Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Why Men Are Abandoning Marriage

"Women aren’t women anymore"
Why Men Are Abandoning Marriage
by Paul Joseph Watson | October 26, 2015

Given how the dominant culture has taught modern women to view marriage, is it any surprise that men are frightened to death of it?
Check out this article from the Huffington PostWhy I question my marriage regularly? by Melanie Höglind.
“I question my marriage all the time. When my husband and I get into a fight because he’s so stubborn it pisses me off to the point of throwing things across the room, I ask myself if it’s possible for us to peacefully coexist. When I feel disappointed because he doesn’t spoil me with presents or capitulate to all my demands, I ask myself if he is really capable of giving me everything that I need. I know that, if push came to shove, I don’t need him.”
Throwing things across the room because he disagrees? Hating him because he doesn’t capitulate to your every demand and shower you with gifts? What man would want to endure this insufferable, spoiled whiny brat for a lifetime of marriage? Suzanne Venker asked men why they’re no longer interested in getting married The answer? “Women aren’t women anymore.” “Men are tired,” Venker wrote. “Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.” Radical feminism is teaching women to view men as the enemy. To shame them simply for being men. To pathologize masculine behavior. To immediately view their motives with suspicion. So is it any surprise that more and more men are checking out of marriage and relationships altogether and joining the Sexodus? In a recent article, Catholic Priest Charles Pope wrote, “In my mere 26 years of priesthood, I have seen the number of weddings I perform each year decrease from 35 to 5, and the average age of engaged couples increase from 24 to 31.” Figures show that fewer young men want to get married than ever before. Just 29% of American men now see a successful marriage as one of the most important things in life. Since 1960, the number of married adults has decreased from 72 percent to 51 percent. Just 20 percent of Americans aged 18 to 29 are married, compared with 59 percent in 1960. Men are abandoning marriage in droves because none of the benefits it used to bring even apply anymore. Men once married for sex. Now sex before marriage is the norm. Despite studies showing that couples who wait are significantly happier. The ubiquitous availability of porn also further diminishes the necessity for men to seek out a sexual partner. In the future, female sex bots will make actual women obsolete for some men. Men no longer need to marry to get guaranteed sex. Marriage was once viewed by society as a status symbol. Married men were held in high esteem. Now marriage is frowned upon. It’s seen as something people do when they’ve given up on youth and abandoned fun and adventure. While the dominant culture will celebrate gay marriage all day long, heterosexual marriage is shit upon by endless portrayals of the drudgery of married life. The arguments, the claustrophobia, the loss of personal freedom. When in reality, numerous studies show that married people are happier and live longer than singles. Monogamy itself is also increasingly viewed as quaint, naive or even pathetic and uncool. The disease of nihilism brought with it rampant promiscuity. The dominant culture – mainly through feminism – has made young men ashamed of their masculinity – stripping them of confidence when it comes to approaching women. This in turn led to the rise of pick up artist culture and ‘the game’ – which also treats monogamy with disdain. Onerous divorce courts and laws designed to screw over men have also made countless millions of men think twice before popping the question. The evisceration of traditional gender roles has also wrought a terrible toll not just on marriage, but on male-female relationships in general. Men were once needed by women to be the bread winners, and it’s a role they happily embraced. The balance worked. But feminism taught women they needed a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Now for the first time in US history, the number of women in the workforce has surpassed the number of men. More women than men are acquiring university degrees. Now I’m not saying that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. She can make whatever choices she likes. But the dominant culture has venerated the career woman, while denigrating the stay at home mom. A woman who chooses to concentrate on motherhood – arguably the most important task a human could fulfil – is treated as a failure. They’ve turned housewife into a dirty word, when it should be celebrated on an equal footing with the career woman. The figures show that women in positions of high authority at work are more prone to depression, whereas men in positions of high authority are less depressed than men without that authority. Could it be – and forgive me for committing this outrageous thought crime – that traditional gender roles – the stay at home mom – the hard working husband – result in greater happiness all round? And before all you feminists yell “misogynist” – let’s look at some more facts. Despite the supposed freedom that women’s liberation gave females – study after study shows that women have been getting more depressed every decade since the 70’s. Women are more likely to consider suicide than at any time in history. So becoming independent from men, sacrificing families for careers, becoming more promiscuous – has only made women more unhappy. It’s resulted in more and more of them sailing past the age 30 with no children, no husband, alone, desperate, in a tiny apartment full of cats. This is a running theme. The more men and women were tempted to play the field and not commit, the more depressed they became. Studies show that the more sexual partners women have had before marriage, the more likely they are to get divorced. Feminism taught women that being promiscuous like men was liberating, when in reality it only leads to more heartache and more depression. Whether you’re a man or a woman, being a total slut isn’t going to fill that void of emptiness. The only thing that will is genuinely caring for someone who genuinely cares about you. It’s very simple. Having an authentic, unbreakable connection with another human being brings contentment. Here’s what it comes down to. The state doesn’t benefit from happy, secure, married heterosexual couples who have children. The state doesn’t benefit from traditional gender roles. For a start, you can’t tax a stay at home mom. And you can’t indoctrinate a child who has two nurturing, intellectually forceful, emotionally strong parents. That’s why there’s a financial and sociological motive for the state and by extension the dominant culture to shit all over marriage and healthy relationships, while promoting promiscuity and hedonism, producing disparate lonely people who either bounce around between fleeting, meaningless relationships, or merely hop from one bed to the next. Look, I’m not saying everyone should get married at 18. You’ve got to be sure. But all the studies show that you’re far more likely to obtain happiness in relationships by finding someone you resonate with, being faithful to them, not screwing around with other people, and living an authentic existence. There’s no peace of mind in being a player your whole life or being a slut. It’s a road to loneliness and depression. Men and women are meant to be compliment each other. It’s our default biological setting. But the dominant culture and third wave feminism has sought to contrive a war of the sexes. Unless both men and women reject this manufactured and incredibly harmful state of affairs, we’re only going to become more unhappy, and live lonelier, less vibrant, less meaningful lives. SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Sunday, October 25, 2015

Sesame Street launches autistic muppet

RAW: Iraqi hostages reportedly freed from ISIS prison in US-Peshmerga op...

Why Ted Cruz Was Right to Walk Out on the 'In Defense of Christians' Conference

Share on google_plusone_shareShare on twitter
Why Ted Cruz Was Right to Walk Out on the 'In Defense of Christians' Conference

An extraordinary thing happened on Wednesday night in Washington, D.C. More than one thousand people were gathered for a dinner in honor of the newly formed organization In Defense of Christians.  

It should have been a victorious, celebratory moment―and for a short time it was.
The spirit was jubilant as we all took in the fact that at last the crisis affecting Middle East Christians had hit the mainstream. Many of us have been toiling away for years on this issue, happy if we could get ten people in a room to hear our case. Here we were, with Patriarchs and prelates from 12 different countries, and earlier in the day no less than 17 different members of Congress had addressed the gathering. It was an evening to celebrate.
Then U.S. Senator came on stage. He was there to give the keynote speech, and this was to be the crowning moment. Senator Cruz opened with these words:
Good evening. Today we are gathered at a time of extraordinary challenge. Tonight we are all united in defense of Christians. Tonight we are all united in defense of Jews. Tonight we are all united in defense of people of good faith who are standing together against those who would persecute and murder those who dare to disagree with their religious teachings.
“Oh no,” someone said quietly at my table. “Don’t go there, Cruz.”
Lebanon and Israel have been engaged in a long-standing conflict, so to mention Jews was to step on an obvious land mine. More than that, word had gone out several months before that the funders of the event were associated with Hezbollah. At first, it was just word of mouth based on sources inside Lebanon.
Then a Syrian-American activist named Frank Ghadry wrote about it, but he subsequently retracted his article and almost all traces of it have been deleted from the web. But you can read it here on Facebook.
Within the NGO community, concerns were expressed about the Hezbollah rumors, but when the Ghadry article was retracted, it seemed these might be just rumors after all.
Cruz’s speech seemed a consummate effort to flush out the true nature of the organizers and their guests. He went on:
Religious bigotry is a cancer with many manifestations. ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and their state sponsors like Syria and Iran, are all engaged in a vicious genocidal campaign to destroy religious minorities in the Middle East.
Sometimes we are told not to lump these groups together, that we have to understand their so-called nuances and differences.
But we shouldn’t try to parse different manifestations of evil that are on murderous rampage through the region. Hate is hate and murder is murder.
The grumbling from other tables now became audible, and it was not long before the murmurs and fidgeting erupted into boos and outright heckling.  
“Stop it. Stop it,” Someone shouted.
Cruz pushed on: “Let me say this: those who hate Israel hate America.”
“No,” someone shouted back.
Cruz said, “And those who hate Jews hate Christians.”
At this, a number of people in the audience booed in unison.
“And if this room will not recognize that, then my heart weeps that the men and women here will not stand in solidarity with Jews and Christians alike who are persecuted by radicals who seek to murder them.”
Several members of the audience then walked out of the room to scattered applause, including Antoine Chedid, the Ambassador of Lebanon to the United States, and several Lebanese politicians, a fact which was confirmed by the Daily Star of Lebanon.
Cruz only lasted a minute or two longer before cutting short his speech and walking out with the words: “if you will not stand with Israel and Jews, then I will not stand with you. Thank you and God bless you.”
As soon as Cruz left the stage, the room burst into conversation about the spectacle we had all just witnessed. Some seated at my table said that Cruz had been badly misinformed by his staff about the nature of the event and that someone should be fired.
But what I discovered the next day is that Cruz had known exactly what he was doing.  Indeed, he had read the article that had been published about the event just that day and which essentially repeated Frank Ghadry’s allegation that the conference organizers were close to Hezbollah.
Whether Cruz ever contemplated withdrawing from the event is not certain, but what is clear is that he was keenly aware of the alleged links between the organizers of the event and Hezbollah, and he was not going to let that go untested.
Many have criticized Cruz since the event, saying he should have known the audience better or that he was grandstanding. But his actions on Wednesday evening reminded me of the line from the recent New Yorker article about Cruz: “That is the kind of politician Cruz has become―one who came to Washington not to make a deal but to make a point.”
The point he made is two-fold: even in as worthy a cause as defending Christians from extinction in the Middle East, we cannot compromise our fundamental commitment as Americans to the right of all people to live free from persecution and free from the subjugation by totalitarian, supremacist ideologies, such as that espoused by Hezbollah.
The decision by In Defense of Christians to accept the largesse and support of individuals who are widely believed to be associated with Hezbollah was thus a moral failing, but it was a tactical one as well. Any good strategist knows that you cannot enter battle with chinks in your armor. To enter the fray in as serious a fight as that between ISIS and Christianity, one must be invulnerable. To enter into this fight with such an easily identified shortcoming not only hurt the broader cause of protecting Christians, but it hurt all those who have been working for years, often on meager salaries and with little support, to shed light on the plight of Christians. It fed right into the enemy’s hands.
St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, tells us that engaging in spiritual warfare–and what is the war between Christians and the likes of ISIS if not spiritual battle?–that we must be fully prepared. We must put on the whole armor of God (Eph 6:11). We must gird our waists with truth, and put on the breastplate of righteousness (Eph 6:14).
Ted Cruz clearly is prepared to fight for the Christian cause but is not prepared to do so in ways that support unchristian values. He should be cheered and not heckled for doing so.  

Read More Stories About:

National Security, Defense, ISIS, Ted Cruz

Saturday, October 24, 2015


Is the New World Order Dying? Part 2

Is the New World Order Dying? Part 2

Amish girl who fled United States to escape forced chemotherapy is now cancer-free - NaturalNews.com

Amish girl who fled United States to escape forced chemotherapy is now cancer-free - NaturalNews.com

10/23/2015 -- West Coast Volcanic Earthquake Swarm strikes Oregon -- Mag...

DOJ closes IRS investigation with no charges - CNNPolitics.com

DOJ closes IRS investigation with no charges - CNNPolitics.com

Full Show - Alex Jones Takes the Fight to Google - 10/23/2015

Local geologist: Patricia is strongest storm ever recorded

Infowars Nightly News - How to Fight Back Against the Spy-State - 10/23/...

Silicon Valley Experts: Use Pop Ups to “Shame” People Who Make Offensive Posts

Silicon Valley Experts: Use Pop Ups to “Shame” People Who Make Offensive Posts

Saturday, October 17, 2015

'US bombing harming civilians, not stopping terrorists' – Hamid Karzai

Donald Trump supports Putin ‘bombing the hell out of ISIS’

How The Govt Waged Chemical Warfare On Citizens In The 1950's

Why Men Are Giving Up On Marriage

Obama Told You We Were Training ISIL Forces

UK Column Live Stream

US Runs Tank over Evidence Before Afghan Hospital Bombing Investigation Begins

US Runs Tank over Evidence Before Afghan Hospital Bombing Investigation Begins

Germ Warfare Covertly Waged On U.S. Citizens Since The 1950's

Conservative Catholics Turn On Pope!

Lawyer for D.C. Teens In Arrest Video: They Were Racially Profiled, ‘Brutalized’ « CBS DC

Lawyer for D.C. Teens In Arrest Video: They Were Racially Profiled, ‘Brutalized’ « CBS DC

Saturday, October 10, 2015

No Whites Allowed At Seattle Yoga Studio

Oregon Citizens Protest Against Obama’s Gun Grab

North Korea marks anniversary of ruling party with military parade

GRAPHIC: Powerful blasts rock Ankara peace rally, dozens killed

Nuclear Black Market For ISIS Exposed!

The TPP: A Monster Too Big to Fail?

The TPP: A Monster Too Big to Fail?

Why you should NEVER get a flu shot: Nurse licensed by the New Jersey Board of Nursing uses same dirty syringe to vaccinate 70 people in a row... WOW - NaturalNews.com

Why you should NEVER get a flu shot: Nurse licensed by the New Jersey Board of Nursing uses same dirty syringe to vaccinate 70 people in a row... WOW - NaturalNews.com

Christian Caller Puts Alex Jones In His Place!!

Friday, October 2, 2015

There Are No Atheists In Foxholes

UCC Gunman WAS A SATANIST - Wanted DEVIL to Welcome Him to HELL - Chris ...

Still Report #434 - Netanyahu's U.N. Speech

Former Security Guard at Oregon College: Lockdown Procedures Were a “Deathtrap”

Ex-employee exclusively tells Infowars that college voted against armed security just last year
Former Security Guard at Oregon College: Lockdown Procedures Were a "Deathtrap"
Image Credits: YouTube.
by Paul Joseph Watson | October 2, 2015

A former security guard who worked at the Umpqua Community College where nine people were shot dead yesterday exclusively reveals to Infowars that the college voted against hiring armed security guards just last year and that inadequate lockdown procedures ensured the campus was a “deathtrap” for potential victims in an active shooter situation.
Although wishing to remain anonymous, the individual provided us with his photo ID and a reference which confirmed his employment at the college. The man is also in close contact with people who still work at the college.
Confirming media reports that the college only had one unarmed security guard on duty, the individual reveals that the schoolboard voted just last year against providing armed security on campus.
“What they haven’t released is that the school board recently made massive cuts to the security staff, among other staff. All in an attempt to free up money in the budgets to spend on all the shiny new construction projects occurring on campus the last couple of years,” he writes. “The schoolboard routinely puts pet projects ahead of providing service to the students. Just last year the schoolboard voted against providing armed security officers for the campus.”
He also lifts the lid on how the lockdown procedures for an active shooter on campus, which were practiced just last week, ensured that the college was a “deathtrap” for potential victims.
“Just last week there was a training for staff on active shooter lockdown procedures,” he writes. “The college was pleased to note that yesterday the lockdown procedures worked as they should have. But in reality they are a joke. The way the buildings are designed is that it is a deathtrap to stay locked in a classroom. The majority of classrooms have one entrance/exit which exits into a covered outdoor breezeway. The wall that has the door to be locked down are glass from floor to ceiling. There is no cover, and other than window blinds no concealment.”
The individual’s criticism of the college’s lockdown procedures echoes concerns voiced by some that such policies only turn students into sitting ducks and prevent them from leaving the scene as quickly as possible.
The individual also notes how the college’s $40,000 dollar emergency notification system did not fully work, remarking how, “No notifications to students and faculty who were off campus or on their way to were sent.”
The security officer also clears up the confusion surrounding whether the campus was a ‘gun free zone’ or not. Although the college had a rule that prohibited guns on campus – including water pistols – state law allows concealed carry.
“The catch is that the school does not encourage it but they are legally powerless to stop it,” writes the security officer. “I personally know of one student, who was interviewed by Breitbart, and of one employee who had concealed handguns on campus yesterday.”
As we reported earlier, an Air Force veteran with a concealed carry license was prepared to violate the ‘gun free zone’ rule and attempt to apprehend the shooter, but he was stopped from doing so by college staff. SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

The Fight To Overturn "Forced Vaccination" Law Heats Up!