“When a woman asks me if there’s anywhere she can go to totally get away from the Patriarchy, I just tell her, yeah, there’s that really cool planet in the next solar system where women are in charge of everything and men are relegated to sperm donation, child care and sanitation services. The only problem is that you can’t get there from here, because here in the Real World 99.5% of everything has been invented by men, manufactured by men, maintained by men, repaired by men and, when obsolete, replaced by men. Well, the other only problem is that men haven’t yet managed to develop the desire to create space travel to a place where the inhabitants would force them to spend the rest of their lives cleaning toilets if they’re captured.”
Winston Borden
“I’m calling for a Partial Strike against Female Independence Delusion.
Not an all-out full strike against all women – but a strict partial strike by men toward some women.
I love women.
I really do.
I love women so much I’d be willing to be married to more than one of them at a time. And if you don’t recognize the generosity inherent in such willingness, then you just haven’t thought about it long or hard enough.
Anyway, a currently-highly-populated subset of women is unmistakably delusional, and those deluded women -- inextricably in cahoots with the men who reward them for being out of their minds – are at the root of the rot within our culture. Certainly, ruling class elites (the majority of whom have admittedly been male) have for millennia generated and promulgated philosophies that led to today’s reigning inability to see things as they are, but delusional women themselves – and men who encourage such women while under their hypnotic sway – perpetuate cultural decay and permit puppetmasters to orchestrate that decay. If you’re a woman who believes she isn’t dependent on men, or you’re a man who rewards women for believing that, then you’re among the most useful of useful idiots.
I know that’s harsh, but it doesn’t stop it from being true, and just like the entire history of Useful Idiots, you’ll be the first to be sacrificed if the people using you for their nefarious agendas ever get their way. It happens every time.
I’m convinced the only thing that will save our world is for men to re-take the high ground of male headship, both within families and in regard to societal leadership. Men must proudly reclaim patriarchy, stand shoulder-to-shoulder with other patriarchal men, and laugh off all attempts on the part of female or male feminists to falsely define or besmirch the concept of patriarchy – it is by Intelligent Design that God created women to follow men and not the other way around. If you call yourself Christian or Jewish, just read Scripture. It’s all right there, and, sorry, folks: humankind has not evolved to the point of having the ability to overrule God.
We can waste time arguing about that another day – and I very purposefully say “waste” time, because every argument asserting either that women should share power or that women should lead men is delusional. Such arguments sometimes sound good but have no basis in reality, and that’s amply reflected in the general misery shared by the class of women who believe they can be independent.
Accept this or not, but even the voguish belief that females are more nurturing is a straight-up canard. It is, in fact, the male of the human species who is, by nature, far more nurturing than the female. The only way to even begin to hypnotize people into believing that women are more nurturing than men is by promoting a narrowly-scoped cartoon version of nurture, limiting it to idyllic descriptions of mothers fawning over their young offspring. Even that is an illusion, though, because US Census Bureau National Crime Victimization Survey statistics demonstrate that mothers are more prone to physically and emotionally abusing their children than are fathers.
The main problem with that limited view of nurture, though, is that it very craftily promotes the false gynocentric idea that nurturing only comes in the form that females are best known for, leaving out far more consequential forms of nurturance – most notably the fact that men as a gender are predominantly devoted to protecting both women and children. In general, it is men who will jump in front of moving trains to protect women and children – even those completely unrelated to them. Outside of a make-believe Marvel character --when was the last time you heard about a woman making an effort to protect her man, much less sacrificing herself for some male stranger? We can probably unearth some examples, but they would clearly be exceptions to the rule, while it doesn’t even strike most of us as odd when we observe a newsreel or movie plot that includes women just standing by as they watch their men being pummeled to death.
Men, to one degree or another, are designed to be natural-born leaders, whereas, to one degree or another, women are designed to be natural-born followers. If one pays close attention, one can easily observe that the demands of ‘full-equity’ feminism never even promote female access to full leadership; the demands seek increased power but safely avoid seeking commensurate increased responsibility. Women beat drums about wanting an equal seat at the table, but they typically do so without demanding their fair share of the full ramifications of that leadership. Power without responsibility is tyranny.
So what’s the partial strike I’m suggesting?
I’m recommending that men stop coming to the rescue of women who claim to be independent.
Period.
Note: women who acknowledge that they are, on the whole, dependent on men, are exempt from the partial strike. In other words, non-delusional women would be exempt, and, men, if you truly love your women, you will discourage their delusions.
But any woman who contends she isn’t dependent on men is a target in this partial strike. This will include:
· any woman who claims she can take care of herself financially without depending on men;
· any woman who asserts that the only reason women aren’t running the world is because men have been stopping them from doing so;
· any woman who believes that women are capable of organizing the world; designing and implementing the building of structures; conducting all maintenance and repair of infrastructure; populating more than a small percentage of the most dangerous necessary jobs; and providing all police, fire and military protection;
· any woman who claims that women can do anything a man can do or who claims that men are incapable of doing anything any woman can do other than being pregnant (which, in case one is wondering, women also can’t do without men);
· any woman who treats men as disposable creatures readily compartmentalized into whatever role temporarily pleases women with no considerations toward those men in regard to loyalty or commitment; and
· any woman who behaves promiscuously while counting on being able to later talk some man into just accepting that he wasn’t good enough to marry up earlier until she’d gotten slutdom out of her system.
The partial strike only targets women who behave as if they believe they can be independent from men. This, by the way, is no small cohort. Any casual perusal of female dating-site profiles will reveal the prevalent extent to which women proclaim the primacy of their independence.
However, on the part of men (or any women who support the strike – and every non-delusional woman really should be a supporter), the partial strike will not involve:
· refusing to provide professional services to delusional women, no matter how capable or incapable a woman would be to perform those services for herself (it’s not an indication of Female Independence Delusion to be willing to trade hard-earned money for services rendered);
· refusing to go out on a date with an ‘independent woman;’
· refusing to be friendly or polite; or
· on the part of married men, refusing to provide wives baseline (i.e., necessary) provision, protection or due benevolence (Bible-speak for sexual satisfaction), even when they’re still suffering from F.I.D. (At least by marrying, these women exhibited some significant recognition of their dependence.)
The Partial Strike to Eliminate Female Independence Delusion, however, will entail refraining from providing free non-baseline provision, protection or due benevolence to any qualifying supposedly-independent woman, including:
· Refusal to buy women things they can’t afford, no matter how affordable they may be to you – most especially do not buy them rings with gemstones (stop believing you have to or even can earn their love or desire; if anything, given the tremendous overabundance of single women, they should be working to earn your desire);
· Refusal to repair anything for women when they haven’t taught themselves how to do the repairs on their own and/or can’t afford on their own to pay a professional to do it for them (maybe you can sometimes help, but don’t take the lead);
· Refusal to assemble or set up any equipment for women, whether or not it is accompanied by an instruction manual;
· Refusal to conduct any vehicle repair or change tires;
· Refusal to lift anything too heavy for them;
· Refusal to engage in any form of yard work;
· Refusal to provide rides (instead, tell them about the Uber app);
· Refusal to provide directions or instructions on how to operate any devices;
· Refusal to provide logical explanations for common life events;
· Refusal to listen to complaints about other men, no matter how tempting (in fact, just refuse to listen to complaining, period);
· Refusal to provide anything remotely akin to emotional-stability counseling (suddenly remember you have something better to do, like taking a nap or cutting your toenails – if you think I’m kidding about this one, start paying attention: being provided emotional grounding may be the #1 thing women depend on from men);
· Refusal to babysit children for whom you’re not the biological parent (that – dads and moms of ‘independent’ daughters – includes grandchildren);
· Refusal to pay for a first date with any woman suffering from F.I.D. (isn’t expecting free dinner the ultimate symbolic form of disrespect toward someone from whom one claims to be independent?);
· Refusal to go out on a second date with a woman whose F.I.D. hasn’t significantly diminished under your first-date inspirational coaching (let her look for another potential chump; there are a million more of her waiting in the wings if she can’t be inspired to become respectfully cooperative);
· Refusal to have any sex whatsoever with any sufferer of F.I.D. to whom one isn’t married (I know, one-night stands with crazy chicks are some of the wildest sex available, but passing it up is all for a very good cause and will also increase your odds of actually finding a stable partner); and
· Perhaps most difficult of all, refusal to step in to prevent a woman from shy-of-deadly physical harm that directly flows from her own poor choices she makes while delusionally-certain she simply knows better than any man.
By the way, all of the above applies in spades to the fathers of these delusional women. You’re not doing your daughters any favors by encouraging them to think they have every right to wipe their feet on men they’re exploiting.
How does one recognize a woman suffering from Female Independence Delusion? Well, the most common telltale sign will actually be observation of one or more men in a (usually-single) woman’s life who perform as Partial Husbands to that woman. Often – sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously – these Partial Husbands are hoping they’ll fully worm their way into the woman’s heart and pants by doing favors for them, but the woman who suffers from Female Independence Delusion and has Partial Husbands in place only very rarely makes the mistake of trading a bevy of beta-male Partial Husbands and an alpha-male sexual partner or two for a situation in which she just has one Husband to whom she is loyally committed, especially if that situation includes having to respectfully acknowledge that men and women are mutually dependent on each other for sex & reproduction but that women are dependent on men for everything else.
Washing machine and dryer invented by . . . yep, you guessed it . . . men! [sorry about the spelling error]
Single women who get all their needs met for free by Partial Husbands are being rewarded for believing the fairy tale that they’re independent. A woman who has the freedom to have casual sex with certain men and get her day-to-day operational needs met by other men without (1) paying proper prices for services rendered, (2) making an exclusive long-term commitment, (3) acknowledging her actual dependence on men or (4) admitting that she’d, in fact, be lost without the men in her life, has no incentive to pass up such a gravy train.
So why would she give up that deal when so many men around her are willing to provide her provision and protection without demanding proper gratitude?
She won’t.
Unless the men responsible for Female Independence Delusion cease being willing to be chumps.
Because, yes, to be a Partial Husband to a woman who pretends she doesn’t need him is not only one of the most prominent forms of Male Chumpness, it also qualifies as being an Enabler. Just as those who rescue their children from self-inflicted negative consequences enable the perpetuation and even acceleration of behaviors that led to those negative consequences, so too do Partial Husband Chumps perpetuate and accelerate Female Independence Delusion.
Remember: that which is rewarded will be repeated.
The time has come for all Partial Husbands to go on strike – and for all men to expect for this to occur – which will require that we be collectively willing to point out P.H. Chumpness wherever we see it. Centuries of proof exists that successful male-female relationships involve (a) conscious, public profession of committed pair-bonding, in which (b) each gender in the pair bond [not always, but generally] exhibits the strengths of the gender he or she possesses, including acknowledging the imbalance of expectations that puts more responsibility on the shoulders of men, (c) each gender willingly accepts sacrifices inherent in male-female pair-bonding; and (d) the women acknowledge that they are significantly enough more dependent on men that it only makes perfect sense that men would possess elevated freedoms and power commensurate with their elevated responsibilities. Our culture is adrift at this point primarily because no one is admitting the essential nature of acknowledging (a - d), and it will not return to the type of structure that will ensure ongoing stability until these principles are reestablished.
Men, stop behaving like indentured-servant cattle; it’s unbecoming.
Decades ago, a bit of folk wisdom known to many when it came to advising women about giving it up too easily to men was this: “Why should a man buy the cow when he can get the milk for free?” That was a great question. Now, however, the men are the cows, and the women don’t even have to negotiate with their milk. Instead, they milk the cows for free. Rollo Tomassi frequently asserts that Modern Women have become the men they supposedly want to marry, but it’s also the case that Modern Men have become the women they hope to get with. Neither side of the equation is turned on by this.
Men, stop waiting for women to voluntarily give up the many undeserved perks they currently enjoy. They will only do so when you have the balls to insist that they go without the perks provided by men until they get with the program – and, men, stop the womanish worrying about maybe having to go without what women have to offer; what you’ll discover is that you can easily outlast them in such standoffs. As this guy I know likes to say, the most obvious visible symptom of Modern Womanism is the 75% of divorces they initiate, but, because unmarried women always outnumber unmarried men by at least 3-to-2, the next most obvious visual cues are all the casseroles (or Netflix-n-chill invitations) being delivered to those newly-single men — all while their ex-wives are busy finding their next life partners at the animal rescue shelter.
Men, you’re going to have to be the ones to set women’s limits. I know most of you are entirely out of the habit of doing so – and most men younger than Gen X can’t even remember a time when men took seriously their responsibility to set women’s limits – but you have it in you. Oh, I know, they’re going to kick up a ruckus. Expect to hear ‘sexist,’ ‘mysogynist,’ ‘bully,’ and weird claims about how women would supposedly end war if it weren’t for men, but you need to stand strong no matter the verbal slings and arrows. Our world depends on it, and if you’re unwilling to expect the females in your life to face facts then you really should stop complaining about how difficult women are making your lives – or even about how ungrateful they all are. Women’s collective behavior is merely a reflection of men’s collective cowardice.
The Partial Strike to Eliminate Female Independence Delusion will seem unnatural at first, but once you get the hang of it and begin to watch your fellow men carrying it out as well, you’ll realize that everyone will benefit – probably most especially the women. Because one of the core aspects of the masculine imperative of organizing life for women and children really just comes down to protecting women from themselves.
In what the late Saddam Hussein once dubbed “the great Satan,” roughly two-thirds of the United States enlisted military corps is white . . . The fat, bulbous curry nigger, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin once confirmed in a 93-2 vote of the U.S. Senate, immediately embarked on a whirlwind media tour of duty, telling the pseudo-secular sycophants in the state-controlled tabloid press and state-controlled television talk show circuit about how the U.S. Army is full of bad racist white men.
And now the U.S. Army is doing ads begging for more young white males? What happened?
Even with a full-on declaration of war from Congress, and even if Gavin Newsome could be cheated into the Oval Office by ZOG somehow, with Globohomo diversity brigades going door-to-door looking to impress American children into military service, they will be met with armed, well-trained opposition, the invasion at the Southern border is going full tilt, and the drugs are flowing in like never before . . .
People are done fighting wars for these psychotic kikesucking Zionist ass-whores . . . With the borders of Europe and the USA wide open, civil warfare within the USA, Britain, and most of Europe is a certainty if foreign wars are initiated. Nobody is going to fight a war for Biden, he is dumber than Bush . . . Nobody is going to fight a war for that kikesucking Zionist ass-whore Nikki Haley, and I mean nobody.
Get ready for it . . . the fat old devil worshipping fags on Capitol Hill, on Wall Street, in Whitehall, and in Brussels are in no shape to fight a war themselves, and most Americans are armed to the teeth with their own guns . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/satanism-is-a-jewish-cult