British Politicians Propose Help for Fathers to Save Marriage

by W.F. Price on December 23, 2009

In the UK, where the traditional, working-class family has been all but annihilated by the feminist onslaught, Conservatives have warned that marriage is in danger of becoming a “middle class institution.” It is important to note that middle class means something different in Britain; in America pretty much everyone who has a job a cut above the level of burger flipping and a place to live calls themselves middle class, whereas in Britain it is a more exclusive club requiring a higher level of education and income, often professional level.

The behavior of the working class in Britain has become absolutely atrocious in recent years, with illegitimacy and delinquency skyrocketing over the last few decades. In a way, working class Americans – particularly the white working class – behave more like the British middle class in regards to marriage and social responsibility, although this is changing rapidly in the younger generation.

Sensing an issue upon which they might be able to capitalize, Conservatives have finally begun to echo the pleas of Britain’s infamous Fathers for Justice father’s rights organization. David Willets, the shadow cabinet member responsible for the family, even made a reference to the group, saying “you don’t have to dress up in a Batman’s costume outside Buckingham Palace (F4Justice members often dress up as superheroes to draw attention to themselves and their cause) to think there are circumstances where law and practice lag way behind the reality” in regards to including fathers in the lives of their children.

Willets proposes a number of programs to turn things around, such as providing more help for fathers and offering relationship guidance. He also suggests having new mothers attend relationship classes. It sounds good, I suppose, and that’s really all that counts for politicians. Unfortunately, it will fail, as all government-backed social programs inevitably do. For one thing, who does he suppose will be conducting the relationship guidance and teaching the classes? Of course it will be the exact same social worker types who are already fouling up marriages and communities, and who would be doing more good for society if they were paid to sit at home and watch TV all day.

Despite his stated desire to help fathers, Willets says there’s nothing he can do to change the laws surrounding marriage. What that means is that, actually, he intends to do nothing, and this is all hot air. Without changes to the law there will be absolutely no change in behavior on the part of mothers. They will continue to run off with the kids and there will be nothing the children’s fathers can do about it. It is no secret that the most effective way to reduce divorce would be to reverse custody preference so that men become custodial parents the majority of the time. That would reduce the incentive to divorce on both sides, and significantly lessen the appeal of the kind of behavior that leads to marital dissolution. What Willets is really saying is that he does not intend to fix the problem, but he will talk about it to get votes.

The only consolation men should take from this is that Conservatives are not proposing to punish men, as they usually do whenever government policy creates social problems. This does suggest a political shift, but it hasn’t gone so far as to translate into real help, and we shouldn’t expect it to. In fact, if there is anything men should have learned from the lessons of the past half-century or so, it is that in the absence of vigilance and stern oversight, government and politicians can only be counted on to betray us.

{ 121 comments… read them below or add one }

POIUYT December 23, 2009 at 04:03

Beware of those men whom tout this or that type of marriage as a good thing to have and do. The answere to them is: No mister, you are wrong ! All marriages in amoral societies such as this one, founded on cynicism, hypocracy and mendacity are decidedly bad, even if they yeild the incidental good of children.

How can such a societies marriages of whatever model ever be good, when the resulting children cannot even trust their own mothers ? And you cannot trust your own mother if your society grants her alone, yourself and your father as chattel, for her sole sexual, economic or other purposes !

And if you please; … acknowledging the above facts is not an expression of misogyny, but an expression of truth. A truth, some men are too opposed to, in veiw of their economic intrest in untruth, to acknowledge.

Right now in these rotting societies, females alone have been opportuned the license to kill males, if after the fact, they claim to have experienced domestic violence. But an ordinary teenager of average sense could immediately tell you that such a measure is a counterfeit ruse. And of course manslaughter of males alone, is a counterfeit ruse, where only females but not males, are aknowledged to experience the domestic violence on which murder is to be excused as manslaughter !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul December 23, 2009 at 04:20

Yes it would be wrong to get too excited about these remarks. May be they are better than a kick in the teeth but to suggest more counselling is just pathetic. This is what politician do ; they have committees and bureaucrats but little else to offer. People don’t need more law in their lives but to get the state off their backs. You in the USA are perhaps in some ways a little better placed than us in the UK. We do not have a libertarian tradition as strong as the one you have in the USA. Those in the UK who call themselves libertarian are often just right wing with a bit of liberty thrown in.

For sure may be Conservative are a bit better than Labour but both are execrable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tom December 23, 2009 at 04:31

The analysis is spot-on: it is obviously little more than vacuous pandering from greedy politicians, but there is however a ray of hope: if politicians think that they can gain votes by appealing to citizens worried about father’s rights, this at least means that our numbers are growing!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul December 23, 2009 at 05:02

I am one of those who seek a new paradigm for men not just a return to the supposed old one. To give him his due I think Angry Harry and others have been saying for some time now that politicians would begin to speak out against some of the consequences of feminism because of the shear cost that these things entail. But this is hardly any sort of advantage to men. These politicians have no intrinsic regard for men other than as cannon fodder. If they see that they can save money by pushing men back into the marriage and family paradigm then that is what they will do. I say fuck to that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR December 23, 2009 at 05:12

I live in the UK, and am subject to a divorce / child custody case that went “nuclear” complete with false rape accusations.

I am here to tell you an unfortunate and unpalatable truth.

There is fuck all wrong with the UK legal system, like any other system, it adapts to those who use it the most.

In the UK legal system this means women have always treated courts / injunctions / false accusations as a first port of call, and the system has adapted to suit.

Remember the law is blind, the law can not and must not take a sworn affidavit from a woman and say “this is a pile of shit”

What you absolutely DO NOT SEE in the UK legal system is the men who have been wronged BY THESE WOMEN going back to that perfectly good legal system and, following women’s lead, using that system to the max against women.

Speaking for myself, I am doing this.

If I, as a man, am not prepared to sue my false accusers into oblivion and a lifetime of financial penury and social rejection, what right to I have to complain when the “nanny state” does not treat me like a child and coddle me?

False accusations in affidavits that get interim child custody awarded to the mother, together with various demands from the mother (house, property, etc) lay the woman right open to slam dunk, open and shut, guaranteed win civil actions, such as…

1/ Defamation and libel and damages.
2/ Blackmail and extortion.
3/ Child abduction.

You, as a citizen, can press almost any charge in a Civil Court, everything from a crap auto repair bill argument right up to an unlawful killing.

The Civil Court is NOT the “Criminal court LITE”, the Civil court has VAST powers.

Then the door is open to take the local police chief to court and sue them for their part in the woman’s illegal actions, failure to protect you from her (Human Rights Act etc) failure to do due diligence, etc etc etc.

FACT is women win overall because women use the system to the max at the drop of a hat, while men avoid the system at all costs.

If more men acted like me, things would change a LOT faster.

we ARE the fucking problem, blaming women is giving them credit for power and influence that they simply do not have.

The meek shall inherit the Earth, after everyone else is through with it, if that is all right with you.”

Stop being fucking meek.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robin December 23, 2009 at 05:51

I am glad the the Conservative party has at least recognised the deline of marrige as the root cause for many of the countries most prominant social problems. The trouble is though, as stated in this article, is that their ideas for reform will not help much. The counsilling efforts will be a useless waste of taxpayers money.

The only thing that might help a little is that they are planning to cut benefits to single mothers. If they cut these benefits enough (I doubt they’ll have the balls as it will generate a bit of a backlash) then it may well reduce the number of (un)working class single mothers, and this would greatly benefit society.

More than anything though, we need to make it harder for people to get divorced. If marriage is suppose to be a lifetime commitment, why should it be so easy to get a divorce?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jollie Olde England December 23, 2009 at 06:11

I worked closely with a guy for a year who was British. He used to talk about how sad the descent of the U.K. working class was, and said that he may never move back because it’s “too depressing” to watch his homeland “go down the loo” as he put it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kave December 23, 2009 at 06:16

My British friends all being what would be considered in America to be upper-middle class consisting of company owners, surgeons and the like are all happily married and conservative.

Their major complaint about the U.K system is that in order to release yourself from living at home with mom and dad young people find having a child to be a get out of home pass. Young female adults having a child are rewarded with their own home, often bringing dad with them for a time, but of course a “marriage” built on immaturity and handouts rarely lasts. As housing is so expensive in the U.K this is of course quite a carrot for both young women and men (or should I say boys and girls). “Lets have a baby so we can get out of the house” is a common refrain.

Their simple solution to this would be to not hand out free housing and the dole to those that have not built their nests yet. This would provide a stable environment for the children with their grandparents if need be and decided on by the grandparents and more importantly get rid of the carrot that encourages single parenthood and male/female relationships built on immature ideas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MarkyMark December 23, 2009 at 06:19

When they start abolishing no-fault divorce, lifetime vaginamony, VAWA, and other misandric laws, THEN we can talk. Otherwise, the government can go fuck themselves! MGTOW forever!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 23, 2009 at 06:22

In the US, if you sue your wife for false accusation of domestic violence in the context of a divorce/separation, you will get laughed out of the court house — the civil courts won’t exercise jurisdiction over that case, and will defer to the family courts, and the family courts typically drop the charges on domestic violence during the course of the divorce proceeding, and simply make the interim custody determination permanent because upsetting it would “upset the status quo” which is considered to be against the best interests of the children. Not sure if that is how it works in the UK, but in the US the family courts have pretty much exclusive jurisdiction over these issues, and they have almost no limits on what they do — they are courts of equity, and the federal courts have a policy to almost never apply the constitution to domestic relations cases. It’s like a parallel legal system for relationships between men and women that operates outside the constitution.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
InternetWood December 23, 2009 at 06:57

Afor

If I, as a man, am not prepared to sue my false accusers into oblivion and a lifetime of financial penury and social rejection, what right to I have to complain when the “nanny state” does not treat me like a child and coddle me?

I’m glad you have the money to hire a “connected” lawyer whose daddy goes golfing with the judge. This qualifies you for the “rich person exception” that is one of the founding tenets of “English Law”.

That’s jolly good for you. It doesn’t help people who don’t have enormous amounts of money to burn.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR December 23, 2009 at 07:14

InternetWood, this site is chock full of people like you, who apparently can’t be bothered to read what is written, preferring instead to believe something else entirely, that allows you to continue to nurse your own chip on your shoulder.

Spearhead, more like comfort blanket.

No no no, you really are a man, honest, just feel those testicles one more time for reassurance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul December 23, 2009 at 07:14

Robin it is not easy to get divorced. If it was I would do it immediately.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel December 23, 2009 at 07:30

“I am glad the the Conservative party has at least recognised the deline of marrige as the root cause for many of the countries most prominant social problems. ”

I don’t know if that is truly the case, but if it is, then I find reasons for concerns.

The ONE thing we don’t need is a revival of marriage: men have suffered enough already, this is not the time to do the same thing over again. We don’t want to live through the death of marriage again. The part was painful but done.

Let us all thank God that marriage is , at long last, dying.
Let us rather celebrate the death of that bad institution.

Let us not surrender our freedom now: countless men have suffered a thousand deaths in the hands of feminists. Now that we see the light in the tunnel, we must make sure that marriage remains dead.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry December 23, 2009 at 07:34

Afor

“If more men acted like me, things would change a LOT faster.”

Excellent news. So, how much did you win in damages?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Soap December 23, 2009 at 07:35

Gawd, I am *never* getting married.

The risks just out-weigh the rewards.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel December 23, 2009 at 07:36

“That’s jolly good for you. It doesn’t help people who don’t have enormous amounts of money to burn.”

May I remind you that if you have no money to burn the law can’t reach you.

Justice = Money.

The only time you will need the assistance of Justice is when you must protect yourself against Justice.

The only time you will need the assistance of Mafia is when you must protect yourself against Mafia.

Do you see the parallel?
Your enemy wants your money. If you have no money, your enemy doesn’t know you exist. (enemy=government)

We still call this a “civilization” , though….

Oh, the irony!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel December 23, 2009 at 08:02

Welmer

The behavior of the working class in Britain has become absolutely atrocious in recent years, with illegitimacy and delinquency skyrocketing over the last few decades.

This story is not just about the destruction of traditional marriage but also about the failure of socialism in the UK. The British economy is staggering under the weight of ever-increasing social transfer payments. The British Government has been subsidizing single motherhood for many decades, and this is the result: “By the time all of the children are 16 the total bill to the taxpayer will be in excess of £1 million.

But this madness extends further, as the UK Government pays immigrants to bury 900 years of English culture: “Single mother of eight living in a £2.6m mansion.

Like Adam Smith, I believe that “there is a great deal of ruin in a nation,” but the UK Government appears determined to find that limit.

The UK Government is now running deficits of about 10% of GDP and the Bank of England is monetizing maybe half of that borrowing. As in the USA, there is no prospect of the UK Government returning to a balanced budget.

The future is clear for the UK, and it is not bright. Huge deficits and debt monetization will lead to inflation which will raise the cost of government borrowing. This is a death spiral.

I have begun to think that we may see the UK reach a point where it can no longer make its social transfer payments. Imagine what will happen to all the millions of government dependents – single mothers and others – if that government check suddenly stops coming?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma December 23, 2009 at 08:08

+1 for Rebel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel December 23, 2009 at 08:37

@Rebel

May I remind you that if you have no money to burn the law can’t reach you………..Your enemy wants your money. If you have no money, your enemy doesn’t know you exist. (enemy=government)

So true. I have a friend in the USA who makes a living in aviation as a ferry pilot, flying instructor and aircraft broker. He engages in all kinds of (legal) activities with third part liability that would be prohibitive for me. I envy his freedom, which results from him having no assets.

But back to the UK. To cite this story again. Look at the incentives the UK Government has created. The women in this story do better financially by having a child – the Government provides a place to live plus living expenses – than they would by working. The man is the father of SEVEN children! This is made possible only by him being beyond the reach of the law, as he lives on “benefits” himself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow December 23, 2009 at 08:51

Help:

1. Equal shared parenting enshrined in law

2. Penalties for denying access to children
*fine
*jail
*mandatory counselling on parenting
*loss of custody

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Talleyrand December 23, 2009 at 08:54

He’s a renfield.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul December 23, 2009 at 09:10

I know benefit payments make people very annoyed and they see it as a drain on the nation. So it is but compared to other government waste and expenditure it is probably only a small part of the problem. For example in the UK there are something like 7 million workers who are paid directly or indirectly by the government. Actually the number is probably higher. That’s a huge percentage of the working population. Virtually none of there workers will be involved in any sort of productive work. So there is a huge payroll bill to fund. By the way here in the UK the government take about 40 percent of income in direct and indirect taxes. Just think about that.

If you add together government employees and benefit recipients then that would add up to a lot of people. Together they sort of constitute the payroll vote. There are a lot of votes that don’t want to see a change in the status quo.

My guess is that it will be the old who will be targeted most. The conservative party already want to raise the state pension age for men only from 65 to 66.

Can I just point out that the state pension is not a benefit. You have to (indeed are forced to ) contribute a part of one’s income thourghout an entire working life. The point is you get no choice as to whether you contribute or not but the government does get a choice on whether you get a pension or not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
InternetWood December 23, 2009 at 09:18

Rebel said:

May I remind you that if you have no money to burn the law can’t reach you.

May I remind YOU, Rebel, that the US has the highest prison population in the world. Why don’t YOU, Rebel, go get gang-raped.

Rebel, may I remind YOU, that if YOU want to be free of your “burden” of money, YOU can send me a check right now.

Unfortunately for YOU, this isn’t a censored site where you can say all sorts of jackass things to a cheering crowd.

YOU are a tough-talking jackass.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
3DShooter December 23, 2009 at 09:34

If I believed reform of the amerikan family courts were actually possible, which it is not, it is my opinion it would consist of the following:

1) Equally Shared Parenting
2) No alimony
3) No child support
4) Division of assets based on contribution to the community (stay at home mommy is a privilege, not a job; she earned x% during the marriage and is only entitled to x% in dissolution)
5) Cap on attorney fees in domestic issues (take the $ $igns out of their eyes every time a disgruntled woman walks through the doors).

These few changes would make divorce less appealing to the women who overwhelmingly initiate it because they know they will end up with the kids, the house, half of whatever is left and a cs check in the mail every month.

But as I said, I don’t think reform is possible as there’s just too much money to be made by the state and family law practitioners – the system is corrupt beyond reform. Abolition of the family courts and child support systems needs to be the goal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel December 23, 2009 at 09:40

Paul:

By the way here in the UK the government take about 40 percent of income in direct and indirect taxes. Just think about that.

My impression is that the total UK tax burden is higher if you include VAT, the Poll Tax and the endless fees and excise taxes.

The conservative party already want to raise the state pension age for men only from 65 to 66.

This is a true injustice. Also a perfect example of the type of “equality” demanded by UK feminists. Women may begin drawing their state pension at age 60, while men with their shorter life expectancy may now have to wait until age 66.

You have to (indeed are forced to ) contribute a part of one’s income thourghout an entire working life. The point is you get no choice as to whether you contribute or not but the government does get a choice on whether you get a pension or not.

You have made Internetwood happy. Social security (state pension) “contributions” are a tax, as you say, with an entirely discretionary (for the government) benefit attached.

…….the payroll vote. There are a lot of votes that don’t want to see a change in the status quo.

The payroll vote must still be smaller than the private sector vote. How far can Western governments push their productive citizens before there is a mass tax revolt? I suppose the unfortunate answer to that is that the majority of private sector workers are employees and so have no mechanism available to them to prevent tax withholding from their paychecks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam December 23, 2009 at 09:41

We already have a similar load of crap in the US. It is called the Fatherhood Initiative. It is another government program designed to enslave men to family courts and it operates on the assumption that it is men who are the problem.

The only thing the UK will get out of all this hot air and rhetoric is more of what they are already doing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam December 23, 2009 at 09:47

@ Afor

I agree that men are the problem, but I do wait for you to answer Harry’s question, because this:

If I, as a man, am not prepared to sue my false accusers into oblivion and a lifetime of financial penury and social rejection, what right to I have to complain when the “nanny state” does not treat me like a child and coddle me?

Well, it’s pure nonsense. Lawsuits cost money and time. The route you offer is just suing yourself into oblivion because it reflects a complete lack of understanding of how the courts work. If you understood the legal system you would understand that the ROI for this approach is non existent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel December 23, 2009 at 10:15

@internet wood:

You said:
“May I remind YOU, Rebel, that the US has the highest prison population in the world. Why don’t YOU, Rebel, go get gang-raped.”

True enough. I had (almost) forgotten that the U.S. (land of the free) has the highest incarceration rate, worldwide. (and probably galaxy-wide…lol!!).

Excuse my ignorance… I thought (believed) that slavery had been abolished in the U.S.
Definety my error…..

There is, therefore, only one alternative… always the same: EXPAT.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
barsin December 23, 2009 at 10:58

Let ME remind somebody that we’ve also brought back good ol’ debtor’s prison in the good ol’ USA for those too broke to pay their good ol’ child support on time.

America wins.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
InternetWood December 23, 2009 at 10:58

Anyway, here the Internet version of Avatar!

Needless to say, it is better, stronger, faster!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWSnSyUgq_Q&feature=player_embedded

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR December 23, 2009 at 11:27

@ Paul Elam

Well, it’s pure nonsense. Lawsuits cost money and time. The route you offer is just suing yourself into oblivion because it reflects a complete lack of understanding of how the courts work. If you understood the legal system you would understand that the ROI for this approach is non existent.

This is why you are all fucked, you all spout fiction as though it were fact, then use that as the basis for all your subsequent arguments.

“pro se” is the USA
“litigant in person” in the UK

Total financial barrier to entry….. $0.00

FACT

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR December 23, 2009 at 11:29

According to Erica J. Hashimoto, an assistant professor at the Georgia School of Law,:

“After conducting an empirical study of pro se felony defendants, I conclude that these defendants are not necessarily either ill-served by the decision to represent themselves or mentally ill….In state court, pro se defendants charged with felonies fared as well as, and arguably significantly better than, their represented counterparts…of the 234 pro se defendants for whom an outcome was provided, just under 50 percent of them were convicted on any charge….for represented state court defendants, by contrast, a total of 75 percent were convicted of some charge…. Only 26 percent of the pro se defendants ended up with felony convictions, while 63 percent of their represented counterparts were convicted of felonies…in federal court…the acquittal rate for pro se defendants is virtually identical to the acquittal rate for represented defendants. ” [7

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 23, 2009 at 11:30

Good luck winning pro se before a US family law judge.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry December 23, 2009 at 11:42

@Afor

“There is fuck all wrong with the UK legal system …”

So, how come you ended up with so much legal trouble?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
E. Steven Berkimer December 23, 2009 at 12:31

Nova,

Afor posts over at our site regularly. I get what you are saying, as family courts suck, but in relation to his posts, he is talking about going after them in civil court. And I can’t say I disagree with him. Add in Globalman’s knowledge of the difference between laws/statutes/legislation and I’d think that would be a rather potent force for change from within the system.

At this point, it’s worth a try.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR December 23, 2009 at 12:31

@ Harry

Because some people just flatly refuse to act sensible, civilised, or sane.

Your question is as stupid as asking someone who has been shot by a robber, who says “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, how come if guns are so safe you have a bullet in you.

as far as “Legal trouble” goes, paybacks are a bitch….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lethargio December 23, 2009 at 12:46

Kind of agree with ‘Afor’ (e.g., ‘self-help’ approach).

I’d still say do your research whether represented or not. It’s about communicating your needs across to your lawyer or the courts. More ammo and evidence is key.

Not sure about having a lawyer represent me. They can kind of dictate to you the course of events.

Lawyers can be pally-pally behind the scenes and come to an agreement, a negotiation which is not entirely in your benefit but just gets you out of the damn place/situation anyway.

Go to court and you’ll probably see many a hearing be carried through with the client stone silent and the lawyers battling it out. I could never handle that.

I really believe in doing your research, knowing your rights (e.g., to ammo your rep or yourself at the least) but that is also dependent on time allowed/court dates/access to legal resources. Get as much free legal advice as poss.

Either way, represented or not, never be led by anyone – it’s your life ffs. Fight the fight.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead December 23, 2009 at 13:01

Good for you AFor.

It’s good to hear from someone actually trying something, rather than acting from foregone conclusion. Once it’s all over, it would be great to hear the details, whichever way it may go. Whatever you learn, if passed around amongst those willing to hear, would be a great service to them.

A victory would be fantastic, and naturally I wish you a complete one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry December 23, 2009 at 13:05

@Steven

“Add in Globalman’s knowledge of the difference between laws/statutes/legislation and I’d think that would be a rather potent force for change from within the system.

At this point, it’s worth a try.”

Perhaps it is Afor’s attitude towards people round here and his grandiose statements rather than anything else that present a problem.

However, if he is successful in his forthcoming legal suits then I hope that he explains to us all how he succeeded. Thus far, however, we have a lot of aggressive hot air without much to back it up.

He does not claim to have achieved anything, legally speaking, and yet he castigates us for not doing as he does.

But what, exactly, has he done?

Nothing.

And yet he says this, …

““If more men acted like me, things would change a LOT faster.”

But what, exactly, has he done? What has he achieved?

As yet, nothing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR December 23, 2009 at 13:42

@ Harry

Perhaps it is Afor’s attitude towards people round here and his grandiose statements rather than anything else that present a problem.

grandiose statements my ass, just telling it like it is.

However, if he is successful in his forthcoming legal suits then I hope that he explains to us all how he succeeded. Thus far, however, we have a lot of aggressive hot air without much to back it up.

Harry, I don’t owe you shit, least of all lessons on how to stand on your own two feet and be a man.

He does not claim to have achieved anything, legally speaking, and yet he castigates us for not doing as he does.

Harry, I’ll keep it real simple, I have time for people who fight for what’s right, I have no time for people who take the easy option, or people who just whine.

To use words you’ll understand, you talk like a beta.

But what, exactly, has he done?

Frankly Harry, that ain’t none of your business.

What I have been saying is if you don’t fight, stop whining.

It (telling it like it is) doesn’t work on whiners / betas / feminists / etc, but it’s that or listen to shit in silence and not comment on it.

But what, exactly, has he done? What has he achieved?

OK Harry, you have a semi-cool website, but what have you done, what have you achieved? Real world Harry, not cyberspace…

You called trumps, put up or shut up, links to the Court cases where you personally put a lying woman behind bars and then sued her into oblivion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo December 23, 2009 at 13:51

It interesting to watch the UK implode because the US lags only a few years behind them. Now that Obama is President, the same types of policies are being enacted on both sides of the Atlantic.

Here’s an interesting item: the UK is slashing its budget for nuclear physics by 52%, which will essentially eliminate their ability to independently build or even inspect and license nuclear power plants.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409671&c=1

It appears to be a covert attempt to eliminate nuclear power in the UK by eliminating the paper-thin existing base of nuclear physicists. If nobody is qualified to even examine the plans for a nuclear power plant, then none can be built in the UK. Ditto for nuclear-powered ships (such as submarines) and nuclear weapons. It’s unilateral disarmament by intenional ignorance.

From a Green or leftist or feminist point of view, this is a great idea. Most nuclear physicists are white or Asian men, so getting rid of them is nice and multicultural and feminist. Greens hate nuclear power and want to phase it out and instead build thousands of windmills to power the UK (no joke). Leftists hate nuclear weapons and warships, so they don’t want anybody to know how to build them.

It’s illuminating to contrast the system of rewards and incentives that Britain offers to nuclear physicists and to teenage bums that like to knock up their girlfriends.

The fellow that knocked up seven different women by the time he was 24 is essentially being rewarded by society with free children. He’s already a success in the game of evolution because he’s passed on his genes to more than two kids. Society is subsidizing his kids with money taken from taxpayers, who are mostly middle and upper classs men.

A nuclear physics major who listened to the people who told him to apply himself in school and study math and science now faces the prospect of his profession being defunded by half. The poor slob who “did the right thing” and is in grad school right now will have no choice except to emigrate from Merry Olde England because there are dismal prospects for his future employment.

In a few years, he’ll get his revenge, though, because the UK will literally have trouble keeping the lights on. Femocracy is great at subsidizing thuglets but not so great at keeping electricity flowing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt December 23, 2009 at 14:07

I will throw in my two cents:

1 – Dealing with the British vs. American legal system is like dealing with the English vs. Chinese language. They are two very different entities, and assuming that what applies in one will apply in the other is very dicey. Thus, I would recommend people qualify their statements about legal systems by also stating which legal system they are talking about, as this is a very, very major issue.

2 – You hear a lot about people who make significant claims regarding law, but I am dubious with regard to their claims unless they are either a lawyer or have significant legal experience in some form themselves; the bottom line is that I have seen many people (unpleasantly, mostly) disabused of their notions about how law “should” work in favor of how law actually works firsthand. Opinions on law are like assholes; everyone has one. Make sure the person you are talking to can present results before you trust them.

3 – Most of my experience with lawyers points to one simple fact: there is a huge amount of variation in how good lawyers are. You need to learn to assess if the person you are dealing with is aggressive enough to genuinely pursue cases. From my experience in courts, you want someone detail oriented, aggressive to the point of being pushy, and who enjoys arguing more than anything else in the world. I’ve seen a lot of lawyers who were great researchers and arbiters, but didn’t have the killer instinct in the courtroom that is really necessary… having the right person on your side matters. Just having a lawyer means nothing; you need to have a good one.

Which, of course, all comes back to money. Ironic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
E. Steven Berkimer December 23, 2009 at 14:10

Harry,

What I get from his posts, is that he isn’t passively sitting back, and letting others handle his troubles. He’s actively in the trenches, fighting for himself. While he may be brusqe, I don’t thinks it’s anymore so than when Globalman goes on a tear on someone.

I get that his basic message is this:

Don’t sit on your ass and allow a lawyer (entrenched in the legal system), dictate what you can and can’t do. Get involved to the maximum you can, and don’t stop fighting for what is right. If you do, then you have no one to blame but yourself, and you’re an idiot if you then turn around and blame the system that you just willingly capitulated to.

That’s my take. And I agree with him. I think Globalman and AFOR should hook up and compare notes. Talk about a shitstorm hitting the legal system. That would be a spectacle worth watching.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR December 23, 2009 at 14:13

E. Steven Berkimer

Don’t sit on your ass and allow a lawyer (entrenched in the legal system), dictate what you can and can’t do. Get involved to the maximum you can, and don’t stop fighting for what is right. If you do, then you have no one to blame but yourself, and you’re an idiot if you then turn around and blame the system that you just willingly capitulated to.

Correct.

nuff said

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
iron clad December 23, 2009 at 14:14

Yet…more …”PROPOSALS”…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi December 23, 2009 at 15:09

”””””””””A nuclear physics major who listened to the people who told him to apply himself in school and study math and science now faces the prospect of his profession being defunded by half. The poor slob who “did the right thing” and is in grad school right now will have no choice except to emigrate from Merry Olde England because there are dismal prospects for his future employment.””””””

He can still use his skills just like the chemical plant engineers he just needs to move to china.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada December 23, 2009 at 15:53

Gunslingergregi December 23, 2009 at 3:09 pm

He can still use his skills just like the chemical plant engineers he just needs to move to china.

**THIS.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 23, 2009 at 18:16

I more and more find myself in agreement with John Nada – get the hell out!

But, first, USE this place to the fullest. Get educated, get a marketable first world skill, do your time in the Hell of the Western World and concentrate on acquiring some capital, and then, in your thirties or forties, look the West straight in it’s vacant, evil eyeball, and slowly raise your bony middle finger.

If a guy gets himself an education or a tradesman ticket by his early twenties, remains debt free on declining assets, and only indebts himself smart… like, for a house (lol, in a rising market – DON’T BUY ONE NOW! They will be cheaper in a couple of years!)… well, 10 or 15 years later, you could very easily be worth a couple hundred grand.

That might not be a whole lot of money in the West, but it will enable you to live like a friggin’ KING elsewhere in the world.

$250,000 is a lot of money, of course, but it is not insane for a man in his thirties or forties to expect to be worth this kind of dough. That is PLENTY of money to live in the third world. That is like having $2,500,000 here. That’s enough to tell your boss to stuff it.

I worked with one fellow once, up north in a firefighting camp. He was a Canadian citizen, and so, he worked in Canada, but lived in Thailand. He only owned an old, rusty truck in Canada, and came to live here, in camp, from mid-April until mid-October each year, and the rest of the time he lives in Thailand.

He spent next to nothing while in camp, and earned around about a full year’s wages in 6 months working camp hours. (Sun up to sun down, 21 days on, 3 days off). Then he buggered off back to Thailand. He had been doing that system for close to ten years, and by that time even had a wife in Thailand.

He told me that for around $500/month, he owned a little beach hut in some little village up the coast, where he mainly lived, and he also kept a small studio in Bangkok. He ate out at restaurants at least once per day, and usually spent one or two evenings a week getting pretty tipsy at the local bar. He figure he could do it on $350/month if he started watching his spending.

That’s not a lot of money to spend each year, while plunking a lot of money into the bank each year. He was figuring that he only needed to do a few more years before he could retire completely, since pocketing a few tens of thousands a year adds up after a decade, and with proper investments, a few hundred grand can easily bring you over $1,500/month in income. Plenty more than the $500 he needed.

Hmmm… a young guy who played the proper game plan, could easily retire at 35 or 40, and spend the rest of his life living PRECISELY how he wishes. Also, should one wish to raise a family, I think this is the proper way. Make your fortune first, and then go somewhere that is conducive to your plans, and make that plan work. For me, if I were to start a family, it would be on a small farm where I was present pretty much all the time, and it would be in a country that respected me, and with a woman that was grateful for both myself, and what I bring to the table.

What a stupid game we play here in the West.

John Nada has the right idea.

I envy his life.

A big vacant western eyeball… like the cyclops… with a reflection showing of my middle finger. Yes, Paradise!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Caliph December 23, 2009 at 18:27

@ Afor

Preach mate!!! Preach.

This man nailed it on the head. Most men still try to act civil while women go balls to wall in a divorce, the problem is that more men haven’t been adopting a mutual assured destruction straegy.

Its that simple,you want my alimony? sure you can have it and spend double that on lawyers while i keep both of us in civil court long enough to guarantee both our financial ruins, children be damned, for all i know thy aren’t even mine.

My personal observation is vindictive men who are prone to assure destruction of all are often better off than, the mr nice guys in divource situations.

Scorched earth policy people, take some of Globalmans ques,
prolong, obfuscate, challenge, most importantly endure.

Scorched Earth people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam December 23, 2009 at 18:33

@ AfOR

Frankly Harry, that ain’t none of your business.

Could you even be any more full of shit than this? I am asking the same question. Not to pry but to see if you are just all hat and no cattle, cowboy.

And so far, you are spouting a lot and saying little. Someone took the time to reduce your diatribe to the fundamental of “Don’t complain if you are not fighting.” That is fine, and it eliminates the need for most else you said, but that isn’t really the issue here. I think you are.

OK, so it is clear you are driven to conflict, both by centering your life on legal conflicts and advocating that other people be self destructively litigious. Not satisfied with that for conflict, you manage to find conflict with a lot of people here.

There is a difference between a fighter and some pinhead with a huge fucking chip on their shoulder telling all us less-than-thems how we should be approaching the problem and barring that we should shut up.

Being and MRA means lots of conflict for a lot of people. Those that do the best fighting though have always had an internal sense of peace and perspective that make them more effective. At least that is my experience.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Caliph December 23, 2009 at 18:49

The criticism of Afors proposition of counter suing has its merits folks, granted some people dont have the money to sustain a prolonged court battle, but thats where folks like Globalman and some of his ideas can be of use.

She can hire a lawyer, while you’re defending yourself, isnt advisable, but its a viable option.

From what i understand about Afors point, i think his angle is creating a prolonged legal quagmire that will threanten to ruin both you financially especially her if she doesnt call a truce soon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Caliph December 23, 2009 at 19:09

3DShooter December 23, 2009 at 9:34 am

“5) Cap on attorney fees in domestic issues (take the $ $igns out of their eyes every time a disgruntled woman walks through the doors)”.

That right there can actually make a significant amount of difference, create a financial disincetive for taking a divorce case and lawyers will look for speedy solutions in order to save man hours.

No financial reward for them in having some woman draw out a custody battle or a divorce settlement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi December 23, 2009 at 19:30

”””””””””’Hmmm… a young guy who played the proper game plan, could easily retire at 35 or 40, and spend the rest of his life living PRECISELY how he wishes. Also, should one wish to raise a family, I think this is the proper way. Make your fortune first, and then go somewhere that is conducive to your plans, and make that plan work. For me, if I were to start a family, it would be on a small farm where I was present pretty much all the time, and it would be in a country that respected me, and with a woman that was grateful for both myself, and what I bring to the table. ””””””

Just turmed 34 “shrugs”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry December 23, 2009 at 19:30

@Steven

“What I get from his posts, is that he isn’t passively sitting back, and letting others handle his troubles. He’s actively in the trenches, fighting for himself.”

What I get from his posts is a lot of hot air.

He swans in here accusing people round here of being weak and ineffective when, IN FACT, he has done nothing more round here than anyone else.

He is rude, insulting and, quite frankly, not very credible.

For example, you can see him dropping into a thread simply to make some smart-assed point about Guinness not being a ‘beer’, but a ‘stout’.

Turns out he’s wrong.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/12/21/breaking-news-tragedy-in-dublin-as-guinness-brewery-burns/#comment-16494

He can’t even check out a simple fact on Google before plunging in with such nonsense – so much does he believe, erroneously, in his own correctness.

And he’s doing the same on this thread.

Mr Know-It-All.

Mr Know-It-All who, for example, says that the legal system is a ‘perfectly good legal system’.”

So, we must all be wrong round here when we complain about our legal systems being far from perfect.

We are all jerks in his eyes.

I quote, him …

……………

InternetWood, this site is chock full of people like you, who apparently can’t be bothered to read what is written, preferring instead to believe something else entirely, that allows you to continue to nurse your own chip on your shoulder.

Spearhead, more like comfort blanket.

No no no, you really are a man, honest, just feel those testicles one more time for reassurance.

………………

He is talking about you Guys.

You’re not men.

He’s the real man, the one with the big testicles. This is what he’s trying to tell you.

And if you look at InternetWood’s post to which Afor is responding in the above quote, you will see that it does not warrant the shaming language that Afor threw at him. Afor is clearly being deliberately rude without provocation.

Afor is also trying to throw his weight around, but, in fact, he has no weight, intellectually speaking.

For example, he tells us how our legal system is ‘perfectly good’ when, IN FACT, he has clearly found himself with a whole heap of problems as a result of what he claims is a “perfectly good” legal system.

So, how can it be ‘perfectly good’?

He’s talking nonsense when he says such things.

In summary; he’s talking rubbish, he is being unnecessarily rude, and he is trying to use sexual shaming techniques on the people round here.

Nevertheless, I wish him luck with his suits for damages and, as I said, I hope he then gives us some advice on how to deal with such things.

@Afor

“OK Harry, you have a semi-cool website, but what have you done, what have you achieved? Real world Harry, not cyberspace…”

You called trumps, put up or shut up, links to the Court cases where you personally put a lying woman behind bars and then sued her into oblivion.”

In the “real world, not cyberspace” I have never had any significant problems with a woman, so it is a bit silly of you to suggest that I should have some record for putting “a lying woman behind bars” in order to prove something.

But if I had YOUR kind of problem, I would attempt to do the same as you. And, if that route was no good, then I would do something else; depending on the circumstances.

“To use words you’ll understand, you talk like a beta.”

Firstly, I wouldn’t be an alpha if you paid me. I’m not interested in being one. Indeed, I don’t look up to alphas. I look down on them.

Secondly, you sound to me like fractious boys in a school playground.

“My dick is bigger than everyone else’s,” seems to be the main sub-theme running through your posts.

In fact, if you re-read your posts, I think that you will be quite embarrassed at how often you try to imply that you are more masculine than the men round here.

Finally, of course I agree with your view that men should stand up and fight against the system when it treats them badly. In fact, I’ve never suggested anything else.

And my guess is that most men do fight, as best they know how, when it comes to their own personal situations.

However, I also receive emails occasionally from men who claim that they fought against the system even harder in some way precisely because of my website; which, of course, pleases me.

But the implied notion in your posts that there is a relatively easy way for men to sue successfully false accusers, put them behind bars, and/or to fight successfully in the family courts is just wrong.

These are not easy tasks at all, and the likelihood of success with them for most men in most situations is still fairly small at this moment in time.

Furthermore, feminists can always change the laws if men become too successful in dealing with them; which is why we need to do more than just fight the existing injustices.

Mostly, we must change people’s attitudes (including judges, politicians, the media etc) in order for men to become more successful, and we also need to enlighten men so that they are better equipped.

This is what we are trying to do round here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi December 23, 2009 at 19:31

Balls slightly to wall you should be able to save 2k a month which is around 100k in 4 years. Just don’t but a house keep small apartment and eat pizza every day and put money in bank.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi December 23, 2009 at 19:32

Shit so easy a monkey could do it. It doesn’t take a genious or a college degree. If you make 10 bucks an hour and can work 84 hours a week no reason you shouldn’t be able to save 2k a month.

Merry Christmas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma December 23, 2009 at 19:35

Sure enough, here is the feminist backlash against Mr Willets:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/23/conservatives-marriage-nuclear-family-alternatives

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi December 23, 2009 at 19:42

A young guy with the right knowledge can retire the first time by 25 which I was on track for and had the plan just married wrong woman first time could not get her to work after we were married. Why I say don’t listen to what woman say they will do in marriage make them prove what they will do by doing it before marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer December 23, 2009 at 20:12

Sure enough, here is the feminist backlash against Mr Willets:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/23/conservatives-marriage-nuclear-family-alternatives

-Puma

Excellent find, Puma. She lays it all out, doesn’t she? I’ll have to think about that one and see if I can write it up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
E. Steven Berkimer December 23, 2009 at 20:15

Harry,

Maybe it is because he has been a regular poster over at our site, that I have a different perspective on him. I can vouch for the fact, that he does have a rather good grasp of the legal system.

Is he pissed/angry/bitter? Based on what I know of what he is going through, I sure as hell would be. But I do agree on his basic point. The MRM/MRA/FRM does need to do a bit more than talk. There really isn’t a lot of organizing going on, with any attempt by those groups that do exist, to work together (that I have seen – I acknowledge I don’t really know).

Maybe we need a few more pissed off individuals to get some action going. Mellow people don’t keep a revolution going. The firebrands do. Does taking shots at everyone help? Probably not. But maybe, just maybe, there’s a bit of truth in what he is saying that we can all agree and build on.

I stated it upthread, that Globalman’s ideas about law/statute/legislation and AFOR’s take no prisoners attitude would make for a great combination.

By the way, love your site.

@Paul Elam

I would like to spell out what AFOR stands for – Anonymous for A Reason – Much like MisForMalevolent, and a few other sites, they are involved with nasty Family Court issues and can’t be as public as they would like.

I think we all know just how making issues public in a family court issue can be used against someone, so maintaining a bit of privacy on the issue is understandable. Of course, it’s probably not advisable to call people out when you can’t supply any details of your own.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray December 23, 2009 at 20:25

your governments are matriarchal, your medea is matriarchal, your schools are matriarchal, your cultures are matriarchal, and your legal systems are most assuredly matriarchal

doesnt matter whether the “experts” above are spooks/trolls or just delusional, but i recall writing ten years ago that the MRM should not look to the above matriarchal institutions/entities for help in overturning the matriarchy

and did i get told off!!

so i’ll try again this decade:

the matriarchy’s legal systems are NOT the friends of western boys and men, and even if you do find some loophole or minor avenue of relief, playing the legal game is playing on your opponent’s home court, with their ball, their scoreboard, their fans, their referees, and their town and nation surrounding you

a dozen new “laws” can v easily be created and passed against you even if you manage to stalemate one

the title of this thread is:

“British Politicians Propose Help for Fathers to Save Marriage”

politicians, like judges and university presidents, are installed by the matriarchy and paid by the matriarchy — INCLUDING the “conservatives” who occasionally pretend interest in fatherhood, boys, and the femsuprmacist gulag we call “democracy,” but always end up stabbing us in the back

the US just came off a conservative trifecta (exec, leg, and s.c.) — was the matriarchy dismantled? please

was the gynogulag rolled back? not .. even .. a .. little

in fact it was greatly expanded — hell, the conservative US president sent his wife laura around the world stumping for “female empowerment” while he vacationed on his ranch, laughing his ass off at the suckers we are

yet i keep seeing western guys falling for this hegelian shell game, oh gee, just wait till the tories get in, boy things are gonna be different THEN!

bzzt

before Ah-Nulled was elected, MRA guys were guaranteeing me that it was all gonna change, look out now! fatherhood is back and there’ll be hell-to-pay for the feminists…..

what happened?

the Great Terminator, like the Great Communicator Cowboy before him, folded like the dickless wonders they are, while Mr. Macho Movie Star’s wife walks all over him AND us, running around the country crowing about how its A Womans Nation now

like it was something different before

ignore the egotistic blowhards on this site presenting themselves as legal experts, and trying to drag you with them into the hopeless (but profitable!) morass of the “law”

you see that woman holding the scales, people? get a fucking cloo

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 23, 2009 at 21:07

I agree with AH, sorry.

We don’t need these constant harpies admonishing us to action whilst they fail to do anything themselves.

I see one dipshit who comments here merely by illustrating he is bored with our inaction… and follows it with “zzzzzzzz.” What a smart fuck, eh? Admonishing other men for not coming up with ideas he cannot articulate himself. If he’s got a plan, share it. If not, shut your fucking mouth.

Angry Harry does this stuff for FREE!

So do most of us who actually write, rather than merely criticize.

There is zero benefit. Actually, there is NEGATIVE benefit.

But yet, I have had NUMEROUS readers accuse and berate me for not providing solutions that were satisfactory. Even as a mere commenter here, which is all I have been in the MRM for quite a while, people somehow think that us who write must provide sure-fire solutions for them, whilst they must do nothing themselves.

It pisses me right off.

Angry Harry has provided MANY courses of action we could take… but nobody takes them, and then complains he is failing them by not giving them a better plan.

I have put my best foot forward to give solutions, but have been told by those who put in no effort themselves, that it is not good enough… and yet, they propose nothing themselves except for idiotic shit like picking up arms. Yup. lol. Go for it, idiot. Be a Sodini and live in the peaceful place where he now resides. But don’t demand I do it for you.

It’s quite fucking ridiculous.

Fact is, without the pen, the soldiers never wake up from their drunken stupor to actually fight. So what good are they WITHOUT Angry Harry? EH? They are just hired MOOKS without the penmanship of AH.

I am here because of AH. Albeit, I think I have surpassed him in radicalism, but, his pen is responsible for that… which is much more than many others can say.

And I have my moments of being the meanest sonofabitch alive! So he directed that in the proper direction.

The pen and the sword compliment eachother. Apart, they are dangerous – very, very dangerous.

I am tired of dipshits who show up demanding perfection right off the bat.

Bring your own fucking plan, with proof that it works, or shut the fuck up about the guys who have taken it upon themselves to put themselves at a significanlty higher risk than you have, for ZERO gain except to help your sorry, miserable, lazy ass.

No civilization was built this way, I can assure you of that!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam December 23, 2009 at 22:18

@ E Stephen Berkimer

I would like to spell out what AFOR stands for – Anonymous for A Reason – Much like MisForMalevolent, and a few other sites, they are involved with nasty Family Court issues and can’t be as public as they would like.

I think we all know just how making issues public in a family court issue can be used against someone, so maintaining a bit of privacy on the issue is understandable. Of course, it’s probably not advisable to call people out when you can’t supply any details of your own.

I understand that many in the MRM, even loosely defined, feel the need to take measures to protect their anonymity. The only reason I don’t publish under an assumed name is that I enjoy relative immunity from professional retaliation regarding my actions.

And I have no problem with AfOR protecting any current litigation he is in, but your last point was the one I took issue with. You are correct, it is not a good idea to call people out when you can’t supply your own goods.

And particularly not the kind of man he is insulting. AH has inspired many men, myself included, to do more than just complain about their lot in life. I am not suggesting he is above criticism, but he has damn well earned more respect than was shown.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
tspoon December 23, 2009 at 22:35

Had a quick look at the link posted above, in the comments found a link to this slightly more interesting article in the telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/6766551/Harriet-Harman-faces-an-inconvenient-truth.html
but in the body of that was another link to this site :

http://www.thecustodyminefield.com/

and their report, the foreword of which was written by musician Bob Geldof. Good to finally see a male from the upper levels of society stepping up on an important issue. He pulls no punches with his language either…

http://www.savanah-jade.org/relocation/relocation.pdf

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
E. Steven Berkimer December 24, 2009 at 00:02

@Paul,

I don’t disagree. Constructive criticism is always welcome. Sniping….not much point. I just understand where he’s coming from.

@fedrz,

Trust me, I sympathize. I get squat, other than the satisfaction that I’m another thorn in feminism’s side, and a place for those falsely accused to come, to find out they aren’t alone. It sure as hell isn’t about money. It’s about raising awareness.

Oh……. and pissing off trolls. That’s just icing on the cake.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 24, 2009 at 01:26

Pay the tribute to AH please… he deserves it far more than me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul December 24, 2009 at 01:46

I don’t want to get too involved in the dispute going on above about whose doing most and being the most effective. It’s a bit off thread. However, it does put me in mind of something I realized quite early on in my involvement with the MM.

As I became more involved in the MM I began to realize that very little that was said actually turned in to an action. For example I once sent a donation for some initiative. Later I happened to speak to someone involved and asked how it was going.He said that they had decided not to do this thing. This is just an example. There where also protest bike rides which never happened. I know that as I became aware of more of this sort of thing I began to feel I was in some sort of fantasy world.

I suppose my experience turned me more from MM to MGTOW. I began to think that the only one I could save would be myself, and even that was unlikely.

However, going back to the thread I agree with Paul Elam. There is probably very little in this proposal other than a lot of lecturing intended to humiliating men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 24, 2009 at 02:08

@ Paul,

During this time, did the men who were writing articles in the MRM mean absolutely zero to you at all?

Did you figure this out completely independently?

If not, and there are individuals responsible for your enlightenment, can you not find it within you to openly STATE SO and give them the respect they deserve?

Where would we be if everyone had just seen what was going on, and then shut up about it?

Seriously… that is a question I would like answered.

Where would we be, if it weren’t for the people who push limits?

I’ll trade you my green block for your yellow one!

I don’t think AH has ever asked you for money. I haven’t. Nor have the majority of men here. NCFM asks you for money… but, I’ve never paid them much mind. Look at the people who show up at the Spearhead. THE HEAVY WEIGHTS! Ones who work for free. Ones that aren’t stupid. Except, for believing in the rest of you!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul December 24, 2009 at 03:48

@fedzr

I am not sure I completely understand your questions but will try to answer.

Firstly the incidents I described pre-date the internet by quite a long time. I first came to what might be called the organised MM probably because I was looking for it. What happened was I read an article in a Sunday Newspaper. This was probably in the early nineteen nineties. Before this I had no idea that such a thing as the MM existed. The article mentioned some of the people involved and also that one was a computing lecturer at an institution I knew about. So I wrote to this person and asked to join.

What happened next is quite interesting. I joined and got some introductory literature. Then nothing happened. I got no further communication for a very long time. Eventually I got concerned about this and used the a contact number in the literature to ask what was going on. They had no record of me.

To cut a long story short what had happened is that the organisation I had joined had fractured into two parts and my membership had been taken by the ‘dissident’ group. So I ended up joining both.

I stayed a member of both for quite a long time and for one of them did some minor organising work. All this is still long before I had any involvement with the internet or even had access to it.

The incidents I describe are from this period. As I say eventually over time I came to the understanding that things just never seem to materialize. I think that eventually drains a person of their energy. I did attend the MUMBY demonstration which perhaps some of the readers here will remember.

You ask if I am inspired by any of the HEAVY WEIGHT writers. Certainly I do read widely and I do read things that have an impact. I usually try to comment to this effect if it is so.

But there is a problem and your question give me the opportunity to make another point. Although I am very much an anti feminist, it is not the only thing I am. So I do have other thoughts and opinions. Sadly it is the case that some leading MRAs although sound in their anti feminism have a lot of other opinions which are repugnant to me. So they are as likely to repel as inspire.

I think this is the best I can do to answer your questions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist December 24, 2009 at 04:56

We can trade our colored blocks?

@Paul on Anti-feminists driving away more than inspiring:

It is to me, that feminism in all its forms and effects is our greatest problem right now. It causes a lot of sub-problems and taking it out would be the most beneficial (though, I will admit that after reading Rob Fedder’s essays, it’s hard to tell if feminism is the root or if marxism is).

I believe that anything else can be just airs, they are minor differences that we shouldn’t break of allegiances due to. If one is enlightened enough to the evils that are going on, they will understand to put aside the “other” topics of which they disagree and work together to end feminism. Once it is dead, may the great fight commence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR December 24, 2009 at 05:17

What all the hand-wringing / touch typing activists on this site don’t realise is one simple fact.

If it doesn’t happen in a Courtroom, it doesn’t happen.

In the UK, Fathers For Justice, just because of the scale of their stunts, has a huge media impact, the cause gets talked about very seriously, in the media, in the corridors of power, and amongst those who work in the system.

And the next day a man walks in to a Court, and NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

———————–

The nature of a divorce / custody case is such that he who plans in secret and files first is the heavyweight contender, and he who discovers it landing in his lap like a bolt out of the blue is the couch potato.

Women come off best in most divorce / custody cases for one main significant reason, in 95+% of cases WOMEN FILE FIRST.

You need to wake up and smell the coffee, you walk into Court with ex-parte injunctions already awarded against you and you are already down one strike and losing the game.

Fact is, if you walked in to Court like this, you have already lost, because you’re still the couch potato, and she is still the heavyweight contender aiming to rip your head off and shit in the whole. Your possibility of winning is 0%

————————

What happens THEN, is far from standing up for yourself, you become yet another statistic in the pile of Case Law that HAPPENED IN COURT that stacks the odds against the next dupe couch potato male going up against the next heavyweight contender.

———————-

I have experience of other “causes”, and they had more in common with this than you may think, all the activism and hand wringing and writing in the world adds up to diddly squat.

In every single instance, without exception, the tangible differences were made by those who went out, said “fuck it”, and acted like heavyweights.

Yes, a lot of them still got their heads off and the hole shit in, but SOME DID NOT, some won.

20 miles from me in the UK is the man who took the State to the EU Human Rights Court, and he sued and won and got the same cash victim compensation that false rape accusers get for making a false rape accusation and being a “victim”.

THAT HAPPENED IN A COURT, so, IT HAPPENED.

Now every single man in the UK can stand in Court, point at that case, and get financial compensation from the State for their false rape accusation.

Just as every man in the UK accused of a false rape can point at Mr Justice Henriques ruling on the 29th October 2009 that imprisonment is mandatory for false rape accusers, and that the tariff should be around 2 years.

A false accusation of rape is by definition also defamation, and thanks to CASE LAW any man who files such an action against his false accuser has a slam dunk guaranteed win case. Leading to more case law.

An ex-parte injunction based on 100% lies parting a man from his children is in fact nothing more than an abduction, and a breach of the human rights of the children in question under Article 2 of the EU Human Rights Act.

It is also a breach of the man’s rights under Article 6

A separation case based on 100% lies where the woman is demanding the house and alimony is in fact Extortion, and also a breach of your rights under Article 2.

———————————-

None of this counts until and unless it happens in Court.

———————————–

If you walk into Court, frankly, as any decent lawyer will tell you, the best way to torpedo your own case is to start quoting web sites like this or Harry’s, and with the attitudes you will pick up here.

“It’s not FAIR!!!” boo hoo hoo sob.

You just lost, and made it tougher on the next man to come along.

websites like this and Harry are mildly amusing to read while you are doing your heavyweight contender training, but that’s it…

Don’t get angry, get even.

Three strikes and your out.

Strike One – she filed first and got ex parte injunctions
Strike Two – she is a heavyweight contender and you are a couch potato
Strike Three – you aren’t fighting to the death, because she is

Game Over, you lose, and you just shit on every man following you.

Anything and everything that does not address strikes 1 through 3 is going to kill you.

Attitudes like Harry’s will kill you, Harry’s all right, HE IS NOT IN COURT fighting for his life, nor is he doing anything that you can cite in Court.

You need to separate the shit from the shinola, if it doesn’t help you IN COURT it doesn’t exist. If the person talking to you hasn’t stood in your shoes, they don’t exist. If it doesn’t happen in Court, it doesn’t exist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 24, 2009 at 05:40

You do realize, AFOR, that in the United States, the constitution does not apply to family courts, and we do not have the EU Human Rights Act here, either? In the U.S. (1) civil courts will not exercise jurisdiction over family court issues (which includes anything pertaining to children and almost all DV claims in the context of a sep or divorce) and (2) no court applies the constitution, with its human rights provisions, to domestic relations cases — long-standing federal case law against that. So while you may get some mileage in the U.K. from your approach, the ability to have a similar impact in the U.S. is very limited. Yes, for those who are falsely accused of rape in the criminal system or people who are facing false criminal DV charges, that kind of parallel approach in the civil courts may work. But the garden variety divorce-related DV claim in the US never makes it to criminal court, and simply stays in the family court, and, in most cases, once the restraining order is issued, it doesn’t go any further than that — and, as I say, virtually no court in the U.S. will interfere with what the family courts are doing, on constitutional or other grounds.

Different countries = different legal systems.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow December 24, 2009 at 05:48

Afor:

I finally understand what you’re getting at (minus the purpose of the insults), and I actually agree. I hit my ex hard outside of court, fought dirty and got my son 50% and no child support . I won and my son won. I am presently encouraging several men to take the lead and file before she does.

What I did, I threatened a scorched earth policy in court (what did I have to lose anyway?). I told her I KNEW I would lose. I expected to lose and it would cost both of us huge money for me to lose….in addition (this was the kicker), I told her that I would keep a written diary and video diary of everything she did to deny me access to a life with my son, and that I would present that to my son (who was 3 at the time) on his 18th birthday. I would let him know what I did to fight for him, and what she did to deny him a father….the next day she gave me everything I asked for. No court, no issues, great relationship with my son. It’s been 2 years now…no problems 50% parenting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR December 24, 2009 at 06:15

@ Novaseeker

You do realize, AFOR, that in the United States, the constitution does not apply to family courts

And what are you doing about that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma December 24, 2009 at 07:50

In the long run, it will be the Marriage Strike which will bring this unholy edifice down.

For example the only reason that the UK is talking reform is because marriage rates have crashed to historic lows, not because of some concern about unfairness to men:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7314435.stm

When you’ve got them by the ball…errr…ovaries, that’s the only time when they will relent on legal reform. Not before.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry December 24, 2009 at 10:03

@wow

“What I did, I threatened a scorched earth policy in court (what did I have to lose anyway?). … ….”

That is EXACTLY the kind of thing that I would recommend – and do OFTEN recommend on my website.

For example, I quote my good self regarding potential false accusers, …

“Make it absolutely clear in advance to any prospective false accuser that you will completely and forever mess up their lives should they ever make any false accusations against you. And now, with the internet, there are numerous ways in which you can actually do this.”

…………

But it is only fairly recently (much of this thanks to F4J AND the MM) that men are even aware that fathers and men are treated badly when it comes to relationships; especially in the secret family courts.

Previously, men have mostly assumed that the courts dealt fairly with such matters and that, therefore, they did not need to worry unduly about such things happening to them.

Thus, if a guy got shafted in a family court, MOST men assumed that he deserved it. If he was merely accused of some sexual assault then MOST men assumed that he was guilty. (Actually, the latter is still the case, in my opinion).

It is only because of the activities of MRAs and F4J (whom Afor goes out of his way to belittle) that men are gradually waking up to what is really going on.

@Paul

“I did attend the MUMBY demonstration which perhaps some of the readers here will remember.”

Yep, I was there. And also at various associated protests right outside the homes of family court judges.

Ah yes; Happy Days!

LOL!

@Afor

Your last post is still ringing out the tune, “My dick is bigger than yours.”

Well, take it from me, it isn’t.

Indeed, YOU are the one with all the relationship problems.

Not me.

YOU are the one who got himself into an unholy mess.

Not me.

Furthermore, as I mentioned above, all it takes to stymie your approach in the long term is for feminists to change the laws.

Also, in a court room, you need to prove your case against the false accuser you have taken there. And if you cannot prove your case, then you have lost, haven’t you?

For many men, proving their cases is not going to be easy, and, in many cases, not possible.

So, all in all, your legal advice has somewhat limited application.

But no-one round here seems to be arguing against your legal approach to the matters that have affected you.

It is not what you are advising that they object to, it is the manner in which you are doing this round here that is the problem.

Furthermore, your views are clearly extremely limited and naive in a number of ways when it comes to addressing the numerous other problems that men have to face these days. And I have no intention of wasting my time elaborating on this.

I would simply point out that when you castigate all the “hand-wringing / touch typing activists on this site” that, in fact, you are one of them.

Indeed, why are you wasting your time here? – given that you claim to believe that this kind of internet activism is pointless.

So, what are you doing here?

Why are you here?

Why are you bothering to read through my website?

How come it’s all right for YOU to do these things, but when it comes to us, you describe us as “hand-wringing / touch typing activists”?

Indeed, it seems to me that you are no different from the rest of us, apart from the fact that you have landed yourself with a whole heap of trouble.

Perhaps if you had been more aware of sites like AngryHarry ten years ago, then you wouldn’t now be in this mess.

After all, forewarned is forearmed.

I should also emphasise that most of us round here do not actually have the kind of problems that you have and, further, that we are interested in many other things – which we like talking about.

So, maybe you’ve come to the wrong place.

Finally, I quote you, …

“”If you walk into Court, frankly, as any decent lawyer will tell you, the best way to torpedo your own case is to start quoting web sites like this or Harry’s, and with the attitudes you will pick up here.

“It’s not FAIR!!!” boo hoo hoo sob.”

Do you really think that ANYBODY round here is suggesting that men should quote my website in a courtroom?

Whoever suggested such a stupid idea?

NOBODY.

You are just making things up as you go along, because you are so determined to claim that your dick is bigger than everyone else’s round here.

And yet YOU are the one who has had all the problems!

YOU are the one who failed to handle the situation effectively.

And yet there will be many men who have read my site and sites like Spearhead, who will learn enough from them to tread more carefully, and more cleverly, in the future when it comes to their relationships and the law. And, as such, they will benefit from such sites.

And, hopefully, they will manage to avoid the kind of trouble in which you find yourself.

So, when you suggest that sites like these are useless, you are, once again, talking utter rubbish.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 24, 2009 at 10:33

And what are you doing about that?

Nothing to be done, mate. That rule of federal law is not going to be changed without a constitutional amendment, and there’s a greater chance of the world being taken over by space aliens in the next five minutes than there is in amending the US Constitution in that manner.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi December 24, 2009 at 11:46

””””””wow December 24, 2009 at 5:48 am
Afor:

I finally understand what you’re getting at (minus the purpose of the insults), and I actually agree. I hit my ex hard outside of court, fought dirty and got my son 50% and no child support . I won and my son won. I am presently encouraging several men to take the lead and file before she does.

What I did, I threatened a scorched earth policy in court (what did I have to lose anyway?). I told her I KNEW I would lose. I expected to lose and it would cost both of us huge money for me to lose….in addition (this was the kicker), I told her that I would keep a written diary and video diary of everything she did to deny me access to a life with my son, and that I would present that to my son (who was 3 at the time) on his 18th birthday. I would let him know what I did to fight for him, and what she did to deny him a father….the next day she gave me everything I asked for. No court, no issues, great relationship with my son. It’s been 2 years now…no problems 50% parenting.

””””””””””’
Nice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo December 24, 2009 at 12:21

Speaking of family court, here’s a little newspaper article that speaks volumes about the US court system. Here’s an edited and abridged version:

“Common Pleas judges get new assignments

Allegheny County Common Pleas Court will have a full complement of 43 full-time judges in 2010 for the first time in several years, said Raymond L. Billotte, the court’s administrator.

A new year often means new work assignments for local state court judges and, as the highest caseloads are in criminal and family divisions, President Judge Donna Jo McDaniel has deployed many of the 43 judges to handle work there, Mr. Billotte said.

The family division will have 15 judges while the criminal division will have 14. Eleven judges will staff the civil division and three judges will make up Orphans’ Court.”

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09358/1023433-100.stm?cmpid=latest.xml

Orphans’ Court handles estates, wills and adoptions.

There are more family court judges than criminal court judges.

The local judiciary is dedicating more resources to enforcing the will of women upon men than it dedicates to punishing criminals.

Merry Christmas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi December 24, 2009 at 12:31

So all judges are culpible then since they are interchangeable in the family court system interesting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 24, 2009 at 13:15

It’s the reason there are metal detectors at all courthouses now, too. If you ask the trial lawyers they’ll tell you the reason is *not* criminal law or terrorist threats, but family law and, specifically, men who are angry at being shafted by the family courts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer December 24, 2009 at 13:35

It’s the reason there are metal detectors at all courthouses now, too. If you ask the trial lawyers they’ll tell you the reason is *not* criminal law or terrorist threats, but family law and, specifically, men who are angry at being shafted by the family courts.

-Novaseeker

That started here in Seattle when Tim Blackwell gunned down his VAWA green card one-month wife along with two of her partners in fraud at the KC Courthouse:

In opening statements, King County Deputy Prosecutor Kerry Keefe described Blackwell as calm, systematic and methodical as he entered the courthouse, placed his briefcase on a bench, withdrew a semiautomatic handgun, then approached the three women and a fourth person and began firing. They were seated on a bench awaiting final arguments in the Blackwells’ marriage-dissolution proceedings.

A day earlier, Keefe said, Blackwell had learned Susana Blackwell, whom he had not been with for more than a year, was pregnant with another man’s child.

“Susana Blackwell received the brunt of the defendant’s anger and rage,” Keefe said. She “took a shot straight into the brain. She took a shot straight into her breast. Then she took two shots straight into her abdomen . . .”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman December 24, 2009 at 14:04

“Willets says there’s nothing he can do to change the laws surrounding marriage. What that means is that, actually, he intends to do nothing, and this is all hot air. Without changes to the law there will be absolutely no change in behavior on the part of mothers.”

Welmer, in the second sentence you have summed up how ‘they’ operate. They use what you think are ‘laws’ to modify behaviour. They treat us like donkeys. They offer us a ‘carrot’ (money) and a ‘stick’ (‘punishment’). What men here are missing is that we act pretty much like donkeys because we (well other men) think that these ‘laws’ apply to us. If men would just stop and THINK for a little while they will see that the idea the guvment makes ‘laws’ that we ‘must’ obey is ludicrous. Why should any man look to the guvment to tell him what to do? Why look to your guvement to tell you what is ‘right or wrong’? We all know politicians are corrupt as hell yet we look to them to make ‘laws’. It is stupid beyond all insanity. And you can add obamacare to that list.

The guys at http://www.deadbeatdadsassociation.co.uk/ have had success at refusing the jurisdiction of the ‘family law’ and the ‘family court’ just as I proved is possible in Australia. They are now onto the front foot and working on cases of asking the guvment for all the child support paid by men to be paid back as well as damages. BALLS OF STEEL. What a great example these guys are. I learned a lot from them. Also over at http://www.tpuc.org John Harris continues his efforts to get people to realise what common law is all about. Not to mention Charlie and the guys at ‘love police’ (http://www.youtube.com/user/cveitch).

If men want to take back control of their own lives they do NOT need the guvment to change the ‘laws’. Yes, I thougt that too a year ago. Those men who wish to be in control of their own lives simply need to say ‘NO’ to the guvment. I am really quit unsure how many times I am going to have to type this here in the face of dis-belief of people before it finally starts to sink in. All you need to do is say ‘NO’, you do NOT want to be governed, treated like a donkey (or sheep) and be told what to do. While you are ‘asking’ for the guvment to change the ‘laws’ you are implicitly consenting to those laws that you do not like now. Women tell us men ‘NO’ all the time, especially those of us who are married. Gents? Time to say ‘NO’. It can be done in any common law country to my sure and certain knowledge.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman December 24, 2009 at 14:06

AfOR December 23, 2009 at 5:12 am
“Stop being fucking meek.”
AfOR, I would back this up 110%. Too many men are too fucking meek and not willing to take on the PTB. I would suggest you stop by this document (http://www.freedomfiles.org/extortion.pdf ) that explains that the court system is, indeed, a rigged game.

I know you think that a good approach is to use the civil system and counter sue her arse until she is broke. And by the way, I am going to do this as well in Ireland. However a better game is to empannel a jury for any crimes your wife may have committed….and she will surely have committed perjury, they all do. I shall make sure my ex is ‘eating cat food in a caravan’ if not incarcerated. I can spend money on legal fees 10 to 1 as she can and they don’t do ‘legal aid’ for civil commercial cases which is what I propose to throw money at for her crime of stealing from our company.

“There is fuck all wrong with the UK legal system, like any other system, it adapts to those who use it the most.”
You need to understand how it really works before you realise that there is, indeed, something very wrong with it. They hide how it really works and they use a lot of deception. The document linked lays it out very plainly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman December 24, 2009 at 14:07

Paul December 23, 2009 at 7:14 am
“Robin it is not easy to get divorced. If it was I would do it immediately.”
Paul, in my book I am putting together getting divorced will be as easy as filling out an affidavit, waiting 10 days for the rebuttal to not be forthcoming, and you are done. In my book I will teach men how to divorce their wife/state and to then refuse the jurisdiction of the FC. Any assets that the man can get his hands on we will have ways of getting it to a neutral jurisdiction. I am going to give evey man in Australia/Ireland the ability to divorce with ease and little financial penalty apart from those assets he can not get out of the country….for most men this is the ‘equity’ in the ‘family home’.

fedrz December 23, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Fedz/John Nada do have the right idea. I ‘left’ as well and live in Germany. Well, have an appartment here anyway that costs about EUR1000/month which, for me, might as well be free. I picked Germany because I love the place and I made a lot of new friends here. There didn’t seem any reason to leave. Everything I need is right here. I would say the same thing. Leave. Go where no-one bothers you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/23/conservatives-marriage-nuclear-family-alternatives
“his narrow-minded focus on heterosexual relationships”
Yep…he is real narrow minded…what percentage of adults are heterosexual? About 90-95% isn’t it?

In fact, focus on homosexual relationships is ‘narrow minded’ because it is limited to a very narrow/small percentage of the population….and..oh yes, once again her photo proves that the vast majority of ‘feminists’ are ugly, they can’t get laid, and they have NO PENIS AT ALL!! LOL!! Not just a ‘small penis’..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR December 24, 2009 at 14:12

@ Harry.

You have issues buddy. Seriously.

I do not have any relationship problems, I did not get myself into an unholy mess, I did not fail to handle any situation effectively, and there is no (sane) advice on your website, or anyone else’s, that would have prevented my situation.

I find myself in the situation that I do, because of one thing, and one thing only, and that is one thing that NOBODY can defend against.

That thing is someone else deciding to tell a lie.

In case you lack the mental ability to grasp this point, pop over to the False Rape Society and start reading, there is NO defence against this. Not even not associating with women.

ONCE a lie such as this has been told, then it is possible to start dealing with it, and I am doing that.

You, Harry, are nothing but a windbag, you think you’re talking the talk only because you’ve never had to walk the walk, and your implied claim that the only reason you’ve never had to walk the walk is because you DELIBERATELY avoided catching a sniper’s bullet / lie is nothing but pure bullshit.

I state, right out, for a fact, that websites like this and yours are a bit of light relief from the heavyweight training, and they are, and you try and turn that around and claim that the fact that I am here is proof that I am just a windbag like you… classic Borderline Personality Disorder / Narcissistic Personality Disorder gaslighting.

These sites are light relief, and then I find out that far from treating it as light relief, you actually drink your own kool-aid.

You actually think you make a difference.

In 45 minutes in Court this year Clive Bishop did a million times more than all your talk has done in 10 years Harry.

You’re an armchair General, Harry.

———————

Here, Novaseeker tells me the US Constitution does not apply in (some) US Courts, I ask him what he is doing about that, he says he is doing nothing, because there is no point.

With “allies” like you lot, the “Men’s Rights Movement” does not need any “enemies” like feminists.

I will leave you with a quote;
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”

Please note the bold text word, DO, not talk, not say there is no point, but DO.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman December 24, 2009 at 14:13

“but family law and, specifically, men who are angry at being shafted by the family courts.”
I saw an article that claimed some FC judges are now wearing bullet proof vests and keeping guns under their bench in the US.

Now. How many men here think ‘Family Law’ is ‘fair’ when the judges know full well that they are abusing men so much that those men are killing them in record numbers? This is one reason I propose women try women who commit crimes against men, to give men a path to justice. When you remove a mans path to justice you get bad results. Stephen Baskerville has covered this. All men who want to know how bad FC is should read his book.

Given that I have noticed the PM/AG in Australia in my own name with my own mail drop address, that I believe the Geneva Conventions clear the way for ‘lawfull assassination’ of FC judges/magistrates in Australia I am one man putting his money where his mouth is. If the PM/AG will not enforce the law of the land as is required then the results may be very unpredicatable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR December 24, 2009 at 14:25

@ Globalman

Let us agree to disagree on the UK legal system, for now at least.

As soon as I understood that the physical laws of nature are different in a Court of Law (as opposed to a court of Lay common sense) it all started to gain my respect and become productive.

Please note that when I say “UK Legal System” I mean the body of case law, that is all there is. If you can quote relevant case law that supports your case to a Judge you should win. Don’t forget it is also a sort of X-factor personality contest.

No Law = No civilisation.

Frankly, that wouldn’t bother me, not for myself, but I think civilisation is the more dignified and sustainable option.

Bullshit policies and statutes created by politicians / parliaments and kings are the problem, and the answer is to fight fire with fire and beat them at their own game.

Every single transaction and piece of data that goes via TCP/IP in the UK now does so in a (legal) way that is subtly but importantly different to the (legal) way it did a few years ago, and you can thank me personally for that, it is now enshrined in Case Law.

please don’t throw the baby out with the bath-water… the guys at Tolpiddle (just one example) paid too much to do that to their legacy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray December 24, 2009 at 14:31

fedrz–
“I see one dipshit who comments here merely by illustrating he is bored with our inaction… and follows it with “zzzzzzzz.” What a smart fuck, eh? Admonishing other men for not coming up with ideas he cannot articulate himself. If he’s got a plan, share it. If not, shut your fucking mouth.

Angry Harry does this stuff for FREE!”

no shit and does it well, too…. as opposed to the criticizers who do nothing except tear down others

Paul Elam–

speaking of somebody who actually does something, here’s a christmas present for MRMers

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/12/23/wishing-for-better-holidays-to-come/

Paul —
“As I became more involved in the MM I began to realize that very little that was said actually turned in to an action. For example I once sent a donation for some initiative. Later I happened to speak to someone involved and asked how it was going.He said that they had decided not to do this thing. This is just an example. There where also protest bike rides which never happened. I know that as I became aware of more of this sort of thing I began to feel I was in some sort of fantasy world.

I suppose my experience turned me more from MM to MGTOW.”

timely observation, given that just yesterday i posted a comment on another thread, responding to someone pointing out the (relative) preponderance of MRAs in the Seattle area combined with what was described as the matriarchal nature of governance in washington state

given these obvious factors i suggested an antifeminist protest at any number of matriarchal strongholds in western washington state

my comment did not appear (apparently removed?)

many years ago i also suggested a protest at the Colorado Public Library, where feminists had strung severed penises from the ceiling as part of their deconstruction of the “patriarchy”

the medea wouldnt have been able to resist covering it

no interest tho (although, to be fair, in those days there were far fewer MRAs)

fighting with the pen is great, i do some of that too, but why not simply stand in front of the matriarchy’s courthouses or governors mansions or whatever, and say Fuck Directly Off

mebbe i’m wrong, perhaps we need to wait another ten years– but by then, will we even be allowed to congregate?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman December 24, 2009 at 14:38

An interesting thread on reddit…

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/7x78v/what_do_modern_men_want_in_women/c07nznf

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark December 24, 2009 at 14:52

many years ago i also suggested a protest at the Colorado Public Library, where feminists had strung severed penises from the ceiling as part of their deconstruction of the “patriarchy”

WHAT?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman December 24, 2009 at 14:55

“fighting with the pen is great, i do some of that too, but why not simply stand in front of the matriarchy’s courthouses or governors mansions or whatever, and say Fuck Directly Off”

What I did was send QE II, the PM/GG/AG of Australia a Notice of Understanding, Intent and Claim of Right that included my Claim of Right to rescind my consent to be governed. It is a polite and professional document. However, it does mean, ‘fuck off with your femnazi legislation’ that I no longer consent to.

Now…what might happen if every member of every MRA filled one of those out and sent it in. No taxes, no legislation, no jurisdiction. A great big ‘fuck off’. A great big ‘NO’ I do not like your society and I no longer choose to be a slave for your corporation masquerading as a ‘cunt-tree’.

This is the ultimate ‘fighting with the pen’. From that time forward any policy enforcement officer of the cunt-tree may not lawfully physically touch you. Not at all. If one touches you it is assault and in common law jurisdication you have a right to self defense. In my NOUICOR I included the right to use any and all force to defend myself and those in my care limited only to honouring He who created me. I also claimed the right to carry a weapon of my choice for any reason I choose. I can’t wait to try that out! Should be fun!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman December 24, 2009 at 14:59

Snark December 24, 2009 at 2:52 pm
“WHAT?”
This surprises you? Where do you live. Pluto?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark December 24, 2009 at 15:01

Yeah, I’ve never heard of anything quite so extreme.

When you said ‘severed penises’, did you actually mean actual severed penises? I mean, where did they get that from? What?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray December 24, 2009 at 15:03

WHAT?

CERAMIC severed penises (sorry)

still, the “exhibit” lasted weeks, with grade school kids dutifully trooped through to review the, uh, art show

cant recall exactly, but i believe the theme was to illustrate the evil of Domestic Violence done to women under the iron grip of The Patriarchy ™

man, what a mockery seven or eight MRAs could have made of that little plum setup — just screaming to be national news

couldnt get any takers, tho, except for angelucci

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark December 24, 2009 at 15:04

CERAMIC severed penises (sorry)

LOL

Christ … you had me ready to actually take up arms there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman December 24, 2009 at 15:04
Snark December 24, 2009 at 15:06

@ ray,

Don’t get me wrong. It’s still horrendously offensive, degrading and dehumanising.

And the exact opposite of what they preach – respect for bodies, etc. And of course, it’s yet ANOTHER example of tarring all men with the same brush.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman December 24, 2009 at 15:07

PS. I also found this one here now. This is the one I based mine on.

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/Sanitised%20Notice%20of%20Understanding%20and%20Intent%20(draft5)%202.doc

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 24, 2009 at 15:19

Here, Novaseeker tells me the US Constitution does not apply in (some) US Courts, I ask him what he is doing about that, he says he is doing nothing, because there is no point.

With “allies” like you lot, the “Men’s Rights Movement” does not need any “enemies” like feminists.

I will leave you with a quote;
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”

Please note the bold text word, DO, not talk, not say there is no point, but DO.

Only gets you so far, jackass. In a world where “doing” something that will actually make a difference about that reality (i.e., getting the federal courts to apply the constitution to domestic relations cases) is virtually guaranteed to be ineffective, you’re basically saying men should be pissing into the wind. That makes no sense. In no way do I agree at all that men should “just do something” regardless of whether it is going to be effective — that’s simply telling men to waste their energy, and it’s a waste of time as well. You don’t tell a guy to make a dash across the minefield just so he can be “doing something”. It’s asinine.

As for you, when you’ve actually achieved the changes you seem so sure of achieving, come back here and tell us all about it. Until then, shut the fuck up with your grandstanding, your boorish insults to all and sundry, your condescension and arrogance. Save it. Stuff it. If you think this place is here for “light relief”, then why the heck are you here? Fuck off, then.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray December 24, 2009 at 15:37

snark-

“Don’t get me wrong. It’s still horrendously offensive, degrading and dehumanising.”

yep sufficiently that, if presented as such, even the amerikan medea/public would have HAD to face it, squirming in their hypocrisy at every moment

a roomful of severed and dangling penises, right in their faces on the six o clock news, accompanied by interviews with the third-grade teacher from Holy Immaculata Elementary School, trying to explain the “benefit” of having the kiddies experience such “art”

beautiful!!

but we blew it, the opportunity just sailed right on by, folks told me i was full of shit, i was fake, or simply ignored me

like i said, that was mebbe seven years ago, and the MRM was even smaller than now lol — the discussion was on the Mensactivism board/website (good site btw)

guys would post about summer vacations, european travel, their new motorcycles, etc, but nobody wanted to expend the effort/money for one little protest

they all knew better

still do! :O)

in all these years, there hasnt been another plum as juicy as that one, might never be, the gynogulag can afford to be more subtle now because theyre in power everywhere

and we let the opportunity slide right on by, mostly due to disinterest and ego bullshit

i dont take many MRM guys seriously, thats one example why

now we’ve got the CDC suggesting circumcision for ALL amerikan boys, and Der Hilderbeest canvassing Africa, shilling for MANDATORY circumcision for all males

and why not?

when they had their Severed Penis Exhibit at a public library in the US, and nobody objected, they just said Well What the Fuck, we can do whatever we want in this country, and in this world, and nobody has the gonies to say Boo to us — much less demand that our supremacist hate cease

so here we are!

Merry Goddessmass

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
iron clad December 24, 2009 at 17:22

@ Soap

You said, “risk ” in marriage….no, not “risks”, but, known before hand- “PUNISHMENTS ” the rest that follows is called ” ignor-ance”. Kind of like being told , “DONT play in traffic”…but still…they do what ? As my dad used to say , ” If you CAN’T LISTEN ….then…you CAN, FEEL…” Life is like this , everytime and everywhere…Glad to hear , you , like me , paid attention to your head , not just attention to gettin head…and its ajoining trappings… MGTOW.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry December 24, 2009 at 17:57

@Snark, Ray

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,38368,00.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry December 24, 2009 at 17:59
barsin December 24, 2009 at 19:46

If they’d had actual severed penises, I dunno, I’d have been kinda leery about showing up….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
InternetWood December 24, 2009 at 21:52

I finally understand what you’re getting at (minus the purpose of the insults), and I actually agree. I hit my ex hard outside of court, fought dirty and got my son 50% and no child support . I won and my son won. I am presently encouraging several men to take the lead and file before she does.

What I did, I threatened a scorched earth policy in court (what did I have to lose anyway?). I told her I KNEW I would lose. I expected to lose and it would cost both of us huge money for me to lose….in addition (this was the kicker), I told her that I would keep a written diary and video diary of everything she did to deny me access to a life with my son, and that I would present that to my son (who was 3 at the time) on his 18th birthday. I would let him know what I did to fight for him, and what she did to deny him a father….the next day she gave me everything I asked for. No court, no issues, great relationship with my son. It’s been 2 years now…no problems 50% parenting.

Every man is capable of this… with or without the courts.

I’d empty every bank account, quit my job, and call her from another country.

It makes the threat credible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 25, 2009 at 08:00

I have checked into, very extensively, off-shoring in a tax-haven. I’ve even paid money to discuss it with my accountant, however, I have not yet paid for a tax-lawyers advice, which I would do before enacting my plan.

I came across much of my info in relation to such places advertising for Americans, and then compared what they were offering to Canadian law, and found that much of the law was similar, with the details differing between the two. The concept is the same. One of the main things they advertise is that you can totally insulate yourself from being sued for divorce, or other law-suits, as well as protecting yourself from inheritance taxes and so on.

This can all be done 100% legally, and there is no crime being committed, if you go about it properly.

Basically, what you need to do is end your residency in your native country. You must pay “exit taxes” to do so. That basically means that all of your net worth must be totalled up, and all capital gains taxes and income taxes must be paid in full, before leaving the country.

You must make it clear, as well, that you are leaving. So, you cannot keep a residence, bank accounts, and other such things in your home country. I have discovered that some people have managed to maintain a vacation cottage, and also, some manage to keep their driver’s license, as it is easier to rent cars abroad with a first world license… but, it gets a bit dicey – if it ever went to court, the less affiliation, the better.

In Canada, if I leave for 5 years, I fall out of the Canadian Tax Agency’s database. Most reccomend to end residency for 6 years, before attempting to resume residency. In the USA, it takes 10 years. (That sucks!). That means, if I stay out of Canada for 6 years, all of my income is tax-free, as far as Canada is concerned, but if I return sooner, I will have to declare how much money I made abroad while I was away, and pay taxes on it.

In a tax-haven, such as the Turks and Caicos Islands – which I find to be the best place of all, it will cost me around USD$4,000 to purchase a ready-made holding company. With this holding company, I will become the “President” and can also declare other directors of the company, should I wish to – ie. Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer. Once I own the company, I can go to a bank and open a numbered bank account. It will cost me around USD$250/month to maintain such an account. They will give me a debit card, a check book, and a visa that works anywhere in the world, and they will send my bank statements to any address in the world in an unmarked brown envelope. I can also get these things for others on the board of directors on the company, so a family could do it as a group. You can also trade on the stock market with such an account.

Your money is 100% safe in a tax haven. It is highly illegal for bank employees to divulge information, and it is punished. They couldn’t care less if your home country drags your ass through court and sues you stupid, they will not hand over you assets no matter how many judges screech at them. Your money is safe! It belongs to you, and you alone. Many doctors place assets there to protect themselves for malpractice. One of the biggest things they advertise is protection from divorce.

You do not need to live in the place where your money is, all you need to do is leave your money there, and end your residency in your native country. So, I could leave my money in the TCI, but spend six years living in Panama or Belize. Where I live is not important, except that I end my residency in my home country. The banks in the TCI are not tin-pot banks. The Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Nova Scotia, and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce all maintain branch offices in the TCI, and these are large, first world banks.

After 6 years, I can return to Canada without paying any taxes. However, after I return, I will have to declare my world-wide assets and world-wide income to the Canada Tax Agency. Of course, they will hate your guts, because they have to go on your word alone, of how much money and income you have, and they cannot verify it. Sucks to be them, eh? And even though you are being honest, it still doesn’t matter much. Your wife could sue you in divorce court and the judge could order you to pay her money from your holdings there, but there is no way he can force the bank to hand over your assets if you don’t want to co-operate.

Most of these places are very liberal in regard to white collar crimes, and would not send you home for screwing your government over. Tax fraud is cool, drug crimes are not. Of course, in no way am I recommending to do something illegal. All of this is 100% above board, and so long as you honestly declare at tax time, how much money you have in said country’s accounts, you are committing no crime – of course, your government is forced to trust you, just like you have to trust them to not screw their citizens over. I recommend treating them with exactly the same integrity as they treat their citizens.

It is an interesting avenue to look into. If wifey decides to screw you over, just leave the country, and send her a picture of you sitting on the beach, with your pile of dough a bionic kangaroo couldn’t jump over, and the three or four bikini clad floozies you have replaced her with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman December 25, 2009 at 08:05

Novaseeker December 24, 2009 at 10:33 am
“Nothing to be done, mate. That rule of federal law is not going to be changed without a constitutional amendment.”
Nova, you do not have ‘federal law’ in the US, you have ‘federal legislation and statutes’ that you can simmply refuse to consent to. THAT is what is to be done about it. You do not need ‘change’ any more than you need ‘Obama’. You just need education. And education is something that men really do not want most of the time. They love their ignorance. Men will die for ignorance rather than seek education. Think about that.

AfOR December 24, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“Let us agree to disagree on the UK legal system, for now at least.”
Hi AfOR, you can choose to believe there is nothing wrong with the UK Legal System as is your right. That it is totally corrupted and forms part of the control grid is true whether you believe it or not. I pointed to a number of sites in the UK whos experiences in court have proven common law still exists in the UK and that the legislation is inferior to common law. These are facts. They have been proven in the UK courts as well as US, Canada, Australia to my knowledge. If you doubt me please watch John Harris’ videos on ‘Its all an illusion’ parts one and two. Every man in the UK should watch those videos. John Harris is a champion of the common man in the UK. He deserves all the support he can get.

“Please note that when I say “UK Legal System” I mean the body of case law, that is all there is. If you can quote relevant case law that supports your case to a Judge you should win.”

I understand exactly what you are saying. It is THEIR deception that you believe. THEY told you this. THEY are lying. YOU believe the lie. What you are not aware of is that the ‘law’ being referred to in UK courts is Uniform Commercial Code and the judge is not under oath, he is acting as the captain of a commercial ship that is performing piracy. Given he is a pirate he can do as he pleases. But they need to keep the deception going that ‘all is ok’. If you read the book I linked, and it is 300 pages, it will make this clear to you. I can’t do any more than give you a 300 page book to read that clearly lays out exactly what is happening in the courts. If you refuse to read it, that’s your choice.

It is really simple. Men are decieved into thinking legislation created by guvments are ‘laws’. They are not. I am going to keep saying that until men start waking up to this very simple fact.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman December 25, 2009 at 08:30

PS. I have edited and placed my full NOUICOR here:

http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=165

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman December 25, 2009 at 08:50

fedrz December 25, 2009 at 8:00 am
Hi Fedrz, yes, the information you give here is what many propose to do.

What we have found is that income tax is ‘legislation’ and that it is lawful to refuse to consent to that legislation. After completing a NOUICOR you can then send a lawful notice to the tax office stating that you have seen no documentation or law that requires a human being to pay income taxes and sincerely believe that none exists. If the tax office does not respond to your claim inside the time period you give, typically 10 days, you issue a default judgement and permanent estopple to say that you, as a human being, are not subject to pay any income taxes. You use that document in a de jour court should they ever try and drag you into their courts. Basically, you are done paying income taxes should you do this. In fact you do not NEED to do this as the NOUICOR is sufficient. But you might want to do this just to have the extra ammunition that they did not refute your claim.

Sure, you can then transform your worthless fiat money into gold or silver and keep it where ‘wifey’ can not get at it. You can also send it to a place like switzerland where it will be safe. There is no legislation acting on your person that requires that you divulge your ‘fiat money’ locations or accounts. After all, it is worthless. How can you be forced to divulge the location of something that is worthless? Makes no sense legally or lawfully. Remember, your fiat money is NOT ‘money’. Therefore where your legislation says that you must disclose the location of all ‘assets’ and ‘money’ etc you are truthfully and lawfully responding without disclosure because fiat money is not money. They rely on your ignorance of that to trick you into believing you have ‘money’. You don’t. In the US, for example, the only ‘money’ that can exist by definition is gold and silver coin. And that fiat stuff you call money does not look like gold or silver coin to me.

I now say to men “Get your money out of your cunt-tree before your cunt-tree gets your money out of you.”

And yes, if any men wish to open up swiss bank accounts I can help. Just PM me on the forum and I can send you the name/address of someone who would be only too happy to see large deposits in his bank. PS. It’s not worth opening a swiss account if you have less than EUR20K and you do not see it going up to EUR100K in the next few years. They are not cheap items. Discretion has it’s price. Don’t be PMing me and asking if you can get a swiss account with EUR5K. My refusal to assist may offend. I am not passing along this persons name unless he will benefit from it in his bank.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray December 25, 2009 at 13:17

hi AH — wow, it’s been over eight years since the Boulder Library Exhibit — we didnt shut these Professional Haters down when we had the chance

now theyre our Executive Administration! :O)

the FoxNews article really illustrates what a plum this was… the local media were already on it, it just needed a little “push” to go national and REALLY stink up the matriarchy

i recall at the time that one reader of Mensactivism.org was a local resident — he called all the “men’s organizations” in colorado, the Warriors Workshop types, the Elks, the Lions, the PromiseKeepers, etc etc

not ONE “men’s organization” wanted to have anything to do with protesting a severed penis exhibit

no wonder the Mom In Chief is in office!

Lowell Jaks’ letter is also instructive — a plea to a FEMALE district attorney to stop fellow females from exulting in their hatred of males

pretty funny . . . in a totalitarian kinda way….

i also recall how pissed i was when Bob Rowan snuck in and took the penises down, before any protest or real media coverage could be arranged

what a waste of good hatred!

thx for posting those links, really brings back the memories of simpler, saner, more loving times

;O)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray December 25, 2009 at 16:54

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091225/ap_on_en_ot/us_charlie_sheen_arrested

ASPEN, Colo. – Charlie Sheen has been arrested in the Colorado resort town of Aspen on charges related to an alleged case of domestic violence.

Aspen police spokeswoman Stephanie Dasaro says Sheen was arrested Friday on charges of second-degree assault and menacing, both felonies, along with criminal mischief, a misdemeanor.

Police say the alleged victim didn’t have to be taken to the hospital. That person’s name was not released.

Police say the 44-year-old actor will be held without bond in the Pitkin County Jail until his first court appearance. The court was closed for Christmas, and no date for his appearance has been set.

______

heres the Other Shoe dropping in my discussion of the Boulder Pubic Library and its Severed Penises Party

so in the past few weeks

1) america’s most famous sports star was (likely) beaten by his wife, with a deadly weapon

result: an outpouring of sympathy for her, condemnation for him, and extortionate demands by the abuser which were met by the victim (on threat, apparently of more publicity/losing his kids)

the amerikan medea, still screeching from the Rihanna Ridiculousness, fails to call the incident Domestic Violence because it doesnt fit amerika’s model of male = evil and female = good

2) another lesser-known sports figure, chris henry, “falls” out of the back of a truck driven by his girlfriend, and subsequently dies

result: no charges filed against the woman, and again silence from the medea about the potential Domestic Violence aspect of the incident

the driver of the vehicle remains free and the “authorities” remain silent

if the genders were reversed, chris henry would be in jail right now while the “investigation” took place, and the Medea would be howling for his blood

3) charlie sheen is arrested on Domestic Violence charges, despite the fact that nobody even went to the hospital as a result of the “crime” (compare to chris henry situation)

sheen is held WITHOUT BOND in a colorado jail — like, sure, this guy’s a completely unknown quantity, nobody’s ever heard of him, he’s very likely to skip the country and hide out the rest of his life in the jungles of guatemala

charlie should have taken me up on my offer during the Boulder Penis Roundup, maybe he wouldnt be spending his christmas behind bars

apparently every single boy and man in the western world will have to be jailed before they grow a pair

methinks Der Matriarchy will oblige!

summarizing the trifecta, the words TYRANNY of MAN-HATRED spring to mind

also in the news, a woman in a red-hooded sweatshirt leaped the barrier and knocked down pope benedict in st. peter’s basilica

a couple months ago, the pope had scolded the world for its “oppression of women”

how’s she lookin’ to you now, bennie? now that you’re flat on your back and looking up, like the rest of us?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi December 26, 2009 at 09:44

””””””’a couple months ago, the pope had scolded the world for its “oppression of women”””””””’

Wow when even the pope is against men. Fuck that pussy. Woman are not being oppressed anywhere. Except in the western countries.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi December 26, 2009 at 09:47

”””””””””’charlie sheen is arrested on Domestic Violence charges, despite the fact that nobody even went to the hospital as a result of the “crime” (compare to chris henry situation)””””””’

What is amazing is through the power of woman she was able to get him put in jail for the holidays and she wasn’t even hurt. Amazing why anyone with money would still choose to live in a non free country with laws that make no sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi December 26, 2009 at 09:55

”””””””In Canada, if I leave for 5 years, I fall out of the Canadian Tax Agency’s database. Most reccomend to end residency for 6 years, before attempting to resume residency. In the USA, it takes 10 years. (That sucks!). That means, if I stay out of Canada for 6 years, all of my income is tax-free, as far as Canada is concerned, but if I return sooner, I will have to declare how much money I made abroad while I was away, and pay taxes on it. ””””””

Well if you work outside of the us for 365 days straight and only return for a maximum of 35 days during that time. The money you make up to 82k is tax free now. Although they have changed the law to include paying the fica and crap so yea not totally tax free. If you pay taxes on the money you make in another country you don’t have to pay again to us after paying to the country your working in. Depends on if you own your own business though too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi December 26, 2009 at 10:04

What does the pope think of all those woman in the walmart cash registers bagging groceries and crap all fucking day. Wtf is that? Not oppression.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray December 26, 2009 at 14:38

Gunslinger—

What is amazing is through the power of woman she was able to get him put in jail for the holidays and she wasn’t even hurt. Amazing why anyone with money would still choose to live in a non free country with laws that make no sense.

________

man, this one just blew me away

the article didnt say whether/how she was “hurt” but it did report that nobody went to the hospital, which means injuries, if any, were minor

judges, justice system, its all a sham — what it comes down to is that whatever women demand = the law

i mean, held w/o bail? a famous actor? on some bullshit DV charge? whats he gonna do, skip to cuba?

this is just plain old tyranny, straightforward bully evil, i dont understand why MRAs arent objecting to this and the chris henry coverup

in our matriarchy, silence = tacit consent

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 27, 2009 at 09:12

Gunslingergregi,

I guess I didn’t really specify the point of dropping out of the tax database.

For example, if you were to come into a lot of money – say $1,000,000.

Well, the government will always more or less know my net worth etc. etc., especially if I have assets that are generating income. If my net worth drops from $1,000,000 to $800,000, there will be a write-off, of which also gets reported to them. In other words, they always have tabs on your assets and if those assets were to mysteriously disappear, it raises red flags and you might get subjected to an audit.

However, if I were to leave the country, they total up my assets in order to pay exit taxes. So, I would leave with $1,000,000.

However, they will from here on lose all tracking of my assets. During the time when I am gone, that amount might get invested and become $1,500,000, and when I resume residency after the proper amount of time, and have to start declaring my assets again, they have to go on my word. Even though it would be illegal to do so. I could declare that I only have $500,000 upon my return (I lost money investing!) and have $1,000,000 socked away 100% safe and no one would be the wiser. But, like I said, to lie to the government like that is illegal, (everything else before that IS legal and above board), and I am not recommending to break the law, but to treat your government with the same honesty and integrity with which they regularly treat their citizens – in other words, since they are so regularly honest with you and respect your rights and obey the law, then it is your obligation to return the favour.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi December 29, 2009 at 15:19

Allright I suppose if ya had a mil.

Me I am more than comfortable with around 3k a month income and no bills.

Work on upping that as I go.

But I guess depending on if you already paid taxes on the 500k in earnings to another country would also make a difference.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jesse January 1, 2010 at 03:17

We can bleat on all day about how unfair it all is and wish for a day when life is the way we’d like but we live in a reality that is independent of all of that. Hoping for deliverance by a government is a fool’s dream.
The only solution one can depend on is one that will deliver your own survival. One must strive for this oneself and explain to the young men around you what that solution is. The solution is exceedingly simple and obvious – don’t let your breeding instincts overwhelm your common sense and simply stay the fuck away from women. Allow your breeding instincts to gain control and all is lost.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: