The Grievance Table

Post image for The Grievance Table

by Jack Donovan on February 4, 2010

Many Spearhead readers consider themselves “Men’s Rights Activists,” or “MRAs.”

I agree that men and manliness are often mocked by smug misandrists and sex traitors in the media. I sympathize with fathers and divorced men who have been screwed over by family courts and our current legal system, which favors women. Women have established massive organizations, many of which are wholly or partially taxpayer funded–to serve their own interests at the expense of the interests of men. Many balk at the idea that men even have any legitimate interests of their own. But men are not women, and they do have different interests, and because their interests are not being addressed, Western men are collectively faltering. Which, is, for reasons I’ll note below, the entire point of feminism and the wider “civil rights movement.”

The powers that be have finally learned to leverage the noblest instincts of men against them. Men are told to deal with it, to handle it. No whining. Just take it, to prove that you can. To prove that you’re better, that you’re stronger. Shoulder it.

I cannot call myself a “Men’s Rights Activist.”

The sticking point for me is the whole “rights” thing.

The notion of “unalienable rights” is an Enlightenment-era rhetorical flourish that has been abused to the point of absurdity. The idea that men or women have “natural rights” is a myth, handily debunked by L.A. Rollins, among others.

“The metaphorical nature of natural rights is obvious in many statements by natural rights mythologizers. Consider a few examples. According to Ronald Dworkin, Individual rights are political trumps held by individuals. But will Dworkin’s individual rights literally trump the guns held by a bunch of cops enforcing an ‘unjust’ law? Can shrimps whistle? John Hospers writes, “And so I put up a ‘no trespassing’ sign, which marks off the area of my right. Each individual’s right is his ‘no trespassing’ sign in relation to me and others.” Of course, unlike a real, literal ‘no trespassing’ sign, natural rights are invisible. But what use is an invisible ‘no trespassing’ sign? Another natural rights mythologizer is Eric Mack who says, “Lockean rights alone provide the moral and philosophical barrier against the state’s encroachment upon society.” But a ‘moral philosophical barrier’ is merely a metaphorical barrier, and it will no more prevent the State’s encroachment upon ‘Society’ than a moral philosophical shield will stop an arrow from piercing your body.”

L.A. Rollins, The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays

Men have no natural rights. They have no natural right to father their children, or to be heads of their households. They have no natural right to marry, or to have sex, or to “pursue happiness.” Men are animals vying with each other for resources, like every other animal. The United Nations invented a bunch of magic human rights that people “should” have, and it’s telling that most of the states in the world disagree on one point or another. Some of the supposed “human rights” don’t even make a whole lot of sense, and most are merely pleasant ideas. A state serves its own interests, and the foremost interest of any state is to remain in power.

Government is by its very nature coercive. Freedom is a relative term. Freedom within a state means that you are able to do certain things, but you give up the “right” to do other things. A state cannot offer true “freedom.” At least not to everyone. A state offers order in exchange for obedience. Ordered violence. You pay the state with your taxes. For your money and your obedience, the state promises to hurt people before–or after–they hurt you. The state will not always make good on this promise. But it’s the best racket in town. And anyway, like any working mob, your allegiance is considered mandatory–the state is also selling protection from itself.

So you pay up, and you do fine so long as you don’t give no lip to the wrong guys.

They’d be the guys with guns. The guys licensed to hurt people for you.

(Or the guys who are in with the guys with guns.)

When you pay your taxes, you tacitly fund the deeds of men (and women) who are willing to dispense  violence on your behalf–so as you don’t have to get your pretty little hands dirty. You also get to keep your stuff. And if you are wronged, you go to the racket to ask for “justice.”

Men used to run the state, so they enjoyed a favored position in many respects. It asked the most from them, but also flattered their egos and gave them a certain amount of autonomy at home.

When men offered to split the run of the state with women, they divided the state’s interests.

Men tend to want more independence and autonomy. Manliness requires action and risk–risk with the potential of failure. Men of worth crave the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits. As the social democratic state expands, it offers more services, more safety nets, more regulations, and fewer opportunities for risk. The good guys who came by once a month to offer you a little protection and sanity are now hovering over your shoulder all day long and offering to wipe and powder your ass. Men are generally the ones you’ll find grumbling about these little indignities as they accumulate. They feel stunted, hemmed in, powerless. This puts them at odds with the state.

Women on the other hand, as all of human history has shown, are more or less happy to be dependent, so long as they enjoy a certain level of comfort and security. They have a greater aversion to risk–they want to protect people from the consequences of their own bad decisions. They’re more empathic — they want to see everyone cared for. They’re less thumotic–they’re frightened by the displays of volatile, spirited anger that men applaud. Women are good at working within a system. This is why women love socialism. They’re abandoning men for the state, because the state is big and powerful and smooth-talking and rich and it says it wants to take care of them forever and ever.

As has often been said, “Security+power+money= gina tingles.”

Women’s desire to be cared for and their support for the state’s growth ultimately gives them a position of favor within the new state.

In the case of “men’s rights,” this is where I see some inherent difficulty.

And I have to ask, men:

Is this really what you want–another place at “The Grievance Table,” another empty bowl, another list of complaints?

An appointment to whisper in the headmistress’s ear, seeking favors or redress?

Men made this world in their own image. Men invented the game and ran the racket. Until a generation or two ago, they sat at the heads of their own tables. They’re the stronger 49% of the population, not a tiny, oppressed minority. If the state no longer serves the interests of men, if they must grovel and petition for “rights”, maybe men should start thinking “regime change,” or better, “paradigm shift.”

The civil rights paradigm is built around the assumption that men, especially heterosexual white men, are the universal oppressors, the source of all true evil. It’s a movement to remove you from power. It’s not designed to address your grievances. It won’t restore what it sees as lost “privilege.” And in determining what is fair and what is “privilege,” the reigning civil rights paradigm is necessarily biased. The only help it dares provide is to assist you in accepting your reduced status–through re-education or therapy. Those who say that you must lower your expectations and abandon your ideals are not friends, but castrating agents of your serpentine masters. These solutions are merely anesthetic.

It is neither acceptable, nor in the best nature of men that they should resign themselves to being mere supplicants in every aspect of life.

I suggest that the civil “rights” seeking posture cannot succeed for men–especially when they seek the favor and permission of women–and that it would be better to consider a bolder, more authoritative stance.

“…since Fortune changes and men stand fixed in their old ways, they are prosperous so long as there is congruity between them, and the reverse when there is not. Of this, however, I am well persuaded, that it is better to be impetuous than cautious. For Fortune is a woman who to be kept under must be beaten and roughly handled; and we see that she suffers herself to be more readily mastered by those who so treat her than by those who are more timid in their approaches. And always, like a woman, she favors the young, because they are less scrupulous and fiercer, and command her with greater audacity.”

– Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince


{ 229 comments… read them below or add one }

Epoche* February 4, 2010 at 18:24

Cheating at the game of psychiatry. If an age is imbued with error, then why be a victim of other people’s delusions? Decent profit could possibly be made from selling ritalin, so why not sell it? How can one possibly fake having a fake disease? Why should a victim of the inner city drug war not rob methadone users by slipping them naloxtone? A well versed malingerer would note the correct diseases to have: Fibromyalgia, for instance, cannot easily be disproved. Why not get rid of an enemy by “confessing” to a mental health professional that they may be abusing their child, suicidal, or depressed? It can probably be done anonymously through an employee assistance program, some of them have passwords and codes. The drug court system will allow a way out for the right minded criminal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 4, 2010 at 18:31

Project Mayhem?

Gunslingergregi February 4, 2010 at 18:44

””””’The notion of “unalienable rights” is an Enlightenment-era rhetorical flourish that has been abused to the point of absurdity. The idea that men or women have “natural rights” is a myth, handily debunked by L.A. Rollins, among others.””””’

I think more freedom certainly comes from less laws.

You can establish parameters between people by simply making pacts and enforce them yourselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 4, 2010 at 18:45

The only help it dares provide will be to assist you in accepting your reduced status—through re-education or therapy. Those who say that you must lower your expectations and abandon your ideals are not friends, but castrating agents of your serpentine masters
————————————————
well the government is increasingly abandoning the adversarial system to one based on problem solving courts. a low level criminal can game the system through a series of pleads outs and malingering through the mental health court system or the drug court system. thank god for compassion!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 4, 2010 at 18:53

Gunslingergregi -

You can establish parameters between people by simply making pacts and enforce them yourselves.

Reminds me of something I read recently…

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

This necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessing of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of REGULATIONS, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right, will have a seat.

But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continues increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflexion of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.

“Common Sense” – Thomas Paine

J. Durden February 4, 2010 at 18:54

Kudos on this post. This is in line with discourse that describes how it is men, after all, who permit feminism in the first place; power to enforce “the state” ultimately rests on men, who have the natural strength to establish and maintain whatever order they see fit. It is unfortunate we choose to maintain an unfit order. We should fix that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 4, 2010 at 18:57

Agreed, Mr. Durden. And thanks.

Joe Zamboni February 4, 2010 at 19:12

Excellent post, thanks. We need to stop groveling at the “table,” asking the feminists for a few crumbs. Time for a whole new way to think about what it means to be a MRA.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 4, 2010 at 19:26

I dont know who else is a fan of Stirner or Nietzsche here, but we also need a war against compassion. Basing power relations in society on compassion never made the world anything but a living nightmare.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jon February 4, 2010 at 19:36

hey jack, why don’t the irish ever see through obvious wop bullshit? I’ve been around catholics for a long time and this question haunts me. As far as I can tell, the irish are fucking retarded and italians are evil. This is OBVIOUS. What’s taking you people so long to figure this out? So many micks are willing to challenge the status quo as long as it doesn’t require them to challenge the witch doctor with the biggest hat. It’s pathetic. Machiavelli? The guy was scum. He was an effeminate wop cunt just like the rest of them. He was a manipulater who admired manipulators. Is that who you want to be?

WOP bullshit hasn’t amounted to anything since long before the industrial revolution. They fought with the nazis in WW2, but so feebly that people don’t even remember they were in the fight. Fucking ludicrous. I’ve NEVER met a wop who was good at anything but talk. It’s truly amazing.

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

Notice how catholicism dies out in the low 90s. WOP scum relies on the fact that most people are better than them. They lie, cheat, and steal and aspire to nothing more.

I’m watching “The Untouchables” right now on AMC. You should go watch it a couple dozen times.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman February 4, 2010 at 19:38

The ‘Men’s Rights Movement’, if there really were one, should focus on repealing only two laws :

a) VAWA
b) The Bradley Amendment.

Just those two at first. Other things, like alimony, etc. can come later. But focus on those two.

Of course, that no headway is being made here continues to confirm that there is no organized Men’s Rights Movement. 4-6 activists on blogs are good, but that is not a movement. It is a proto-movement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 4, 2010 at 19:42

I can’t think of the last time I even heard of someone who had it in for the Italians.

But OK, then.

I agree about Machiavelli, for the record. Not a sympathetic character. An entertaining read on strategy, with some good (true) parts.

The Fifth Horseman February 4, 2010 at 19:44

maybe men should start thinking “regime change,” or better, “paradigm shift.”

That is what I am saying. The Four Horsemen of Male Empancipation encompass the decisions of millions of individual men. None of them are a movement. Note that ‘MRM’ was not something I included among the forces that would topple state-backed misandry.

1) Game
2) Sex Technologies of 2020
3) Globalization (Islam + Expatriation + Medical/Education outsourcing)
4) Male economic disengagement, resulting in tax-base erosion

All 4 are the sum of millions of individual decisions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman February 4, 2010 at 19:56

because the state is big and powerful and smooth-talking and rich and it says it wants to take care of them forever and ever.

UNTIL the state robs Petra to pay Pauline.

Eventually the state will calculate that a lot of ‘empowered’ single women are not producing new taxpayers or new technologies. They will be taxed to pay for single mothers who produce new taxpayers (necessitating a reversal of the progressive tax system towards taxing lower-income people too).

The rift between young women vs. women past their Wile E. Coyote moment is also going to become more visible. Marriage masked the large gap between women who are 29 vs. those who are 37, but now this gulf will become more visible, causing another civil war among women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 4, 2010 at 20:00

Regardless of what anyone else says about justice, feminism is not sustainable. With the demographics being what they are, as the state looking towards new sources of revenue, the governments of the west will have to be less picky about whom they allow into the country. It is already happening in Britain.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 4, 2010 at 20:03

Im sorry as far as allowing in radical muslims.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Joe February 4, 2010 at 20:06

“and it says it wants to take care of them forever and ever.

UNTIL the state robs Petra to pay Pauline.

Eventually the state will calculate that a lot of ‘empowered’ single women are not producing new taxpayers or new technologies. They will be taxed to pay for single mothers who produce new taxpayers (necessitating a reversal of the progressive tax system towards taxing lower-income people too).

The rift between young women vs. women past their Wile E. Coyote moment is also going to become more visible. Marriage masked the large gap between women who are 29 vs. those who are 37, but now this gulf will become more visible, causing another civil war among women”

———————————————-
Fifth Horseman,

do you have your own blog ?Im interested in hearing more about what you think will happen at 2020, I have already read the misandry bubble

where else can I hear more ideas from you ?

thks

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Meritocracy February 4, 2010 at 20:10

I just so happen to finish reading some of John Locke’s works. It is my understanding that the only natural rights that a person has is to their own body and labor. In other words, we have the right to not be harmed or to prevent harm to ourselves and we have the right to use our labor for our own benefit and not have the fruits of it stolen.

In the second treatise by Locke he makes many points. Government should be there to protect the property of its citizens. Property being the obvious fruits of labor and their own physical being.

He also believed in equality of opportunity and not outcome. I firmly believe that if he were here today that he would consider the government to be at war with its men and that men have the right to replace it. He spends quite a bit of time talking about this.

Nature itself gives no rights.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David February 4, 2010 at 20:19

“Until a generation or two ago, they sat at the heads of their own tables.”

I still sit at the head of mine, and I make sure my wife knows why!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman February 4, 2010 at 20:25

I have already read the misandry bubble

That IS my blog.

But the Misandry Bubble is the only article on this topic. My general topic is quite different, as you can see.

Look at it this way : ‘Misandry is becoming so pervasive and unavoidable that *even* The Futurist is compelled to write about it.’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tarl February 4, 2010 at 20:27

Men have no natural rights. They have no natural right to father their children, or to be heads of their households. They have no natural right to marry, or to have sex, or to “pursue happiness.”

If these natural rights do not exist, then no natural rights exist, and the term has no meaning.

If you are not willing to argue that these rights exist, then men have no moral basis to oppose anything that women and the state do to them. It’s all very well to say that men should get what they want through brute physical strength, but guess what – that will lead us to the exact same place we are now. A social order based on “who is strongest” will lead to a small number of alphas getting most of the pussy, while most men are relegated to beta status and get no pussy at all. That is the same end result as the feminist paradise we now live in, though it might be a different set of alphas in each of the two worlds.

I don’t see how you can argue that there can be, and should be, a better world for most men – most of whom are betas, after all – unless you are willing to assert that all men have a natural right to father their children, marry, have sex, and be heads of their households. Without those natural rights, then inexorably the alphas will get all the pussy – by game or by brute force – and the betas will be shut out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Joe February 4, 2010 at 20:36

I have already read the misandry bubble

That IS my blog.

But the Misandry Bubble is the only article on this topic. My general topic is quite different, as you can see.

Look at it this way : ‘Misandry is becoming so pervasive and unavoidable that *even* The Futurist is compelled to write about it.’

————————-

sorry is the futrist someone else? or are you the same person?

how credible is the futrist and his background for thses prediction? and finally why 2020? because thats when they have the WOE moment? thats what Im thinking?

will you have more articles up?

thanks again,

that bubble article was an awesome read , saved it to my computer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
3DShooter February 4, 2010 at 20:38

This was a good article, in my opinion, because it required reflecting on what ‘rights’ really are. I’m not sure I totally agree with the conclusions, but the article was a good one.

“The notion of “unalienable rights” is an Enlightenment-era rhetorical flourish that has been abused to the point of absurdity”. While I wholeheartedly agree that rights have been ‘abused to the point of absurdity’, I would disagree that they are an ‘Enlightenment-era rhetorical flourish’, for without some (granted tissue thin) guarantee of rights society would never form. Without them we are no better than the Hobbesian state of man.

This was an interesting comment, “Men tend to want more independence and autonomy. Manliness requires action and risk—risk with the potential of failure.” I’ve often contemplated how the social differences of men/women developed and find myself asking the question of whether a genetic ‘time value of reward’ has genetic/anthropological basis.

The traditional role of men was that of the hunter in hunter/gatherer societies. And anyone who hunts knows that you can’t just walk into the woods and expect to harvest a meal. You have to know the seasons, the habits of that which you seek, the phases of the moon – rather coarsely touched on, you have to develop a time preference which requires planning and longer term thinking. Gatherer’s on the other hand require far less knowledge and do simply walk through the woods with far less knowledge and forethought.

The traditional role of hunter is that of men, the traditional role of women is gatherer. Is it implausible to consider that the obvious disparity of gender can be distilled down to a time preference of reward? I don’t know but it is still an idea I consider.

And if women have a diminished time preference, could what we see in governmental behavior be an extension of that phenomena? Personally, I think it can and it is.

When we once dealt with men as somewhat equals we sought to identify the boundaries within which that would proceed and it rightly reflected the male time preference for reward. Thus the idea of our ‘inalienable rights’. When women gained the political clout (men gaming men for pussy) to participate the ‘time value of reward’ changed and the rights men thought they had established have continually degraded.

Now men find that the order that they established in order to have a long term time preference have been tilled under for the feminine short-term (I want it now!) mentality. And we are paying a terrible price. Can women be yoked up again? Probably not. However, they can be made to stand, or fall, as equals. This is the point I think the MRM is at, because if they don’t then history shows the consequences.

[Tangentially, this is my biggest beef with PC munt's like Glenn Sacks - they don't want to hear where men re-asserting themselves could lead. Though I get clobbered every time for saying so, it is my belief that it is a great testament to the civility of men that more women don't 'assume ambient temperature' than actually do in today's society.]

Just some ramblings/musings from a casual observer of life . . .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David February 4, 2010 at 20:40

Men should rule by virtue of our greater physical, mental and moral strength. And our crucial inventiveness.

Women would die of boredom if men were not around.

Also, women are sexually excited by submission to a man who can plausibly display dominance. Most men can do this if they are shown how.

Some form of patriarchy is inevitable. I think we now live in a soft patriarchy. This could firm up at any time.

(You know, the clock can be turned back. The Presbyterian Church, here in Australia chose to stop ordaining women as ministers.)

The best way to uphold patriarchy is to live it in our individual lives.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo February 4, 2010 at 20:50

As a practical matter, the size of any government often is more important than the specific ideology.

A kingdom with a small government might very well allow its citizens more freedom in practice than a democracy with a huge government.

I just read an article with a revealing graph: there are now more government workers in the USA than workers who produce goods.

http://marketoracle.co.uk/Article17011.html

China is a nominally Communist state that actually practices mercantile capitalism better than the USA right now.

Women in the West *think* that government is a substitute husband. That’s what George Will meant when he coined the phrase “marry the state” to describe what teenage girls do when they have babies, drop out of high school, and go on lifetime welfare.

In reality, these women are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. They are parasites that are too stupid to realize that they are killing their host.

Feminism is self-correcting in the sense that in the long term, it destroys any society that adopts it. It doesn’t really matter anymore if men protest or complain. That time has come and gone. The USA is headed for collapse. Just today, the ceiling for the national debt was raised by $1.9 trillion. About six weeks ago, it was raised by $300 billion. We are blowing through $50 billion per week in government debt.

The wolf is at the door, he’s hungry, he smells blood, and loud noise won’t scare him away.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster February 4, 2010 at 21:07

Spot on article and comments.

I said it before, and I’ll say it again. I am no MRA, though I know that I am most likely to find, from among the MRA, the types of men that I would be proud to associate with.

I’ve met too many ‘tards who are male for me to give a flying toss for the rights of men as a group. There’s simply too much to despise, too much to laugh at, too much absurdity to even consider having the matter of rights enter the debate.

I’m sure that Jack and Fifth, like me, respect the efforts of many MRAs. But it’s the wrong problem. The real problem is one relating to epistemology and culture. By now it’s a cliché, but because it lies at the heart of the matter, let’s spell it out yet again… paradigm shift…. too important to dismiss this as just another cliché.

Our cultures have reached a point of absurdity where we are ripe for new strategies:
1) I’d like to see a comedy routine become a tv show. Maybe we can’t change the world, but we can laugh at it. There is a lot to laugh at. As an example – the leftists brought us comedy routines such as Monty Python. Per’s Manifesto was fun and funny, now if we could get a new skit with financial backing, new comedians who know how to laugh at this crap, and make us laugh with them;
2) Music… just as Mick Jagger and the Beatles sneered at gullible conservatism to sweep the world with a mocking rock culture, so too, a new formula is waiting to be invented – incidentally, I just saw on tv an interview with Michael Parkinson who interviewed Mick Jagger only two years into Jagger’s career. It was staggering to see Jagger comment, in all seriousness, something along the lines of “it looks as though we could be around for another year or so.” Social/cultural trends? You just can’t predict them, even when you’re in it and driving it. What’s the future for a MRM? Who knows? I say, anybody’s guess;
3) Science… imagine being at the cutting edge of a new kind of science that revises everything… a new renaissance perhaps. What do we need to fire this up? How about this:
http://www.youtube.com/user/tdarnell#p/u/28/fgg2tpUVbXQ
As you view this vid, contemplate the number of absurd earthly cultures that we know about, in our time and place. Then ask yourself… how many other cultures are possible? Is there such a thing as heaven and hell? What is the nature of being/existence, and how do we know stuff?

Anyways, I could go on, but I’ve got a project to finish. Later.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Druk February 4, 2010 at 21:10

The argument that force being used for evil is somehow proof that natural rights don’t exist is…silly, to be honest. The point isn’t that rights will protect you, the point is that rights need to be protected. It’s not really about who wins, it’s about right and wrong – it’s what separates us from lesser organisms. Equating humanity with animals is a severe disconnect from reality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 4, 2010 at 21:27

No Druk you miss the point about us arguing whether or not rights exist. They obviously do. All social systems have rights and privileges, with considerable variation from time to time. But the problem is now we have too many “rights” such as the right to an education, health care, a good life, blah blah.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 4, 2010 at 21:27

Druk…do I hear a religious argument coming, because that’s the only kind of argument that doesn’t require backflips to imagine that natural rights exist.

They don’t. They really don’t. Natural rights are “silly.” You have to dream them into existence.

We dream things into existence all the time. Like borders. Only the threat of violence makes them real.

It’s not really about who wins, it’s about right and wrong

Sure. I’m the first one to argue for things like honor and so forth over mere “gain.” Some values are manufactured. Like feminist values.

Hi-Grade February 4, 2010 at 21:28

Men in India getting kidnapped, beaten, tortured and FORCED into marriage:

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100205/FOREIGN/702049890/1135

Mind you, they would be socially forbidden to divorce as well.

When will the WoM (war on men) ever end?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 4, 2010 at 21:34

Epoche*

Exactly — some basic “rights,” some basic boundaries that make civilization possible–are increasingly being confused with “entitlements.”

Men invent “rights” so they can have some sort of functioning social contract. They’re “natural” only in the sense that humans are part of nature, and humans invent them.

Jack Donovan February 4, 2010 at 21:36

Nemo –

Exactly. Feminism IS self-correcting. Hopefully we don’t have to get beyond the Thunderdome, or end up praying to Mecca, before we figure it out and force a correction.

codebuster February 4, 2010 at 21:36

I know that the US constitution and the American founding fathers often spoke of “rights”, but I’m inclined to think that they had a very different conceptualization of rights to what we now have… theirs was more along the lines of principles for all, rather than competing “rights” based in self-interest. If we are going to consider rights at all, we don’t need to accept the feminists’ interpretation of “rights”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real February 4, 2010 at 21:41

hey jack, why don’t the irish ever see through obvious wop bullshit?

I hope everyone here can see throught the obvious anti-Catholic bullshit from ‘jon-the-jew’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 4, 2010 at 21:45

Tarl –

Is your best argument for natural rights really an argument for a natural right to pussy?

That’s hilarious, man. You definitely don’t have a natural right to poon.

If you accept something as arbitrary as some magical natural right to take a wife, be head of the household and raise a family, I don’t see how you could argue that women shouldn’t have a natural right to take a husband and squeeze him for every nickel he’s worth.

Moral authority is not necessary on this one, because what makes sense most for any culture is what promotes the survival of that culture. You don’t need natural moral authority to create a system of agreements based on trial and error, general satisfaction and what is best for the group as a whole. Feminism is good for feminists. And some women. Maybe. Depending on your definition of “feminism” and “good.” But as others have said, it is suicide for any civilization, unless you throw future technologies like cloning into the mix. Which is a VERY different world requiring a VERY different set of agreements. Patriarchy works.

Jack Donovan February 4, 2010 at 21:47

Get Real –

Yeah, it seemed kinda forced.

Jack Donovan February 4, 2010 at 21:56

3DShooter – Interesting comments, all.

As far as my “Enlightenment” sentence, I was really just referring to the term “unalienable rights” that I think people take WAAAY too literally as magical fact from The Declaration of Independence. Laws and “rights” and all sorts of agreements between men certainly existed beforehand. Actually, the excerpt I posted from “Common Sense” in a comment above has this neat little imagining of early human societies and how they created “regulations.”

The general point of the piece was just to get people thinking about what rights really are, where they come from, and whether or not the “civil rights movement” is a bandwagon that men can really hop on and steer in their direction.

POIUYT February 4, 2010 at 22:28

Quote “”I suggest that the civil “rights” seeking posture cannot succeed for men—especially when they seek the favor and permission of women—and that it would be better to consider a bolder, more authoritative stance.””

This implicitly means a mens movement squaring up to dislodge or politicaly exterminate those MEN whom have found a personally lucrative and profitable corner for themselves in this social mess via underselling male status rights and standing to women.

It means literally extinguishing the spunk and audacity of these bastard males in office whom seek to usurp authority they dont have to sell off mens rights and privilages to women. A thing which they do for nothing in return for all men, but only for small economic advantages and professional advances that fall to themselves alone.

The multitude of ordinary men, juvenile males, young boys and infant males not yet born will be eternally thankfull that some men saw the abyss into which other malicious men were pressing the male genderclass and took decisive action.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry February 4, 2010 at 22:42

@Jack

1. I agree wholly with your article and the points that you are trying to make. There are no natural rights, and the main reason that man-made notions of rights are articulated is, basically, to try and keep some kind of order.

2. You and Fifth can call yourself what you like but, as far as I am concerned, MRActivism describes a great deal of what you both do, and the term MRA simply helps others to recognise your general views on matters and where your focus lies.

Thus, and for example, an “MRA” is someone who tries to see the issues from the point of view of ‘men’ and who also tries to swing the boat in the direction of giving men a better deal – and in the world in which we live, this rather necessarily involves talking about ‘rights’ – rights that emanate from the various laws that states maintain.

These rights do exist in the legal world and, as such, they are relevant to the issues that affect men.

3. I have often tried to point out that the state, essentially, sucks away power from men (mostly) in order to give it to itself. After all, where else does the power come from?

As such, in order for men to regain some of their individual powers, these need to be taken back from the state.

One big problem at the moment, for men, however, is that the state is HUGELY powerful – which is why I believe that the state has to be reined in.

However, it also seems to me that we do need some form of big governance these days to deal with all the complications that arise in our complicated societies.

Thus, in my view, men would get precious little benefit from actually removing the state.

Solution? ‘Men’ need to take over the state – rather than destroy it – and ensure that it works mostly on their behalf.

Shouldn’t be too difficult!

LOL!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Niko February 4, 2010 at 22:49

Great post, seriously good post.

If you follow the MRA mantra you get sucked into the state dialectic and become another underling.

To quote Homer Simpson, ” How do you get peace (peas)? With a knife.”

Better a reviled enemy than a pampered slave.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
z February 4, 2010 at 22:50

A organized social front should be “for” things that its members believe in.

I believe in:

1) The assumption of joint custody with no child support.

2)A division of accrued assets from the time the marriage started until it ended. Half of only the net gain in wealth from marriage year 1 to the last marriage year. Thats it. You dont get half of a house he already had paid off. Sorry.

3) Alimony to last no longer than 7 years. You can get a Masters-degree in that time. If a couple is over 55, then alimony for a non-working wife should be longer if the husband is the one who filed for divorce. A man should not be able to ditch his wife of two decades when she is older and beyond the years of starting a decent career.

4) The end of no-fault divorce. Infidelity should be financially punished. Couples having problems should go to marriage counseling and make a good-faith effort to work it out.

5) No child support for single moms who were not married. No more rewarding tramps who get knocked up on purpose. If they can’t afford artifical insemination, they should have to get married to have a family just like men do. There are many ways to not get pregnant if a woman doesn’t want to be–all legal. Using a man as a sperm donor is one thing, expecting him to pay for it is another. He never was given a choice.

———————————————————————————–

All the laws that many women are “for” recieve support from women because many women carry the notion in the back of their minds that they could use these laws to entrap an alpha into “staying”, but they wont, they just make him hate her even more. The laws effect are really just to allow women to use them to make life miserable for a man she “settled” for (who in truth is every bit her equal) and make him underwrite her slutting around. The laws ensure that she is never making the huge financial risks that he is. How many homeless women do you see? Not many, because they are taken care of by the state and its laws. Men however are at risk out there all the time and can be made to come up with money every month that they dont have.

Those five things would be what I’d sign into law if I were in a postion to do so. So much else would change as a result of this over the next decade. The economics of the workplace would change because more women would be getting (and staying) married also. Our current set up allows women to use men as sperm donors so they can go slut it around and still get to have kids————all paid for by men via court-ordered payments or taxation. Even if a woman -really-screws up her life, she has a women’s shelter in every major city to crash in. A guy doesn’t even have that. He risks true destitution and is made to work three jobs if necessary to come up with the court ordered payments. We have built a legal/financial matriarchy that makes men pseudo-slaves. Im for tearing it down and making it equal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead February 4, 2010 at 22:53

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

For those who are interested, the signing of the Magna Carta was preceded by some interesting history – some of which might answer speculations about the near future.
The Magna Carta preceded the U.S. Constitution by more than 550 years, and amongst other things established the principle that the sovereign was limited by the same law as everyone else. It also recognized habeas corpus – the right to go about your business unmolested, and to not be imprisoned at someone’s whim, without due process.

There is no new danger to society or any country’s security today that wasn’t just as keenly felt in 13th century England. The difference is a band of men got together, rounded up the king and said ‘sign this and honor it, or else’.

History judged these men well for 800 years, and King John has always been judged a poisonous turd – a slippery politician who had to be hog-tied and threatened before he had any clue about what was good law. His breed are back in power all over the world, and like John, it is their stunning lack of foresight as to the consequences of profligate state spending and rapacious taxes that characterize them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert February 4, 2010 at 22:55

Gunslingergregi February 4, 2010 at 18:44 ’

“I think more freedom certainly comes from less laws.”

IMHO, laws are chains forged to bind the citizenry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David February 4, 2010 at 23:08

The male politicians that rat on other men to curry favour with women and buy their votes are mostly on the Left. No man with any manhood should vote for the party of the Left.

Yes, yes, I know there are sell-outs on the Right as well, but not as many.

Why any American man in his right mind would vote for the Democrats is a mystery to me. Their male politicians are eager to, as Ann Coulter wrote, be “fitted for their tutus”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 4, 2010 at 23:27

Tend to agree, David, tend to agree.

Jack Donovan February 4, 2010 at 23:37

Harry –

I’m certainly a “fellow traveler” where MRA’s are concerned.

And a state of some kind is absolutely necessary for even the most basic civilization to function. I’m no (real) anarchist–just another believer in limited government.

However, I do think that America will probably have to be dramatically re-configured, and possibly broken up at some point. It’s too big to function effectively, to really “reset” or “change” for the better. A shrinking of the Fed and a return of power to states might be a step in the right direction… I’m no political science guy, but I get the sense that there’s this growing feeling out there that strange times are ahead. For many, many reasons–only a handful of which have to do specifically with men’s issues.

Robert February 5, 2010 at 00:01

The Fifth Horseman February 4, 2010 at 19:38
The ‘Men’s Rights Movement’, if there really were one, should focus on repealing only two laws :

a) VAWA
b) The Bradley Amendment.

Just those two at first. Other things, like alimony, etc. can come later. But focus on those two.

Of course, that no headway is being made here continues to confirm that there is no organized Men’s Rights Movement. 4-6 activists on blogs are good, but that is not a movement. It is a proto-movement.

——————————————–

True and correct.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz February 5, 2010 at 00:12

Rights come from the barrel of a gun. Period. Those rights which you are willing to defend yourself. “I grew this corn, and it is mine! If you try to steal it, I will shoot you!”

That’s why Americans have the right to bear arms. All rights come from violence, or the willingness to exact violence.

After that, as society progresses, we “hire people” to protect our rights for us. Ie. The Police – who are really, only permitted to do those things which we ourselves would be willing to do – they are contractors.

And then, what happens, is Angry Harry’s “organisms” take place within the company of the contractors… and our rights get eroded as they seek profits and more power – and we become less willing to use our guns.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert February 5, 2010 at 00:23

Gentlemen, what are your thoughts/opinions regarding the ninth amendment?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry February 5, 2010 at 00:52

@Richard

If you think that Fifth’s statements are “true and correct” then you are merely wallowing in his ignorance.

Fifth knows precious little about the MM. He THINKS that he does, but he doesn’t.

@Fifth

” 4-6 activists on blogs are good, but that is not a movement”

4-6 activists, eh?

There are more FORUMS for MRAs than that!

Can you understand that Fifth?

I’ll repeat it – in a different way.

There are more than 4-6 FORUMS for MRAs

Now, if you cannot find these forums, that’s YOUR problem.

But most of us here are well aware that your statement that there are only 4-6 MRAs in existence is 100% codswallop.

We can **all** see this.

So, if you can only see 4-6 MRAs, what credibility do you think you can have when talking about this subject?

NONE.

You seem to have a problem with MRAs, and appear forever to be trying to undermine them. Why?

Why do you always try to insist that the MM does not exist, and that it has had no effect when you have been shown otherwise on numerous occasions?

Are you scared of us, or something.

Let us look at some more of your ignorance …

“The ‘Men’s Rights Movement’, if there really were one, should focus on repealing only two laws :

a) VAWA
b) The Bradley Amendment.”

Oh really?

Well, I’ll let you into a little secret, Fifth.

Most of the western world does not have VAWA or a Bradley Amendment. But I guess that you were not aware of that.

You are talking rubbish too often to be credible in any other areas that you discuss.

Finally, since you are so knowledgable about the MRM, tell me Fifth: How many protests have been made by Fathers4Justice since the start of this year?

And did these protests involve any of the 4-6 activists that you talk about?

Have you heard about the new Men’s Studies course starting in the USA?

Nah.

Have you read any books by MRAs?

Nah.

According to you, there are only “4-6″ activists running blogs.

DEMONSTRABLE nonsense.

And yet you insist on repeating this DEMONSTRABLY stupid claim about 4-6 activists.

Finally, given that *************MOST**************** of the articles on this very site are to do with men’s issues, men’s rights, men’s problems etc etc , perhaps you will soon be telling us that this very website doesn’t exist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert February 5, 2010 at 01:14

Harry February 5, 2010 at 00:52
@Richard

If you think that Fifth’s statements are “true and correct” then you are merely wallowing in his ignorance.

Robert February 5, 2010 at 00:01
The Fifth Horseman February 4, 2010 at 19:38
The ‘Men’s Rights Movement’, if there really were one, should focus on repealing only two laws :

a) VAWA
b) The Bradley Amendment.

Just those two at first. Other things, like alimony, etc. can come later. But focus on those two.

Of course, that no headway is being made here continues to confirm that there is no organized Men’s Rights Movement. 4-6 activists on blogs are good, but that is not a movement. It is a proto-movement.

————————————————————
a) VAWA
b) The Bradley Amendment.

Just those two at first. Other things, like alimony, etc. can come later. But focus on those two.

These were what i was referring to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
SteveinTX February 5, 2010 at 01:49

A lot of very central concepts in this post and comments. Good stuff.

My couple of cents…

I think the only “natural rights” are the ones that derive from basic state of nature (Locke et al) — if a guy is out there on his own.

Life — all animals will defend their life, most will defend their young, some will defend their herd.

Property — stuff that an animal has aquired that he is willing to defend with his life.

Freedom — the ability to go about to get the stuff neccessary to maintain his life and stuff.

Freedom consists of some combination of liberty and security. These two parts of freedom are, for the most part, zero-sum — the more libery, the less security; the more security, the less liberty.
e.g. If he builds a shelter, he can better secure his life and stuff, but gives up some ability to be wide-ranging in his aquisitions. and vice versa if he opts to be more nomadic.

When a neighbor is introduced into the equation, they can go to war or they can agree to watch out for each other and trade stuff. (a brotherhood, defense pact etc)

Politics is the nature of dealing with differing opinions on the right mix of liberty vs security. Men tend toward liberty due to self-sufficiency, women tend toward security due to dependency. (NAWALT already heard and dismissed for the aggregate.)

When the community becomes large enough and enough surplus has developed through trade and specialization, full time leaders are appointed to manage the liberty/security balance — this is government. Government has a vested interest in managing toward security (women’s choice) so as to enhance their influence and power.

Ensuring liberty does NOT increase their influence and power, so the men of the community need to keep them in check. If the men don’t, we get what we have today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark February 5, 2010 at 02:38

Jack,

I usually love your writing, but there’s something about this piece that just doesn’t sit right with me. I will limit myself to only one point now because I have to step away from the computer in a few minutes:

[blockquote]If the state no longer serves the interests of men, if they must grovel and petition for “rights”… maybe men should start thinking “regime change,” or better, “paradigm shift.”[/blockquote]

Why is it inconsistent to be an MRA and advocate paradigm shift and regime change? Yes, rights are artificial legal constructs, which are held in place by the state when it is in the state’s interest to do so. Surely then, advocating for men’s RIGHTS can quite conceivably entail a cultural paradigm shift and even regime change (disclaimer: Snark does not support bloody revolution, and would be quite happy to see feminist-sympathising politicians simply voted out of office). I just don’t see that there has to be a contradiction.

Will respond to this more fully later, perhaps on my own blog … you have gotten me thinking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert February 5, 2010 at 03:08

The intellectual perversion of the VAWA Mafia
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/roberts/080324

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 04:04

Jack Donovan
I suggest that the civil “rights” seeking posture cannot succeed for men—especially when they seek the favor and permission of women—and that it would be better to consider a bolder, more authoritative stance.

I can only second that.

Men must see themselves as the masters, as the creators and the enablers.

Women must be grateful for male accomplishments and behave accordingly or be punished.

Morals and ethics are what men want them to be. There are no one else to establish it but men.

Well . . . you can start to think like that!

Do not be afraid of the consequences of the above.
Men are naturally/normally good and it is in their interest to provide for their families.
Men only need the means to do so!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lara February 5, 2010 at 04:42

So…you are calling for the law of the jungle,,,,

Interesting, how you can sweep thousands of years of culture and basic principles of universal ethic principles (and of couse the majority of the constitutions on earth).

Paradoxically, the most powerful men and rulers in history weren´t those strongest , but those with overiew and strategy to get warriors give their lives for them (for the rulers), and therefore get more and more power.

Astute, no qualms men, opressed strongest (in terms of physical strength) men in history. As a commenter said above, everyone would loose in this wonderland game (except the few rulers, as ever).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lara February 5, 2010 at 04:49

Oh, wait, I can see…

You prefer being all your life fighting and even die for one man up there on top of hierachy…. as soon as you have your dependant assure pussy waiting for you at home.

Interesting really, the male point of view.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer February 5, 2010 at 05:06

Paradoxically, the most powerful men and rulers in history weren´t those strongest , but those with overiew and strategy to get warriors give their lives for them (for the rulers), and therefore get more and more power.

-Lara

However, they were generally men who also risked their lives in ventures and combat. It is in the more feminized societies where cowards are most likely to rule.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
SteveinTX February 5, 2010 at 05:07

Lara,

You seem to have pulled a few things out of your ass and projected them onto others. Please put them back where they came from.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark February 5, 2010 at 05:13

Lara,

Reading Comprehension: F-

Do not return to the class.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lara February 5, 2010 at 05:46

Last two posts have been, by far, the most scientific-based, long hardworking, reasoned answer you can have.

Congrats, have a rest now, you decerve this

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert February 5, 2010 at 05:55

Hi-Grade February 4, 2010 at 21:28
Men in India getting kidnapped, beaten, tortured and FORCED into marriage:

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100205/FOREIGN/702049890/1135

Mind you, they would be socially forbidden to divorce as well.

When will the WoM (war on men) ever end?

—————————————————————

When men, and the women who love them, decide to fight back and put it to an end.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert February 5, 2010 at 05:57
SteveinTX February 5, 2010 at 06:01

Lara,

It would seem the class you need to attend would be English Grammar. You appear to have some difficulties. Pay particular attention to sentence structure and punctuation.

While there, you could investigate gender — contrary to your wymyns studies class — it is a grammar construct, not a social construct.

Feminism is a social disease though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 5, 2010 at 06:14

Snark,

Perhaps its a case of perfectly good milk having gone sour for me.

When I hear someone start talking about a crusade for “rights,” I hunker down and prepare for an avalanche of special interest bullshit followed by a long torrent of “WHAAAAH.”

The “right to marry.” The “right” to affordable healthcare. The “right” to have everyone cater to my delusions and enable whatever makes me feel good.

The whole rights-seeking racket seems to me to be wrapped up in language and ideas that are completely divorced from the reality of what rights are and where they come from–hence the post.

And as I’ve said. I think it’s hitting this from the wrong angle to petition for rights to a system designed to deny you privilege at the expense of groups with more “minority cred” and a better historical claim to having been “oppressed.”

Lara February 5, 2010 at 06:32

Didn´t know I was in a grammar class trying to pass YOUR exam, thanks for remind me that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer February 5, 2010 at 06:42

If the state no longer serves the interests of men, if they must grovel and petition for “rights”… maybe men should start thinking “regime change,” or better, “paradigm shift.”

-JD

I agree. “Rights” don’t mean anything if you can’t back them up. They really are dependent on force. When you think about it, a lot of so-called “rights” demanded by groups such as feminists are actually privileges that depend on the use of force to exact concessions from others.

Demanding “rights” is an act of aggression more often than not these days. For example, if a woman has a right to equal pay, this means that the state can come in and seize assets if she isn’t getting her right — even in a supposedly free market. These days, this rights thing is almost always simply an excuse to get the state to come in and beat other people up for you so you can get what you want.

Without the police state, feminism would never have gone anywhere. The sheer amount of force, expenditure and coercion used to keep the civil rights system functioning is truly mind-boggling.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
SteveinTX February 5, 2010 at 06:43

Poor, put-upon Lara,

The purpose of structure and punctuation is to ensure clarity. Granted your spewings are nothing but overwrought emotional spasms, but completed thoughts are still preferred.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry February 5, 2010 at 06:55

@Jack

“When I hear someone start talking about a crusade for “rights,” I hunker down and prepare for an avalanche of special interest bullshit followed by a long torrent of “WHAAAAH.””

I take your point, but if, perhaps, you look at much MRA activity as demanding the ‘right’ not to be unfairly treated – compared to others – simply as a helpful tool when it comes to awakening men and encouraging them to fight against all the misandry then, perhaps, the demand for “men’s rights” would not irritate you so much.

Personally speaking, I only see the re-establishment of certain men’s rights (e.g. the right not to be treated as guilty merely following an accusation) as one of the first steps in restructuring the system.

IOW, re-establishing certain rights for men is not the final destination of the MM by any means.

Just the beginning!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry February 5, 2010 at 06:59

@Welmer

“Demanding “rights” is an act of aggression more often than not these days.”

Indeed. But it appears to work!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 5, 2010 at 07:03

Welmer-

Without the police state, feminism would never have gone anywhere. The sheer amount of force, expenditure and coercion used to keep the civil rights system functioning is truly mind-boggling.

That’s a good drum to bang on, actually. Feminism requires violent coercion to exist. It’s a good counterpoint to the “the media manufactures violent masculinity and women want a world where we all sing kumbaya and talk about feelings” meme.

Feminism makes use of violent masculinity, via the police, to strong arm men into compliance with its goals. Without men to enforce feminist policy, it falls apart.

Snark February 5, 2010 at 07:27

Jack,

I accept your points.

However I think there is a categorical distinction between the kind of rights being advocated between various groups.

e.g. the right to equality before the law, is a different demand than the ‘right’ to be respected by others.

I believe there is a categorical distinction here, and that it serves certain people to conflate the two categories, i.e. the people who advocate for ‘rights’ such as the latter.

Yes, the very concept of rights has become somewhat perverted.

I need to respond to this more fully. Will provide the link here once I’ve written it up, over the next few days.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Munster February 5, 2010 at 07:56

This is why women love socialism. They’re abandoning men for the state, because the state is big and powerful and smooth-talking and rich and it says it wants to take care of them forever and ever.

It’s like reading a piece of gold.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lara February 5, 2010 at 08:09

Women don´t love socialim, women love social-led state of welfare. It has nothing to do with political issues, but with the way the state-government enables a structure for the care and protection of all the people (hospitals, homes, shools) as well as an structure for economic support of its citizens.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark February 5, 2010 at 08:13

Lara,

Words cannot describe the dumbness of your last post.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 5, 2010 at 08:19

women love socialism because it allows them to take dick from whomsoever they choose without regard to the consequences. This is the same thing as bailing out the banks AKA socialized risk, private benefit. yeah the state-government should provide for its people because as we all know the state alone has the ability to conjure up goods and services out of thin air, all we have to do is care about people – the power of bogus compassion. All life is infinitely precious, who deserves more federal funding the AIDS infected, the people with IQs less than 70 or the single mothers?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Towgunner February 5, 2010 at 08:40

Great post here! So much to say. First, I am happy to have found this site and now come here daily.
Like the author I to am perplexed by these so called men’s rights movements (MRA). Not only will it demean us further by making us beg the headmistress, but, this is working in concert with the broader socialist movement – responsible, in my opinion, for feminism. You see feminism and the accession of women are enabled by a strong, intrusive (un-constitutional) state. It’s a game played by marxists to segregate and aggravate aggrieved portions of society to get them “hooked” on state-based solutions…otherwise known as addictions. They’re doing it right now with homosexuals. Concurrently this destroys natural occurring ‘constructs’ like a nuclear family and patriarchy, this causes chaos and the marxists is quick to offer the solutions – more government control. Somewhat separate from all this is the consistent theme of destroying masculinity at its core via emasculation, because masculinity is “rugged individualism” (difficult to control) and that is the power behind our once constitutional republic. I believe we are in soft tyranny right now. As a testament to how far we’ve come to (or maybe already in) socialism, MRA’s are nothing more than another aggrieved group petitioning the almighty state for some sustenance. What will happen? Will there be quasi to fully state funded “activists” groups like NOW, GLAAD and other NGO’s? If you ask me, that would be pathetic. Just like how we look at “accomplished” women with suspicion because they are riding with training wheels on. Like the author suggests we need a paradigm change – hat tip sir, my thoughts exactly. And, gentlemen, in no small way we are seeing this paradigm change start to materialize right here and now on this site.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lara February 5, 2010 at 09:04

Epoque:

State-government doesn´t create companies nor wealth. People on their own do.
But state must enable-create a framework of norms in which those enterprises move, particulartly the ones on strategic positions (finance, banks, basic products, etc), and therefore must control them in a more efficient way, for the welfare of everyone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 5, 2010 at 09:19

Lara February 5, 2010 at 09:04

But state must enable-create a framework of norms in which those enterprises move, particulartly the ones on strategic positions (finance, banks, basic products, etc), and therefore must control them in a more efficient way, for the welfare of everyone.
_________________________________
No one is saying that the state should not have a program or 2 to help people meet their basic needs, however, the overwhelming majority of our laws, cultural and customs are used to support the false notion of equality, they have nothing to do with creating a framework of norms that give people the incentive to produce wealth. That is pure flim-flam. Again who is more deserving of our “love and compassion”, the AIDS infected or the single mothers?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 09:57

Several female posters here has proven that they do not belong in the leadership of any country nor should have any influence on it.

Let women work to the benefit of their menfolk and enjoy them as you can.

Equality . . . that’s bullsh*t!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Game + Celibacy February 5, 2010 at 10:03

Epoche*-

the overwhelming majority of our laws, cultural and customs are used to support the false notion of equality, they have nothing to do with creating a framework of norms that give people the incentive to produce wealth.

Well-put, but I think our government (at least in the united states) is primarily set up to keep the status quo in power. Women are preferrable in that regard, because they’re more than happy living in a gilded cage, serving in the harem of extremely powerful men. In my opinion, it’s not that the ruling class loves socialism, they just support policies that are most effective in breaking the kneecaps of their only real competition, the upwardly-mobile men of the society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 5, 2010 at 10:25

Jack,
“The idea that men or women have “natural rights” is a myth, handily debunked by L.A. Rollins, among others.”

The idea that force being used against a person in a criminal action proves there are no ‘natural rights’ is well and truely beneath you or any thinking man. Rights can be violated by superior force. The violation of rights can be dealt with peacefully, in courts of law, not the defacto courts we have now, or they can be dealt with violently. If we do not give men a path to justice via courts of justice we WILL see more Sodinis.

All men have inalienable rights which were pretty well documented in the bible.

1. Thou shalt not kill meaning you have the inalienable right to life.
2. Thou shalt not steal meaning you have the inalienable right to the enjoyment of your property.
3. Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbour, you have the obligation to speak honestly in a court held under the jurisdiction of God. (Remember, ‘So help me God’)

There were a few others but you get the idea. As far as I can tell there is not ‘right to liberty or freedom’ documented in any of the 10 commandments. It is not specifially stated but implied throughout the bible is the right to enter into contracts with other people.

Now. If a man does not defend his rights? Where does that leave him? Without them. Period. A man does not defend his right to life? His property? His liberty? They WILL be taken off him. Usually by the ‘state’ which is nothing more than the banksters. Men are sovereign creatures which were ‘created’ by some form of creator, this also means we can claim the right to claim our rights. One mans rights end where another mans rights begin. A man has no right to violate another mans rights.

For example I have claimed the right to travel anywhere in the world, to carry any weapon I choose for any purpose I choose, to self defense and to defend anyone else God may place in my care. I am working on challenging the ‘states’ to prove they can violate rights. I have sent letters to Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel and recieved initial replies to the ball rolling on right of travel. If a man believes in the lie of Darwin then there is no ‘creator’, he is just a well evolved slug and he begs his guvment to treat him like a highly evolved slug, which would be a slave.

Men have all the rights they need. All they need to do is to undersand how to claim them and then how to defend them. And how to defend them is to try in a court of justice in front of a jury of 12 men any man who violates his rights. If this is not done, the offenders will be required to be lawfully assassinated. Not the preferred option but by my reading of the Geneva Conventions all members of the British Law Society, being ALL law societies, outside britain have waived their protected person status under the geneva conventions. We will have the rule of law (not statutes) or we will see a few people defending their rights with force.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 5, 2010 at 10:42

piercedhead February 4, 2010 at 22:53
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
Pierce,
the Magna carta was the biginning of the Illuminati taking over the role of ‘justice and law’ from the elders of the village. There was ‘Henry the Lawgiver’ earlier. And before that what was used was the bible, 12 good men, and a jury. The king and the guvment had nothing to do with the implementation of laws. Of course, the church was really the ‘bad guys’ as well. The Magna Carta was ‘sold’ as the mechants demanding the king defend the rights of the merchants and ‘free men’ of whom there were very few. Most men were ‘serfs’ and lived in pretty much a bonded slavery to a lord. If you understood the deceits being used you would understand how the Magna Carta was a critical document to later remove rights from men, not give them. These guys work to long term plans.

ANY document produced by one man to tell another man what his ‘rights’ are is a tool of deceit to remove rights because you can bet that those ‘rights’ will evolve over time. Men claim their own rights as sovereigns. That’s what being a grown up is all about. If you want to read more about acts and charters try this link: http://www.tpuc.org/Acts_and_Charters

The discussion of ‘Mens Rights’ deserves FAR more attention than it is getting. The simplest things to understand are these: “If you think you get your rights from your guvment then you are a slave. If you think your rights are protected by your guvment then you are a slave. If you agree to be ‘governed’ then you are a slave. If you think some piece of paper you had nothing to do with writing gives you your rights you are a slave.”

A lot of people LIKE to be slaves. As long as they get their food and water and are relatively well off they WANT someone else to do all their ‘thinking’ for them. So let them be slaves. Men who WANT to remain ignorant should be left to remain ignorant. Men who WANT to be sovereigns and learn how to take care of their own business should be given information and education. Just my opinion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 5, 2010 at 10:50

Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 09:57
“Several female posters here has proven that they do not belong in the leadership of any country nor should have any influence on it.”
Ragnar,
all of feministing.com provides ample proof women are children and should never hold sway over a man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 5, 2010 at 11:01

A lot of people LIKE to be slaves. As long as they get their food and water and are relatively well off they WANT someone else to do all their ‘thinking’ for them.
—————————————
This is an extremely important point, Aristotle noted that some were by their very natures slaves. Human nature being what it is, I think that the reason that the state has grown so large in the last hundred or so years is not only universal adult suffrage but also the criminalization of slavery. Look at the Sin Bins in the UK right now:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201462/Thousands-Englands-worst-families-placed-sin-bins-improve-behaviour.html

Under the so-called Family Intervention Projects, they will be given intensive 24-hour supervision to make sure children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry February 5, 2010 at 11:07

@Twogunner

“MRA’s are nothing more than another aggrieved group petitioning the almighty state for some sustenance.”

Really?

Perhaps you could show us some evidence for this rather sweeping generalisation about MRAs.

Perhaps you could give us just two examples of MRAs seeking sustenance from the state.

I’d like to see some evidence for your claim.

” And, gentlemen, in no small way we are seeing this paradigm change start to materialize right here and now on this site.”

You mean this site? – which is frequented by numerous MRAs?

And, pray tell us all, what paradigm change can you see materialising “right here and now on this site”?

Perhaps you could identify it for us all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 11:43

Globalman February 5, 2010 at 10:50
Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 09:57
“Several female posters here has proven that they do not belong in the leadership of any country nor should have any influence on it.”
Ragnar,
all of feministing.com provides ample proof women are children and should never hold sway over a man.

Thanks, I know feministing.cum and absolutely agree wiht you.
There is also a fine tactic in writing something that makes the present women sad/mad. You know you are over the target when they start to shame you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman February 5, 2010 at 11:55

Piercehead,
here is the detailed story of the magna carta if you want to read it…amazingly this was just published by John Harris today. Men should spread this far and wide.

http://www.tpuc.org/content/contract-called-treaty-verona-%E2%80%93-slavery-f-0

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman February 5, 2010 at 11:59

Epoche* February 5, 2010 at 11:01

The british ‘family’ is a total disaster now because any man with any intelligence is not getting married. Only a complete idiot would marry in the UK now. So what chance do the kids have? Zero. The kids will bedumbed down.

‘Equality’ the PTB want is where men are dumbed down to the level of women and just as easy to brainwash and handle as plebians. And if you talk to men in the age bracket of about 21-28 in the UK you can see they have been pretty successful in a lot of cases.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry February 5, 2010 at 11:59

@Jack

I think that much of the confusion on this thread arises from the fact that you did not distinguish fully between those who demand the right to be given something by the state, and those who demand the right to be left alone and to be freed from the unwarranted intrusions by the state.

The former tend to cause an increase in the size and the power of the state, the latter tend to do the opposite.

Most MRAs belong in the latter category. As such, one can hardly accuse them en masse of doing the opposite.

Most MRAs would agree wholeheartedly with this statement of yours, …

“I suggest that the civil “rights” seeking posture cannot succeed for men—especially when they seek the favor and permission of women—and that it would be better to consider a bolder, more authoritative stance.”

… and you only have to look at my site to see that I, myself, have been making the same claim for YEARS.

Same goes for Zed, Fedrz, Paul Elam, Fathers4Justice etc etc.

So, the suggestion that most MRAs simply want state handouts would be nonsense and the complete opposite of the truth.

Furthermore, the following statements of yours are wrong-headed if applied to MRAs, …

“And I have to ask, men…

Is this really what you want—another place at “The Grievance Table,” another empty bowl, another list of complaints?”

Sure, there are some MRAs like Glenn Sacks who tend toward doing this, but most MRAs clearly do not endorse such an approach. And even those who do, often do so only because they think that they must ‘play by the current rules’ and/or because they think that they might be able to get some much-needed funding to help them on the way to do other things – if they go to the Grievance Table.

In summary, there is a huge difference between demanding the right to be given something by the state and demanding the right to be freer from the state.

Most MRAs are in the latter category.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 12:03

Globalman I just think I need to say that your idea about the Illuminati starting with Magna Carta is bollocks.

Magna Carta is basicly the people forcing the King to accept/respect common law.

Furthermore our ‘rights’ doesn’t come from the bible.
Our rights are man-made.

Like some of your writing tho’ . . . ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 5, 2010 at 12:17
Globalman February 5, 2010 at 12:21

Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 12:03
“Globalman I just think I need to say that your idea about the Illuminati starting with Magna Carta is bollocks.”

Then read the link I just posted to John Harris’ except from his book. I learned about the fraud of the Magna Carta from one of Johns presentations and he has, just today, released that bit of his book. Go tell him it’s bollocks.. ;-)

What people simply refuse to realise is that the Illuminati have ALWAYS been in charge and that NOTHING was done that did not futher the agenda of making damn sure the slaves never realised they were slaves. And made damn sure the slaves could never break out of their slavery. It is only after you realise mankind has NEVER been free you can see how they were ensalved…by endless deceptions and mind control. That’s why it seems so pre-posterous. Because it goes against everything in our history books….books THEY wrote by the way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 12:25

Ok Globalman I’ve read a few things and I beg to disagree!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 5, 2010 at 12:26

Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 12:03
“Furthermore our ‘rights’ doesn’t come from the bible. Our rights are man-made.”
I said our rights were ‘documented’ in the bible. Our ‘rights’ come from whatever it was that created us, and each man has a right to claim his rights and has the right to life and property. Other than that? We need to claim our own rights.

If our rights are ‘man made’. Which man? And would that not mean other men are then slaves to the man who ‘creates rights’? It never ceases to amaze me how men have been so dumbed down and brainwashed we are not aware of something so important as ‘rights’, where they come from, how to claim them, how to defend them.

Look at it this way. Most of us went to school for 12 years. Some, like me, 16 years. We were taught all sorts of shit. But we were never taught about how money really works and we were never taught about rights. What does that tell you? It tells me that the school system is part of the control grid to brainwash us and make damn sure we don’t find out things we are not supposed to know about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Towgunner February 5, 2010 at 12:31

Hey Harry,

At the moment, no MRA’s are being subsidized or even endorsed by the state – of course, I know that, you know that. If anything MRAs are shunned, mocked and discarded by the mainstream. Like you I acknowledge that we must…must organize in order to counter the deliberate extinction of our gender; that evil thing known as feminism. Certainly that means organizing into groups that advocate for men’s rights and it follows that these groups are broadly referred to as mens rights activism aka (MRA’s). I think I misspoke on a few things here. It’s that we should not become like NOW which receives all kinds of public based funding, support subsidies etc. I say that because there could be a huge temptation to do something like that. But, as the author suggests, that’s akin to us going to the headmistress (we all know the state is feminized) and worse that makes us an aggrieved group…so that like women we become “hooked” on the drug of government. I see Man, not women, as the most powerful force ever in the history of this planet, period. We don’t need subsidized non-government organizations (NGOs) to change; we need the state to be slashed in size! I mean to a fraction of its size. And we need to disentangle propaganda/politics from media/entertainment. Again, this can happen, theoretically, concurrent with a vastly reduced state. The change we need is going to require nothing short than what the author describes as a ‘paradigm change’. Simply, the utter dismissal of contemporary liberal progressivism as a dominant ideology.

- And, pray tell us all, what paradigm change can you see materializing “right here and now on this site”?

The fact that you and I and many others are hear, writing and reading. That we sought this site out. That most everyone here is bursting with angst!! There is energy on this site, it will be released. That we recognize the status quo is a gross perversion of nature. I don’t see the paradigm change occurring fully just yet, rather the inklings of it. But, I believe state influence, especially over our culture, is artificial and that truth prevails. Feminism exists as a function of the state and is an extreme departure away from the natural mean. Accordingly there will be an equally robust and swift reversion to the mean.

Does that answer your questions?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 5, 2010 at 12:34

Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 12:25
“Ok Globalman I’ve read a few things and I beg to disagree!”
You are welcome to disagree with John Harris on this. I know who I would put my money on being correct… ;-)

Think of it this way. Women clamour to guvment for ‘wimmins rights’. What do they get? Guvment handouts. Guvment thugs beating up men. Who is REALLY in power. The one who is begged for ‘rights’, the guvment.

Meanwhile, men are do dumbed down we think we need to talk to politicians and gather votes to ‘win equal rights’. By the way, so did I. Mea culpa. I was as brainwashed as the next guy 20 months ago. So if the guvment can get two parties coming to it to let it settle the dispute of ‘rights’ or whatever, who is in charge? The guvment. Because both parties have actually waived their rights. The 0.01% rule the 99.99%. Simple. Divide and conquer.

If you and other men here join the thousands of others sending in affidavits saying ‘thanks for being offered the position of corporate slave but I quit’ it will not be long before pressure builds and ‘something’ happens. I don’t consent to being governed and neither do thousands of others. If you want to be governed, be my guest. But they are criminal scumbags and they are not working in my favour.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry February 5, 2010 at 12:38

@Towgunner

“Does that answer your questions?”

Yes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 5, 2010 at 12:47

Simply, the utter dismissal of contemporary liberal progressivism as a dominant ideology.
___________________________________
I am writing a book about the failures of secular humanism. Whatever the benefits of christianity, they most certainly not are transferrable to the secular realm. I think we need a war on compassion. Cynicism has never resulted in witch burning, an inquisition, or an unjust war.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 13:00

Globalman February 5, 2010 at 12:26
If our rights are ‘man made’. Which man?

Well, he’s very old so I never knew him personally. ;)

You see, in a group of monkeys we have the (dys)functional matriarchy under the leadership of an alpha-male, who doesn’t give a damn about anything but being an alpha male.

When the young ones grow up all the young males have to leave the tribe and fend for themselves. If they don’t the alpha-male might kill them.

So they roam around in the neigbourhood and form gangs to test each other. At some point they manage to beat the old bastard either alone or in groups.
Then one of them becomes the new alpha.
After several generations they thought they’d try something new.
Beat the old bastard as usual, but then share the females, one for each of them, and respect each others right to his female.

That was the KA-CHIIING that started civilisation – I believe so – and thus is was the first proto-society.

Later they never to solve more problems among and it didn’t always go well without fighting and such. It took a number of great civilisations before this civilisation emerged and which now goes down the same drain as it’s predecessors. There was a great thread on this here some time ago. It just didn’t address the tiny beginning.
One of the errors that men always seems to make, among some others, is that we never really understood that women only took the civilisation route as passengers.
This is why we always speak of MAN-kind as humanity – it is men not women, never!

So men made mankind and the missing link is the KA-CHIIIING, not some biological stuff. Therefore the work of antropologists is futile, they won’t find it as it is software. You don’t find software in graves or similar places. Human software need to be handed down from man to man/son/apprentice. Some of it is written down and sometimes taken too literal by others. Sometimes people knew how to write but never understood how things really are. So they wrote something totally far out. We normally call that superstition or something like that.

Anyway be careful when reading what I wrote. :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 5, 2010 at 13:02

piercedhead February 4, 2010 at 22:53
“History judged these men well for 800 years, and King John has always been judged a poisonous turd”
It is dangerous to look at how ‘well’ ‘history judges’ men. Many people judge Churchill well and Hitler poorly. But these two worked for the same masters. If you ask me Churchill was more evil because he KNEW what the plan was while Hitler didn’t find out he was the ‘dupe’ until some time later. Yet the british voted him most influential britain of all time!! LOL!!

Similarly people like George Washington, who openly welcomed the influence of the Illuiminati in the US, are judged well. But he was either the worlds biggest idiot or a British agent. I rather believe he was a British agent because he seems like an intelligent man to me. At his inauguration he wore his masonic gear. And one of his statues reads ‘Mason and first president’. Which do you think was more important to him?

“He who controls the present controls the past. And he who contols the past controls the future”. There are so many lies upon lies stacked up in what we laughingly call ‘his-story’ books it’s well nigh impossible to get at the truth of the matter by references. The better way to get there is by thinking about who benefitted. And pretty much every step of the way it has been ‘those at the top’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tarl February 5, 2010 at 13:04

Is your best argument for natural rights really an argument for a natural right to pussy?

That’s hilarious, man. You definitely don’t have a natural right to poon.

Let me put it this way, if the state is constraining your access to poon (and it is), then your natural rights are being violated in the most fundamental way.

“Women’s Rights” are, at bottom, about controlling access to their poon. It follows that “Men’s Rights” are also about controlling access to poon – or else they will be essentially meaningless and irrelevant.

If you accept something as arbitrary as some magical natural right to take a wife, be head of the household and raise a family, I don’t see how you could argue that women shouldn’t have a natural right to take a husband and squeeze him for every nickel he’s worth.

What’s “arbitrary” about a man having a wife and being the dominant head of the household? This model of human relationship has prevailed, well-nigh universally, for thousands of years across multiple different cultures. If anything can be said to be “natural”, it is this. It is the new model that has recently emerged – the one in which women squeeze their husbands for all they’re worth – that is arbitrary and unnatural.

Moral authority is not necessary on this one, because what makes sense most for any culture is what promotes the survival of that culture.

Well then, the “traditional” model (husband the dominant head of the house) satisfies both requirements – it is morally superior and it promotes the survival of the culture.

You don’t need natural moral authority to create a system of agreements based on trial and error, general satisfaction and what is best for the group as a whole.

You absolutely need moral authority, or the “system of agreements based on trial and error” will fall apart into selfish squabbling.

Feminism is good for feminists. And some women. Maybe. Depending on your definition of “feminism” and “good.” But as others have said, it is suicide for any civilization, unless you throw future technologies like cloning into the mix. Which is a VERY different world requiring a VERY different set of agreements. Patriarchy works.

I agree! And in fact, it is what I have been saying all along.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 13:06

Later they never to solve more problems among and it didn’t always go well without fighting and such.

Should stop writing . . .

Later they had to solve more problems among themselves and it didn’t always go well, without fighting and such.

pls insert bolded part.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 5, 2010 at 13:12

Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 13:00
Um, you don’t know why the nuclear family was started do you. It’s rather too long for here. Summary? A baby monkey, almost at birth, can hold onto it’s mother and it’s mother can run up a tree to protect the baby. A baby monkey a year old is well able to run up a tree to safety and has a good chance against a predator by evasion.

A baby human? When they are about 15 a male baby human might have a chance against a decent predator. Until then, he is toast. A female human? She is easy meat for ANY predator. They can’t climb. They can’t fight. In fact a female human is one of the most feeble and defenceless mammals on the whole planet. Just take a look at a female human and tell me how she can avoid being eaten by, say, a tiger? She can’t. She is more helpless than a one year old monkey. If humans are so ‘evolved’ why the fuck are the women and children ‘dinner’ for any predator that comes along? I bet you don’t know the answer to that question.

Anyway. The ‘bad guys’ needed a plan to stop the wimmin and children being eaten by the nearest sabre toothed tiger….and whola….the MAN was made responsible for their well being. It didn’t happen by accident. Not at all. And so we have had at LEAST 10,000 years of societal brainwashing that MEN have to PROTECT wimmin and children. It’s very deep seated in us men. And we were also taught to keep fighting even when one of our male comrades falls next to us and go back and get him later if we can. Men have always been the disposable gender. Angry Harry is dead right on that one. Lloyd Pye “Everything you know is wrong” Watch the movie or read the book. Great stuff.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Towgunner February 5, 2010 at 13:31

@ Epoche,

Interesting. The current notion of compassion is just as perverse as our artificially constructed gender relations. In this status quo, compassion is only for some groups. Oddly, within these more-than-equal groups a hierarchy evolves of more and lesser “equal” people. And it follows within this hierarchy that some are more worthy of compassion vs. the others. Worse, are the measures used to determine this rank structure; largely superficially a la looks/sexual attractiveness (sexual quotient – if you will). Within this new system endless compassion for a seemingly discriminated hot women and nothing for the ugly; that might seem obvious, but is that compassionate? Furthermore, if you are in a protected group you are “entitled” to endless “compassion” from the system – regardless of how evil that person may actually be. Truly an upside down world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee February 5, 2010 at 13:41

Pretty interesting.

I admit, I never looked at rights from the viewpoints that are described on here, or rather I never gave it much thought.

Epoche, Jack, etc.,
Are you saying that one shouldn’t have a “right” to things such as healthcare, education, etc., but instead they have to earn that “right”? I admit, that I’m confused about the notion that one doesn’t have a right to healthcare and education.

Ragnar,

Women must be grateful for male accomplishments and behave accordingly or be punished.

Seriously? I’m all about being grateful, but you can’t make someone do that. It’s common for people, men and women, to take things/people for granted. Not that it’s right, but there’s not much a person can do about it, and they shouldn’t be lawfully punished for it. And focusing on women behaving accordingly….and them being punished for it if they don’t? Not saying that everyone should do as they please, but you’d be a hyporcrite if you think that this should only apply to women.

I’m curious as to what punishments you have in mind though.

Morals and ethics are what men want them to be. There are no one else to establish it but men.

Call me paranoid, but I’m not for only one aspect of the population to determine the morals and ethics based on what they want them to be.

Do not be afraid of the consequences of the above.
Men are naturally/normally good and it is in their interest to provide for their families.
Men only need the means to do so!

But they are human just like women. I don’t believe a specific gender is naturally good anymore than I think that one is naturally evil. Saying that men as a gender are normally good is a pretty big statement. Of course there are good men out there, just like there are good women, but like I said before….we’re human. I guess I should ask how do you define “good”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Game + Celibacy February 5, 2010 at 13:46

On compassion-
Compassion, charity, and philanthropy is a useful tool if you use it to bring the change you wish to see in the world.

For instance, I donate small amounts to lots of organizations. Some of which give the downtrodden a helping hand. I happen to agree with their methodology of doing so. Therefore my view of the world is reinforced by my contribution aiding in success.

Engaging in, or being forced to engage in, compassion, charity, and philanthropy that does not reinforce your goals and ideals is wasted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 5, 2010 at 13:50

Just watch this……give me 12 men like this in Sydney and I will throw two magistrates in jail. Why are there so few men like this any more? Brings tears to my eyes to see a young man like this with the balls to speak out. Gives me hope.

http://www.tpuc.org/video-cck/lightbox2/874/560/340/field_video/youtube/akm3nYN8aG8

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
SteveinTX February 5, 2010 at 13:52

Renee,

Where would you get the idea that health care or education is a right rather than a privilege? Only a civilization with productivity that far exceeds its consumption could even entertain the idea of universal access to such largesse.

Some quasi-governemental organization or advocacy group “proclaiming” that such a right exists is no more valid than if I were to “proclaim” the right to sex with any women of my chosing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 5, 2010 at 13:52

Renee February 5, 2010 at 13:41
“I don’t believe a specific gender is naturally good anymore than I think that one is naturally evil”
That’s right. You don’t believe it. Your denial that you are amoral allows you to continue to be amoral. Woman are amoral. They have no sense of justice. And they don’t even know it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 5, 2010 at 13:56

Are you saying that one shouldn’t have a “right” to things such as healthcare, education, etc., but instead they have to earn that “right”? I admit, that I’m confused about the notion that one doesn’t have a right to healthcare and education.
—————————————–
no, we dont think that people have a right to an education or healthcare. rights mean freedom from government interference, not goods and services from the state. Let me explain it to you this way, it is not that we dont “care” about people, its that we feel the distribution of goods and services is most morally provided for by the market not the state. For example, if taxes make it harder to maintain and keep a car on the road, that can affect your health and well-being just as much as the “right” to healthcare.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray February 5, 2010 at 13:57

Wine is strong
the king is stronger
women are strongest
truth previals

all polities and empires, from sumer forward, were/are ruled by the collective power of woman

we have been comprehensively deceived — as deceived as we were about feminism generally

“patriarchy” never existed (see, e.g., Aristotle) but once that goalpost has been moved, and you accept the premise of its existence, and thus its dominance/oppression of females, the cognitive context is irremediably skewed, and you are doomed

the human male is made in god’s image, and his rights come from god, and only god, not from the clever enslavement-organizations that collective female power have constructed to utilize and conquer men on this ridiculous and sick planet

when you ask –more usually beg– those organizations for “rights” or to address your “grievances” you have already acknowledged you are a slave, subjugated under Mistress and her dirtywork boys

globalman is confused about some things, but he’s absolutely right about this

he’s also correct inferring that george washington (along with the ultimately dominant group of “founding fathers”) specifically founded america as an overt matriarchy, under masonic (largely Templar) precepts

their worship of “the goddess” (woman/matriarchy) is splashed all over the primary architecture of this nation . . . e.g., the Capitol Building, where the “laws” that oppress males are made, is a shrine to the Goddess

Columbia has always denoted the “goddess,” and america is centered in HER own district, and the “founding fathers” weren’t confused about it either

etc ad nauseum

any “rights” that She gives you, She can take back at the least whim, and for any “reason” suiting her power and purposes

some american males are well-paid slaves, some are well-kept slaves, some are top-dog slaves

but we are all slaves, belonging to her

and she knows it

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 5, 2010 at 13:57

Renee February 5, 2010 at 13:41
“I’m confused about the notion that one doesn’t have a right to healthcare and education.”
Yes, of course your are confused. You are an entitlement princess who believes you have a RIGHT to healthcare and education and that someone ELSE must pay for it. Just like millions like you believe you have a RIGHT to the proceeds of a mans labour even when you break the marriage contract, steal his children, and provide him nothing in return. A mans inalienable rights are:
1. Right to life
2. Right to own property.

Period. Apart from that rights are claimed and then defended. And most of what women called ‘rights’ are privileges or obigations when they are linked to men. ‘Right to work’? LOL! Men know that is an obligation. We want to eat? We work. It is only women who have been so pampered for the last 10,000 years who could claim ‘work’ as a ‘right’. You women are so dumb. You really are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 14:00

Globalman, I know the version you represent. Just don’t think it’s right.

In short, humans are primates and civilisation is culture (software).

The protection of women idea came after sharing them. Before then there was no reason for that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 14:02

Globalman.
Just a little more. No alpha-male protects his women, he only protects his access to them from other males.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 5, 2010 at 14:03

Game + Celibacy February 5, 2010 at 13:46

On compassion-
Compassion, charity, and philanthropy is a useful tool if you use it to bring the change you wish to see in the world
—————————————–
ah yes, the love state! lets turn morality and therefore politics into an arms race in soggy benevolence, lets see who cares the most!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mark February 5, 2010 at 14:05

I admit, that I’m confused about the notion that one doesn’t have a right to healthcare and education.

You are a fucking laugh RIOT. Seriously, this chick cracks me the fuck up.

I bet she probably thinks people have a right to steak dinners every night,too. It’s like watching a princess just being introduced to the way a family of her peasant subjects live “You mean you ALL BATHE in the SAME water, and it’s not even HEATED?”.

Only a woman could think this way, because only women are that privileged and pampered .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Game + Celibacy February 5, 2010 at 14:07

Globalman says:

You are an entitlement princess who believes you have a RIGHT to healthcare and education and that someone ELSE must pay for it.

Also keep in mind that governments, in providing these services, make them atrociously expensive and laughably ineffective because the government has absolutely no incentive to incorporate “best practices” to be efficient, and actually preserves ineffectiveness (and outright brainwashing in the case of education) to serve its malicious purposes.

So IMO we’re not endorsing taking away these fake rights just because we don’t want to pay for them. We endorse taking them away because they’re ineffective and counterproductive to the advancement of the human race.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Game + Celibacy February 5, 2010 at 14:13

Epoche* says-

Ah yes, the love state! lets turn morality and therefore politics into an arms race in soggy benevolence, lets see who cares the most!

Wow, what i said just went right over your head huh. I’m very much against a love state. I’ve literally screamed in the faces of homeless people that they should just drink themselves to death and be done with it already.

What I AM saying is that we can donate smartly, if we so choose, to support the change we wish to see in the world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 5, 2010 at 14:16

I’ve literally screamed in the faces of homeless people that they should just drink themselves to death and be done with it already.
————————————-
why is that necessary? where does this anger come from? from you! from your compassion!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
StephenC February 5, 2010 at 14:25

I thought the discussion on natural rights in the lead article left something to be desired. For instance…

Men have no natural rights. They have no natural right to father their children, or to be heads of their households. They have no natural right to marry, or to have sex, or to “pursue happiness.”

This ^^^ is quite the non-sequitor. I don’t think any natural law philosopher would argue that a man has a natural right to marry.

Instead they’d argue that a man, by virtue of being alive, has a right to remain alive so long as nature allows it. They’d argue that inasmuch as the man must labor to meet his needs so that he can remain alive, it’s naturally the man’s right to keep the product of his nature.

As noted in the article, a bunch of men with guns trumps any right, which is why natural law guys often include the right to self-defense, hence…

I man has certain rights, including a) the right to be alive; b) the right to try to sustains one’s life; and c) the right to prevent others from taking one’s life….naturally.

We can argue all day about whether these rights are inalienable and endowed by the Creator, but I think it’s quite reasonable to say that these rights aren’t something which are given by or granted by polite society, but instead something which must exist before civilization is even a possibility.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
StephenC February 5, 2010 at 14:26

“product of nature” should read “product of labor”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mark February 5, 2010 at 14:27

I’ve literally screamed in the faces of homeless people that they should just drink themselves to death and be done with it already.

I was homeless once. I would have been laughing my ass off if someone just walked up to me and started screaming in my face that I should die of alcohol poisoning.

All I had was religious types telling me “God loves you” and shit. It was weird because I chose to be homeless and they were extending me sympathy for something that I decided to do on my own,not as the result of circumstances beyond my control.

Pretty funny, but not as funny as some irate guy screaming in my face that I should die.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 5, 2010 at 14:31

the most important right is the right to be left alone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee February 5, 2010 at 14:35

GM,

That’s right. You don’t believe it. Your denial that you are amoral allows you to continue to be amoral. Woman are amoral. They have no sense of justice. And they don’t even know it.

First off, I’m not amoral, but I’m not perfect. Secondly ALL humans ARE flawed. NONE of us are perfect, no matter what you say. The only ones who can say that their perfect are God and Jesus Christ. This has nothing to do with women, and it’s funny how you blatantly leave men out of the eqaution, as if their perfect.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 5, 2010 at 14:47

They have no sense of justice. And they don’t even know it.
—————————————
I disagree, I just think that women are given more greatly to feelings of compassion without thinking about other things such as balancing of power, incentives, duty, honor, obligation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee February 5, 2010 at 14:51

Epoche,

no, we dont think that people have a right to an education or healthcare. rights mean freedom from government interference, not goods and services from the state. Let me explain it to you this way, it is not that we dont “care” about people, its that we feel the distribution of goods and services is most morally provided for by the market not the state. For example, if taxes make it harder to maintain and keep a car on the road, that can affect your health and well-being just as much as the “right” to healthcare.

I think I can see what you’re saying. I guess as a black woman, I remember learning about how blacks used to be denied schooling/going to schools of their choice, work, hospital treatment, etc. Because of that, I’ve always been the type to say that someone has a right to things like basic education. I’m just having a hard time in thinking of an alternative. Would public funding for schools not exist? Would parents have to pay for public education from K-12?

Thanks for answering and thanks for being cordial about it ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman February 5, 2010 at 14:57

I never suspected this before, but I am finding that Western-educated women truly have no grasp of the following two concepts :

a) Cause and Effect
b) Supply and Demand

They just don’t get it. They make the marriage laws anti-male, and then are baffled that some men are avoiding marriage. They want more government entitlements (so that the government can be their man), and think that printing money can be done endlessly.

They are just not capable of grasping cause/effect and supply/demand.

This sounds strange, but I am finding this to be true. Asian women don’t seem to be prone to this mental handicap, however.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed February 5, 2010 at 15:02

I think it’s quite reasonable to say that these rights aren’t something which are given by or granted by polite society, but instead something which must exist before civilization is even a possibility.

No rights exist at all except for those which someone is willing to enforce by whatever means necessary – up to and including lethal force. Rights are not “given” or “granted”, they are claimed – just like “power.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 5, 2010 at 15:04

I’m just having a hard time in thinking of an alternative. Would public funding for schools not exist? Would parents have to pay for public education from K-12?
——————————————–
honestly in the social world or government policy everything works and nothing works. So I really have nothing to go on except my personal prefences. I dont think that the government should be involved in education at all, but it most certainly should not be subsidizing education after about 12 or 13. After that age, kids should be allowed to work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee February 5, 2010 at 15:10

Epoche,

honestly in the social world or government policy everything works and nothing works. So I really have nothing to go on except my personal prefences. I dont think that the government should be involved in education at all, but it most certainly should not be subsidizing education after about 12 or 13. After that age, kids should be allowed to work.

Ok I get you. I guess I should have pointed out that when I said education, I was thinking of grades K-12. For some reason, I thought it would’ve been obvious.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee February 5, 2010 at 15:17

Now that I think about it, my comments applied to college education as well, in that one shouldn’t be denied education simply based on stupid reasons like race, religion, or sex. But I don’t nor did I ever except the government to fund college education like it does public school education.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 5, 2010 at 15:19

On rights:

Right is power or might. ” What you have the
power to be, that you have the right to be. I de-
rive all right and justification from myself alone ; for
I am entitled to everything which I have power to
take or to do. I am entitled to overthrow Zeus,
Jehovah or God, if I can ; if I can not, these gods
will always retain their rights and power over me ;
but I shall stand in awe of their rights and their
power in impotent reverence, and shall keep their
commands and believe I am doing right in every-
thing that I do, according to their ideas of right,
just as a Russian frontier sentry considers himself
justified in shooting dead a suspicious person who
runs away, because he relies upon a ‘ higher author-
ity,’ in other words, commits murder legally.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
J. Durden February 5, 2010 at 15:25

Public education is just another source of learned ideology. The government gives us the right to be indoctrinated, not necessarily free-thinking or learned.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
SteveinTX February 5, 2010 at 15:38

Renee,

I’m just having a hard time in thinking of an alternative. Would public funding for schools not exist? Would parents have to pay for public education from K-12?

Public funding for schools is a relatively new concept – one hundred to one hundred-fifty years in a civilization that is several thousand years old. Prior to that there was homeschooling and private schools. Basic education is not that complex – three “Rs” and all that.

The sad fact is that the most expensive schooling is “public” schooling. It is also some of the worst stuff to be had. Nearly all homeschoolers and private schools easily surpass what the government does at less cost and less time required. Hestia could give you lots of information about homeschooling, I believe.

Currently, if you want to give your child a decent education, you pay twice – once for the government school and then for a private school or your homeschooling expenses. If you send your kids to the government school, you have NO choice as to which school –other than voting with your feet — you are assigned a school based on where you live.

Public schools are not about educating kids, they are about keeping teachers and administrators employed. Costs and poor results show the folly of the bureaucratic, government system. The vast majority of funds going to school systems does not go to direct learning of stuff people need to know.

If the public schools were shut down completely and you were not charged any taxes for them, it would likely cost you more to educate your kids but not very much more (assuming your kids had been in public school).

My grandmother taught in a one-room schoolhouse, she was a public school teacher, but her predecessor was not. She received payment from the parents directly (some was payment-in-kind: food, a house etc.) none of these families were wealthy. Many local businesses and churches donated space, supplies, and other assistance — not because they were forced to as they are now — because it helped their community.

Most things the government does, it does poorly. We have been raised to believe that if the government doesn’t do it, it won’t get done. History and common sense tells us differently.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
mroberts February 5, 2010 at 17:00

“The metaphorical nature of natural rights is obvious in many statements by natural rights mythologizers. Consider a few examples. According to Ronald Dworkin, “Individual rights are political trumps held by individuals.” But will Dworkin’s individual rights literally trump the guns held by a bunch of cops enforcing an “unjust” law? Can shrimps whistle? John Hospers writes, “And so I put up a ‘no trespassing’ sign, which marks off the area of my right. Each individual’s right is his ‘no trespassing’ sign in relation to me and others.” Of course, unlike a real, literal “no trespassing” sign, natural rights are invisible. But what use is an invisible “no trespassing” sign? Another natural rights mythologizer is Eric Mack who says, “Lockean rights alone provide the moral and philosophical barrier against the state’s encroachment upon society.” But a “moral philosophical barrier” is merely a metaphorical barrier, and it will no more prevent the State’s encroachment upon “Society” than a moral philosophical shield will stop an arrow from piercing your body.”

L.A. Rollins, The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays

I think this whole quote by L.A Rollins is thoroughly absurd. The fact that rights are invisible makes them no less meaningful. For that matter, all rights, whether natural or granted by the state are invisible. Does that mean that every right granted under the law is meaningless simply because it is merely an “invisible” trespassing sign? Is the moral prohibition on theft meaningless simply because it is invisible?

This guy seems to making a straw man argument about natural rights. The Founders of America, who firmly believed in natural rights, never maintained that they could absolutely prevent encroachment by the State. That’s why they said that our republican form of government required a moral people to run it if it was to be successful. Without moral people running the government, of course the government would trample all over the rights of the people.

Since natural rights are as intangible and invisible as rights granted under our civil laws, then L.A. Rollins surely must believe that they are somehow as mythical as he supposes natural rights to be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster February 5, 2010 at 17:20

While we are talking about rights, perhaps it’s a good idea to put all this in a practical perspective. Let’s consider what a democracy is like in the absence of a bill of rights. Is there any western democracy that does not have a bill of rights? Yes, there is. Australia is the only democracy in the world that does not have a bill of rights. This situation makes for an exceptionally well-behaved citizenry that ensures that everything runs smoothly, even when corruption is rife throughout departments at both the state and federal levels.

Everybody around the world now enjoys seatbelt laws. What do we think of them? Isn’t anyone incensed as to the violation of basic principles of human dignity (rights) that they represent? What nation would dare to introduce such a draconian idea? Australia would. Here’s a sampling of Australian democracy, and it raises questions that remind us of how the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in one part of the world can set off a hurricane in another… consider your own seatbelt laws, and realize that you have Australia to thank for them:

Seatbelt laws – Australia introduced the world to the idea that you can penalize people for minding their own business (safety) and get away with it. For example, for a measly $500 fine you can enjoy the government telling you that buckling up is for your own good;

Belonging to a group outlawed - Australia has had “anti-association” laws on their books for a long time (limiting the number of people can gather in public places). They’ve beefed these up recently to target bikers, so that now people can be charged just for belonging to a group. Australian law enforcers know that bikers are evil, criminal thugs that need to be outlawed with moves to extend anti-biker laws Australia-wide (refer also here) – forget the fact that the police throughout several states like QLD, VIC, NSW and WA have had ongoing issues with corruption.

Incidentally, the harsh seatbelt laws that Aussies enjoy exist despite evidence from John Adams that seatbelt penalties can actually increase road fatality rates… here I resurrect more systems theory. Putting it rather simply – it’s the idea that the safer you feel when you are driving, the more dangerously you will be inclined to drive, and the higher the risk that soft targets (pedestrians, cyclists) will become fatalities.

Seeing as we’re in the swing of considering cultural change and how small events (such as the flapping of a butterfly’s wings) precipitate historical events, consider the Iraq war. Do we really believe that George W Bush and Tony Blair were the axis of all this? Try George Bush’s li’l ol’ buddy, Australia’s very own John Howard. Everything that Americans have experienced since September 11, with the Patriot Act, etc, was pretty much already up and running in Australia for the best part of five years (refer to Silencing Dissent). John Howard’s Australia was the Bush Administration’s laboratory, and in effect, that’s pretty much the thesis of Greg Sheridan. It was probably from observing what John Howard was getting away with that George Bush realized “hey we can do this… we can get away with this too.”

See what I’m getting at here? It’s the idea that living systems all impact on one another. The events that take place in one part of the world influence the events taking place in other parts. Sure, leaders like Bush and Howard are at the focus of it, but ultimately, these influences would not happen without the cultural readiness to embrace them. No man/culture is an island. The new world order is receiving much of its inspiration from Australia. See how Australia’s absence of a bill of rights is sneaking up on the rest of you? What starts out as an isolated one-off event becomes a precedent that other opportunistic administrations notice and seek to take advantage of. Welcome to the new world order. But don’t worry. Be happy. This will be a fun new world order, with smiling faces, national flags with boxing kangaroos on them, easy women and plenty of booze.

Have a nice day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee February 5, 2010 at 18:37

Epoche,
Based on your last post, would it be accurate to say that a person doesn’t have a right to education, but a right to seek education?

Steve at February 5, 2010 at 15:38,
Great post. I’m starting to believe that homeschooling is the way to go. My aunt (my Dad’s sister) is a married Christian who homeschools their two sons (12 – almost 13, and 10 I think). While I don’t know what grades they get, they’re both really smart and great kids.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jay Hammers February 5, 2010 at 18:37

I’d like to see some focused effort to have our voices heard regarding the Paycheck Fairness Act (see here: http://jayhammers.blogspot.com/2009/05/whats-wrong-with-paycheck-fairness-act.html ).

MoveOn.org, National Women’s Law Center, CREDO action network, they all make it very easy for people to contact their representatives in the House and Senate. If we could set something similar up and promote it on several men’s rights sites, we’d start to get more notice from our reps and consequently the media.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 5, 2010 at 18:50

I’m honestly fascinated by how many men here believe that men have magic rights that come from nowhere.

Rights exist because men agree they do. That’s the point. Unless the people with the most power agree that your rights are real–you have NOTHING.

There may be human universals that most men agree are a good idea, that seem to be “common sense” rules. But that’s it.

If you believe they come from the Bible, well, I can’t really argue with that. It’s a closed circle of reasoning.

Jay Hammers February 5, 2010 at 19:00

I’m actually not a big fan of the term men’s rights but what else is there? And no, MGTOW won’t cut it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 5, 2010 at 19:34

Think outside of the box…

zel February 5, 2010 at 21:43

Jack Donovan February 5, 2010 at 18:50

Wow… Brutal bud(zel gives Jack a man hug).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert February 6, 2010 at 00:03

ray February 5, 2010 at 13:57
Wine is strong
the king is stronger
women are strongest
truth previals

all polities and empires, from sumer forward, were/are ruled by the collective power of woman

we have been comprehensively deceived — as deceived as we were about feminism generally

“patriarchy” never existed (see, e.g., Aristotle) but once that goalpost has been moved, and you accept the premise of its existence, and thus its dominance/oppression of females, the cognitive context is irremediably skewed, and you are doomed

the human male is made in god’s image, and his rights come from god, and only god, not from the clever enslavement-organizations that collective female power have constructed to utilize and conquer men on this ridiculous and sick planet

when you ask –more usually beg– those organizations for “rights” or to address your “grievances” you have already acknowledged you are a slave, subjugated under Mistress and her dirtywork boys

globalman is confused about some things, but he’s absolutely right about this

he’s also correct inferring that george washington (along with the ultimately dominant group of “founding fathers”) specifically founded america as an overt matriarchy, under masonic (largely Templar) precepts

their worship of “the goddess” (woman/matriarchy) is splashed all over the primary architecture of this nation . . . e.g., the Capitol Building, where the “laws” that oppress males are made, is a shrine to the Goddess

Columbia has always denoted the “goddess,” and america is centered in HER own district, and the “founding fathers” weren’t confused about it either

etc ad nauseum

any “rights” that She gives you, She can take back at the least whim, and for any “reason” suiting her power and purposes

some american males are well-paid slaves, some are well-kept slaves, some are top-dog slaves

but we are all slaves, belonging to her

and she knows it
————————————————————

Again, I think of mystery babyl0n; the harlot, the woman who sits on the back of the beast, who eventually devours her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert February 6, 2010 at 00:06

zed February 5, 2010 at 15:02
I think it’s quite reasonable to say that these rights aren’t something which are given by or granted by polite society, but instead something which must exist before civilization is even a possibility.

No rights exist at all except for those which someone is willing to enforce by whatever means necessary – up to and including lethal force. Rights are not “given” or “granted”, they are claimed – just like “power.”

———————————————————

(y)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 6, 2010 at 00:07

zed February 5, 2010 at 15:02
I think it’s quite reasonable to say that these rights aren’t something which are given by or granted by polite society, but instead something which must exist before civilization is even a possibility.

No rights exist at all except for those which someone is willing to enforce by whatever means necessary – up to and including lethal force. Rights are not “given” or “granted”, they are claimed – just like “power.”

Thanks and yes, Rights are man-made.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert February 6, 2010 at 00:11

Epoche* February 5, 2010 at 15:19
On rights:

Right is power or might. ” What you have the
power to be, that you have the right to be. I de-
rive all right and justification from myself alone ; for
I am entitled to everything which I have power to
take or to do. I am entitled to overthrow Zeus,
Jehovah or God, if I can ; if I can not, these gods
will always retain their rights and power over me ;
but I shall stand in awe of their rights and their
power in impotent reverence, and shall keep their
commands and believe I am doing right in every-
thing that I do, according to their ideas of right,
just as a Russian frontier sentry considers himself
justified in shooting dead a suspicious person who
runs away, because he relies upon a ‘ higher author-
ity,’ in other words, commits murder legally.

———————————————

Very interesting

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert February 6, 2010 at 00:12

J. Durden February 5, 2010 at 15:25
Public education is just another source of learned ideology. The government gives us the right to be indoctrinated, not necessarily free-thinking or learned.
————————————–

Also very interesting

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 6, 2010 at 00:38

Furthermore Might is Right.

No doubt about that.

When men join forces they may be able to become the strongest force together, but among them they will need rules/laws to protect the right that makes them stick together.

Abuse any part of this and the band disintegrates. Then every member will be facing all forces on his own.

So understanding might is right is a step towards understanding how a society works. Society works by becoming the strongest force in the neighbourhood and then it need laws that makes each member stay.

This also tells us that societies can be man made only!

The important part is grandchildren. When you see your line carry on, then you know your society is progressing. If no grandchildren your society is about to dissolve.

Societies are build upon knowledge and wisdom and you will need to ensure it is passed on. So you must always be aware of men who talk to women, they are usually cheaters leeching on society, men without wisdom, but with envy of the accomplishments of other men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 6, 2010 at 09:44

The best way to redress your grievances is through war. Democracy is about the weak oppressing the strong, nothing less. If a single mother is bothering you, “confess” to the authorities that she is molesting her kids. Maybe write a letter to an islamic fundamentalist with a picture that shows HillXXX CXXXXXX wearing a strap on dildo raping mohammed forcing him to pay for her child care!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
iron clad February 6, 2010 at 10:24

Take away, the need to breed…and then you’ll succeed….SURROGATCY !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
iron clad February 6, 2010 at 10:32

Maxims , like math , serve most men, most often.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
iron clad February 6, 2010 at 10:45

2. – 1. = 1 …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
iron clad February 6, 2010 at 10:48

All else, …playbill….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
iron clad February 6, 2010 at 10:54

1. = god-speed…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 6, 2010 at 11:59

Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 14:02
“No alpha-male protects his women, he only protects his access to them from other males.”
That’s correct. Women are a disposable resource to an alpha. This is why in alpha male societies if a predator comes around, say a lepoard around monkeys, the women and children are on their own. The alpha will only take on the predator IF the predator comes after him. And it has to be REAL hungry to do that. I pointed you to the book by Lloyd Pye. Whether you read it or not us up to you. I can assure you the ‘nuclear family’ was not a ‘natural’ evolution.

Renee February 5, 2010 at 14:35
“First off, I’m not amoral”
You are a woman, therefore you are amoral. Period.

Jack Donovan February 5, 2010 at 18:50
“Rights exist because men agree they do.”
Jack. This is simply not correct. I do not need any agreement from anyone else to claim my rights. I have even posted my claim of right on the forum. As a sovereign I claim my rights and then it is up to me to defend them from anyone who would violate them. My defense mechanisms are common law and force. This is how it REALLY works.

If you think you need someone elses agreement to claim your rigths you are a slave, and a collectivist. There is a reason they are called ‘individual rights’. They belong to the individual. The bad guys try and persuade people rights are ‘collective’ because then they can enslave you. Free thinkers propose rights be individual, one because they are, and two, because that’s the only way to oppose the bad guys. Don’t fall for the ‘rights are created by agreement between men’ deception for deception it is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 6, 2010 at 12:03

Robert February 6, 2010 at 00:03
“globalman is confused about some things, but he’s absolutely right about this”
Robert, if you are confused about something I say that does not imply I am confused about what I am saying. I am actually very clear on what I am saying. Even better, I am correct in what I am saying unless it is clearly labeled as an opinion.. ;-) Everything I am tell men here about the legal system is 110% accurate. Strange how high the level of resistance is to actually learn something by so many men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 6, 2010 at 12:23

Globalman February 6, 2010 at 11:59
Ragnar February 5, 2010 at 14:02
“No alpha-male protects his women, he only protects his access to them from other males.”
That’s correct. Women are a disposable resource to an alpha. This is why in alpha male societies if a predator comes around, say a lepoard around monkeys, the women and children are on their own. The alpha will only take on the predator IF the predator comes after him. And it has to be REAL hungry to do that. I pointed you to the book by Lloyd Pye. Whether you read it or not us up to you. I can assure you the ‘nuclear family’ was not a ‘natural’ evolution.

You are right.
The nuclear family is a result of male co-operation and the first thing you need to respect, to get males to co-operate, is property rights.
So, you stay away from a Brothers female – as well as everything that is his – or . . . :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry February 6, 2010 at 12:24

“People like Harry say that there is a men’s rights movement, but somehow he is actually proud that there is no visible evidence of their efforts.”

Pardon?

“… somehow he is actually proud that there is no visible evidence of their efforts.”

LIAR

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 6, 2010 at 14:12

Ragnar February 6, 2010 at 12:23
“You are right.
The nuclear family is a result of male co-operation and the first thing you need to respect, to get males to co-operate, is property rights.
So, you stay away from a Brothers female … as well as everything that is his …”
Yes…that’s why men have TWO rights laid out by the ‘Gods’. The right to life and the right to property. If the ‘Gods’ did not set up these two ‘rights’ as inalienable the ‘slaves’ would not have been able to pay hommage (bring burned offerings) to the ‘Gods’…you know, the ‘Gods’ that lived in a tent… ;-)

Civilisation requires the beta males slave their lives away. The ‘dubious reward’ is a woman. Really. A woman is supposed to be the ‘reward’ for working all your life? If you don’t think that is mind control I don’t know what is… LOL!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry February 6, 2010 at 14:42

@Globalman

“Civilisation requires the beta males slave their lives away. The ‘dubious reward’ is a woman. Really. A woman is supposed to be the ‘reward’ for working all your life? If you don’t think that is mind control I don’t know what is… LOL!”

LOL x 10!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 6, 2010 at 14:44

@ Globalman.

I do not believe in divine rights. You and your brothers decide what they should be. No one else.

You can stand up and claim your rights till the end of time it doesn’t change the fact that you and your brothers decide what they be.
You must bow to your Brotherhood or leave and be on your own.

Certainly, a woman is supposed to be the ‘reward’ for a man. That’s the way it was – to the extend possible due to female nature – untill last century.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Druk February 6, 2010 at 18:21

It logically follows that if you believe a person has no rights, you must also believe that that person has no right to live. You know what history calls those who disregard or deny the right of others to live? Evil. Or sub-human. Take your pick.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee February 6, 2010 at 19:04

Epoche,
If a single mother is bothering you, “confess” to the authorities that she is molesting her kids.

You’re not talking about falsely accusing her are you?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 6, 2010 at 19:04

Druk –

Sorry, man. You can’t shame me out of understanding the facts of life by calling me “evil” for stating a truth that should be obvious to anyone who is not looking at the world through rose colored glasses.

I know reality is cold and it sounds mean, but it’s still reality. No one has a right to anything, not even to live–unless some collective agreement has been reached about said “right” and that decision is backed up by force.

Civilization is me agreeing not to kill you because I would rather not be killed or have to watch my back. Etc.

Humans in most societies collectively decide that some other humans forfeit their “right to live.” Because they are enemies, because their group has something our group wants, because they have broken the social contract, because they are a danger to “our” group, etc.

Your comment about accepting this reality being “subhuman” is in error, because the majority of human societies have waged war and enforced law/rules with violence (including the death penalty). To deny another human the “right to life” is, in fact, very human.

Druk February 6, 2010 at 19:26

“Civilization is me agreeing not to kill you because I would rather not be killed or have to watch my back. Etc.”

If the only reason you have for not killing an innocent person is because civilization says so, or because it might have some negative results to yourself, then you are indeed evil. Not that I would think you believe in good/evil anyway since those, like rights, are abstract concepts (what you call “myths”).

“To deny another human the “right to life” is, in fact, very human.”

I’d say for the most part, that is usually about humans being evil than subhuman. What I was saying is that there are times when a human being loses their faculty for rational thought and becomes sub-human, so they’re no more good/evil than an animal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry February 6, 2010 at 19:30

@Jack

” To deny another human the “right to life” is, in fact, very human.”

Indeed.

I am often truly revolted by what I see MEN (mostly) have done to people in the past.

But I comfort myself with the belief (hope) that, in those days, it just had to be that way.

My other belief (hope) – well-known to my own readers – is that, whereas in the past, men with aggression and muscles exerted most of the power, in the future, it will be men with brains who do so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi February 6, 2010 at 19:34

Like always it will be men with aggresion intelligend and muscles who make their own power and their world how they see fit in their own eyes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
J. Durden February 6, 2010 at 19:38

Druk -

Can you please show me an example of good and evil in nature? Can you get me a tangible mote/pound/gram of evil and plop it into my lap?

Good and evil are moral constructions and value judgments which are useful for compelling a society to behave in a certain way. They are also relative to the culture which originates them. Many Americans believe that Muslims are evil. Surprise! Many Muslims believe that Americans are evil! Whoda thunk!

Your amateur attempts at moralizing and shaming will not convince any here. You’ll have to try a little harder.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
J. Durden February 6, 2010 at 19:40

Furthermore… If denying any human the right to life is evil, then killing in self defense is evil. But oh wait – conceptions of morality often take into account complicated situational analyses (as well they should, for the functioning of a robust society). This is just evidence that there is no such thing as “absolute” evil – again, you can’t pluck evil out of the ether, give it tangible form and sit it on my lap.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Druk February 6, 2010 at 19:46

Good and evil only apply to rational beings; so outside of humans, no, I can’t show you an example in nature. They come from reason. And you are correct, they’re intangible – so what? Can you get me a mote/pound/gram of gravity?

The statement that I’m attempting to shame anyone is itself an attempt at shaming, isn’t it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
J. Durden February 6, 2010 at 19:55

No, it’s not an attempt at shaming – it’s an attempt at honesty. You recognize that good and evil only apply to rational beings, so why not look at the rational origins of things like a “right to life” or “rights at all?” Evil people tend to deny the “right to life” of a certain subset of humans – not all humans – and often for political/social purpose. You are over-reacting to an intellectual discussion about what a “right” is in the first place and attempting to shame people into silence about an otherwise intellectual and harmless discussion. If you want to contribute to the discussion, then do so by all means. But do not try to silence others, and if the discussion bothers you, do not participate. It really is that simple.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoche* February 6, 2010 at 20:43

If the only reason you have for not killing an innocent person is because civilization says so, or because it might have some negative results to yourself, then you are indeed evil
_________________________
that is pure BS. There is nothing “unnatural” or “irrational” about killing someone, the only thing that make it worthwhile to restrain our natural violent impulses is civilization. In other words, a collection of law, culture and custom that give the individual an incentive to restrain impulsive and violence behavior and instead plan towards more peaceful and fruitful long-term endeavors. In a non-capitalistic society IMO there really is no moral reason to not be violent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
SteveinTX February 6, 2010 at 21:04

@JD

You are over-reacting to an intellectual discussion about what a “right” is in the first place and attempting to shame people into silence about an otherwise intellectual and harmless discussion.

It comes from the difference between male and female thinking styles. Logical vs relational.

Male thought pattern – Abstract. Take from reality, interpolate or alternately take from recurrant pattern, extrapolate.

Female thought pattern – personal. How would I feel, extrapolate.

Male investment in argument – minimal, just another math problem.
Female investment in argument – maximal, personal worth (feelings) are on the line.

This is why women are so dogmatic in arguments and will never let them end if they are losing. For a man: the winner is correct, the loser incorrect; for a woman: the winner is right, the loser is WRONG!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
J. Durden February 6, 2010 at 21:11

Stevein,

I understand that. I also try to give everyone a fair chance and treat them according to how they behave when dealing with me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
SteveinTX February 6, 2010 at 21:18

JD,

From reading your stuff, I was pretty sure you understood that. My reason for spelling it out was more for the lurkers. Remember what Zed says about playing to the lurkers — it is always a wise play.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
J. Durden February 6, 2010 at 21:38

Very true.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu February 7, 2010 at 00:03

There are positive and negative rights. Positive rights are infinite and require an infinite amount of coercion to uphold them.

Examples of positive rights are as follows: the right to healthcare, retirement, food, water, heat, shelter ad infintum.

Negative rights are simple and cheap to maintain. The negative rights are as follows: the right to not be murdered or stolen from.

About government. Modern government uses positive rights to maintain power. They promise everyone their right to a piece of someone else’s pie. In order to accomplish this they violate the negative rights. They gain more and more power this way until everyone is eating from the same pie.. Theirs. The solution is simple. Bake your own pie and if all you have are apples to bake with, trade for piece of the neighbor’s pie. Don’t cry foul and demand 1/4 of the apple pie as your right; else you forget how to bake the cherry pie in the first place.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu February 7, 2010 at 00:07

The above should say if all you have are cherries to bake with

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert February 7, 2010 at 00:57

Ragnar February 6, 2010 at 00:38
Furthermore Might is Right.

No doubt about that.

When men join forces they may be able to become the strongest force together, but among them they will need rules/laws to protect the right that makes them stick together.

Abuse any part of this and the band disintegrates. Then every member will be facing all forces on his own.

So understanding might is right is a step towards understanding how a society works. Society works by becoming the strongest force in the neighbourhood and then it need laws that makes each member stay.

This also tells us that societies can be man made only!

The important part is grandchildren. When you see your line carry on, then you know your society is progressing. If no grandchildren your society is about to dissolve.

Societies are build upon knowledge and wisdom and you will need to ensure it is passed on. So you must always be aware of men who talk to women, they are usually cheaters leeching on society, men without wisdom, but with envy of the accomplishments of other men.

————————————————–

Knowledge, wisdom and experience.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert February 7, 2010 at 01:06

Globalman February 6, 2010 at 12:03
Robert February 6, 2010 at 00:03
“globalman is confused about some things, but he’s absolutely right about this”
Robert, if you are confused about something I say that does not imply I am confused about what I am saying. I am actually very clear on what I am saying. Even better, I am correct in what I am saying unless it is clearly labeled as an opinion.. Everything I am tell men here about the legal system is 110% accurate. Strange how high the level of resistance is to actually learn something by so many men.

——————————————————–
Robert February 6, 2010 at 00:03
“globalman is confused about some things, but he’s absolutely right about this”

When/where did Ipost this ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu February 7, 2010 at 01:10

If might makes right, then hitler is right, Stalin is right, mao is right, chattell owners are right and gasp feminists and the family courts are right. Might garners influence and power. It is not neccesarily right. An example follows.

I am holding a gun to your head. I say two plus two equals 10,000. You say that is wrong. I have the gun and the might, therefore since I am mightier two plus two does in fact equal 10,000. Do you see how absurd the notion that might makes right is?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 7, 2010 at 01:43

Migu February 7, 2010 at 01:10
If might makes right, then hitler is right, Stalin is right, mao is right, chattell owners are right and gasp feminists and the family courts are right. Might garners influence and power. It is not neccesarily right. An example follows.

I am holding a gun to your head. I say two plus two equals 10,000. You say that is wrong. I have the gun and the might, therefore since I am mightier two plus two does in fact equal 10,000. Do you see how absurd the notion that might makes right is?

Migu
To me – you are just saying that freedom must be maintained by the will to fight for it, when necessary.

There will always be groups and single persons who will try to abuse positions of power to circumvent the individual freedom which originally held their societies together. You named some of them.
the fualt of men, it seems, is a lack of standing for their rights.

Might is right, is like a law of nature – is like the law of gravity.
Men managed to improve on nature and create civilisation. This doesn’t mean that nature doesn’t exist anymore!

A group of female chimps sit around in short distances from each other. that makes them able to keep an eye on each other, their ofspring and watch out for enemies while they scanvenge for roots, fruits and the occasional small critter. To stay in contact they use small regular sounds, meaning sometihng like; “Everything is ok at my place”, “I’m fine”, or “watch out” etc.etc.
When raise this kind of behavior to call it multitasking and regard it as an important ability for society, we actually lower the intellectual standards of civilisation.
What is worse we loose the whole idea of cohesion and family with the males. Thus we also loose the concept of might is right as a natural force and start to dream superstitious thoughts and regard this as reality.

There will probably be someone who can explain this much better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 7, 2010 at 02:02

Robert.
Knowledge and experience is Wisdom. ;)

I use; “Wisdom, Will and Welfare” as the 3 key words to describe the forces of of society.

Wisdom – like what you said.
Will – nothing ever get done if you do not get out there and do it.
Welfare – the old-fashioned idea that describes peace imposed by men who want no shit from others – complemented with a reasonable, but not necessarily equal, amount of provisions for everybody. This part is hard to describe in the few words I have the energy to write.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu February 7, 2010 at 05:25

Ragnar,

That is something altogther different than might is right. WRT that I am in agreement. Might does not make right, but that does not mean that meekness and passivity makes right either. The two opposing states of might and meek are just that nothing more. We can observe that the united states are mighty. Great, that is all we know. An ethical judgement can not be made from that fact alone. That is why it is impossible to conclude that might makes right or that it makes wrong.

Mobile post sorry for the errors

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 7, 2010 at 07:24

Positive and negative rights are also an important part of this discussion.

“Positive rights” are really only benefits, and calling them “rights” cheapens the idea of rights, which should really be a basic agreement between a government and its people concerning liberties the government can take with your person.

Do men’s rights advocates seek negative or positive rights. Do they want additional benefits or additional protections, or simply the removal of benefits or protections of others which they regard as unfair?

J. Durden February 7, 2010 at 07:39

I’ve been thinking about writing a post about “rights” and ethics/morals for a while. Seems like this topic has hit a chord with The Spearhead, also. Hmm…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 7, 2010 at 07:54

Migu February 7, 2010 at 05:25
We can observe that the united states are mighty. Great, that is all we know. An ethical judgement can not be made from that fact alone. That is why it is impossible to conclude that might makes right or that it makes wrong.

No, it’s You with Your present set of ethic and morals who think it’s wrong!

Ethics and morals comes after Might has established Right. It takes a few generations of prosperity, then a culture will establish itself with cores and modes along whatever made ‘this might be right’!

In short the ‘winner’ decides what is right or wrong!

In our society many of us has the idea morals are somehow eternal or God given. I just don’t think so, and I have also read some philosophy saying so or not!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry February 7, 2010 at 07:58

@Jack

“Do men’s rights advocates seek negative or positive rights. Do they want additional benefits or additional protections, or simply the removal of benefits or protections of others which they regard as unfair?”

MRAs come with different notions about what needs to happen.

I think that some fine posters round here are not quite grasping your essential point; viz, that Nature confers no rights upon anyone.

But, from an MRAactivist point of view, the point about rights is not that they are natural, but that, currently they have a legal status and a propaganda value and that, as such, men would rather like to have a few more of them!

I wouldn’t worry too much about the ‘strangeness’ or the slight inappropriateness of many men’s activists identifying themselves as MRAs, because language and notions about terms change as the evidence comes in.

In the 60s the word ‘feminist’ = fat, ugly lesbians in dungarees screeching and hollering and being downright nasty to everybody, but now the word ‘feminist’ conjures up something else.

A further advantage of calling yourself something – such as MRA – is that you tend to make allies with others who call themselves the same thing.

Furthermore, in the real world, the possession of rights – or lack thereof – do have some significant impact; whether you like it or not. And, basically, MRAs are wanting them to benefit men more so than they do now. As such, the term MRA seems quite appropriate.

And how else would you want to describe, let us say, the collective activity of many of the authors round here?

Or look at the links on the front page of my site. About 35 of them lead to bloggers and websites which are concerned mostly with men’s issues; health, education, family, the law etc etc. Their sites link to other sites where the same is happening.

There are men’s activist groups like F4J, Radar, the NCFM – a whole load of blogs and sites devoted to false allegations, domestic violence, child custody, child support etc etc. There are academics crawling out of the woodwork to debunk feminist statistics. And so on.

How else would you attempt to describe these people whose focus is on ‘men’?

In my view, if they largely focus on men, then the term MRA is loosely applicable.

As a matter of interest: Do you think that gays were wrong to make a huge fuss over gay ‘rights’? Did it not benefit them to do so?

Were those who saw themselves as “gay rights” activists not also concerned about issues to do with matters other than ‘rights’ – e.g. such as AIDS.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 7, 2010 at 07:59

J. Durden February 7, 2010 at 07:39
I’ve been thinking about writing a post about “rights” and ethics/morals for a while. Seems like this topic has hit a chord with The Spearhead, also. Hmm…

Very interesting, I’ll be looking forward to it. :)

Jack Donovan February 7, 2010 at 07:24
Do men’s rights advocates seek negative or positive rights. Do they want additional benefits or additional protections, or simply the removal of benefits or protections of others which they regard as unfair?

To me it’s fairly clear that most men want to diminish the benefits and protections of all kind.
Reduce government and let people govern themselves, no matter some unfairness results from it.
:)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz February 7, 2010 at 08:18

In our society many of us has the idea morals are somehow eternal or God given. — Ragnar

This has to do with the philosophical structure of government – which, btw, is something which was fought for, through the muzzle of a gun, and then was sought to beeternalized and protected.

The reason is, what God gives, only God can take away – this is the philosophical establishment of personal rights in a free society. The important point is not that they come from God, but that they are out of the reach of man/government so that no-one can monkey with them once they are established. It would work just as well for structure of government to declare that rights are granted by Santa Claus, and so only Santa Claus can come and take them away. All totalitarian states, however, directly state that rights are granted by the state and so the state (made of men) has the right to take them away.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men…” — United States Declaration of Independence

versus

“The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights PROVIDED BY THE STATE … the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law.” — Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

G. Edward Griffin has a good essay about “rights” in his “The Future is Calling” series, called “The Chasm.”

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster February 7, 2010 at 08:21

I’ve been thinking about writing a post about “rights” and ethics/morals for a while.

Ok, then perhaps I should provide my 2 cents worth.

Without reference to culture or systems, any discussion about morality and good vs evil is moot. Whether or not something is “good” or “evil” is contingent on the system within which you participate. Do you want to know whether or not abortion is evil? Then ask yourself the question, what is the impact of abortion on the system (culture)? What are the logics (assumptions) by which we live that legitimizes abortion? The sorts of women that I’ve encountered from some non-anglo cultures (where abortion is non-existent) tells me everything that I need to know about what women from the Anglosphere have become. Warm, loving and nurturing? Ha! While we’re talking about jokes, tell me another one!

Cultures where murder and violence are commonplace are also moral cultures. They have their own morality relating to… what… “survival of the fittest”, “nature red in tooth and claw”? Revenge? Payback? All this has its own reality and morality… “a tooth for a tooth” and “an eye for an eye”. Nature red in tooth and claw has its own truth. The real, objective “benchmark” in this debate seems to be self-interest. Where self-interest dominates, fictitious, exaggerated assumptions emerge to accommodate self-interest.

Wild animals have their own interpretations of “morality”. A little while ago, there was a young, sick magpie (a type of bird) in our backyard that was making distress noises. Its parent was tending to it, feeding it. I went out and threw the adult some pieces of salami. It did not eat the salami, but went over to its young, to feed it, putting the pieces of salami into its open beak. Now for the reductionists here, no doubt they’ll classify this as pre-programmed instinct, fully accounted for in the genetic blueprint. Fine. But after the young magpie had its fill, the adult came over to me and sang to me, in that rich song that magpies are renowned for. Draw your own conclusions. More genetic blueprint cadswallop? No doubt the reductionists have their own opinions and agenda, regardless of the evidence, and this fits in beautifully with the agenda of the pro-abortion crowd.

What about wild animals such as wolves that on occasion prefer to raise abandoned human infants, instead of eat them? I know, I know… genetic blueprint, blah blah blah, genes this, epigenetics that, blah, blah… without even knowing how genes and DNA work… not even a smidgen of a fucking clue. This is the crowd that tells us about the purpose of male display being to attract females, obviously projecting why they do academia… they’ve got a long way to go if they think that being an academic nerd gets the chicks. It doesn’t occur to them that perhaps, just maybe, the male lyre-bird delights in the joy of mimicking the sounds around it, and it is this joy of play and exuberance that attracts the chicks. Not unlike a true alpha who understands at an authentic level what “game” is really about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
GlobalMan February 7, 2010 at 08:29

Robert…apologies you were quoting RAY and I thought it was you who said that. My mistake.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 7, 2010 at 08:33

fedrz – I see your point, but that just doesn’t make it eternally right.

To be a little argumentative;
That was just a bunch of men with a certain point of view.

I like that pow and support it. That doesn’t make me believe that it isn’t ‘man-made’, though!

More beer please – LOL! :D

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
GlobalMan February 7, 2010 at 08:36

Ragnar February 6, 2010 at 14:44
“I do not believe in divine rights. You and your brothers decide what they should be. No one else.”
And you are welcome not to believe in divine rights. A man decides what his OWN rights are. If others agree, great, but a MAN decides his own rights. He is then obliged to defend them or lose them. That’s how it works. Men have not defended their rights? They lost them. To OTHER men who were smarter and better organised. All we have seen is a bunch of men at the top, the top 0.01%, swindle everyong else out of their property and energy and make us slaves. Business as normal. You think David Rockerfeller gives a fuck what your rights are and is interested in agreeing your rights with you? Nope. Him and his buddies have made you a slave. And they know it.

fedrz February 7, 2010 at 08:18
Yes. Men here would do well to read and watch more from G Edward Griffin.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
GlobalMan February 7, 2010 at 08:38

PS. On re-reading my comment is a little ambiguous. A man must decide for himself whether he was created by some creator and is an evolved slug. If a man decides for himself her was created he may choose to claim that his right to life was given him by his creator. He might also claim the creator gave him the right to personal property to sustain his life.

If you are a highly evolved slug you can also make these claims… ;-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 7, 2010 at 08:43

GlobalMan February 7, 2010 at 08:36
You think David Rockerfeller gives a fuck what your rights are and is interested in agreeing your rights with you? Nope. Him and his buddies have made you a slave. And they know it.

Isn’t exactly men like Rockefeller something that the government should be able to deal with? (Goverment seen as representative of the agreements of ‘all’ men)
Maybe the government/constitution wasn’t right/missing some clauses.
Maybe some men didn’t stand up for their rights if Rockefeller did something wrong?
Would firm belief in anything have helped you?

I think civilisations are very fragile and need constant attention!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 7, 2010 at 08:46

Slugs Unite!

Yes it is very difficult – I think, then I must be a slug . . . ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz February 7, 2010 at 08:50

To be a little argumentative;
That was just a bunch of men with a certain point of view.
— Ragnar

You are right, it was just a bunch of men with a point of view, and they established that their way was correct through the muzzle of a gun. They very much understood that “rights” are derived from might/violence or the willingness to exact violence. Thus, in the USA, you have the right to bear arms – that is where your rights come from, that gun mounted over your door. (In Canada, our rights come from that gun buried inside of PVC tubing, 13 paces from the old oak tree).

But they also recognized that there are self-serving organisms that come from human nature – for example, the police and the courts were originally formed to be protectors of our rights, but it is human nature nature for them to want more and more power, until eventually they are not protecting our rights, but rather their rights as they attempt to grow in power.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men…”

Government are instituted to secure the rights that have been established through violence – and the only place of government is to secure them, not to create them, nor grant them.

And certainly, what is morally “right” and morally “wrong” is forever debatable and unestablisheable.

This is why it is so important that Western Civilization has followed Christianity – because it established “one truth” and thus, one general set of moral values that all of us adhered to. Therefore, we were able to establish as a large group what is right or what is wrong.

Human moral values can go in a billion different directions. The cultures that were sacrificing virgins to the volcano god thought they were just as “morally proper” as were our Christian cultures.

The human mind is forever malleable (Jail is full of innocent people). This is also why Multi-culturalism is so extremely damaging – suddenly there are multiple truths, all competing for eachother, and eventually it will lead to violence until one viewpoint firmly establishes dominance over the other – through the muzzle of a gun.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 7, 2010 at 08:57

To me the important point here that we may discard certain ways and privileges that we give women the ‘right’ to.

We do this in order to make a better future society and have no moral qualms over people who think otherwise.

To make no doubt; I believe the US Constitution to be the best constitution anyone ever has come up with. (there is the 19th amendment tho . . . )

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 7, 2010 at 12:53

Ragnar February 7, 2010 at 08:57
“I believe the US Constitution to be the best constitution anyone ever has come up with.”
I agree. Via the CON-stitution and entire nation of peoples were hopelessly enslaved by a small band of british agents who called themselves ‘the founding fathers’, they promoted how wonderful they were, and now people believe this document of enslavement, this hoax, is something really great that they should fight over.

I mean. You gotta admit. To get people to enlave themselves and then make damn sure none of the other slaves escaped makes this CON-stitution a brilliant document. You can tell it’s a con because when someone challenges it the defender gets all het up and angry despite the fact he has no idea it’s a con… ;-) I find americans so funny when they talk about their consititution in glowing terms.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 7, 2010 at 12:58

Ragnar February 7, 2010 at 08:43
“Isn’t exactly men like Rockefeller something that the government should be able to deal with? (Goverment seen as representative of the agreements of ‘all’ men)”
Your guvment is subordinate the the Rockefellers and their friends. The guvment does not deal with them. The guvment is told what to do BY them. In case you didn’t notice Hillary Clinton said she goes to the Council on Foreign Relations (which she called the mother ship) to be told what she should do. Who was chairman of the CFR for the longest time? David Rockefeller. Who was a Director for a long time but kept it secret. Dick Cheney.

Someone asked my the ludicrous question one time if I could prove any connection that were ‘subversive’ between the democrats and the republicas to prove my assertion they all worked for the CFR. I ask if he meant anything more conclusive than most of the senior people from both parties were all members of the CFR? LOL!! Alex Jones latest movie makes that pretty bloody obvious that the US is run by the CFR.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman February 7, 2010 at 13:01

Ragnar February 7, 2010 at 08:43

Let’s get this correct. Your guvement is not there to serve you or do what you say. It is there to serve it’s masters and to carry out THEIR corporate policy and then to convince you that they are representing you. This is why there is a left/right paradigm. Both sides have the same boss and same agenda. When the people get sick of one side they ‘throw the bastards out’ and install the other side. Which then continues the same agenda with a fwe bells and whistles different. That’s all.

Your politicians are the best money can buy….and bought they are.. ;-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 7, 2010 at 13:05

fedrz February 7, 2010 at 08:50
Government are instituted to secure the rights that have been established through violence – and the only place of government is to secure them, not to create them, nor grant them.

Maybe I was a little inpolite in not saying that I agre with you on the qouted post. Especially the qoute.

:)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 7, 2010 at 13:07

@ Globalman.
No you didn’t get it correct.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz February 7, 2010 at 13:27

Maybe I was a little inpolite in not saying that I agre with you on the qouted post. Especially the qoute.

Not at all.

It’s a good discussion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
epoche* February 7, 2010 at 14:29

Renee February 6, 2010 at 19:04

Epoche,
If a single mother is bothering you, “confess” to the authorities that she is molesting her kids.

You’re not talking about falsely accusing her are you?
———————————-
why the hell not? I have nothing invested in this society, except for a large tax bill ran up by single mothers. Let the state clean up its own mess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
epoche* February 7, 2010 at 14:42

* We “conserve” nothing; neither do we want to return to any past periods; we are not by any means “liberal”; we do not work for “progress”; we do not need to plug up our ears against the sirens who in the market place sing of the future: their song about “equal rights,” “a free society,” “no more masters and no servants” has no allure for us. * We simply do not consider it desirable that a realm of justice and concord should be established on earth (because it would certainly be the realm of the deepest leveling and chinoiserie); we are delighted with all who love, as we do, danger, war, and adventures, who refuse to compromise, to be captured, reconciled, and castrated; we count ourselves among conquerors; we think about the necessity for new orders, also for a new slavery — for every strengthening and enhancement of the human type also involves a new kind of enslavement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster February 7, 2010 at 15:34

@Globalman

I mean. You gotta admit. To get people to enlave themselves and then make damn sure none of the other slaves escaped makes this CON-stitution a brilliant document.

Globalman, you come from the only “democracy” in the world that does not have a bill of rights. Your cynicism is typical of the cynicism that has its origins in a penal colony, where the little that can be expected of politicians is the living reality. The foundations of the US constitution bear no resemblance to the entitlement/authoritarian foundations that got the Australian system running. The Australian system is even more of a con-job – Australians actually believe, in a cynical, fatalistic kind of way, that they’re free and that they’re having a fun time. The US has degenerated comprehensively, as have other feminized societies, but the history surrounding the US constitution is a very different story.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan February 7, 2010 at 21:57

Harry -

“As a matter of interest: Do you think that gays were wrong to make a huge fuss over gay ‘rights’? Did it not benefit them to do so?”

Heh. I wrote a book about that, Harry.

There are a lot of assumptions wrapped up in that whole idea. Who is that group? What makes them a group? Is it a legitimate group? Do they need special rights? Are the rights granted to them destructive or constructive for society as a whole?

These are the questions that must be asked of any rights-seeking group–and the answers are highly variable and philosophical.

If gay rights never happened, I would just be talking to you as a man. Who maybe had a boyfriend and maybe just decided to get married and have very little sex–like lots of married people. I’d grow old with children to take care of me and all of the pleasures that family brings.

What is “good” and who “benefits” is a highly philosophical matter.

Robert February 7, 2010 at 23:41

GlobalMan February 7, 2010 at 08:29
Robert…apologies you were quoting RAY and I thought it was you who said that. My mistake.

———————————————-

No problem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry February 8, 2010 at 01:16

@Jack

“What is “good” and who “benefits” is a highly philosophical matter.”

From a bird’s eye view, perhaps!

But from an individual’s point of view, the matter is somewhat different.

For example, if you are falsely accused of a sexual assault, your life is fu#ked.

I doubt that there is a man here who thinks that the manner in which they would be treated following such an accusation is fair or ‘right’.

As such, surely, MRAs play a worthy role on behalf of men – ALL men – when they fight against such injustices against them?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu February 8, 2010 at 02:04

Ragnar,

might does not establish what is right. That is the province of metaphysics. The winners do decide, but again that does not make them right. We are going in circles. One cannot establish a priori that might is right or wrong. The assertion can never proven either way. Only empirical observations of what those with might do can be made. Might does not make nor does it make wrong. Let us look at a mighty man vs a non-mighty man. I will use myself vs a body builder. I am 5 7 about 150. Our hypothetical body buildernis a 6 7 300 lb monster. We square off. It is a sure bet I will lose this fight. I know it you know it and my opponent knows it. The fight starts. I am getting my ass kicked, I get pounced, but when the fight gets to the ground I gouge out Ky opponents eyes and secure victory. I am less mighty I have won, however; since I am still less mighty than my opponent I can never be right. Migh is right is false. It is better to say strength and wisdom secure our liberties while unchecked might and it’s accompanying philosophy of might makes right destroys society. After all hypergamy and matriarchy are but one expression of this philosophy. If we implement it under any other guise we will end up with the same problems we have now, albiet with efferent scapegoats.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 8, 2010 at 02:18

Migu.

Men established the difference you talk about by banding and creating the ‘coalition force’ necessary to take them out of the animal kingdom.
This means that you are right, but only as long as your society exist.

It is very important to understand this part. How it came about and what it means.

That can lead to the understanding of why it is necessary for men to lead and thus exclude women from the process.

In short; We have to exclude women to establish a just and rightful society, because we need men to support it to make it work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 8, 2010 at 02:41

Migu I want to add further comments.

Civilisation (our society) need to have it’s foundation exacerbated by a real life show of force by the men that supports it.

Since that cannot happen in the present PC-climate, we can only turn our backs on society and GOOW.

By GOOW we let might be right, like in the jungle, i.e. we don’t stop it.

Later there will be a point where a few good men can act – I trust that!

So might is right – is a law of nature.
Civilisation, men banding to create a better society, change that – but it needs to be upheld/supported constantly. If not it will simply turn into bureaucracy and totalitarianism under the name of ‘safety’!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu February 8, 2010 at 03:13

Ragnar,

I’m going to open this topic in the forum when I’m off work. I’ll clearly define my opposition to might is right. It seems we are working off the same ethical premise. It also appears that we are using different terms to mean the same thing. I’m gonna post the topic over at nice guy too. I’ll do my best to keep on it. Till a few hours from now then.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 8, 2010 at 03:58

Migu.
That’s fine with me. :)

To me migth is right, is a law of nature, is an axiom of human interaction.

From that we can move on to our common right as a gang/band to make the society we want to.

Only the test of time will show if we are successful.

Thus we do not need to have any qualms about creating societes without female influence!

Maybe the thought is a little crude, but so far I’ve been able to forward the necessary arguments for it – I think!

If I’m wrong I want to know as soon as possible so I do not stall anything.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
GlobalMan February 8, 2010 at 05:29

codebuster February 7, 2010 at 15:34
“Globalman, you come from the only “democracy” in the world that does not have a bill of rights.”
codebuster,
this is not correct. The English Bill of Rights and right back to the Magna Carta and even further back to the common law laid down initially in the bible are all still in force in Australia. I was just reading a speech by the Attorney General that confirmed this. I know what I am talking about when I say the US CON-stitution was exactly that. A CON.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster February 8, 2010 at 06:53

@Globalman

Refer to my previous post above on February 5, 2010 at 17:20, under this topic, where I illustrate with examples what the absence of a bill of rights implies. It is well established that Australia is unique among the world’s democracies for not having a bill of rights. It’s no secret, to the extent that Kevin Rudd himself has made tackling the question of a bill of rights an election promise (which he has not met thus far).

Refer also to Wikipedia, which states without ambiguity:

Australia is the only Western country with neither a constitutional nor legislative bill of rights.

Or simply google around the topic. Given your involvement in the pursuit of your sovereignty and your independence from the legal framework (the Freemen of Ireland website), this matter of Australia’s history with respect to a bill of rights should be a priority interest for you… though I do understand that you are now living overseas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu February 8, 2010 at 07:58

Ragnar,

I put it in the fight club section, didn’t see another relevant area. I will keep my word.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ragnar February 8, 2010 at 08:35

Migu

Fight Club – hahahaha. :D

Well the deepest issues are bound to stir up some opinions!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
GlobalMan February 9, 2010 at 11:33

codebuster February 8, 2010 at 06:53
The idea there is no bill of rights in force in the land commonly known as Australia is a lie. Robert McClelland recently admitted in a speech that the English Bill of Rights still applies under common law in the land known as Australia.

Try reading his speech.
http://freemanireland.ning.com/forum/topics/robert-mcclelland-states

The REAL situation is that the corporation commonly known as ‘The Commonwealth of Australia’ which is registered on the US SEC, which many people wrongly believe is synonymous with ‘Australia’, does not have a ‘Bill of Rights’. And nor does it need one since all it’s citzens are slaves and they have no rights. If a human being thinks they are a ‘citizen’ of a ‘country’ and agree to that they are a slave. Period.

I really do tire of repeating myself to allegedly ‘intelligent’ men. I have placed here:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42

All the links to demonstate to men exactly what a ‘person’ is and how a ‘person’ is a corporate entity in legislation. I have also posted ample information and links as to the differences between laws and statutes and links to demonstrate the legal system is merely the extortion system and a portion of the control grid of the ruling elite.

I am waiting for a few intelligent men here to start reading. I’m still waiting. Will you be the first? Which of you is actually going to go and read and find out this stuff is actually true? The men in the free man area don’t believe women are crap or the courts are rigged against men. And you men in the mens movement don’t believe there is a control grid in place. Do you know how frustrating it is to have men make ignorant claims like this on the back of something like Wikipedia.

Please get it through your head. The bad guys are lying to you and they are deceiving you! And you are buying their lies and enslaving yourselves. Each man, and only each man, can free himself. You have the keys. But you won’t use them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
GlobalMan February 9, 2010 at 11:37

Here…let me save you some time..

Nevertheless, in dealing with the structure and relationship of government, the Constitution does
protect some fundamental individual rights. These rights are said to arise from “silent constitutional
principles”[2] that are part of our public heritage. That constitutional heritage includes the English
constitutional instruments – Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1688.[3]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower February 9, 2010 at 11:42

The power of a disenfranchised group to change its current condition is reliant upon a threat and ultimate application of that threat.

Our nation’s favorite minority only got its goodies when it burned up cities and looted stores in those hippy-happy peacenik 1960′s.

MLK platitudes did nothing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JDALELIO March 8, 2010 at 20:48

With reference to Jon’s ignorant diatribe against the Italians
I would like to point out that the list of Italians who have
contributed to Western Civilization runs into the tens of thousands. Just to mention a few: Avogadro-physicist,
Giordano Bruno-cosmologist, Gabriele Fallopio-anatomist,
Enrico Fermi-nuclear physicist, Evangelista Torricelli-scientist, Amerigo Vespucci-explorer, Arcangelo Corelli-
composer, Giuseppe Verdi-opera composer and the list could go on almost indefinitely.

Lying, cheating and stealing are common to all nationalities and races. As for the military the Italian Army
gave a good account of itself in World War I with 2 important victories against the Austrians, the Battle of the Piave-150,000 Austrian casualties and that of Vittorio Veneto-30,000 Austrians killed and 300,000 prisoners of war. Much of the perception of the Italian military in World War II has come from the disastrous Italian offensives against the British in Egypt and the poor performance in the Italo-Greek campaign. Both campaigns were ill-prepared and badly executed, In addition, the Italians had equipment that was mostly outdated when they entered the war nor did the Italian
high command take necessary steps to plan for setbacks
or proper logistic support. However, when properly led, trained andequipped the Italians gave a good account of themselves. A good survey of this can be
found on Comand Supremo website.
The use of the word ‘wop’ is offensive and shows an ignorant hatred.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Red0660 March 22, 2010 at 04:23

Thank you so much Jack! Your article mirrors some of my own thoughts and that feels good….

Here is an article I’ve written…….enjoy

I think our problem lies not so much in feminism though this is the name given to it, what we are really speaking of is female politics, essential nature and the resultant general ethos.

Feminism and feminist politics is the embodiment and action of real female propensities. Women are by nature socialists.
See:Aristophanes 390BC. Aristophanes wrote the play Ecclesiazusae or Assembly Women. He revealed then what men have always know of women…

Women by nature seek provision, protection and are generally risk adverse. They, as a collective are not free enterprise individualist who seek to distinguish themselves from other women…men are..

Women seek from the government and justice system what they seek from men or the mated pair bond in general..

When the male becomes personified in politics and justice system, actual males become disenfranchised. Lets call it government husbandry.. Women HAVE AND WILL CONTINUE TO SEEK GOVERNMENT HUSBANDRY. THEY WILL NOT STOP EMPOWERING THE ALPHA MALE STATE.

I see no recourse now but to let women consume the system of its own means of production, i.e. males and the enfranchisement of males as part of the family..
The enfranchisement of males as part of the natural order of competition that leads to an equal opportunity for competitive advantage must be destroyed by women before we can rebuild and establish individual liberty and a system of free enterprise once again….

The only thing we can do is remove the vote from women which will not happen….
Understand that the male workhorses of the matriarchy are our male leaders…See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdafJpieIJ0

We must let these male workhorses destroy the country by catering to the female vote…
In the meantime it is important for men to arm themselves and prepare for the war and tyranny that will eventually come from this.

Feminism, i.e. the right of women and the agency given to them will not subside….Women are empowered and will dictate the course of this… We as men are viscerally aware of where women’s empowerment is leading us..
I can only say gentlemen that we must hold the line, do not break ranks, stick together and the time for war will be among us soon enough…..

rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
GlobalMan March 22, 2010 at 09:44

Red0660 March 22, 2010 at 04:23
Yes….unless women are held to account for their actions there will be a global war as the ‘elite’ try to kill off the rest of us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
GlobalMan March 22, 2010 at 09:48

JDALELIO March 8, 2010 at 20:48
“The use of the word ‘wop’ is offensive and shows an ignorant hatred.”
In Australia the use of the word ‘wop’ is pretty much a term of endeerment. If you are italian you are a wop. If you are british you are a pom. If you are western australian you are a sand groper.

Any man claiming any name is ‘offensive’ and demonstrates ‘hatred’ is about as ignorant as your average feminist…which is pretty bloody ignorant.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JDALELIO March 25, 2010 at 17:58

In response to GlobalMan’s observation about my remarks on
the word “wop”. I was not aware that in Australia it had an
endearing significance; however, in the United States wop
is used as a derogatory insult or as a contemptuous term.
The word itself comes from the Neapolitan dialect “guappo”
which means an urchin. Jon’s use of the word had as much
affection as calling a Jewish person a kike.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: