Every American man reading this grew up in a nation where women were expected to play a role in governing our nation by casting a vote that was equal in value to every man’s vote.
Women make up almost 51% of the total population.
In a republic that employs democratic means to elect its governing representatives, more than 50% of the vote is a controlling interest. Assuming that women now cast their votes as individuals and not together with their husbands as they probably often did early on, the 19th Amendment effectively ceded a controlling interest in the government to women.
If men and women are more or less the same and share the same basic interests, the fact that there are more women exerting influence on government is utterly meaningless.
If, generally speaking, women behave differently and have interests that differ from the collective interests of men, then the fact that women are collectively able to exert a controlling interest at all levels of government is extremely significant.
It also follows that these differences in interests and behavior will have a cumulative impact on governance and culture.
If women are generally more collectivist in nature, unless there is some check against collectivism, it seems likely that over time the state will become progressively more collectivist.
If women are generally prone to any way of thinking, it seems likely that over time the state will progressively begin to reflect that way of thinking.
A seemingly slight derivation from a given path will, over a long distance, become a very significant derivation from the given path. It will ultimately lead to a different place entirely.
If all nations allow women to gain a controlling interest in their governments at the same time, the differences between nations in this regard will be minimal.
If one nation is governed with a male controlling interest and another nation is governed by a female controlling interest, and male and females have different tendencies, what are some possible outcomes?
Very few successful societies have ever allowed women to gain a controlling interest in governance.
This post advocates nothing in particular.
It is a mix of statements, thoughts and questions related to offering women the right to an equal vote or say in governance.
Some of those statements and thoughts may be incorrect, confusing or misleading.
Please feel free to make corrections or add additional statements related to the potential impact of women’s suffrage on Western civilization, taking the long view.
What current trends seem to be the result of a female influence on the shaping of culture and government?
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 120 comments… read them below or add one }
Women should’ve never gotten the vote. Nor should welfare recipients. There’s a simple voting rule that would restore both cultural and economic order to the West:
Voting is restricted to adult, male, private sector, law-abiding taxpayers.
No representation without taxation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An IQ test should be required before you can vote.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Conflict on how we should be governed are inevitable. There will be differences both between men and women and differences with these groups. In short we can not agree how we should be governed. My solution is that we should not be governed at all.
Now some see the opposite solution and say there should be just one world government. That looks like the way we are heading. The trend over time is more and increasingly central government. But as time passes our needs are in fact for less and less government. I don’t actually need government to do all the things it claims it does do for me. I can do them myself. I also don’t need government to do all the things for me that I don’t want like get me into a war, conscript me and have me slaughtered and imprison me in matrimony.
By and large we can all manage and live our own lives reasonably well. Governments are in essence there to control us. They even think they are there to make us into good people. I don’t want any of this. This will please Globalman but what I want is common law and what is called natural law.
So you see even if we had a government and that government had only one or two minor responsibilities, then it would not really matter what sort of government it was. It would be so far in the background of peoples lives that it would not be noticed at all. Fat chance of this happening. The future looks more like a totally controlled state.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is no such thing as a world without “government”.
Most variations born to man’s litter are weak if not feeble –they want protection. (Or people are easily convinced they do, even if they are not feeble.) Demagogues on soap boxes provide that protection.
The bigger problem than that is why your types don’t already know this for yourselves.
Humans are inherently hallucinating creatures –it is all part of our genius (compared to other creatures); it is genetic. america has invented a queer religion (hallucination) that a world without government is possible.
Humans are inherently sheep –a corral inevitably forms around them –they want it. You can not just open the corral gate a go “look at the free sheep, now”, for another corral will naturally form around them _wherever they graze_.
Buy advocating “no Government” for people from the right (men) you GUARANTEE (and have so far) that the government will always be a demagoguing protectionist apparatus from the left. (wimmins and the feeble). You forfeit the soapbox-protectionism-field. Thus you lose. (And we have and will continue to).
If you don’t want a government protecting you from your enemies (real or manufactured) your enemies will be more than happy to fill the vacuum and create an [unchallenged] government that protects them _from you_.
Not to mention a market is a government; it is simply a weak/failed one that is easily demonized and hijacked. any time humanas get together in a group (like coming down from the hills with their furs and such) a “government” will form there.
Even if you advocated eugenics that deemed everyone dead but for 6 foot healthy huntsmen, the government protectionism apparatus would still form; humans are creatures of psychological protectionism need. The fact that your types are and have been too historically STUPID to understand or advocate any eugenics (no less a strain that culls the weak and dependent) absolutely 100 percent guarantees that a government protection apparatus will form.
Your types hallucinate and consequently can’t see this fact of all history and human civic groups for yourselves. You’re not very bright.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fine. But why didn’t that work the last time?…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The women’s vote is largely meaningless. Women and men tend to vote in cultural blocks, regardless of gender. If women all stayed home at the next election, the result would probably be the same. The women’s vote is only significant at the margin, in races that are fought over 2% or so, such as in Presidential elections. And even there it is not that the politicians are changing anybody’s mind, but rather that they are attempting to increase the participation of their own voter block. That is why “get out the vote” drives are having such an impact and why mud-slinging is so rampant: the least apathetic side wins.
Married and white people (two groups which overlap significantly) tend to vote Republican, and singles and non-whites tend to vote Democratic. There is a slight lean towards Republicanism among the wealthy, but among the “highly educated” (who are often not wealthy) the lean is strongly Democratic. Catholics and agnostics tend to vote Democratic and Protestants Republican. However, practicing religious people (those who attend weekly) of any faith vote overwhelmingly Republican. The only exception to that rule are black people, and that is merely for historical reasons. Union members tend to vote Democratic and gun owners Republican (no big surprise there).
Not only do married women tend to vote the same as their husbands, but this tendency increases the longer they have been married, for whatever reason. I don’t know if this is because they become more aligned or that the non-aligned are more inclined to divorce.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No societies have ever had out level of technological “auto pilot.”
Female humans should be medicated/altered in childhood so as to make them more compliant and less problematic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If practicing black religious people ever followed the norm trend for their cultural group, rather than their race, the Republicans would slide to an easy victory in election after election. This is why the Democrats are hanging on to them so fervently. Republicans (the married and religious) simply have demographics on their side and it’s merely a matter of time before the voter’s choice is between moderate-conservative and ultra-conservative. Or perhaps a libertarian thrown in for color and debate-excitement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Black and German.
Maybe voting is irrelevant. But female influence is not.
And female influence started long before 1920, just like “feminism” got “bad” long before 1970.
Females having money/safety without having to go through any individual man is probably the bigger problem. It totally nullifies male leverage against female sexual value.
======
Culling down society to only people with IQs above 120 will be the _beginning_ to solving all problems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@B&G
The issue with your theory is that Single Women (who shouldn’t be allowed to vote in the first place) were the ones that put Nobama in the White House:
http://www.gqrr.com/index.php?ID=2282
Evidence shows that you are wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Women vote
http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.”
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/cph/3a20000/3a26000/3a26200/3a26270r.jpg
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Black and German –
When women first began voting, this was absolutely true.
A general theme of this site seems to be that women have less and less reason to be loyal to their husbands, and less and less reason to stay married at all–once they get their big, expensive party and sperm donation.
If this general theme is true, it seems unlikely that women will continue to vote “with” their husbands. As “free agents” it seems as though women would have markedly different interests than men.
Posing the question about a natural tendency toward collectivism is a good one. And the answer to it may boil down to differences in the male and female psyche.
Men have an unambiguous track record over time of voting away their own empowerment, particularly where it involves actual or perceived enhancements to the lives of others. I think this speaks to an undeniable tendency toward masochism in the male of the species.
As we bemoan, rightfully, some of the legislation that women have lobbied for, it’s absurd not to acknowledge male complicity in it, and equally absurd to overlook the harshly self regulating laws that men imposed on themselves when they were the only votes available.
Men enacted laws in many states that required them to go to prison for crimes committed by their wives. It was men that started things like alimony and child support and indeed men who sponsored egregious legislation like VAWA, though the latter can be attributed to garnering women’s votes.
I think the jury is still out of women as a collective. What isn’t in dispute, IMO, is that men and women working together will actually take even more extreme actions on behalf of women than just men working alone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By incremental outlawing, systemic biasing, gerrymandering and overt misandric discrimination, males in western societies are approaching the point of no lawful redemption. No lawful redemption by dint of loosing the democratic means to it, that is.
This is happening because their countries are being overwhelmed by international socialism, masked as feminism. And this ideaology is stealthily disenfranchising males by sly legal methods and practices.
Ever increasingly, males are being systematically disenfranchied as a political class by their ever increasing enfelloniasation. Because every time a man is incriminated or criminalised, he looses his right to vote, thus reducing the “total male vote” and the “total male suffrage right” as a proportion.
And simultaneously the “total female vote” and the “total female suffrage right” as a proportion, is simultaneously ever increasing. Because female crimes and female incrimination is being exponetially reduced and minimised systematically. This gerrymandering process preserves the appearance of legality and lawfulness for international socialism.
Jus t listen to what JACK STRAW, uk justice secretary has to say about imprisonment of females: “Many female prisoners have children and are the principal provider of care, so being sent to prison disrupted both their and their children’s lives. We have to be sensible and humane in getting offending down in men and women, and we have to have different, but firm, approaches,”. http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=7307&edition=1&ttl=20091209190513
In short summary, the male suffrage proportion is to be reduced whilst that of females is to be increased by means of enfellonising only males whom are subsequently to be releived of their voting rights. Gerrymandering by legal means !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Women were given the vote by the Illuminati in order to introduce the New World Order as a communist totalitarian state. Period. They didn’t ‘win’ it. The politicians did not ‘give’ them the vote. They were ordered to give women the vote and the politicians complied just like they have always complied.
‘Democracy’ was introduced as a ‘good’ thing only duiring the depression. Before that everyone knew it was a bad thing. As late as 1928 democracy was said to be a very bad thing in the US Army Handbook. Anyone who promotes ‘democracy’ is willfully ignorant, subverted, evil or a mixture of the above. I denounce ‘democracy’ for the mob tyranny it is. I refuse to vote. I refuse to be part of any ‘democracy’. More men could do this.
It is well known, and the greeks made plays about it, that women are communists at heart because they are lazy and selfish and want to benefit from the labour of others around them whereas men believe in competition and to the victor go the spoils. Men will take risks to win the spoils, women will use lies and deceit to obtain spoils off those men who have the spoils. Women have always spread their legs for the victors in wartime. It has always been thus if you read your history books. Women have ALWAYS been liars and decievers. Does the name Delilah mean anything to you?
Since our ‘democracies’ are corrupt from one end to the other and they are total and complete control grids there is no point attempting to ‘change’ or ‘petition’ any politicians. Even Ron Paul is dirty, sad to say. There are two ways out. Stop participating in THEIR system under THEIR rules or violent revolution which will achieve nothing in the end but some great fertiliser. Men can choose as they wish.
My choice? I simply rescinded my consent to be subject to their rules and live in common law jurisdiction to my community standards.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Personally, I don’t see a reason why women should have a vote, right now. Women get it automatically, at 18, in complete dereliction of the point of the 26th amendment. But, for men, they must exchange a portion of their freedom to get their vote. At 18 men, must sign up with the selective service to get their vote. Why should they, on the basis of gender, get complete suffrage, while men only have partial suffrage? I think if they were drafted like men, then they would deserve the vote at 18, as layed out in the 26th amendment. Or better yet, we should abolish the draft.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Black&German December 10, 2009 at 5:38 am
“The women’s vote is largely meaningless.”
Not true. Women vote themselves benefits at the expense of others enforced by the state. Men don’t do this. Men vote for independence and freedom where they will have the ability to succeed or fail from their own efforts.
The difference in voting left and right between men and women is well established all around the world. It is why women were given the vote in the first place. They are well known to be communists at heart who are lazy and parasitic by nature.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
why even bother talking about suffrage? the idea that women are feckless, childish creatures who should be married off at a young age and lashed to their husbands for life is not only rubbish but it’s exactlt the sort of thing that feminists want to read on a site like this. it’s also a non-starter.
if we can almost all agree that female tendancies toward a collectivist mentality pose a significant threat to the future of this sort of democracy, then the real conversation ought to be about how to deal with that. taking the vote away from women is not only unjust, but it’s just not going to happen. instead why not focus on exposing the ways in which this brave new world of feminism fails to deliver on the promises it has made?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
POIUYT December 10, 2009 at 6:40 am
Voting is meaningless and pointless today. I recommend ALL MEN STOP VOTING.
I recommend ALL MEN STOP PARTICIPATING IN THEIR POLITICAL PROCESS.
Men. JUST STOP! How much clearer can I make it?
THEIR SYSTEM IS RIGGED. YOU CAN NOT WIN IN THEIR SYSTEM.
Stop paying their taxes, stop consenting to be governed, deny jurisdiction of THEIR courts, kick the shit out of their policy enforcement officers who try to kidnap you and just go about your life. It will soon come to pass that we will just have to shoot any policy enforcement officers who violate our rights until they get the message.
You men make it all too hard for yourselves. Once you discover how to be ‘free’ you will laugh at how pathetic you were as a slave. You really will. By participating in the political process you are agreeing to waive all your rights and submit to being a slave. Citizens have NO RIGHTS. Voters have NO RIGHTS.
I had this discussion on Mens News Daily and the author was too willfully ignorant to investigate the truth of that statement.
If men would simply STOP participating and labelled ALL politicians for the traitors that they are and we ALL just ‘went our own way’ we would put an end to this nonsense in a week. We really would. It is only by the willing participation of men that they are enslaved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
j r December 10, 2009 at 6:55 am
“instead why not focus on exposing the ways in which this brave new world of feminism fails to deliver on the promises it has made?”
Because it is pointless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fiercely Independent John Nada December 8, 2009 at 4:13 pm
“When you’re tired of playing tiddlywinks, email me.”
Dude, what is the email address to use?
I am taking on the courts…..educating young men? I point them to http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/forums. The annecdotal evidence is all that is needed.
We don’t need movies and DVDs. We just need to point them to the news items in the press.
I am also funding efforts to win in the courts. I am also writing a book about all this.
We don’t need more material, we need men who will get it to lots of people. The book Men are Better Than Women has already been written by Dick Masterson and THAT should be given to every young man in the western world.
Dick Masterson is GOD when it comes to educating young men on women. His youtube vid has had more than 1M hits now. http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com
Dick has done all the hard work. If every man spread the gospel according to Dick Masterson their problems would be over. I learned so much off Dick it was unreal. I was 45 and he was 26.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lady Raine December 8, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“I’m a single mom, yes… I have never been married”
Ah yes, LR exposes herself as a greedy self centered child abuser because to deny a child a live in relationship wiht it’s father is child abuse. She wanted a child but didn’t believe that ‘the best interests of the child’ would be served by being married and providing a loving and stable family for the child to grow up in. The western world is full of entitlement princesses like you who think children are an ‘accessory to make them happy’.
Fuck you LR. I denounce you for the child abuser you are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Globalman
I hate to break this to you, but neither men, nor women, are better than the other. They’re both prerequisites for the other’s existence.
Additionally, men should be voting in greater numbers than they already are. What are you talking about? To quote Chapin, we have three weapons at our disposal: our pens, our wallets, and our ballets. If we utilize all three, then victory is not out of grasp; but, we need to write to share our ideas, we need to fund our ideas, and we need to vote to enact our ideas. It’s essential that we do all of this to overturn the sexist legislation against men. Let’s get politicians and political parties interested, for the first time, in getting the “male vote”!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
global,
we are obviously coming at this from two different perspectives. there are a lot of things about this world that i don’t like, but despite all that i am quite happy with my life. of all the other possible times and places i could have been born, i’m glad i was born here and now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would like to venture this thought: anyone’s vote is irrelevant because the two party system is in fact a one party system with slightly different flavors.
The right to vote is a scam: wether you vote or not, the outcome will always remain the same.
Demoblicans or Repucrats are one and the same.
Governs best which governs the least. I agree that the government must be reduced by at least 90% and that it should have only token power.
Best if no power at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
jr-
As long as men worry about what feminists want or think, they are operating at a disadvantage.
Feminists say exactly what they want to and get away with it.
Men who worry about pleasing them or compromising with them have lost the argument before they started.
wimmins and fem chilluns ARE “childish” –and a whole lot worse. It is not rubbish at all.
And there is no such thing as “equal” or “rights” or any of that gibba jabba. There is simply reality. Reality which “rights” seek to convolute as a tactic to help the “wrong” types ascend in the still continuing status battles over life and death and happiness. That is called reality; only the hallucinations of civilization–parasites and profiteers–and morons– don’t understand or believe it.
So what?
You are a runt and coward, looking for ways to be in the good graces of a tyrant. I seek to provoke and then murder that tyrant and all its sycophants.
Your system –that you profit and parasite in –is doomed. Then IT will “start” up nicely…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Globalman
Just my own opinion here, but as long as you are funding projects and writing books, why don’t you start your own blog? You may have very valid points to make, but scouring the internet for other peoples blogs, hijacking threads and attempting to make them all about your agenda paints you as a card carrying nutcase.
And it helps your message not one bit. Or haven’t you noticed?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Right. You beat me to it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
menareangrynow December 10, 2009 at 7:19 am
“I hate to break this to you, but neither men, nor women, are better than the other.”
MAAN,
you can break it to me that you are a mangina feminist apologist all you like, that’s not my concern.
Men are better than women. Dick has a whole book that proves this. Any person with a penis who attempts to refute this fact based on no evidence, as you just did, I denounce as a mangina feminist apologist.
Where is your evidence that “neither men, nor women, are better than the other”? Go write a book on it and get back to me.
As for voting, Bernard happens to be incorrect on that one. Voting is pointless. Men should stop.
Men like you who do not understand what is really going on would be best served by learning what is really going on before spouting things that are not true out of your ignorance. I know it sounds tough but when I was a kid the men I knew understood the value of tough talk to ignorant youngsters. You have to bang ingorant youngsters over the head hard enough to get them to listen. When I was a kid it was quite normal for a man to smack kids across to face before saying “Listen the fuck up son……” The smack across the face and the serious tone is key in breaking through the arrogance and apathy of youth.
Young men now are so full of themselves and what they think they know they cling to their ignorance and ‘knowledge’ like a life vest in the heavy seas of truth rather than expand their mind by learning what is really going on around them.
j r December 10, 2009 at 7:20 am
“but despite all that i am quite happy with my life. of all the other possible times and places i could have been born, i’m glad i was born here and now.”
JR, I am very happy with my life too. And I would bet any amount you like that by any measure my life is MUCH better than yours.
So let me put a question to you. Today, about 100 men will kill themselves in the western world on the basis of the abuse they recieve in the Family Court. As wonderful as my life is, I am not going to abandon those men, I am not going to let them die in vain, I am not going to ignore them, and I am certainly not going to let those who abused them go unpunished if I can help it.
Guess what? Tomorrow another 100 or so guys will kill themselves. And the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day. You get my point.
Here is the question. What are you going to do about this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
menareangrynow-Personally, I don’t see a reason why women should have a vote, right now. Women get it automatically, at 18, in complete dereliction of the point of the 26th amendment. But, for men, they must exchange a portion of their freedom to get their vote. At 18 men, must sign up with the selective service to get their vote. Why should they, on the basis of gender, get complete suffrage, while men only have partial suffrage? I think if they were drafted like men, then they would deserve the vote at 18, as layed out in the 26th amendment. Or better yet, we should abolish the draft.
ITA.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In the movie “Starship Troopers”, our future society has a simple voting rule – If you serve in the military or other qualified public service to the people, then you gain the right to vote. You are literally not a Citizen until you have the right to vote. It’s the best idea out of a sci-fi movie I have ever seen, and deserves some serious consideration.
In the US today, you don’t have to earn the right to vote. You don’t have to learn, you don’t have to work. You just have to live to the age of 18 and not commit a felony. (Even felons regain their right to vote, automatically.)
To me, the right to vote has never been a question of gender. It’s a question of Earning it. If more women than men earn the right to vote, then we will have a society and government ruled by women. Period. If more men earn the right to vote, then we will have a society ruled by men. Period. In this way, whatever subgroup of humanity is willing to do the work gets the rulership. More asians than latinos = guess what? More short people than tall people = guess what?
This is all wishful thinking, of course. BTW – for a society to have this work, ALL persons must be able to join the military without reservation. Male, female, any color, any physical capability, any religion, etc. All that democratic idealism has to be operationally in place.
To me, the question in this idea is whether we are willing to lose control of Our Government based on this kind of truly equal value idealism. Will we hand over our government to people not like ourselves who happen to have done the work to earn it, fair and square?
As for how the rule of womankind *might* affect the future of civilization, read Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach. You’ll either like it or hate it. There is some better, some worse, in that example. it’s not all about female rule, of course. It’s more about politically applied hippy tree hugger ideals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paul Elam December 10, 2009 at 7:49 am
“@ Globalman
Just my own opinion here, but as long as you are funding projects and writing books, why don’t you start your own blog? You may have very valid points to make, but scouring the internet for other peoples blogs, hijacking threads and attempting to make them all about your agenda paints you as a card carrying nutcase.
And it helps your message not one bit. Or haven’t you noticed?”
Paul,
1. There is no need to start my own blog. I am very well aware of what I am doing. It would be a waste of time.
2. ‘My agenda’? Saving the lives of abused men is ‘my agenda’?
Thanks for pointing out that:
- saving mens lives is not in line with YOUR agenda.
- stopping the ongoing genocide is not in line with YOUR agenda.
- freeing men and achieving justice is not in line with YOUR agenda.
I’m glad we got that cleared up.
3. The only people who view me as a ‘card carrying nutcase’ are the willfully ignorant, the stupid, the arrogant, the ones who will not actually educate themselves and address the issues of the ongoing genocide or abuses of family court or femnazi biased legislation.
These men I am not interested in. I am interested in that very small group of very special men who are intelligent, inquisitive, decisive, action-oriented and willing to risk their lives throwing corrupt magistrates and politicians in jail by sitting on de jour juries. I’ve found about 10 of them so far. They are very, very rare now. There used to be plenty of them. Obviously you are not one of them. I’d hoped you would be. I am impressed with your work. But you are not. When given the opportunity to learn you don’t take it. Of course, just my opinion…
In short. I know what I am doing. I know the enemy we face. I know how to defeat them. Thats why they offered me a job. You know, take me off the playing field with a bribe. But defeating them is a very long shot. Many of us are trying in numerous different ways. You don’t even acknowledge who the real enemy is so your efforts are futile. As wonderful and as talented as you are, what you are doing will make no difference at all.
Only a very few of us really know what is going on and really know how to go about defeating the Illuminati. Look how many people David Icke or Alex Jones get to. Have THEY stopped the Illuminati yet? Nope. Men are too stupid to save themselves from being oppressed or killed for the most part. Benjamin Fulford is one who also knows how to fight these guys front on. You don’t see Benjamin Fulford making movies and getting ignorant men into seminars and presentations. You don’t even see him writing a book. He has a very brief blog and comments on Rense.
Evidence? As far as I am aware I am the first man in Australia to bring charges against a Federal Magistrate for crimes committed in the name of Family Law with a chance to incarcerate that Magistrate. Should we be able to make this work I will have developed the template to incarcerate ANY person in Australia who has committed crimes and that would include people like Kevin Rudd, John Howard and others. If I am successful, and I may not be, I will have created the template to free the Australian people from the tyranny of the Illuminati if the Australian people want it. Many men helped me along the way. But did Amfortas get this far? No. He didn’t. And he’s been at this a long time. In short. I have been able to get further than others inside 20 months. That’s not too shabby.
Oh yeah. I did this without all the ‘good help’ of those men who think they can tell me how to go about my business in order to ‘win their support’. The men who helped helped because they want to see Australia be a free country for the first time. They helped because they want to stop the genocide and stop the abuse of men. They helped because no matter how I presented the message, their agenda was life, liberty, truth and justice which matches my agenda and they can see that. I guess that agenda just does not line up with many other mens agendas.
Is that confrontational enough for you yet?
I am not here to ‘persuade’ to a point of view. I am here to ‘confront’ and ‘destroy’ mens ‘current world view’ so they can wake up to what is really going on. And it’s not real pleasant. I am here to save lives, free men, stop the genocide and defeat the Illuminati in the end. All I need are good men willing to sit on juries and risk their lives throwing corrupt judges and magistrates in jail. Seems men here are not so keen on being free… 
All you ‘citizens’ who choose slavery over freedom. It would be nice if a few men also chose to free themselves.
Yep, I am one confrontational bastard because it works.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Globalman
Nice hijacking the thread to your present thoughts. Your commentary would garner serious consideration if they were on topic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think this is an incredibly important point. Men do not have the collective herd consciousness that women seem to do and are often quite willing to do another man (or all other men) a dirt if the opportunity arises.
There is a quote often thrown in to discussions of the issues of social direction to the effect that democracies inevitably commit suicide within a couple of hundred years – just as long as it takes people to figure out that they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury at the expense of others.
Instead of attempting to form communities of genitalia – and make the mistake of believing that someone who has the same kind we do also has the same interests we do – I think men need to start working on forming communities of like-mindedness and start to draw the distinction between the kind of men who will gladly throw us under the bus in order to advance their own interests at our expense, and those men who won’t. From that sort of community, at least action which is consistent with the agreed-upon common beliefs is possible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Gryphon MacThoy
I’ve always liked Heinlein’s books and ideas, and especially Starship Troopers’s method for earning citizenship. I think Heinlein had a good idea by replacing ‘jus soli’ & ‘jus sanguine’, as the determinatives for citizenship status, with ‘jus militarise’. I had been thinking long and hard about what would be a fair electoral system, and I’ve arrived at what I call, “calibrated democracy”. In it, one get’s votes for performing civil duties, vital to maintaining civilization. These votes add up, and the most civil minded people get the most power for directing society. I think it would weed out a lot of corruption, personally. Tell me what you think, heres a rough draft:
a) no draft unless homeland is invaded
b) no one is born with a vote that is claimable at the age of adulthood
c) 18 year olds may choose to put their name on said draft list in exchange for 1 vote
d) if you own property, then you are awarded 1 vote as your stake in the country
e) if you are a father or a mother, then you are awarded 1 vote as your stake in the public school system; but only if you are also their guardian parentis
f) these votes will stack on top of each other, as each civil duty is taken upon oneself
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Hestia
Thanks
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Does anyone know how to keep a smiley face looking like the punctuation marks, instead of the smiley face character showing up?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have never enthusiastically voted for anybody. Those who do vote with enthusiasm must surely be disappointed. In fact it seems in the very nature on representative democracy to be let down. Are those who believed in Obama’s ‘Change we can believe in’ satisfied with what they got? Even the Christian Right got nothing from Bush except war against Islam. Is that what they wanted? I think the answer to both questions is no.
Also voting, and if you like democracy, is such a one sided deal. A few seconds spent marking a ballot paper and in return you surrender a large portion of control over your life to some one else.
Why should we surrender such power to others? If Obama, Bush or Pelosi came into a pub and said you should surrender a large portion of your income to them would you do it? The point to remember is that these people are certainly no better that you or I. They sit on the toilet just like everybody else and their shit stinks just as much.
I am a bit away from Jack’s article. I think Jack is correct. Femaleness will over time express itself collectively in a very different way than maleness might. Additionally there will be deeper effect as maleness itself will be corrupted and become something that I think me and Jack would find disgusting. Indeed this is happening already.
I don’t see how to avoid this apart from may be being born in another time. I try to resist at a personal level but can not claim this does more that effect my own life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think I’d have to change the way all of them show up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
if you go on a site like feministing or jezebel and read the comments, what do you see? you see a bunch of bitter women who have convinced themselves that they live in a constant state of persection and victimization. any particular problem they face is automatically blamed on some hazy conception of “the patriarchy.” unfortunately a significant portion of the comments here sometimes resemble feministing and jezebal in tone and level of vitriol.
men, lose the bitterness. it will consume you. it will leave you lonely and broken. if you’re going to truly be anti-feminists, you need to start by not simply being their mirror images. if you’re going to accomplish anything extraordinary, you need to start by being better than your enemies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am in full agreement with Globalman: men must refuse to vote. This would be the very best way to get to government to look carefully after our needs.
Just imagine what would happen if men decided to ban the vote. Political parties would ben over backwards to acquire the “edge” over other parties.
I say that our future is in our own hands. We can make or break a society. This is gigantic power, in my books.
Now think about what would happen if men decided to go on strike. Not a marriage or reproduction strike, which is bad enough, but a real SLOWING down of all male activities (coal mining, garbage, construction, etc..).
It would run this society into ultimate poverty and…. literally, kill feminism. Yes we can!!
We have the power to dictate our will. But before that, we must learn all the secrets of sabotage, for our road to freedom has to include a melt down of this society.
In other words, for as long as the West will be rich and powerful, the fate of men will disintegrate.
Pull the plug on civilization!
Then you can have a life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Zed and person you were talking to regarding “men throwing each other under the bus [by evolved nature]/ being masochists.”
Yes. This is a main reason why men and females can’t just be called equal in the town square.
A legal tactic to try and redress this PROBLEM (men and wimmins being different with men getting the short shrift by instinct) is “DISSIMILAR SITUATION”. The pro fems have been able to wreak all kinds of hypocrisy by using that as a preamble…
[law form:]
WHERE AS
females are ‘dis similarly situated’ in this or that situation (eg a sports field)…
WE RESOVLE
to hypocritically negate a previous feminist rally cry with this new feminist rally cry [presented as _solution_ to the "dissimilar situation" explained above under the WHERE AS section].
—–
“DISSIMILAR SITUATION”
(Jew/feminist speak.)
One unconstitutional thing after another has been imposed to redress this or that “dissimilar situation”.
—-
Though it [redress for men's woes through 'dissimilar situation' explantions] still won’t work. Not until men are different creatures.
The whole rotten artifice of men and their laws needs to be burned down first.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
More states rights. Small federal government, large military. Tax the ultra rich more. Trust me, it will make up for all the wealth they hide and accumulate through loop holes. Only a naive fool would think the ultra elite are playing by the rules.
And I would personally let Globalman be. He does much more good than harm in my opinion. Remember, this isn’t an echo chamber. Feel free to question him, but we all know what his answers are going to be by this point. I didn’t classify him as “absolute” because he is known to waiver. He will appeal to a certain type of soldier I think we as a movement may come to find invaluable, and that would be people who look for cracks in the system to exploit. For every dozen loopholes in the system he presents that may turn out to bogus or bunk, he will most likely stumble upon some truly useful legal tools and weapons, as I’m sure he already has. Even if the courts don’t accept his rightful legal arguments, he sure is hell will be a supreme irritant, we can all agree on that, and we need rabble rousers. We can turn the volume down later when our debate goes mainstream, until then, fuck moderation, more extremism. Just my opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Encasing them in pre tags seems to work…at least in the preview.
Not voting is pointless; if you collectively decide not to vote without setting specific conditions under which you will change your mind, you have rendered your voice completely irrelevant. Even with specific conditions, politicians will then face the decision: is meeting those conditions worth it? If they lose more votes than they gain by meeting your conditions, you will simply be ignored.
Your vote is of strategic value to upset the current system, however. In many parts of the country, there are set percentage minimums for the number of votes a party needs to get in order to receive public financing, be guaranteed top billing on ballots, etc. By voting for a third party, you are in some sense throwing your vote away (in that your voice is no longer relevant to the position jockeying amongst the first two parties)…right up until this threshold is passed, and a third party gets the legitimacy of public financing in the following year’s campaign. For this reason, together with the fact that our voices largely aren’t being heard by either of the two major parties to begin with, I recommend third party voting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Guess it didn’t work on the actual page, though. (re smileys)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Those talking about the voting credits by doing good.
Fine. But “civic minded” goodness is a __relative construct__.
I can easily see even an agreed upon definition [of 'civ mind good'] snowballing into dystopia. Over the generation men et al will compete to out do/out rank each other and achieve more for themselves by torturing the definition.
I’m not trying to be a pessimist. I assert that what I just said is realism. Planes-to-utopia crash unless the facts of gravity and aero dynamics are understood and accepted.
O say can you see, aloft the democracy shooting star spirals to the dystopian depths…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Rebel and Globalman, that’s the way to go!
Stop voting and stop supporting present society, make their lives troublesome.
Presently I’m busy not supporting the Climate cooks in Copenhagen ( http://en.cop15.dk/ ). ; )
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To the poster known as “j r”.
What is happening here is over your head for aptitude reasons.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jab, you have to be careful about when and how you tax the “ultra-rich” (wherever you decide to set the bar for that); being wealthy they have a great deal of mobility and they will leave for greener pastures if they dislike your tax structure enough.
For example, Maryland recently raised it’s state income tax on the highest bracket…and saw a precipitous drop in revenue from that bracket as many of the extremely wealthy suddenly found it more convenient to file their taxes in other states where they owned homes.
Another sticky topic in taxing the rich is capital gains–typically taxed at a separate lower rate, those with a great deal of actual wealth usually get most of their income from this rather than sources typically reported as income. But there is another group that finds a large fraction of their wealth coming from capital gains–entrepreneurs. A punitive tax rate on large amounts of capital gains is strongly discouraging to the proposition of starting up a company, where the risk/reward calculation is largely based on having a small probability of a highly favorable outcome–if you reduce the quality of this outcome, you have a significant effect on how likely one is to take the risk associated with starting a company in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The topic was suffrage. I’m just pointing out that suffrage is a moot point and does not get to the core of why society has changed.
The issue with your theory is that Single Women (who shouldn’t be allowed to vote in the first place) were the ones that put Nobama in the White House:
Your evidence merely strengthens my point. As you say, it is SINGLE WOMEN who came out to vote in record numbers. Single men are largely politically apathetic and stayed home playing video games. If they had shown up, the vote would have gone even more dramatically to Obama, as they also tend to vote Democratic. Obama didn’t win because Americans thought he was so great, he won because Republicans stayed home.
The lines are cultural, not based upon gender. Feminism isn’t a gender-related construct (although that’s what feminists like to claim with their calls to the “sisterhood”), it is a cultural one based upon socialism and liberalism and one that many men support. There’s a lot of talk on here about feminism but the truth is that a huge chunk of the female population, the majority even, didn’t participate in that movement.
I understand that you are angry about those that did participate, but that doesn’t change the fact that many didn’t and that many men welcomed feminism and continue to support it. Just as it doesn’t change the fact that, although it is men who are the most vocal in the MRA movement, they are scoring success after success due to the quiet support of millions of American women.
Furthermore, conservative and religious women have a higher marriage rate, a higher birth rate, and a lower divorce rate. Those three things together means that THEY and their progeny are the future, regardless of the laws and the media. Biology is not destiny, but demographics is. We can breed liberalism out of existence. It is happening as we speak. Those secularists who are with us on principle are welcome to join; the others can go pound sand and cry about the injustice of it all. Liberal democracies will eventually eat themselves alive. It is an unsustainable model.
So the choice is: do you support the conservatives or wait for the Muslims to invade?
Remember, don’t put the cart before the horse. Divorce rates aren’t so high because the laws changed. The laws changed as a result of a cultural changes in which marriage and fidelity were devalued. The laws are strengthening now, because of the strengthening of conservative culture. We are overrunning the country with sheer numbers.
If this general theme is true, it seems unlikely that women will continue to vote “with” their husbands. As “free agents” it seems as though women would have markedly different interests than men.
This is true and something that feminists recognized early on, hence their call for women to get out of the home and divorce their husbands. Married women tend to see their husbands as their closest allies, not other women. The stronger the marriage, the stronger this instinct is. Divorce rates are declining, although there’s a slight blip this year due to the declining job market. That means that, although fewer women are getting married, those that DO get married, are that much more politically aligned with their husbands than their forebears. The nuclear family is once again becoming the political center.
Because every time a man is incriminated or criminalized, he looses his right to vote, thus reducing the “total male vote” and the “total male suffrage right” as a proportion.
This is a very important point. It is true that men are being disenfranchised through this method. I am a firm believer in suffrage for all citizens, as a matter of principle. We can debate what constitutes a citizen, but once they are named a citizen the debate should end.
Interestingly, such men are inclined to vote Democratic. Especially since a disproportionate number of them are black and the majority are poor and uneducated (three demographics that tend to vote Dem).
Note that I’m not saying that Republicans are somehow the “moral” and Democrats the “immoral” party. I’m just saying that the people who vote for those parties are generally divisible along lines of moral relativism and religious faith. Both parties are pretty useless.
As Rebel said, we need to severely restrict government to the few things it does well. Starve the beast.
I agree that we should abolish the draft.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Globalman
I am none of the above slanders, Globalman. If your immediate reaction to criticism is to insult and libel, then a great many comparisons and correlations can be made between you and actual feminists.~~
Furthermore, I place the onus on you, as you have made the assertion that males are superior to females. Where is the evidence of this? Biologically speaking, a comparison of their IQ’s yields the same average. And, you can’t have one without the other. There are biological distinctions, most assuredly; but, nothing that could allow one to arrive at the conclusion that one is either better or more important than the other. What is so superior that requires the inferior just to merely exist? Morally speaking, there seems no argument possible. Pragmatism dictates that we need each other equally, and thus, are indeed equal in value and worth.
Lastly, I must urge you to place your full force behind men’s issues. Vote for anyone not affiliated with feminist interests, and candidates who want the same reforms we do, such as Ron Paul, who wanted VAWA repealed for denying men many of their legal rights. It’s important men start voting en mass again. Currently female voters outnumber male voters , by a very wide margin, and don’t think the lawmakers haven’t noticed! That’s why they pay so much attention to female issues, and ignore male ones.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Mr. Donovan
Let me first apologize. I am aware that I am feeding in to a problem here. I will have one more say about this and drop it.
@Globalman
I am sure that is true and explains your usurping the work of others to make your points. After all, why put effort and expense into attracting people to your ideas when you can just piggyback on the effort and expense of others?
After people made attempts to reason with you on MND I started just deleting your posts. I don’t have much patience with undersocialized ideologues that employ parasitism as a method of choice.
Personally, I don’t have anything else to say to you, and I know that even acknowledging you exist feeds the model of how you spread your ideas.
But I will say to the admin here that you present some of the best material of its kind on the web. Tolerating this kind of disruption to the exchange of topical ideas does nothing but diminish your efforts.
Over and out, on this subject.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Correction, the apology was for Welmer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can’t speak for Welmer, but he and I have had some conversations about the philosophy underlying his approach. It probably helps me understand his approach that I am one of the most radical types who have been writing for a while on men’s issues.
Simply put – there really is no way to be orthodox about being unorthodox.
You have probably read some of fedrz’s stuff on the way the Hegelian Dialectic is being used to control the masses. One fundamental aspect of its power is to force a choice from among a limited and pre-determined set of choices. This insures that no matter what is chosen, it serves the purposes of the game masters.
It is one of the most natural tendencies in the world to want to suppress oppositional or dissenting speech. But, there are two problems with that approach –
1) cloistered, or protected, ideas are weak ideas, and
2) protection of a bad, weak, idea is seldom a path to success.
The Spearhead has a dozen and half contributors so far, and that number is growing. If you would put all of us together in one room, it would be extremely difficult for us to come to consensus on much of anything. We have apparently made an unspoken informal pact that we will simply ignore and skip over the parts of each other’s posts that we disagree with and look for the concerns we have in common which motivate us to write for the Spearhead.
Personally, I think one of the biggest things which has hampered the MRM so far has been the fact that MRAs have their own sort of political correctness going among them, and do not realize the extent to which they are buying in to restrictions imposed on them by their opposition in order to render them ineffective.
I believe that orthodoxy stifles innovation, and I also believe that the MRM desperately needs innovation because the orthodoxy with which it has pursued its ends so far has not proven itself to be particularly effective.
Instead of a mouthpiece for a particular point of view, I think of the Spearhead as an incubator of ideas and spot of creativity where almost anything goes. It’s long past time for men to start innovating in their approaches to dealing with the social conditions men face. I have often likened what men need to the radical changes brought about in medicine by Pasteur’s germ theory. For a couple of milennia physicians had been following Aristotle’s theory of “humours” and literally bleeding their patients to death. When Pasteur came up with his theory he was soundly denounced and attacked. It was difficult for physicians who really had had the best interests of their patients at heart, and who had been following the best medical practices that were known in their time, to admit that their methods had not just been ineffective, but actually destructive to the health of their patients which they were trying to preserve.
So, who knows? Maybe from this Boston Common’s of ideas a new “germ of an idea” theory will emerge which other readers can take, and improve on, and which may have a significant impact on the issues which concern us.
HL just did a very good post on the scientific method. Challenge of existing ideas, and radical new ones, are fundamental to the advancement of science.
At this point, there is nothing to be gained either for the Spearhead or the MRM in general by playing it safe. Playing it safe got us where we are today, and if there is one thing that the majority of us might be able to agree upon it is the fact that where we are today isn’t all that great. The marketplace of ideas is ruthless in its culling of less fit ideas. I do not fear having them expressed here because unless they are viable they will die on their own.
That being said, I think Welmer likes controversy because it draws interest. There have been ideas floated here by some of the authors which probably few of the other authors, and perhaps not Welmer himself, agree with. However, the discussion and argument in response to those ideas is almost always stimulating and entertaining.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is mostly just shaming language, really. Men tend to go through stages with this, and bitterness is one of them. Some guys remain that way. I can’t say I blame them, although it would do most of them some good to try to get past that at some stage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ zed
Agreed, but mainly in the ethereal sense, bringing practical application into question.
If I thought the posts in question were dissent, well grounded or otherwise, I wouldn’t feel the same way. Nor would I if, say, a feminist posted calling us all losers with small penises that can’t get laid and had bad mothers and got screwed in a divorce.
At least all that would be close to topical.
And yeah, I suppose I put myself in too lofty a position to decide what is topical here or not. But I do take note that such decisions have been presented here before when it came to a poster ranting at her ex. I thought it was a good call to consider it inappropriate for this place. Again, just my opinion.
These NWO posts are about changing the dialogue intended in the OP. And they are about as relevant, even to Spearheads free for all of ideas, as posting about quantum mechanics on a dog grooming site. To me, it prevents the very important ideas originally posed from being properly vetted. (I know, there I go again with words like “intended” and “properly” which I really can’t lay claim to)
But let’s just call this one my distraction of the moment. And just my opinion of the hour.
As always, there is merit in your thoughts, but I don’t trust everyone else with such discernment. And in my book for good reason.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Jack Donovan#
“Women make up almost 51% of the total population.”
That understates the problem by an order of magnitude. Per the CIA World Factbook, almost every country has a birth rate of approximately 105:100 male to female but for a variety of reasons mortality for males is much higher so the ratio for voters is, if I recall, something of the order of 9:11 male:female. Across the entire voting population thais is a HUGE difference. Further, one must consider that the ONLY voter that matters is the undecided voter in the swing constituency. As soon as you have decided which way, whether and where to vote, you are of no further interest to the politicians. Given all this, readers of this site deciding to protest the feminization of political life by abstaining are a turkeys voting for Christmas.
As for where things are going, consider the following quote, author unknown…
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html
I will leave it to readers to debate who comprises the ‘majority’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Paul Elam
“These NWO posts are about changing the dialogue intended in the OP. And they are about as relevant, even to Spearheads free for all of ideas, as posting about quantum mechanics on a dog grooming site.”
Can you please expand on this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s pretty simple, Harry. And keep in mind I say this fully believing there is a NWO agenda in play all around us.
But, IMO, there is no ILLUMINATI lurking in the shadows out of sight. We know who they are. International bankers, federal reserve, their whores in parliament and congress. And we know about their influence on the media and how all this points back to control for profit.
Now, if you want to call them THE ILLUMINATI, or Captain Crunch and His Gang of Soccer Hooligans that is fine with me. But the inference to an ancient secret society is not documented nor can it be. It is therefore intractable, impossible to deal with and futile to debate.
Whether we like it or not, we have to deal with visible enemies. I can point directly at The Federal Reserve, The Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, etc., and know I am pointing to some real enemies of sovereignty and freedom. But I don’t find any of this relevant to men’s issues, per se.
As I have said to GM before. I agree with some of his points, but I am just annoyed at the way he walks into any discussion he can find, where he imagines, and I use that word literally, that people might be sympathetic to the one-eyed boogey-man that is going to murder 6 billion people unless we all start listening to Globalman.
Occam’s razor actually applies here, where I don’t think it did back on the other thread where we discussed this before.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think something which would be quite relevant here would be to look at what I have perceived as “timidity” among MRA types for the past several years.
And, I have to confess having engaged in a significant amount of it myself, so this is not necessarily casting stones at anyone.
First, we need to point out that there is a deep and significant philosophical split which has occcured within the MRM. Some of us old timers who remember the days of fighting for the tiniest scrap of credibility tend to cringe over tinfoil-hat-crowd theories about “NWO” and “THE Illuminati”, fearing that it might damage our “collective” credibility among those we seek to convince that our issues are real.
But, typical of the boomers, a lot of us fell too deeply within our own navels and did not find ways to objectively assess how our dedicated efforts to be perceived in a certain way were working out. Welmer has slapped me in the face a couple of times with some cold hard reality about how little credibility the boomers actually have among a lot of younger men.
One of the problems that guys like you, and Harry, and I, have is that we are still operating to some degree from an old paradigm. I’m still working on my answers to your interview questions, but I know that for myself one aspect of my motivation was to try to gain some respect for the old roles that I was brought up to believe in. There are aspects of those roles which have become as irrelevant to men today as the ability to hitch a horse to a wagon or plow has been for the past 80 years or so.
The audience for the Spearhead is not guys like you, and Harry, and me. It’s younger men who inherited a world where nothing about any sort of male role makes any sense at all. The sociopathology of guys like Roissy, to which you objected earlier, is an unfortunate artifact of the fact that guys like us didn’t have a lot of success in holding on to social respect for the old male roles.
Two things have long baffled me about the MRM –
1) the way that so many MRAs cling unreasonably and irrationally to the “reasonable and rational” approach despite mountains of evidence that it doesn’t work, never has, and never will; and
2) the abject terror many MRAs have of being called “misogynist.”
Well, remember “Me and Bobby McGee”? – freedom really is just another word for nothing left to lose. The thing about Globalman is that instead of hunkering down in his little rabbit warren scared that the femnasties will call him bad names or that his extremism will somehow reflect on the “MRA family name” – he has taken the bull by the horns and is not waiting for anyone else to wake up and make these vast social changes we are talking about. He is taking direct measures to improve his own life – RIGHT NOW, TODAY, and he don’t need jack shit from none of the rest of us.
That is an approach that I heartily endorse. To me, it matters a whole lot less whether the specifics of a man’s approach are 100% correct than it does that he is taking the responsibility and intiative to act on his own behalf. That is what men have been missing these past 40 years, and that is what will make the difference for men in the future.
At the cultural level, it really is still “Womenandchildren first, after that it’s every man for himself.” I believe that guys who get that are going to survive whatever happens, and that a lot of men who don’t are going to end up as suicides or other victims of family courts/social pathology.
Dave (Hawaiian Libertarian), who is one of the main contributors here, is also a firm believer in the NWO. It would be tough for Welmer to censor Globalman and not censor Dave, which would lose us one of our more stimulating contributors.
Personally, I would like to see some real dialogue about the issue. The group these guys are talking about definitely exist, but most of what is being said about them is way off base. Among the illuminati are groups which are analogous to the Jedi and the Sith. There are those who use what they know for self-serving purposes and those who have a more charitable and altruistic motivation. There are as many among the illuminati who wish to see people be free as those who wish to see people enslaved, but it is very difficult to convince people to choose real freedom – as you pointed out above.
The bottom line is that one of the things which has already made the Spearhead a different site than MND or AngryHarry.com is — it is different. There is room for all different areas of inquiry into the future of men, just as there were dozens of different approaches to men finding a way to fly. Eventually, one of them may take hold and become the dominant paradigm of the future. But, in the meantime there is no need for every site in the MRM to be sort of a clone of any other.
You have your site to run your way, Harry has his. This one is Welmer’s. In 10 years MND and AH may still be around and no one remember the Spearhead. Or, maybe some of the radical shit that gets said here will open up some new avenues of proceeding for men that will pay off in ways none of us can imagine today.
Sorry if some of the discussions don’t sit well with you, but it must be like watching a train wreck because you do seem to keep coming back.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The problem with this line of thinking is the fact that it doesn’t take into account that a substantial number of kids from conservative families end up as libertines through media brainwashing among other things.
For example look at Palin’s daughter Bristol who is an unwed teenage mom now.
They don’t need to invade, we let them in on our own plus there is nothing remotely “conservative” about the mainstream conservative movement in the US.
It is former Trotskyist warmongers called the neocons who control the Republican party now & any genuine conservatives like Ron Paul are marginalized.
If you make some token protest about abortion all the while supporting the murder of Iraqis or Afghans abroad then that’s all you need to be a “conservative” these days.
Look at Guiliani or even McCain for that matter, in what sense were they “conservative”?
Newt Gingrich who is a thrice divorced adulterer is hailed in conservative circles because he is a warmonger. Rush Limbaugh a former drug addict & twice divorced (or is it thrice?) is one of the biggest representatives of “conservatism” in US today. Bill O’Reilly who in his book preached “safe sex” before marriage is another example.
All these people are embraced whereas Ron Paul who has been married to the same woman for the past 50 years is shunned because he does not support Pax Americana.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There are only 3 religious groups that I know of in the US that I would call conservative & successful. These are the Amish, the Hasidic Jews & the Polygamous Mormons (mainstream Mormons have a lot of problems that other groups also have).
These are the only groups who take their religion seriously.
Evangelicals/Protestants are a joke, look at their divorce rates. All you need to do in these groups is to rant about going off & murdering some “ragheads” & then shout hallelujah ergo you are saved. It doesn’t matter if you break serious commandments about divorce & adultery (just ask Newt).
The less said about the Catholics in US the better.
I don’t know about divorce rates among Orthodox Christians but I assume its lower than average due to cultural attitudes brought from more conservative parts of the West (Greece, Russia etc).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s all a train wreck man, lol.
And believe it or not, I didn’t miss it in grade school when they taught us that everyone gets to do it their way. Nor the part when I get to talk about the carnage
But you’re right. There needs to be a seat for the tin foil club at all tables. And whether GM is taking the bull by the horns or just full of bull is undoubtedly in the eye of the beholder. Either way, I never imagined the MRM would suffer for it.
I was just annoyed, that’s all.
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The divorce rate doesn’t differentiate as much according to religion as according to adherence and practice of a religion; your orthodoxy. So being Catholic doesn’t help much, but being Catholic and attending church every week puts you at a lower divorce rate.
Evangelicals are much more likely to be young and poor, which exacerbates their divorce rates. And I read somewhere that people are more likely to be “born again” AFTER a divorce.
I agree with you about the inadequacy of political/big-government conservatives. I’ve said before that I’m not a so-con. I think a lot of them mean well, but they just don’t seem to understand the problem. They think BETTER government is the solution, but I believe that only LESS government will help; the state has a corrupting influence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree that the Hasidic Jews, in particular, have a lot to teach us all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
people need a healthy sense of shame. shame is what stops me from putting women on pedestals. i would be ashamed to give any woman that much power over me. shame is part of what gets me out of bed and to work every morning. i would be ashamed to beg or collect welfare. shame is what stops me from whining about how unjust the world is for men. i would be ashamed to make myself into a victim.
some of you guys need to realize that you’re language is straight out of the leftist/feminist/multiculturalist handbook.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
by the way, that was in response to nova accusing me of using shaming language
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And what is wrong with using their own methods against them, as at least a part of the approach?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh more nonsense.
Women fought for the right to vote. They won. As long as women are paying taxes on their income (and we are last I checked), then we have just as much a right to vote as men do.
Non tax paying citizens are the only ones who should not be allowed to vote (especially tax-exempt immigrants).
Women and men are overall equal in amount of votes, so it really isn’t going to change things all that much. I’m tired of this “women vote Liberal” crap because it isn’t true. Even if it were, it’s not a large enough percentage to sway the system that much (in votes alone). Besides, racial and age factors tend to override sketchy “gender preferences” in the voting system.
And for the record, I will GLADLY give up my right to vote once I don’t have to pay taxes anymore. Seriously, sign ME up!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is a judge in Texas (I think, I’ll have to double check his name) that uses “shaming” on all convicted criminals/offenders. He makes them stand on medians and sidewalks carrying signs that say exactly what crimes they committed. They have to walk up and down for a specified number of hours and they get spit at, screamed at, sometimes harassed, cursed at…..etc.
Of course a bunch of whiners are trying to stop him saying that it’s “immoral” and “cruel” to do that to human beings. However, that particular old Texan has a phenomenal record of NOT seeing the criminals return in his courts. I actually agree that shaming is and always has been a good way to motivate people and build their character.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Black&German:
“The women’s vote is largely meaningless.”
It might be true that women’s votes rarely matter except in marginal contests. It may be that without women voting Obama would still have been elected. I don’t know the answers to these questions—American politics is not something that I follow at all closely.
The problem with allowing women to vote is not that it gives an edge to one party or the other. Rather it is the fact that issues which should never have become part of the political process do so. If women could not vote abortion would still be illegal, for there would be no reason to pander to that crowd. I suspect that divorce laws would be much more conservative, as well. More broadly, if women could not vote, feminism would be a dead letter.
Another point: Women voters lead to women candidates. If women could not vote, there would be no Hilary Clintons, no Sarah Palins. There would be no women on the Supreme Court. There would be no women judges at all. Nor, I suspect, would candidates like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton have made it very far.
The problem with women voting is not that women vote. It is that they become part of the political process at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Black&German
“The lines are cultural, not based upon gender.”
Yes, the lines are cultural, and it just so happens the overwhelming majority of women are on one side of that line…the side that benefits them at the expense of men, and they are well aware of it. This boils down to the same argument, “not all women are like that.” Who cares? Enough are like that or apathetic to the female scum around them that our primary concern as men are the ones that are like that. What is so hard to understand about this? Zed and Arthur explained it very clearly in another recent thread and you still don’t understand this basic concept.
“We can breed liberalism out of existence.”
No, we can’t. At least on the MRM side of things, the goal for most IMO is no longer breeding. That would require interaction with women that puts our livelihoods and well-being at risk due to marriage/child support laws, without any guarantee we will play any real role in raising those children. In addition, we have the media and the public school system being used as an indoctrination machine. Not all of us have the time/resources to home school our children. And many of us no longer have the desire to look for “one of those exceptions” to have the children with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sociopaths have no shame.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
because it circumvents the rational process, the very thing we men are claiming to better at, and replaces it with a shouting contest. more importantly, i reject this notion that bitterness is a useful tool. have you ever heard of anyone running bitter game? there’s a lot of people who use negative circumstances as motivation, but that’s about overcoming bitterness. bitterness is toxic and nothing good will come from it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Lady Raine
That would be Ted Poe, as sociopathic and opportunistic piece of judicial garbage as has ever disgraced a Texas courtroom, and that is saying a lot.
And speaking of shame, I am ashamed that he lives in the same city as me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lady Raine said, And for the record, I will GLADLY give up my right to vote once I don’t have to pay taxes anymore. Seriously, sign ME up!!!
Why don’t you just get back in the kitchen and start making us some damn sandwiches then?
See how simple that was?
Poof!
No taxes!
Per the effects of the female vote, believe it or not, there has even been an actual bonafide, academic paper done on it! Therefore, it must be true:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf
(Spoiler Alert: The Women’s Vote led to altering several elections, and has definitely caused government to grow, as women vote for security – big government – over freedom each and everytime. Bringing women into the scene changed the entire debate from both sides to focus more on security to attract female voters. Oh… and fat, bald, really smart men stopped getting elected – but that part is not in the paper. Oh, and they are really easily led around too, because they are like a herd of sheep and all think like the borg.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Jab, you have to be careful about when and how you tax the “ultra-rich” (wherever you decide to set the bar for that); being wealthy they have a great deal of mobility and they will leave for greener pastures if they dislike your tax structure enough.”
Point taken. All the more reason to take back some of the decadent and outragous unearned and undeserved gains that allow them to circumvent the law and rise themselves above moral responsibility. Create a federal sin tax on all items considered exorbitant-luxury goods (Extra cars beyond 3 plus 1 for each family member, homes beyond 3). And I’m sure they’ll find loopholes for that, so have additional laws requiring that people who deleberatly circumvent said laws, by grossly disobeying the spirit of said laws, shall face a stiff, stiff fine. I don’t know shit about taxes. I can barely figure my own out, but I’m sure there is a way. I don’t care if it starts a tax law/tax cheat arms race, because that has already happened in my opinion, might as well escalate on our side. But everyone should know I’m a class warfare advocate by now. No need to debate when I’ll admit I’m irrationally entrenched in my position.
I’m sure many of the elite I’d like to knock down a few notches are active participants in said NWO/Illuminati/system/organism of Power/etc., so why that position might seem so socialist/communist/marxist/etc. is beyond me, when its quite capitalistic of me to demand essentially more “pay” from my overlords. I value my work more. I wouldn’t bitch if the standard of living for the middle class rose since 1973, but it hasn’t, so I’m sick of being screwed as a worker bee. Time to pay me my fair share. Taxing the rich is the most effecient route to that. I’d take other suggestions for raising up the middle class. Let me hear them. When I see people with a thousand times more than they need, when others are suffering by constantly being forced to live on the edge of poverty and just getting by, I get indignant…a lot like that guy…what was his name…walked around in robe and had a beard…..Jesus! Thats right! And not the magical one. The real one. The first celebrity superstar. The Alpha of human psychological insight. The mother fucking god damn shit! The man who believed his message is so important that he allowed himself to experience torture just to ensure people pay attention to it. I bow down to that. Period. That Jesus.
I hope I didn’t overstate how much I want to tax the ultra rich.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So are you all saying that if only men (along with other requirements) were only allowed to vote, then the interests will be in the interests of both men and women? Or will the interests mainly be that of men, whatever they may be?
Does it all comes down to this “collectivist mentality” that women have?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As in why you believe that women shouldn’t vote.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Menareangrynow,
Interestingly enough, you’ll find some men here who believe that women have no business in the military.
Here, here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t really care if woman have the vote or not. What’s more important to me is that they have no power over men. They have shown themselves to be as corruptible and abusive as all who went before them. Voting has some meaning amongst people who consider themselves the same as others in essence, but differing only in what’s important to them as individuals. When people lose that commonality with all other voters, and coagulate into separate identity groups, voting becomes either a tyranny controlled by the majority identity group or a sham exercise disguising the real means by how power is distributed and administered (like a monopoly artificially propping up prices by appearing as several different companies and brands, all of which it owns).
The interesting thing about those who are too successful at grabbing and holding the reins, is that the harder they drive, the sooner the team of horses split apart and start running in different directions. People who don’t like being governed the way they are will start wanting to be governed differently. Either that government responds, or it will sooner or later be rejected. Native peoples of Canada now have their own governments in the North. Maori in New Zealand are demanding a separate parallel government to which they are answerable only and for which they vote. Men may prefer to vote for an all men parliament, while women can only vote for women representatives. Such a system would probably work better for men that what we have now. It would ensure 50% male representation, and guarantee no favor to any male politician who wanted to curry favor with women voters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Global Man. You missed a thread (which had a good discussion going) here:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/11/25/ok-winston-start-your-two-minutes-of-hate%e2%80%a6-n-o-w/
Challenge for Global Man: Read the article AND all the comments in the thread and answer this: if Alex Jones and David Icke are so ”enlightened” about the NWO, then why do both these men FAIL completely to even talk about feminism and it’s totalitarian policies?, eg, the domestic violence scam (vawa) that imprisons innocent men as well as taking away precious tax dollars.
I will give you credit as you have made some very good posts on this site and on other forums, so it will be interesting to hear what you have to say on the above topic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Paul Elam
“It’s pretty simple, Harry. And keep in mind I say this fully believing there is a NWO agenda in play all around us.”
Phew!
Bearing in mind your recent memory lapse, as per my recent email, I thought that you had now also forgotten about the NWO.
Indeed, I was expecting to receive an email from you shortly asking me; “Hey Harry. What’s this ‘feminism’ thing all about?”
LOL!
Old age, you know.
On a more serious note though: I am so often astonished at the amount of stuff that I read and then promptly forget and – worse, as far as I am concerned – how little MRAs seem to recall about what they have, for sure, actually read, that I often wonder what we are doing wrong.
Is it the medium? Is it the message? Is it the language?
I don’t know.
But there is something spooky about the high rate of forgetting that seems to occur among our brethren.
Maybe there is just too much to grasp. Too much to think about.
It’s very strange!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Harry
LOL! For me, it is just a small brain vexed by too much information. I have to read every article on MND before it is posted, manage my own website, write a couple of pieces a week, scan your site for the latest and come here to antagonize globalman and take on the daunting task of finding a hole in any of zeds posts.
It’s a wonder I can remember my name.
But no, I didn’t forget the NWO. It’s just that the whole thing is mind boggling enough without throwing in shape-shifters and the committee of 300. A good reason to mind my own fucking business with Globalman and let him be.
He is, after all, well intentioned, IMO.
Speaking of forgetting, I was going to remind you to post a link to the other article from the other thread, but I can’t remember the article or the thread right now.
Spooky, innit?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Harry-
Do we forget? Or do we never learn?
I pride myself on my childlike sense of cognition and imagination. Why? Because it allows me to continuously learn, to reevaluate my ideas, to think outside the box (from the mouth of babes, so to speak). A wise man must first acknowledge to himself that he knows very little. I really like Zeds statements about orthodoxy. I’ve always prided myself on being an unorthodox thinker. I vexed many of my teachers and professors with my questions and comments, to the point many I felt were intimidated by me (I know some were, or they wouldn’t have disliked me so much. Aren’t students supposed to be inquisitive. Most teachers either loved me or hated me, so I know I was doing something right). Many of the people here tend to deal with me better, which is a testiment to the superior intellect found here compared to the modern group-think PC ivory tower of acadamia. I’m sure I’ve related the story of my college trying to kick me out of the education program for writing a paper about the education system being sexist, using little more than evolutionary psychology as my arguing points. Anyways, I force my mind to remain flexible as best I can. It goes against the natural proggression of human cognition. Many great thinkers revolutionary ideas came while in their twenties, when their ideas were most flexible. I refuse to allow myself to become a senior citizen who is scared of the newest technology, and no longer continues to evolve his broader perspective of life. The wisdom of old age is stagnant, I prefer the wisdom of the young child, which is ever learning. Sorry for the OT rant, many more are yet to come, so I apologize for those also.
And I can’t believe I didn’t drag anyone into the class warfare debate. That normally riles people up. I hope I’m not loosing my edge. If people have gotten used to me, I’m slipping.
@Paul Elam-
You are a saint amongst men. Don’t let go of your desire for a better, more perfect, more simple world. Don’t loose your inate benevolence. There are plenty of us who will take care of the dirty work that needs to be done in the meantime. No need to stain your hands. At the end of all this, we will need an MLK like person to stand as our paragon. Until then, try not to let the shadowy, nasty buisness of forcing the issue at hand change you too much. Its all part of the process. Your time will come. Let those broken and scarred by our enemy lead the charge with their bitter, indignant, rightous rage. Someone must be left to broker the peace after the conflict is over, someone unblemished by the harsh realities of extremism.
@Zed-
You’re the shit. Do you put a lot of time into your posts, or does it just come out. Be honest. Like Mr. Elam was referring to, I’ve never seen you slip up.
Again. Sorry if anyone thinks I’m pretentious. I’ve obviously been called that before (damn dirty professors), but if “Game” is all about having confidence, well, whats wrong with me being a natural at “intellectual game”. Do people who don’t consider themselves smart sit around and try to come up with ideas, or am I the only one who thinks about this stuff out loud?
-Jabber Out
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nah, you just need to clear off some rust. You answered my “if you push this too hard, they’ll just go live somewhere else” with “we should do it anyway” without considering the net effect of that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But I suggested a Federal tax for them? (insert pouty lip emoticon here) Where are they going to go? If they want to stop being a US citizen to avoid taxes, all the more reason I say to fuck em’! Shit, there I go again. I am rusty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Unfortunately, if you raise taxes high enough that they have an active interest in making their money elsewhere, the government gets the following choice:
(1) Let them leave, and lose the sizable fraction of your tax revenue that they already supply.
(2) Stop them from leaving, and become a totalitarian state where even those who are not criminals are not permitted to leave.
Instead, the US has constructed a rather clever (read: supervillainous) method to try to get around this problem–under most circumstances, Americans living overseas still owe US income taxes (less any contribution to local income taxes); usually this is so even if they renounce citizenship. Depending on what country the high-income expat is now in, this may make him subject to arrest and extradition…but if US taxes were sufficiently punitive, you can be sure that there would be countries more than willing to elect not to extradite in return for a smaller slice of the action (indeed, some such countries already exist).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That would be Ted Poe, as sociopathic and opportunistic piece of judicial garbage as has ever disgraced a Texas courtroom, and that is saying a lot.
And speaking of shame, I am ashamed that he lives in the same city as me.
AH!!! Thank you!!!
Are you serious in saying that you’re ashamed to be associated with him? Why? Criminals SHOULD be tortured, put to death, and subject to cruel and unusual punishment. We’d have far less problems then.
Not to mention, whether it’s moral or not to publicly shame a criminal…..it doesn’t change the fact that it works. Why shouldn’t a rapist have to be screamed at, shamed, harassed, and victimized? Isn’t that their just desserts? To feel what their victims felt?
This liberal “humans deserve rehabilitation” and “waaaah they’re people too” stuff is what is sinking the United States as a nation. Look at the idiot George W Bush who first embarrassed our nation, and then caused it’s own citizens to turn against each other……
….now that ass-clown, Obama is gonna roll in based on the equivalent of an American Idol “text-vote” and make things even worse.
Stop blaming women for Obama and Liberals. I would have voted for a rabid dog before voting for Obama. Okay, technically I did because I voted in the Primaries for Hillary.
Yes, I’m sure you’ll all say its’ because she’s a woman (even though I hate Sarah Palin and Condi equally and vote never vote for THEM even if they are women)……but Hillary was a better choice all around since the options were an old, tottering, almost-senile dumb ass……or a dumb, unexperienced, lap-dog of Blacks like Obama.
I’m tired of this ridiculous argument that “women were never meant to lead a nation”. While women maybe weren’t intended to do the PHYSICAL end of “leading” (like wars & fighting), they HAVE been leaders since the most Ancient of Civilizations.
Ancient Egypt had both male and female Pharaohs and were one of the most lucrative and advanced of the early civilizations. (Not to mention the most powerful). And almost every modern faith can thank the Ancient Egyptians for “modern religion” and “modern civilization” including the Jews, Christians, and most other modern Pagan Faiths.
There have always been Queens & Pharaohs in most of the Ancient Civilizations…..as well as many modern ones who still employ the whole idea of “Kings & Queens”. While they are just figureheads, that’s no different than the “figureheads” who do nothing as President in the U.S.
There isn’t a single grain of fact to back up the argument that “women cannot lead” because none of those Ancient Civilizations “failed” because they had women at the helm. They functioned just as successfully or not successfully as the ones run strictly by men.
Men may have fought more actual wars and battles overtime…..but there has often been a female Pharaoh or Queen behind that decision to go to war, so unless you are going to say that “historical fact” is a LIE, then your argument about “women making poor leadership decisions” is completely without grounds and without any fact to back it up.
So just stop it. It makes you look uneducated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pfffft. Immigrants-rights.
The French can seriously take their damn statue right back to where it came from and someone else can take the “tired, poor huddled masses” and they can deal with them from now on.
However, the US brought it on themselves by allowing it to becoming a melting pot in the first place by consistently and without reason, policing the entire world all these years. God, being American didn’t used to be so fucking embarrassing. We haven’t even paid back the Allies or the Germans for all the shit we destroyed/borrowed the last time around and now our economy is sunk and sinking further each day…..and has the “arrogant teenager” of the world learned it’s lesson? Nope, not one bit. For the love of God we’re supposedly a “Democracy” and use a voting system that is actually that of a Republic!!!
Grrr….okay sorry that was definitely just a rant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Lady Raine
No, criminals should not all experience such torment. This is beyond medieval, what you speak of. These are gross retaliations for a small trespasses. Criminals deserve punishment suitable to facilitate justice, not punishments suitable to satiate a victims desire for revenge. Once they complete their jail sentence is not their debt payed? And, why humiliation? Are you really advocating puritanical punishment? Shall people’s crimes be permanently marked upon them? To torture someone in this fashion, is, itself, a crime. It is neither conducive to equatable treatment of prisoners nor being just, itself.
In addition, how can you confirm that a criminal did the crime? You could just be persecuting the innocent, as well as the guilty, to say nothing of how much of an overreaction this kind of a punitive measure is. In countries, where there is the death penalty for example. it might surprise you to learn that there is a high rate of executing the innocent. Political dissidents, get thrown in, along with the falsely accused. Think of the Salim Witch trials, where a bunch of young girls used the Puritan’s brutal judicial system to play pranks and get revenge. You must never give the power of decide punishment onto those, who levied the accusations. And, you must never give harsh punishments, where there is even the slightest doubt of their guilt. Otherwise, these systems will be abused, and you will be sending the innocent to the guillotine. It is best to stick with small punishments, as to avoid persecuting innocent people. While it is true that some do deserve very harsh punishments, society, as a whole, is better off foregoing such practices, to paraphrase Angry Harry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Lady Raine
1) The US was intended to be a republic. It is not supposed to be a democracy. As a matter of fact, the founders of the US thought of democracy as as tyrannical is a monarchy.
2) Why should we pay back the allies or the Germans? The British paid for their material and armaments, and the Soviets didn’t. If you are talking about financial matters, then why don’t the Russians pay the munitions, weapons, and supplies we sent them? What would we owe a country that we were at war with? What is our debt to Germany? After the war we gave the Europeans quite a sum of money, under the Martial Plan; but, why do you assume we have a debt to them? We came to Britain’s and the Soviet Unions side. It is they, who a debt to us, of which Britain paid theirs back.
3) What is wrong with an open immigration policy? What are the drawbacks compared to the advantages? You will have to state this, since you haven’t yet. Personally, I believe it to be no problem at all, as long as it’s done along the lines that it was done at Ellis Island. Send back those with contagious diseases, get them registered, and give them English lessons, so they can assimilate more easily.
4) “Arrogant teenager”? You have to be kidding. Are you really anthropomorphizing a whole nation; and, as that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
menreangrynow, you are ill-advised to interact with Miz Raine, as she is only here for the emotional fix she gets by asserting that we are fearful cowards insisting on playing the victim.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What you are asking me is “what if a jury of their peers convicted them and they are innocent”???
That is the American Legal System. That’s what we have. I certainly don’t think that because mistakes happen, we should be “extra gentle” with REAL criminals “just in case” they are innocent. That’s ridiculous.
Second, you ask “haven’t they paid their debt by serving their time”?
Well, why don’t you call the family of the dead children from the child-rapists and see what they think? Or maybe the parents of the murdered family by a Serial Killer who has “served his time”??? I dunno….I think they could answer your question better than I could.
Does the 25 year sentence for the murderer bring back the victims he murdered? Nope. Does the death penalty? Nope. Would torture and shame? Maybe. It sure as shit would be the closest thing to “retribution” that those family have (and deserve). A criminal should be victimized in the same way as what he/she did to his victims.
Do they deserve to be branded with their crime for life? Yes. Absolutely, without a doubt, YES. If we could literally brand their crime on their forehead as a tattoo I think it should be done. (Obviously I’m referring to serious crimes and not a shoplifter or common vandal).
Even Gandhi would throw a punch at a Child Molester, so stop playing it like you wouldn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LR said: “Do they deserve to be branded with their crime for life? Yes. Absolutely, without a doubt, YES. If we could literally brand their crime on their forehead as a tattoo I think it should be done.”
So, I assume you would be in favor of cliterectomies for False Rape Accusers?
SteveinTX
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Menareangrynow–
Well let’s say if some country came in RIGHT now and leveled half of the U.S. because of a random group of crazies….(we’ll say the KKK for the sake of argument) would you think as an American “Oh well, our cities are gone but it’s our own fault because the KKK lives here?”
No. You’d be like “wtf now all our stuff has been blown up just because of some crazies???” Yes, we are notorious as a nation of borrowing and not repaying, destroying and not rebuilding, and “parking tanks” in countries we have no business being in.
Pretty much the rest of the world does, indeed, view Americans as the “arrogant teenagers” of the world. That is what we are. America is (to other nations) new, drunk on power, full of “ideals” that aren’t realistic, and blind to it’s own faults, hypocrisies, and contradictions.
We have taken, wasted, and flipped the middle finger in the face of our economy, our education system, and our Military….our nation’s own people….and even our Allies. We said “fuck you guys, we are American and we are AWESOME and UNTOUCHABLE!!”
Indeed, we are no such thing. America is essentially the product of 100 nations all tightly packaged into one and we somehow think we are “superior” to the very nations we took our government from.
As for your question about immigrants…..
I have no real problem with legal, working, immigrants. However I do not think ANY immigrant should be allowed to qualify for Welfare, any sort of tax-breaks, or even a business license. We are in a desperate economical situation, our own children are barely educated enough to compete in the world, our Military has less and less power and less and less funding available……and you have the dumb-american-blindness to say “what’s wrong with immigrants being here?”
Well, I have a problem with immigrants getting tax breaks and welfare and then getting to put American-Born people out of their jobs because they are willing to do it for a couple bucks cheaper. Immigrants should ONLY be considered AFTER the welfare of American-Born Citizens is taken care of. Yet, American citizens and especially White People are the LAST to even be considered when they’re handing out paychecks to toothless Mexicans that don’t even belong here.
If you genuinely think that the United States has not literally shit on every country in the world, you have not taken time to actually understand the origin of the nation itself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Where’s my sandwich?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Lady Raine
You obviously have never been to Iraq, if you think we blew “half of it up”.
إذا وضعت هذا من خلال مترجم ، سيكون لديك أثبت وجهة نظري.
Eh?
Secondly, you assume most vehemently that anyone accused of a crime is absolutely guilty. Think of Salem. People can be cruel, and people can believe things, simply because they want to. Justice and law is not about consoling a victim. It is about creating as much fairness as humanly possible, in a very unfair world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wheres my sociopath? Oh, yeah, there she is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PLEASE stop feeding the nativist, deranged, obsessed-with-the-Nazis beast…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You obviously have never been to Iraq, if you think we blew “half of it up”.
Okay, NOW I’m pissed. Don’t you DARE speak as if you know a damn thing. My long time boyfriend of several years was in the fucking mountains of Afghanistan for an entire 1 1/2 year tour of duty (his second one…the first was a year in Iraq) and he SAW and LIVED what has been going on over there.
He was a sniper and a ranger and didn’t even have cold water to drink on Christmas Day. See, I spend YEARS waiting back here at home for him. Wondering everyday if he was alive, wondering if tomorrow I’d find out he was dead, reading his letters about how they don’t even have proper defense and half the guys in his unit were disabled, but they were so desperate for “warm bodies” that the US government didn’t give a fuck that they were endangering the lives of MORE soldiers by having “unfit” soldiers in “unfit” conditions.
How dare you speak about Iraq as if we even had a right to be there in the first place. Innocent children, women, and citizens of Iraq have been slaughtered because of a couple Terrorists that the U. S. never even bothered to go look for in their quest to “wipe out anyone who looks like they might be Middle Eastern”.
I’ve watched more than a few strong, intelligent, young men’s minds and bodies destroyed by the many “bombings” that you are implying didn’t happen over there. My ex is 26 and deaf in one ear because of the roadside bomb that exploded right next to him. He also no longer has a sense of smell and barely makes sense anymore (when as children he was a bright and delightful addition to this world). How dare you sit comfortably from your home and say “Well we didn’t blow up THAT much stuff in Iraq” and disrespect the many who have died that way.
Well we also pay $250 American Dollars for each female and $500 for each male”innocent civilian” we murder in an American “house raid” in Afghanistan. Did you know that? I know that from my ex’s horrifying letters and stories. Maybe you should fucking think about shit like that before you talk about War as if it’s a prance through the park for the soldiers on either side and the families who are missing them and terrified for them each day.
I hope that some foreigner invades your home, accidentally shoots your wife in the head, and then hands you $250 for her life and says “oops my bad” and see how casual you are about your statements then.
Now I AM emotional, Arbitrary….because this is exactly the “American Arrogance” I am speaking of. People who are not even lucid and aware of the horrors our own country has caused on not only other nations, but our own soldiers and citizens….who speak of it like a suspense movie that is happening out in a realm that they are not a part of.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Steezer
Sorry, but, I take on all on-comers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As for me answering your question about criminals for the THIRD time now…..there is no such thing as a perfect justice system. Do innocent people get convicted of crimes? Yes.
Should we be extra gentle on ALL convicted criminals JUST because sometimes a criminal is innocent? No. Sometimes the ends have to justify the means.
As for the random comment about female castration…..errrr….I don’t recall saying anything about castrating anyone at all….so I’m not sure why you specified that question about “women who cry rape”….however I do think that women who are found to have “willingly & with intent” filed a false report should be punished FAR more strictly than they are now.
Again, you are barking up the wrong tree with me if you think I’m going to defend female criminals any more than the males. Violent offenders are violent offenders and yes, I also think “slutty teachers” who have sex with their teenaged (male) students are JUST as bad as men who molest minors.
It’s disgusting that they are somehow treated as “wayward women” instead of the disgusting molesters that they are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
fedrz–
Oh, for the love of God. I love to clean because I have OCD and it soothes me….but cooking is something I never ever dabble in. (My niece is 13, loves to cook for some reason, and does all of the meal-preparation and sandwich making in this house). Sorry to disappoint you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
AQuestionForGlobalMan December 10, 2009 at 9:30 pm
“if Alex Jones and David Icke are so “enlightened” about the NWO, then why do both these men FAIL completely to even talk about feminism and it’s totalitarian policies?”
Question, my court hearing was on 26th so I was busy that week and not here. I just saw this. It is a good question and can be applied across all those who are exposing the Illuminati and the control grid in place.
Of course the short answer is I don’t know. I do not know Alex Jones or David Icke personally so I obviously do not know why they might do something. They have made no statements about this that I am aware of. My guess would be that they also wish to reach women or at least not be attacked by them. Notice that Michael Tsarion even claims women have been ‘oppressed’. William Cooper, great man that he was, even made the comment that he thought the world might be a better place if women ran it because the Illuminati is all men. He didn’t score too many points with men I know on that comment but since he was already dead it does not matter.
There are also plenty of people who postulate that Alex Jones and David Icke are agents of the Illuminati. The most damning evidence being that they are both still alive whereas William Cooper is dead. Indeed, in the area of NWO study only Henry Makow is bravely putting the responsibility where it belongs with respect to feminism and he seems to have his women supporters for doing so. Not even Eustice Mullins has broached that subject. Aaron Russo also put the responsibility where it belongs following on from his conversation with Nick Rockefeller on the subject. That was published on an Alex Jones interview by the way.
All in all, I think one reason why men are so unwilling to point out that women have been brainwashed and are the agents of destruction in our society is that men falsely believe women might be useful in the coming battle. They won’t be. They have made themselves irrelevant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rebel December 10, 2009 at 9:34 am
“I am in full agreement with Globalman: men must refuse to vote.”
Rebel, nice to see another strategic thinker on the thread. Not many of us about.
Gents.
While you participate in THEIR system you can not win. The BIG SECRET they don’t want men to find out is that we don’t have to participate in THEIR SYSTEM. We can lawfully ‘just say no’.
This is so simple. But men are so brainwashed they can’t see the simple solution to a complex problem. They want a complex solution to a complex problem. So men keep engaging in THEIR SYSTEM when the solution is to pull the plug on it. Just say ‘no’ and stand up for your rights. I asked here how many men know how to claim their rights..I didn’t see any answers.
Black&German December 10, 2009 at 10:13 am
“I am a firm believer in suffrage for all citizens, as a matter of principle.”
Clearly you do not know what a citizen is. You might want to find out. A citizen is a slave with no rights at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
menareangrynow December 10, 2009 at 10:14 am
“I am none of the above slanders, Globalman.”
That you can not see that you are does not make it so that you are not. Time to grow up and be a man MAAN.
“If your immediate reaction to criticism is to insult and libel, then a great many comparisons and correlations can be made between you and actual feminists.”
Did you criticise me? I didn’t notice. I didn’t think you criticised me, you don’t even know me. You might have criticised something I wrote and you are very welcome to do that. I didn’t insult you or libel you or slander you. The t ruth does not do that. Any man who thinks men and women are ‘equal’ is a mangina apologist. That’s my opinion. I believe it to be true. You can disagree with that all you like. You were asked for your evidence. You provided none.
“Furthermore, I place the onus on you, as you have made the assertion that males are superior to females. Where is the evidence of this?”
I love how you refuse to provide evidence and come back trying to place the onus on me to produce evidence when I already have. I told you already. Dick Masterson has written a book, runs a web site, and there is a forum with over 1000 subscribers. EVEN THE WOMEN ON IT agree men are better than women in every possible way except the ability to have babies.
The MAN logic and evidence in Dicks book is totally overwhelming. Dick has done all MANkind a favour in writing this book and all men should read it. Have you bought your copy yet? I was so impressed I made a sizable donation to the MAN billboard. He’s got more than 1 million hits on his youtube video. How many MRAs can boast they have 1M hits and also have a well selling book that even guys of my age and experience say taught us so much about women? I was reading his book to a mate of mine as we travelled around Germany, he is 40+, and we both agreed Dick is an absolute genius. You will find all the evidence you need that men are better than women in Dicks book. I give Dick 110% support and talk him up wherever I go because he is so brilliant.
“Biologically speaking, a comparison of their IQ’s yields the same average.”
Not true. Where do you get this rubbish from? IQ tests were designed to remove all those aspects of the test that showed men were superior and even then men score better by 5%. This has been well evidenced. Who do you think designed IQ tests?
It’s really simple MAAN. Men have 6.5x more grey matter which is the matter that procesess information. In reality women have the intelligence of 7-10 year old boys. Since I noticed it I have found it to be true. Women are children in every sense of the word. If you consider yourself equal in intelligence, size, strength to a 7-10 year old boy, which is what women are, then you are welcome to say that of yourself. But in trying to label me ‘equal’ to such a young boy by calling me ‘equal’ to a woman you are, indeed, slandering and insulting me. I am not ‘equal’ to women. I am superior in every way except my ability to produce babies. No woman has ever competed with me and won in anything. EVER. Plenty of men have.
“Vote for anyone not affiliated with feminist interests, and candidates who want the same reforms we do, such as Ron Paul”. Ron Paul is Illuminati. I say don’t vote at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
““Biologically speaking, a comparison of their IQ’s yields the same average.”
Not true. Where do you get this rubbish from? IQ tests were designed to remove all those aspects of the test that showed men were superior and even then men score better by 5%. This has been well evidenced. Who do you think designed IQ tests? ”
I have to ditto this. I for a long time believed the two sexes averaged out when male outliers at both ends of the spectrum cancelled each other out, but even then, and with a “modernized” IQ test, men still score a little better on average. Sorry if the truth hurts anyone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have my admiration for the female brain. I went into this a bit on an old thread. It has lots of potential as a multi-processing, synergistic system of thought. Unfortunately, it is most often untapped and almost always defected by female emotion. Our education system and children rearing practices do a disservice to both male and female minds, particularly male.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paul Elam December 10, 2009 at 10:30 am
“After people made attempts to reason with you on MND I started just deleting your posts. I don’t have much patience with undersocialized ideologues that employ parasitism as a method of choice.”
Paul, I thought it was Mike who deleted my posts.
It is interesting you make the claim people tried to ‘reason’ with me. They didn’t. I can prove they didn’t. They simply made false claims backed by no evidence. When asked for evidence they provided none. They simply repeated their false claims. Amfortas even mocked the very serious incident of the Port Arthur massacre at which 35 people, including a good friend of mine, were killed. I offered books to read and reference material to read and was flatly turned down. When you asked me for evidence I provided it. Now you say you deleted it. Simply put, the guys writing articles there are not interested in hearing the truth. I left when my posts were deleted. MND was clearly not a place worthy my time. There are no MEN there.
I am well aware I was not alone in being censored on that site. I was testing the site to see if it was subverted as most are. I believe it is. Mike is controlled by his source of revenue being google. Google is controlled by the bad guys. There was also the issue with Bernard around the same time.
As for ‘parasitism’. Nice allegation but no dice. I am not promoting ‘my’ ideas I am providing pointers to well established facts that people here seem very reluctant to look into. (I have done so in other places.) I am also providing some comments on my personal experience and my associated opinions. I mark my personal experience and opinion very clearly and I acknowledge other peoples work very clearly usually providing the links to their work directly. If you are going to try on calling someone like me a ‘parasite’ you had better be willing to be revealed as heavily associated with a subverted/controlled site that censors people telling the truth Paul.
My agenda is really, really clear. Save the lives of the men who are being abused by the unlawful ‘family law’ systems in Australia/Ireland and contribute to other places as and when I can. After that my agenda is to provide the opportunity to free all men in Australia/Ireland from the marriage contract. I am going to put an end to the marriage contract in Australia/Ireland for any man who wishes it. That is in one of my books. I also hope to establish the precident of jailing a member of the judiciary for crimes committed so we can go after the Illuminati in the same way in Australia. THAT is how I propose to end the genocide that is occurring in Australia which is the final goal of my efforts. Stop the genocide. A genocide you don’t even know is happening in the US I bet.
As for another site. There are already too many MRA sites and most of them are subverted anyway. More of them simply divides the voices and attention of men. Glenn Sacks is a great example of a large site where the ‘hero’ is obviously working for the ‘bad guys’. We don’t need more sites. We don’t need large numbers of men. We don’t need ‘votes’. We don’t need to talk to politicians. All we need are men willing to sit in juries and incarcerate judges and magistrates who have committed crimes. Men who want to be free can be right now. There is nothing stopping them but their own willful ignorance. I have posted more than enough information for any man here to free himself from corporate slavery should he wish to.
I am one man leveraging knowledge of some really great men and women. Inside 18 months I have cracked how to totally nullify ‘family law’ and stop the abuse of men. No-one else has done this, to my knowledge. People can dis-believe me all they like. I have the docs and the video evidence of my hearing in Australia. I have offered to send them to Welmer. If Welmer writes to me to say he is interested I can put it all onto a DVD and send it to the new post box he has. I believe Welmer will not publish my name but review what I have done justly and fairly. I am now looking for brave men in Australia willing to sit in a jury who are not directly related to me.
Based primarily on the great work of others, 95%, I believe we have ‘cracked it’ for the remedy as to how to completely nullify feminism. This is good news. But men don’t want to hear it. They want to keep ‘fighting for their rights’ instead of learning how to claim their rights. I have said many times here. Men have all the rights they need if only they would learn how to claim them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Globalman,
First off, thanks for taking so much time to explain your thinking so well.
Like you, I also believe the ‘law’ as it is practised and applied is inconsistent with natural or common law.
Where I have difficulty in believing your summoning of a de jure jury will amount to much is not because you don’t have reason to back you, but because you don’t have the might that opposes you.
Assuming the operators and influencers within our legal systems are all corrupt, is it reasonable to believe that they will take the slightest notice of a jury of common men and their deliberations? Will law enforcement agents realize that they have been serving the wrong masters (ie the ones that pay them) and side with you against them? If we have criminal conduct occurring routinely on the judiciary benches, what’s to stop them running us all into a jail on charges of sedition if they should so wish?
To put it into as few words as possible, might is right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree that Glenn Sacks is, at the least, a bit of a chump. For F’s sake, the guy used to have a column on there every month or so letting a literal feminist have her say. A whole column, from a feminist, on a regular basis, on an “MRA” site. Glenn Sacks is like Warren Farrel, in that while they both serve a useful purpose in getting stories and facts out there, they are also both true believers in a post-modern, equalist “gender construction”. They’re basically male feminists turned “good”, which ain’t good enough for me. They get some of the story on the male half right, but they’re far too deferential and forgiving to the female half of this gender war.
You think guys like Glenn Sacks are completely subverted, though, Globalman? Even if they are, don’t you think the average guy reading those sites is going to come away pissed off and more informed? I like to think of the Glenn Sacks of the world as the gateway drugs to better stuff. Of course, maybe most men are content to stop at the level of Glenn Sacks, if they even get there, and that’s the problem?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Globie-
I asked Paul Elam to cut you some slack, I will ask you to do the same from here on out. Both sides have said their peace. You’re greatest strength is also a weakness. Your “absoluteness” is equally “abraisiveness”. Yes, I know, you don’t care. You know what you are doing. You are in complete control. We are all stooges of the Illumanti who refuse to accept truth even when served to us on a silver platter. But you are not perfect, despite your awesomeness, and you know that. You and Mr. Elam are two sides of the same coin. Deny it all you want. I love you both. You don’t have to hug each other, but I hug you both, and the circle is thus complete. I will enforce this peace, in my own way, through humor, something both you and Mr. Elam could use a dose of.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This should play out interesting. Nothing like brokering a peace between two heavy-weights to ensure I stay in the spotlight. No matter what, I win.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“How dare you sit comfortably from your home . . .”
As a spoiled US white woman, you have that luxury.
Get lost. For good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Globalman has some great posts scattered all over the-spearhead. I think (how about it Welmer/Zed? or whoever gets the deciding vote), that Globalman should be given an author’s slot on this site. I’ve read stuff on MND that pales in comparison to Globalman’s posts, and even good writers like Fedrz look like amateurs next to Globalman’s insight (no offence). Who else thinks Globalman should be made author on here??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Globalman
“Notice that Michael Tsarion even claims women have been ‘oppressed’. ”
Yeah, when I heard that, I wrote him off as wanting to increase his sales with women–and even though he’s correct about other issues, he’s relegated to my trashbin. I have mixed feelings. I can’t help but turn my back on the whole damn thing, but then I have a grandson, a very bright kid who will most likely be drugged into oblivion because his mother (my daughter) is too ignorant to understand. I also have my son to watch out for (he is autistic) and don’t want to leave him under this corrupt system’s control. I refuse to do that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn Sacks?
He may be good at spreading some information, but he has spent much of his time over the years undermining all other MRAs.
If you dont agree with Sacks he labels you as extreme or stupid.
IMO Hes a useful idiot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Globalman, you have twice taken my name in vain, introducing it here, involving me gratuitously in your arguements as though I have had any such involvement here.
I have made clear my views on ‘voting’ many a time before. And about ‘democracy’.
I do not ‘mock’ the deaths at Port Arthur. They were tragic and awful and wasteful.
As for Paul Elam deleting your postings, he does that with all of mine. In fact he has chased off three fine MRAs now. David Usher, Bernard Chapin and me. He has deletion-enhanced fingers. But with you he may have grounds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 3 trackbacks }