Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Terms that Media/Government Flip to Mean Their Opposite

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Terms that Media/Government Flip to Mean Their Opposite

Postby Winston » Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:05 am

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.â€￾ - Michael Ellner

Have any of you noticed that in modern American culture, everything seems backwards, and terms are flipped around to mean their opposites? It's like there's some form of neurolinguistic mind control going on. Here are some examples.

1. Sexist/Sexism

A sexist is someone who degrades or discriminates against another sex. Angry man-hating feminists do just that. They demean, degrade and vilify men based on false assumptions. They fight for feminist superiority and tyranny, and view men as inherently evil, creeps and predators by nature. Yet in spite of all this, modern American culture does not consider them sexist.

Instead, if YOU oppose their tyranny and abuse, or expose them in any way, then YOU are branded the sexist. WTF? That is so upside down. In other words, bashing males is ok, but standing up to the unjust vilification of men is "sexism". It's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, while incorrectly attributing a term to others that is more true of themselves.

The truth is, men don't hate women. They love women in general, as long as they are nice and decent to them. But feminists do inherently hate men, and they show it by their actions, even if they don't say it in exact words. Ironically, although feminists hate men, they strive to be like them in acquiring masculine traits, coupled with their own neurosis, resulting in some angry hateful "thing" or beast that is neither male or female.

2. Feminist/Feminism

The term "feminism" itself is an oxymoron. Feminism downgrades femininity and all that is feminine. It teaches women to hate their feminine nature and attempt to artificially adopt masculine traits coupled with an angry/hateful attitude toward men. It also instills in them the belief that they don't need men and should become independent beasts instead, which is detrimental to relationships and family. The effect of this is a terrible combination of traits which makes feminists neither feminine nor masculine.

So how can a "feminist" be trying to destroy "femininity"? It doesn't make sense, and is yet another example of tricking people into thinking that something is the opposite of what it really is.

The result of man-hating feminism is definitely negative: Women have become asexual beasts with warped beliefs and personalities that are not pleasant to be around or easy to get along with. This in turn has led to the destruction of relationships and family, as well as a horrible, hostile and unnatural dating scene in America.

3. Misogynist/Misogyny

Technically, a misogynist is someone who "hates women". But this word is a label used loosely by angry man-hating feminists to shame anyone who opposes them or exposes them. In reality though, I don't know anyone who "hates women". Why would they? When feminine, pretty and sweet, women are the best. Nothing compares to them.

The problem is that feminism has turned women into masculine monsters who act dominant and superior, abuse men, treat men unfairly, and have loads of double standards. Just because a man prefers a woman to be feminine and not masculine doesn't make him a "hater of women". That doesn't make sense. Why should a man like women becoming masculine (against their own nature) or treating them badly? Women don't like being treated badly or unfairly so why should men? Feminists are among the most brainwashed and unaware in the world.

In truth, feminists who loosely call anyone who opposes them a "misogynist" are themselves "misandrists" or "haters of men", since they do hate men and treat them badly by their words and actions. They treat men as the weaker sex, say things like "men are creeps", consider every man a "creep and predator" by default until he proves otherwise, and believe that whenever a man argues with a woman he must be wrong. All of this is misandrist behavior for sure. So, these femininst "haters of men" are in fact seeing their own hate reflected back at them. Hence they wrongly call anyone who exposes them a "misogynist", when in truth, they are the ones who are the haters.

A man simply wants a woman to follow her true nature of being feminine, sweet, graceful, and nurturing. That's the way women are by nature and have always been. So there is nothing wrong with it. A masculine women is simply not attractive or desirable. Inherently, men want a woman who is a "princess to be rescued" not someone who is masculine and dominant and thinks that they are the stronger sex. And women by nature want a man to be their protector, or "knight in shining armor" or "prince". But how can a man be their "protector" if they consider him to be the weaker sex who must become passive and submissive in order to comply with feminism? That simply doesn't make sense.

Whatever forces engineered feminism must have nefarious purposes. Perhaps the conspiracy people are right when they say that the elite (Illuminati/Zionists/Powers that be) are trying to divide us with feminism and the "battle of the sexes" in order to make us weaker, destroy the family unit and lower the birthrate to have a more manageable population? What else could explain this illogical social engineering?

By turning men passive and weak, and women masculine and dominant, against their inherent nature, the modern feminist culture in the US has left both men and women feeling confused, lonely and dissatisfied. All this has resulted in the degradation of love, dating, relationships and families, as well as the gender identities of men and women, all of which is highly negative.

4. Skeptic/Skepticism

A skeptic is someone who doubts what they are told, and questions things with critical thinking. According to Wikipedia, the original meaning of skepticism is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic

"In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]"

And according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:

"One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."

However, a skeptic in Western culture today is someone who uncritically accepts whatever the establishment tells them without question, takes whatever authority says as truth, and ridicules/debunks any opposing or dissenting views. They will defend the establishment version of things like religious fanatics, and will even lie, distort and falsify in order to do so. Their behavior is anything but objective or truth seeking. When the government lies or covers up, they will assist them in doing so, along with the mainstream media of course.

They falsely assume that government lies, conspiracies and cover ups aren't possible because people can't keep secrets (while ignoring whistleblowers, including those that were silenced). Therefore, everything the government says is automatically true by default to them, requiring no evidence or burden of proof. But anyone who believes in a conspiracy, no matter how validly based, is automatically wrong, regardless of the facts or evidence.

This is not the behavior of a skeptic, but of a propagandist establishment defender, or disinfo operative. Yet people who do this call themselves "skeptics", such as Michael Shermer, the JREF crowd, CSICOP folks, and others.

Others have noticed this as well. On my videos and forum, these comments were posted:

"The original definition of skeptic was a person who questions ALL beliefs, facts, and points-of-view. A healthy perspective in my opinion. Today's common definition of skeptic is someone who questions any belief that strays outside of the status quo, yet leaving the status quo itself completely unquestioned. Kind of a juvenile and intellectually lazy practice in my opinion."

"I've never trusted skeptics, for the very reason that they are willing to accept the official version of things without a shred of proof but require unrealistic amounts of evidence to accept any other possibility."


Kevin Ryan, a whistleblower who exposed the fraudulent tests by NIST to cover up the collapse of Building 7 on 9/11, wrote this in his blog after a debate with "skeptic" Michael Shermer:

http://digwithin.net/2011/09/25/skeptic ... ving-brain

"Additionally, my opponent’s performance showed that he is not what most people would call a skeptic, at least not in matters that are important to people. I had suspected this myself, and had to check the definition of skepticism to be sure. What I found was that skepticism is about questioning claims that are generally accepted, or are given by supposedly authoritative sources. Skeptics are not people who simply take contradictory positions without regard for evidence, however, and after rational discussion skeptics usually agree with the case that best fits the evidence.

My opponent was clearly not skeptical of any of the claims made by the only authoritative source on the topic, the U.S. government. He had no response when I asked how each and every member of the U.S. chain of command could have been indisposed for just those two hours on September 11th, or how al Qaeda could have been behind the effective stand-down of the nation’s air defenses during that time. He could not say why the 9/11 Commission left so many of the most important facts out of their report, or what it meant for US government scientists to finally admit that they could not explain the “collapseâ€￾ of the Twin Towers. His final plea was that we just accept that al Qaeda did it because they said they did it, and we should take them at their word.

It is only on this absurd playing field that we can possibly accept Michael Shermer as an exemplary skeptic. His Skeptics Society is not skeptical of authoritative claims that affect the lives of average people, like 9/11 or electronic voting machines or corporate media consolidation. Instead, Shermer and his group are skeptical of random non-authoritative claims, like those about UFOs, or the belief in God. It seems possible that his skepticism has more to do with supporting business interests than it has to do with reason."


Thus, the term "skeptic" has been flipped to mean "one who accepts what they are told by authority without question and follows the groupthink party line" rather than "one who questions what they are told or thinks for oneself" which is the true meaning of the term. In essence, you are only allowed to be "skeptical" (ridicule and dismiss) of whatever the establishment doesn't want you to believe. In other words, "skepticism" means to disbelieve and dismiss anything that contradicts the establishment view. (Gee, how convenient for them)

This appears to be a mind control attempt to convince people that skepticism or critical thinking is ONLY allowed when it is used to defend the establishment and official version of things, and dismiss all opposing viewpoints.

What this means is that no matter how much proof is discovered that 9/11 was an inside job, or that a high level government conspiracy was responsible for the JFK assassination, a "skeptic" according to "organized skeptic groups", will use his/her "skepticism" to try to dismiss and debunk all conspiracy evidence, no matter how valid or true.

It is obvious that this is nothing other than a form of mind control by the establishment to get you to accept whatever they tell you, and to falsely believe that authority=truth, when in reality it doesn't of course.

Kevin Ryan made the same observation in his blog when he made this great accurate insight:

http://digwithin.net/2011/09/25/skeptic ... ving-brain

"This strange approach to skepticism is a good example of the growing attempt by some government and corporate media representatives (Shermer also works for FOX TV) to convince us to believe the opposite of what we see and hear. We’re told that the best way to stop terrorism is to start endless wars in the Middle East, and the best way to protect our freedoms is to give up our freedoms. We’re also led to believe, paradoxically, that anyone who questions the government’s conspiracy theory is a “conspiracy theoristâ€￾."


For more on this, see: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/hijackingterms.php

5. Terrorist/Terrorism

The government can "terrorize" people all they want, and take away their rights and freedoms, for whatever reason, including evil corrupt ones. In doing so, they are not considered "terrorists" because "might is right", and therefore any "terrorizing" done by government is automatically right. However, anyone who opposes their tyranny or stands up to it, or exposes it, or fights for their freedom, is automatically branded a "terrorist".

So in other words, if the powers that be terrorize you, they are not terrorists. But if you oppose their "terrorism" or stand up for your rights and fight for your freedoms, or expose their lies, then YOU are automatically the terrorist, even though technically you are not "terrorizing" anybody. This is yet another ridiculous form of flipping a term upside down, but this time, for the nefarious purpose of squashing dissent against tyranny and abuse of power.

What this means, sadly, is that if the US government coerces a foreign nation into compliance and forces them to give up their resources to US corporations, then they are not "terrorists" even though they are "terrorizing" other nations. But if anyone in that foreign country opposes them, or fights for their freedom and people, then they are the "terrorists". So in other words, the bad guys are the good guys, and the good guys are the bad guys. This is all totally upside down, deceitful, and very evil as well.

6. Conspiracy/Conspiracy Theory

Similarly, a "conspiracy" doesn't exist if you are referring to conspiracies within government, which are not possible according to the government and media (Duh). They only exist in regards to enemies of government tyranny, both foreign and domestic, such as revolutionaries, freethinkers, freedom fighters, mythical "Al Qaeda" Muslim terrorists, etc. Only enemies of the state can be involved in conspiracies, but not the government itself, according to the controlled major media and the official version of things.

Also, when the government puts out a "conspiracy theory" like Bin Laden and Al Qaeda being behind 9/11, it considers this as a "fact" and expects you to as well. But if you question it, then you are a "conspiracy theorist", not them.

As Kevin Ryan observed:

http://digwithin.net/2011/09/25/skeptic ... ving-brain

"This strange approach to skepticism is a good example of the growing attempt by some government and corporate media representatives (Shermer also works for FOX TV) to convince us to believe the opposite of what we see and hear. We’re told that the best way to stop terrorism is to start endless wars in the Middle East, and the best way to protect our freedoms is to give up our freedoms. We’re also led to believe, paradoxically, that anyone who questions the government’s conspiracy theory is a “conspiracy theoristâ€￾."


7. Peace and War

And of course, our government has perpetuated the bizarre myth that starting unnecessary wars for profit keeps the "peace". In order to "keep the peace" we have to attack countries like Iraq, Iran, and who knows what others. And during the Cold War, in order to preserve the "peace", we had to constantly build nuclear weapons. Thus, their motto is war=peace, which is as nonsensical and Orwellian as you can get.

8. Hollywood portrayals

Hollywood has this annoying habit of portraying things as the opposite of what they are.

In movies, they always portray Americans as being fun loving, jolly, outgoing, expressive, full of life, dramatic, inclusive, easy to talk to and befriend. In contrast, they portray Russians as cold, stern and stoic. In romance comedies, they also make it look like American women are very open, expressive, friendly, loose and easy and that any average Joe gets hit on by hot babes who love to flirt and are easy to date and sleep with. (e.g. American Pie, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Love and Drugs, etc.)

But nothing could be further from the truth. In real life, Americans tend to be cliquish, isolated, mind their own business, don't talk to strangers unless its business related, and paranoid of others. They are paranoid of strangers and prefer being alone. It is hard to make friends in America when you move to a new location. Neighbors don't just appear and invite you over to hang out, as is portrayed in the movies. Groups are not that inclusive, unless it's a church or cult group or something.

Women in America are also stuck up, difficult, super picky and take pride in dumping as many men as they can. They carry a defensive force field around them and are paranoid of strangers. Thus they are not easy to meet, befriend or date at all. They also do not flirt like you see in the movies, but vilify the art of flirting as creepish.

I've spent a year in Russia, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that Russians are a million times more open, inclusive, expressive, upfront, genuine and easier to meet than Americans are. And I mean A LOT more. The difference is staggering. No joke. The women in Russia are also very approachable, easy to meet, and not afraid of strangers. Far more than in America. Fearlessness seems to be innate in Russian character. After all, they did defeat Napoleon and Hitler and had no fear of them. So why would they fear a stranger?

Most modern movies and TV shows made after 1995 tend to portray women as the stronger sex and men as the weaker sex, which is the opposite of reality. In modern movies, when a man and woman engage in physical combat, the woman ends up kicking butt most of the time. And every time they argue, the man has to be shamed and realize that he was wrong. In action movies where there's a group of people fighting for survival, the women always take charge.

Examples: In the recent V series remake, both the Resistance and Visitors have a woman in charge. In the Resident Evil movie series, the main female action hero Alice is not only the strongest and most invincible character who wins every fight, but when she finds other survivors of the zombie holocaust, she always takes charge and leads them. Even when she meets other groups of survivors (such as in Resident Evil 3: Extinction), the groups are also led by other "strong females".

However, all this contradicts reality and common sense. In real life, men tend to be physically stronger than women, and would therefore win in a real fight. And in arguments, women are often proven wrong and shamed, not just men. (I know I've gotten the last word in many arguments with feminist-minded women for example, which piss them off even more)

Most women also do not do well in leadership roles, as leadership requires the use of reason, rationality and logic. But women are not usually strong in these areas. Women by nature are nurturers. They tend to be conformists with no inner convictions. And they care more about how they are perceived than in doing what's right. (There are exceptions of course, but we are talking about most women here, not all) None of these qualities are good for leadership.

So why does Hollywood and the modern media like to portray the opposite of reality? Why do they like to flip the natural gender roles - making women dominant/stronger while men submissive/weaker? Why do they want to make women more masculine and men more feminine? What does that accomplish exactly? I don't get it. It doesn't make sense.

By turning both men and women against their inherent nature, the modern feminist media has left both men and women feeling confused, lonely and dissatisfied. All this has resulted in the degradation of love, dating, relationships and families, as well as the gender identities of men and women, all of which is highly negative. WTF is going on?
Last edited by Winston on Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:40 pm, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23574
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm







Postby Jester » Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:49 am

Good post.

I guess we should call the bleating sheep "conspiracy theorists" when appropriate, and ridicule them and laugh at them.

If that's not appropriate, then maybe "brainwashed zombie conformist."

I think it's important to use ridicule, because all they have to sustain their belief in the emperor's new clothes, is the snort, the sneer, the scoffing tone. Puncture their bubble of ego-safety, and they will feel the nakedness.

The goal is not to convert them, it is to crush them, and leave them shattered and bleeding.

I do not advocate this kind of disrespect with everyone, only with the so-called debunkers.
"Pick a point and go to it."
-- Dr John Hunsucker, speaking about canoeing on Georgia's Lake Lanier, with its irregular shape, and 1000 miles of meandering shoreline
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Teal Lantern » Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:17 pm

People need agreed upon meanings of words to discuss ideas.

Destroy or corrupt the meanings of the words, you make it difficult for people to discuss (and unite) around those ideas.

Remember the dictionary in Orwell's '1984'? Each new edition had fewer words than the previous one.
не поглеждай назад. 8)

"Even an American judge is unlikely to award child support for imputed children." - FredOnEverything
User avatar
Teal Lantern
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:48 pm
Location: Briar Patch, Universe 25

Postby Winston » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:43 pm

I just added two more to the list:

6. Peace and War

And of course, our government has perpetuated the bizarre myth that starting unnecessary wars for profit keeps the "peace". In order to "keep the peace" we have to attack countries like Iraq, Iran, and who knows what others. And during the Cold War, in order to preserve the "peace", we had to constantly build nuclear weapons. Thus, their motto is war=peace, which is as nonsensical and Orwellian as you can get.

7. Hollywood portrayals

Hollywood has this annoying habit of portraying things as the opposite of what they are. In movies, they always portray Americans as being fun loving, jolly, outgoing, expressive, full of life, dramatic, inclusive, easy to talk to and befriend. In contrast, they portray Russians as cold, stern and stoic. In romance comedies, they also make it look like American women are very open, expressive, friendly, loose and easy and that any average Joe gets hit on by hot babes who love to flirt and are easy to date and sleep with. (e.g. American Pie, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Love and Drugs, etc.)

But nothing could be further from the truth. In real life, Americans tend to be cliquish, isolated, mind their own business, don't talk to strangers unless its business related, and paranoid of others. They are paranoid of strangers and prefer being alone. It is hard to make friends in America when you move to a new location. Neighbors don't just appear and invite you over to hang out, as is portrayed in the movies. Groups are not that inclusive, unless it's a church or cult group or something.

Women in America are also stuck up, difficult, super picky and take pride in dumping as many men as they can. They carry a defensive force field around them and are paranoid of strangers. Thus they are not easy to meet, befriend or date at all. They also do not flirt like you see in the movies, but vilify the art of flirting as creepish.

I've spent a year in Russia, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that Russians are a million times more open, inclusive, expressive, upfront, genuine and easier to meet than Americans are. And I mean A LOT more. The difference is staggering. No joke. The women in Russia are also very approachable, easy to meet, and not afraid of strangers. Far more than in America. Fearlessness seems to be innate in Russian character. After all, they did defeat Napoleon and Hitler and had no fear of them. So why would they fear a stranger?
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23574
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby Winston » Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:16 pm

In this recent interview with Alex Jones, David Icke talks about the Archons spoken of by suppressed ancient groups such as the Gnostics, and how they are robotic beings that feed off of human suffering and deceive people by inverting things into their opposite. This would explain a lot about why things are the way they are, why everything is inverted upside down and why society seems built for some "thing" out there to feed off of suffering. I've always felt this all along. Then Alex Jones added "Feminism has turned women into men, and men into non-entities." So true. It's good that Alex Jones is exposing feminism too.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8v8xB_2ihg[/youtube]
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23574
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby In2dadark » Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:12 pm

Good thread. While I agree w/ much of what Alex Jones says, he only goes near 75% of the truth. He's been exposed as an agent of disinformation & may be spying on the very people who subscribe to his website. YMMV & all of that.

Case in point today ( I watch sometimes on the free streams), a 15 yr. veteran cop calls in (one that actually sounded like a cop) & said he's stand down if it came to going after the guns. He went on to say people should buy their guns at private sales. Jones quickly ran away from that 'solution'. He interrupted the guy & wouldn't let him speak again. Jones said he bought all his guys through the formal process as a way of 'making a statement' and "drawing a line in the sand'.

Plenty of other examples of how he runs away from real solutions & how is a disinfo agent out there. Just google it if you're still "skeptical"..
In2dadark
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:21 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.

Postby FreeYourMind » Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:10 am

I don't buy that Jones is a disinfo agent or any of that. He has a huge audience, which means he has to pull some punches on certain topics. It's a tradeoff, and there's enough good info that people can go from there and find 100% of the truth with a little initiative.

Anyway, it's good to see he's going after feminism a little bit, when conservative men wise up instead of still being mostly white knights, feminism is going to be under even more relentless criticism than it has been the past few years.
FreeYourMind
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:15 am

Postby MrPeabody » Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:55 am

Conspiracy theorists, who believe Alex Jones is legitimate, by necessity, also believe the system is legitimate. They actually still believe there is such a thing as freedom of the Internet and it doesn’t seem to occur to them that if there is an all powerful organization, they simply will rub out the real truth tellers and put in false ones in their place, i.e. Alex Jones, Icke. The CTs beliefs are just as inconsistent as mainstream’s Joe Sixpack.

I personally find Icke to be trite. He puts together a lot of Wikipedia type of information. Nothing is original. The idea of shape shifting goes back to Indian mythology where Indian gods would disguise themselves in human form. You can find a lot of creative ideas in ancient literature. In fact, the epic Ramayana describes an advanced civilization of talking apes thousands of years before our “Planet of the Apesâ€￾.

As I described before, the “Illuminatiâ€￾ was a cold war conspiracy theory that I knew about long before the Internet. The conspiracy theorists just lifted this and most other things without attribution. CTs who believe this stuff just repeat what the “expertsâ€￾ are telling them. So, they are no better off then Joe Sixpack who repeats the latest wisdom of Bill O’Reilly.

So, one can always shift from the conventional matrix to a smaller matrix – a prisoner of the ideas of smaller men. What’s the difference between a large matrix and a small matrix ?– several million or billion people, I suppose. In this matrix, the outsiders are not sinners, they are sheeple. I see very little truth left in today’s world, and none on the Internet. Just entertainment.
MrPeabody
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:53 pm

Postby Winston » Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:43 pm

I just added this term to the above list:

3. Misogynist/Misogyny

Technically, a misogynist is someone who "hates women". But this word is a label used loosely by angry man-hating feminists to shame anyone who opposes them or exposes them. In reality though, I don't know anyone who "hates women". Why would they? When feminine, pretty and sweet, women are the best. Nothing compares to them.

The problem is that feminism has turned women into masculine monsters who act dominant and superior, abuse men, treat men unfairly, and have loads of double standards. Just because a man prefers a woman to be feminine and not masculine doesn't make him a "hater of women". That doesn't make sense. Why should a man like women becoming masculine (against their own nature) or treating them badly? Women don't like being treated badly or unfairly so why should men? Feminists are among the most brainwashed and unaware in the world.

In truth, feminists who loosely call anyone who opposes them a "misogynist" are themselves "misandrists" or "haters of men", since they do hate men and treat them badly by their words and actions. They treat men as the weaker sex, say things like "men are creeps", consider every man a "creep and predator" by default until he proves otherwise, and believe that whenever a man argues with a woman he must be wrong. All of this is misandrist behavior for sure. So, these femininst "haters of men" are in fact seeing their own hate reflected back at them. Hence they wrongly call anyone who exposes them a "misogynist", when in truth, they are the ones who are the haters.

A man simply wants a woman to follow her true nature of being feminine, sweet, graceful, and nurturing. That's the way women are by nature and have always been. So there is nothing wrong with it. A masculine women is simply not attractive or desirable. Inherently, men want a woman who is a "princess to be rescued" not someone who is masculine and dominant and thinks that they are the stronger sex. And women by nature want a man to be their protector, or "knight in shining armor" or "prince". But how can a man be their "protector" if they consider him to be the weaker sex who must become passive and submissive in order to comply with feminism? That simply doesn't make sense.

Whatever forces engineered feminism must have nefarious purposes. Perhaps the conspiracy people are right when they say that the elite (Illuminati/Zionists/Powers that be) are trying to divide us with feminism and the "battle of the sexes" in order to make us weaker, destroy the family unit and lower the birthrate to have a more manageable population? What else could explain this illogical social engineering?

By turning men passive and weak, and women masculine and dominant, against their inherent nature, the modern feminist culture in the US has left both men and women feeling confused, lonely and dissatisfied. All this has resulted in the degradation of love, dating, relationships and families, as well as the gender identities of men and women, all of which is highly negative.
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23574
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby Ghost » Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:42 pm

"For the children" and "community" are two of my pet-peeves when it comes to politicians, et. al. using them, along with terms like sexism and mysogyny.

Community = Surburban isolating existence
For the children = We're going to do what want and cop out by using this instead of an argument
Sexism = Well, being a man

"We're going to bomb this foreign country to defend our communities. It's for the CHILDREN. And our occupying army is going to be made up of womyn soldiers! And if you don't agree with it, you're SEXIST!"
Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5749
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:23 am

Postby In2dadark » Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:34 am

The list is potentially endless in the U.S. The pope,the catholic church, health food, health care, charities that actually benefit who they say, realty TV, breaking news.. etc. etc. etc. But what the hey, I've got time. I still, for now, live in the desert wasteland for p***y & real women, feminine women.
In2dadark
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:21 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.


Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media and 3 guests