Marriage Reform Page Up

by W.F. Price on July 30, 2011

In the first step in my effort to make a positive change, I’ve started collecting and linking material relevant to marriage reform. I’d like to invite others who have some interest in the issue, especially those who have written on the subject, to visit the page and post links. Attorneys with experience writing prenups or simply in contract law are also very much welcome.

The goal is to give people who want a better form of marriage the guidance and tools to make it possible. Default civil marriage as it exists today has become an evil and destructive institution that must be changed. People who remain in civil marriages do so despite the incentives to divorce and engage in gender warfare. For the weaker and less sensible it is too often a disaster that literally ruins lives, including those of the most innocent — our children.

Feminism may have done a wrecking job on the Western family, but I am optimistic that this can be turned around. The fight against feminists must continue, but it’s time to start discussing reconstruction, and reforming the devastated institution of marriage is where it should begin.

{ 88 comments… read them below or add one }

Rebel July 30, 2011 at 11:30

Minds must be reformed first. A herculean task.

Is it worth it?

There’s a much easier way: expat and start a family in your new country.

At least, this can be done before you pass away…

Besides, you don’t want to raise your children in this toxic environement, do you?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 3
Uncle Elmer July 30, 2011 at 11:33

Somewhat off-topic, but by participating in these blogs I got the idea to create one for collaborative business development. So I got a wordpress account and started putting together a blog. Put many hours into it yesterday and when I slept had lucid dreams all night about programming the blog, like when you work at some soul-killing factory job and when you finally go home exhausted and lay down to sleep you dream you’re back on the assembly line. The kind of jobs we are training women to pursue so we can stay at home and jerk off to vintage porn.

I just gotta be careful not to confuse my Uncle Elmer and business personas or I could ruin myself professionally with one irreverant remark. You wouldn’t want Uncle Elmer blogging full time would you?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3
oddsock July 30, 2011 at 11:39

Meh, marriage reform is for losers, inflatable sheep are the future, I have never been happier !

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 15
Uncle Elmer July 30, 2011 at 11:47

That’s funny oddsock, my business idea involves inflatable structures.

We should talk.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 5
Uncle Elmer July 30, 2011 at 11:50

I mean, you could contribute something from an “end user” perspective.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 6
Napoleon July 30, 2011 at 11:51

@Rebel
I agree. Trying to make marriage work again seems like a futile task. How long will it take to turn it back around? 20 years, 50 years, 100? By then it will be too late. It seems that the only viable option is to go your own way and leave this feminist wasteland in the dust. The system needs to collapse and be rebuilt before anything will change. I really don’t see the system changing on its own.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 6
oddsock July 30, 2011 at 11:52

“That’s funny oddsock, my business idea involves inflatable structures.

We should talk.”

I am all ears, care to expand ?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7
oddsock July 30, 2011 at 12:04

“Uncle Elmer

I mean, you could contribute something from an “end user” perspective.”

Oops, sorry mate I got trigger happy and cast a down vote on your post. See thats what happens when I get all excited. It’s Saturday night and angry izzy has her sexy stuff on.

P.s. I am more of a both end user.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 7
Neil Hansen July 30, 2011 at 12:05

I don’t think you can reform it, Welmer. It sounds defeatist, but we are not at that stage yet. Reform will happen after the wave crashes, and we are still facing waves of misandry every day. I once suggested that no fault divorce is the evil of our society on my facebook page, and every person I knew automatically assumed I was crazy. Just walk away.

Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he died for your children.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 8
Opus July 30, 2011 at 12:11

I wish you luck, but it reminds me somewhat of PAN’s attempt to reinvent Magna Carta. (I wish him luck too).

The position in Law whether in the various states of your Union or ours is surely this: A Marriage has certain possible consequences; co-habitation, like wise, and generally interaction with females, whether at work, play or casually can be the cause of state interference. One can certainly (if you can persuade her to sign) draw up contracts for anything, but there will be certain problems. Off the top of my head these will include:

1. She will claim duress.

2. She will claim that the contract is void or voidable on the grounds that it is unenforcable as being against public policy.

3. She will conceed that the contract is perfectly valid but that the action taken fell outside the terms of the contract, or that she orally rescinded the same.

So as with PAN, I would ask, rhetorically, ‘just what powers do you have, that the State of Washington does not have, or that can override the State? ‘You and whose army?’ as we used to say at school.

It seems to me that ultimately there are only two realistic propositions:

1. Change the laws – this will be difficult because you will have the entire female population against you and also most men (as they will White-Knight by default).

2. Change the social circumstances under which we live, i.e. reverse all of twentieth century science.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer July 30, 2011 at 12:17

“P.s. I am more of a both end user.”

Perhaps you can be part of a focus group or work in quality control.

I will talk to the HR lady about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6
Rebel July 30, 2011 at 12:45

@Opus:

I assure you that we have to do nothing at all.
The natural order of things will eventually return. But first, we must dip into chaos, temporarily.

Did you see the movie: “The day the world stopped”?

Only when faced with imminent extinction does man react.

When what we see will become clearly visible to all, we shall do an 180 degree rotation. But not before we are on the brink.

Back pedalling in the Colorado river is rather futile.
Rather, we should pedal forward and go over the next obstacle quickly and IN CONTROL OF THE SITUATION.

We can hasten the end and thus steer it in a more favorable direction, not in the direction planned by our adversaries.

The question is: Is there a will to do that?

Do men want to lead?

Not saying. Just asking.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
oddsock July 30, 2011 at 12:55

Uncle Elmer

“P.s. I am more of a both end user.”

Perhaps you can be part of a focus group or work in quality control.

I will talk to the HR lady about it.”

Close to me dream job of Quality control manager of a brothel that also happens to sell cheap beer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5
Will July 30, 2011 at 13:07

MGTOW is the solution – as has been said many times by many MRA’s.

Only when Women collectively are sick and tired of being unable to Marry or even Cohabit, have Children and are just being used for short term flings or sex – Will they finally come back to Men and ASK Men what they want and then will be open to changing the laws.

But NOT UNTIL THEN.

Women will have to feel the CONSEQUENCES of Feminism, GOOD & HARD.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 6
keyster July 30, 2011 at 13:13

“Minds must be reformed first. A herculean task.”

Yes, at the risk of sounding like a regular “poop in the pants” MRA, that shoots any attempt at positive effort down; you first need to get women to start LIKING men again. You need them to start respecting men for all their contributions to society, you need to get them to celebrate the existence of men in the world as something other than negative. The “Feminist Construct” has caused so much suspicion and animosity between men and women, not to mention guilt of men, that it will take something quite momentus to cause a shift in attitude towards each other.

You need them to stop self-identifying as a special victim class group. Women have not only sexual power, but they have government, legal and social protection as well; they can literally do NO WRONG as the sacred and sancrosanct “group identitity” feminism has set up for them.

You’re asking women to relinquish a certian kind of power, a defined advantage over men (just for being born female). They’re not going to give this up just to please a few angry and disgusted men. There will be no recognition by women of men as a distinct group in the positive, no social redress, no apology. They have the upper hand and they feel like they DESERVE it after all the “pain and anguish” men put them through at some point in the past.

Find me that ONE WOMAN Welmer, who can put her ego in her pocket just long enough, shelve her sense of entitlement for a minute, to listen and maybe even understand a little, and I’ll be a believer. I’ve heard she exists, but I’ve never met her myself.

In the end it’s all about power.
They have it, they like it, and they want more.
All they have to do is complain and men will give it to them, just to shut them up. Because men know it’s a “false power”, a “pretend power” to appease them. If they understood that much, they’d fight for true equality in every regard. But honestly, they’re just not that asute. It’s not their evolutionary purpose to accomplish, sustain and rule. Their imperative is pro-creation, and they resent it…and they blame men for it; men who would die for them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 60 Thumb down 4
keyster July 30, 2011 at 13:22

“Do men want to lead?”
No, they don’t.
They’d prefer women did, but women don’t like it and aren’t very good at it.
(This realization has been a bitter pill for feminists to swallow.)

So now no one is in charge. Marriage is a “shared experience” where simple chores have to be parsed down to exactly 50/50, and she’s closely monitoring the score, so don’t cheat or else. As long as we’re forced to PRETEND we’re equal, (men swallowing their pride) and women ENFORCE this little feminist charade, men and women will marry and divorce and marry and divorce again.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 2
Napoleon July 30, 2011 at 13:30

All of our effort and energy should be focused on undermining and defeating the current system and not wasted on some illusion that marriage can be made to work again. This country has already proven that it does not have the balls to punish women for their transgressions and that is what it will have to do in order to reform marriage.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 3
DogFace Soldier July 30, 2011 at 14:06

Price,

I admire your persistence, but I would love nothing more than to see marriage and long-term relationships die and be buried once and for all. I have no interest in developing a marriage 3.0 or 4.5 or whatever. Going back to marriage 1.0 or developing a marriage agreement which is fair for everyone is almost impossible. Almost everyone, men and women, would need to make a strong and continuous effort in order to reverse the damage done by feminism. There are still way too many men who fall for the current marriage arrangement. Women will not try to change the current marriage agreement because they get such a good deal. If men keep taking the bait, why would women cut them any slack?

I was on Yahoo today and came across dating advice for women. Under the first step, which was to be direct with a man, the male advice columnist used the words “guys are idiots” as the first sentence. See, these are the morons who put women on a pedestal, put men in the gutter, and who think marriage is great for everyone.

Make the world a better place,

Punch the institution of marriage in the face.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 62 Thumb down 2
Rebel July 30, 2011 at 14:14

Good. I can see eyes opening.

Therefore, my suggestion to forward pedal down the Colorado river to sink this ship where we want it.

And then we can start all over again and rebuild to our image, therefore erasing any trace of feminism.

Think of a bulldozer. And then a new team of workers. And then a society that fits us.

…But chaos must come first. Just before the bulldozers.

Tough solution, but assuredly the best one.

De-construct/Re-construct.

Do you know of a better way?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3
greyghost July 30, 2011 at 14:40

Will, this is great
MGTOW is the solution – as has been said many times by many MRA’s.

Only when Women collectively are sick and tired of being unable to Marry or even Cohabit, have Children and are just being used for short term flings or sex – Will they finally come back to Men and ASK Men what they want and then will be open to changing the laws.

But NOT UNTIL THEN.

Women will have to feel the CONSEQUENCES of Feminism, GOOD &

This is how it will be done. As things go women will either change the law or suffer involutary childless spinsterhood. Notice I said change the law and not change women. Women do not change they will be forever selfish and child like. They will change the law as they have in their believed own self interest. It is family law that is the evil of marriage.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 2
bruno July 30, 2011 at 15:30

The very idea of marriage is absurd, why would anyone try to reform or revive it?
The whole point of having a private life, is that it’s your own domain, that you (and the other person) are in control of it, and that you two decide what you will do.
Letting the state, police, laws, lawyers, contracts and courts into it, is the last thing i want.
That totally spoils the whole fun of it.
The state and the law have already much too much power over us, why would I invite them in to take over my private life?
That doesn’t make any sense.
Instead of reviving it, we should do away with state interference as much as possible.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
Anti Idiocy July 30, 2011 at 16:01

1. Develop deep friendships with a few fine men.
2. Enjoy sex with women.
3. Rinse.
4. Repeat

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4
Quartermain July 30, 2011 at 16:08

I am far from an idealist, and I have no advice to offer.

Best of fortune in your endeavor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Hayden Hanna July 30, 2011 at 16:34

I respect your desire to fix marriage because I am a family man at heart also, but based on what I know now, I have to agree wholeheartedly with Keyster. I would feel guilty if I gave a man advice that led him to believe that he was making a safe and sound decision by marrying not matter what pre-nup or post-nup document was involved.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
Savethemales July 30, 2011 at 17:28

I decided before I hit puberty that I will never marry. I stand true to my words and not only that, I am now a MGTOW. There is no incentive for men to be with human women. I have taken my red pills. We will get our VR girls by 2020 and our robogirls by 2030 and women will fend for themselves.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5
Wobbegong July 30, 2011 at 17:45

I appreciate your honest and enthusiasm WF but I say let it burn and the sooner the better.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
NWOslave July 30, 2011 at 17:56

The only possible revival of marriage is complete removal of the State from the home. Women have lobbied very hard for many decades to ensure State intervention within every facet of family life.

I’d like to say women will actually listen to men and work with men to dismantle all these communistic laws. I’d like to say the State would give up the wealth/power it gets from catering to womens demands. I’d like to say women would stop believing the lies told to them about being eternally oppressed. I’d like to say women would stop believing the MSM and indoctrination taught in school about how perfect they are and how pitiful men are. But I can’t.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Johnycomelately July 30, 2011 at 18:23

The way the liberals are playing the game, the best option is to get a christian church on board and creating religious contracts and ecclesiastical boards that supervise contracts ala sharia and halakha arbitration courts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
continent July 30, 2011 at 18:35

Since significant portion of feminist leadership is lesbians, they have no interest in renewing male-female marriage.
Pre nuptial agreement might settle some property rights, but custody and child support remains in the continuous control of the courts.
Additionally, so many traps are made for men in marriage, including DV, ex parte orders, restraint (protective) orders, spousal rape that are in the jurisdiction of criminal courts and can not be excluded by pre. nupt. agreements.
Unfortunately men procrastinated too long before beginning to fight feminism and now it’s too late.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price July 30, 2011 at 18:53

The way the liberals are playing the game, the best option is to get a christian church on board and creating religious contracts and ecclesiastical boards that supervise contracts ala sharia and halakha arbitration courts.

-Johnnycomelately

I think so. The Jews are pioneers here in that regard. If certain people could get over their reflexive animosity toward Jews, the rest of us might actually be able to learn a thing or two from them.

The Christian churches have got to get in on the program, and then leftist organizations can offer their own alternatives for the feminists and other associated deviants.

W.F. Price July 30, 2011 at 19:29

Will, this is great
MGTOW is the solution – as has been said many times by many MRA’s.

Only when Women collectively are sick and tired of being unable to Marry or even Cohabit, have Children and are just being used for short term flings or sex – Will they finally come back to Men and ASK Men what they want and then will be open to changing the laws.

But NOT UNTIL THEN.

Women will have to feel the CONSEQUENCES of Feminism, GOOD &

This is how it will be done. As things go women will either change the law or suffer involutary childless spinsterhood. Notice I said change the law and not change women. Women do not change they will be forever selfish and child like. They will change the law as they have in their believed own self interest. It is family law that is the evil of marriage.

-greyghost

Greyghost, my solution is to take a nuanced approach. I think Will and others who reject what is known as “marriage” in the West are entirely correct, but I also think that guys like Dalrock and EW have a point as well. Being a husband and father is a huge liability today, but if it weren’t it would be a blessing. The thing is that those who endorse marriage have to admit that it’s a raw deal as it’s set up today, and those who oppose the current incarnation of marriage should recognize that companionate childrearing is the best family model we’ve got, and likely will be for a long time to come.

I want to bring the two sides together to find a solution that men can accept and work with to do well by the children they bring into the world. In my opinion, blaming men is out of the question — women are overwhelmingly to blame for divorce and family destruction (in the West) these days, and this is something that is beyond dispute. Men’s only responsibility is to reform marriage so that it gives them a fair shot at doing what so many of them want to do: be fathers to the children they love.

Uncle Elmer July 30, 2011 at 19:29

“If certain people could get over their reflexive animosity toward Jews…”

In Employment Game IV I will discuss Embracing Your Inner Jew.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price July 30, 2011 at 19:34

“If certain people could get over their reflexive animosity toward Jews…”

In Employment Game IV I will discuss Embracing Your Inner Jew.

-Uncle Elmer

hehe.

BTW, Elmer, I got a very good idea while camping for a novel, high-tech lantern that could turn out to be very popular for hunters, backpackers, etc. I forgot my white gas Coleman lantern, and had to find an alternative, and this inspired me to think about what the likely replacement for the old lanterns will be. I actually came up with something. It’s a really cool idea, and I’d be very happy to see someone bring them on the market. There will definitely be a demand as soon as the technology matures. I’m kind of excited about it. :)

RyanRealization July 30, 2011 at 19:39

Hi.
I have looked on this site for a while now, but never left a comment before.
I just wanted to say that I do not think that getting married is a good idea for men. No matter what form it takes. Because no matter what form of marriage it is, you will still have to be in a relationship with a woman.
There will always be some form of commitment and some level of accomodation which must be made. That is natural for both partners to live together in a relationship.
I would just suggest that brief sexual flings, or even hiring prostitutes, are much better than a relationship. That is what I do and I have never felt like marrying. Maybe I am shallow, but all I really want from women is the sex. So, I don’t see any need to live together, pay her bills, or anything like that.
Anyway, I like this site. Thank you for establishing it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 6
Uncle Elmer July 30, 2011 at 19:50

“I got a very good idea while camping for a novel, high-tech lantern that could turn out to be very popular for hunters, backpackers, etc. ”

Just don’t try to pack multiple functions into it, like a high-tech LED or solar-powered lantern with corkscrew, compass, and digital display that floats when tossed in the water. Stick to the basic function and you’ll do fine.

After my last gig where the optical company shut down I talked with them about making high-qual sunglasses. You can import eyeglass frames cheap from China. Would take some footwork to get the market going.

When I was first wooing my wife her brother came up and started measuring my feet. Next day he gave me a pair of dress shoes that fit me like a glove. Best pair I ever had. I got the idea that we could set up an internet site to take people’s foot measurements and make custom shoes at her factory in Saigon. A big market for people with deformed or problem feet.

Saw in the news that 17 people died today in a shoe factory fire in Hai Phong. I opened the link with trepidation. Her factory is somewhat open and easy to escape from though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer July 30, 2011 at 19:55

“I would just suggest that brief sexual flings, or even hiring prostitutes, are much better than a relationship.”

Thing is you can never put your face in a prostitute’s snatch, unless yoiu are out of your freaking mind.

Like this guy, the Albuquerque judge who forced a prostitute to submit to him giving her oral sex. He has been charged with “rape”.

District Judge Albert “Pat” Murdoch was a respected jurist with 25 years on the bench in Albuquerque. But he also moonlighted as a guy who liked to bring hookers to his home and have his way with them, whether they liked what he was doing or not.

One prostitute had been to Murdoch’s home eight times, only to discover that he didn’t always take no for an answer when he was getting his inner perv on. So she decided to tape one of their escapades with a hidden camera.

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2011/07/judge_albert_pat_murdoch_buste.php

Or to quote John Rambo in First Blood Part II :

“I’m coming after you, Murdoch!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
john thames July 30, 2011 at 20:28

A few pertinent comments. First, the English judge and the auto accident. Suppose that her ladyship was seriously injured in an auto accident five years before getting married. Her future husband divorces her and walks away with automatic custody of the kids.(Female judges always put men and children first.) The female judge decides that the needs of the husband and the children are more important than the pain and suffering of the injured wife. She further decides that somehow an injury settlement is “community property” and that therefore the injured female should be deprived of the money needed to pay for the medical care for the injury she suffered so that daddy and the kids can come first. No way, you say?

Now the judge accused of “raping” the hooker because she told him to stop. I note the hooker offered no physical resistance but let the slurping continue. In the old days, that did not cut it. Besides, if she were sucking his dick and he told her to stop while she continued blowing him I do not think she would be prosecuted the same way. In short, more proof of the insanity of the times. Besides, hookers are professionals and tolerating naughty acts is part of their daily routine.What if he comes on her face after being told she doesn’t like that? Shall we prosecute that, too?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
PeterTheGreat July 30, 2011 at 20:43

Rebel @
“There’s a much easier way: expat and start a family in your new country.”

That is actually on its way out. The UN is working to make everything uniformly feminist throughout the world. How long this will take I don’t know. But it is on the agenda.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
Buh July 30, 2011 at 21:03

The whole root of feminist power is predicated on the degradation of the marriage contract and the dissolution of American families. If marriage was enforceable as a binding contract, both parties would have rights and responsibilities protected under law. And women would not be able to claim false victimhood quite as easily as they do now.

The feminist impulse to attack the family is to remove sexual power from the majority of men and award it to the aggressive minority of men: Casanovas, thugs, and invading armies. Whether these cunts like it or not, it is the responsibility of the majority of men to do what we have always done: maintain civil society in spite of female hypergamy.

We should not want to go quietly into the coming night. Going our own way is tantamount to burying our heads in the sand. And we will be the cannon fodder when society falls.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 16
Savethemales July 30, 2011 at 21:11

“That is actually on its way out. The UN is working to make everything uniformly feminist throughout the world.”

The misandry bubble is going to burst by 2020, read his article by Googling his blog.

” Going our own way is tantamount to burying our heads in the sand. And we will be the cannon fodder when society falls.”

Nope, it will be women who will pay the price in a post feminist society. Most men will be avoiding women by 2020 in favor of VR girls. Going your own way now greatly reduces your risk of being cannon fodder in the war on men.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 7
Avenger July 30, 2011 at 22:32

Quick! Call out Interpol, the FBI and the National Guard! The art teacher is creating child porn and shagging his student lol

Watch it from the minute 4 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDHe5pT0vHI&feature=related

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Avenger July 30, 2011 at 22:32

Quick! Call out Interpol, the FBI and the National Guard! The art teacher is creating child porn and shagging his student lol

Watch it from the minute 4 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDHe5pT0vHI&feature=related

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
oddsock July 30, 2011 at 22:43

“Buh

The feminist impulse to attack the family is to remove sexual power from the majority of men and award it to the aggressive minority of men: Casanovas, thugs, and invading armies. Whether these cunts like it or not, it is the responsibility of the majority of men to do what we have always done: maintain civil society in spite of female hypergamy.”

Behave yourself dude. That is a feminist/female view point. Women have always had the sexual power and still do. what your saying is the standard projection of opposites used to great effect by the feminazis.

No no no. It is not ” the responsibility of the majority of men to maintain civil society in spite of female hypergamy” again, another well known method of the feminists. FOG. Fear Obligation Guilt. Sadly, the majority of men are manginas and pussy beggars who still believe in this bull shite. In reality, it is exactly what the elite the PTB and women want and need, not awakened men.

With respect, the glare off your shining white knight armour is blinding me.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 14
oddsock July 30, 2011 at 22:54

From a previous thread. Watch all the way through.

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

Just to confirm or clear up any doubts you may have about the UN. Here is a youtube vid that should leave you feeling furious/outraged, it did me.

As Savethemales mentioned above, the UN is a totally feminist organisation. Just listen to the response from a UN top female adviser/manager. It should stun you. Misandry at its best.

And yet we still have a few men that want to try and save marriage or protect society ? Come on, for fecks sake, what does society have to do to you before you say ” FECK THIS FOR A GAME OF CRICKET ?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
Savethemales July 31, 2011 at 00:42

“And yet we still have a few men that want to try and save marriage or protect society?”

One of the horsemen is going your way and disengaging from society. If marriage is important to any men, they can achieve this today by expating to a male friendly country. There’s nothing left to save/protect in western societies, let it all burn and let the women fend for themselves!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
Formerslave July 31, 2011 at 04:55

Welmer,

I think this is a great idea. I was going to do my own site but I see that you have beaten me to it. I will link my site to yours when I have it done.

Former slave

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Wulf July 31, 2011 at 05:02

Marriage needs to be abolished as a civilian government contract.

Until then http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnY5erCEnjw

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 31, 2011 at 05:18

OT…
I love russian chicks….and dont miss the video.

http://jalopnik.com/5825179/watch-bikini+clad-russians-patriotically-wash-cars-for-putin

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10
mgtow July 31, 2011 at 05:30

A boycott of marriage is the best way of marriage reform.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5
tom47 July 31, 2011 at 05:35

The idea of contractual relationships was something of a sell point for feminists back in the ’70′s when I took a women’s studies class, it’s was part of the “feminism is good for men too” argument. It was a lie then, and it’s a lie now. What they did instead was to simply bias the existing laws in their own favor and add on a host of new biased laws. So long as women can control the legal process they have no reason to negotiate or be contractual.
In order for contacts to work they have to be enforced by courts and we can all see that courts are reluctant to impose anything on women, let alone contracts.
Add the fact that the State will not relinquish control by legislation, and contractual relationships are not going to happen.Unless or until we raise enough consciousness to act as a group the only effective strategy is to avoid situations and institutions that screw us over. The law will of course chase us and we’ll have to stay one step ahead of it, sort of the way designer drug dealers stay one step ahead of the DEA.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 31, 2011 at 05:38

OT…

Oh no….deary me…a woman is being stiched up by her ex because hes part of the criminal family law system and THAT is worth a story.

But the MILLIONS OF MEN? F*** them, eh? No stories for THEM eh?

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-2020644/Britains-divorce-judge-uses-courts-ban-wife-discussing-divorce.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4
mgtow July 31, 2011 at 06:20

@savethemales

One of the horsemen is going your way and disengaging from society. If marriage is important to any men, they can achieve this today by expating to a male friendly country. There’s nothing left to save/protect in western societies, let it all burn and let the women fend for themselves!

There is no such thing as a male friendly country. Not Asia, not Latin countries, not even Islamic countries. Feminism is a global phenomenon, and while things may not be as screwed up as in Sweden, its ‘progressive’ tentacles spread far and wide. You WILL feel its effects.

Once you are a husband, you have resigned your life to serfdom. Why does a man need marriage at all?

Marriage defenders/reformers/promoters may be sincere and well-meaning, but they do not have the best interests of men at heart. Feminism has, ironically, liberated men who refuse to marry. Instead of obsessing on how to fix the institution of marriage, why not enjoy the liberties that comes with being a bachelor?

Why be the proverbial dog that returns to its marriage vomit?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 8
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 31, 2011 at 06:50

Opus July 30, 2011 at 12:11
“I wish you luck, but it reminds me somewhat of PAN’s attempt to reinvent Magna Carta. (I wish him luck too).”

Opus. You claim to be a lawyer. You will find that if you bother to read the Magna Carta 1215, the following updates of 1297, and the 1688 Bill of Rights that all subsequent Monarchs upheld the notion that they could NOT overthrow or violate the Magna Carta as the founding document of government.

Indeed? None less than Robert McClelland, the Attorney General of Australia, has openly stated that the foundation law of common law in Australia is the Magna Carta. (Link below.) In this speech McClelland cites a case in Australia with the judge pointing out that the creators of the Australian Constitution left the protection of individual rights to the common law.

One of the reaons I have no trust in ANY lawyers is that this speech has been WIDELY circulated to lawywers in Australia and internationally. Despite the FACT that the Attorney General of Australia has made this public statement lawyers UNIVERSALLY deny that this statement ever happened and UNIVERSALLY DENY the superiority of common law.

That makes ALL those lawyers INCREDIBLY STUPID or complicit. I’m going with complicit. I’m going with you know FULL WELL that the UK is a legal entity operating under UCC because it is IN THE HANSARDS which you know FULL WELL HOW TO SEARCH. And if you know that then you know FULL WELL that the legislation of the UK does NOT apply to human being.

Face it Opus. The LAWYERS are ALL IN ON THE SCAM. If they blow the whistle they know they will be de-registered in an instant.

The bottom line is quite simple. The UN, the Monarchs, the guvments, the judiciary, the banksters, the media, the medicos are all in ONE conspiracy to maintain the ruling oligarchy that huxley claimed had always existed.

The men on the spearhead are not going to be to pleased with you that you know these things full well and have stayed silent, indeed, attempted to disparage the idea as a knowing agent.

Gents. You are slaves because you are stupid and ignorant. I can’t put it any plainer than that. You don’t want to hear that you are stupid and ignorant? Fine. You were told. You didn’t listen. Every man who kills himself from the abuse of the FC? His blood is on YOUR hands. Thomas Ball? He may not have killed himself if the men on the spearhead had listened to me rather than liars like Opus.

As I have noted. I know a man who claims to have retrieved his child from his ex simply by an affidavit and default judgement. But other men won’t bother trying. Fine. Abandon your children to the criminals in the judiciary. See just exactly how much I care about you men being stupid and willfully ignorant having shoved the facts down your throat for nigh on 2 years now.

Let me ask the question again.

What more evidence is it going to take than the Attorney General of Australia citing a judge that claims the protection of individual rights is best left to the protection of the common law?

I mean? Are you waiting for Obama, Gillard, Cameron to openly stand on a pedistal and say “Suckers! Common law is superior!” ?

I would like you men here to answer me. What more evidence are you looking for to break out of your willfull studity and ignorance.

The more I am exposed to the stupidity and ignorance of men? The more I believe you are getting exactly what you deserve.

As one of the Rothchilds is reported to have said “Most men are not of the intellectual capacity to understand what we are doing. Those who are will realise the potential wealth of joining us, and so we will have no problems from that quarter.”

Well guess which quarter Opus comes from? He comes from the quarter that lives very nicely based on the LIE that legislation is superior to common law. Always look for whether a man will personally benefit from a given postion and take that into account when he is saying something.

For those who have not read it…read this quote again. This is McClelland giving a specch to a bunch of lawyers. So don’t try and give me this shit the lawyers don’t know ALL ABOUT THIS.

In Kruger v Commonwealth (1997)[1] Dawson J said: “Those who framed the Australian Constitution accepted the view that individual rights were on the whole best left to the protection of the common law and the supremacy of Parliament. Thus, the Constitution deals, almost without exception, with the structure and relationship of government rather than with individual rights.”

http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/forumid/36/threadid/535/scope/posts/Default.aspx

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 31, 2011 at 07:15

Opus July 30, 2011 at 12:11
“So as with PAN, I would ask, rhetorically, ‘just what powers do you have, that the State of Washington does not have, or that can override the State? ‘You and whose army?’ as we used to say at school.”

The guvments of the english speaking lands have NO LAWFUL POWER over any man who properly rescinds his consent to be governed. I have issued the lawful notice to all police in Australia to this effect. It has now had 1500+ views. All police officers have been lawfully noticed of the limitations on their ability of arrest and they have been lawfully noticed they have NO POWER OF INCARCERATION…….EVER. This stands from April 1 2011. Link below.

Whos army? Why would I need an ‘army’ to act lawfully? Why would I need an ‘army’ to offer the protection of the law? Why even ask the question?

All that is needed is fathers willing to bear arms in a malitia and the promise of force to be used against any police officer or army officer that fires on innocent people. The only time an ‘army’ would be needed is if the police officers or army officers start to fire on innocent Australians in large numbers. Then? I imagine quite a number of Australian fathers will sign up to the ‘army’ to defeat what will be open slaughter of people in Australia.

I have issued a letter to all members of both houses of parliament in Australia that any order issued to kill any innocent Australians will be met with the full consequences of being brought to justice. I have told them that they will be hunted down to the ends of the earth should they issue that order to kill innocent Australians.

Who is going to ‘act’? There will soon be more letters and more announcements to all members of the Australian Parliament. I will not pre-empt said discussion here. However, what is obvious from what I have written for some years now is this. Those who need to act are FATHERS. Any FATHER not willing to act in the defence of the children of his land against criminals in guvment, judiciary, police, medicos, media etc? They are not worthy of the title father.

More and more men are finding CAF. And more and more of them are coming with their balls between their legs and a bit of metal in their backbones. Very different from most men here. Men who have been through the mill and know their kids are suffering ongoing abuse? And have made endless peaceful appeals to the guvment to stop this shit? Those men are the ones who are going to act.

A small number will sign up to CAF to sit on juries to be visisble and be prepared to openly stand against criminals…ALL criminals.

But there are 10x as many, if not 100x as many men who are watching and waiting. These men will stay silent. They will not post anywhere. They will see all the other posts men make. They will see the criminals in the courts for what they are. And when the time is right. When all other options have been exhausted? Those ordinary “men in the street” will take the appropriate action. And they will not talk to anyone about it. They will not brag about it. They will sign themselves up as soldiers in defence of the children of the land. And they will do whatever it takes to stop the crimes of the criminals.

I know there are men out there like that. It’s just a matter of putting the case in front of them. And that is what I am doing. It is not lost on men like that that my video and all evidence was before Kevin Rudd and Robert McClelland in December 2009.

We will have our trials in our new courts and they will be fully video recorded and all documents will be published to CAF. All FATHERS will have the opportunity to see detailed documentation of exactly the crimes committed, who committed them, the findings of the jury, the outlawry writs, the writs of execution to sieze all property of these criminals.

And if these criminals then STILL defy the will of FATHERS?

Well? I am putting my faith in the fact that there are still a few good men out there who have remained totally anonymous. Just men who are “invisible” in society like we know men are. And these men can choose to do what they choose to do. Remembering an outlaw does not hold any public office and is not offered the protection of the law.

Who’s army? In the end it becomes the silent and hidden “army” of honest fathers of honour and integrity who will defend their children from ALL who would do them harm, both foreign and domestic.

Certainly we can not look to LAWYERS to safeguard our rights, eh Opus?

http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/97/scope/threads/Default.aspx

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 15
Opus July 31, 2011 at 07:30

@PAN

I have no further questions of the witness Nolan and rest my case.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Lara July 31, 2011 at 07:30

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 34
Boxer July 31, 2011 at 08:02

As far as reform goes, we need to get our ropes ready. The United States is in the final stages of its collapse. The UK is not far behind. The era of righting the horrible hate and bigotry of the family courts is starting now.

The same attorneys that you appeal to, to help you out here, are lower than child rapists and child murderers with how many little children they have harmed and destroyed. Every attorney is part of a fraternity which has pledged to destroy families, steal the hard earned money from the families, and turn children out. Every prostitute and drug dealer out on the street once had a family, until the “family law” courts got involved.

I look to web pages like this one to start publishing the names of the worst offenders. That means mangina judges, faggot cops, and parasite attorneys, so that real men can act. That’s the marriage reform we truly need.

My dad was taken away from me. I’m looking forward to getting some payback on these faggots.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
only known as Joshua July 31, 2011 at 08:28

The simple solution of reviving marriage is doing away alimony for women. Eliminate it completely from the books.
eliminate the default-divorce crock.
if women abused child supports, taking money from the children for their personal vanity. Then the children would go to the father.
Women are required to hold their end of the contracts. And be held for accountability. failure to do so, well she would get nothing.
rebuild marriage from common law marriage itself.
Do away with marriage licenses. It became obsolete when homosexual marriages were legalized.
Contracts should be drawn up. No women should be allowed to write contracts.
Marriage should be between man and a woman. Not with the friggin state.
The State has no business butting in relationships.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
epoche* July 31, 2011 at 08:44

As hopeless as it may sound, I feel as though we are caught in the midst of irresistible cultural forces beyond our control that value personal exploration over social cohesion. I dont think we can get the genie back into the bottle, short of some catastrophe. The progressives have won the cultural battle and at this point I would not want to have a family. As far as MGTOW, women will never have a problem finding sex partners so that seems a bit deluded to think it would work. Women will also never allow a rollback in the benefits they receive because it would mean giving back power to men, and they remember they were oppressed for so many years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
only known as Joshua July 31, 2011 at 08:50

The way I figure. Marriage contracts should be separate from prenuptial agreements.

Marriage contracts should be reasonable and fair. Both parties must make a personal sacrifices. A woman is free to offer her feedback.

remember when I mentioned that a woman shouldn’t be allowed to write contracts. But she can rewrite a marriage contract only to a certain extent. long as she doesn’t tip it to her favour.
No wild parties, or drunken shenanigans.

As for the engagement ring. if the wedding gets called off. The woman must give it back to him. And the man will have to sell it. Just to get rid of it. he can’t reuse the ring, too tacky, plus the bad mojo

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 31, 2011 at 08:53

OT..

But two articles that show you just what kind of world we are living in now.

NSFW….but don’t call me a sex object or I will be upset.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2020579/Candice-Swanepoel-models-Victorias-Secret-Halloween-fantasy-costumes.html

Secondly? There are few words to describe this hideous crime. The befriending and then cold blooded murder of a mentally retarded woman. This is the world that women want? They are welcome to it.

One of the women involved is a single mother and you can bet pounds to pennies the young men involved never had a father around to teach them “always take care of those who are less able to take care of themselves”.

Cases like this is where fatherlessness was inevitably going to lead. I hope you have a strong stomach to read this article. I have rarely seen such cruelty on display. Not even in a divorce court.

The beating of a retarded woman to death? If that does not make your stomach churn? What will? And 5 more people in jail for some period…though you can be sure the single mother will be out on a pussy pass soon enough.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2020648/Gemma-Hayter-Disabled-woman-abandoned-murdered-fun.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 31, 2011 at 09:08

Opus July 31, 2011 at 07:30
“@PAN I have no further questions of the witness Nolan and rest my case.”

Where is your rebuttal of the plain reference by Robert McClelland to the common law being the mechanism for protection of individual rights?

And where is your rebuttal of the entire speech that clearly makes the case over and over again that when the english set up Australia common law was the system they introduced and that this was maintained through the creation of the consitution?

And where is your rebuttal that the UK is a legal entity that was transformed into a legal entity from a sovereign nation during WW II as is recorded in your handards?

Or are you going to “rest your case” and in doing so accept all the points I have made.

For a “lawyer” Opus? You have failed to present any rebuttals to clear statements of fact that you have no problem at all verifying.

You may have no “further questions” but you have not answered ANY of my questions.

A pattern with ALL agents Opus is they ask a lot of questions but refuse to answer direct questions put to them that they have every facility to answer. Its one way to easily recognise agents. Such men are ALWAYS agents of the PTB one way or another.

So.
1. Will you deny that the UK is now legal entity that operates under the Uniform Commercial Code? (go look it up)

2. Will you deny that the Magna Carta 1215, 1297 and the Bill of Rights 1688 have reiterated time and time again that the King has no power to overturn the Magna Carta? Robert McClelland clearly states that no monarch and therefore no agent of the Monarch such as a government can overturn any provision of the Magna carta.

And are you willing to deny these things under oath on an affidavit? You are a lawyer. You know what an Affidavit is. I am perfectly prepared to make these assertions on an affidavit. Indeed, I have done so for Australia.

Let’s see if you or ANY of your lawyer mates in England is prepared to rebut these two points on an affidavit. And you know as well as I do. Failure to rebut is acceptance.

And for all those newcomers who are stupid enough to believe Opus and his LYING claim I am trying “reinvent the Magna Carta”? The Magna Carta is 800 years old. It is the basis of restraint of government in the english speaking world. I hardly need to “re-invent” it.

Try this link. I guess John Harris is my sock puppet? Eh?.

Gentlemen. I hand you the lying agent Opus on a platter.

Let his word be judged by whether he is willing to put it on an affidavit….as I have done with my word many times.

No Affidavit? No credibility.

http://www.tpuc.org/Acts_and_Charters

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11
only known as Joshua July 31, 2011 at 09:09

@ Andrew Nolan
I can see why fatherless children are called bastards for a reason. From the article the evidence is quite clear.

Only a sicko would murder someone who is unable to take him/herself. taking advantage of someone who is mentally challenged is plain evil. That person who commits a heinous crime like that should be executed in a brutal fashion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 69 July 31, 2011 at 09:10

It’s another ordinary day. PAN preaching nonsense, and using shaming and insulting language against other participants here.

A repeat here, but a few months ago a man and his son were killed by police in the USA. They were also convinced they were not subject to the laws unless they personally accepted them. So when they were stopped while driving on government funded roads, they refused to present a driver’s license, since accepting the government’s right to regulate driving on government funded roads would make them subject to the laws.

Both died in the resulting shoot-out. Which is pretty much Pan’s future, and the future of anyone who is stupid and ignorant to fall for his b.s.

Societies, impose law on all people within their confines by majority rule, and that’s the way it is. It is not an individual choice as he wants you to believe.

When the Constitution was formed, it was not implemented by unanimous consent off all inhabitants of all states.When a certain number of states accepted it, it became binding on all states.

And, when part of the states later rejected it, 500,000 men die before it was understood that it really was binding on all, even those who do not accept it.

Pan, reach down, grab ears, pull.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 10
Opus July 31, 2011 at 09:20

In the Case of Nolan -v- The Commonwealth of Australia

Ex Parte: The Republic of Ireland

Verbatim Report

The Judge: Mr Nolan, You are a witness in this case where you are the Defendant, and as such it is up to you to answer the questions put to you be learned Counsel Mr Opus, and not the other way round, and I am afraid if you continue to behave as you are I will have no option but to have the gaoler take you down to the cells to regain your composure. [The witness continues to complain] Mr Nolan, Mr Opus has concluded his cross-examination, there are no other witnesses and subject to submissions by Counsel the case is concluded and I will make my decision shortly after recess, which (as it is now midday) I will take now. [Further complaints by the Defendant] Should you not like my decision you will have the possibility of appealing to a higher Court than this on the question of law – that will be your decision.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4
john thames July 31, 2011 at 09:53

WhatAnonymous 69 is really saying is that power comes out of a barrel of a gun. He is quite right. Those who have the power make the rules. Until men regain power and dictate to women, nothing will change.

Change cannot come from within a rigged system. All efforts to reform it shall be blocked. Only when the system collapses because of insolvency shall civil war determine the outcome and prospects for change. No one needs to imitate Mr. Breivik. The collapse and bloodshed shall come inevitably, of their own accord. When it comes, the most ruthless and brutal shall establish the new rules. It shall be the old Fabian strategy – wait until the time is right – and then strike without mercy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
woggy July 31, 2011 at 10:06

Wether an effort to reform marriage- by making it a truely enforceable contract- meets with success or not, it would be worth the effort.

That’s not EVER to say that every man must reverse his personal views/goals where marriage and family are concerned, just because, by some genuine miracle, a better deal can be struck.
Of course not…

Think of it though;
how often is it repeated “NAWALT’?
We know that talk is cheap…we know that a woman can easily say she would never ditch a good man (as if she sits as omniscient judge of what a good man is) knowing full well that, as currently constructed, marriage and family law will never hold her responsible for her actions (or inactions).

How jaw dropping would it be- how stunning- if Kay Hymenitches’ hue and cry about the dearth of real men were to be answered by men- enforceable contracts in hand- asking “Any takers? Who among you ladies will put her money where her mouth is?”

You can bet on one thing: if any proposal for enforceable marriage contracts is offered up for serious public consideration, you’ll see the feminist establishment in frenzied panic, trying to preserve their facade of “wanting equality” while at the same time fighting against equality.
The potential for comedic and cynical fodder is awesome- it would be a blast just to watch.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 31, 2011 at 10:12

Maybe as marriage reform we should just start cat breeding programs?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020751/Lynea-Lattanzio-700-cats-sanctuary-Parlier-California.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 31, 2011 at 10:14

Opus July 31, 2011 at 09:20

Rather than make up fictitious stories maybe you can answer the questions directed to you under oath.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 31, 2011 at 10:20

Anonymous age 69 July 31, 2011 at 09:10
“It’s another ordinary day. PAN preaching nonsense”

You say “nonsense” but you do not have a rebuttal.

The incidence you speak of is well known.

So police are out of control and killing people in the US. What part of THAT is “news”. And rather than lawfully notice the police that they will be held accountable for their crimes the answer is to run and hide?

I have lawfully noticed all federal and NSW state politicians in Australia of the limitations on the power of arrest of police officers toward any man who has properly rescinded his consent to be governed. I did it in my own name and they know full well where I live.

But someone this is called “nonsense” while running and hiding like frightened children is called “not nonsense”?

You are old enough to know better Anon69.

How many people comment “the gucvment should have nothing to do with a marriage”. Well I have proven how this is done. But what I have proven is “nonesense”.

I keep saying you men here are stupid and ignorant. It’s not shaming language when it is is the truth Anon69. Just watch. Agent Opus will NEVER put and answer under oath for those two questions put to him.

Maybe you would do better to ask him why he is so afraid to answer two very simple questions under oath rather than calling the truth “nonsense.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 31, 2011 at 10:28

john thames July 31, 2011 at 09:53
“WhatAnonymous 69 is really saying is that power comes out of a barrel of a gun.”

Correct. “In the face of force the law stands mute.”

This is why the guvment must NEVER be the ONLY entity to hold guns.

Worlds first country to achieve 100% gun registrations? Germany 1936 I believe.

Switzerland is the country with the HIGHEST rate of gun ownership in the world. And I think it has one of the lowest crime rates.

Lots and lots of guns in the hands of those who know how to use them cause peace and stability to break out.

How does that go? When the guvment fears the people you have freedom, when the people fear the guvment you have tyranny.

Men have allowed themselves to become fearful of their guvment and they are controlled by that fear. I have no fear of any guvment or guvment agent. Why would I? And these criminals will be dealt with by fathers willing to deal with them…..or those fathers will betray the children of their lands into abject slavery.

And every man who reads my words gets to vote which camp he is in. Me? I am in the camp of defending the little boys from poisoning, abuse and abject slavery. Sadly? I am in a tiny minority. But as Ghandi said:

“Even in a minority of one the truth is still the truth.”

So sad to see so many other men so gutless that they are afraid of the bully boys called police and the bully girls in guvment.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14
Hayden Hanna July 31, 2011 at 10:47

It has become impossible to read past the article itself on The Spearhead due to the barrage of U.C.C./common law stuff and Fartpowder’s rebukes of the MRM. At least Lara is hidden. If I read anymore such comments from them, I fear that I may join them in the ranks of the army of the insane.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
Jaego Scorzne July 31, 2011 at 11:07

Reinvent marriage? First pry my **** out of my cold, dead hands.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Izzey July 31, 2011 at 11:39

@ oddsock-
All your talk about sheep made me curious. It seems the market has been cornered by another company….complete with fishnet stocking attire.

Inflatable sheep
http://www.muttonbone.com/

And since I like to do research, I even found some ‘sheep humor’ …imagine that. I especially smiled at number 58. It seems we do agree on something.

Sheep humor
http://www.sheepacrosstheworld.com/cgi-bin/humor.pl?humorId=1

:)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
continent July 31, 2011 at 11:47

W,F. Price,
While religious marriage contract might seems desirable, it likely would be ruled unconstitutional like Kosher law was.
http://wwrn.org/articles/9849/?&place=united-states&section=judaism
also
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/4th/941918p.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
only known as Joshua July 31, 2011 at 12:12

There ought to be, both a religious and a non-religious enforceable marriage contracts. Killing two birds with one stone.

Besides men don’t like being cheated out of wages, dignity and personal freedom.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Legion July 31, 2011 at 12:15

RyanRealization July 30, 2011 at 19:39
” I just wanted to say that I do not think that getting married is a good idea for men. No matter what form it takes. Because no matter what form of marriage it is, you will still have to be in a relationship with a woman.”

It does depend on the women no matter what version of marriage is available. The present version of marriage is a variation of holding the man down and raping the shit out of him. Contemplating marriage under these rules is ludicris.

Having your own child(ren) is imperitive to many men. From everything I have heard , Surrogacy is the only way to go. Its sounds cheaper and safer (not dealing with an American women) if you go to India for it.

Present day marrige has to burn to the ground along with the entire feminist society. Not going to be pretty, but who wants to be a slave to maintain this? (Which reminds me of the saying, “Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.”, so there are men willing to do this.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Legion July 31, 2011 at 12:32

only known as Joshua July 31, 2011 at 08:50

If she gets an engagement ring, what is she giving the guy of equal monetary value? Marriage is bullshit, but having women profit every step of the way is even more bullshit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Legion July 31, 2011 at 12:38

Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 31, 2011 at 08:53

That Swanepoel stuff, it ain’t helping me in MGTOW. Foretunately I don’t know of any women who look like that or worry that one like that would acknowledge my existance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader July 31, 2011 at 14:38

There is one more useful thing about Welmer’s proposal: it puts the traditional conservatives on the spot. Tradcons are the champions of “Yes, but…” when it comes to the rights of men. Just like feminists, they will admit to problems existing, but will never go along with proposals that come from the righteously angry men. I’ve seen tradcons pull the “yes, but…” dance over child custody, over mandatory paternity testing, over affirmative action, over false rape accusations, and other issues.

Well, here’s Welmer with a proposal that is right down their line. A marriage that steps away from the state (as some tradcons have proposed), that binds the man to the woman and the woman to the man (as tradcons claim to support), and it comes from the EEEEeeeeevil MRA website Spearhead. What will the tradcons do?
Can they grit their teeth and admit that a horrible MRA has a valid idea? Will they acknowledge it at all? Or will they just hit the “Yes, but…” button and run away?

One way or another, this proposal smokes out the tradcons. And that’s a good thing. We need to see exactly what they are, and where they stand.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
E August 1, 2011 at 00:25

john thames

WhatAnonymous 69 is really saying is that power comes out of a barrel of a gun. He is quite right. Those who have the power make the rules. Until men regain power and dictate to women, nothing will change.

to add to this:
There are many terrible stories in history about those with power resorting to brutal methods to control natural resources. But the most valuable “resource” on this planet is NOT gold, oil, farm-able land, fresh water, or diamonds. It’s the fact that men have the capacity to produce surplus economic wealth. Above all else this is the most profitable resource to exploit. Notice of the 195 countries on this planet the ones with the highest GDP aren’t necessarily the ones sitting on top of a giant oil reservoir or gold mine but instead are the ones which have found a clever way to get men to work REALLY hard.

I subscribe to MGTOW.
However I’m not ignorant enough to think that “those in power” are going to leave us men alone. They want our money. Most men within the MRM want to live the rest of their lives peacefully and happily. Basically they want to be “left alone”. Unfortunately this is not a choice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
woggy August 1, 2011 at 08:37

@Opus
(any other attorneys- in particular- feel free to explain)

“1. She will claim duress.”
Doesn’t one who claims duress have to demonstrate having been coerced by another, more powerful party?
Truthfully, I haven’t had time to read every jot and tittle of what is being proposed here, but I’d think that women would necessarily have to have undergone a regression- in terms of their legal standing, for a woman to claim duress upon entering a marriage contract.
Other than a foreign woman, desperate to reach a western nation by marrying, I can’t imagine any man having something of value that he can deny her by her not entering the contract with him.
Round out our thoughts please.

“2. She will claim that the contract is void or voidable on the grounds that it is unenforcable as being against public policy.”

I have no trouble envisioning that scenario, but one thing of (possible) tremendous value is the public debate that would surround such a proposal.

In a thoughtful post above, Keyster has said, in many words, that women need to realize that they have “power”, and rather than using that power to work toward true equality, they’ve accelerated our society to a place where men are marginalized -if not outright hated- and it’s reasonable to believe that a significant number of them think the world is still okay with men because they think they are, as individuals. (women are like that)
The public argument that would surely ensue, over different legal groundwork as a foundation for a marriage, will cause some (you’ll never get ‘em all and you don’t want to anyway) to examine their own attitudes and expectations.
At the very least, some will see that they’ve wasted political clout badgering men over who vacuums and changes dirty diapers, and even cherishing their right to deny their husbands sex (to the hurt of the entire family).

This could be one of those opportunities to kill two birds with one stone – (attempt to) restore sanity to marriage for those who want marriage, and force the debate to the forefront of women’s minds- to where the rubber hits the road for many women- convincing more than a few that their own personal, benevolent attitude toward men is useless until they step forward, leaving the sisterhood hellbound.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Firepower August 1, 2011 at 09:24

Uncle Elmer
I just gotta be careful not to confuse my Uncle Elmer and business personas or I could ruin myself professionally with one irreverant remark. You wouldn’t want Uncle Elmer blogging full time would you?

Dude, your shtick is hilarious; we can’t wait until you end the suspense and start that blog.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Firepower August 1, 2011 at 09:28

Hayden Hannah

I fear that I may join them in the ranks of the army of the insane

You do know, that this (here) is only my second comment. But don’t worry, Generals have been known to take a demotion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
BobbyL August 1, 2011 at 10:19

The next generation of women are singing along to the following lyrics on their ipods. “I wanna be a victim, fill me with your poison”. What kind of women will these girls grow into? Reform marriage? The next generation will be even worse then this one. It would take a complete collapse of society down to survival level for most women to even think about changing. Even then they’d still be MANipulating us for their own survival.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Benjamin August 2, 2011 at 09:55

@JohnThames and @E are fun to read.

E has a good grasp on this situation. All wealth comes through one path, the work of men.

I’ve said, as E did kinda, that a man alone on an island made of gold and diamonds, would be poor.

The big bad guys know that all their wealth comes from keeping men working hard, producing more wealth than they consume, and the big boys’ skimming that excess right off the top.

For this reason, capitalism is the subtlest, and most effective, form of slavery. Allow the productive man to keep just enough of his produce to keep him working harder tomorrow. Take the lion’s share from him, to enrich the banksters, the politicians, and the corporates.

Capitalism = 1 part economic freedom + 1 part fractional reserve lending + 1 part limited liability corporations.

I am please to read what JohnThames and E wrote here. It is refreshing to find that not everyone is nuts or blind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
universe August 2, 2011 at 21:07

The surest way to not ever achieving anything is by doing just that.
Mr. Price, do continue in your labours to initiate steps in the direction you wish to go.
To others – prognosticating makes for good discussions and many predictions may eventually come to pass in the actual manner in which they were envisioned. Those who “see it coming” can comforatably morph into the future.
However, contemporary society has many competing variables at work and this interplay can often lead to uncertainties in many an outcome. One of the greatest uncertainties of our time is how things will look by change when informed men actually involve themselves with the social forces that sway their lives. Only there will be few supportive or nagging wives to spur any activity.
If government assisted social structure crumbles into resembling an ER burn ward, and I’m inclined to consider this being possible, we who blog on this site thread will know that there would be one person potentially ready with a bandage and recovery prescription. Meanwhile, we haven’t yet reached this stage and any attempts at marital reform could very well serve us both now and the possible then.

One of the elder statesmen of the U.S Constitution era, Patrick Henry, has been recognized for the following: “For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to prepare for it”>
W.F., a new journey of the old unfolds itself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Avenger August 4, 2011 at 04:20

Welmer writes-I think so. The Jews are pioneers here in that regard. If certain people could get over their reflexive animosity toward Jews, the rest of us might actually be able to learn a thing or two from them

These’s no reflexive animosity but merely a cold blooded analysis of history and what a certain cabal is up to today and btw, the majority of Jews don’t follow any “religious” cult laws when it somes to marriage and divorce. They may have a rabbi present at their marriage but it’s really just an ethnice custom that replaced the Khazar Shaman a 1000 years ago in the East. The ethnicity and the cult are the same, sort of like Sikhs except for the fact that the Khazars are a bit more diverse. I would need a week to explain certain things to you so I won’t do it here so I’ll only say that Jew interests are not the same as other people on earth and are in fact opposite from most people’s thinking and morality. You only have to look at the media which they mostly control to see this, the media which they don’t even permit their kids to watch for the most part. Khazar is an ethnicity and they have certain traits in common, they were the Caucasians from the west of Asia originally who because known as Jews due to the talmudic cult they followed. Of course, they have mixed with other ethnic groups over the centuries mostly in western Europe. Admission to Israel as a “Jew” is not based on religion and in fact you may be an atheist or Buddhist etc,, it’s based on ethnicity so it’s sort of hard to say it’s only a religion. You may want to look at the big picture and also why there is so much dislike for what amounts to a small group of people. Why is it that everything they do and every philosophy they try to influence people with and they would never practise themselves always seems to damage the society they’re in and always enriches them?

http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=648

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: