Link.


Yep he's right on the money.

Marc's best ever article! Finally I can warm to this lawyer. Super. A call to arms is what is needed from many quarters, and this is right on the buttton.

$$$$Come get it bitch!$$$$

Washington knew he could win the battle of attrition against a tyrant, and so should we. It is a marathon, not a sprint.

This man is akin to a church in the middle of downtown Las Vegas.

California is definitely an evil woman.

I can understand his frustration, but it's not that simple.

Avoid voting for gynocrats? I don't know anybody in our parliament who isn't a gynocrat, except maybe the members of a small fundamentalist protestant party (2 seats) who are opposed to democracy and want social order to be based on the scripture.

Not marry a mercenary, manipulative harpy? Maybe Rudov thinks everybody has as much choice as he has. Somebody's going to get stuck with them, and there are many.

Anyway, it seems Rudov is more and more taking to man bashing.

It's an honest and simultaneously depressing article about how modern man has completely surrendered to a gynocentric hell, without any semblance of a fight. I've made similar points previously how men will fight tooth and nail in just about every other scenario that doesn't involve women. Here, they dare not muster a wimper. Truely pathetic!

As for gynocrats, yes most male politicians are too varying degrees. Whats the alternative? Given that most female politicians have feminist inclinations, a sinking realization is experienced given what a monumental task we face - in the void of any real tangible alternative. Whoever we vote for, it's only differing degrees of the same pathology.

Totally agreed. If you don't vigorously uphold such necessity of thought, your part of the problem.

The problem is tera, mens "rights" that have been "removed" where those rights that occur naturally, they did not need enforcing or writing down because they, just were!!

The best example is the male head of family.

That used to be presumed in marraige, yet clearly the laws have changed to make that no longer true.

I agree that stripping away female priviledges and rights is the way forward.

But, since the state has assumed family headship effectively, its a matter of getting the state to back out more than anything as women do also have natural rights that "just are".. Such as the natural right to get pregnant and breastfeed!

I agree. Men are their own worst enemies in allowing these things to happen.

Mainly because they will not fight to hold on against the state.

TERA asks: An intelligent person would look around and see the answers and I for one recommend that you do, TERA.

I will give you a starter: The right to me measured against a public standard of Truth.

Men are not afforded Truth anymore in public life or private. It has been strangled.

Women on the other hand have been afforded access to an unprecedented reverence for Lies. It is given to them to consume at will in academic smorgasbords by researchers who do not bother to wash their hands; by Judges who require the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth only to refuse to let it be spoken; by cops who wear ear defenders to drown the voice of Truth along with the hiss of their sprays and the thud of their truncheons; by mainstream media who make their living selling coverup, starting with the face of the Princess; by the Politicians that create power from female hysteria engines constructed in the dark cellars of the feminist soul.

From this imbalance comes the wobble that breaks the axle; that shaft that links women and men in harmony.

Just assumed, the natural order.. But no doubt many men were happy to delagate it all away!

You cant have two heads really can you?
She was legally entitled to remain unmarried. She made her choice before witnesses.


I have ideas. Something along the lines of prenups perhaps!
They can, if they live seperately!

And thats what many do now.

Shame though that it has come to this?

What about the right to be a parent Tera surely you can see that men have lost that right.

Or how about the right to innocence until proven guilty?

Or How about the right to the pursuit of happiness?

What rights have men lost? It is plainly evident what rights men have lost.

And these are just a few I could name more but I am too pissed to go on.

What about the right to be able to have sex the way you like it?

Haha! I was thinking more of the situation whereby, today, women have complete control over every aspect of sex, they have to have it how they like it, or its rape!!

I had a jack russel bitch once who used to sleep on my bed and ..

You ever seen that ALI G film? "In da house?"

As we know it goes much deeper than this, but...

I must say... this one hits the nail on the head for me.

A level playing field means equal rights under the law. Individual Rights, you know those things we are promised in our original Bill of Rights.

Anything more or less is coercion, thuggery, and gang warfare.

Men from the defeatist generation are. Men from previous generations were not like this.

It seems like men are afraid to speak out against women who do unjust things against them. Why is this? Because they view women as untouchables who can't be held responsible, innocent, do no harm, they are afraid of women's blacklash and shaming tactics. They shut their mouth and suffer in silence because that's the easy way out.

When you live in a western individualistic society, these guys often try to cope with injustice by themselves, alone. The western individualistic society is counterrproductive to solve these issues, because it requires collaboration and working in groups. Many hands make light work.

In non-western countries this is not the case. For some reason they don't elect many gynocrats or empower feminazis.

This is a repost by AvengingSword and Rogue Wolf:


Good post, Rogue Wolf. Sun Tzu's The Art of War is probably good reading for every MGHOW and MRA. I plan to read it soon. Using Sun Tzu's logic, I'd say MRA are not yet numerous enough to attack the feminist enemy and its supporters frontally. That means we have to carefully manage our resources, conduct skirmishes and rear-guard actions and wear down the enemy. That way, once MRA do become more numerous, winning the war will be relatively economical in terms of blood and treasure.

Agreed Tyrael. Even though we are lesser in numbers and resources, with the right determination to utilize our abilities effectively - we can continue damaging the enemy until a more direct attack becomes viable.

Yes, as with any enemy there's always a chink in the armour. The trick is firstly recognizing it and then maximising damage.

For the same reason I guess that you don't want two captains on a ship.