Obama Has Subverted Our 4th Amendment Rights

So, you’re upset, because suddenly “rendition” can happen at home too…. ?

@ Master Dogen.

Well, it depends. If you had always maintained that all “rendition” was immoral, illegal and just plain wrong, then yes, this would be cause for further upset.

If, however, you justified it beforehand because it only happened to raghead terr-rists, then no, it is no cause for further upset, because nothing has changed.

When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, because I am not Jewish.

I’ll probably get ripped apart for this but…..

Is a Global New World Order such a bad thing? i mean really?

Any power that seeks to oppress the world as whole IMO would achieve an elusive unified global effort to over throw it, it wont be Brits fighting separately to limit government or Americans fighting separately it will be a unified world fighting against tyrany.

If the world marches with no serious protest to a global Oligarchy without actively fighting back and stays subjugated if such an Oligarchy as been exposed as oppressive instead of unifying and fighting back, then….as the saying goes “you get the government, you deserve”.

I personally think a new World Order is long overdue. Perhaps this is the common enemy to unite humankind short of an Alien invasion.

Away with religion and nationalistics sentiments, one planet under the Laws of the Universe IMO, with free movement of people and labour. True freedom as the birds have with no regards to State boundarys when they migrate.

Here comes the assaults
/Flame proof Immunity jacket on.

I am not sure I can answer The Caliph’s question. Rather I have a question of my own. There are those who oppose what they see as encroaching world government because they see it as an erosion of American independence and sovereignty. I on the other hand see it in entirely the opposite way. The new world order is just the consolidation of American world power. If the UN is to run the world then it will be a UN dominated and controlled by the USA and its friends in Europe.

So is the new world order just a camouflage for American global domination or is it something different ?

One world government means that there is nowhere to escape from it.

It means us and them.

When those who work for gorvernment become too powerful, the people suffer, as they become more and more subjected to the whims of those with power.

This is happened throughout history.

Not sure what this story has to do with men in particular.

Seems more like you’re using this site to push your political political beliefs.

@ Ragnar

If I can’t turn my back on someone and leave them, then I’m their slave!

I am afraid that according to that definition we have all been slaves for an absolute minimum of 30 years.

There is no-where to run if “they” decide to reel you in.

Give it another 5 or 10 years and converting to Muslim and living under Sharia law is going to start looking very attractive for a surprising proportion of men.

Read up on “water monopolies”

The USA is a classic example of a water monopoly, there is nothing outside strong enough to topple it, and nothing inside to stop it decaying. The only unknown is when the sudden and dramatic crash happens and the water monopoly comes down like the WTC, with apparently “no warning”.

“Give it another 5 or 10 years and converting to Muslim and living under Sharia law is going to start looking very attractive for a surprising proportion of men.”

This thought has been in my mind for some time.

I am not looking forward to anything of that sort. But if I have to chose between two evils, I will take the lesser one and for now, Islam seems a far better alternative than being a slave to a feminazi state, which is where we are heading.

As time ticks away, we see in what direction this is taking us: the global enslavement of males.

I don’t know about you, but I think a nuclear holocaust is a better solution than slavery..

I do expect a lot of turmoil in the few years to come.
Our freedom as men must be earned back: we all know what that means… certainly not peace.
I would expect, also, radical Muslims to recruit among our street gangs. I wonder how come it hasn’t been done yet.
Nature will find a way to solve the “human question”.

In the end, the Grim Reaper may be summoned for a massive “job”.

Humanity might have to start again from scratch, as has happened before. Maybe this is the natural order of things.

@ Rebel

I am not looking forward to anything of that sort. But if I have to chose between two evils, I will take the lesser one and for now, Islam seems a far better alternative than being a slave to a feminazi state, which is where we are heading.

Why, do you think, Islam has been the target of a sustained campaign of disinformation and derogation for the past decade?

I have lived in Islamic countries most of my life, it is AT LEAST as flexible and universal a religion as catholicism / christianity, it already has evolved into sub groups, such as those that prohibit the artistic representation of living creatures, and those that do not.

It is a smaller step for Islam to say..

1/ OK, we will keep the “turn around three times and say ‘I divorce thee’ each time” divorce.
2/ OK, we will keep the wife and children as chattels of the man.
3/ OK, we will keep the non usury of Islamic banking.
4/ OK, we will keep the “every time you steal to fund your crack habit, we will cut off one hand”.
5/ Well, we will make weak alcohol in moderation frowned upon, but permissible (this is even before synthetic alcohol http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/26/1826205)
6/ Well, we will make bacon sandwiches in moderation frowned upon, but permissible.
7/ Well, we will permit designed stubble instead of a full beard.

These are in fact smaller moves than catholicism / christianity has made with respect to female clergy and now female bishops.

Oh the irony of that, original sin, satan’s gate, once upon a time a woman on the rag was not even permitted into a church.

Islam already has that one cured.

Seriously, Islam could be a major contender within 10 years, which is why the MSM has been slighting it at every opportunity for the past 10 years.

Nothing has changed, the clergy / church is still a favourite tool of subjugation.

Rebel: “I am not looking forward to anything of that sort. But if I have to chose between two evils, I will take the lesser one and for now, Islam seems a far better alternative than being a slave to a feminazi state, which is where we are heading.”

Move to Pakistan or Afghanistan, then. Or maybe Somalia. See how you like it.

AfOR: “I have lived in Islamic countries most of my life, it is AT LEAST as flexible and universal a religion as catholicism / christianity”

I assume this is a joke. Islam is the least flexible and most extremist major belief system in existence. The Islamization of the Western world would mean the end of the Western world.

“it already has evolved into sub groups, such as those that prohibit the artistic representation of living creatures, and those that do not.”

From an infidel’s perspective the differences between these subgroups are trivial at best.

“Seriously, Islam could be a major contender within 10 years, which is why the MSM has been slighting it at every opportunity for the past 10 years.”

Except in reality the MSM is pro-Islam.

As for the Interpol thing, to my knowledge they don’t have the power to arrest anyone, and have no field agents. They just act as a coordinator between police agencies of different countries.

Heh, well you’ve got me there, Tarl.

But as we’re probably about to learn in Afghanistan, you can lead a horse to water…

If people want to live in the dark ages, I am sympathetic to that. Modern, civilized, protected men feel superior because they have Tylenol and cable television, but many clearly ache for the drama and excitement of more dangerous lives. That’s what half our movies are about.

Either conquer savages, subjugate them and make them your people or let them enjoy lives that are “poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” I’d happily stop feeding and supporting Africa, for instance. We can’t afford it anyway. Cut ‘em off and let ‘em sort themselves out.

The thing with all of this Global Governance thing that is going on, is that too many people think that pointing out the connections to all kinds of various forces or figures in the background is the way to illustrate what is going on.

I don’t think of it that way at all.

I think of it like this:

I walk by a vacant lot every day. At first, all there is are piles of lumber. That is all that it is. I never see no workers, nor even can verify for certain that people work at the site.

But, after a while, the lumber begins to form more and more patterns and shapes, until it becomes evident that a frame of a building is being erected. After a while, plywood is on a floor, a roof is going on top, and there are holes for windows in the framing.

It’s not yet a house, but it is pretty obvious that it soon will be. I don’t even need to see any carpenters, nor know who is the general contractor. It just becomes obvious that it is a house. And, since I know it is a house, I know these pieces of wood just didn’t magically move from the pile of lumber and into the formation of a house. There is a plan, and there is people putting that plan into action.

It’s the same thing as erecting Global Government – there must come a point where people no longer can deny what is being erected, and certainly the frame work for globally encompassing regulatory bodies are being erected.

Also, in regard to a “plan” that is controlled to the nth detail by shadowy conspiracy figures, that is not how it works.

Think of a shepherd and his flock. When he moves them, all of the sheep don’t follow in a straight line. Some might be walking north, but individual sheep might at times be walking in a north easterly direction. However, if you were sitting on a cliff overlooking the flock, you would be able to see that the shepherd is indeed moving them intentionally where he wants the flock to go – and they are going north.

Also, in another thread, Angry Harry mentioned in regard to this subject, that he doesn’t need to know how a computer works in order to fight it by smashing it with a bat.

True.

But, that will be noisy, messy, and might even get you arrested.

You could also get the owner’s manual, read it, and learn if there is an on/off switch – or, you could look for the electrical outlet and simply unplug it.

Same as, if I wanted to destroy your car, I could take a bat and smash the crap out of it.

Another way would be to learn how a car works, and then in the middle of the night, to sneak underneath and clip the brake lines… the result will be the same.

This is what is going on – there are certain “pillars” that society once used to understand were essential for healthy society. And, somehow, the screws have been purposefully loosened. I might not know exactly how the pillar will fall, but if I weaken it enough, I can expect a general set of events to follow, even if I can’t direct each detail.

Take the UN’s Right’s of the Child that is attached to the CEDAW.

It will basically elevate the rights of the child to be higher than the parents’ rights. This is just an out and out disaster waiting to happen, and even though I cannot predict each and everything that will result, I can reasonably expect that elevating children higher than parents will be damaging to everyone within the family. It’s not all of the things that happen after which are orchestrated, but rather, the few “pins” that have been purposefully removed that set off a chain of events.

For example – Under the CEDAW, which Canada signed (but the USA has not), some teenage girl took her father to court and won her case under her new “rights.” These details might not be 100% precise, but it is close enough – She was using the internet in her room to arrange with friends to sneak out of the house in the middle of the night or something like that, and the father grounded her from the computer and took it out of her room, I think. She took the father to court, and won, and he was forced to return it to her room because he had violated her rights to communication and access to information or something like that, under the CEDAW’s Rights of the Child.

Under the CEDAW, your child also has religious rights which you may not infringe upon. So, despite your family being Catholic, eight year old Johnny might come home and decide to worship Islam, or Buddha, or Satan or whatever, and you would be infringing upon his rights to prevent him in any way from choosing his own worship – a child!

How can a family operate like this?

They can’t!

With the emergence of game – and, btw, game actually isn’t new because many of these things were known for quite a while already.

If you have a look at it that way, you can see what happened – women’s rights and position were elevated above men’s rights/position, and it is just a complete disaster.

If you understood a thing or two about game, you would have to be able to see that it is not good at all for marriage to have this feature, but rather destructive.

It doesn’t mean that someone is behind each and every subsequent thing – but, check into the important points what changed, and you can see that they get foisted upon people – things like No Fault Divorce which was not even something most people even understood, and certainly the population was not screaming out for it, except for those extremist radicals who were calling for the destruction of marriage in order to destroy society. It was no accident.

After a while, you can see that a framework is being built, rather than just individual pieces of lumber – and that means a plan rather than randomness, and it means someone must be behind that plan – pulling out the pins.

The only problem I have with the whole ‘Obama is the boogey man’ is that all of these Fox style Republicans are only NOW starting to bemoan the loss of our freedoms.

We went through EIGHT YEARS of a living nightmare of the loss of our freedoms with the WORST president in all of U.S. history who outspent any liberal ever. Who also did NOTHING for men’s rights – NOTHING.

Yes, I can clearly see Obama for what is truly is – a socialistic nightmare and I’m dreading what is to come. But spare me the Obama fear mongering if you’re not going to even acknowledge the nightmare erosion of rights during the Bush years and they way he got away with murder by playing stupid.

That’s what makes me sick about Fox and all of these so-called conservatives. Bush is the worst thing that could have ever happened to conservatives and he set it all up for Obama to walk right in with sweeping powers. I just see more of the same.

Change? Where?

Actually, guys, “Men’s Rights” are the basic rights of society.

We are the scumbags – the low man on the totem pole of preference.

We are the people who need rights more than anyone else.

So, yes, these things like Global Warming and other subequent scams, which are seeking to curtail our rights and freedoms, are Men’s Rights.

It is the scum that nobody cares about who need rights the most – not the prefered people.

And, also, the USA is not the world. In fact, despite what many MRA’s think, the USA is not the worst feminist hellhole on the planet. The USA has been resistant because it has by far the best Constitution on the planet – one that is very difficult to destroy. Granted, your culture of movies etc. is pretty extreme, but you still have 10 times the options to fight back that most of the rest of the world does. The problem with living in Rome is, you are the center of the universe – the most important place, and so you usually know less about the outside world, than the outside world knows about you. That is not an insult, but it is a feature of every center of the empire.

Canada used to have a strong Constitution and guaranteed rights too. And, back then we were as strong and prosperous as America – in fact, even moreso. Our rights were rewritten by Trudeau a few decades ago, and of note is how he paid so much attention to the wording used (and also, he studied Marxism intensely during the 40′s). See what is the result? It is not that the rights of individuals are protected, but rather that minority rights have become elevated over and above the majority – minorities are being used to curtail the rights of everyone else here.

Many of the things that America is going through right now, Canada went through 15 or 20 years ago, and many of the things Canada went through back then, Scandinavia went through even a decade or two earlier. We can chart the path by now – the hard part is getting America to see it, because they are the center of the universe, and we know much more about them than they know about us. Many of the worst aspects of what has been erected won’t be fully used until America is brought into the fold – do it too early, and too many Americans will start getting uppity – and you will be the hardest people of all if that happens, because you have the best rights – and you are armed up to your eyeballs.

Btw, Jay, I disliked Bush much more than Obama – but, what Obama is doing is right out in the open. Oh, and, btw, what Obama is doing is putting America deeply into debt the same way Trudeau did to Canada (an increase of over 1100% in our debt), and he is putting in the same social programs as Trudeau did, and Obama (and Shitlery) discusses rewriting the Constitution, as did Trudeau, and so on, and so on. I mean, other people have gone down this road before you, and the results are predictable.

@ Jay Hammers
“Stick to the issues. Men’s rights can exist in a capitalist society and a socialist society.”

How about googling ‘Feminism (is a) Marxist tool’ ?

The totalitarianism in governments, which we are presently facing, in the west, are a result of marxist ideas. Whether this is a conspiracy or not doesn’t matter, the end result matters.

Mens Rights are the basis for any society without them the society crumbles.

Yeah, I could do without this paranoiac NWO conspiracy nuttiness trying to piggyback it’s way in on the legitimate grievances men have.

___________

the NWO is the New Woman Order, and every step it takes towards further entrenching its power around the planet directly affects men, and adds further “grievances”

the further empowerment of the NWO by Obie via Interpol will disproportionately be used to oppress males (esp poor, disenfranchised, and/or uppity males) in the western world, and to further consolidate the matriarchies that already obtain across the west

oh lookee, i see the NWO let that Domestic Violence Monster, charlie sheen, out of his cage, after holding him over christmas without bond

seeing as how he’s such a risk to escape to borneo

wakie wakie people, that’s just as much a manifestation of the NWO as Obie’s Interpol gambit

we’ll see if charlie does a tiger woods and begins grovelling at his Male Unworthiness and paying his wife hush money

i also see that the Medea blackout concerning the v questionable circumstances surrounding chris henry’s death continues

while most of the world is busy denying that anything is happening, the New Woman Order has essentially finished its agenda, doing whatever it wants in america and elsewhere

and if you think national sovereignty or your magnificent Constitution is gonna protect you, you are definitely matrix-bound and sand-buried

all theyre doing now is dotting the eyes and crossing the doubles

@ Null

Yes it is. Even if it wasn’t, why hasn’t the Islamic world followed suit? If they’re so wonderfully progressive, why are they still stuck in the dark ages?

This is a remarkably ignorant comment.

Islam and Christianity come from just about the same place geographically, until the discovery of oil, that region of the planet had fuck all, no coal, no iron ore, no great forests, no nothing really.

Europe of course has coal, iron ore, etc etc etc, so it did rather well.

No natural resources pretty much means no modern civilisation.

If you look at a map of predominantly Islamic countries, they are basically the countries with fuck all in the natural resources stakes prior to the discovery of oil this past century.

http://www.islamproject.org/images/muslim_2000_final.jpg

As far as being stuck in the dark ages goes, you obviously do not realise just how much of “our” culture we owe directly to Islam.

Yeah, what did the romans ever do for us? and the christians, and the moslems…. the answer is always one hell of a lot more than you think.

Here is one for you, discriminating between criminal intent and criminal action, a foundation of all western law, actually came from the Koran originally… before that, we did not discriminate between the two.

5 year old burns the house down accidentally and kills his baby brother, that’s murder, kill him.

that’s how we used to do it.

Look up “New Roman Law”

btw, the Koran is very specific about banning racism.

How about things like grammar and cryptology, yup, not western either.

When Roman Law Ruled the Western World

Starting as a small kingdom, Rome grew to be republic and then an empire that lasted about 500 years in Western Europe and almost another thousand years in the eastern Mediterranean. During that time, the Romans introduced elements of civil and criminal law that provided the foundation for the legal systems of most nations in the Western world today.

Rome began as a small kingdom around 750 B.C. As in all ancient societies, Roman law began with custom. A custom is a way of doing things over time. Perhaps the most unique and far-reaching custom of the ancient Romans was the idea of patria potestas. This Latin term refers to the power of the Roman father over his wife, children, and other members of his family. His word was literally the law.

In early times, the father held life and death power over his children. He could leave an unwanted or deformed newborn infant in the forest to die of exposure. He could also sell his children into slavery.

A father’s absolute power over his family lasted until he died. His children, even though they may have been adults, could not own property because the father legally owned all the possessions of family members. Nor could children marry without the father’s consent.

Just because a father held the power of a dictator did not always require that he act like one. In practice, many fathers gladly gave up their rights over their adult children. When a daughter married, she usually left her father’s control and came under the power of her husband. Fathers also legally emancipated or freed their sons to become independent.

Under patria potestas, the Roman father acted as a judge to settle legal matters within the family. When a conflict occurred between families, the fathers of each would negotiate a settlement.

Law in the Roman Republic

After the Romans established a republic in 509 B.C., they created several lawmaking bodies representing different classes of people. At first, only the upper-class patricians made the laws. But before long, the lower-class plebeians gained this right.

About 60 years after the founding of the Roman Republic, discontented plebeians demanded a written code of laws and legal rights. The plebeians complained that because the laws were not in writing, government authorities and creditors could easily abuse the people.

After some resistance from the patricians, a committee produced 12 bronze tablets that together contained Rome’s first law code. Called the Twelve Tables, this code recorded important legal concepts such as:

* rules to settle boundary and other property disputes.
* formulas to make contracts and wills.
* protections for debtors.
* rights of citizens, such as the right to be represented by someone in a legal matter.

Around 570 B.C., the Romans created the praetor system for settling conflicts. It largely replaced the role of families and fathers in the legal system. Under the new system, the praetor, a powerful government official, took written complaints from citizens and investigated them. The praetor decided whether to authorize a trial before a judge. The plaintiff, the one bringing the complaint, and the defendant then presented their evidence to the judge. Finally, the praetor decided the case and, if the plaintiff won, ordered a remedy or compensation of some type. The praetor system handled criminal offenses in the same way.

Appointed to one-year terms, the praetors became increasingly powerful judicial officials. They began the practice of issuing a written statement, called the Praetor’s Edict, as their term of office began. This edict described the rights the praetor intended to enforce and what remedies he would recommend for wrongful acts. Eventually, the edict became a standard set of legal principles and rules passed from one praetor to another. Praetors used their edicts to interpret the Twelve Tables, as well as the laws passed by the assemblies of the Republic.

Family Law, Civil Wrongs, and Jury Courts

Family law in the Roman Republic set the minimum age for marriage at 14 for males and 12 for females. No formal ceremony, religious or otherwise, was necessary. The fathers of both families, however, still had to give consent. The male-dominated system also required the wife to bring a dowry (usually some kind of property) to her husband, who then controlled it. But either spouse could divorce the other without having to go through any legal formalities.

Slavery was common in ancient Rome. One became a slave by being captured in war, born to a slave mother, or convicted for certain offenses. Masters had near absolute power over their slaves during the republic, including the right to kill them. Masters could also free their slaves. When this happened, the slave automatically became a Roman citizen.

Throughout most of the long history of the Roman Republic, the law treated criminal offenses as “civil wrongs” that were handled in lawsuits between the victim and the accused offender. For example, the Praetor’s Edict declared that if a judge found a person guilty of certain kinds of stealing, he had to pay his victim four times the value of the stolen goods. Judges decided the compensation due a victim for personal injuries, usually a sum of money.

Around 80 B.C., toward the end of the republic, the government created jury courts that specialized in particular crimes. Each court had a presiding judge and up to 75 jury members, who were chosen by lot to decide a case. At first, only patrician senators could serve as jurors, but later, juries included men from other propertied classes.

Any male Roman citizen could accuse someone of a crime and seek to prosecute him or her before a jury court. To bring a case, the accuser had to take an oath that his prosecution was in good faith. The accused person remained free while each side prepared for the trial. Both sides had the right to challenge jurors and demand that they be replaced.

At the trial, the accusers had to be present and often conducted their own prosecution. The defendants could represent themselves or be represented by one or more advocates. These advocates were typically experienced public speakers rather than experts in the law. Lawyers did exist, but they offered their advice (for free) outside the court trial.

The trial procedure would be familiar to us today: opening speeches, examination and cross-examination of witnesses, introduction of other evidence such as documents, and closing speeches. The Romans considered important any evidence about the defendant’s character. The judge could order the punishment of a witness who committed perjury. It was necessary for a majority of the jurors to find a defendant guilty. If the jury split evenly, the defendant would go free.

Under the jury court system, the law assigned penalties for crimes. Punishments included fines, flogging, loss of citizenship, banishment, forced labor in government mines, and death by crucifixion or by beasts in the arena, such as the famous Coliseum. Lower-class criminals suffered physical punishment and death much more frequently than upper-class offenders for the same crime. Although there was no right of appeal, a lawmaking assembly could pardon a convicted criminal.

Imperial Law

After Caesar Augustus established the Roman Empire in 31 B.C., imperial officials and courts directly controlled by the emperor replaced the jury courts. The emperor also assumed the power to make and interpret the laws.

Imperial court officers took over the job of prosecuting criminal defendants. A network of spies and investigators passed on evidence to the imperial prosecutors. Torture became a common method for gathering evidence and securing confessions. The concept of a fair trial further suffered because the emperor could always dictate the verdict.

For some offenses, the emperor confiscated the convicted criminal’s property. In many cases, this impoverished the offender’s entire family. Augustus made adultery a crime, forcing a guilty wife to divorce her husband, surrender a portion of her dowry to him, and lose a third of her property. While a wife could not accuse her husband of adultery, she could divorce him. A wife, but not an unmarried woman, could be punished (usually by banishment) for abortion since the law considered that her husband had been deprived of an heir. The penalty for rape was death.

Treason could include a variety of acts from armed rebellion to cursing the emperor. Those found guilty would be banished or executed and would also have their property confiscated. Private organizations of all kinds were carefully controlled or outlawed because they provided opportunities for people to meet and conspire against the emperor. This was one reason why emperors banned the early Christian Church.

The Romans usually did not tamper with the local customs and laws of the peoples they conquered. After centuries of Roman rule, however, Roman law began to apply to citizens and foreigners alike throughout the empire. The jus gentium (“law of the nations”) included trade laws, rulings by governors and judges in the provinces, as well as edicts by the emperors. The concept of a single law for all peoples became more of a reality in A.D. 212 when Emperor Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to nearly all free inhabitants of the empire.

Some changes occurred in Roman law when Christianity became the official religion of the Empire in A.D. 395. For example, a marriage was not legal unless the couple had received the blessing of a Church priest. Divorce became much more difficult. The emperors also outlawed the old pagan religious cults.

After the collapse of the Roman Empire in Western Europe in A.D. 476, Roman law underwent a long decline. In the eastern part of the Empire, however, the law of the Romans continued to flourish under emperors like Justinian.

In A.D. 534, Justinian published the final version of a new Roman law code. This monumental work preserved, clarified, and updated centuries of Roman lawmaking since the Twelve Tables codified early Roman law almost a thousand years earlier. Justinian’s Code kept Roman law alive in the eastern Empire for nearly another thousand years.

Although Roman law seemed to disappear entirely after the final conquest of the eastern empire by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, the Christian church preserved much of it in its own canon (religious) law. In addition, Roman law experienced a revival of interest by scholars during the Renaissance.

In modern times, Roman law became the basis for several Western European law codes including those of France (Napoleonic Code), Austria, and Germany. In turn, these codes influenced many other countries such as Spain, Egypt, Japan, and even the state of Louisiana.

In the Western world, only England, its colonies, and Scandinavian countries developed law systems different from ancient Rome’s. But even these countries are indebted to the Romans for creating many legal concepts, principles, and rights that govern the lives of their citizens today.

posted because those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.

Jack Donovan December 27, 2009 at 2:54 pm

“You must be doing bong hits”.

Nah if a unfied humanity fails to defeat a Tyranical NWO then we deserve as a species whatever the fuck is coming our way end of story. But if we do we realise we’re not different afterall and the “Tyrannical NWO” would have invariably left us with a common ground and a blueprint for Global peace.

Its that fucking simple, together we stand apart we fall.

Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand were all colonies.

What those here have failed to understand is that no nation, no power, allows other powers to run willy-nilly around it’s land without any controls UNLESS IT HAS NO CHOICE.

American has waned far more than you think.

You should be moving in the direction of away.

@Caliph

While I sympathise with your view that a global government might unite people in ways through which they can overcome any major oppression or adversity, I think that History shows that matters do not turn out like this when governments and government workers become too powerful; e.g. see …

http://www.angryharry.com/esGovernmentalBeast.htm

Somehow, we really need to address this issue before it is too late.

But, of course, I hope you are right!

@Caliph

I continue, …

If we – the people – do not keep a close eye on the NWO ball, and take good note of what they are doing, then they will walk all over us – for sure.

As such, I think that it is a mistake to undermine too strongly those people who are trying to raise awareness of what seems to be happening, and of what might happen if we are not very vigilant.

If we are vigilant, then what you predict (and hope for) will more likely come to pass – which would be nice.

@Jay Hammers

“I worry that newcomers who are interested won’t ever get to that point if we don’t maintain focus on our goal to achieve equal rights for men.”

The growth of government and the LOSS of rights for men are inextricably entwined as Fedders pointed out.

Might I suggest this piece which tries to give some insight into why governments (left and right) are so keen on breaking down people’s relationships.

http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyGovernmentsLoveFeminism.htm

@Jay Hammers

but I’ve written blog posts on global warming, big government, and other topics. I still wouldn’t post one of them here unless the meat of it dealt with men’s rights

These issues are all tightly connected. A conservative culture is necessarily driven by traditional masculine values of objectivity, liberty and self-reliance. A feminized culture elevates feelings and subjective values (“the personal is political”) above Newtonian reality so that a feminist can claim that Einstein “priviliged” the speed of light over other equally important speeds without being ridiculed into academic oblivion.

A preposterous lie like anthropogenic global warming can only exist in such a feminized culture, where science is politicized and the scientific method itself has been subverted.

@Caliph

“I continue, …

If we – the people – do not keep a close eye on the NWO ball, and take good note of what they are doing, then they will walk all over us – for sure.”

I dont disagree with that statement Harry, its still in line with my general thinking that the NWO can only ever be as powerful as we the people allow it to get.

We the people in the case being the whole world. That is one massive juggernaut to try to subjugate unless ofcourse they already sabotage themselves with a “you’re not my people” mentaility and dont rise up to suppport each other regardless whether the other’s problem is starting to affect them directly.

Wait a minute isnt that what got us here in the 1st place and allowed the elite to accumulate so much power? Their exploitation of our general “my people sentiment”.

The Caliph and Obama belong to the same class of men: those who believe in some fuzzy, idealized, “Small World” Disneyland ride of internationalism. As an American my interests, and ideals, and way of life are vastly different than a Somalis, or Pakistanis, or Saudis, or Chinese man’s. I have less in common with THEM than a I do the most radical gay lesbian American woman on the planet. Rosie O’Donnell is closer to me culturally and in my interests than a man from Nigeria or Somalia. Among other things, Rosie O’Donnell won’t try to blow me and the airliner I am sitting in out of the sky with explosive underpants.

Obama’s action are a threat because they undermine US Sovereignty. Placing Americans under the arrest powers, without recourse, of foreign police agencies. This is something Bush resisted, along with calls to put America under the ICC, because of the precise threat to US Sovereignty.

At a stroke, ALL of the protections of the Constitution are nullified, to push Obama’s fuzzy, transnational utopian agenda.

I don’t have a problem with rendition, which was begun under Clinton and continues under Obama — rendition takes foreign nationals (not US citizens) who come under US custody and renders them to foreign nations where quite likely they are tortured for information. So What?

First, this was the inevitable result of Liberals pushing for Lawfare, and granting the full US civil rights to enemies captured on foreign battlefields (i.e. Afghanistan, Iran, etc.) Done by the Supremes and the Obama Administration (see the civilian, Miranda-rights trial of KSM the 9/11 Mastermind). Not being able to treat enemy combatants who violate the rules of war (as FDR did in hanging Nazi spy-saboteurs) the US has no other choice but to render. Since the enemy wants to do his best to kill me, I don’t care.

Second, I fully understand that Muslim men are my enemy. Muslim men want to either kill me or make me their slave. Not all of them, but most of them certainly. They certainly want to make Western women their sex slaves. A not insignificant portion of Western women would like this as well, I think. Which also makes Muslim men my enemy.

Of course I have enemies, I am a human being. Rationally, I understand this and don’t care a whit when my enemies suffer — they certainly don’t care when I do, or mine do. Muslims are my enemy — they try to kill people just like me all the time. So if some Jihadist gets rendered to Egypt where he is tortured, I don’t care at all. Like Clinton, I say the more the better. Or as Al Gore said, “he’s a terrorist. Render his ass.”

Obama is not the Joker. He is a cultural Muslim at least, and thus my enemy (as a non-Muslim Western man). Of course he wants Interpol as his helpful pal to “arrest” Bush and others who believe in US Sovereignty and US laws over foreign ones (something unpopular among women, and feminized elites who have no allegiance but money and their fellow elites).

I wish Obama was the Joker — he’d be alone without all those allies everywhere.

@Whiskey

BTW the NWO is done destroying all traditional and cultural insitutions on a Global scale you maye indeed have more in common with a Somali than that fellow from New Mexico.

@Whiskey

“I don’t have a problem with rendition, which was begun under Clinton and continues under Obama — rendition takes foreign nationals (not US citizens) who come under US custody and renders them to foreign nations where quite likely they are tortured for information. So What?”

Now i’m guessing a Yemeni holds similar views,
probably something along the lines of ” I dont have a problem with al-qaeda as long as they keep blowing up those infidels and not on Arab soil”

This is why your cultural believes and traditions aswell as those of said Yemeni need to be destroyed and brought crashing to the ground.

When that happens all we’ll have left is
Whiskey & Unknown Yemeni- ” I dont have a problem with injustice to others as long as it doesnt affect me or people i know, and care about or feel an afinity for”

Make sense?

Caliph, a significant percentage of human begins report having homosexual thoughts. There must be some reason homosexuality survived throughout the generations even though natural selection would tend not to favor it. Within a decade or two homosexuals will be able to have children and that barrier will no longer exist.

Anyway, no one is going to change anyone’s mind here about these other issues. And no one is going to raise awareness of men’s rights by debating them. For those of you who write articles here on this men’s rights website, consider that it is not productive to write them about topics without explaining the connection to men’s rights issues.

You have to ask yourselves if you want to make this site a platform to complain about all the perceived injustices of the world or to raise awareness for men’s rights.

Since Obama does not meet the natural born citizen requirement of the U.S. Constitution (he held dual citizenship at birth even if he was born in Hawaii), nothing he does is legal or binding because is not legally president.

The problem is gathering the resources necessary to force the issue in the courts and bring practice in line with law.

It’s worth pursuing this even if a judgement cannot be won until after Obama is elected out of office because otherwise we will be stuck with his changes. It is necessary to have his presidency and his actions declared illegal, null, and void, so that nothing is left of his attempt to undermine and destroy our Constitution and way of life.

@Caliph

“by the time the NWO is done destroying traditions and cultures on a Global scale you maye indeed have more in common with a Somali than that fellow from New Mexico””

Excellent point – which seems valid to me.

I would also add that whatever-men-have-in-common (and their common interests) have been purposely hidden from view by the usual culprits.

Whenever do we hear about “men’s issues” and “men’s concerns” in the MSM or from government?

It is not in the interests of the powers-that-be (and the powers-that-have-been) for men to be too concerned about their own welfare, or the welfare of other men,

The duopoly gov’t of this country, amerika, both republican and democrat have been wiping their asses with the constitution for decades now. One such as myself would argue that this has been the case since amerika’s first tyrant president – dishonest Abe.

Government by it’s nature never respects the just restraints that were intended to be applied to it.

For those flag waving amerikan patriots – WAKE UP, we live in a Marxist oligarchy not in a constitutional republic.

Guys n gals, you have to be realistic. No one’s going to take away women’s right to vote, no one’s going to remove Obama from the presidency talking about his birth, no one’s going to disprove anthropogenic climate change any time soon. But men’s rights ARE going to get better. There’s no question about that and the men’s movement is already gaining speed. How fast we go is dependent on you.

Btw, nor should things be “dumbed down” for the newbies. That keeps everyone stupid, for lack of intellectual stimulation. This argument too, has been quite destructive to the MRM.

If we men have one thing going for us, I’ll tell you what it is: It is our noggins.

The more educated we make ourselves the better.

Better to have 10% of the people at 100%, than 100% of the people at 10%.

Ragnar December 27, 2009 at 7:09 pm
@The Caliph
“Like you said culture is why humanity has a problem living together, where is the power base of culture? Yep the Family unit, who is the glue holding the family unit? Yep the woman of the house.”

Downright a lie – a communist lie – the basis for the family is men banding and respecting each others property rights, among that staying away from other mens women, thus giving women no other choice!

If you disgree about women being the family unit glue then please explain to me why, it is then that a significant change in the attitude of women has led to increase in the breakdown of the family unit?

@ Ragnar

“men banding and respecting each others property rights, among that staying away from other mens women, thus giving women no other choice!”

The above is reponsible for civilisation not the family unit.

The family unit started when the ancient homo sapien females started dedicating themselves to a single male and ensuring he has no doubts about being the sire of her progeny, hence entitling herself to a significant amount of his efforts towards raising her offspring.

When that lone homosapien male came across another homo sapien with a similar arangment with a female similar to his female. They then decided to go hunting together and realised, as long as i dont mess with your female or kids, we can actually achieve more, as a team, then they recruited more similar male/female pair bonds and thus civilisation was born.

Disclaimer: this is my own understanding of evoltionary pyschology or the origins of civilisation. I make no claims to the orginality of this thought.

Caliph,

Well, I guess, if you think that is a family. I think of it like a herd of cows. And I don’t think of a cow with a calf, walking around in a herd, to be a family. They rely on eachother, and are a communal “family” with lesser ties than occur in real families.

When I see a herd of cows… well… that’s just dinner.

Btw, did you know that it is a Marxist technique to define all families as “equal” so that they can be destructed with Critical Theory?

Critical Theory (Marxism) can also be used by us, and very effectively. If only people would stop putting up roadblocks, so we could get down to the business of showing them how we could fight back.

I didn’t see this thread till there were 96 comments. I am shocked, unless he has been banned, to not see Globalman’s comments at least a dozen times.

What bothers me about this way too brief piece is not that it doesn’t relate to men’s rights, but that, knowingly or not, it plays into the same polemics that serve to keep us distracted from the fact that globalization isn’t a product of the left.

It might lead people to think that Obama is somehow the king puppet behind our loss of constitutional freedoms, while of course the socons wipe their butts daily with the constitution, and have contributed more in recent times to undermining our sovereign status than liberals.

It plays into the conservative good/liberal bad crap that you can more easily get from 5 minutes on Fox News or CNN, and without the effort to read through the paragraph of legal gibberish.

It isn’t Obama that is the puppet for globalization, it is the entire government. The corporatocracy that actually runs things loves this kind of sound bite of a piece, because all it would do in most circles is inspire partisan bickering, which is the distraction of choice for the corporate gods.

Paul Elam,

Have you ever noticed that it alternates?

I think one side goes national, and then the next side goes international.

For example: Clinton was “international” – immensely popular, and the Clintons had much that they did to affect the world stage.

Bush attacked internally, and took away many internal freedoms in the USA – or, set the ball in motion.

Now, Obama again is International.

Just an observation/theory, which I have no real proof of, but… 8 years of one, then 8 years of the other. By the time one is over, people have forgotten the one before that, and so on.

Of course, Bush started a war, lol, but, I wonder if others have seen this, or if I am just imagining things. It seems to alternate by administration.

@Jay Hammer

I’ll get you started with some easy stuff. Here’s my precis of the scientific method:
1. Establish a hypothesis.
2. Test the hypothesis by experiment and observation.
3. Determine whether the experimental data supports or disproves the hypothesis.
4. Publish results, with descriptions of methods and ALL experimental data.
5. Other scientists attempt to replicate your work.
6. Repeat.

There is hardly a member of the Hockey (Stick) Team who even qualifies as a scientist, given the concerted efforts of Mann, Jones, Hansen and others to subvert the scientific process, particularly at step 4, by destroying, altering and hiding data and by obstructing step 5 in every possible way. IMHO, this is sufficient on its own to discredit so-called climate SCIENCE as practiced by the Hockey Team, as it is obviously not science at all.

Over to you.

@Jay Hammer

I’m an engineer, Charles, and I understand science well enough

Then you should be ashamed, as you have not applied the critical thinking of which you should be capable.

The evidence points to man-made climate change

I say again, what evidence? Claiming it does not make it so. I can lay out the case for AGW in five sentences. You are obviously afraid to do so.

When the evidence points to climate change and said climate change will likely have a significant negative impact on humanity we are compelled to take precautions.

This is female logic. Security-blanket measures to protect against the boogeyman. What does “significant impact” mean? What do you mean by “precautions’? You absolutely have not thought this through.

prove to me that climate change is not occurring.

Very funny. Climate change has always occurred and always will occur. Humans have not, do not and will never have any ability to change or control this in any way.

If that is the best you can do, I am not impressed.

I’ll let Charles do the arguing.

In the meantime, I’m gonna try and figure out why MARS is warming!

fedrz -

Of course, it would be better if everyone just believed me right off, and called me the Grande Puba.

It’s actually “Grand Poobah.” Which is why, sadly, it is clear that you are not always right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Poobah

Just bustin’ your balls, man.

@Jay Hammer

The global warming controversy is like Galileo versus the church all over again.

Nice. You forgot to compare me to a Holocaust-denier.

How exactly, are you so certain that you are right? Wouldn’t you say that your certainty resembles religious belief far more than it resembles a science-based assessment of an extraordinarily complex subject?

The most amusing aspect of the AGW religion – to me anyway – is that the weight of evidence suggests that the global climate has entered a cooling period that will last several decades, perhaps longer. It will become progressively harder for you to cling to your fallacious ideas. At some point you will have no choice but to renounce them.

Hey, when I am 20 feet under water I am gonna feel soooo stupid. Until then…

Charles,

even we were wrong, and there is no climate change (man-made or not), all the actions taken to reduce carbon monoxide are STILL praiseworthy. The solar & wind technologies are still progress going into the right direction.

I don’t see why you could be against that.

@Jay Hammer

I’m not going to spend aeons explaining every point I make to you,

You haven’t explained any of them. All you have done is repeat the tax-loving, freedom-loathing, capitalism-denying, man-hating socialist party line. Are you sure you are on the right web site?

Jack, im already living in snow for half of the year in Canada, don’t ruin my day…

Well, yeah. They are predicting the tempature within a couple degrees, 100 years in the future.

When has the weather been accurately predictable within a couple of degrees in even a few weeks or days. Come on now.

@G

even we were wrong, and there is no climate change (man-made or not), all the actions taken to reduce carbon monoxide are STILL praiseworthy.

Thank you for your contribution. There is a very, very, VERY significant difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Here it is. Carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas, a pollutant, one of the reasons that the EPA mandated catalytic converters on automobiles. Carbon dioxide is one of the two gases – the other is oxygen – on which all life on Earth depends. The fact that you confused the two proves my point. You have no understanding of the science and yet are sure you are qualified to have an opinion on this subject. I resent that fact that people like you and Jay are conspiring to take away my freedoms.

The solar & wind technologies are still progress going into the right direction. I don’t see why you could be against that.

I am against that because most so-called Green technologies are uneconomic malinvestments made with public money.

G,

It is wrong to use the “good for the environment” excuse to justify a blatantly fraudulent scam.

And it is wrong to portray those speaking out against the Globaloney Warming Hoax as anti-environmental.

That’s crap.

I care very much about the environment, and enjoy it to the fullest. But, this is NOT the way.

Even Al Traitor Gore admits that they sensationalized things – in otherwords, he’s a fraud. A global, treasonous, snake oil salesman.

Al Gore couldn’t even survive a fucking night in a tent in his back yard without burning $100 bills to keep a fire going, and here he is…

And, again, why is the ONLY solution the ending of National Sovereignty?

In other words, TREASON.

@Jay

I consider the idea of Heaven ludicrous and I consider myself an atheist because of it.

You’re sure there’s no God, but you’re also sure that humans are changing the climate. Perfect.

I think I’m fine where I am, but I don’t deny there is a possibility that I’ll be proven wrong. I think the likelihood is high enough, however, that I won’t change my mind until I actually see evidence to the contrary.

Common ground.

Did you know, by the way, that by the IPCC’s own numbers, humans contribute less than 5% of the Carbon Dioxide going into the atmosphere every year? Less than 5%. The rest comes from natural sources. So that even if humanity were to cut CO2 emissions by 50%, an action that would utterly lay waste to all the world’s industrial economies, that CO2 going into the atmosphere would be reduced by only 2-1/2%.

AGW is all about taxes and control, Jay. You are being used.

It’s odd, that at Copenhagen, they had all kinds of Pacific Islands talking about the rising sea levels rising on their islands.

This is an HL thread, and so, perhaps he might know.

Isn’t it true that coral islands are usually either rising or falling? Isn’t that how lagoons get developed?

I live on the Pacific Ocean, and, gee, it ain’t rising here! Maybe its a different Pacific.

WHAT ABOUT THE WATER MARK?

http://www.john-daly.com/

Why did we fork over money to help move villages in the Pacific?

I’m proud Canada got an award at Copenhagen for not giving a shit about Global Warming.

Stephen Harper, you’ve got my support.

@ Jay

You’re a Warm-Monger.

end of.

btw, if it were possible, I would motion to remove your man card.

Guys n gals, you have to be realistic. No one’s going to take away women’s right to vote, no one’s going to remove Obama from the presidency talking about his birth, no one’s going to disprove anthropogenic climate change any time soon.

The AGW climate models completely failed to predict the climate we observed in this decade. Therefore the theory is falsified. Nobody needs to disprove it, it has fallen apart all on its own.

What were you saying about the other two?

The weight of evidence suggests anthropogenic climate change, as the scientific community has clearly demonstrated.

There is no joint scientific community opinion or consensus on this matter, and there never has been. There are not two opposing opinions on climate change, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of different opinions as to the relative importance of different inputs into our complex, chaotic, and still poorly understood climate system. Just this past month I read two new papers, neither of which fit into clear cut sides as portrayed in propaganda on the topic. One argued that CFCs, not CO2, were primarily responsible for the observed warming of the late 20th century and that anthropogenic input into the system has been on the decline since CFCs were banned. Another argued that anthropogenic influences pale in comparison to the influences of cosmic radiation, which is moderated by the sun’s magnetic field.

While I can’t tell you precisely how each input contributes to our climate, and neither can anybody else, I can tell you that AGW theory is simplistic, ignorant, naive, and falsified. The projections made in the 1990′s failed to materialize, and a scientific hypothesis which cannot predict observable behavior is a falsified one which either must be overhauled or discarded.

Our climate system is far more complex than any theory published to date to explain it. We are possibly a century away from being able to fully understand and accurately model it.

I believe intelligent scientists, mostly men, because they have not led me astray before. You believe right-wing commentators who flunked out of college and have no understanding of science.

Can you honestly say you’ve read a single paper on the topic? Because you do not speak as one who is knowledgeable about this topic.

I think I’m fine where I am, but I don’t deny there is a possibility that I’ll be proven wrong. I think the likelihood is high enough, however, that I won’t change my mind until I actually see evidence to the contrary. Your arguments do not provide any such evidence nor have any I’ve seen over the years from right-wingers echoing talking points.

Here are 450 peer reviewed papers by scientists skeptical of AGW theory:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers/

It simply doesn’t make any sense, much like it doesn’t make any sense for countless scientists to get behind some vast conspiracy to promote global warming to fill Al Gore’s pockets. It’s preposterous.

Here’s a petition of 31,486 scientists who disagree with AGW theory. This petition is 10x larger than any petition I’ve seen in support of AGW theory.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

The only reason there is a fight in the U.S. against the idea of global warming is that it will cut into big energy profits and it could increase the amount citizens pay for energy.

Hundreds of skeptical papers, thousands of skeptical scientists, and dropping temperatures when AGW models projected faster than ever warming have nothing to do with it?

Your desire to pollute the environment must be met with resistance for the good of humanity.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is necessary for all life on Earth. Higher atmospheric CO2 leads to increased vegetation on the Earth, which leads to both larger animal populations and greater variety of species. It never ceases to amaze me that people fall for the idea that higher CO2 and/or higher temperatures will harm life when in fact all historical evidence points to the opposite, that life does better as CO2 levels rise, and as temperatures rise. We know for certain that human beings do much, much better during warm periods. Just compare human history and progress during the Roman or Medieval warm periods and the Little Ice Age.

None of the arguments has ever convinced me because none have held any merit and all have been refuted.

Jay, I don’t believe for one minute that you’ve given any serious study or consideration to opposing viewpoints.

“Conservatives may be the driving force behind men’s rights…”

Yeah, driving it into obscurity.

If anything, the tendency is for conservatives to turn MRA sites, message boards, what have you, into Limbaugh-esque hellholes over time. Thus they become about as irrelevant as their opinions apparently are to Republican lawmakers. Honestly, if somebody can point me to one thing Republicans have done for men….

I haven’t seen any of this damage caused by progressives within the movement that fedrz is seeing, but then again, if Karl Marx jumped out of my closet waggling his tongue and tormenting me every night, I might be seeing things too. If anything, conservatives have massively damaged the movement by dragging the rest of their bloated agenda into the mix, alienating the fuck out of anyone not in lockstep with their more idiosyncratic views.

Progressives have only been conspicuous in their absence, as most of them are in full support of the g.d. matriarchy, kinda like Republican politicians. More of them seem to be waking up, though (the progressives, not the…) and I think that’s an unconditional good thing. Finding out you’re a second class citizen breaks all kinds of ideological barriers. I think it should be encouraged.

Who knows, conservatives, if you don’t condemn those liberal whore pansies out of hand a few of them might even swallow some of that pig-shit you call a platform. Hey, someday their social conscience might atrophy beneath the level of rabies infested hyenas and they can become libertarians. But in the meantime we can all agree on one thing. that this situation sucks for men.

Have you actually contributed anything but mindless bile to this thread, Barsin?

Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to read. Yet, you and the other leftard keep dancing around here like a couple of morons.

Btw, did you know that being a Conservative in Canada means being about the equivalent of a Democrat in Canada? What do you know about my politics, you mouthpiece? I’m neither left nor right, and don’t even vote. I am opposed to lippy shits like you who attack with no foundation right from the get go.

I don’t see anything behind your argument except for liberalesque whining and snivelling. How typical.

Interesting, that it is the two leftards marching in here telling everyone else what they can and can’t do, or even talk about.

Wow!

How progressive.

Lol!

You two guys are a joke.

Democrat in the USA, lol – The Conservatives here are Centrist – there is nobody to the political right of them. Makes you wonder how far to the left our Liberal and NDP party are, eh?

@ Ferdz

No, I hadn’t noticed it, but it makes sense. And it goes back further than 8 years. I can easily see it back to Reagan (thanks for no-fault divorce!), then Carter (the fucking buffoon) and on down the line. Liberals have pushed a globalist agenda through the use of international popularity and conservatives have done it in the name of protecting nationalism.

SSDD

Thanks for pointing it out in the way you did.

I think next time I see an argument like this over men’s rights I will just quote barsin. Well said.

I should’ve been done with this already but I unexpectedly had to stay up tonight.

Btw, Jay and Barsin.

It is pretty rich for you guys to march in here and demand how to best be the MRM. Jay has a blog that gets no hits and comments at all, and Barsin is just a non-clickable name… yet, it appears they want a consulting job to help Welmer increase hits, while he probably is scoring more hits in a day than Jay gets in a month, and certainly than Barsin gets in a lifetime.

I’ll bet these two swifties both have Ph D’s… seems about the right intellect plus unfounded superiority complex.

@DT

There is no joint scientific community opinion or consensus on this matter, and there never has been.

I grab a few hours sleep and wake to write the definitive AGW rebuttal only to find you have already written it. Your post is a tour de force. Bravo!

Jay –

I am what liberals should be, baby, and I base my views on evidence. I do not hold to very many, if any, societal conventions. Think of me as a liberal alien being from another planet, not bound by society’s expectations and biases. I am a rationalist, always have been.

You’ve just captured something that liberals claim to be, but rarely if ever are in practice. It’s a good thing to try to be, but everyone has interests and biases that influence their opinions and the ideas they choose to accept. I have yet to meet an unbiased human who is wholly rational. This is a conceit.

A flaw in this way of thinking is also that it makes an enemy of tradition and tends to throw it out before it really has a substantial basis for doing so. For most liberals, tradition is suspect and the newest, most fashionable information–subject to change according to the scientific process and further investigation–is favored over anything “traditional” which has worked for years.

Feminism is a great example of how liberals and scientists jumped on a bandwagon together and encouraged society to throw the baby out with the bathwater, only to find later that many had distorted evidence and claims and that things didn’t work out quite like they thought they would. Many scientists and even feminists now acknowledge that men and women are different on some basic levels that go beyond mere “conditioning” and playing with different toys, but liberals and scientists pounded the social conditioning drum and advocated hysterically for public policy changes based on that view, invoking “science” and mocking the “old, irrational conservatives.”

A truly conservative approach (as opposed to a crazy neocon blowhard approach) would wait longer and change more incrementally, with a bias in favor of what has worked in the past.

@Jay

Have you seen the lecture by Professor Jasper Kirkby – to be found almost at the top of my page here, …

http://www.harrysnews.com

It’s quite enjoyable – but a bit technical.

He looks at the effect of cosmic rays on our climate.

And he doesn’t seem to have an axe to grind over the CO2 issue.

It seems that we are heading for an ice age. LOL!

Guys n gals, you have to be realistic. No one’s going to take away women’s right to vote, no one’s going to remove Obama from the presidency talking about his birth, no one’s going to disprove anthropogenic climate change any time soon.

Brass tacks, a leader is someone people listen to. Even by threat this is true. After all, the people who carry out the threat have to listen to him. If they don’t, then he has no threat.

Legitimacy, and belief in your RIGHT to be in charge is essential.

Feminists, and progressives, understand this. As is obvious from how they act, night and day, every day.

Actually, if there is one thing that should give us hope that the Global Beast can be stopped, I think it must be what has happened to Globaloney Warming, and the way it is getting discredited.

This was truly the people sticking it back to their enemies by using the internet.

And, like I said earlier, what was on the internet certainly was forced onto the MSM by the average people – here in Canada anyway.

I watch the Business News Channel pretty frequently, and they often have political guests on some of their segments which you can call into. Lol! These guys on the news tried and tried and tried to ignore the people calling in to challenge whatever BS about Climate Change was getting foisted on them, and after a while, the News was receiving such floods of mail that you could see it on them, and they even admitted it – they couldn’t even mention Climate Change anymore without getting several thousands of people writing in demanding that their questions get answered. They demanded that Climategate get discussed, and they demanded that political leaders be asked tough questions – and the Media certainly got the message that the people are angry. In the last poll, over 50% of Canadians believe Global Warming is a scam that has been sensationalized by special interests, and we wanted nothing to do with it.

And screw Copenhagen for trying to shame Prime Minister Harper for his inaction on Global Warming. He is listening to the voice of the people he represents, and flipping Copenhagen the bird like we told him to. Lol, I love how the opposition pestered him and pestered him that he didn’t want to even go to Copenhagen, and only sent our Minister of Environment… after enough pressure, he finally agreed to show up… which he did… for lunch, and then he left and went back home. LOL!

The people do have the power to back these media jackasses up against the wall and scare the crap out of them.

Btw, that Business Channel used to have a talk show where they had a divorce lawyer on to discuss various laws in that regard. The PCists didn’t win there either, because there were a lot of men who would call in, pissed off, and give it back to them straight.

I don’t know who the one guy was, but he was a pretty dedicated MRA. I’ve heard him call in several times, and when he gets on the air, he rattles off his spiel and when they start to try to cut him off, he always blurts out an MRM website on the air really loudly. “DUMP YOUR WIFE NOW DOT COM! DUMP YOUR WIFE NOW DOT COM!”… click… silence.

Lol!

Good job, whoever you are. I salute you.

Ragnar

Women living with their children is not a family, never was – it’s the way of nature. That is how monkeys live.

So that explains Detroit.

Tedious and off-target. Please stop writing for The Spearhead and write for somewhere else.

Paul: “Firstly Islam is not stuck in the Dark Ages as you suggest as there was no dark ages in Islam. The Dark Ages was the period in Western Europe following the fall of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire did not fall in the East. If fact the Dark Ages overlap with what is called the golden age of Islam.”

Really, Captain Obvious? Islam is “stuck in the dark ages” in the sense that it’s ridiculously archaic and barbaric and should have no business existing in the modern world in its current form.

“But the whole tone of your attack Null is just so typical of American arrogance.”

Except I’m not American, I’m European.

“Look there is a bigoted journal on the Internet call Men’s News Daily. Why don’t you go wallow over there.”

What does bigoted mean? Oh, that’s right: it doesn’t mean anything. It’s an emotional kneejerk response.

Hey team. Where has Arbitrary been lately? I miss his analysis.

@ Paul

Look there is a bigoted journal on the Internet call Men’s News Daily. Why don’t you go wallow over there.

Oh, do please fuck off. MND, just like every other MRA site out there has some occasional problems with right wing neocon ideologues. And like anyone else, we get our share of obnoxious feminists, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nuts, left wing Utopian pinheads and the plain stupid.

Welcome to the world of free speech.

And it will remain free as long as we don’t kowtow to assholes that label everything they don’t agree with as bigotry.

Your tactic is one of a feminist who would call MND, and this site, as sexist, misogynist and the like. So if you think MND is a bigoted forum, please do more than call names and make your case to prove it. Otherwise, know that you have just revealed yourself as spewing bile and nothing else.

@Paul Elam-

You’ve gotten feisty lately. I hope that is for the best. I’ve always got your back either way.

@ Jabherwochie

Thanks, and I probably need to settle down. In this particular case, where it involves MND, I have had the reigns there for just four months and have been charged with all of the following. 1. Being a bigot. 2. Being a feminist plant (no shit) 3. Of course being a misogynist. 4. Being a right wing nut case. 5. Being a left wing nut case.

Not whining here, I know it comes with the territory. I am probably just adjusting to all of it. But I know that my temper has been a tad short of late. You were most kind and diplomatic in pointing it out.

I think I will go fishing this weekend.

Perhaps Paul is upset over my e-mail to the contributors for MND requesting they pull their submissions because a website that purports to be dedicated to men’s rights but 50% of the time spouts unrelated far-right propaganda is no good for the men’s rights movement. This was after he posted this from http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/12/14/dockers-ad-campaign-a-good-fit-with-some-alterations/

Paul Elam
2009-12-15 at 3:19 pm
@ Jay

In the area of diverse opinions, I would encourage you to consider how many websites similar to this one would allow this type of posting to continue. Indeed, how many of of them would have both the editor and publisher come in to the thread to field your questions in the face of all this ranting?

I think you may be on the only one.

That being said, as far as your wishes that this website loses support and traffic, I welcome you to make your personal contribution to that end at any time you so choose.

After I took Paul up on his offer and sent an e-mail out to all contributors, I was sad to see almost all my posts removed.

@Jay Hammers-

I like you less now. An e-mail to contributors? We have a word for that on the mean streets of this internet playground; tattle-tell. And MND removes whatever posts it wants. One of mine was removed (Marc Rudolph had it coming.) This is not MND, and Paul Elam, althought the Editor and Chief, is not MND anymore than Welmer is represented by the diverse contributors here. This is an open forum (but not completely, Welmer banned a submissive female wanting to be our blog bitch), and MND, for its own reasons is just less open. The diversity of the internet is wonderful, isn’t it? You do like diversity, don’t you?

I said we have two rules here. Hate feminists, and don’t be a pussy. You are dangerously close to being a pussy.

I don’t hate feminists and voicing my opinion, opening eyes are surely the marks of a beefy, muscle-bound masculine man.

People like Firepower are more detrimental to men’s rights than radical feminists. Radical feminists look feminists look crazy; bigots make men’s rights activists look crazy.

I really find it amusing how so many of the people commenting here try to challenge my masculinity. I’m for men’s rights, not male domination. I’m against strict gender roles while a lot of you seem to be for them. Men deserve all the choices women do. If I wanted to be a “pussy” I damn well should have that right. Your ape-like posturing isn’t going to impress anyone.

Jay Hammers December 28, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Firepower, I really don’t care what you think…ignorant people like you will slow down the men’s rights movement unnecessarily

Didn’t know it needed necessary slowing down in the first place.

meh. You don’t need me. You have plenty of allies of – what did you lionize them as?
Ah, yes:
progressives, moderates, women, and minorities.

Damn HL,
It is so frustrating trying to wake you men up. It really is.

TRUTH: OBAMA has NOT subverted your 4th Amendment Rights.

TRUTH: ANYONE WHO THINKS THEY ARE A CITIZEN OF THE ‘UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’ HAS NO RIGHTS.

I did this topic to death over on MND and was abused and villified for speaking the truth. Anyone who thinks they are a ‘citizen’ of a cunt-tree does not have ANY inalienable rights. Their rights can be removed by the state at any point in time the state chooses which is exactly what is happening in the US now. What you think are ‘rights’ like ‘liberty’ are ‘privileges’ that can be removed. You are in fact SLAVES and you are so ignorant you don’t know it and so willful you won’t learn it.

Do you guys have ANY idea how frustrating it is to keep typing in this place “please listen…things are much worse than you know”? I guess you don’t. Because if you did you would be saying:

“Hey, GM, if we are slaves and we have no rights can you please explain to me how that is? That is not what I think is true but you seem to really believe it, so please present your point of view so I can understand it?”

And even when I am asked for ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ and I put it into my intro post on the forums do many (or even any) guys here actually go and look? Nope. Not many, maybe not any.

I asked a number of times ‘How many men know how to claim their rights?’ and got no answers. I’ve put my claim of right on the forum and there is no discussion. Men here do NOT want to understand how to claim their rights. They just want to complain when they have what they perceive as rights taken from them.

Well take it from me. If you think you are a ‘citizen’ you have no rights. They are being removed slowly but surely. And if you do not know how to claim your rights and then defend them then you will have them taken from you, including your right to life. And tough shit to you for choosing to be ignorant.

Do I think women had equal rights 50 years ago? No. Do I think women had it worse than men 50 years ago? No. There were trade-offs on both sides and no one had a full range of options in life. What feminism gave women was the opportunity to make their own choices about who they want to be. Instead of being constrained to the role of housewife, a woman can go to school and work. But men are still constrained to the traditional roles of 50 years ago. It’s not acceptable for men to be “house-husbands,” we are still expected to go to school and work. Previously men and women were confined to distinct roles. This worked for centuries but society has changed and now only men are confined to distinct roles. Now men must strive for their own rights and choices so that both sexes have the full range of options in life and we not only have equal rights but BETTER rights.

Should the traditional family makeup, with dominant male and submissive female, be accepted? Yes. Should it be the only choice? No. Society needs to accept every family situation. If it did, children would be better off regardless of whether they have a mom, a dad, two dads, or two moms.

After I took Paul up on his offer and sent an e-mail out to all contributors, I was sad to see almost all my posts removed.

So really, you yourself are quite willing to undermine men’s rights if they don’t follow your totalitarian demands to change to 100% your way of doing things.

And yet, you accuse us of being the ones who are undermining men’s rights.

Even though I think you are a shmuck, and might back hand return your silly attacks back at you, if I saw that you were trying to bring issues to your fellow leftards in your own leftard way, I wouldn’t lift a finger to undermine you in anyway – even if I didn’t agree with your ideology.

I’d take you out behind the shed and shelack you there, where it didn’t undermine Men’s Rights. I certainly wouldn’t e-mail around to my allies to attack you. I’d just leave you to it and not bother with you.

The MRM doesn’t need helpers like you.

Kinda like AH says – It’s like having a child help you put up wallpaper. No thanks!

It’s a free country, you know. There is nothing stopping you from starting up your own Men’s Movement that appeals to a far larger segment of the population, and thus, making our little peanut contributions irrelevant.

It’s called The Free Market.

I’m certain you must have read about it.

Jay Hammers December 28, 2009 at 12:32 pm

Contributors should be aware of the negative effect of MND on the men’s rights movement…You may as well pray for a meltdown of society, the end of days, the apocalypse. Plenty of right-wingers already are.

Your problem lies in you having an anti “right-winger” agenda – and you aren’t too subtle about it.

If you think anything substantial will be accomplished by hallowed “left-wingers”

you need to envisage 1960′s Hippies not with just acid, “free” love and Hendrix helming your revolution,

but additonally, these charmers, in today’s current incarnation, are dumbed-down Globaloneys saddled with Internet Porn.

LOTS of it.

“I’m a geek dude. My strength is in my mind. Did I say anything about muscles? The biggest, strongest, most testosterone fueled meathead can be a pussy, and the smallest, weakest, cripple can be the most manly of us all. You don’t know me, or us, very well apparantly. A lot of nerds hang out here. It is the internet. (I do happen to be able to beat peoples ass, but I attribute that to inner strength blah, blah, blah,) ”

Ignore that. I misread you. Haste makes waste. But to the your point:

“I really find it amusing how so many of the people commenting here try to challenge my masculinity. I’m for men’s rights, not male domination. I’m against strict gender roles while a lot of you seem to be for them. Men deserve all the choices women do. If I wanted to be a “pussy” I damn well should have that right. Your ape-like posturing isn’t going to impress anyone.”

We don’t advocate one path. We advocate choice; MRA, PUA, GAME, MGTOW, and ghosting. Some here are So-Con and want to go back to the way it was, some are liberal progressive like you and want no gender rules. I’m an evolutionist, and to me nature cannot be ignored, and men and women have certain traits that must be accepted, nurtured, and directed to positive use, not shamed, repressed, and left pent up to fester and rot.

“I’m struggling to see what you think you’re going to accomplish by telling the world you hate feminists and anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a pussy.”

I said you were dangerously close to being a pussy because you sent emails to contributors at MND like a bitch. You don’t see us trying to shut down feminist websites do you? Let your ideas stand on their own. What you did was like crying to momma or the teacher cuz the rest of the kids won’t play the game you want to play.

The thing about “left vs. right” that escapes many people is that it is a relative term. It needs the other to define itself and find its position.

You can really see this here in Canada.

Our furthest “right” party is the Conservatives, who currenly hold power.

However, along the political spectrum, the Conservative Party of Canada has nearly identical ideology to the Democrat Party of the USA. And, therefore that also means that the furthest left in America is still the same as the furthest right in Canada. Lol!

And yet, even though the Conservatives here would be considered full blown Democrats in the USA, the Conservatives are constantly under attack for being Bush lovers and are accused of being extreme rightwing, redneck racist warmongers.

It is where the other parties sit that defines “left & right,” not the actual party ideology itself.

Although, granted, Stephen Harper of the Conservatives is a leader that does appear to be further to the right than his actual party… just like Obama appears to be further to the left than his actual party. Both of these men appear to be trying to move the party further towards their personal politics than what the party currently is.

@Paul Elam
“Oh, do please fuck off.”

Just noticed your kind words to me. Actually getting people to fuck off it a bit of a speciality of yours. You drove definingmanhood off You Tube and also managed to start you editorship of MND by pissing off Bernard Chapin. So I suppose telling me to fuck off is to be expected. Pretty cowardly though. But I wont respond in kind. Nor will I fuck off. I will simply ignore you and MND. Eventually you may succeed in getting every body to fuck off and then all that will be left will be your ego.

The Caliph December 27, 2009 at 4:51 am
“Is a Global New World Order such a bad thing? i mean really?”
There has been a pretty much global ‘new world order’ for all of human history. The ‘new’ one will simply make it easier to make slaves of you. No. It is not a bad thing for those at the top. For those at the bottom who are slaves? Well? Just ask yourself. Do you like being a slave? You are. Do you want to partake in something like WW III? You know, as willingly as men partook in WW I and II?

Today you are slaves. You pay your income taxes and your mortgages out of fear. BOTH are ‘voluntary’ and do not need to be paid yet you go to work for 45 years in order to pay these things and ‘earn a living’. You have been so brainwashed into it that you think this is called ‘freedom’. I have a problem with paying income taxes and mortgages. I have a problem with working 2,000+ hours a year as I did for 26 years.

barsin December 27, 2009 at 12:27 pm
“Yeah, I could do without this paranoiac NWO conspiracy nuttiness”
Barsin, when, exactly, does the truth become ‘nuttiness’. I must have missed that lesson in kindergarten. Can you please explain that to me?

Welmer December 27, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“The Spearhead has pretty loose editorial guidelines, and we’re happy to have dissenting opinions. It’s really up to the authors to put their views on display.”
And this is exactly what gives Spearhead it’s value. Allowing dissenting opinions to stand and allowing men to study and understand and come to their own conclusions. The only ‘censorship’ I support here is getting the women out of the way so more decent discussion can take place. I spend too much time scrolling past wimmins posts.

Welmer December 27, 2009 at 2:24 pm
“Big difference when church and state are separate.”
I hate to break it to you but the church and state are NOT separate in the west. Who signs the marriage contract on behalf of the state? The minister of the church, that’s who. It’s called deceit. It’s everywhere.

AfOR December 27, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Nice to see someone actually does their homework!!

Ragnar December 27, 2009 at 4:17 pm
“We kill socialism by killing feminism – remove the female voting base.”
It is actually even easier. We kill socialism and feminism and the current tyranny by simply claiming our right to be free men who are not subject to government or legislation passed by those governments. We simply MGTOW and refuse the ‘benefit’ of ‘paying’ for our ‘guvment’. Then it does not matter who the wimmin vote for or what the guvment says. Since they can not lawfully take your ‘money’ off you they will just have to do without you. This is how it is with me. They just have to do without me. I have GMOW.

Fiercely Independent John Nada December 27, 2009 at 6:02 pm
I second what John had to say. I will never live in Australia again. It’s a crap cunt-tree now. I will fight for and defend the rights of men in Australia but most of them are too stupid or too cowardly to fight for themselves and that’s a real shame. I’ve made remarkable progress on defending my rights and, by extension, the rights of any man in Australia. But, surprisingly, they are not very interested in defending their own rights. Australia is NOT worth ‘fighting’ for. The liberty and lives of men IS worth fighting for. But they are not fighting yet. They don’t see it as ‘bad’ enough yet. Just like I didn’t see it as ‘bad enough’ two years ago.

Paul Elam December 27, 2009 at 9:32 pm
“I am shocked, unless he has been banned, to not see Globalman’s comments at least a dozen times.”
Paul, I do have other things to do. I was on a date saturday with my fav#2 and then spent the day at a health spa yesterday to recover. After all. I am 45 and a good massage, sauna, whirlpool and similar really helps me wind down. These are just some of the joys of not being married. It was the weekend after christmas after all. I can’t spend ALL my time waking men up..

The Caliph December 27, 2009 at 7:34 pm
“The family unit started when the ancient homo sapien females started dedicating themselves to a single male and ensuring he has no doubts about being the sire of her progeny, hence entitling herself to a significant amount of his efforts towards raising her offspring.”
Wow dude. What ARE you smoking because I want some of that shit if it makes me see such visions!! Women did nothing. The Illuminati forced men to defend women and children on pain of death and THAT became the ‘family’. Women have NEVER dedicated themselves to ANYTHING in the entire history of the fucking human race. Nothing….EVER! Women can’t even dedicate themselves to wearing the same pair of shoes for a day.

Gents,
just on the topic of ‘rights’. All those in former british colonies that still have common law in place have all the rights they could ever want or need. They just need to know how to claim them and then they need to be prepared to defend them. No point claiming a right if you are not going to defend it.

I have claimed all the rights I think I need, though I might think of some more. Now? It is up to me to defend those rights against any and all oppressors. The only thing needed to defend those rights is a common law de jour court complete with de jour jury. That men here are completely dis-interested in the idea of common law and de jour juries tells me I might have to go to plan B and shoot people lawfull who infringe my rights. It’s called ‘education’ gents. Those who live in common law countries who do not know how it works might want to learn. If you do not? You have no rights. If you think your CON-stitution somehow ‘guarantees’ your rights you have been decieved.

I “drove” definingmanhood off youtube? Please tell me you are kidding. I don’t suppose you would care to illuminate all here on exactly how I managed to drive someone off a monster like youtube all by myself?

And yes, I had a difference with Chapin, but one that neither of us seem to to have carried it to extremes. Bernard has regularly posted supportive comments to my youtube videos since that time, and I have used him in mine as a glowing example of a Men’s Rights Activist.

Though we obviously differ on what happened and why, it seems clear that Bernard values the movement more than he does carrying a grudge. Another reason I will continue to point to him as one of the more clear examples of what an MRA should be, IMO.

As to pissing people off, as I said in another post, it comes with the territory. No matter what I do and no matter what action I take, someone will take offense and call names. I am a big boy and can handle it. Being ignored is the easy part.

At any rate, you have my public apology for the utterance of “fuck off.” That is a reflection of my temper these days and not my chosen form of communication. But I don’t apologize for the sentiment behind the statement.

You took a cheap, unsubstantiated drive by shot at something I value. It didn’t exactly rate a “fuck off” but it didn’t rate any respect either.

I keep hearing people talk about the US constitution. Yes the US has a good constitution, but get this: it is MEANINGLESS! After all, the unconstitutional laws that have been passed (VAWA for example) PROVE that sheeple don’t even care about their rights or their constitution! How pathetic. Even a good constitution is worthless without it being adhered to.

globalman: the tone in most of your posts seems to be that men can somehow opt out of the system, right? Well, show the links and the laws that PROVE this. Just how can men stop false allegations of abuse that VAWA gladly allows vindictive women to use at their will?

You have some good posts here but sometimes, I feel you talk out your ass. Please prove your statements with links to law/legislation that can back them up. Anything less is meaningless.

tired gill re: globalman:

You have some good posts here but sometimes, I feel you talk out your ass. Please prove your statements with links to law/legislation that can back them up. Anything less is meaningless.

Pretty sure global has a “introduction” post up in the spearhead forum that has a bunch of links wrt what you’re asking about. I know several people have asked him to post his resources, and to his credit, he has – just not every time he posts.

You know, I think some of the problems we run into here is that we assume everyone has been following along since the beginning. I don’t know how many times I hear a Globalman Spiel, a variation on the same theme, then someone says, “back it up”, he says “do you’re own research, I’ve provided enough facts and evidence”, then somone points to Globie’s links in some other thread, and on and on it goes, the cycle continues. Same thing with explaining why we don’t censor or protest against the radical extremist or the men who come here to vent with hyperbole. I’m sick of explaining to noobies why we need to stir up a shit storm to get our message acknowledged by the mainstream media. Welmer. Solve these problems. Please. Time to put the cherry of perfection on top of your sundae of excellence. I know its a lot of work, but at least we are taking care of the sprinkles.

Jabherwochie: the only links I could find from globalman were links to his own problems/issues. Everything else he writes about the NWO etc is perfectly understandable, and I actually agree with much he says. I’m no n00bie for the record, the NWO agenda and it’s totalitarianism is obvious, as is the link with feminism and the attack on liberty. You clearly didn’t even read my post properly which makes you appear mildly retarded that it’s not even funny.

And I would never think someone named “tiredgill” is a noobie. You sound like you’ve been around the block a couple times, and the school of hardknocks is the best education available.

until one understands that NWO stands for New Woman Order, one wont understand the uselessness — and indeed, the counterproductivity — of endless discussions of politics and ideology

much less the counterproductivity of pretending there IS no NWO

i cant understand how any modern american male, looking honestly at his government and culture, could identify with either ideopolitical bloc, given that both “sides” utterly support, fund, and enforce the matriarchy, whether in the US or internationally as the NWO

still, it’s refreshing to see a self-identified leftie (jay hammers) on a men’s rights board, if only for the novelty :O)

the idea that via “progressivism” boys and men are going to be granted some nebulous “equal rights” in returning that Pesky Pendulum to “center” is absolutely ludicrous, however

(in a way, it’s kind of sweet, in its naivete)

the NWO, which is based in america, is a gender-supremacist, totalitarian alliance/construct, it has no interest in either equity or equality

its goal is total destruction of masculinity, fatherhood, sonship, and of the connection between humanity and god

the New Woman Order is a religion, but it is not New

the dominance of the early/current MRM by rightwingers was/is a given, considering that the ideopolitical left is merely a front for feminism (i.e., support for feminism and feminists is THE mandatory plank in the leftist religion)

however, the dominance of the MRM by rightwingers has stifled open debate and greatly slowed progress, with “unaligned” commenters and writers consistently Not Welcome at MRM sites, or relegated to obscurity

then the MRA pundits sit around and wonder why The Movement aint Moving! lol

long ago the New Woman Order folded both the ideopolitical left AND right into its agendas . . . as Executive Branch operations and orders clearly prove over the past four decades

but the MRM guys who are righties (i.e., most guys) cant leggo of the political teat, because that teat is attached to the economic/material comforts theyve gotten used to, and arent about to give up

they want no real disruption to The Way Theyre Accustomed to Living, so cling to rightie politics . . . but unfortunately Our Way of Life is inextricable intertwined with america as A Womans Nation and the New World as Whatever Woman Says It Is

this is reflected in the MRM websites, alienating and excluding meritorious work not because it didnt serve the MRM, but because it challenged the groupthink of rightie ideology and politics — and challenged the pack-status and the personal pyschological comfort-zones of site admins and owners

this is slowly improving, as a few rightie antifeminists gradually come to realize that their beloved ideologies, laws, and nations in fact serve feminism and the New Woman Order — that theyve been duped, partly because they wanted to be (precisely as the boomer leftie males were duped largely by their own desires)

this post began by showing Obie with the Jokerface, as if this anti-constitutional clown suddenly surfaced on the national radar

but Obie didnt bring the New Woman Order into existence or power . . . he is simply the first mangina to sit officially over the NWO, in the sense that Maria Shriver (et al.) are no longer even trying to hide the fact that feminism has won, not just in the anglosphere but increasingly all across the planet

Obie didnt “subvert” the constitution all by himself — and its no good pretending that the rightie presidents preceding him werent also NWO stooges

speaking of the NWO, on a more positive and inclusive note, i was v glad to see that Mensactivism.org posted a piece about the OutFuckingRageous Arrest of charlie sheen for “domestic violence”

http://news.mensactivism.org/

while domestically and internationally the NWO is busy ensuring that Interpol and CEOP and Etc have global jurisdiction to oppress MEN, to ensure that MEN dont rise up against the NWO, on the home front:

– tiger woods is beaten with a deadly weapon by his Domestic Violence Criminal wife, and yet grovels before Der Matriarchy and pays her off with millions in hush-money; the perpetrator is female, therefore she isnt arrested, and instead is feted and rewarded as a victim; the Medea is silent, except to castigate his Badness and her Goodness

– Mary J. Blighe, a strong supporter of feminism and the D.V. Ma-Sheen, punches her husband in public; she is not arrested and no D.V. charges result; no calls from the government, women’s organizations, or The Medea for the perpetrator to be jailed, preferably without bail

– based only on the word of his wife, charlie sheen is locked up — WITHOUT BAIL — over christmas to “teach him a lesson” for daring to call her on her frequent drunken-ness; did the NWO stop to sort out the problem? no, it did what the NWO does, it obeyed The Woman and punished the male; now that sheen is out, we’re starting to hear a slightly different story — turns out Sweet Little Kupkake was drunk-off-her-ass AND the aggressor

but who does the State instantly and unquestioningly obey? whose State is it?

these recent incidents are GREAT for the MRM, and should be publicized to the max, because one-by-one guys like Sheen and Chris Henry and Woods are getting what many millions of other guys have gotten over the past half-century — abused and stomped — and now it’s trickling up to those elements of society that heretofore have been shielded from the FemState . . . and suddenly we’re not quite as alone in our opposition to the NWO as we were even three months ago

Thought you had better things to do?

http://jayhammers.blogspot.com/2009/12/ive-got-more-important-things-to-do.html

So, now you’re a liar whose word can’t be counted on either. You lose points the more your gums flap.

You are indeed undermining Men’s Rights if you think that YOU, the MIGHTY JAY, has the right to attack MRA’s and whine and snivel like a little baby that we all have to come over to your way of thinking, or we are just entirely discredited. You even clearly announced your crime.

Notice that no-one here has advocated attacking your little pissant blog, even though you are speaking at a group of people that could easily round up enough allies to be a real pest to you?

Not all of us overly care for Warren Farrell, nor his Alan Alda approach. But, none of us campaign against him and try to undermine him – the way that turkeys like you do.

If you want to know something, you are solidifying in many people’s minds why left leaning men are a total waste of time, and ought to be written off with the rest of the androgynizing shmucks this PC society has created.

Didn’t you have something better to do?

Shouldn’t you be giving away all your possessions to homeless women, moderates and minorities or something?

“I second what John had to say. I will never live in Australia again. It’s a crap cunt-tree now.”

David: I live in Australia, and it is a good country for men. From everything I read, America is a feminist dump by comparison.

Men still get a lot of respect in Australia. And the women are sane.

David,

That’s kinda weird, because while men in Australia generally tend to boast about how manly Australian men are (not including you, it’s just something I’ve noticed) I’ve also gotten the sense that at least legally they are a lot more in line with European style PC. Firearms laws being an example I’ve seen cited.

America, outside of major cities and especially if you don’t work for the government or a major PC corporation, is really not a complete feminist shithole yet. Yet.

Folks in the country and outer suburbs tend to be a lot more traditional.

Jack Donovan:

” That’s kinda weird, because while men in Australia generally tend to boast about how manly Australian men are (not including you, it’s just something I’ve noticed) I’ve also gotten the sense that at least legally they are a lot more in line with European style PC. Firearms laws being an example I’ve seen cited.

America, outside of major cities and especially if you don’t work for the government or a major PC corporation, is really not a complete feminist shithole yet. Yet.

Folks in the country and outer suburbs tend to be a lot more traditional. ”

David: I am really pleased to read this. You American men sound so unhappy on sites like this and on the men’s blogs. And you make it sound like the American media is totally feminised. But then I watch American TV shows, and I don’t see them as that bad. In fact, I think American women get abused a fair bit. America just about invented all of the humiliating forms of striptease that women do; you expect your females to provide you with all imaginable sex acts; and use appalling slang (“nail”, “bitch”, “motherfucker”, “fuck the shit out of”). American men seem brutal about women.

The reason we don’t have firearms in our homes in Australia is that we never did. It’s not part of our culture. Some men hunt, and country blokes will have a rifle – to put down injured animals, shoot rabbits, whatever. But even our cops didn’t have guns until quite recently, as I recall.

My little joke on this is that Australia started as a penal colony, and you don’t arm convicts.

A lot of that manly Australian thing is a bit of a joke. Australians like to make things up to entertain and mislead foreigners. Australian men know that Crocodile Dundee was a joke. Like all stereotypes, there is an element of truth, but it is mostly just for laughs these days.

I work with quite a few women, and they are OK. In fact my workplace is heavily female, being in the health line, but the women are mostly pretty sane.

We do have feminism, and leftist elites, and a leftist public broadcaster; but a man can get away with a lot in Australia. It’s always been a man’s country. There were literally more men than women in Australia until about 1950, if I recall.

This is funny and fairly instructive of Australian attitudes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Hr5GbRC7Q

I don’t mean to be rude, but you Americans all seem to hate each other. Australians just aren’t that polarised.

BTW, I have seen American men depicted as tough, for example on the British TV comedy Fawlty Towers.

David said:

In fact, I think American women get abused a fair bit. America just about invented all of the humiliating forms of striptease that women do; you expect your females to provide you with all imaginable sex acts; and use appalling slang (“nail”, “bitch”, “motherfucker”, “fuck the shit out of”). American men seem brutal about women.

Their mommas should wash their potty mouths out with soap!

Really, David, you are clearly a feminized man. Or pretending to be one.

Anti-porn, anti-bad-words, sex is dirty, and a complete inability to understand reality.

American men seem brutal about women.

Define brutal. Women actually being hurt, or women having their feelings ‘hurt’?

Again, maybe David should re-evaluate his close relationship with his mother.

To be fair to David…

Women do get abused in America (and elsewhere). Those DV statistics we cite show that its reciprocal, or, it goes both-ways. The reality is people are capable of many types of abuse, whether it be from a male or female.

HOWEVER – the problem in America is that it feels the pendulum has swung too far in how the government handles said issues, and how the mainstream-media portrays living in the US. Of course, it depends what kind of TV shows, or media, you watch…if all you do is watch “MANSWERS” and internet porn, then your view is probably a little skewed.

In any case, the reality is that most TV programming (news, sitcoms, soap operas, prime-time dramas, OPRAH) are female-oriented. I believe welmer took a fair amount of time on his blog speaking about how the most recent trend, that is, the increase in discretionary income for women, led many companies to begin to cater towards female audiences.

Ever watch the Morning News? For the past month I’ve made it a point to watch ~15 minutes every morning and only today did I hear about how a man did something good (an interview w/ the father who just custody of his son from Brazil). Otherwise its – bad man (Tiger Woods), good woman (too many to list), woman who is probably bad but we’ll present her in a nice/better spotlight (Amanda Knox), etc.

I like to think I’m fairly objective in my thoughts – but the more I watch contemporary TV/media the more I realize how feminized the West is.

Mr. M,

Seen something similar here a little while ago. I couldn’t believe it.

In Vancouver, they were suddenly concerned that there was a 10% or 15% increase in homeless women living on the streets… but, then again, women only make up something like 15% of the homeless in the first place. So, they were quite concerned that the ratio had turned into something like 17% of the homeless were women… and out came the Waaaaaambulance to help out the poor waifs, to get that ratio back to where it was supposed to be.

Good grief, Charlie Brown!

David said:

David: America and Australia are much cruder places now than even a few years ago. And I put this down to American popular culture.

Maybe I am “feminized”, but my wife has ironed my shirts for twenty years. So I must be doing something right.

Since you are wealthy enough to HAVE a stay at home wife, we can add middle/upper classer hating on the have-nots.

Well, David, that makes you 37 at least. So I think we can add oldster hating on the young’in to your list of endearing traits.

Well, the list of your glorious wonderfulness definitely spills over.

Doesnt take a psychoanalytic genius to distill that fact from her writing pattern.

As an example only a woman would use a loaded word like abuse and then use examples like “America just about invented all of the humiliating forms of striptease that women do; you expect your females to provide you with all imaginable sex acts; and use appalling slang”.

When men think of the word abuse, even abuse of women. That line of thinking isnt an example that will pop to mind.

I wasnt born yesterday David , come clean woman.

fedrz December 28, 2009 at 14:46
Tiredgill,

My entire life changed for the worse a few years ago, and so did my lifestyle and hobbies. Suddenly I had none, and was freaking myself out with all kinds of scenarios of what might happen in my life if things didn’t turn out well.

I had been mildly involved in the online MRM, but not in too serious of a way – being a forum member etc. I had talked to AH and he recommended me to start a blog, and shortly after, I bumped into Zed…

-

I usually don’t need to use to google to find stuff – I’ve got it all organized in various locations at the MGTOW Library, or on various locations on my blog, and I can whip it out and fire it off like it is nothing now.

Thanks Fedrz for all the good work.
Funny we have followed partly the same path’s as I have also studied (read) some philosophy, mythology and political stuff.
The many years on the has stopped me from from arguing too much and instead resorted to staing my general pow’s in very short and provocative form. I don’t have the time for lengthy discussions that end up in arguments about semantics or political shaming.

So my general viewpoints are;
MEN are MANKIND, not women or other life forms.
Men only join forces when there is a mutual respect for property.
You cannot be a collectivist and work for freedom, but you can run your own ‘collective’ (family).

Let’s keep our heads up even when places like this is overrun by leftists and progessives.

@ David

America just about invented all of the humiliating forms of striptease that women do; you expect your females to provide you with all imaginable sex acts; and use appalling slang (“nail”, “bitch”, “motherfucker”, “fuck the shit out of”)

You’ve been married for that long, and you don’t “expect your female to provide you with all imaginable sex acts”? Or, for that matter, make her perform “humiliating forms of striptease”, or “use appalling slang” when you’re … fucking the shit out of her?

In my experience, a long-term relationship without these elements lasts about, oh, six weeks, at the most, before it starts devolving down that long slippery slope toward feminine discontent.
And we know how powerful feminine discontent can be, in today’s world.

Every madonna is someone’s whore.

@ Welmer

I have no idea why he has such a thing for Australia, but hey, if the kid’s got a dream I won’t get in his way (so long as he makes good on the office promise).

Dude. He’s five. Five-year-olds have some pretty shitty reasons for where they want to live.

When I was five, I wanted to move to Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso), because:
* It was purple on my globe;
* I liked the name “Ouagadougou”;
* The country’s border looks like a hornless rhino head.

After that, I wanted to move to the entirely fictional republic of Esteria.

Kids are cool. (Especially me, I was the height of cool. Yeah.)

Epoxytocin No. 87:

“If you know even Thing No. 1 about women, you should know that wanting to “do these things” – dripping with excitement at the thought of humbling, even humiliating, themselves at the whim of a worthy man – is the apex of normal female desire.
But, of course, it’s reciprocal. You can’t just expect your woman to be an instant slut; you must be the man who makes your woman drip with excitement at the thought of abasing herself at your feet, and burn with frustration if you make her wait.”

David: Yes. This is the great truth that no-one will admit to. There is a hint of it in Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew.

The reason we don’t have firearms in our homes in Australia is that we never did.

@David.

That’s rubbish.

The reason we don’t have firearms in our homes in Australia is because John Howard had a momentary lapse of reason and brought in our restrictive gun laws after Port Arthur.

We may not have had a “gun culture” as America understands it, but there were still plenty of people around who had guns and liked to keep them handy.

Even if it was for the occasional expedition out to the block to shoot rabbits.

We have totally feminised police, especially here in Victoria, with Simon Overboard following in Christine Nixon’s steps.

She was the Police Commissioner who came from NSW for the job, even though she’d done very little real, practical policing. She drove a desk, and managed to turn our police force into a farce.

We’ve some fine serving police, but the pc/feminazi rules and regs mean that they are nowhere near as good as they could be.

Much of my anger towards feminism, and remember I was a teenager throughout the 1990′s, was that I was naturally nice and wanted people to like me, (it wasn’t to get into a girls pants, I was like that by nature to everyone) so when feminism told me men were bad for being abusive, domineering brutes, it reinforced my belief that I was being honorable, noble, and kind, and would and should be rewarded for that behavior with the love of a women. It was only after women used, abused, and ignored me consistently up to around the age of 23, at which point I just sorta had an emotional paradigm shift and started resenting women and women’s sexual power, that women all of a sudden started getting into me. Keep in mind, before this shift, I was popular, middle class, in college, lifted weights, outgoing, smart, talented, was known for fighting, etc., but it was only up to the point that I lost all respect and good will towards women that I could affectively deal with them by A. telling them what they wanted to hear, not the truth B. ignoring their emotions as best I could C. dismissing their flawed ideas with my superior intellect (humorlessly obviously) and D. most importantly, was no longer emotionally affected by their rejection, and started to play the numbers game, hitting on anything that moved. This was a natural evolution. I had never heard of “Game”, although much of what I was doing has foundations in Game, although I’m sure what I was doing would be considered crude by true practitioners, it was still 100% more affective than getting to know a girl, falling in love, and expressing my feelings to her. That is what feminism says should be, and what should work. It was a lie. So much of my youth was wasted, pining for the love and acceptance of women based on a pretty lie. Your youth is the foundation of your life. Had I known better, who knows what I might have become. Feminism stripped me of my potential. Feminsim fucked me in plenty of other ways also. With such a high IQ, although they tried to ship me off to special schools, which I refused for bad reasons in hindsight, I should have been dealt with in a different way then just being allowed to sleep in class because “Justin is an exception.” Thanks education system. Thanks for allowing me to meet the minimum required of me. A masculine school system would have said, “Fuck you, you lazy pretentous fuck, we’ve got big plans for your mind! Society can’t afford to let it go to waste! Instead of focusing your energies on being popular and getting laid, we need you to find a cure for cancer! Now, here are the books you need to learn! Instead of sitting in class sleeping, learn at your own pace how you want!” But instead, our feminized education system didn’t want to hold me up as someone special or different in any way that would seem unfair to others, at least more than just allowing me to be a smartass and sleep in class. They just wanted to cram me in a box like all the rest. They couldn’t think outside the assembly line of sheeple-citizen production. Treating everyone as equals is unfair. It is unequal. Fuck feminism. I have my reasons for hating it. NO logic will change that emotion. I’ve still got time to make a mark. I’m young enough. Now it might just happen to be through the destruction of feminism. Oh, how the worm turns.

Sorry for the rant. It just comes out at times.

Jaberwochie,

It was a good rant, very good in fact, so there’s no need to apologise. You’re quite right in all your assertions.

Jaberwochie
“Treating everyone as equals is unfair. It is unequal. Fuck feminism. ”
See, this is what gets me. You’re correct of course–if we were all the same, i. e. ‘equal’. Not everyone is Tesla or Shakespeare, nor could they be–it is reality,
or what we all experience as being real. Attempting to and expecting reality and universal law to bend to your opinions/beliefs/ideas is sheer idiocy. Yet THAT is precisely what feminism attempts to do. I haven’t read anything in your post that I personally don’t agree with completely. I don’t know if you even see how often you hit that damn nail squarely on the head, but it happens quite frequently–and quite often when you get pissed off–that comes from being passionate about what you’re expressing.

“Fuck feminism. I have my reasons for hating it. NO logic will change that emotion.” Logic is the reason so many of us hate it–while many have said that it has set men free I’ll tell you what else it has done, and this makes my blood boil. When I was a kid (which was a long time ago relatively speaking) boys were expected to act different because they are different. In fourth grade, my best friend (and I’ll write his name here in case he’s reading this) Sean O’Driscoll and I would go across the street from the school in back of the police department of W. Milwaukee. We would beat the shit out of each other, and we were pretty fairly matched so it lasted awhile–just for fun. I always wondered why those cops never went out there to break it up, or the teachers for that matter–but they seemed to have common sense, and as far as the cops went that was probably something they did when they were boys. Personally, I think they were making bets. These days they’d have a swat team out there. We have feminist indoctrinated ‘teachers’ who want to drug the boy out of our sons and grandsons, and will call CPS and the police to make sure they’re on their drugs if their dad is standing up and saying no, (happened in Rio Rancho, NM not that long ago), and/or ‘mom’s who go along with turning their son’s into something more easily ‘controlled’. This is not setting us free–it inspires feelings of femicidal/manginacidal rage in me.

“I just sorta had an emotional paradigm shift”
It means you became more aware and broke free of another one. We are born into this world with control paradigms–and the more we break, the better off we are.

“Your youth is the foundation of your life. Had I known better, who knows what I might have become. Feminism stripped me of my potential. Feminsim fucked me in plenty of other ways also. With such a high IQ, although they tried to ship me off to special schools, which I refused for bad reasons in hindsight, I should have been dealt with in a different way then just being allowed to sleep in class because “Justin is an exception.”

Bingo. How many potential Teslas, Einsteins, and since you’re an artist, insert the name of any famous male artist here……have been suppressed and have been truly oppressed (a word I’ve come to hate because of it’s misuse by feminists, but is literally happening) because of what you’ve just described? With the exception of anomalies, the constructive, creative abilities exist in men. I don’t even need to show examples since they are all around us and within us all the time. If feminism set us free, we are paying a terrible price for that freedom, and what you have described here Jabber is that price. You, as a teacher observed it upcloseandpersonal.

Jabherwochie:

” I was like that by nature to everyone) so when feminism told me men were bad for being abusive, domineering brutes, it reinforced my belief that I was being honorable, noble, and kind, and would and should be rewarded for that behavior with the love of a women. ”

David: We are massively lied to about a few important issues. That is, the culture consistently misrepresents the truth about some important matters, and this is one of them. Women don’t want a man who is a brute, but they want a man who can be “brutish” at times. Just as all sex is not rape (another feminist canard), all male assertion is not abuse.

There is no one way of having “game”. For example, people mock nerds, but being nerdy can also mean being a bit cold and emotionally distant, and some women are turned on by this. I am a scientist, and a lot of my girlfriends have had scientist fathers. I think they get turned on by the remoteness of technically-minded men. It has also helped me that I have always been good-looking and I am a fairly big bloke. Also, my first instinct when seeing a pretty girl has always been to want to dominate her. I can’t really conceive of an egalitarian relationship. They just sound, as young people say today, gay.

And I have never been the guy with the chocs and flowers. I am not the “supplicatory” type. If a girl doesn’t like you, forget her.

Growing up with sisters helps a man have a realistic attitude to women. Also, Jabherwochie, you are quite a bit younger than me, and I got the tail end of the Old World attitude to men and women. Also, as I’ve said above, Australia is a more masculine country. We don’t “valorise” feminism as much as you Americans, where you seem to get it in your morning cereal. Intellectual movements simply aren’t taken as seriously here. That old British pragmatism, I suppose.

Who is going to tell the young men what I have always known instinctively, and what I have learned? There is one nice, pussywhipped, young husband I know. I have taken him aside once or twice to try to give him some friendly hints (his wife is a Catholic mum with three young kids who want to go into politics – in the good old days, she would have been laughed at for this and told, quite rightly, to stay home and serve her family). But I think he is stuck in his situation.

Oh, wait….now Obama is a Feminist????

I don’t understand why there are men here claiming that this is part of a “Feminist Agenda”. Ummmmm you do realize that this law applies to both men AND women, right?

How do some of you people come to these ridiculous far-reaching conclusions that don’t even make logical sense?

While Obama is most certainly an idiot, a douche-bag, and a pawn for the Black Man’s Ego…..he is no more FOR women than he is anyone else. He’s just like every other politician….he’s a slimebag that’s out for no one but himself.

But sure, why don’t you keep handing the power over to the Feminists by validating their claims about how “ridiculous” and “misogynistic” men still are.

I don’t think some of you gentlemen realize that your blind hate for women, your misogyny, and your desire to destroy all women no matter who they are or what they represent is literally HANDING the Feminists the evidence to back up their argument about you.

your blind hate for women, your misogyny, and your desire to destroy all women

Ahaahahhahahahaahaahhahaha

Why is being a misogynist a bad thing?

***shrugs***

Nobody kicks a dead dog.

***Oh boy.
Let’s see, how long was he in office before he created the (unconstitutional) Office of Women and Girls? Or better yet, before he signed the Lily Ledbetter Act into law?

I normally don’t even waste my time on Waldos but this one makes my shit itch.

The invitation is still open to those who want to learn how to make videos for FREE. (Especially given the socialist undercurrent that runs strong in this meme.)

Simply email me. We’re about 15 strong and growing…

Ray–

In all sincerity your shrieking, ridiculous rant just makes you look silly. I am not a Feminist and this imaginary “Feminist Takeover” is imaginary on your part.

There are indeed laws that allow women to take advantage. Those women are criminals and deserve to punished as such.

It’s clear that you have no idea who or what you are angry at. It’s weird, but I know plenty of women who get up, go to work, bust their ass, come home, cook dinner, feed their kids, go to bed and get up the next day to do the same thing. It’s what normal adults do.

If you want to spend your life shrieking about how “all women are out to get you” when I think I can honestly say that MOST of us women get “hurt” by laws supporting office lackeys and gold-diggers just as much as they hurt YOU, but you’ll never see that truth nor admit it even if you did.

Your particular brand of hate really DOES just make me think that those crazy “FemNazi’s” who say “all men are misogynistic, penis-driven, woman-hating fools” might just have a more valid argument than I previously thought.

Good luck trying to find a “winner” of a gender war. LOL….are you not aware that there can BE no winner of THAT particular war without BOTH genders losing in the end? Silly child, you clearly don’t understand what it is you are really angry at.

Let’s see, how long was he in office before he created the (unconstitutional) Office of Women and Girls?

Again, that’s weird….most of us Americans can think of about 100 OTHER things NOT relating to women at all that the Government has done that is “unconstitutional” such as the Patriot Act (just for an example) or how Blacks can get a scholarship just for being Black… but yeah….you’re right…. those things only negatively affect MEN, right?

No one is going to take your arguments seriously if you are going to continue to present it in such a blind, one-sided, completely irrational manner.

like affirmative action

like preferential hiring, advancement, and retention laws

like criminal prosecution

like the Gulag System in which 93% of the victims are male

like sexual harrassment laws

like DV laws

All the laws mentioned above basically give women a leg up on men, and should be abolished completely.

You can also add to that list: marital rape law, and Title IX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX).

fierce john–

“You know, like the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action by far have been..doh! WHITE WOMEN. Typical–shiftless and always wanting something for nothing, LOL”

the ’64 Civil Rights Act was intended to help BLACK MEN support families, join society, and turn the matriarchal ghettos into something less matriarchal and ghettoish

so who got the benefit from CRA ’64?

well WHITE WOMEN of course!

while the ghettos grew

in my decades amongst america’s workplaces, who was constantly trying to undermine and belittle my work?

who was spreading male-hate via gossip and office cliques?

who arranged to close down departments (like campus VA offices) staffed by males?

who always schemed to get me fired, or to make the work environment so onerous that it forced me to quit?

who was haranguing me in the classrooms and emasculating me in the media?

well it wasnt BLACK MEN, baby

the hard truth for white boys is that our OWN WOMEN betrayed us massively — but our destruction and defeat wasnt enough, now their stooge Maria Shriver has to screech Womans Wonderful Victory from the rooftops

yet Lady Pain here wants me to hate on the DARKIES for what WHITE WOMEN did, in their astounding selfishness, smugness, greed, and misandry

sorry but i lived through it, i saw exactly what happened, take your racism and gendersupremacy elsewhere

“And I must admit, more than a few of us are tiptoeing quietly from the Matrix.”

tiptoe, run, or stay and stomp it from within, it’s all good

David

Maybe I am “feminized”, but my wife has ironed my shirts for twenty years. So I must be doing something right.

*Chic noir fists bumps david*
*hands david a whiskey*
I like your style david.

Epoxy, there are parts of the world where people don’t do any of the acts you and David mentioned, there marriages survive as well as most marriages will.

P.S. if you were just an average looking guy you would find it much more difficult to find a woman ready and willing to debase herself for you.

chic noir:

” *Chic noir fists bumps david*
*hands david a whiskey*
I like your style david.

Epoxy, there are parts of the world where people don’t do any of the acts you and David mentioned, there marriages survive as well as most marriages will.

P.S. if you were just an average looking guy you would find it much more difficult to find a woman ready and willing to debase herself for you. ”

David: I suspect you will find this funny, but I have always thought it unfair that some men get all the feminine admiration, and I have not traded on my good looks. I was being modest, actually. I was a VERY good-looking young man indeed.

I don’t like men who use power or looks or whatever to screw lots of silly women. My father did a bit of that.

I have actually refused to have sex with a couple of girls, nice-looking ones too, partly for religious reasons. I have had anal sex with a woman (same one) about twenty times. I really enjoyed it, but I don’t do it now, for moral reasons. I don’t even like my wife taking me in her mouth. Catholic morality.

I think God was good to me. He made me very cute, so that I would attract a wife, and this made up for my scientist’s shyness. With all due respect, chic noir, I have never been that interested in chasing women. Too much trouble.

That said, I want my marriage to work. And that is where “game” has come in very useful. I have been using this technique with my wife for a couple of months now (I have always used some of it instinctively). And it really works. I think we are both happier.

But, sorry, chic noir, I have only known a few women really well, and two of them were willing to “debase themselves” in ways that you would find really shocking, and I won’t outline. Maybe my being really handsome helped, but I suspect it was just that women really will do amazing things, if they are in the right frame of mind. Women should watch for this tendency in themselves, and be careful.

Most of us never thought about left or right until you showed up, Hammerhead.

Good job! Now we know what we don’t want to be: YOU!

A realtime comment from the homefront:

“‘Bitty’ is supposed to have one ‘t’.”

–

And you wonder why my name is all caps, no spaces, and lacking in letters. SRSLY.

I think that Jay Hammers and Lady Raine would be a match made in Heaven.

Jay is a leftard in need of a lost cause to donate all his possessions to, and Raine is a ball-busting beyotch looking for a nice-guy who doesn’t want to remain attached to his balls.

“Hand ‘em over, Charlie Brown… you can trusssssst me!”

http://www.spearhead-match.com

@ Jack Donovan December 30, 2009 at 23:17

At least he’s honest about his childishly naive beliefs.

Thanks for many good posts.
Global Government is the ultimate evil as it is the idea of total control over human nature. A supporter of this may be childishly naive, but I question if we can afford to regard them as that.
That is too dangerous for Mankind.
We got to regard them as evil – as enemy!

@Ragnar:

“Global Government is, on the contrary, the nanny state handing out benefits to those who present themselves as the most needy – in theory.”

Well, global government could mean pretty much anything from minarchism to a full blown 1984-esque police state, if we don’t draw a definitional sketch first. But as I don’t think that anything like that will happen in the foreseeable future, I don’t think that it’s worth spending time on.

I think you’re right that I’m being naive regarding one government. It’s likely that humanity’s very nature will prevent a sustainable and fair global government from ever being formed. Perhaps the only way for human beings to achieve an equilibrium is to have competing states which MAY work together when the need arises. As we expand into the stars isolated colonies will seek independence and evolution will start over once again. The strongest will prosper. But not necessarily the brightest. Ah well, I guess it’s something.

Yes, apparently this threat to U.S. sovereignty is being exaggerated. Obama isn’t sending Interpol agents to take you all to Guantanamo just yet.

Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.

“It’s merely an administrative organization that services its member countries (currently 188 in number) by facilitating and coordinating the sharing of law enforcement organization.”

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/interpol.asp