He may be a raving misogynist asshole who seems to spend most of his free time scanning through PlentyOfFish profiles for women he can insult. But I’ll give Zero Tolerance Man props for one thing: his blog, NO MARRIAGES.COM, is very easy to read.
Not because he’s a brilliant writer with the clarity and grace of a latter-day Orwell. Because he uses such huge fonts, offering those with tired eyes a haven of sorts from the tiny text you find on most websites. The only real trouble is that, reading his posts, I can’t help but imagine him shouting them out at the top of his lungs.
I thought I’d give you some of the highlights — that is, lowlights — from recent posts, in a normal sized font.
I would compare most American women to septic tanks or dumpsters. The ego of the typical American woman is out of control, especially with the on-line dating sites. they get a few emails from pathetic desperate guys and right away, they are a princess waiting for their dream man.
The bathroom isn’t good enough to pump out that titter milk for these American bitches? After all, if I’m at work and I feel like busting a nut, I have to go into the shitter, close the stall door and pump away. But now, that isn’t good enough for a woman and her little womb turd!!! …
American women are essentially worthless except as a fuck and dump, so why are we bothering with this shit? Leave the little bastard at home or if the bitch just has to drain her tit, let her squeeze it out into the shitter.
Besides, it’s just another body fluid like the piss, blood, and yeast infections that drain from her overused overpriced PUSSgina right into the shit pot. I’m sick of giving these “ladies” deferential treatment.
MISERABLE AMERICAN BITCHES!!!!!
I am sorry, but unless a woman is here to service my needs, she has no more value than shit in the sewer. … We should treat American women like the crap they are and work on lowering their self-esteem.
You wouldn’t buy a dented can at the supermarket! Why would you choose a single mother? Single mothers are for losers. …
Think about it! …
Her pussy is stretched out from shitting out the kids or she has a big UGLY scar across her belly. Also included at no additional charge are stretch marks and varicose veins for your entertainment pleasure. …
Some of these bitches have 120,000 miles on their odometer by the time their husband (s) or the guys they fucked have put them in the recycle bin where they belong!
You can see these bitches walking down the street with their noses stuck up in the air with their snooty, snotty grins as if to say “look at me, I am wonderful and if you are a man, you are a pig”. I wasted years of my life and lots of money trying to please these monsters.
Only a MADMAN would marry one of these creatures.
Oh there’s more, much more. Including a poem. But I’m saving that for a future post.
DKM, I’m speaking as a sociologist here. Basically, as someone who understands cultureal constructions. Let me be clear here, cultural norms are not static. Cultural norms also do not describe objective reality, what they state are culturally constructed. They often are a dynamic set of values agreed upon by a plurality, but that is about the extent it will go. Whatever your norms were when dinosaurs roamed the earth are not going to be the same, despite all your whining. Your beliefs on gender norms for instance do not describe any objective reality, but merely what you seem to desire. They are entirely constructed. But as has been proven before, your knowledge of basic biology and history is deeply lacking.
Further note, your little tirade there on non-heterosexuals and child molestation is not sourced by any evidence. Your claims of a conspiracy are not founded because you fail to provide causal mechanisms and evidence. Ergo, you don’t have a fucking letter to what you are saying. Pointing at someone and saying “THEY ARE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY” is not evidence.
I agree, Lyn. I personally liked using a shawl just because it made me feel less self conscious. My own shawl was so huge that my kids could have done cartwheels and the shawl wouldn’t move enough to uncover anything. It also helped me because my babies would sometimes unlatch, move their heads, and look around and that would have embarrassed me in public. Now while that was my preference, I think it’s fine for women that don’t bother with shawls and blankets. They can make it hard to see what you’re doing trying to latch the baby on, and they can get hot in the summer.
Holly: What’s really weird to me, though, is how often it seems like the “I hate everybody who’s not a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant cisgendered American heterosexual able-bodied man” crowd pick out one of their prejudices that they’re actually vaguely ashamed of on some confused level, while happily celebrating the rest. For example, one of the posts on ZTM’s ridiculous blog contains the following lines, in this order:
“This unbelievably demanding miserable piece of fucking dog shit typifies most of the Jewish women I have met in the USA.”
“I’LL TELL YOU WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT JEWISH WOMEN. THEY SAY YOU GALS ARE THE MOST SPOILED WORTHLESS BITCHES IN THE ENTIRE USA”
“YOU LIKE WHEN SOMEONE ELSE WAS PAYING, DON’T YOU, LIKE THE REST OF YOUR JEWISH SISTERS”
“ALL OF YOU JEWISH WOMEN CAN GO FUCK YOURSELVES WITH YOUR SICKEN ATTITUDE OF ENTITLEMENT”
“Jewish American women are the worst of the worst when it comes to women to be involved with in the USA. They are completely unfit to be wives, girlfriends or anything but takers and users.”
“Do I hate Jewish women? Absolutely not!”
It’s as if on some vague level, he’s aware that antisemitism is generally considered to be a bad thing, but he doesn’t have the faintest idea how to go about actually not being antisemitic – and I really love seeing an “I’m not a bigot” disclaimer on a blog devoted to posting pictures of women and shrieking “ANUS STINK HOLE TOXIC FART!” in all caps under them.
(Also, the “unbelievable demands” of the woman in question appear to be that she wants to date someone who is smart, funny, kind, does not particularly enjoy camping, and would like to meet her for lunch at a restaurant. Inconceivable!)
I do think it’s funny how DKM admits that there are studies disproving what he believes, but thinks they’re lies because they contradict the things he’s chosen to believe.
Why he chose those things to believe is, well, I don’t think he thinks too hard about that part.
Polliwog – I’ve noticed that! A lot of them seem to have it about racism too, where they aren’t actually okay with black people but they put in a lot more “I know you’re not supposed to hate black people so I have to explain myself here” disclaimers than they do for their other hatreds.
Ignoring your word choice for a sec: It probably depends a lot on stuff that you’ve failed to include in the scenario. Y’know … important stuff, like parenting skills and love and kindness and finances and security.
Um, okay. I would say something like: Everyone is free to raise their kids with whatever values they like — with the caveat that certain “values,” like hatred and intolerance are actually valueless — but pretty close. What? Are the white people where you live not allowed to do this? Who told you that?
I can’t guess.
So, it looks like some [secret] researchers have done actual studies that come to a conclusion, but you think that those studies are wrong. Just have that special feeling in your gut telling you that you’re right about this, just like you did about … oh, I don’t know … auras. Excuse me if I go with the researcher on this one.
Well, yeah … sure? Though again … who’s arguing with you?
Oh no, please go on. These little conversations are fascinating, in a totally sick way. I’m just waiting for the facade to crack a bit so we can find out what horrible mishap in life led you to such a wrong path.
I would link to some !!SCIENCE!! about how homosexuals are actually less likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals and how men who prey on young boys select them for their lack of masculine characteristics, and probably some other science!1 about how lesbians are the least likely to abuse children, but Meller would only ignore it so I’ll just note how he moves from the question of how the whitemen are denied rights by gay and lesbian parents to the question of White rights to decide the values of children. Meller, you know there are caucasian gays and lesbians, right? And what’s with the collectivism based on skin color? I’d’ve thought Mises and Rothbard might have cured you of collectivism, if, unfortunately, not racism.
Oh, hell, I’ll just post this anyway:
But I guess it proves nothing, the exception to the rule established by homophobic misogynists on the basis of no evidence whatsoever proves the role established by the homophobic misogynists on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
Children are not property, they are people. They are not products, to be deemed “damaged” or “undamaged”. They have rights of their own, as human beings. The interests of children are their own interests, and children come in many different types of people as well. You cannot simply state that not having your bigotry and hate forced upon them and their lives harms them, you need to demonstrate that. I have very little tolerance for the arguments that treat children as property.
What darkside cat said ^^
This is where my mate who went a bit MRA didn’t go all they way down the rabbit hole. He actually loved his kids as individual people, with their own opinions, personalities and feelings. When his kids suffered, he hurt too and wanted to fix it.
The MRA guys talked about their kids in the same way as property: “she took my money, car and kids.”
although that has been vigorously denied in sundry “studies” by-guess who?
Did they tell you that we oughta live together?
Good catch, DSC. I had kind of read “White people also have a right to have undamaged children—or at least as undamaged as they can be” as Mellerspeak for “(White) children have the right to be unharmed,” which again, I agree with (as long as we can agree that all children, no matter what race, ethnicity, or background, have the same right), but clearly I was giving him too much credit. When you look at what he actually wrote — well, it doesn’t even make sense. Not that anything he types ever does, but … you know.
You know what warms my heart when I read the hateful rubbish in the OP? That young single women seem to be earning more than men their age and more women go to college, too. Let’s see who wants to marry whom in ten years or so.
Donsie, you realize some people marry for reasons other than money, right?
Well, even … ahem even here are a few nuggets of truth hidden… it’s just the case that some women don’t look that good down there, and though mostly they were just born that way it’s also caused by pregnancies or age</em (but though of course not by sexual activity). And it I think at least for me, it looks scary if the inner labia are very large, very assymetrically or otherwise oddly shaped or have really dark pigmentation. What can you do against this? Probably nothing, except not to look…
damn those tags… I knew it would happen to me someday…
Simon – You really don’t have to defend everything.
There are some men who don’t look so good down there (to me, albeit I am not the appointed Official Crotch Judge), but so fucking what. It doesn’t justify hatred, let alone all-caps multi-color furious screeds.
Simon: Different people have different bodies — different sizes, different colors, different shapes. Either you get that or you don’t. No one’s saying that everyone has to find every single physical permutation attractive; people generally prefer one look over others. But for me, using the fact that not every man has testicles that are super appealing to me as a reason to find men’s bodies gross — or to take it to where ZTM has, as an excuse to find all men hateful, disgusting creatures — is just bizarre.
Just because I don’t find someone’s body sexually attractive doesn’t mean I have to judge them, hate them for it, or be disgusted by them. It’s their body, you know?
Meller: The root of the problem. I would, like most normal men, vastly prefer to gain their compliance and docility
Those are not things to be sought out. They are not the traits of humans interacting with people they see as equals. It’s the way one expects a dog, a cow, a horse, a burro, a beast of burden to behave.
Compliance and docility are the mannerisms the slave adopts to hide the hatred of the master.
Meller: I could go on, but this is a website about feminism, not the spread of homosexuality and its likely result on children, so i’ll stop now.
We should be so lucky.
Since feminism is about equality (which you oppose) it has an interest in homosexual (and asexual and bisexual) rights.
And kids of homoseexual parents do just fine. Better, it seems, than the kids of uber-traditional parents.
Who says I “hate homosexuals” anyway? I don’t know enough about them to hate them, love them, or have any feelings at all about them. Homosexuality as a behavior seems “queer” to me, but I think I have almost unanimous company, at least among other normal people. I never denied them the right to live their own lives, love their own kind (no, I don’t want it in my face–but I would rather not see heteros rutting like animals either!)–or otherwise pursue happiness. As far as I am concerned, they are even welcome to marry each other, although, given the dismal state of traditional state-sanctioned marriage, G-d alone knows why! I guess that divorce lawyers and courts want more money!
Talking about ‘kids of homosexual parents, doing just fine. Better, it seems than the kids of ubertraditional parents’, I don’t know how this conclusion was arrived at, but I can certainly guess. This statement reeks of propaganda and special interest advocacy!
There is a COLLECTIVIST gay political movement afoot, just as collectivist as similar movements for Blacks and women (hence the constant call for ‘solidarity”, “unity” and so on). Concentrating power against remaining beseiged white people, the market–what is left of it–and any remaining “traditional” cultural norms. This collectivist movement must be fought for the survival of civilization, and it cannot be fought successfully if one side engages in collective action and the other side functions exclusively as atomized and
disparate individuals!
As an individual, I recognise nonwhite people as individuals–e.g. Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, , Zora Neale Thurston, (a woman there too!) Dr. Charles Drew, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Booker T. Washington, and many others. My highest regard for those INDIVIDUAL blacks doesn’t alter the fact that I recognise the threatened African (and perhaps Hispanic) collectivist domination of American culture–even what is left of it–as a catastrophe!
I recognise and cherish worth in many individual women as well, not the same women as those favored on manboobz (or similar websites) for obvious reasons, but, e.g. Mercy Otis Warren (a famous lady-historian of the American revolution) authoresses like Taylor Caldwell, Ayn Rand (to some degree), Edith Wharton, Susan L. M. Huck, Florence King, Phyllis Schafly (Okay, she was more confrontational during the Cold War than I would have liked, but so were a lot of other people, men as well as women), Helen Andelin, Dr. Toni Grant, and Midge Dector. There are others but I can’t think of them all right now. The fact that some of these women were CRITICS of feminism increases their stature in my eyes, and certainly makes me no collectivist, von Mises and Rothbard notwithstanding!
This thoroughly collectivist movement seeks to dispossess and disenfranchise White men AS white men–a collective, and displace us with, as might be clearly understood, with nonwhites and nonmales (women), along with gays, again as collective. To assert that I am being “collectivist” in resisting this trend, and the people who are activating it, both on level of the NWO (more renegade Whites and renegade Males, than nonwhites per se, or women and gays per se) or the stooges, sheeple, and camp followers and chronic malcontents who follow them, is an absurd misinterpretation of the word! Both in theory and in practice, I am individualist to the core, but when a social and political movement of a blatantly collectivist nature, seeks collective power over me, and my destruction–along with the destruction of individual liberty, private property, and local sovereignty to boot–treating them as they are, an assault upon liberty and private property by blatant and shameless collectivists, is both justifiable and wise! I am being attacked and scapegoated as a member of a hated, despised, and viciously smeared collective along with countless other white men AS white men, and a (long overdue) collective–NOT collectivist–response is overdue, and certainly welcome!
Moewicus, I too would welcome some real science in this controversy. I frankly think that we don’t know enough about human sexuality yet, still less about variations such as paedophilia, homosexuality (including lesbianism) and the conscious and subconscious gender identity and sexuality from early childhood through young adulthood (early 20’s). I will even grant that much of what we think we “know” about sex, libido, gender specificity, mind-body connections, sex-and-love (or lack of it), sex, religion and spirituality–both Eastern and Western–and so on, is certainly incomplete and probably often wrong! If more could be learned, and understood, maybe the correct questions relating to, for example, gays as parents could be asked, and answered, without special interest pleading and behind the scenes influences and biases polluting and passing for all social “science(?)”, most of all with the immensely complex and arcane issues of race, gender, homosexuality, and genetics!
Katz, I couldn’t agree more! We should certainly find better ways to live together! I think that, for starters, however, stout fences make the best neighbors. Another good start is the excerpt from Booker T. Washington’s speech in the Chicago World’s fair, “…in all things that are purely social, we can be as separate as the fingers, but ONE as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress…” Too many people, both black and white, forgot that in the past few generations, and the results are very disappointing. We CAN live together peacefully and productively, but only on terms that recognise each other’s local and racial sovereignty! The government, both Federal and State, has got to go!
How do you think racial segregation should be enforced at a social level?
We should set up makeshift barricades around our neighborhoods and shoot at people who don’t match our skin tone, like how white people handled the semi-anarchy of post-Hurricane Katrina. Like Jesus intended. (That brown-skinned long-haired hippy socialist Jew!)
The only black people Meller likes are dead. It figures.
We CAN live together peacefully and productively, but only on terms that recognise each other’s local and racial sovereignty!
I remember there was a term for that, what was it? Separate but… something… It’ll come to me.
So called “segregation”, which is really the natural and spontaneous way which communities relate to each other, doesn’t have to be “enforced” at all! People feel most comfortable with those most like themselves, feel happiest with those whom they can trust and work with safely, and communication is best when it takes place among folks who speak the same language (and often even the same dialect)!
The commonplace truths and observations above say it all! You only have to set up barricades around neighborhoods when they are under attack. The government police and court services, (never very efficient or reliable in “chocolate city” in the best of times) utterly disintegrated in the wake of hurricane K, leaving otherwise law-abiding Whites no alternative but armed defence on the local, and sometimes even the household level, when mobs of rioting, looting, and often viciously bigoted antiwhite africans swarmed into nearby mostly white communities–themselves seriously disrupted and even endangered by hurricane K–and the beseiged and vulnerable white families had to survive the best that they could!
Interestingly, New Orleans had some 28 years of black-power government, with black mayors, police and fire chiefs, majorities on the Board of “Education”, Mass transit agencies, Housing Boards, etc. Louisiana, a state long known as a laughingstock of graft, bribery, embezzlement of public funds, accounting fraud, and appalling waste even when it was under ‘white male’ leadership(?)anyway, Louisiana also had a woman Governor, who probably couldn’t run the state government in normal times, much less an emergency; as well as considerable numbers of blacks–and women–in the State legislature. Combine the above with an idiot (and pathological liar) in the White House, George W. Bush(a.k.a. George the Stupid) and the bloody aftermath of hurricane K became inevitable, and my suggestions above of separation and sovereignty becomes even more practical, if not imperative! However, several generations of people in both groups were tragically raised to expect the government(s) to ‘do something”, and what they did, of course, made the resulting mess worse for everyone, but particularly the more vulnerable poor blacks. the result was history…
Blacks must be free to do with their own communities what they will, but don’t attack nearby whites when things (inevitably) go bad! So-called “segregation” shouldn’t need to be enforced, it is the natural order of all human social, economic, and legal interaction.
“Segregation appeared to fail only when southern State governments (eager for white votes) meddled to exaggerate white and black differences, through their needlessly meddlesome and humiliating “jim crow’ rules instigating otherwise avoidable bitterness and anger; and a Federal government (equally eager to play up to renegade whites, especially in the courts and the newsmedia, along with black votes, and mostly Jewish money), then proceeded to meddle irresponsibly in the opposite direction against white taxpayers generally and already largely disenfranchised southerners in particular, on its own utterly unconstitutional power trip of bullying, lying and corruption. Both sets of governments, as usual, were altogether wrong!
Jesus of Nazareth was able, if I recall, to “still the waters” during a storm. His guidance would, of course, have probably corrected the entire appalling mess without politics, either White or Black, but we weren’t so lucky, then or now!
It is not “enforced” at a social level, N. People prefer to trust, they prefer to live with, talk with, play with, and work with those with whom they are most familiar! It doesn’t have to be “enforced” at all, and when local and State governments forgot this, and enacted sundry extremely humiliating and dehumanizing ‘jim crow” laws; these LAWS, and their enforcement, understandably created great anger and bitterness among the affected blacks–as well as sympathetic and outraged whites! You know whom you like, and whom you dislike, far better than some political hack in a black robe, or some drunken thief in the city council or State legislature. The Federal government, instead of merely working to put their own house in order, proceeded to bully the beseiged and resentful south, and intensified an already bad situation, put (highly compressed) gasoline on the raging fires with sundry “affirmative action” laws, quotas, and sundry further interventions, with consequences that have yet to run their course, but in the light of the history of enforced “equality” in many other countries, are quite likely to be as dreadful as anywhere else in the world…