Culture

Male Spaces Are Under Attack (Again) At London’s Garrick Club

219 Comments

The battle over the status of London’s Garrick Club as a men-only establishment is flaring up again, as a new motion to admit women is tabled for a July vote. Opened in 1831, the Garrick is a gentlemen’s club located in Covent Garden, known for its select membership which has included Laurence Olivier and Charles Dickens.

Candidates have to be proposed by an existing member before election by secret ballot. The intake process is rigourous and exclusive, on the basis “that it would be better that ten unobjectionable men should be excluded than one terrible bore should be admitted.” The Club has a “gentlemen only” membership policy, but women are allowed into most parts as guests. Dismantling this very select male space has been a long-running project for UK Feminists.

The shaming campaign aimed at forcing the Garrick to take women members has emanated mainly from women in law and their less capable cohorts in the media. The Garrick is popular with British judges, and there have been grumblings about the detriment to diversity resulting from powerful members of the judiciary fraternising behind closed doors.

Twice-divorced, male-hating Feminist activist judge of the UK Supreme Court, Lady Brenda Hale

Twice-divorced, male-hating activist judge of the UK Supreme Court, Lady Brenda Hale, sporting trademark Feminist smirk.

In 2011, Baroness Hale, first female member of UK’s Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) blamed a lack of female judges in top jobs on the existence of the Garrick Club. Speaking at a “Diversity Forum” hosted by the law firm Norton Rose, twice-divorced militant Feminist Hale complained about “systemic barriers” based on “personal network relationships” holding women back.

If It’s New Then It Must Be Good

Feminist hack, Joy Lo Dico

Joy Lo Dico: dismantle male spaces, build female spaces.

In 1992 a motion to admit women to the Garrick was defeated by 363 votes to 94. Now, twenty-three years on, another motion asking “women may be admitted to the Club as full members” as of 2017 has been tabled by ex-Labour MP Bob Marshall-Andrews. It’s due to be voted on at the Garrick’s next AGM on the 6th of July.

The news was gleefully reported in the Evening Standard this week by feminist hack-in-residence Joy Lo Dico, who pens the Londoner’s Diary column. She foams with jubilation at the prospect of the Garrick “dragging itself into the 21st century,” but is none too happy at the “counter-crusade to keep it locked in the 19th” by reactionaries opposing the motion.

In her hit piece, Lo Dico refers to supporters of the motion as the “progressive wing” who want to give “gals the same rights as guys.” Opponents of the motion are “old boys” who are “muttering” that diversity should allow for the existence of a male-only club.

It’s clear on which side Lo Dico, typical as she is of the thousands of mediocre Oxford University graduates stuffing the offices of British newspapers, has her bread buttered: all-male spaces must be dismantled.

Do As We Say, Not As We Do

Since Joy Lo Dico is a Feminist who appears on panels with names like “Women and Equality,” it is safe to assume that she wants all gender-based spaces dismantled.

Wrong.

Joy Lo Dico is in fact intimately involved with opening and running female spaces that marginalise men. 2013, another feminist dross-merchant, Rhadika Sanghani, reported from the opening of Lo Dico’s “pop-up” women’s establishment—The Other Club—which she was happy to report contained none of the “pretentious ideals, elitism, mahogany (and men) typically associated with members’ clubs.” Lo Dico explained her motivation for opening the club:

There’s so many professional women working in London now, we wanted to socialise with them

Promulgating, in other words, the very same “personal network relationships” fostered between members of the Garrick Club that Lady Hale was railing against back in 2011. Sanghani also warned readers of thinking the The Other Club was just a space for socialising:

Don’t be fooled by the fun names though – the events are set to explore the hard hitting topics of slut-shaming, the page 3 ban and “the F word” again.

In other words, a club for professional women to discuss hardline feminist policies, including soft and hard censorship. The formula was again put to work by Le Dico a year ago when she opened The Trouble Club, an establishment for “talented, witty and cheeky women of today to challenge presumptions that women cannot talk politics, tech, philosophy.”

This is what a widely-read opinion former for a respectable national newspaper looks like.

Rhadika Sanghani

It’s far from clear how oppressed and marginalised the (largely white, privileged) women who frequent Lo Dico’s establishment actually are. The new place has had influential guest speakers such as politician’s ex-wife and professional victim, Vicky Pryce, who has been spearheading a major Liberal Democrat campaign for fewer women to be sent to prison. By the way, the male prison population in the UK is 81,709, while the female prison population is 3,867.

To be fair, Lo Dico’s clubs don’t exclude men. She was at pains to point out, in relation to the Trouble Club, that “Men can join – so long as they follow the rules of bringing a female plus one. It keeps women in the majority in this space.”

No need to imagine what prospect any man would have exerting influence in such an environment, and what species of tame, supplicating manginas and white knights would gravitate there. The hypocrisy of Joy Lo Dico on the Garrick Club gives away her crude Feminist power play: complain about the detrimental nature of male practices while appropriating those practices in a female context, wherein they are no longer detrimental, but “empowering.”

The Importance Of Male Spaces

We have written before on ROK that “men and women have different social and cultural needs, some of which can only be fulfilled in gender-specific safe spaces.”

Garrick Club members are among the most prominent minds in academia, law, politics and business. If so many of them are against the changing of the all-male rule, then there might be something more to it than what asinine hacks like Joy Lo Dico characterise as a refusal to “get with the times.”

They are probably well aware of the consequences of allowing women to infiltrate this formerly male space. As the Daily Telegraph’s unabashedly Neo-Masculinist Martin Daubney has written:

…it’s a fact that if you put a woman in a group of men, it profoundly and irreversibly changes the dynamic as we posture for attention, or say what we think women want to hear

What better way to flush the quality of bonhomie and banter down the toilet?

The New, Elite Mangina

Low muscle mass: tick. Post-wall, older-than-you wife: tick.

Benedict Cumberbatch, the prototype Elite Mangina

If any Garrick members need convincing that the proposed rule change is a bad idea, they need only consider the most prominent proponent of the motion, Garrick Club member Benedict Cumberbatch. The actor recently went to great pains to show his progressive credentials by crawling on his belly to appease a baying mob of SJWs over his use of the term “coloured” in an interview about diversity in UK acting. Cumberbatch grovels like a Soviet functionary engaging in self criticism:

I can only hope this incident will highlight the need for correct usage of terminology that is accurate and inoffensive.

It seems that after almost two centuries, the Garrick Club’s admissions policy has proved itself insufficiently conservative to keep out the “terrible bores” it was designed to. It now harbours men like Benedict Cumberbatch, willing to self-flagellate over his failure of “correct usage of terminology” and willing to change the Garrick’s men-only membership policy to appease feminist consensus.

With “terrible bores” like Cumberbatch on its roster, it won’t be long before the Garrick Club invites women, and mediocrity, into its ancient, wood-paneled lounges.

Read More: 5 Reasons Why You Should Not Date Indian Girls

219 thoughts on “Male Spaces Are Under Attack (Again) At London’s Garrick Club”

  1. ➼➼➼➼Allison . even though Edith `s article is shocking… on wednesday I bought a brand new Maserati after having made $7088 this month and in excess of ten-k this past month . this is definitely my favourite job Ive ever done . I began this 6 months ago and right away started bringing in at least $78, per/hr . look here
    Go here ☞☞☞☞
    You Can Find Out…

    ►►►►► http://www.HomeWorkOnline.Com

  2. Our Manosphere base is under attack by those pesky 5 Social Justice Walkers again! Code names “BuzzFeed” “XoJane” “Jezebel” “Upworthy” and the ringleader…. “The Denouncer”!

  3. I don’t think we should denounce Benedict Cumberbatch so quickly. His livelihood depends on appeasing the SJW & feminist crowd so he’s got little choice but to crawl on his knees.
    Other than that, yeah this article is absolutely correct about maintaining the traditional safe space for men. We’ll see what the Garrick Club does in the next couple of months and if it caves in to pressure from the unwashed barbarian hordes of SJWs & feminists.

    2. I was thinking the same thing. I mean you know Mel Gibson isn’t PC, but look at the groveling he had to do when he was caught drunk and ranting about Jews. You have to assume his agent said, “Look, apologize, here’s what to say. Do it, or you will never work again”
      I like to think I would stand up for my principles, but if the reality is giving up millions of dollars a year for memorizing and reading back some lines, and all the fame and fortune and pussy that comes with that, I may say I’m sorry. It sure wouldn’t change how I felt, though. If anything, it would reinforce that I was right!

  4. How different is this from childhood when a bunch of boys have their own club tree house & some bratty little girls whine about being left out?
    I have some sympathy for Mr Cumberbatch. His livelihood depends on how deftly he can navigate the femishark infested waters of cultural media & perception. So he plays the game he has to play. He’s the Kiefer Sutherland scientist character from Dark City (1999).
    ‘Men create. Women co-opt’- frank rook

    1. What was that Upton Sinclair quote?
      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

  6. I run a small gentlemen only club at my bar’s basement. We keep it kind of secret.

      1. Use those abominations to make soap out of their own rancid fat, then sell it back to them. Beautiful.

  7. The moment one female is allowed to enter a male space, its destiny is sealed.
    “When an organization becomes feminized, priority shifts from efficient and profitable production of goods and services to development of labyrinthine rules for the comfort and security of women. Ossification and organizational death are inevitable.”

    1. I can confirm this from firsthand experience. My fraternity, as a national organization, went from all-male to coed years ago. At first, just a handful of chapters at a handful of schools admitted females, mostly because their membership was dwindling and they needed more members to collect dues from to stay afloat financially. Fast forward to today, and roughly 90% or more of chapters are coed. My chapter and others like us, which have remained all-male, are the small minority. The fraternity, nationally, has all but ceased to be a fraternity, and at most schools has become more of a club or honor society. Whenever I interact with “brothers” from coed chapters, the girls usually roll their eyes and scoff at the fact that I’m part of a “boys club,” whereas the guys typically say something along the lines of “I wish we were like your chapter, more of a fraternity, without all the drama and bullshit.”

      1. I’d argue what we’re seeing right now in the MSM is a witch hunt to destroy the last remaining male only fraternities. I know there’s a push to either force women into fraternities or close them. The Rolling Stone UVa story is most certainly just that. The Frayernity is still facing penalties from UVa even though it was all made up.
        Of course as fraternities are forced to admit women, sororities will be honored as female only spaces since after all … “women sometimes just need female only time and space, you know.”

      2. Why couldn’t the women who forced themselves into your fraternity simply join sororities? I don’t understand…

  8. Horrendous times we live in. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again- it is important to preserve male spaces. The reason why is because I truly believe it is not natural for men and women to always mingle and socialise in the same atmosphere. Every man needs his own private space and an area where only men can communicate with one another.
    This is the norm of our human nature. But as always, women are trying to disrupt the natural order of life with their ridiculous “inequality” claims when in reality, it is an attempt to destroy masculinity and male confidence. Its already bad enough having to deal with human resources and bitchy feminist female managers. The last place where this kind of behaviour should be tolerated is in male spaces such as cigar clubs.
    The purpose of these kind of places is to help men release their stress, problems and to be able to relax in the company of other men. But sadly, these places are now being infiltrated and destroyed by the feminist movement.

    1. The only male space needed is the great outdoors.
      Women dont like bugs. Go hiking or fishing with your buddies. They will leave you alone. Im going fly fishing this spring. None of the ladies want to tag along lol.

        2. At least least she doesn’t have the full Susan G. Komen breast cancer “Casting for Recovery” rig.
          I wish I were making that up.

        4. I’m sure she only went fishing for the pics. She can dress skanky in one and take an obnoxious pic with a fish in another and both probably got 50+ Likes from Beta Schmucktown.
          Anybody wanna place bets a man actually caught that fish?

        5. O.K you can go fishing with me Just take out those god awful corn rows in your hair!

        6. you just made me choke on my starbuck “Im calling you a racist/please dont punch me in the face” coffee with that zinger..

        11. She’s one of those chicks who adopts the interests of her current man. Most annoying tit on the block.

        13. I will bet she does not own that fishing equipment.
          Nor the truck that got her there, and she probably didn’t even drive it herself.
          The camera was not owned by her either.
          Where would she be without a man providing all that?

        15. Looks like she’s using a fly rod to catch catfish. And nobody would fish bare legged because the water is cold and sometimes you have to wade in a little. She’d need waders.

      3. Sound advice indeed but women with significantly lower SMV will most likely don’t mind at all going hiking or fishing with the men whom they fancy.
        There is however, a woman-proof space/activity at which even the fugliest women imaginable would never want to tag along :

      4. I always wondered as a small kid, what could possibly catch the attention of men so much that it compels them to sit on a lakeshore with a fishing pole for days sometimes.
        Now, two decades later, I can clearly see it, it’s all just an excuse.

    2. If your a single man invite some male friends over for some tv, beer, or a game of cards. Me and my friends usually play poker.

    3. The second the UVA rape story came out my guy friends and I immediately all knew it was bullshit and were unafraid to say so…as long as there were only guys in the room. As soon as even the coolest girl we knew came in the room, everyone suddenly had to choose his words very carefully, lest he offend. In co-ed spaces, the pursuit of truth always takes a back seat to the feelz.

  9. They don’t even want to be in the club, they just want to make a point..to flex their feminist mini muscle…

    1. We women have our spaces that men rarely enter so why can’t men do the same? Feminists only want to diminish men under the guise of “equality.”

      2. Bentley . if you think Ruby `s report is impressive… on tuesday I got themselves a opel after making $9583 this-last/five weeks and even more than 10-k this past munth . this is certainly the most-financially rewarding Ive had . I began this five months/ago and practically straight away made myself at least $69 per hour . take a look at the site here,..,,
        See here………
        You Can Find Out….

        ☞☞☞☞ http://WWW.FINDREALJOBSHERE.COM

    4. Exactly, AND monitor / manage the conversations. Part of keeping marriage a scam and the bs status quo requires preventing men from talking to each other for extended periods of time. Seriously. Women are micro-managing and chaperoning all aspects of mens lives today. You can thank the elite 1% for playing the feminist card to keep the masses of men in check.

    5. No they just don’t want men meeting without women because then they might actually stop feminism.

        1. True but when female come into a male zone, that is where whie knights show their colors.

    7. BTW THIS IS IMPORTANT PLEASE VOTE UP.
      Recently, RoK has been categorised as “adult content”. This means that I can no longer access it through my mobile ISP without giving out significant personal information.
      Another attack on “all male places”.

  10. Since you can only get in through invite, it sounds like this club needs a good purge of its membership.

    1. In 1992 a motion to admit women to the Garrick was defeated by 363 votes to 94.

      I wonder if after that vote, there were 94 fewer members of the club.

  11. This is funny.
    “Empowered” “independent” “I don’t need no man” women insist on using the law to force entry into a private male space (private clubs).
    Law gets passed.
    “Empowered” “independent” “I don’t need no man” women complain of men entering their private female space (locker rooms, public toilets).

    1. It’s weird. The fish don’t need bikes, but they sure as hell like hanging out in the bike store.

  12. This doesn’t make any sense. Isn’t this a privately owned establishment? Tell them to fuck off and make their own club

    1. Ha! If wishes were horses… last thing I heard corporations were private businesses, too, but that never stopped the government from introducing “quotas” for females

        2. They are still private property.
          Everything is open to the public. it’s a legal fiction used to enforce violations of freedom of association.

      3. It would depend upon whether it was a closed corp. or one of these large public corps. whose shares trade on the exchange.

    2. This is a private “club”….in the UK as far as I know they CAN legally exclude women if that is what the members wish (just like the many Golf clubs in the UK do/use to)…..it is a question of political pressure and that also a good number of their members are Beta Manginas unwilling to stand up to women.

      1. Then the real problem is the corruption of the entry process. Those manginas should not have been allowed in the door. This indicates that the club members have allowed their character to degrade, a man with character can usually spot a man without it and would know instincitvely what to do.
        But that’s the way of things.

    3. That is just not the way of women. Since they have nothing interesting in their miserable lives, they plague men who don’t want to do anything with them. Whether it’s little girls wanting to be a part of the boys team or these bitches wanting to infiltrate a men’s club, they are all the same. They just never grow up.

    4. Yeah I would just leave the club and start a new one with my friends. We do still have freedom of association… right?

  13. The article has inspired me to consider starting a men’s club where I live. The more I consider the enterprise, the better is sounds.
    Any suggestions for a name?

      1. You mean all twenty of them that were around in the 1700s? Yeah, I don’t they had any women around.

        1. Library of Congress:
          http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field%[email protected]%28gw360395%29%29
          The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.
          Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798.
          Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into.
          It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the
          Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.
          The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.
          My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time. With respect, etc.
          http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mgw/mgw2/021/2000194.gif
          http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mgw/mgw2/021/2010195.gif

      2. One could claim that the so-called illuminati created feminism. As such, the feminist is the offspring of “illuminated” Marxist Frankist Ashkenazis. But, there was a time the illuminated ones wore “white hats” and St. George the dragon slayer is a great example. Thus, in opposition to feminism, may I suggest the name for your gentleman’s club be “The Dragon’s Head”?

      1. This works. Also: women can gain entry ONLY if they can beat the burly doorman in an arm wrestle(men would be exempt of course).

    6. Kipling’s
      Atilla’s
      Men’s Club
      Seneca’s
      Caesar’s
      King club
      The Red Pill Club

  16. I hate seeing women in strip clubs. Straight women not lesbians. I mean wtf is the point? Theres nothing attractive about that in a straight bitch at all.

    1. It’s projection. I’ve seen women at a club, and 9 times out of 10 they’ve been with their man. They think, “He likes this place, so if I like it [read appear to like it] too, he’ll like me even more!” In reality, however, I, and most likely her man too, couldn’t give less of a fuck if she was there or not.

  18. I find myself wondering what the feminist position is on freemasonry given the reputation lodges have for behind the scenes influence. Freemasonry could be either pro male or given its reputed connexions to revolutionary movements (unproven for the most part) could be pro feminist. Freemasonic dogma seems potentially compatible with feminism given its association with Egyptian mysticism.

      1. Glad to hear it. It might be less clear at leadership level though. Both the male and female principle may feature

        2. masonic thought may be esoteric / hermetic particularly at the higher levels. Male and female principles may be understood as needing to be united within this type of thought

        3. Yes, it gets pretty far-out esoteric after The Third Degree, and it should, so those who commit to it can actually work to understand it instead of just some “pay-to-play” status. There are a lot of references to the duality of male and female harmony but I would hardly say the female angle is invasive in any way.

        4. That’s interesting. Ill keep an open mind about it, but its probably worth remembering that working ones way up a hierarchy means one will be slowly introduced to new ideas

        5. Which is a good thing. There’s nothing wrong with dabbling in esoterica, even the more “extreme” forms. You have every right to change events in your life to suit your liking, even through unsavory means that leave no evidence or can’t make a nexus to you. Besides, what’s a soul these days? Look how cheap they go for!

        8. Thank you. But if Lucifer brings light does he also bring feminism? Pretty sure this is not 3rd degree freemasonry though?

        9. I’m not sweating feminism infiltrating my spirituality. I dabble in everything, man. Think of it like MMA-style esoterica. It’s in my best interest to be well-rounded. There is no knowledge that is not power.

        10. Its interesting stuff. There’s a goddess worship side though that you get with theosophy etc – that stuff’s pretty influential and I think feeds into some feminism, and even the UN etc. The traditions aren’t always clearcut.

    2. Yeah, I heard free masons accept women now. Egyptians more or less always held women at a certain level.

    3. I am a 29° Scottish Rite Mason and if I were to divulge any secret any member would have the right to slit my throat from ear to ear. Whether anyone would actually do this I couldn’t say.

      1. the net is full squawking masons – real or otherwise. Since they’re mostly anonymous little they say can be fully verified anyway.

  19. Everytime I see things about women invading male spaces, one thought comes to mind now.
    Send in the trannies.
    The women are more than happy to invade our spaces, I’m all for the freak show trannies invading the women spaces since they dislike it so much.

    1. One day men in dresses will take over all feminist spaces. Subvert the subversion. Need an rok article on choosing a pretty dress


      1. You mean like this?
        They left out the part where Cartman says “No, Wendy, you don’t understand, I’m a dumb bitch too now, I can take a shit in here”

        1. that’s the way. If you’re going to be a tranny you should have to use the words “I’m a dumb bitch too now” by law

    2. Whats funny is that Planet Fagness allowed a tranny to use the women locker room, a woman gets upset about this and they kick the whiner out. I guess sometimes LGBT can be kind of cool.

  20. If you ran a cigar club with half naked baristas women would insist on joining and demand a non-smoking section and a family friendly daycare for their children.

  21. The hypocrisy is that feminists are only interested in destroying male-only spaces. Female-only spaces are still encouraged.

    1. But males can join…as long as he brings his owner to keep the leash tight. Haha what a joke, this is why the term “secret society” exists.

  22. Why would a woman want to enter a male space? Men need time among each other to preserve their masculinity. Feminists need to STFU and stop ruining society with their refusal to accept that men and women are different.
    I have no desire to sit with men because I know I am not one of them. When my husband goes to a baseball game with his friends, I never ask to tag along because I know he needs time with other men to be at his best. It is the same reason why my husband does not sit in nail or beauty salons-he knows he doesn’t belong in there.

    1. I think, if you are sincere, you’d be better off pointing this out to your lady friends rather than seeking approval here- we already agree with you.

      1. Unfortunately, most of my friends do not think the way I do. I keep my anti feminism to myself because I am often shamed for it. I’ve grown weary of being called names and spoken to like a fool just because I won’t support feminism.
        What can I say? I enjoy visiting a website where my faith in traditional values is reinforced. It is refreshing to know that there are real men in the world who know the truth besides my husband and my father.
        Most men these days are sadly soft and beta. Sorry if my comments bothered you.

        2. Glad you aren’t bothered. I don’t seek to upset anyone with my comments. Yes, feminists enjoy shaming traditional women. I figure that there is no point in having discussions with women, who are hell bent on shaming me for not buying the toxic messages they are selling. Interestingly, those types are always unhappily single and VERY slutty.

        3. I keep my anti feminism to myself because I am often shamed for it.
          Tell ’em to go fuck themselves.

        4. Tell the truth to your lady friends anyway. If even one of them changes her ways, you made a difference. If none of them do, they don’t matter anyway. You do not need their approval. You need mens approval.

        5. Approval of men online who think the way I do is nice…but at the end of the day, the man who offers the most valuable approval is my husband.
          Good luck on a female friend changing her ways about traditional ideals though. Women hate to see other women happy, so they will trash any woman who is in a joyous traditional marriage. I wish I had a dollar for every time another woman rolled her eyes when I talked about cooking for my husband. “Why do you do that? You aren’t his slave.”

        6. Good response! I’m trying to keep the cussing to a minimum though. I’ve been known to drop F bombs when I’m angry and it isn’t very ladylike. It is rather difficult when I see stupid feminazis refer to their man hating as “equality”.

    3. You’re a considerate gal. Men NEED to be around men for their sanity. Same goes for women , I think.

      1. Exactly. There are things that I prefer to discuss with my girlfriends rather than my husband.
        I remember going to my husband to talk about decorating our home. His eyes glazed over in less than 30 seconds. LOLOLOL
        My husband took my hand and said “Babe, I couldn’t give two flying fucks about what color our rugs are. As long as there is no pink and flowery shit in our place, you can do whatever you want with it. Don’t you have any friends you can ask about this girly stuff?” This is why women and men need their own spaces.
        What the hell would I talk about in a male space? I can’t handle a cigar or even a sip of scotch without cringing. I hate sports and I don’t want to hear men talk about which sluts they banged over the weekend. Some things are just not for female ears. I learned this from growing up with only male siblings.

        1. So designing buildings and homes of which the interior also matters is ‘girly stuff’? Who is your ‘husband’? Archie Bunker?
          Men of substance and taste care about how their home is decorated just as they do about their clothes.

        2. Interior designers are hugely skewed towards women (and gay men). Men tend to do the outside architecture. I don’t want my house to look like shit but I also don’t care if the vase is sky blue, beige, or whatever the fuck else is “in style” because some feminist rag mag says it is.

        3. Yes and men of substance do not insult random women over the internet either.
          I was speaking strictly of decorating and not architecture as well. Take care, little one.

        4. Thank you.
          At least YOU have the reading comprehension skills to understand my initial comment. I have a beta fool chasing me around to call me a “trollboy”. How sad.

        5. You have no taste. Show me a pic of your bedroom and bathroom.And start reading Architectural Digest.

        6. Trollboy. You’re a kid male so don’t deny it.No female would write like you and I’m an expert of females.

        9. Wow, you know everything! You must be psychic! Calling me a male isn’t going to change my gender. If you were truly an expert “of” females, you would know that I am one. There is no reasoning with stupid arrogance so I will just sit back and let you keep making yourself look foolish.
          Too bad you aren’t enough of a man to refrain from spiteful statements. I don’t see any of the other men on this page picking fights with me for no reason. Maybe that’s because you’re a pussy.

        11. I have taste enough but I don’t care about reading something designed to sell me something. My wife handles that shit. I have a lot more important things I think about – my work and the dozens of projects going on, my career advancement, my retirement, my subordinates, my wife, my family, my friends, and lots of things other than what color the vase is. As long as its not hideous, i don’t really care.
          “Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don’t need.” – Fight Club

  23. Men need to stand up to this. As long as there are manginas like Benedict Arnold/Cumberbitch throwing us all under the bus, these ridiculous ideas will continue to gain traction. I believe there was just a piece on here about white knights and how they are huge part of the problem. So what if guys want their own space to talk about whatever they want without the constant threat of political correctness? This is harming no one and helps men form strong bonds. It’s like some women can’t stand not being invited to the party. I could give 2 shits if they want their own space-why can’t we have ours.

    1. Don’t even compare cummerbatch to arnold… Arnold was a loyal patriot in the wrong place at the wrong time, cummerbatch is a cunt.

      1. Arnold was a wimpy omega boy who knocked up his ugly Chicano chambermaid. Big man! lol
        Everyone thought that Arnold was a homosexual because only homos would hang out in gyms and do bodybuilding (there were few exceptions) It only changed ( a bit) as you got into the 80’s.
        Before you were born son those body building magazines were read by homos and they were like porn for homos.

        4. You have seriously got to read the rest of the thread before you start typing. I strongly suggest you delete your comment.

        5. MarcusBenwayMD needs to be banned from this website. All he does is try to start trouble with attention seeking trolling. He acts more female than I do! LOLOLOL

        6. yeah, I noticed you actually tend to go out of your way to ‘sound female’.
          You know, girl or not, you might get a bit more respect if you left off the “I’m girl” every five minutes and the lololol thing. No offense, but the ‘over the top’ girlishness actually sounds more like you are a guy pretending to be a girl online.
          But as for the marcuswhatever, he seems to just write his comments and then searches for a post that seems to offer an opening to turn it into a reply. Diarrhea of the fingers, they call it.

        7. I haven’t had any problem getting respect from anyone except MarcusBenwayMD.
          No other commenter has insulted me or aggressively tried to pick fights except him.
          I suppose that is because only real men read this website but I could be wrong.
          Sorry if my “over the top girlishness” offends you. I’m just being myself.
          My statement about MarcusBenway acting more female than I was about the way he seeks to create drama like most women. I’m not afraid to point out the negative characteristics of my gender.

        8. Not offended, just pointing it out. I don’t get offended by women.
          As far as ‘real men’ reading and commenting on the site, about two weeks after an article comes out (when we, the original commenters, have finished dissecting it, clarifying it, and basically creating fifty times as much content as the article itself) the herd of SJWs descends upon it. Of course, by then we could care less, but they tend to fill the comments section with calls for moderation, ‘You men are all neanderthals that live in your mom’s basement’, small penis comments, and assurances that we never get laid or should never breed, despite all evidence to the contrary.
          It’s actually quite amusing reading the comments after a year, all the verbal diarrhea and nawalt are like a treasure trove of leftist stupidity… you don’t even have to reply to any of them, their stupidity is self-evident. You should try reading some of the comments for older articles, especially the more contentious ones (like anything by Matt Forney) Pure Comedy gold.

        9. Neither Sex has any negative characteristics. Almost all perceived sex-biased flaws are more or less a symptom of failed discipline. Most men realize that, as the active principle, discipline is our responsibility. In short, women today act the way they do because the men around them permit it… It is not their fault that unrestrained impulses guide them into social insanity, It is ours, as much as if we never restrained our urges for violence. Well, not ‘ours’ specifically, but the men that have set up a structure to encourage the insanity.
          We don’t use the word ‘gender’ around here.

        10. I have read some of them and the comments by SJW were progressively more insulting and ridiculous. Calling men poorly endowed neanderthals for speaking the truth should not be allowed here as those kind of remarks serve no purpose.

        11. Dude I gotta admit I think youre onto something. I stop checking an article after a couple of days. I had no idea the sjw brigade comes sweeping in to post comments weeks later. sneaky bastards!

      1. Yeah, what is inaccurate about calling someone with non-white skin “coloured”?

  24. Why the hell can’t these fugly feminists just come up with their own stupid club instead of trying to ruin a cool one??? Oh yes, that would take time, effort and talent..

    1. Isn’t it interesting that feminists are almost ALWAYS ugly and fat?
      I wonder why that is. *giggle*

      1. Did they become like that because no men wanted them or no men wanted them because they already were like that?? Hmmm…

        1. The former. I knew a “bisexual” feminist who was only “bisexual” because men didn’t want her fat ass.

        3. Its because theyre too lazy to get fit and pretty they hide behind feminism as the reason, its not their fault its the preferences of men! Bullshit like that

    2. They want both.
      It’s never been about female equality. Women have always had it better than men forever. It’s about female supremacy. They are honestly convinced that if ‘the world was run by women it would be a better place’ despite all evidence to the contrary.

      1. Men continue to volunteer their servitude that’s the thing.
        I’ll be really happy if marriage rates drop to a point that women and by extension the government has to take notice.
        Actually nevermind what am I saying? They’d just institute some kind of anti-bachelor campaign.

        2. I’ll be really happy if marriage rates drop to a point that women and by extension the government has to take notice.

          How much destruction are you willing to endure before that happens?
          Look at Sweden…..High out of wedlock births, low marriage rate, low indigenous birth rate, mass immigration, feminist movie censors, males made to pee sitting down, the redefinition of speech against feminism as hate speech, sky high taxes and misandric laws, taxpaying native men leaving the country in droves……the RAPE Capital of Europe where the overwhelming majority of rapists are immigrants….and STILL the Government and (the government financed) MSM look the other way….unable/unwilling to prevent total destruction.

        3. I live in Toronto Canada which literally already has 99% of those issues you described.
          I intend to be one of those taxpaying native men who leaves… I recently found out I can get an EU citizenship through my mom’s passport and I intend to book it to Asia once I’ve saved up enough cash here.
          I’ve already lost hope for this place.
          I don’t have enough experience with the US and maybe you guys still have enough to salvage that it is worth fighting for, but I’ve already suffered enough of the SJW bullshit here that I resent the place.
          I’ve invested years of good intentions only to have it blown back in my face every time. If everyone here wants to pretend that boys are girls and that constant mass immigration is a good thing for the country than go ahead. I’m out of here as soon as I can afford to leave.
          Check out the video in this link. Imagine seeing this kind of thing all the damn time… To the point where even your childhood friends are adopting this stuff…
          https://www.ontario.ca/home-and-community/we-can-all-help-stop-sexual-violence

        4. Man, that was enlightening (notice how only males are portrayed as the vile offenders, as always). You know, people here (in my country) always talk about first world nations, and how they are a civilization paradise, and “oh, man, THAT country is first world, if only I was born THERE!”, but I’m realizing you just can’t have it both ways.. even if a country is not third world and a “pinnacle” of civilization (Canada, Sweden, etc) it will be culturally corrupted by SJW shit like this…

        5. I was in Toronto for a weekend in 09 I believe and just walking around the city I came across parts that looked like a refugee camp. I remember watching a Tamil Tigers rally in one park and then passing some aggressive Muslims trying to convert folks on the street on one corner

        6. There are pluses and minuses everywhere.
          A statistic about North American culture worth noting is that suicide is the number 1 killer of men below age 40 (my estimate, I forgot the exact number) and that a significant percentage of the female population is on some kind of prescription anti-anxiety/depression pills.
          Our culture breeds unhappy people and then shuns them if they question the status quo.
          On the plus side I can go out and buy all sorts of crazy shit.

        7. You should absolutely, positively apply for EU citizenship this week. Do not delay, do not stop, begin immediately. This was briefly an option for me but then the window passed. I believe I could still possibly qualify for EU citizenship, but it wouldn’t be automatic, it would be like the process anyone goes through when they wish to immigrate. An EU passport lets you freely travel, work, and live without restriction in any EU country, not to mention safer to travel and can enter places such as Cuba which are verboten for Americans. Do it, and do it now while you can. It may take a long time to be processed.
          PS No the US does not have anything worth saving.

        8. The funny thing is, we always hear “America is the greatest country in the world” and people are beating down doors to come here. Sure, some people from narco-war torn Mexico want to come here and work, but most of them want to return to Mexico after a few years of working.
          Almost no one from the EU would trade their life for one in the US. The quality of life there is higher in my experience, and more enjoyable. But the eye opening thing to me is how even people from what we call third world societies often reject the US. I dated one girl from a dangerous as fuck Mexican border town and another from South America and both had zero interest in living here. The South American didn’t even want to visit if I paid for it. Honestly, I completely agree with them.

        10. The site is paranoid. They even show you how to delete stuff in the browser so no one can see where you’ve been, like looking at that site lol
          It’s funny because even if you did as they showed I could recover everything in about a minute with a simple program. In fact, I don’t even need a program and could just look at the index.dat files to see where you’ve been lol

        11. Cuba? You don’t pay much attention to current events do you?
          “PS No the US does not have anything worth saving.”
          Nonsense, You just haven’t been anywhere. Just because you’re a loser in the US doesn’t mean everyone is.

        12. How is that any different than NYC?
          Take a walk on Bridle Path in Toronto and stay out of the coloureds areas.

        13. Your internet “girlfriend” from Ecuador probably thought you were a pervert. Are the females you know so dirt poor that they don’t pay their own way? We’re talking about a plane ticket here (dirt cheap these days compared to Boomers) not a 10 caret diamond from Tiffany’s

        14. Those drugs are pushed by psychiatrists and even many GP’s.Hmm do you think that the great destroyers have anything to do with all of this? The US also has 1/2 the Jews in the world.I’d like to see what the US would be like without them and the millions of non Whites invading the country.Sure, there would still be problems especially with the underclasses but they would be minimal.

        15. I dunno if the Jewish conspiracy thing explains the push of pharmaceuticals on the population. Those companies need to sell their product to survive and grow so that is what they do.
          I don’t know if the Jewish thing explains the wave of misandry either. I agree that Jews tend to go left-leaning but is it they themselves that are the cause of this feminist bs that is rotting society from inside?
          There does seem to be a lot of influential Jewish writers, but their ideas would be fringe if everyone wasn’t buying into it of their own free will.
          I don’t know… I’m open to new ideas but I don’t know enough to say “Its the Jews!!”

        16. Well obviously it’s only the top people in any group who have influence or power regardless of whether they are Jews or WASPs etc
          And I wasn’t born with some sort of antisemitic gene so apparently my views are based on observation and experience. I think that many people are in denial about who is behind certain schemes and scams and have been constantly conditioned by the media to not even think ‘bad thoughts’ about certain groups.Is it just a coincidence that Jews are heavily involved in pornography, financial crimes. politics in numbers all out of proportion to their numbers,1/3 of the US Supreme Court, communism, feminism,anti European and Christian propaganda (I’m an atheist and I can see this), organising negroes and other minorities to hate Whites, pushing homosexual and other perversions on Whites, divorce laws,pushing the legalisation of cannabis(although I’m against all drug control laws for adults, as a pharmacologist I can tell you that habitual cannabis use will really distort your thinking, ambition and intellect to a much greater extent than opiates even though opiates cause a physical dependence.I can go on and on but I doubt if anyone here would even understand but all of this is simply their tactic to gain superiority and money and the tactics can even reverse themselves if it’s to their benefit.The media is used as a tool for conditioning the docile masses to the extent that things that seemed irrational a couple of years ago (gay marriage) are now either accepted or at least tolerated.
          There are people who like, and even try to cause chaos and disruptions in society because they make money under these conditions.While the masses are confused and panicking they’re cleaning up.Follow the money. And as we say in regards to females, watch what they do, not what they say. Jews aren’t liberals or anything else, they are just double talking con men and will use any tactic to achieve their objective. Half of the world’s Jews are in the US (the land of opportunity filled with trusting rather gullible gentiles) and a large part of them are in NY. Contrary to what people believe (it’s just a ruse) NY is not liberal but quite illiberal. Observe areas where there are Jews and where they have any influence and these are the most corrupt places with the most restrictive laws.And I can assure you that someone is making money as a result.

        18. It’s not or any other big liberal city but Toronto seemed more compact and everything I saw was within a short walk around the city rather than taking a few cab rides across a bigger city to separate districts. It wasn’t a bad time tho for the weekend and we took our Somali refugee cab driver to the brass rail strip club one night and it blew his mind and then after they closed he dropped us off at some shady illegal after party spot in China town with two giant Russian brothers guarding the door. Pretty good time overall

        19. There are still parts of the embargo in place and no direct flights to Cuba yet (there are some from Miami but only through state-sponsored trips that are expensive and boring).

      2. Which philosopher said “Treat women as our equals, and they will see themselves as superior”?
        Its like Battlestar Galactica- “What has happened before, will happen again…”

  25. ” For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
    The time will come when men no long bend and bow to society because men don’t need society, Society needs men. As society becomes more anti-male more men will see the light because manginas/white knights and gynocentric laws can only do so much, until men become radicalized and that’s day “The Cathedral” will fall to its knees like whore that smells money. No state or ism can save you from the fate of reality.
    ” Weak men breed elitism, Strong men breed freedom.”

  27. Perhaps men should storm gynecologist practices demanding to be seen then justifiably flip out when the “you don’t have a vagina” card gets thrown in their faces. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE THERE! And do…uhhh…..well gee what WOULD a male paitent do in a gynecologist’s office? About the same thing a woman would do in a gentleman’s club…..just friggin SIT there to sit there. Why? Whelp guess it would be because THEY DON’T HAVE A VAGINA.

  28. What is the point of infiltrating a men-exclusive club? The whole point of the club is…Men Exclusive. If you want inclusion, create an open club. Morons. Don’t piss on our parade to ruin our fun. Make your own. Faaaack.

    1. To ruin it.
      Of course, they’ll never say that, but that’s the ultimate goal.

  29. Funny that male only spaces that are outside and in uncomfortable situations never come up on feminist radar.
    Want to know why women can invade male spaces in the first place, why there are even female superior court judges to aid and abet?
    Because male spaces were these posh clubs full of tired old farts and “soft men” in the first place.
    That old archetype or cliché about the treehouse high up enough that girls could not climb up to it exists for a reason.

  30. Fight these bitches tooth and nail. It’s simple. We need to get away from you ladies. We men need a break from you gals. We need some solitude or be around other guys. Christ leave us alone

  32. Meanwhile back in the U.S., the other day I heard a commercial for a gym … advertising their new WOMENS ONLY area.
    Here’s the thing. As much as I hate Ladies Nights, Men paying a higher admission cost and female only spaces, I’m all for private businesses doing whatever they want.
    Yet whenever there’s a private male only space … it’s chronically under attack. Look at how ridiculous it’s become: Even the male locker room is no longer a Male Only space. Athletes are forced to put up with females in their lockerrooms. It started with the NFL, now it’s gone to college. A female journalism student has to be allowed access to athletes in their locker room. At one university they recognized players privacy concerns. So they instituted a 20 minute rule and the female journalist students hit them with a Title IX suit. Upset their cock gazing time would be reduced.
    The only thing more enraging are the clothed female “reporters” complaining about the ‘sexism’ they face in locker rooms. And the MSM which portray them as victims while vilifying male athletes who don’t believe they should have to shower in front of women in THEIR locker room

  33. Men who matter should vote with their wallets. If this took place on a global scale women would lose.

  35. I’m going to play devil’s advocate for cumberbatch, at least for now.
    The man is making his living by being in the spotlight of nerd culture. Almost everything he acts in has some sort of “cult follwing” If he were to take a hardline fuck you attitude, I believe he would put himslef out of business. Yes, it sticks in my craw that he groveled, but it may very well be he didn’t think he had a chioce.

  37. Is not Britain the origin of this world order?
    After all, the Declaration of Human Rights is supreme law in all the world including Britain, so Britain has to abide by it and erase exclusive male spaces in order to erase discrimination against women.
    The Elite runs the whole show and they have nothing to lose from it.

    1. I was rather surprised to learn so many people think GB runs the show. The people who do so think this seem to believe that the GB is the centre of the Rothschild empire, and that the whole operation is run out of the City of London. This seems to be the belief amongst the LaRouche party at least and anyone who thinks the Fed isn’t what its says it is and is effectively controlled by a foreign power.

      1. Not a foreign power, a power unto itself. A power that isn’t American or overly concerned with American interests, but the same goes for Great Britain. The City is the City, not the nation.
        Nor is the power solely that of the Rothschilds. The Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns didn’t just up and blow away in 1919. Other major nerve centers are in Germany, The Netherlands and Switzerland. And of course NYC and the American Federal Reserve.
        Note that the Agnelli family is moving the headquarters of its empire to London, to be close to the action.
        It may not run the world, but all the roads seem to lead there eventually.

        1. Agnelli – is that code for the evil of fiat money lol. The city of london isn’t even london let alone GB although it pretty much powers the economy. The picture is indeed more complex than the rothschilds, although they’re certainly part of the picture – jacob rothschild even managed to take over khodorkovsky’s shares in Yukos when the latter was arrested. But the vampire squid with its blood funnel jammed into the world’s wealth in question to use Matt Taibbi’s image is a complex globalist one – the banks, and corporate finance, whoever they are, are engaged in concerted attempts to undermine any meaningful kind of national sovereignty across the western world, and that’s the point at which they need to be engaged. Globalism for want of a better word uses feminism, and progressive causes to push its agenda and to distract from its power

        2. “Agnelli – is that code for the evil of fiat money lol.”
          I’m going to file that one.
          ” . . . the banks, and corporate finance . . . are engaged in concerted attempts to undermine any meaningful kind of national sovereignty . . . ”
          There ya go.

        3. The power is held by those who issue the currency. All over the world, this power is given by the government to central banks. Central banks are private banks and don’t belong to the public sector. Government treasuries and other public treasuries are held in private accounts in these central banks. All banks in a country should have accounts in the central bank of the country. Central banks can have private accounts in foreign central banks and other banks.
          Take the Central Bank of Iran as an example (website: http://www.cbi.ir). You can check the Monetary and Banking Law of Iran 1972 here: http://www.cbi.ir/page/2234.aspx.
          Article 3 a says: “The Government is the sole authority having the right of issuing notes and coins and this right is hereby vested exclusively in Bank Markazi Iran Subject to the provisions of this Act”. So the central bank is the only one to issue the money.
          Article 10 d says: “Unless specifically stipulated by Law, Bank Markazi Iran shall not be subject to the general laws and regulations applying to ministries, government corporations and agencies and agencies affiliated to the Government, nor to the provisions of the banking section set forth in this Act.” So the central bank belongs to the private sector.
          Article 12 says: “Bank Markazi Iran, as banker to the Government, shall fulfill the following functions. (a) Keeping of the accounts of ministries, government agencies, agencies affiliated to the government, government corporations and municipalities, as well as organization more than half of whose capitals are held by ministries, government agencies, agencies affiliated to the government, government corporations or municipalities, and also handling of all their banking transactions at home and abroad.” So all the public money is under its mercy.
          Article 13 says: “Bank Markazi Iran shall be vested with the following powers: (…) 7- Opening and maintaining current accounts with foreign banks, maintaining accounts for domestic and foreign banks, carrying out all other authorized banking operations, and securing credits at home and abroad on its own account or on behalf of domestic banks.” Which means that it can open a private account in foreign banks including foreign central banks.
          Article 15 says: “The Governor of Bank Markazi Iran shall represent the Government at the International Monetary Fund.” So the Islamic Republic of Iran is part of the global order and whatever you hear in the news is a charade.
          So the Central Bank of Iran can open a private account in the Bank of England that can hold more money than the private account of the Iranian Treasury in the Central Bank. But we will never know what accounts it holds in foreign banks because of bank secrecy.
          It is interesting to observe here that the National Iranian Oil Company owns 50% of the Rhum gas field together with its sister company British Petroleum. The Rhum gas field is situated in the sea between Norway and Britain.

      2. To understand what is going on in the world one has to follow history from the times of George I until now.
        After all, Britain was the strongest power on earth during the 19th and 20th centuries until this charade that is called decolonization.
        I can give a clear and simple proof: all constitutions of the world, including that of the US, is modeled on the British constitution as it manifested itself since George I.
        Let me give you also an anecdote. In 1841, emir Beshir Shihab who was the governor of Mount Lebanon and was exiled to Malta in 1840, sent his son emir Emin to Istanbul to negotiate for his return. Emin later sent a letter to his father saying: “Istanbul is a box and its keys are in London”.
        But to be precise, Britain, that is the British people, does not run the show, Britain is rather the seat of those who run the show. The main global decisions were and are still taken there.

        1. the istanbul anecdote is an interesting one. Whether global decision-making is focussed on GB any more I remain unsure. Certainly politically GB has tended to tow the American line, but economics is perhaps more complex. I’m aware that there are those who thing British intelligence has always been somehow pulling the strings abroad – but then people think much the same of Israeli intelligence when they don’t think the CIA. Then there are people like Carroll Quiqley, an ‘insider’ who alleged that there were secret groups manipulating world politics behind the scenes, key players being the likes of Cecil Rhodes (in his time) and Lord Milner. Clearly the Rothschild’s were also key players on the world stage from the first world war and through the cold war too. But does that amount to a neo-colonial british empire running the show? And if so again for whose benefit. Personally I’m inclined to believe the 1% are the real powers and that they are international and internationalist in their approach whether they base their operations out of london, new york or elsewhere

        2. Those who run the show are those who issue the currency in Britain and in the world. Of course, they are not all British, they are international, but London is the seat. Anyway, aren’t the real Brits becoming a minority in London?

        3. I’m still sceptical. Is Bank of England policy as influential as the Fed? The allegation against the Fed is that there was a stitch up on jeckyll island which resulted in the key mechanism of the US financial policy falling into essentially private hands (a few select banks). I’ve heard it said that the ECB is similarly compromised, and maybe the BoE too, but I’m less clear on how this is supposed to work

        4. Since the Bank Charter Act 1844, the Bank of England has the sole right to issue the pound. In Scotland and Northern Ireland some retail banks can still issue the pound, but these banknotes don’t have the same value as the one’s issued by the Bank of England. In 1946, the Bank of England Act was issued. According to this Act the whole capital stock of the Bank was transferred to the Treasury Solicitor to be held by him on the behalf of the Treasury. This is what they call the nationalization of the Bank. But don’t be fooled by appearances. In the same Act, it is said: “the Treasury shall issue, to the person who immediately before the appointed day is registered in the books of the Bank as the holder of any Bank stock, the equivalent amount of stock created by the Treasury for the purpose (hereinafter referred to as the “Government stock”).” In other terms, the previous stock of the bank of England was taken from private shareholders as a loan and bonds or government stocks, as the Act says, were given to them in exchange. This means that the British government is still indebted to the same old shareholders who are the real decision makers. As a side note, Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild is the financial adviser of Queen Elizabeth.
          As for the Federal Reserve, is privately owned. Read this for a detailed explanation: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-things-that-every-american-should-know-about-the-federal-reserve.

        5. some interesting facts there. I will read up on this. I think one has to be careful not to draw conclusions to readily – but there’s no doubt in my mind that there’s something rotten in denmark …and UK/ US. Part of the problem is that there is no middle-ground literature, only absolute denial on the part of the mainstream sources (or absolute avoidance of the issue to begin with) or a similarly black and white determination to see the opposite. I’m coming round to the idea that the ‘fed’ has been effectively stolen, but there’s still a degree of faith involved. What went on on Jekyll Island though seems to have been a major criminal deception and the fact that the whole political system may be implicated in that deception (and anything similar in UK / mainland europe) is really quite frightening

        6. One has always to read the laws to understand what is going on. However, in the case of central banks (Fed, BoE and the rest), it is hard to know who controls them, that is who holds the biggest shares, because of bank secrecy. Bank secrecy was designed as a law on purpose to keep everybody in darkness. But we can still get indirect hints. For example, the current governor of the BoE is Mark Carney who after a thirteen-year career with Goldman Sachs in its London, Tokyo, New York and Toronto offices, was appointed Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada in August 2003 and finally Governor of the Bank of England on 26 November 2012. There is a staff Report for the Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing in the House
          of Representatives done in 1976 and called “Federal Reserve Directors a Study of Corporate and Banking Influence” that gives good insights (download here: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd/?title_id=1058&filepath=/docs/historical/house/197608hr_frdirectors.pdf#scribd-open)
          In any case, always bear in mind that he who issues the currency is the real government. This has been a law throughout centuries.

        7. Thanks for the link. I’m beginning to see the argument here I think, but the secrecy / opaqueness does make it difficult to see what’s going on clearly – although its hard to imagine that that isn’t precisely the intention. I wonder what sort of legislation could shed some light on the situation, and what kind of political will would be required to make that happen. If it could be demonstrated that something illegal, fraudulent, or otherwise deliberately deceptive occurred then the case could be made for removing ill-gotten gains. When hell freezes over maybe.

        8. There is nothing illegal because this is a law that was issued within a democratic system. This is a global system. Every country is run by a central bank and every government is indebted to those who control the central bank because it all started when in 1694 the William King of England took a loan of 1200000 pounds from Sir William Ashhurst and others and issued a charter to the lenders giving them the name of “The Governor and Company of the Bank of England” (Charter of the Bank of England 1694 : http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/Documents/legislation/1694charter.pdf). This is from Wikipedia :
          “The establishment of the bank was devised by Charles Montagu, 1st Earl of Halifax, in 1694, to the plan which had been proposed by William Paterson three years before, but not acted upon.[16] He proposed a loan of £1.2m to the government; in return the subscribers would be incorporated as The Governor and Company of the Bank of England with long-term banking privileges including the issue of notes. The Royal Charter was granted on 27 July through the passage of the Tonnage Act 1694.[17]
          Public finances were in so dire a condition at the time that the terms
          of the loan were that it was to be serviced at a rate of 8% per annum,
          and there was also a service charge of £4,000 per annum for the
          management of the loan. The first governor was Sir John Houblon, who is depicted in the £50 note issued in 1994. The charter was renewed in 1742, 1764, and 1781.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England)
          Ever since that time the British government became indebted to the members of this company and to their successors. This company started issuing bank notes which are nothing but debt instruments. The other governments of the world were lured into debt slavery one by one. As long as central banks now are still issuing bank notes, i.e. debt instruments, the debt is still in force and is still not paid back. Therefore, it is the successors of the first members of the corporation of the Bank of England who are now the real power behind every government in the world. The successors are their grandsons and those who bought the shares from them.

        9. Here is some public information about historic Rothschild banking activities from Wikipedia:
          “During the early part of the 19th century, the Rothschild’s London
          bank took a leading part in managing and financing the subsidies that
          the British government transferred to its allies during the Napoleonic Wars. Through the creation of a network of agents, couriers and shippers, the bank was able to provide funds to the armies of the Duke of Wellington in Portugal and Spain, therefore funding war. In 1818 the Rothschild bank arranged a £5 million loan to the Prussian government and the issuing of bonds for government loans.
          The providing of other innovative and complex financing for government
          projects formed a mainstay of the bank’s business for the better part of
          the century. N M Rothschild & Sons financial strength in the City of London became such that by 1825-26, the bank was able to supply enough coin to the Bank of England to enable it to avert a liquidity crisis.
          Nathan Mayer’s eldest son, Lionel de Rothschild (1808-1879) succeeded him as head of the London branch. Under Lionel the bank financed the British government’s 1875 purchase of Egypt’s interest in the Suez Canal. Lionel also began to invest in railways as his uncle James had been doing in France. In 1869, Lionel’s son, Alfred de Rothschild (1842-1918), became a director of the Bank of England, a post he held for 20 years. Alfred was one of those who represented the British Government at the 1892 International Monetary Conference in Brussels.
          The Rothschild bank funded Cecil Rhodes in the development of the British South Africa Company and Leopold de Rothschild (1845-1917) administered Rhodes’s estate after his death in 1902 and helped to set up the Rhodes Scholarship scheme at Oxford University. In 1873 de Rothschild Frères in France and N M Rothschild & Sons of London joined with other investors to acquire the Spanish government’s money-losing Rio Tinto
          copper mines. The new owners restructured the company and turned it
          into a profitable business. By 1905, the Rothschild interest in Rio
          Tinto amounted to more than 30 percent. In 1887, the French and English
          Rothschild banking houses loaned money to, and invested in, the De Beers diamond mines in South Africa, becoming its largest shareholders.
          The London banking house continued under the management of Lionel Nathan de Rothschild (1882-1942) and his brother Anthony Gustav de Rothschild (1887-1961) and then to Sir Evelyn de Rothschild (b. 1931). In 2003, following Sir Evelyn’s retirement as head of N M Rothschild & Sons of London, the English and French financial firms merged under the leadership of David René de Rothschild.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_banking_family_of_England
          So, they funded the war against Napoleon which made the British government indebted to them.
          They gave a 5000000 pound loan in 1818 to the Prussian government thus making it indebted to them.
          What about “by 1825-26, the bank was able to supply enough coin to the Bank of England to enable it to avert a liquidity crisis”? It looks like the Bank of England couldn’t go on without them.
          In 1875, they lent money to the British government to purchase the shares of Egypt in the Suez Canal. Ismail Pasha was already indebted so he had to sell his shares in the canal.
          They also funded Cecil Rhodes and the British South Africa Company.
          Some of them were directors of the Bank of England. etc. etc.
          And what we don’t know is more than what we know. But still what we know is too much.

        10. legality can sometimes be disputed. If something is based upon deceit nor sharp practice then it might still be fraudulent or in the US unconstitutional. I think many have argued that the fed, and the right to print fiat money is unconstitutional, although I’d have to check the basis for that. I’ve heard much of the stuff about the bank of england. The english civil war was all about the crown vs parliament authorising funds for war etc. The bank of england and the system it founded in many ways solved that – ironically it could be seen as a kind of compromise between the old and the new order. You mention the rothschild funding of the napoleonic wars, but there is also the story (I’m not sure whether its corroborated) of the consol government bonds which were bought up on the cheap after a disinformation campaign about who had won Waterloo in order to lower their value.
          Debt slavery is a peculiar business. The banks own the world and governments through debt and the servicing of debt which means that the ownership/ slavery is effectively permanent. The question is whether the entire system is irredeemable – what would happen without effective credit? After all much of this sounds like marxist critique – marx had lots to say about debt – yet of course Marx never criticised the Rothschilds themselves (I am aware of the rumours he was financed by Nathan Rothschild but again I’m not sure whether the allegation has been established beyond doubt). One has to choose at this point whether one ends up critiquing / condemning capitalism (and lurching towards some kind of marxism) or whether one specifically focuses on the particular kind of debt slavery represented (crudely perhaps) by the Rothschild method. I favour the latter because this is a system that manufactures wars and crises, while benefiting from every revolution that should in theory sweep it all aside. Its a very clever system

        11. some interesting info there. There’s a history of the rothschilds by niall ferguson I think. I imagine its somewhat bowlederised, but I might still check it out. A problem is that so much of what’s out there is difficult to verify and attached to deliberate or inadvertent disinformation i.e. the Rothschilds may be implicated in effective criminality without their necessarily being any kind of reptilian from the planet X.
          Personally, I think its probably easier to focus on the fed than on the BoE even if the trail leads back there

        12. Well we can’t say that they are criminally implicated because they didn’t commit any crime according to the laws. And since the law does not protect fools, no one forced governments to borrow money then concede their powers to the money lenders.

        13. As for the facts presented in this Wikipedia link, they are well documented historical facts not part of a conspiracy theory. The only thing we don’t know is how many shares the Rothschilds and other owned and still own in the Bank of England and elsewhere due to bank secrecy.
          By the way Niall Ferguson can be called an “official” historian of the Rothschilds. From his biography, it is evident that he is privileged among the higher levels. And he has a book called “Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World” which sums what we have been discussing in one title.

        14. The issue is not Capitalism versus Marxism, because both are two ways of operating within the same system. Marxism served its purpose in abolishing the old laws and old governments and in establishing the rule of the bankers. The State Bank of the USSR was founded in 1923 and it issued banknotes, that is debt instruments. So the Soviet government was indebted to some people, the same people who established it and who later dissolved it.

        15. It is unfortunate however that all our discussion here will go unnoticed by anybody at Return of Kings, even site moderators.

        16. Marxism served its purpose in abolishing the old laws and old governments and in establishing the rule of the bankers
          I was tentatively referring to that, but I stress tentatively. I think the real marx remains hidden for most, but I’m still reluctant to simply regard him as nothing more than a ‘rothschild / zionist agent’ even if he did allegedly receive some money from that source. I have no doubt that rothschild / schiff etc saw marxism / communism as useful for that very purpose, but whether marx himself saw it in the same way is less clear even if the end result was an alignment.

        17. I was checking out Christopher Andrew the other day, who was somewhat famous as someone who ‘pretended’ he was a spy (and was often thought to be a recruiter). Turns out he is now the official MI5 historian (i.e. he gets special access to archives etc). One thing he’s been accused of is ignoring the role of Rothschild in the Cambridge Spy Ring. I don’t know enough about Ferguson’s politics but its a canny move if Rothschild’s and Ferguson are in cahoots: putting as much as possible in the open inoculates the public against the more outrageous claims.

        18. ROK is a themed site so it can’t be expected to take a particular political angle, even if its relevant

        19. On the contrary Return of Kings has taken many political angles. Aside from things about women, most of the rest is about politics.

        20. its a subject that should be broached in a controlled way. Accuracy is the sine qua non

        21. If you apply the rule of accuracy on ROK, half of the articles will then be removed.

        22. lol – the latest article has a short bibliography. Soon be peer-reviewed too. As a rule I’d say the more controversial something is the more important it is to demonstrate sources etc.

    2. This is a private club, the government can’t force them to do anything. It’s the members who have a say on the club’s policies.These people don’t give a damn about the pop media like you boys of the lower 1/5 do.

      1. Any registered British private club now is under the rule of the Equality Act of the year 2010. Read it by yourself here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85018/private-clubs.pdf, and here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents.
        Private clubs were always regulated by the law because they are associations, otherwise they wouldn’t be called “clubs”.
        You can never change this law because it is the offshoot of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am talking about legal issues here, not opinions.
        Club members should know that the authority, that originally gave them the title to exist as a club by law, can change the nature of the club by law.

  39. This is why you form clubs privately. This is why you form small businesses so that Feminists cannot come after you for not having “diversity hires”. This is why you never broadcast your moves. Run Silent, Run Deep. Let the Fembots run in circles trying to find something to “correct”.

  40. Glad to hear of this! I hope it passes. How many of these current or former members of Britain’s elite have been instrumental in the progression of feminism and inversion of that society for the last 100+ years? Why shouldn’t they finally have to live with the consequences of the world they helped bring about for everyone else?

  41. The idea that male only spaces somehow oppresses women has been a standard feminist hobbyhorse since the 60’s. My professional career didn’t start until well after most had been dismantled or on their way out so I can’t tell you if the objections of women, that is “we (women) are in the boardroom now but men refuse to make decisions there, instead they make them in their clubs then just tell us what they decided”, carried any weight (I doubt it did). But these days it is hardly true.
    We have a few male only clubs remaining in the US. By male clubs I mean clubs where only full members are men. Women are routinely admitted as associate members and most have public areas completely open to women and men. The areas reserved to members are also mostly co-ed. Wives, by virtue of their marriage are allowed into these areas without the full member and any member can bring a female guest. The only true man only areas are usually back bars or basement smoking rooms. These spaces are hardly a systematic attempt to keep women out of the decision making apparatus of society and probably never have been. They are just spaces where men can be men without the constant shrill sound of women talking about nonsense like men, sex, and relationships.
    Besides I suspect that men would retreat to their clubs to make decisions mostly because of actions of the women in the boardrooms. What man wants to make decisions sitting around a conference room table in an uncomfortable chair when you could be at the club with a cigar and snifter of fine scotch. Women won’t allow booze or smoke in the boardroom because of “health” and fake concerns of “sexual harassment”. Over the years they have literally sucked all the fun out of pretty much any aspect of the workplace that men would enjoy. Gone are office happy hours (but “ladies night” paid for by the company is fine). Drinking at lunch is a no-no (but getting your nails done or taking long “shopping lunches” as staff development is OK). If you want to smoke you have to get into your car and drive to the parking lot down the road. But, if you are lactating or on the rag there is now a special “health room” you can book in 15 minute increments where you can take a nap or “pump” (because your HR job is much more important then the health of you baby…priorities seem about right there…..).
    So, no ladies, we don’t want our male only space to conspire against you. We just want them to occasionally take a vacation away from you because of the annoying thing you do. You should at least let us have that. We will leave your “health rooms” alone if you do.

  43. It’s the same deal in Australia. Doesn’t matter if it is football, they want to invade any area that is for men… yet it is fine for them to have “Curves” female only gym, or “Female Choice Plumbing” (which caters to ‘ ‘special’ needs of women.. wtf??)

  44. Cumberbatch is only a member because his male ancestors were, sort of like a certain number of Harvard applicants getting in because their pappy or grandpappy attended. He probably also has some sort of guilt complex (especially today) because his ancestors owned slaves and became wealthy in Jamaican sugar cane plantations. My own did as well before they went into the East Indian opium trade.Life was pretty rough in Jamaica for slaves, unlike the 10% in the US whose easy life caused their population to increase at double the White rate and where they had rights even as slaves and could even sue their owners (don’t believe the Hollywood crap put out by Jews). Most of what you know about slavery is from the West Indies. Remember Captain Bligh of Mutiny on the Bounty fame? He was bringing breadfruit plants to the West Indies because bananas were considered too expensive to feed to the slaves there.
    Cumberbatch is just a sensitive guy with a guilty conscience because his wealth was derived from slavery (I don’t give a rat’s arse lol)
    Hey, it’s funny, he’s wearing Lacoste which I’ve worn since the 60’s

  45. “In 2011, Baroness Hale, first female member of UK’s Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) blamed a lack of female judges in top jobs on the existence of the Garrick Club. Speaking at a “Diversity Forum” hosted by the law firm Norton Rose, twice-divorced militant Feminist Hale complained about “systemic barriers” based on “personal network relationships” holding women back.”
    And yet, it’s actually Anglo-Celtic western women that burn bridges more than their male counterparts do. Isn’t it any wonder Englishmen literally jumped ship to Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, etc, during Victorian England?
    Anglo-Celtic brand of feminism reeks of hypocrisy and major lack of personal accountability, to the point I previously pointed out in real life to more ethnic members that it’s more geared to Anglo women exclusively, as their Anglo variants use the ethnic members for their own selfish ideals. Why is it that ethnic feminists are more Janie-come-lately, while the Anglo members have overall seniority?
    Yes, always hold actions accountable. Giving orders is more job-oriented and NOT relationship-oriented.
    As a guy myself, I do need male space so that it helps me grow on MY own terms, not a female’s.
    Ugh, Benedict Cumberbatch is right up there with “Valar Morghulis” and “Valar Dohaeris”. Yuck.

    1. Bullshit. It all started with the Jew Disraeli and the other Jews in England beginning in the 1700’s.Over the years they changed how English society functioned, from agriculture to the factories, to the banks. And the reason that Englishmen, for the most part, went to those places you mentioned was because either there were no longer jobs in England or colonialists like Disraeli convinced them they could exploit these areas and make big money.

  47. See I don’t see anything wrong with telling them to just fuck off and die
    Why even argue with them?
    The key here is open bigotry: “Because we don’t want women here” should suffice all debate

  48. The purpose of the space is to act as a consolidation of power. If the men have their clubs and the women have theirs, then the men’s club will be a source of greater power because men are better at doing things than women.
    However, that’s not the end of it.
    Since at this point a club of professional men will have more power than a club of women of the same profession, then women married to the men in the men’s club will thus have total access to the power of the man who is in that club, which means that the wives of those men now have that power.
    Well dandy, you say, because a woman who is both married to a man in the men’s club and at the same time is a member of the woman club now has double the power, right?
    Sure, right up until the moment another woman, who is not a full time professional engineer, pops into the scene and competes with the professional woman for the same man. A woman who focuses 24/7 on being the kind of woman a man would want obviously has a massive advantage in landing a man than a woman who focus 24/7 on being a lawyer, or a doctor.
    Which means that all things being equal, the women who are feminine will get the powerful men who are in the men’s only club, which will then grant them greater power than the women in the professional women’s club.
    So now the typically ugly nasty, brutish, mannish feminist engineer in the woman’s club is shit out of luck. Because she is actually not a particularly good engineer, most of her power and position generally comes from social networking, and social networks tend to center around power or the perception of where power is. Which means that in a society with free association, the power will inevitably move away from her, to the men’s only club, to the wives of the men’s only club, who themselves have at most a passing fancy for things like engineering, which means the professional women will be lucky to marry a third rate homo with mommy issues.
    To make up for this, the professional women do all the feminist bullshit, rig the family courts make a joke of marriage contracts, encourage sluttery, etc. all to unbalance the power of the cute girls and give themselves a leg up.

  49. Damn I thought US was bad but Britain is already bitchified to the max. In a few years US will be like this but probably worst.
    Also that mangina should be called Bendfordick Cumforbitch
    The only female spaces that should exist is the kitchen and the bedroom

  51. I don’t understand. Does Cumberbatch actually support bringing women into the Garrick Club? Looks to me like you are conflating issues here.

    1. Yes, he is one of the members in favour of the proposed motion. I apologise for not making that clear enough.

  52. Same as Augusta National where the Masters is played every April. Except, it was built by MEN for MEN and no woman will be allowed to join. They allow female reporters in the grill, never in the locker room. No female members. If you don’t like it, you are free not to come to the Masters, you are free not to report on the Masters and for that matter, you are free not to PLAY in the Masters. It was a MAJOR breakthrough to get them to allow a Black member after all and NOW can line up their cows from here to the moon and Augusta will not budge. It’s private, it’s Alpha and they swear this will not change.

  53. BTW THIS IS IMPORTANT PLEASE VOTE UP.
    Recently, RoK has been
    categorised as “adult content”. This means that I can no longer access
    it through my mobile ISP without giving out significant personal
    information.
    Another attack on “all male places”….

    1. Well considering the juvenile nature of the SJW universe the label “adult content” may not be entirely inappropriate.

  54. Elite Mangina is a bit rough. Will Smith, Joseph Gordan Lewitt, Ryan Gosling and all the other celebs promoting feminism are doing something everyone in society approves of, the leftist media will like, and only a small percentage of people dislike. If i was rich and famous, I would gladly take a pic with Gloria Steinem

Comments are closed.