women tire of them, can be told to get lost.
- from 'The case for Father Custody' by Daniel Amneus Ph.D

Another Blog.

When I heard that Audio that I added to my share...I also did some random googling, and came up with this Gem of a blog : http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com

Thats a link to the first post...but much of it is worth going over...

NOTE: As a positive ad hominem, the author is a (lesbian) woman.

Random Post # 3,135,220

Just wanted to say...new file added at http://public.box.net/mensarefugee26388

Been busy....who has time to blog?


Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Sex and Culture by J D Unwin

Seeing how popular the Devlin articles are. I noticed that a few commenters mentioned an old book called "Sex and Culture" that was published in the 1930s.

By a stroke of luck I found it linked in a blog comment, and have added it to my share.

Please note 3 things.
1) I have not read it yet, so I cannot discuss it, apart from saying, if the commenters are right about its contents - its an important book
2) Box.net has file restrictions for free accounts - ergo it is broken up into 7 files + a readme.
3)Box has a 10GB per month limitation on downloads for free account holders (me). So Download only once. Further, if you are going to share it with any friends etc - give it to them directly. DO NOT just give them the link - as you will end up depriving others of it. Also, consider mirroring it somewhere if you can , and post the link in the comments.

Now...

2 Reviews straight from Amazon.com( Reviews are in chronological order ergo opposite of the order in Amazon)


Review 1

Sexual repression is the foundation of civilization., March 30, 2008
By MCP - See all my reviews
That is the basic thesis of this unjustly forgotten book. According to Professor Unwin, who was influenced by Freud, it is the "limitation of sexual opportunity" which creates the "mental energy" necessary to build a civilization.

He backs this up with exhaustive examples of the historical cycle he proposes. The cycle goes as follows: in a primitive society, people take their pleasure at whim, without commitment or limits. Then the practice of monogamous marriage, including premarital chastity, is instituted. (How he believes this first arises would take far too long to summarize here; read the book!) The sexual repression required for this chastity and fidelity increases the "mental energy" and the inner strength of those who practice it, enabling them to embark on long-term projects such as monumental architecture, agriculture, and conquest. In this early stage, men have enormous power over their wives and children, even when the children have grown up.

The "sexual opportunity" of women is always, of necessity, more limited than that of men in a civilized society, and this has a powerful effect, according to Unwin; they convey this repression and its benefits to their children. Indeed, he blames the decline of feudalism on its habit of putting its "best" women into convents to live as nuns - it is true that for a woman with intellectual aspirations, a convent was her only real option - instead of having them bear children to whom they could convey their "mental energy".

Unwin also criticizes polygamous societies; the easy "sexual opportunity" it affords men limits the "mental energy". He says, "That is why, I submit, the Moors in Spain achieved such a high culture. Their fathers were born into a polygamous tradition; but their mothers were the daughters of Christians and Jews, and had spent their early years in an absolutely monogamous environment. The sons of these women laid the foundations of rationalistic culture; but soon the supply of Christian and Jewish women was insufficient, so the incipient rationalism failed to mature greatly."

It always begins with the ruling class, the aristocracy, being the most chaste and monogamous. As they grow decadent after a few generations, the "middle class" (not necessarily in our modern understanding of it) is just getting the hang of it, having aped it from their betters, and they acquire more power in the society.

In time, however, the strict monogamy loosens. Unwin speculates that the extreme power the builders of civilizations have over their wives and children is unbearable to most, and the decrease of this power is inevitable. Unwin's attention is more on the monogamy than on the legal position of women, but the two seem to march hand in hand. "A female emancipating movement is a cultural phenomenon of unfailing regularity; it appears to be the necessary outcome of absolute monogamy. The subsequent loss of social energy after the emancipation of women, which is sometimes emphasized, has been due not to the emancipation but to the extension of sexual opportunity which has always accompanied it. In human records there is no instance of female emancipation which has not been accompanied by an extension of sexual opportunity."

Indeed, as sexual opportunity becomes easier - which always takes place in concert with female emancipation - the society's mental energy weakens, it cannot continue to invent things or maintain what it has, and in a few generations it is easily conquered by a robust monogamous patriarchy, which is fairly bursting with the mental energy of repressed sexuality.

Professor Unwin, by the way, was not in any way a male chauvinist. He concluded his book with a hopeful wish that we may find some way to have sexual repression and the equality of the sexes at the same time, and clearly believed that women are not inherently unfit for power and independence.

That is one of the two criticisms I would make of this excellent work. But one can hardly blame Professor Unwin, who was writing in 1934, long before scientific study had verified that all of the traditional stereotypes about women were based in biological fact. Indeed, thanks to feminist domination of mass media, few people today are aware of this.

The other criticism is that Unwin focuses all of his attention on the "mental energy" caused by sexual repression. I suspect he is right about it, but there is another vital factor in the building of a civilization, and that is paternity. Men build things - houses, palaces, empires, codes of ethics - so that they can pass them on to their own children, and thus achieve one kind of immortality. Men who know they cannot train and endow their children are disinclined to produce. This, even more than the lack of opportunity for personal enrichment, is why communism and socialism are such abysmal failures, and why inheritance tax is such a dangerous threat to civilization itself. It would be good to read an intertwining of this theory and Unwin's.

This book has long been out of print and copies are rare and expensive, but until this situation is remedied, it can be obtained through inter-library loan. I highly recommend it for its exhaustive documentation.

=================================================================================

Review 2


Female chastity is correlated with civilization, June 19, 2008
By Franklin Schmidt (San Francisco, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I have to disagree somewhat with the previous reviewer. Unwin is a very methodical anthropologist, and so he carefully distinguished between the facts that he uncovers and the explanation he offers of those facts. The primary thesis of this book is that the development of a society correlates with its regulation of female prenuptial chastity. But Unwin was a Freudian liberal, so he felt compelled to come up with as unsexist an explanation as possible, and this is where his idea comes from that prenuptial chastity causes sexual repression which in turn causes energy to be redirected into developing culture. Of course this is complete nonsense, but I forgive Unwin both because living in the 1930s, he couldn't have a deep understanding what conditions are really like when a society reaches an advanced state of feminist decay, and because I am extremely grateful to Unwin for honestly recording facts that were at odds with his own beliefs. But even Unwin should have realized from historical evidence that his explanation was wrong. Ancient Athens was probably the most productive civilization in history, and never did a society have less sexual repression for men than Athens did, where the government was kind enough to subsidize prostitution so that men were never in need for sex, and where women had absolutely no rights, and so could not interfere with the productive energy of men.

Of course I rate this book 5 stars. It is the most important book written since The Origin of Species. But since the facts it contains are not politically correct, it is doomed to obscurity. The lack of availability of this book, because it is out of print, is just part of the cultural decay of our society caused the lack of regulation of female sexuality that Unwin so well chronicled.


Enjoy!
Mensarefugee

The Best Web Comic

(Click Picture to expand)
There is simply no better comic on the web than xkcd.

Part Trois

FYI:
If anyone used HTTrack, a common problem is it will download the webpages, but on certain websites it wont download the images.

Websites are complicated thingies behind the scenes, so HTTrack has complicated options to fix that (and its got lousy help texts imo).

But a simple method Ive found is go to "Set Options" --> Spider, and disable the Robots.txt file.

Works for me, maybe it will work for you.