So yesterday I quoted some random Spearheader who described women (well, white women in particular) as “complete parasitical whores roaming the landscape spreading VD like Johnny Appleseed and fucking men over.”
One reader wondered if Mr. Appleseed really went about spreading VD. So I did a little research, and it turns out that it is exceedingly unlikely that Mr. Appleseed – who actually was a real person — spread anything other than the magic of apples. And his Swedenborgian beliefs.
Why? Because Mr. Appleseed – real name John Chapman – was what these days we might call a Man Going His Own Way. Seems he didn’t have much truck with the ladies, according to one contemporary account quoted in his Wikipedia entry:
On one occasion Miss PRICE’s mother asked Johnny if he would not be a happier man, if he were settled in a home of his own, and had a family to love him. He opened his eyes very wide–they were remarkably keen, penetrating grey eyes, almost black–and replied that all women were not what they professed to be; that some of them were deceivers; and a man might not marry the amiable woman that he thought he was getting, after all.
So what led poor Mr. Appleseed to these dire thoughts about women? Apparently the underage girl he hoped to some day get with was more into dudes who weren’t him:
Now we had always heard that Johnny had loved once upon a time, and that his lady love had proven false to him. Then he said one time he saw a poor, friendless little girl, who had no one to care for her, and sent her to school, and meant to bring her up to suit himself, and when she was old enough he intended to marry her. He clothed her and watched over her; but when she was fifteen years old, he called to see her once unexpectedly, and found her sitting beside a young man, with her hand in his, listening to his silly twaddle.
That ungrateful little strumpet!
I peeped over at Johnny while he was telling this, and, young as I was, I saw his eyes grow dark as violets, and the pupils enlarge, and his voice rise up in denunciation, while his nostrils dilated and his thin lips worked with emotion. How angry he grew! He thought the girl was basely ungrateful. After that time she was no protegé of his.
But Appleseed, despite giving up on women in the real world, held out hope for the afterlife – explaining to others that he expected to have two spirit wives all his own after he died. Which I guess is the 19th century equivalent of the MGTOWers today who fantasize about the sexy robot ladies who will eventually, it is hoped, make actual human females – with their troubling “thoughts” and “needs” and “desires” of their own – obsolete.
Mr. Appleseed’s quest to remain alone was probably also helped by the fact that – if the illustration I found on Wikipedia is any indication – he looked a bit like Dale Gribble from King of the Hill. Only much, much sloppier, with long hair. Oh, and instead of wearing a baseball cap, he wore “a tin utensil which answered both as a cap and a mush pot.”
So, yeah, a creepy weirdo who hates women — definitely an MGTOWer all the way.
Oh, except that he actually did something with his life — you know, helping spread apple trees to a big portion of the midwest — instead of spending all his time going on about how all women are whores.
It’s neither excusable nor understandable. Just the fact that you say “did not deserve it in her particular case” proves you think there ARE cases which merit violence against women. You’ve admitted as much above. What kind of empathetic person does that?
Having to pay child support does not equal rape. Not in this reality. Shame on you.
Which means you’re a revolting excuse for a human being. You deserve your dolls as your only audience and every drop of loneliness you get.
You’re going to blame your rage? Fuck you.
It does not though-because while there are some injustices in the court system, most of the men whining about them are not candidates for Father of the Year. On the contrary, most of them tend to view children as either extensions of themselves, ways to hurt their ex-wives and annoying money pits.
Molly Ren–November 21,2011 @2:07pm
As far as fashion and couture go, i agree that unisex and androgyny, at least not in the usual feminist sense, is NOT the word to describe the modern women in mags like vogue and cosmo. However, there is a certain hardness and brittleness about them that a traditional man finds most displeasing and unfeminine! i don’t even know what it is! You would almost call it “robotic’ in the least flattering sense of the word…
They are incapable of smiling, and when they walk, they walk as just about as much like men as they do like women. No wiggle,no flow, no graceful quality at all; if they don’t exactly march like soldiers or somethng like that down the model’s runway, they certainly don’t, and probably cna’t, show a lady’s natural grace and sleekness in their walking carriage nor in their clothes, even if her clothing worn has a superficial femininity!
I don’t like always criticizing women–or anyone! But I feel that I–and perhaps other men, as well, am being pushed into, if not almost forced into, accepting something that is an ersatz, inferior brand of womanhood, as opposed to the sweet old fashioned girl that I think we are entitled to!
Your mask, flimsy though it was, slipped Meller-toad. Please don’t bother trying to hastily put it back in place and pretend we didn’t all get a good look at slimy, monster beneath.
Your apology means less than nothing.
Meller, there’s your problem: you’re not entitled to anything in this life. Sad, but true.
I suspect they’re perfectly capable of smiling, and that your objection is that they don’t smile at you. But why on earth should they?
You’re not entitled to anything, least of all another human being.
“Is there a kind of creeping awareness (or creepy awareness) in the case of youall, that those Hello Kitty dolls and fluffies (stuffed animals) are far prettier, more cuddlesome,and more alluring to the male of the species (in the absence of REAL women) than any of you modern women(?)—shrikes, harpies, and FEMINISTS lot of you!!”
Um, Meller? It’s generally not men who are keeping the Great Ship Sanrio afloat. Hello Kitty sells mainly to little girls, and to adult women who loved it as little girls, as it was created to do. Most men do not share your affection for dolls.
“Don’t all of you feel just plain silly making such remarks about me now??
Nope. Actually I’m very amused to see that you really do want to marry a plushie toy created to delight small children – it’s very revealing as to which specific developmental stage you got stuck in as a child.
Now I kind of want to introduce Meller to an actual lolita, to see how long it takes her to lose her temper and hit him with her frilly handbag.
I rather like Wetherby, by the way. I’d imagine his wife is quite fond of him too. Those women who supposedly love men like you, though…where are they? You keep insisting that they exist, but I’ve yet to see any proof of that. (You know that your collectible dolls don’t count as women, right?)
Also, I think you missed the point I was making. So, to reitterate – you want a soft fluffy type of woman? Be more Hello Kitty-like yourself, and less of a shrieking rage-monster. Take an example from the man whose collaboration with Sanrio I posted above – he’s pretty damn cute and fluffy, and sweet cutesy women certainly seem to love him.
You, however, they do not like. There are no real women who like you, only dolls. This is why you are so angry at the world. Do you really think we haven’t all figured that out by now?
What is… DKM’s dick? (Are we playing Jeopardy?)
Is anyone else now imagining Meller finding a lone, lost woman in the woods, kidnapping her, forcibly dressing her in a frilly dress and bunny ears, and then sticking her on the shelf with all this other dolls? I’m not sure he’s capable of recognising the difference between a real life woman and a doll.
Meller asked: Don’t all of you feel just plain silly making such remarks about me now??
Nope.
No, Kyrie, not everything that I say about women is insulting. Even when I attempt to write posts praising women, or saying good things about them, youall still find reasons to attack them.
Again, not using “four letter words” isn’t restraint from rudeness. You have never said anything here which wasn’t intented to insult the women on this board. You don’t even consider them women.
Which may be for the best, since your opinion of women (and how to treat them) is worse than the present law allows for horses and dogs.
Both were regrettable excesses in unusual circumstances.
No, they weren’t. You have as with this post, never said, “I was wrong, such things are beyond the pale, and I am sorry I uttered them.”
No, rather you excuse them, and try to paper them over. You have not recanted word one of what you said. Like a four year old you persist in saying, “Johnny hit me me first!!!!!” as if that makes it acceptable for you to hit him.
So there is no reason to believe you didn’t mean it when you said, nor that you don’t believe it now. You just don’t like it being repeated, so that new people will be shown the inner beast that is Meller.
Meller, are you still leaning in the direction of “LIBERTARIAN DEBAAAAAAATE?” I’m thinking January would be good, if you are.
I told you in a previous post that I am leaning favorably in that direction. As long as we aren’t distracted by background noise from manboobzers and manboobzeresses, there is nothing wrong with it that I can see.
Let’s see what happens!
hellkell–I, and other men (along with any women who love us) certainly ARE entitled to regain what was stolen from us, by feminists, their stooges in the media, and their masters in the NWO and sundry globalists/corporate mafias like the Bilderburg group, Trilateral commission, Skull&Bones, and the rest of the criminal elements in our society!
They stole traditional gender identity roles from us, through their control of the schools and universities, the newsmedia, and the courts, and we are entitled to try to get them back!
C’mon, hellkell, you really didn’t think that you feminists, acting by yourselves, could do this in less than a lifetime, did you?
Meller: Take a xanax and calm the fuck down. Do you really think a massive global conspiracy could take over the entire world without anyone reputable noticing? Do you think such a conspiracy could last longer than ten minutes before factional infighting started, dooming it to failure before it even got off the ground?
Meller: Also – you’re mixing up your own feelings with those of everyone else. I’ve not seen a poll or study, but I’d be willing to bet that most (90%+) men do not feel that their gender identity has been stolen, by schools or courts.
CassandraSays–November21,2011 @ 9:55pm
Haven’t you read any number of my numerous posts? I repeatedly said that any sort of coercion, force, or fear inflicted upon women (or pets, for that matter) is counterproductive, and would never produce the desired results. I would no more “kidnap a girl, take her home, forcibly (???) dress her in a frilly dress, and bunny ears, and stick her on a shelf with my other dolls” than I would boil water in the refrigerator or than I would sweeten my coffee with ground black pepper! I know that you, along with other manboobzettes, think of me as something of a lunatic, but even I am not THAT crazy!
Cassandra, the only way to dominate a woman ( or a pet, for that matter) successfully is with love. You must get her to want to please you! You must get her to trust you, and see you as her protector and her advocate, NOT an attacker, rapist, or oppressor! The drivel that some posters critical of me, like darksidecat or Pecunium scribble on manboobz here don’t understand this. Save such nonsense like “kidnapping” for posters who don’t know any better–although I certainly tried my best to communicate this common sense to them as well as to you, with no results!
Kidnap a woman? FORCE her into a frilly dress? Turn her into a human ‘doll’? Absurd! That would be both cruel and stupid, and do absolutely nothing for either of us! I want her to LOVE me, not hate and detest me!
Meller: Treating a woman like she’s your exclusive property (which you’ve told us all repeatedly is how we should act toward the men in our lives) is NOT the way to get a woman to love you. If she happens to be a sub and wants to negotiate some sort of scene with you, have fun! But assuming we’re all into total submission – ‘loving’ or not – is rude and insulting.
“Is anyone else now imagining Meller finding a lone, lost woman in the woods, kidnapping her, forcibly dressing her in a frilly dress and bunny ears, and then sticking her on the shelf with all this other dolls? I’m not sure he’s capable of recognising the difference between a real life woman and a doll.”
Actually, that was the premise of an entire episode of Criminal Minds.
It’s just as disturbing as you can imagine.
I’ve read your comments, Meller. I just don’t believe you. You’re far too angry to react well when your attempts to dominate through love don’t work, as they inevitably will not in your case.
You have slipped and revealed your true character too many times for anyone to believe that you’re capable of gentleness or love towards women, old man. We do think you’re a lunatic, and it’s entirely a result of the things that you yourself have said, over and over again.
Meller, I wonder if you’re aware how obvious the true cause of your grievances is to another domme. You are very, very angry because you have not been able to find a suitable submissive who’s willing to play the role that you’d like her to play. Part of this is because your expectations are unrealistic and your connection to reality tenuous, but I’m willing to bet that part of it is also due to the fact that you’re just not a very good dominant. You certainly don’t exude any sense of authority. Why should anyone want to submit to you? And even if someone was willing you clearly don’t have the first clue how to go about actually establishing a functional Dom/sub relationshoip.
Basically you fantasize about forcing a complete overhaul of society in order to compensate for your own inability to find a submissive who suits your needs. Since you’re clearly incapable of creating the relationship that you want for yourself, you want to make the rest of society do it for you (and you call this libertarianism, just for extra hilarity).
That is just about the most pathetic thing that I’ve ever seen on the Internet. You really need to stop expecting society to reinvent itself in order to compensate for your personal failings. Plenty of dominant men are able to find loving partners who suit them very well. The fact that you are not is entirely your own problem.
Sorry, Meller, you’re still wrong–you’re not entitled to a damn thing. Especially when no one stole anything from you, you fucking dinosaur.
Hope you and the dolls had a lovely Thanksgiving.
“But…but…but,” Meller interjects sulkily, “I am claiming I will be nice to my slaves, why are all you subhumans still complaining?”
“I told you in a previous post that I am leaning favorably in that direction. As long as we aren’t distracted by background noise from manboobzers and manboobzeresses, there is nothing wrong with it that I can see.
Let’s see what happens!”
Nope! no background noise whatsoever, just you vs. me. There’ll be seperate comments threads for non-libertarians and libertarians to weigh in. But nobody gets to interrupt us. Fight to the finish, whatever the finish is.
Meller: No one is entitled to have someone act the way they want them too. One is entitled to not be forced to act in ways one doesn’t care for.
You, think women shoul be coerced (at the very least socially) to fulfill your fantasies. You think they should be denied opportunities equal to men.
So you are not, actually, a libertarian. You don’t believe everyone is equal, and you don’t believe all should have the same level of liberty.
Your problem is that what you say is clear, and plain, to the meanest understanding, and what you bleat about not using physical methods does nothing to dispute your desire for coercion, and inequality.
Why is it so many people see the same thread of authoritarian brutality in the system you advocate? Perhaps the problem isn’t them, but that you really are saying those things.
To ask the question is to answer it.
I have to do it.
1,000.