http://www.returnofkings.com/
So I've heard about this group, called "Return of Kings", which is trying to hold meetings at various places around the world. Their basic idea is that society should return to being male-dominated, and that feminism and womens rights have emasculated men and caused a lot of problems.
The solution: Women shouldn't be able to vote. Rape should be legal. And so forth.
I imagine one or two will like their message.
Have a look. I kind of love weird fringe groups.
Bait cast.
The leader of this lot, who I only know by the alias 'RooshV', is apparently planning a visit to Scotland some time soon, which has caused a bit of a stir and seen the launch of umpteen petitions demanding he be banned.
I gathered they were 'anti-feminist' but I didn't realise they were proposing stuff like that. I thought he was just the sort of boring bastard Mert would wank over.
"If rape becomes legal under my proposal, a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone. If rape becomes legal, a girl will not enter an impaired state of mind where she can't resist being dragged off to a bedroom with a man who she is unsure of—she'll scream, yell, or kick at his attempt while bystanders are still around. If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesn't want to sleep with. After several months of advertising this law throughout the land, rape would be virtually eliminated on the first day it is applied."
That's what he said about that.
I think we know where this will end up. Close it now.
This 'RooshV' character sounds somewhat familiar from somewhere.
OZ and NZ are banning him coming over.
Theodore Dalrymple reckons that young Muslims in the West cultivate their Islamic identity as a 'noble' cover for their wish to dominate women, and I'm increasingly reminded of that when I read this sort of thing. I know this is a rather extreme example of it all, but the whole alpha male, fragile masculinity thing is pretty lol.
Whilst the foundation of their message may have some merit, next time you want just my opinion, pm me.Originally Posted by Henry
Some friends (mostly Facebook) friends are proposing a counter-protest to the meetup here. How are they supposed to identify the actual ROK folk though?
"To identify your fellow tribesmen, ask the following question to a man you suspect is there for the meetup: “Do you know where I can find a pet shop?” If you are asked this question, answer in the affirmative: “Yes, it’s right here.” You can then introduce yourself and get details about where to proceed at 8:20. If you ask someone for the pet shop and they appear confused or actually try to direct you to a real pet shop, they’re not there for the meetup."
So I guess the counterprotesters will be going undercover to 'out' the idiots? It should be pretty entertaining I guess.
That's all well and good, but what about if people like Henry go along, just to see what all the controversy is about? They will be deridede as filth......actually you should go, henners.
How is this worthy of a counter-protest? Even if their message is as bad as a brief read of their website suggests, it will be twenty utter, utter dweebs. There must be more pressing things to hassle.
Spoon will be representing the pro-abstinance camp.
They also don't believe in democracy and want to go back to having kings. Hence their name.
They're all a bit gross really. And the sexual insecurity is just palpable.
You've said that because they're men, though. You would never say that about any group of women, would you?
If I saw a group of women demonstrating that degree of sexual insecurity, I'd have no problems acknowledging it. But have you seen the rhetoric of these guys? It's oozing out of their pores.
All the talk of "alphas" and "betas" is just rationalising away crippling sexual insecurities. It's fine, as long as they don't act in a way that is dangerous to others, then they can be as insecure as suits them. Whatever gets them to sleep at night.
Okay so all these butt ugly, man-hating, feminists (don't deny it, they're nearly always ugly cunts) - are they displaying their insecurity about their looks?
lDEMT.
You can smile all you like, I am 100% correct.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ke-women-ugly/Everyone knows that becoming a feminist makes a woman less marriageable, more crass and generally just unpleasant to be around. But does it also make them uglier? Readers have been asking, so I delved into the science to find out.
Certainly, feminists in the public sphere have acquired a reputation for being brazen about their unconventional looks. The cult of “body positivity” has encouraged many young women to embrace excess weight. Feminist writers like Lindy West celebrate their fatness, while Lena Dunham has made a career out of looking wobbly and horrible.
While the sisterhood might not condemn women for piling on the pounds, men definitely do. But the weight gain, bizarre hair colour, piercings and “genderqueer” fashion trends in feminism aren’t, it seems to me, enough on their own to explain why women who strongly identify as feminists are so often either physically unappealing or mistaken for men.
There’s a persuasive line of reasoning that suggests women who are physically unattractive are more likely to have progressive politics, give up on blokes and retreat into feminism in the first place. (The rule doesn’t hold for men.) Even liberal bloggers like West admit that conservative girls are hotter, and, crucially, that liberal women tend to have more masculine features. By way of example, here’s Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men.
Valerie Solanas, founder of the Society for Cutting Up Men and author of the SCUM Manifesto — and the woman who shot Andy Warhol — falls into the aforesaid “genderqueer” category. This may explain why so many angry, lesbianic placard-wavers look like they’ve been hit by a bus. As West puts it: “I can imagine that liberalism actively attracts people who are shut out of that old-timey paradigm… The women who can’t ‘pass’ for hot are forced to consider why.”
We still haven’t answered the question, though, as to whether a particular philosophical or political position can change how sexually attractive you are, if, say, you come to it later in life. So here goes.
What you probably don’t know is that under certain circumstances behaviour can affect your hormonal levels. Hormones are powerful substances: they are the chemicals which tell our bodies how to express gender, and which gender to express.
It turns out that adopting aggressive, masculine postures and developing combative psychological reflexes can boost testosterone levels by significant percentages. In many cases, women with a predilection for activism have high testosterone levels in the first place: consider the “high-T jawline” so many feminist journalists, newsreaders and actresses share. Radical feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte has a classic example of this.
Increased testosterone also makes you leaner, so jaws can appear more defined. And of course the male hormone increases acne and promotes baldness, while estrogen clears the skin, adds collagen and generally makes a person look fresher and more youthful.
So the research suggests that relentlessly assertive women, particularly women in positions of authority, are unwittingly throwing their hormones out of whack. Higher testosterone levels can produce dramatic changes, most noticeably to a woman’s face. Muscle mass and distribution can shift and hair grows faster and more thickly.
There’s no clear evidence on whether prolonged increases in testosterone over time can change the growth trajectory of bones enough to produce changes in face shape. But if true, it would go some way to explaining Guardian blogger Jessica Valenti’s dramatic transformation in the last ten years. Transgender forums seem to concur that there’s no real change to bone structure but that testosterone does lead to changes in fat distribution.
High-testosterone women are more likely to get guts because it’s estrogen that controls fat around the waist, hips and rear. Lena Dunham’s body shape — and perhaps her behaviour — would appear to be a result of very high testosterone.
As for the other changes women go through when they discover you can make a career out of hating men, well. I can’t explain why it seems as though feminist’s eyes go glassy and dead the longer they are incentivised to behave like bros while sloshing about in misandry for pay. I’m sure an entertaining gallery could be assembled showing how the process takes its toll; perhaps a reader can oblige.
But the power of hormones to radically alter physiology is well-documented. Trans patients attest to the extraordinary shifts in appearance and even personality that can be brought about by changes in hormone levels — as do older women on hormone replacement therapy.
Here’s a dirty secret feminists like to sweep under the carpet: there are objective standards for beauty, and some of them are shared by both sexes. Symmetry is the most obvious and the most commonly cited. But there are also differences in priorities between the sexes that seem to hold across cultures: men are more visual animals, for instance.
That means heterosexual men, even socially conditioned liberal metrosexuals with nice loft apartments in Brooklyn, are reluctant to approach even well-groomed women over a certain size, which is perhaps why Lindy West appears to have married a nancy boy.
Lena Dunham has styled herself as the entertainment industry’s high priestess of defiant ugliness, turning her laziness and mannish demeanour into a virtue. But ordinary women who take West and Dunham at face value, and let themselves go, chop their hair off, dress like a dude and stop bothering to depilate, find it nearly impossible to secure an attractive, well-adjusted, financially secure boyfriend.
Irresponsible celebrity feminists tell women, in a constant orgy of affirmation, to love themselves no matter what their size or shape and that no matter what they look like, they are beautiful and “real.” These supposed role models also encourage women to swarm into traditionally male occupations and hobbies to prove that women are just as capable of being computer programmers or lumberjacks as men.
Such advice is selfish, cruel, and a lie. In fact, if you want to attract the attention of a high-value potential husband, you’re much better off doing things that will make you pretty — spending time with puppies, children and flowers and listening to Mariah Carey ballads — rather than indulging in today’s dykeish and profanity-laced female empowerment culture.
So, on balance, the evidence suggests that rather than feminism producing ugliness, it’s less attractive women who are drawn to feminism, although hormones may play a part over the longer term. Still, if feminist activism, the last resort of the unfuckable, threatens to accelerate the ageing process, thicken the caterpillar on your top lip and isolate you even further from men… well, why take the risk?
Cool. Cool cool cool.
A brilliant piece, backed up beautifully.
Exhibit B.
Virtue signalling. You were on to something.
Part of the idea is to make sure that random women don't get raped wandering around library square, which is fair enough but probably doesn't require the 187 marked as "going" on Facebook.
I'm not sure the protesters are any more capable of protecting anybody than the dweebs are of raping them. Take your camera.
I note that you didn't actually deny what I said. How sexually fustrated do you think Valerie Solanas is, Ital? Just out of interest.
I certainly think someone involved in that article is sexually frustrated.
Look, we're never going to agree on this. Suffice it to say that we both think your article supports our points, in very different ways.
Which article? The Milo one? I hope not for your sake, since that would be a rather large e-own goalI certainly think someone involved in that article is sexually frustrated.
Look, we're never going to agree on this. Suffice it to say that we both think your article supports our points, in very different ways.
Oh, that's interesting. I didn't realise he was the author - fair play. Still, you can imagine why an article purely devoted to writing off peoples' opinions because of perceived unattractiveness might come across that way, and is aimed at people who do.
Without wanting to delve too deeply into the mess that is that article, being as the fundamental premise does not warrant it, suffice it to say that the hormonal effects that are the basis of his argument are minute (not that you'd know it from the highly reliable science journal that is ted.com). Hence conclusions drawn from them are entirely spurious. Still, he knows what gets clicks from rubes, who aren't likely to go fact-checking things that corroborate their pre-existing biases.
Not that any of it matters. "Feminists are ugly" really is stupid playground stuff that doesn't deserve even the paragraph above.
Counter protest? Get some lasses around, hand out the 20 inch dildos and instruct the girls to 'pick a target'.
Only as playground as making unsubstantiated claims about a group of men. The shaming tactic of calling men 'sexually frustrated' is typical of feminists. At least Milo puts some weight and evidence behind what he says. 'Mysogynists are sexually frustrated' ----- 'radical, man hating feminists are ugly women'. I see no difference there.
You also still haven't answered my question regarding man-hating femists such as Valerie Solanas.
There's no such thing as a "man hating feminist". Those are just misandrists, whatever title they themselves apply.
Does 'RooshV' think that stealing purses and smartphones is legal?
Their website seems to have DDoS protection on it, I'm guessing they are just waiting for someone like Anonymous to fuck them over
If they're going around saying rape should be legal I reckon there's a case for chucking them in prison for a day and seeing how they like the showers. Reasoned argument just pointless.
I do like that everyones not taking this too seriously.
I'm sure Harold will be DISGUSTED at the HYPOCRISY of these WOMEN mentioning the genatalia of MEN but I got a lol out of it.During an urgent question in the House of Commons on the pick-up artist's planned tour of the UK, Newcastle MP Chi Onwurah said Mr V was "an attention seeker so insecure in his own masculinity that he goes to these lengths to augment the size of his...following."
Speaking for the Government, Tory Karen Brady replied: "Can I join her in her comments about perhaps the reasons why this individual is doing what he's doing. Certainly ensuring he's getting publicity that perhaps he needs for other reasons.
"I'll say no more."
They've issued a statement saying the "meet up" has been cancelled, at least as far as official organisation through this group's public channels goes.
They're turning up in Leeds on Saturday. It looks like a laugh so i'm gutted I'm not around.
Also, the return of some kind of medieval king governance wouldn't be any good for these dweebs as they'd all be fucking serfs like 99% of the population.
If there's women haters then why aren't there man haters? Clearly there are both.
Read again and have another stab at that.
He's just attention seeking and is probably just being satirical. There are also feminists who say 'kill all white men' and those who claim the make sex should be eliminated. I'm not sure all these are even satirical but most surely are.
Why aren't feminists also misandrists? They can be both. Feminism, to these people, is about female superiority. If you look at what feminists often ask and demand it's not about equality, it's about the promotion of one sex over another. Often in the form of quotas, which can't exist without discrimination, of course.
They cannot.
They can call themselves feminists all they like, but if they genuinely hate men and genuinely propose things to actively harm men, they are misandrists, not feminists.
That's great, but they are still labeled as feminists and seen as such. Surely a woman should have the right to define herself how she likes!
They do, I said that already. Doesn't mean other people have to accept it. You can call yourself "man of the people" every day forever if you like. People disagreeing with it doesn't mean you can't say it. Anybody can call themselves anything they like but people who hate men can't really pursue the actual feminist goal of gender equality.
Well it's great that you will no longer be accepting of the claims of those promoting women above men (nearly all modern feminists) as feminists, as it's defined. We are in agreement there. I'm still happy to call them 'man-hating 'feminists', in that way. Likewise, men's rights activists will also not be deemed as women haters or somehow sexually dysfunctional, I presume? Of course the outrageously shit, proven liar and fraud, Laurie Penny, has to resort to outright lies, such as claiming her opponents are homeless and jobless. And she's the poster girl of modern feminism.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote