Justice for Men and Boys, and for the Women who love them

David Davis

I was alerted to their site, and what is a new political party, by William Palfreman,

a fellow libertarian and commenter on our stuff here and on facebook.

It is very important that the influence of the GramscoFemiNazis, a sub-lethal but injurious branch of the GramscoFabiaNazis’ strategic assault on civilisation, should be exposed, and eliminated.

At this time, I cannot say if GramscoFemiNazis will “get” their “own island” in the South Sandwich Islands for themselves, as perhaps Laurie Penny, an evil and tormented Wadham-educated man-hater (It wasn’t Wadham’s fault I am sure), would wish, on the South Sandwich Islands when all the nasties will have been voluntransported from here so we that are left cannot be further harmed by them. But if they did, then they can set up committees to decide “food sharing issues in an environmetally-friendly feminist context in this day and age”, which is to say: “who is to be killed, butchered with these rough frozen stones, and eaten, first?”


  1. I once, in an idle moment, pondered the question of the relative value to society of men vs women. I thought about a scenario in which, say, an asteroid were hurtling toward Earth, as a consequence of which all but a handful of humans were to be wiped out.
    What would be the optimum ratio of men to women with a view to re-populating the planet? My instincts, and society’s instincts, seem to indicate that women are more valuable than men (“Women and children first”, for example).
    But if we had a hundred women and one man they could, if the man is reasonably busy, produce a hundred babies per year. Does that mean that men are a hundred times more valuable than women? I estimate that if the man works flat out he could probably impregnate 500 women a year. So is it 500 to one?
    But suppose the lone man falls ill or dies – then we have a problem. So we need a spare, making it 250 to one.
    At that point I decided I had better be getting on with some work, so that’s as far as I got.

    • That’s rather interesting. Sexual dimorphism is not very evident in Homo sapiens, indicating that for some time it has been about 1:1, or at most 1:3 (ish) males=females. Indeed, Hominid females have been getting bigger as the average sex ratio in most civilisations approaches 1:1.

      However, in your scenario, it would be best for there to be at least ten to twenty tmes as many surviving females as males, since the population would thus begin to rise faster than it would otherwise, what with uneducated males going about murdering members of other “nearby tribes”, so as to shag the captured females and murder the “enemy males”.

      I blame comprehensive schooling, myself, I do.

  2. I’ve been following JM4B for several months now. I’ve always felt that gender dynamics has played a huge part in the transformation of the UK into a soft totalitarian state and hoped that more libertarians would take note.

    Other original commentators in this field include Steve Moxon:

    and Angry Harry:

    Here’s an introductory video by a popular Youtuber:


Leave a Reply