This Needed To be Said

[YDB95]

What can be proved is that by every objective, measurable criterion Orientals tend to be more intelligent than whites. No one who acknowledges this can be called a white supremacist.

Of course they can. But whatever lets you sleep at night.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Of course they can. But whatever lets you sleep at night.

Someone who acknowledges that Orientals tend to be more intelligent than whites and that Orientals have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than whites can only be called a white supremacist by denying that the term has any meaning.

 

[schism666]

liberal woman does pull ups with child on chest.

dui deputy dewey convulses like he's having a seizure.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1153278740009833/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

 

[HisArpy]

Irrelevant to my point, and also ignores evidence of bias in IQ testing.

I've noticed that everything, LITERALLY EVERYTHING, which you don't agree with in either principle or outcome, is "biased" in your mind.

Why is that?

 

[JohnEngelman]

I've noticed that everything, LITERALLY EVERYTHING, which you don't agree with in either principle or outcome, is "biased" in your mind.

Why is that?

YDB95 refuses to accept facts that violate what he wants to believe in.

 

[YDB95]

Someone who acknowledges that Orientals tend to be more intelligent than whites and that Orientals have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy than whites can only be called a white supremacist by denying that the term has any meaning.

White supremacy is not only about intelligence.

 

[EboniMidnite]

September 2, 2025

Liberal Women and the Destruction of American Civilization​

By Steve McCann


Over the past four decades, participation in protests and demonstrations advocating policies that eventuate in the destruction of a culture and society have evolved into a full-time liberal female occupation. The majority of these protestors are 50+ year-old white women augmented by a vast number of vacuous college-educated white women of all age groups who together with their race-obsessed college-educated black female counterparts are mindlessly hellbent on destroying American civilization.

The societal damage that liberal females, and in particular white women, have wrought over the past four decades is bordering on the incalculable and brings to mind a quote from Helen Keller (1880-1968). In her autobiography The Story of My Life she wrote: “I think the degree of a nation’s civilization may be measured by the degree of enlightenment of its women.” There is a direct correlation between the accelerated decline of American civilization over the past forty years and the rise of the outsized influence of unenlightened and supercilious liberal women.

Some years ago, I watched a panel discussion with a number of professors at a prestigious Ivy League university. These academics were regaling a naïve and worshipful audience of mostly white with a smattering of black women about the necessity of viewing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), the LGTBQ movement, and Third Wave Feminism as all-encompassing national civil rights battles.

The references to the United States as a racist and oppressive nation founded on white patriarchy were incessant. These leftists claimed, to raucous applause, that white privilege and resultant oppression required the immediate acceleration of the LGTBQ and DEI agendas and the transformation of American culture and society.

The adoring and reverential expressions on the faces of the young women in the audience was priceless. It was as if they had suddenly discovered meaning and purpose in their apparently guilt-ridden, or cosseted, or rage-filled lives. They no doubt thought that the prospect of being swept up a grand crusade of promoting all manner of “civil rights” in a heartless, capitalistic society would bring relevance to their lives. What they did not fathom was that they were being manipulated in order to bring about a socialist one-party oligarchy by playing on their emotions and the nation’s history of civil rights movements.

Much more here:https://www.americanthinker.com/art...the_destruction_of_american_civilization.html

Rage-driven leftist women, obsessed with moral signaling, have upended traditional norms and institutions across America. Their activism prioritizes outrage over dialogue, undermining compromise and social cohesion. Infiltrating the military, law enforcement, corporate, and political arenas, critics argue they’ve weakened standards, efficiency, and stability, replacing competence with ideology and emotion.

The destruction of America is mostly coming from crazy white males with guns.

 

[Baztrachian]

The destruction of America is mostly coming from crazy white males with guns.

Define "America".

 

[LeahWill]

September 2, 2025

Women and the Destruction of American Civilization​

By Steve McCann


Over the past four decades, participation in protests and demonstrations advocating policies that eventuate in the destruction of a culture and society have evolved into a full-time liberal female occupation. The majority of these protestors are 50+ year-old white women augmented by a vast number of vacuous college-educated white women of all age groups who together with their race-obsessed college-educated black female counterparts are mindlessly hellbent on destroying American civilization.

The societal damage that liberal females, and in particular white women, have wrought over the past four decades is bordering on the incalculable and brings to mind a quote from Helen Keller (1880-1968). In her autobiography The Story of My Life she wrote: “I think the degree of a nation’s civilization may be measured by the degree of enlightenment of its women.” There is a direct correlation between the accelerated decline of American civilization over the past forty years and the rise of the outsized influence of unenlightened and supercilious liberal women.

Some years ago, I watched a panel discussion with a number of professors at a prestigious Ivy League university. These academics were regaling a naïve and worshipful audience of mostly white with a smattering of black women about the necessity of viewing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), the LGTBQ movement, and Third Wave Feminism as all-encompassing national civil rights battles.

The references to the United States as a racist and oppressive nation founded on white patriarchy were incessant. These leftists claimed, to raucous applause, that white privilege and resultant oppression required the immediate acceleration of the LGTBQ and DEI agendas and the transformation of American culture and society.

The adoring and reverential expressions on the faces of the young women in the audience was priceless. It was as if they had suddenly discovered meaning and purpose in their apparently guilt-ridden, or cosseted, or rage-filled lives. They no doubt thought that the prospect of being swept up a grand crusade of promoting all manner of “civil rights” in a heartless, capitalistic society would bring relevance to their lives. What they did not fathom was that they were being manipulated in order to bring about a socialist one-party oligarchy by playing on their emotions and the nation’s history of civil rights movements.

Much more here:https://www.americanthinker.com/art...the_destruction_of_american_civilization.html

Rage-driven leftist women, obsessed with moral signaling, have upended traditional norms and institutions across America. Their activism prioritizes outrage over dialogue, undermining compromise and social cohesion. Infiltrating the military, law enforcement, corporate, and political arenas, critics argue they’ve weakened standards, efficiency, and stability, replacing competence with ideology and emotion.

That's no way to talk about your mother.

 

[Mall73]

The destruction of America is mostly coming from crazy white males with guns.

Correct.

 

[briancamdudetenger2018]

lol the acknowledging

 

[HisArpy]

The destruction of America is mostly coming from crazy white males with guns.

Is this why 58.9% of homicides (55.9% black, 3% non-white) are committed by minorities? Because they're white males with guns?

You need to stop bullshitting yourself. Not only is it obvious, it's holding you back from living your best life.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Is this why 58.9% of homicides (55.9% black, 3% non-white) are committed by minorities? Because they're white males with guns?

You need to stop bullshitting yourself. Not only is it obvious, it's holding you back from living your best life.

In 2023, the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports recorded known murder offenders as follows: 8,842 were White, 6,405 were Black, and 461 were of other races (including American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, and Pacific Islander). In addition to these, 4,008 offenders involved in homicides had unknown demographics or involved unsolved cases. [1, 2]

 

[Rightguide]

Liberal women are a force for freedom and social progress as they advocate for individual rights and equal opportunity, challenging traditional norms that can limit personal growth. When women are empowered to make their own choices, pursue education, and enter the workforce, they can contribute fully to society. This leads to a more diverse range of ideas and skills, driving innovation and economic growth.

The benefits extend to men too. When society is more equitable, it reduces the pressure on men to conform to narrow, outdated gender roles. For instance, a more egalitarian society allows men to be more involved in family life without fear of being judged, leading to stronger family bonds and a better work-life balance.
As a society becomes more liberal and fair-minded, it provides a level playing field for everyone, allowing individuals to reach their full potential based on their merits, not their gender. This creates a fairer, more prosperous, and more auld society for everyone.

But presumably the majority of the readership is completely nailed down anyway, or rather those who take part in the discussion. The vast majority know that what is written above is true.

The great tragedy of the feminist experiment is that it operates on the absurd assumption that men and women want the same things in a partner. It teaches young women to cultivate the traits of an aggressive middle manager, entirely oblivious to the fact that when a man looks for a wife, he is generally not looking for a business rival or a drill Instructor.

By the time the delusion fades, these trailblazers of progress find themselves highly successful, thoroughly exhausted, and utterly alone at age 40 in an apartment shared only with a cat and a collection of self-help books. They have traded the natural protection of the family structure for the cold comfort of a retirement portfolio, discovering too late that a corporation makes a remarkably poor husband, and a corner office is a terribly cold place to spend a lifetime.

From a purely functionalist perspective, human civilization was built on a sharp specialization of labor. For the vast majority of history, the physical demands of building infrastructure, tilling soil, and defending borders fell squarely upon men, whose greater physical capacity was essential to creating a secure environment. In return, women managed the complex, vital spheres of domestic life, child-rearing, and community cohesion.

In the modern era, the rise of the service economy and the welfare state has allowed individuals of both genders to survive independently of one another in a material sense. A man in solitude can outsource his domestic needs to modern appliances and commercial services and find his peace in his work, while a woman can secure financial stability through employment and legal protections without relying on a male provider. At least to the point of a flat tire on a lonely highway in the middle of the night.

 

[Rightguide]

Is this why 58.9% of homicides (55.9% black, 3% non-white) are committed by minorities? Because they're white males with guns?

You need to stop bullshitting yourself. Not only is it obvious, it's holding you back from living your best life.

And those numbers put up by black males are produced by only 3.5% of the black male population.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

The great tragedy of the feminist experiment is that it operates on the absurd assumption that men and women want the same things in a partner. It teaches young women to cultivate the traits of an aggressive middle manager, entirely oblivious to the fact that when a man looks for a wife, he is generally not looking for a business rival or a drill Instructor.

By the time the delusion fades, these trailblazers of progress find themselves highly successful, thoroughly exhausted, and utterly alone at age 40 in an apartment shared only with a cat and a collection of self-help books. They have traded the natural protection of the family structure for the cold comfort of a retirement portfolio, discovering too late that a corporation makes a remarkably poor husband, and a corner office is a terribly cold place to spend a lifetime.

From a purely functionalist perspective, human civilization was built on a sharp specialization of labor. For the vast majority of history, the physical demands of building infrastructure, tilling soil, and defending borders fell squarely upon men, whose greater physical capacity was essential to creating a secure environment. In return, women managed the complex, vital spheres of domestic life, child-rearing, and community cohesion.

In the modern era, the rise of the service economy and the welfare state has allowed individuals of both genders to survive independently of one another in a material sense. A man in solitude can outsource his domestic needs to modern appliances and commercial services and find his peace in his work, while a woman can secure financial stability through employment and legal protections without relying on a male provider. At least to the point of a flat tire on a lonely highway in the middle of the night.

While elegantly written, this perspective relies on a fundamentally flawed premise: that women’s aspirations are, or should be, calibrated to suit the romantic preferences of men.
To view women securing financial independence, professional achievement, and personal autonomy as a "tragedy" reduces human rights to a mere negotiation for male companionship. The core principle of women's rights is not about imitating men or seeking to become "business rivals"; it is about guaranteeing basic human agency—the fundamental freedom for women to decide their own path, shape their own intellect, and secure their own livelihood without requiring a male proxy.
It is rather telling to argue that a woman earning her own living and building her own security is an "absurd assumption," while simultaneously framing a traditional marriage as a natural protection racket. A vision of human partnership that requires one half of the population to remain deliberately dependent and unfulfilled simply to avoid intimidating the other is surprisingly fragile. It suggests a deeply insecure worldview—one that can only conceive of male value if women are denied the tools to thrive on their own.
Equally bizarre is the notion that a woman enjoying financial autonomy and an independent life at 40 is a cautionary tale, while a man doing the exact same thing is merely "finding his peace." To assume that an educated, self-sufficient woman surrounded by the fruits of her own labor is inherently pathetic says far more about the limited imagination of the writer than it does about the reality of modern women.
As for the lonely highway and the flat tyre: human beings invented recovery services long ago. Women do not need to trade their independence for a life partner simply to have someone change a wheel—they can simply call Breakdown Cover. Real partnership is built on mutual respect between equals, not on an outdated division of labor driven by fear of solitude.

 

[Rightguide]

While elegantly written, this perspective relies on a fundamentally flawed premise: that women’s aspirations are, or should be, calibrated to suit the romantic preferences of men.
To view women securing financial independence, professional achievement, and personal autonomy as a "tragedy" reduces human rights to a mere negotiation for male companionship. The core principle of women's rights is not about imitating men or seeking to become "business rivals"; it is about guaranteeing basic human agency—the fundamental freedom for women to decide their own path, shape their own intellect, and secure their own livelihood without requiring a male proxy.
It is rather telling to argue that a woman earning her own living and building her own security is an "absurd assumption," while simultaneously framing a traditional marriage as a natural protection racket. A vision of human partnership that requires one half of the population to remain deliberately dependent and unfulfilled simply to avoid intimidating the other is surprisingly fragile. It suggests a deeply insecure worldview—one that can only conceive of male value if women are denied the tools to thrive on their own.
Equally bizarre is the notion that a woman enjoying financial autonomy and an independent life at 40 is a cautionary tale, while a man doing the exact same thing is merely "finding his peace." To assume that an educated, self-sufficient woman surrounded by the fruits of her own labor is inherently pathetic says far more about the limited imagination of the writer than it does about the reality of modern women.
As for the lonely highway and the flat tyre: human beings invented recovery services long ago. Women do not need to trade their independence for a life partner simply to have someone change a wheel—they can simply call Breakdown Cover. Real partnership is built on mutual respect between equals, not on an outdated division of labor driven by fear of solitude.

The least you could do is write your own material, but to AI's first point: The grandest delusion of the egalitarian crusade is the notion that a woman can unilaterally rewrite the laws of attraction by executive order. For all the furious scribbling in fashion magazines and sociology departments, the stubborn reality remains: a man of substance, when looking for a mate to share his wealth, security, and name, is not shopping for a clone of his accountant or a rival for his authority. He seeks what men have sought since the days of the Pharaohs: a sanctuary, not a boardroom.

When the modern woman adopts the sharp, adversarial manners of a corporate litigation attorney, she successfully renders herself entirely unsuited for the domestic altar. To then whimper because men choose to leave her to her triumphs is the height of absurdity. A man's productivity and his estate belong to him alone; they are prizes to be surrendered voluntarily to a woman who brings peace to his life, not a tax levied by the state to support a hostile ideological experiment. If you wish to play the man, do not be surprised when men treat you like one, by leaving you to fend entirely for yourself.

For your edification, I will attempt to list the immutable principles of The Unchanging Marriage Market from the male perspective:

The Sovereign Buyer: A man retains absolute veto power over where he invests his fortune.

The Useless Resume: A corporate vice-presidency does not stir the masculine heart.

The Fake Independence: Loudly rejecting men until the plumbing leaks or the tax bill arrives.

The Final Audit: Nature cares nothing for political slogans or human resources directives.

 

[badbabysitter]

I love how the guys in this thread are confused about the male loneliness epidemic

 

[Meekly_Anna]

The least you could do is write your own material, but to AI's first point: The grandest delusion of the egalitarian crusade is the notion that a woman can unilaterally rewrite the laws of attraction by executive order. For all the furious scribbling in fashion magazines and sociology departments, the stubborn reality remains: a man of substance, when looking for a mate to share his wealth, security, and name, is not shopping for a clone of his accountant or a rival for his authority. He seeks what men have sought since the days of the Pharaohs: a sanctuary, not a boardroom.

When the modern woman adopts the sharp, adversarial manners of a corporate litigation attorney, she successfully renders herself entirely unsuited for the domestic altar. To then whimper because men choose to leave her to her triumphs is the height of absurdity. A man's productivity and his estate belong to him alone; they are prizes to be surrendered voluntarily to a woman who brings peace to his life, not a tax levied by the state to support a hostile ideological experiment. If you wish to play the man, do not be surprised when men treat you like one, by leaving you to fend entirely for yourself.

For your edification, I will attempt to list the immutable principles of The Unchanging Marriage Market from the male perspective:

The Sovereign Buyer: A man retains absolute veto power over where he invests his fortune.

The Useless Resume: A corporate vice-presidency does not stir the masculine heart.

The Fake Independence: Loudly rejecting men until the plumbing leaks or the tax bill arrives.

The Final Audit: Nature cares nothing for political slogans or human resources directives.

The first sentence shows the rest value of the rest of your statement: worthless.
Egalitarian crusade?
I've no idea what drugs you're taking but I will pass.

 

[HisArpy]

I love how the guys in this thread are confused about the male loneliness epidemic

Really?

Last I heard it was men rejecting women like you because we got tired of the abuse and bullshit.

And the women like you started complaining about where all the good men went.

 

[badbabysitter]

Really?

Last I heard it was men rejecting women like you because we got tired of the abuse and bullshit.

And the women like you started complaining about where all the good men went.

I've been with the same man over 20 years, and the only woman I know that complains about the men in her life is because she keeps dating the same type of man

but hey, just keep whining about how women done you wrong, we find that sexy as fuck

 

[ll74]

Lol
Poor white guys.

 

[badbabysitter]

Lol
Poor white guys.

It's clearly the wimmins folk fault

 

[HisArpy]

I've been with the same man over 20 years, and the only woman I know that complains about the men in her life is because she keeps dating the same type of man

but hey, just keep whining about how women done you wrong, we find that sexy as fuck

Personal circumstances are NEVER sufficient to prove a point. Isn't that what you were telling the world during Covid about holistic treatments?

Basically, YOU FUCKED UP yet again by attempting to show that your personal circumstances are the same for everyone while at the same time you're berating men for not wanting to hook up with abusive women like you.

Both of those things cannot be true at the same time. Either men are so dedicated that they'll stick with you, or they rejected you. Saying otherwise is one of the most asinine things you've posted. But then you're really really good and proving yourself to be asinine in public.

 

[HisArpy]

It's clearly the wimmins folk fault

When we're talking about abusive women, of course it is.

Because men walking away from women like you while you call them names is loads better for MEN than sticking to an abusive relationship, while you STILL call them names, could ever be.

I wonder how your life partner will feel after he reads your bullshit and realizes how much you actually hate him because he's a man and you're not.