Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 42

Thread: Where Have All the Good Men Gone?

  1. #31
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ítreksjóđ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    German Fraternity German Fraternity
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Ethnic nationalism
    Religion
    Agnosticism
    Posts
    77
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    51
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    75
    Thanked in
    27 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordic Angel View Post
    There is nothing wrong with wanting Viking chad babies. You cannot blame Germanic women for wanting them. It's their healthy nature. If Thoreidar doesn't want to give those Viking chad babies to any random Germanic woman around, then he should be picky about whom he shares his bed with. Simple.
    True. Wanting to have healthy, beautiful looking Germanic children should normally be every woman's wish. And especially nowadays in the feminist age, such women are commendable and should be appreciated, not chastised by Germanic men.

    Although I'm a man and I dislike trickery, I still believe the man should take responsibility for his biological children. Becoming pregnant as a result of sexual activity is natural, while "pumping and dumping" your girlfriend isn't. It only became normal recently, due to the moral decay in our societies. Moreover, it is dishonorable behavior that shouldn't be encouraged in a nationalist state. Do we really need to enforce all those ugly misogynist stereotypes?

    Of course in an ideal situation the woman should be honest about being on the pill or not, however in the same ideal situation the man should not waste her time if he does not plan to have children with her. A woman's fertility is at its peak while she is young and then gradually declines with every year. As Germanic preservationist men, we shouldn't waste a woman's fertile years if we don't consider her worthy or suitable enough to have children with, or, even worse, if we simply don't want children at all.

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ítreksjóđ For This Useful Post:


  3. #32
    Senior Member
    Coillearnach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    7 Hours Ago @ 01:01 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Celtic
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Vagrant
    Politics
    Nativism/Nationalism
    Religion
    Summum bonum
    Posts
    387
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    336
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    318
    Thanked in
    156 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Chlodovech View Post
    Peter Lloyd isn't gay, he's an Englishman. And he's one of the best advocates us meninists have in the MSM, Thoreidar. He does a tremendous job.
    Nah, he's gay.

    From a Rebel Media article:

    ...We also talk to raving homosexual Peter Lloyd about his new book “Stand by Your Manhood.” Link
    Additional damning interview:

    LP: I understand that sadly you are not a supporter of marriage? Why? If it is because of easy no-fault divorce, then perhaps it is the case that you could be a supporter of marriage if we did not have such a liberal divorce regime?

    PL: My parents recently celebrated their fiftieth wedding anniversary and my three sisters are each in really happy, long-term marriages – so my personal experience of it is a positive one, but – contrary to what millennials think – facts trump experience. I don’t advise against marriage because I’m a bitter cynic, but because of the mathematical probability of it going wrong. Currently, data proves that one in three marriages collapse, with 70 per cent of divorces initiated by women. The same women who get the best settlements, including the house and the children. So for men it’s a raw deal. Even the likes of Johnny Depp can’t make it work, so the rest of us are screwed.

    I also happen to be a 35-year-old gay guy, so marriage was never an option for me while I was growing up – and I think this helped me see it more objectively, which is liberating. Link

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Coillearnach For This Useful Post:


  5. #33
    Secure a future for Germanic children
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Bärin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Berlin Berlin
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Mother
    Politics
    National Communism
    Religion
    Atheism
    Posts
    1,941
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    169
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    434
    Thanked in
    161 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Chlodovech View Post
    Under a feminist regime too. Apparently.
    If it's so, then that's one of the few things the feminist regime would be doing right. Your child is your own responsibility. It's not your right to dump it on others, anymore than it's not right for a country to dump its citizens on other countries. It's a pretty simple principle: it's yours, you have to take care of it. If you don't want to do that, then don't create it in the first place. Nobody forces you to. Unless you were raped or forced in some way to have sex with someone, you can't use the excuse that you didn't know there was a risk that the sex lead to pregnancy.

    Also, justification of child abandonment is another slippery slope step towards abortion. Because a woman can use the same excuse, she doesn't want the child, she was tricked, she's not ready, etc. And it already happens. That's where the feminist regimes differ from nationalist ones. The feminist regimes encourage the shedding of responsibility through abortion, using abortion as a birth control method and using it with justification and even pride. And abortion is after all, a form of child abandonment.

    We don't live in social conservative societies or under nationalist regimes, even though it would be great - and yet this law still (already) exists - does it contribute to the health of the nation, does it lead to more relationships and children? It has an averse effect. This controversial, feminist law makes men even more cautious to enter relationships with women.
    It's not a feminist principle and casual sex is predominantly a modern occurrence anyway. Traditionally, men and women didn't whore around and those who did became the shame of the town. If you left a woman pregnant back in the day, you'd not only have to raise the child, but also marry her. In other situations it was far more strict and you had to marry her if you had sex with her. Sex is primarily for procreation, not for whoring around. And that's a natural thing, it doesn#t have to come from religion. You know what's a feminist invention on the other hand? The pill is. It's an abomination that should be banned. Society should go back to basics. You shouldn't sleep around with people you don't want to have children with, and you shouldn't have girlfriends you don't want to marry. The moment you decided she's not good enough for marriage, then she shouldn't be your girlfriend anymore. Otherwise not only is it decadent because you only use them for sexual, hedonist purposes, but it's stealing away precious months or years from their fertility cycle. If you don't want to have their children, you shouldn't be wasting their time in the first place. Stay single, or hang out with the childfree, prostitutes or infertile.

    The reality is that, yes, the pill will continue to exist, if necessary underground, and people have sex before marriage these days. And with laws like that in a society & cultures like ours all you get is more men not wanting to bother with relationships anymore. Read this: Why today's young men are terrified of sex.
    So because some young men are chickening out of responsibility, we should "liberate" them and dump it on women instead? As usual, you point to women as being the source of all evil but the reality is that all your "meninists" are doing is campaigning against nationalist, traditionalist concepts such as marriage, family and children. The single, childfree life isn't going to save our nations, having children is. Birth rates are going down and we are becoming nations of the elderly while our fertile population is either whoring around or becoming socially inept and hiding in their basements. And a woman expecting the man who left her pregnant to take responsibility for the child isn't feminism. It's common sense. On the contrary, feminism campaigns for the childfree, abortionist, "empowered" women, slut marches and the like. To a feminist, motherhood and traditional marriage are abhorrent. While nationalism campaigns for these things.

    And do you think the kind of men who support this law will be the men who are going to install a nationalist government? It's an open question.
    Yes. A nationalist government would be installed by family men who see the nation as their extended family and promote increasing our birth rates through traditional families with many children, not by incels, meninists and homosexuals who do nothing but to spew and fingerpoint at half of their nations. The posh gays, metrosexuals and soy boys are the ones campaigning against and trying to destroy traditional marriage and incidentally it's the same type of men who are behind all these men's rights movements.

    On the basis of the same reasoning you could advocate cuckoldry, polygamy, non-biological families, etc ... all in the name of the nation (or is it matriarchy?) - while none of it is really necessary for the nation.
    That's a load of bullsh*t and you know it. All these concepts are decadent, anti-nationalist and shouldn't be promoted. A nation relies on the natural, traditional family, not any rainbow concepts. Otherwise we could as well produce children in test tubes, but that's not healthy for the nation. A child needs a healthy family structure to grow up in, to be educated in. A child needs role models. This means a mother and a father, not anything less (or more).

    Anyway, if you screw up and get someone pregnant the future of the child is more important than your hedonism. The child shouldn't have to pay for your screwups. Children are innocent and must be protected. Also, being a parent is not something that should scare people, as it's everyone's natural role and duty in this world. If you biologically father a child and abandon it because you want to continue to remain childless and enjoy hedonism, you are a traitor to your nation. A child's place is with its biological parents and should only be taken away if they turn out to be incorrigible or abuse/neglect the child.

    There's also a limit to the indignities a man can take - and the survival of the nation is not at stake when a handful of women are called out and punished for their evil behaviour. On the contrary. It could benefit the nation. Maybe men will become more confident again if they didn't feel threatened by the law. And that also goes for #metoo and the rest of the feminist agenda.
    Expecting a man to take responsibility for his own, biological child is no "indignity". And if women are untrustworthy to you, then you shouldn't be trusting them enough to believe what they say about being on the pill anyway. Just assume that they aren't and that sleeping with them gets them pregnant. That's the normal, natural effect anyway - and has been, for most of history. Use your own protection or, if you really don't want children, get a vasectomy. And again, you shouldn't lead any woman on either. If you don't want children, be specific about it. Tell her. Don't waste both her and your time with relationships you don't plan to be serious about.

    So trust no woman. Not even your partner. Not even when she says she's on the pill and that you can have unprotected sex with her. That's what I take away from that, Bärin.
    If that's the only way you're going to be more cautious about it, then so be it, that's your choice. My philosophy is not to be in a relationship with someone you don't trust. What's the point of it? What's the point of a non-serious relationship, where you don't see yourself married with children with that person? Why have such a relationship? Why waste both your and her time with it, especially if you're both fertile? The moment you decide you don't want children with that person, you should do both of yourselves a favor and end it.

    It's not what you mean, but that's the effect those words have: We're talking about a woman who lies about something as important as making babies. I do think some nuance is warranted here. She has proven she can't be trusted. A guy shouldn't just simply suck it up. Seems reasonable to me.
    You could make an argument not to marry her because of the trust issues, however you still can't dance out of your responsibility towards the child. The child is not at fault for her and your mistakes, so it's not right to make it pay. That's dishonorable behavior.

    And the pill mostly works though, it's adequate 'protection' - one in three condoms tear up during sex, almost useless when compared to the pill. You could drive this point home and argue both parties should be wearing condoms and be on the pill (as there's a male birth control pill these days) to have ultimate protection in the scenario I suggested to Thoreidar (in which the woman actually rejects the use of a condom herself because she wants to get pregnant), but most couples don't take it that far, least of all those who have been together for quite a while. They rely on the woman taking the pill and it does the trick. That's the way it is.
    There's no reason why a woman should have to take the pill. I refuse to take it and never will. The pill causes a lot of side effects on the woman's body and reproductive system, not to mention her psychology and the like. It's polluting the minds and bodies of young women. It's making them fat and unattractive, etc. Just because some men have become comfortable and complacent with it doesn't mean that it's supposed to be there. Here's a better alternative, that guarantees you won't father an unwanted child: abstinence. Don't have sex with women you don't want children with. It's tested and proven. Anything else can fail. I've known women who were on the pill but still got pregnant. If you don't want children, then it's first and foremost your own responsibility to use protection.

    Yes. But provided it could be proven the woman lied, is it just to "punish" the guy and not the woman? There's definitely something wrong with that, no? Even if you say he should step up the plate for greater good, despite perhaps believing the man. Should there be no repercussions for the mother at all after doing basically one of the worst things you can do to a man?

    If a woman did that to me, hypothetically speaking, I would take care of the child, but I would never want to meet the woman again unless I legally have to. I'm not going to marry a nutcase like that. I'm not going to form a family with her. And that's not illogical.
    Like I said, I don't think that giving a man a child is the worst thing you can do to him. Also, I don't think that taking care of your biological child is a punishment, regardless whether you want or don't want the child. Lying is morally reprehensible, yes, but it's not punishable by law and it would be hard to prove in the first place. A law against lying would be abused and fill the courts with gossip cases. And the woman would already receive a punishment if you terminate the relationship with her because of her dishonesty and don't marry her. She'd pay for her lies to you, but the child would still need to be taken care of. It's not right to punish the child for something the parents did wrong and the rights of the children supersede the things you talk of. Two wrongs don't make a right. And the child would already be punished if its parents split up and it grows up with separated parents. So it's not justified to punish it any further. Not to mention that this hypothetical scenario where the man is entirely innocent and the woman is entirely guilty is so rare that it wouldn't justify creating laws to protect a majority which would abuse them. In reality, most people who don't want to take care of their children just make up convenient sounding excuses. I've seen and heard it all.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bärin For This Useful Post:


  7. #34
    Senior Member
    Winterland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Last Online
    14 Hours Ago @ 06:26 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German; Scot-Irish; Scandinavian
    Country
    Prussia Prussia
    Location
    Coastal region
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Free Lance
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    108
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    47 Posts

    Honesty issues

    The problem is a man or woman may start off a marriage on dishonest basis if it's finances, alcohol abuse, or cheating motives. I've known three men who gladly married and told their wives that they wanted two children. At the end, they had none, and the wives left their husbands for lying. The problem is people go into a marriage based on lies and easy access to sex, but they have shallow commitments to start a family. Sadly, the women remained childless since they were already into their late 30's when they divorced. Today, sex is "just for fun and pleasuring" attitude, which is representative of our cultural flaws. So, some men do lie to get married and just don't really know what they want from life and family. People have to make the best of themselves when they are married if they want to remain married. Raising family is hard since we get little support from outside community too.

  8. #35
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Norman Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Norman & German
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    260
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    115
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    201
    Thanked in
    87 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Coillearnach View Post
    Nah, he's gay.

    From a Rebel Media article:



    Additional damning interview:
    Yes, and he also failed to mention that he didn't practice what he himself preaches. He actually used to be married with children until he ended his marriage when he came out as a homosexual. From another interview:

    ELIZABETH JACKSON: Well, I'm thinking specifically about your emergence as a gay man. I mean that is a pretty big deal. You were married; you had children; that must have been difficult; it must have caused pain.

    PETER LLOYD: It was and it did. But it happened a couple of years before this. In the chronology, this happened middle of 2008. I was, I'd settled that question two and a half years before that, and had very comfortably settled it.

    It's a difficult thing to do; it involves other people and their feelings and it was tough. But I think, and so does my ex-wife, who's remains my best friend, we think that in hindsight we handled it pretty well.

    I laugh when I hear a lot of people talk about this as if to say there's supposed to be some deep, dark secret. For some people there probably is, and you know, I think about the outing of David Campbell by Channel 7 and think what a crushing thing that must have been for him.

    But I'm fortunate; I didn't go through a long life of leading a double life. It all happened very quickly and it was dealt with very fast. And I hear gay men in Sydney talk about this and I think they must be quite misogynistic to imagine that it must be a struggle.

    I loved being straight and I was openly straight and I plan on being openly gay. It's an easy transition for me.

    ELIZABETH JACKSON: But that is perplexing. I do find that difficult; this notion that you're sexuality changed effectively. That while you were married you were heterosexual - no questions - but then you became gay.

    I mean how does that happen, because most homosexual people that you talk to will say to you that they knew for a long time.

    PETER LLOYD: I think there's a degree of nuance or grey area that you just have to accept exists that most people, most people don't seem to want to accept. There is a grey area.

    ELIZABETH JACKSON: Do you accept that your experience is unique?

    PETER LLOYD: It's reasonably unique; I accept that, yeah.

  9. #36
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Bleyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Transylvania Transylvania
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Ethnocentrism
    Religion
    Tradition
    Posts
    145
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    132
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    166
    Thanked in
    63 Posts
    Is this the same person, or is this another Peter Lloyd?

    Sir Peter Lloyd voted to reduce the age of consent for homosexual acts from eighteen to sixteen bringing equality to the the law affecting heterosexual and homosexual acts.
    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10...ons?policy=826

  10. #37
    Senior Member
    Coillearnach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    7 Hours Ago @ 01:01 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Celtic
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Vagrant
    Politics
    Nativism/Nationalism
    Religion
    Summum bonum
    Posts
    387
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    336
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    318
    Thanked in
    156 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bleyer View Post
    Is this the same person, or is this another Peter Lloyd?
    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Pride View Post
    Yes, and he also failed to mention that he didn't practice what he himself preaches. He actually used to be married with children until he ended his marriage when he came out as a homosexual.
    Believe it or not, I think these are three separate gay Peter Lloyds.

  11. #38
    Whamen Respekter
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Ţoreiđar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Ancestry
    East Norwegian + distant Finnish
    Subrace
    Nordid + reduced CM
    Y-DNA
    I1a1
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Occupation
    Traditional Craftsman
    Politics
    Family, Nation & Nature
    Religion
    Heathen Worldview
    Posts
    2,609
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,639
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,641
    Thanked in
    826 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Coillearnach View Post
    Believe it or not, I think these are three separate gay Peter Lloyds.
    Lesson of the day: Don't name your kid Peter Lloyd.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Ţoreiđar For This Useful Post:


  13. #39
    Senior Member
    Nordic Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 07:17 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Nordid + Dalofaelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Married parent
    Politics
    Germanic Nationalism
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    275
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    174
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    359
    Thanked in
    119 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ítreksjóđ View Post
    True. Wanting to have healthy, beautiful looking Germanic children should normally be every woman's wish. And especially nowadays in the feminist age, such women are commendable and should be appreciated, not chastised by Germanic men.

    Although I'm a man and I dislike trickery, I still believe the man should take responsibility for his biological children. Becoming pregnant as a result of sexual activity is natural, while "pumping and dumping" your girlfriend isn't. It only became normal recently, due to the moral decay in our societies. Moreover, it is dishonorable behavior that shouldn't be encouraged in a nationalist state. Do we really need to enforce all those ugly misogynist stereotypes?

    Of course in an ideal situation the woman should be honest about being on the pill or not(...)
    I agree totally with your post and I also think that a woman should normally be honest about being on the pill or not. I don't consider this scenario as ideal and I always wanted to have a real family with mother AND father and not be a single mother with an unwilling father, so I looked for family-oriented men when I was young and thankfully found one. That's how it should be ideally. I also don't think that it is a good thing to lie about being on the pill, I just think that it's understandable to some extent if a woman just can't find a partner and is already panicking about remaining childless forever. I personally think that this behavior...

    Quote Originally Posted by Winterland View Post
    I've known three men who gladly married and told their wives that they wanted two children. At the end, they had none, and the wives left their husbands for lying. The problem is people go into a marriage based on lies and easy access to sex, but they have shallow commitments to start a family. Sadly, the women remained childless since they were already into their late 30's when they divorced.
    ...is WAY more disgusting and criminal than just getting pregnant from a man who doesn't really want a child. A man having a relationship with a young fertile woman who wants children, but always postponing it until it's too late, because in reality he never wanted children at all - THIS is criminal. It is beyond me how a man can destroy a woman's life that way. Just getting pregnant from a man who is not really willing to be a father is NOTHING against this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ítreksjóđ View Post
    however in the same ideal situation the man should not waste her time if he does not plan to have children with her. A woman's fertility is at its peak while she is young and then gradually declines with every year. As Germanic preservationist men, we shouldn't waste a woman's fertile years if we don't consider her worthy or suitable enough to have children with, or, even worse, if we simply don't want children at all.
    That's why I wrote in my other post that when a woman is young, she should take her man's face into her hands, look into his eyes and ask him whether he wants children with her or not, and to dump him if the answer is anything else than a clear and wholehearted YES.

    I once knew a man who had three (already bigger) children, but didn't want any more. But he had a new young girlfriend who hadn't any children yet and wanted some. She was willing to stay with him nevertheless and play the "mother" for his three children, but he ended the relationship there, knowing that it wouldn't be the same for her and that she would regret it later. Two years later she called him, now married and with her own child. She thanked him for ending the relationship and giving her the opportunity to find another man and have her own family - something that she would never have had otherwise, she now knew what she would have missed. THIS is what I call honorable behavior from a man.

    I also agree with Bärin's last post all the way.

  14. #40
    Anachronism
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Huginn ok Muninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Germany, Norway, England
    Subrace
    Nordeby
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Farther right than you.
    Posts
    3,103
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    718
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    824
    Thanked in
    405 Posts
    "Good men" = Rich men.

    Which is why the Jew disenfranchises us with "affirmative action."
    Most people think as they are trained to think, and most people make a majority.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Huginn ok Muninn For This Useful Post:


Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Tuesday, May 8th, 2018, 08:06 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, July 8th, 2017, 11:04 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Saturday, June 11th, 2011, 10:55 PM
  4. Beauty and Brains Do Go Together: Study Claims Good-Looking Men and Women Have Higher IQs
    By Nachtengel in forum Bio-Anthropology & Human Variation
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Saturday, February 5th, 2011, 11:42 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sunday, November 6th, 2005, 01:53 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •