Today’s video is here (13:30).
Over a period of more than two years we’ll be posting links to one video daily from the J4MB YouTube channel. The channel includes our media appearances since 2012, 300+ videos of talks and other materials from the International Conferences on Men’s Issues (2014 – ) and other men’s issues conferences we’ve been involved with, and so much more. The individual conference playlists are here.
Our website Campaign for Merit in Business was created in the light of the considerable evidence of a causal link between increasing gender diversity on boards and corporate financial decline. Mike Buchanan, Steve Moxon and Dr Catherine Hakim presented evidence to House of Commons and House of Lords inquiries in 2012, their House of Commons evidence session is here (56:50).
Finally, we run the award-winning website Laughing at Feminists. The comedy channel (170+ videos) is here. Remember, it’s more than important to laugh at feminists, it’s a civic duty.
—————————-
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Do women even understand the true nature of religion? I’m an atheist, but can appreciate that it was the glue of shared values which held society together. And, the real aim of those values was, above all, to control the breeding instincts of women, so that men could be more easily controlled, and would willingly submit their labour to feudal, agrarian systems, these superseded by capitalist, industrialised systems.
Control the sex, and you control the labour. The role of the Church was to shame women into monogamy. Men would thereby have stable sex lives, a family, a reason to work themselves to death. Women would have children with a father who’d provide for them. The state would have workers, soldiers and taxpayers. There was always a drink in it for the Church, which would cream off 10% through tithe laws. Church and State worked hand in glove, and do so to the present day. Even at the Coronation of Charles III, there’s still the ‘anointing’ ceremony, carried out away from the TV cameras, with much mumbo-jumbo. Unless the Church blesses the new sovereign in this way, his reign isn’t valid.
Feminists rail against monogamous marriage because it blocks their breeding instincts. The famous quote by Linda Gordon: “The nuclear family must be destroyed…” This is the ‘Patriarchy’ which they are so upset about (although it’s entirely probable, as observed by Arthur Schopenhauer, that they don’t even understand what lies behind their deep-seated instinct not to want to tie themselves to a single man, always looking for the bigger, better deal).
It’s the female prerogative to capture the best genes she can. Female reproductive success would be fulfilled in a litter of mongrels, all sired by different fathers, and all with good genes. It’s an insurance policy against defects caused by regressive genes. In the hybrid vigour of her litter, she can be assured that her genes are in all of them.
Meanwhile, it is a male prerogative to want a FAMILY, where he can be reasonably assured that his genes are in all of the children. This can only be achieved by monogamy. Sadly, guaranteed biological fatherhood will not be the case, in 10% to 15% of births within marriage, even today. Sneaky, sneaky…
British medical students are taught to expect a figure of at least 10% for ‘misattributed paternity’, as it has ramifications for inherited diseases.
The role of the Church was to impose monogamy upon women, who would otherwise swarm and cluster around rich, smart and powerful men (with some sneaky mating with the good-looking ones). The messages knocked into us by the Church was a ‘love’ based monogamy, and a sexual modesty for women. Moral gatekeeping could then be enforced by societal ‘norms’. It leads to a tax-efficient social control which is:
Cheap to enforce (societal shame does the job)
Good for war mobilisation (produces disciplined sons, who make good workers & soldiers)
Efficient for child welfare (fathers support children, not the State)
Stable in work patterns, through stable families
Good for long term provisioning and intergenerational wealth transfer, following social norms
When work was difficult, laborious and physically demanding, all the way from agriculture through to an industrial age based upon mining, steelmaking, shipbuilding, heavy industry, women knew that they needed men for their own survival, and the survival of their genes. They accepted the message of the Church, and were happy to nail their colours to the mast of one man.
Now, in a service economy, riddled with and raddled by feminism, women believe that they are standing on their own two feet, and can therefore indulge their preference for mating with a succession of men. But, these women aren’t independent, by any means. The income tax base is 72% male at the present time. Women are the beneficiaries of these taxes, through the welfare state, and countless ‘progressive’ initiatives. Female reproductive choices are catered to, through ‘no fault’ divorce, encouragement of single parenthood (mothers only need apply for housing benefit). Men are still working to raise children, but these children aren’t their own. Men are working to raise the genes of others – whether directly, in ‘blended families’, or through taxation.
And, there’s no sexual reward awaiting, at the end of our endeavours. We don’t even get to see the growth and development of any children whom we did sire. So, what’s in it for us? Got the answer, Archbishop of Canterbury..? How about the State? What do you think, Sir Keir..? Angela..? Rachel..? Yvette…? Shabana…? Jess..??
The State lost the plot. The Christian Church abandoned us, devalued marriage with no fault divorce, and offering ‘marriage’ where civil partnership served as a perfectly good legal framework.
Of the Abrahamic religions, Christianity is the only one to have lost its way, and, with it, the respect of its followers and adherents, right across the board. The situation in Islam seems self-evident, and Judaism still maintains marriage under male control, only the husband can release a wife from the contract, through the ‘get’.
In what was the ‘Christian’ world, women are now free to do what they want. And what they want to do is to ride a rotating carousel. With that lifestyle, family bonds are weakened and broken. Men are taken advantage of, while suffering personal disadvantage. There’s only so far that the stick and the carrot can work, especially in a western, individualistic society where ‘anything goes’.
If ‘anything goes’ for women and their mating choices, then ‘anything goes’ for men and their work choices. Eventually, without wife and kids, we decide that we can get by, quite happily on much less money. We go motorcycling and fishing, live healthily and frugally. Women most affected. They’ve managed to destroy their own business model.
The collapse of the Christian Church has far-reaching consequences. The collapse of any religion dis-incentivises men, and causes societal chaos within three generations. It was spotted by J D Unwin in his 1934 book ‘Sex & Culture’.
So, sorry girls. It’s not all about women bishops.
This is just part of the process of weakening that Christian Church, and part of a wider malaise, where women permeate, through hostile incursion, organisations which were built by men, and which women wish to control without really understanding why they existed or how they actually work.
What could possibly go wrong..?
LikeLiked by 1 person