Top

The Stark Truth: Robert Lindsay on the War on Men

August 25, 2010

Robert Lindsay

Topics include:

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Robert:
robert_stark_la hotmail.com

Comments

6 Responses to “The Stark Truth: Robert Lindsay on the War on Men”

  1. Chris on August 28th, 2010 3:01 am

    Three times Robert. You’re not just chasing ratings are you?

  2. Luke on August 31st, 2010 8:54 am

    Someone once wrote a description of the typical liberal that had to have Robert Lindsay in mind. It went something like this: ‘liberals all seem to have an infantile preoccupation with their genitalia’. Lindsay is a perfect fit for that description.

    It is a fact of nature that the male sexual urge is one of the most powerful driving forces that exist in our world. But, the ability, discipline and the maturity to control those urges and to not let them dictate a man’s thinking and behavior – that is the mark of what makes a man a responsible, mature adult male, instead of a juvenile who does all his thinking with the wrong ‘head’, and who can’t keep his fly zipped when it needs to be zipped.

    You see, it’s all about that scary word ‘responsibility’. Liberal guys want a world where they can fornicate like animals in heat, with no commitment, no responsibility and no societal pressures placed upon them. You know, like accepting financial and emotional obligations, such as would be required for fatherhood, marriage, and faithfulness to their wives and then dedicating their energies to their family responsibilities. This attitude is essentially an infantile one, because it is unworkable in an adult world. Lindsay’s type of white guy wants to be a teenager their whole lives, and never be forced to ‘grow up’ and become men.

    Well, to Robert Lindsay and all the other liberal white men out there – look at how destructive these kinds of ideas have been to White, Western Civilization over the last 45 years. Look at what this poisonous and infantile ideology has done to the white birth rate? Look at the 45 million white babies who’ve been aborted since Roe v. Wade – and the projections of a fatal decline in the white birth rate in America, and around the entire White Western World. This has been the bitter fruit borne from that liberal tree, which has been carefully fertilized over the years with plentiful quantities of ripe hebrew manure, because white genocide is their objective. Like trained monkey’s in a carnival show, whites are following the jewish genocide script and, if you’re like Robert Lindsay, you boast about how many notches you have carved on your bed post. News Flash: Liberalism is a cancer tumor and it needs to be cut out of the body of every White nation.

    But, as a typical liberal, Lindsay just cannot bring himself to admit that the very sort of world that he and his liberal associates crave is a world that will destroy any nation or race who embraces it.

    Lindsay is right about one thing, however. White women all do chase the 15% ‘alpha-male’ types, and this principle applies to white women who are far from being the most attractive women in the pool. This is a huge aspect to the decline of the white birth rate, because as Lindsay and Stark say, millions of regular, intelligent, talented white guys never are allowed to pass on their genes by having children.

    Isn’t it a screwed up world that our jewish enemies have foisted upon the White West? The white guys who are willing to accept responsibility are shunned by their women, in favor of the alpha male types who’s only concern in life is carving notches on their belt for every chick they can bed.

  3. Chris on September 1st, 2010 4:00 am

    Nicely put Luke.

  4. Morten on September 1st, 2010 6:45 am

    Good comment by Luke, but I disagree with the conclusion.

    Were it not for women who discriminate against weaker and less intelligent men, our race would not Progress or Evolve. These terms are completely foreign to liberals. You see, liberal “intellectuals” have lost touch with the universal rules that apply to all races on earth. Egalitarianism and liberalism is, in essence, comfortably stagnant. We racialists embrace and accept nature, however unfair and ruthless it seems. Liberals go childless or race-mix because they’re weak, we move on to the next generation. Nature favors the strong and adaptative.

    Talk with a deeper voice, be nonchalant and confident if that’s what works, work out in the gym three days a week. Don’t be a liberal pansy. Liberals want to be exempt from discrimination and competition, they’re afraid of it. I’m tired of men like Robert Lindsay coming up with excuses for why they aren’t among the 15% who are successful with women. It’s because they’re lazy and scaired.

  5. Ed the Department Head on September 1st, 2010 5:26 pm

    I have praise and criticism for Robert Lindsey and Luke. Luke largely makes a very strong case for the childishness and the selfishness of Lindsey’s sexual libertinism. Lindsey is angry because American white women acted completely sexually promiscuous in the 60s and are now stuck up and selective in their base sexual promiscuity. Maybe Lindsey should ponder whether treated women like whores eventually played a role in their becoming hard emotionally like cavewomen. Lindsey wants whites to continue but can’t understand why girls who have abortions lose out demographically to those non-white girls they so stupidly looked upon for having children young. Lindsey wants socialism of economics but wants capitalism (freedom to choose foreign women) in the bedroom. Lindsey appears to only be interested in what is good for him and not necessarily society.

    Having said this, I would also like to state that I thought Lindsey did a much better job this time then on his last visit to the Stark Truth. Lindsey knows he shares many ideas with the standard VOR liseners and he wants to get that across. Taking about female hypergamy and the sexual oppression of Western men by women, something that Roger Devin, Roissy, and others are concerned about, is a much better topic for connecting with us then coming on here and insulting us about Stalin’s crimes.
    Lindsey and Luke are right about female hypergamy and the selection of the 15% Alphas. This is all around having a profound negative impact on the West and its men. Lindsey is right that American women, who largely abuse and oppress most men, should not be allowed to allie with rediculous Christian useful idiots and make difficult the importation of better more open women from overseas. Nevertheless, this effort by feminists, average undersireable American women, and Christian conservatives to prevent the use of a better foreign resource (LOL) appears to have largely failed. Practically every guy I know has married foreign to avoid American women.
    Morten is simply wrong. Women do not choose men based on strength and intelligence. Female sexuality is based on a model developed during the Paleolithic. They choose on looks and base status. Many a beta man in this era actually would, objectively speaking, be a better intellectual, financial, and familar partner but women choose basely on looks. Modern American women do not favor intelligence or creativity. Furthermore, it appears the West largely thrived historically by using culture and sometimes the law to force women to monogamously pair with betas instead of living in soft polygamy with Alphas. Most of our scientists, philosophers, and stablizing men of the middle class were betas. Morten sounds like an Alpha who has been selected so often that he doesn’t appreciate or understand the beta position. As for egalitarianism, while I am against racial egalitarianism and economic egalitarianism, I support it in a social and political context. Nazi Germany and the various fascist movements were in fact socially and politically egalitarian in that all Aryans were considered equal before the law, unlike say Medieval Europe or even Imperial Germany. I have no problem with society looking out for both white Alphas and Betas.
    Which brings me to my criticism of Luke. Luke, as I have already mentioned, is largely right. However, the old Western system of monogamy that brought us so much stability and then power (which is why the Jews attacked it) was chaffing under modern desires and medicine by the 1950s and 1960s. Many men and women felt they could get a better deal sexually outside of this context and I suspect some do get this “better deal” in the current primitive system of sexual interaction. Diseases were increasingly cureable and the vaccines in the works currently and in the future may make this even more so true. Oftentimes I hear from the traditional right that male sexual urges are so powerful but then this is followed by proclaimations that male desires are a “teenage thing” and that the later part of life should be responsibility and monogamy. Well maybe some men, like Robert Lindsey or David Lane, are not cut out for monogamy. Why should they be sexually starved or forced into monogamy if that is the case?
    If we restored the old system completely it would create some degree of discontent in some quarters. I think it would not be long before there would be calls for another sexual revolution. I think solutions to this would be legalized prostitution, legalized polygamy, and (if I had state power behind me) government supported use of microsort technology. Legal prostitution and the old moral order can be complimentary as France before the 1980s shows; society can be divided into working girls who satisfy male urges and wives who satisfy the male desire for children and family. Third Republic France was this way and had a birth rate above replacement level. Furthermore, legalized polygamy would allow men to have families and children and not be castrated by monogamy as the late David Lane rather interestingly thought.
    If I ran the state, I would encourage couples to use artificial insimination and microsort technology through rewards like Nazi Germany did for people having children in general. This way the state could see to it that families consisted of few sons and many daughters. This would make polygamy a viable option as opposed to the situation that historically sank much of the world as “big men” grabbed most of the women and made social cohesion and the propagation of talented beta genes impossible.

  6. Morten on September 5th, 2010 8:41 am

    “Women do not choose men based on strength and intelligence. ”

    So, dumb, small and weak men are generally preferred by women?

    “Female sexuality is based on a model developed during the Paleolithic. They choose on looks and base status. Many a beta man in this era actually would, objectively speaking, be a better intellectual, financial, and familar partner but women choose basely on looks.”

    I generally agree. What you define as looks is actually a combination of many different factors, such as athletic ability, genetics, confidence, aesthetic and verbal intelligence. Primary factors when choosing a mate.

    “Modern American women do not favor intelligence or creativity.”

    All women favor intelligence and creativity over the opposite.

    “Furthermore, it appears the West largely thrived historically by using culture and sometimes the law to force women to monogamously pair with betas instead of living in soft polygamy with Alphas.”

    Only if you ignore 38000 years of history. Whites are more intelligent because fewer of our ancestors were allowed to reproduce. Only the top twenty percent among european men were allowed to reproduce for tens of thousands of years, the rest died of cold and starvation, while nintety percent of african men were allowed to reproduce. Egalitarianism and liberalism is the Kryptonite of the western man. The european race evolved through natural selection and ruthless competition, not through the comfort of being guaranteed a mate.

    “Most of our scientists, philosophers, and stablizing men of the middle class were betas.”

    No. Very few of these men, prior to the 1900′s, came from working class families, or were physically unfit “beta men”, they came from the top 10% of society.

    “Morten sounds like an Alpha who has been selected so often that he doesn’t appreciate or understand the beta position.”

    My views are based on an understanding of universal rules that apply to all living things. This would be my opinion even if I was in a wheelchair. You put your views as a subject for yourself, and separate humanity from nature.

    “As for egalitarianism, while I am against racial egalitarianism and economic egalitarianism, I support it in a social and political context. Nazi Germany and the various fascist movements were in fact socially and politically egalitarian in that all Aryans were considered equal before the law, unlike say Medieval Europe or even Imperial Germany. I have no problem with society looking out for both white Alphas and Betas.”

    It makes no sense to be against racial egalitarianism and pro social egalitarianism, as genetics and society have a symbiotic relationship. In every aspect of the National Socialist German society, you were expected to work hard and exceed over others. The genetically unfit were weeded out. Read Mein Kampf for Hitler’s theories on genetic improvement. Even children of nobility had to prove themselves through the 1936 law, making it obligatory for all children between 10-18 to participate in physical and intellectual competition.

    Monogamy should be encouraged, but most important is ensuring that all men engage in ruthless, physical and mental competition for the continued health of the folk.

Bottom