Wednesday, October 24, 2007

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not.” -- Hillary Clinton

.
“Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” -- Hillary Clinton
.
.
“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”
-- Hillary Clinton
.
.
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat."
-- Hillary Clinton
.
.
“Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption.” -- Hillary Clinton
.

.
“In many parts of the world, women and girls are especially vulnerable to HIV/AIDS because they lack control over most aspects of their life. Cultural expectations and gender roles expose women and girls to violence, sexual exploitation and far greater risk for infection.”
-- Hillary Clinton
.
It takes a village...
.
.
Those who are dead serious about changing the legal status of the parent-child relationship have advocated three basic changes, which Hillary outlined in the Harvard Educational Review in 1974: 1) The legal concept of "minority," which refers to the status of a non-adult, should be abolished, and the presumption that children are incompetent to make decisions for themselves should be reversed. 2) All constitutional procedural rights guaranteed to adults should be granted to children. 3) The presumption that parents' and children's interests are the same should be rejected.
.
A "competent child should be permitted to assert his or her own interests," Hillary wrote. In describing the child-parent dependency relationship, she stated, "Along with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system."
.
.
“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not.”
-- Hillary Clinton
.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Marriage Strike Discussion

Here is an interesting discussion on a dating forum that I came across from my blog-stats page in which the Marriage Strike and Misandry is being discussed. It is an interesting read (this is only one page out of 50 in the thread), and I must say - the men seem to be doing pretty well at defending themselves and they seem to know their shit!

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Kgfpz1UlS-sJ:forums.plentyoffish.com/4993414datingPostpage23.aspx+%22entitlement+princesses%22+%22misandry%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Hah!

Yup, men are wising up!

Notice how the men don't back down from the women who try the "blame the man" shaming tactics. Nope. NO MA'AM! Good on these men from this forum!

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

5 Reasons Why Christians Should NOT Obtain a State Marriage License - by Pastor Matt Trewhella

http://www.mercyseat.net/BROCHURES/marriagelicense.htm

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License by Pastor Matt Trewhella

Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, "everybody else gets one." This pamphlet attempts to answer the question - why should we not get get one?

1. The definition of a "license" demands the we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? More importantly, why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.

By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don’t need your parents permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child’s marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1. You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."

See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse. You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons - 1). in the case of divorce, and 2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.

In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor. They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime.

History of Marriage Licenses in America

George Washington was married without a marriage license. Abraham Lincoln was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

What Should We Do?

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who's really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically. (As for homosexuals marrying, outlaw sodomy as God's law demands, and there will be no threat of sodomites marrying.)

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license.They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

The Research & Statistics Commission

Why don't we have a Research & Statistics Commission in our country that mirrors an organization like the Securities & Exchange Commission? I am certainly not a fan of big, intrusive government but it seems odd to me that the Benevolent Bastards who sit in positions of power have never created such a commission and it is certainly something that would be more useful than the Governing Gumbies trying to pass Hate Speech Laws, or laws dictating what kind of light bulbs we are permitted to buy, or laws dictating that children are no longer allowed to go tobaganning without a helmet.

But think about it. Academic Research & Statistics have become a completely corrupt area of our society and they are being used to commit massive amounts of blatant fraud for monetary gain - a crime.

When a CEO like Bernie Ebbers or a tycoon like Conrad Black gets caught cooking the books or providing fraudulent information in the world of business, the government rushes in to judge them and sentence them to lengthy jail terms for their dishonest, fraudulent crimes.

But why has no Academic ever been jailed for wilfully creating fraudulent statistics & research in regard to rape, domestic violence, or a host of other dishonest claims that these Ivory Tower Assholes have been foisting upon the public for the past several decades? Many times such statistics and research is specifically manufactured to be presented to the government to demand taxpayer funding for whatever the cause du jour is, be it DV Shelters/Programs, Campus Rape Crisis Centers, $0.76 on the dollar bullshit. The thing is, if it can proven that the research is blatantly biased and dishonest, and it is being wilfully used to extract millions or even billions of dollars from the taxpayers, then such academics & lobbyists are committing blatant fraud. If a CEO or a CFO were to produce purposefully falsified numbers like that to their shareholders, they would spend several years rotting in prison. And that is just a crime perpetrated against a few people (the shareholders). But when academics & lobbyists do the exact same thing, they are fraudulently profiting themselves or their cause to truly gargantuan proportions at the expense of your tax dollars. A punishment should be made for these dishonest academics that is similar to any other person who "cooks the books."

Fraud is fraud. I don't give a shit about your Ph D, asshole.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

A Few Tidbits To Peruse

The Communist Plan for American Women, by Alan Stang
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan4.htm

Just Doing His Job - (Video: 9min) - A KGB trained subverter tells the overall pattern of Soviet style take-over of free societies.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=119934716144860093&q=Just+Doing+His+Job&total=925&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

The Case for Father Custody - by Daniel Amneus

OK, I've finally gotten my sorry ass around to reading the fine book, The Case for Father Custody by Daniel Amneus. It is an excellent read that will not only give the reader an excellent insight into how & why society was structured the way it was, but also will lend light into the notion of why Marxofeminists wish to destroy marriage/familes in their bid to destroy the Capitalist system and bring global Communism to the world. (Though you will have to draw the latter conclusions with your own linear thinking brain!).

The Case for Father Custody, by Daniel Amneus
(Apparently, the above link has temporarily gone off-line??? Here is an alternative link to use in the meantime: http://christianparty.net/tcffc.htm )

I like Dr. Amneus' style of writing because he provides so many quotes from his research of feminist literature and does not particularly shred their arguments, but agrees that much of it is correct and then he asks: "Yes, in some ways they are correct, so? It is a recipe for the destruction of civilization, is that what we want?" He does not mince about, sometimes life sucks, get a freakin' helmet!

I have also previously read another book by Daniel Amneus, titled The Garbage Generation, which was an equally excellent book and along much of the same theme as The Case for Father Custody, although The Garbage Generation is a smaller book and does not seem to go quite as far in depth as The Case for Father Custody.

Here is a link for Dr. Amneus' other book, which is also time well spent:

The Garbage Generation by Daniel Amneus

It has become my self proclaimed expert opinion, after reading these books, that society perhaps should strive towards a system in which the children of a marriage should be awarded to the father - as that is what he paid for by yoking himself with a legal wife & the marriage contract. If she wants to leave, fine, but automatically the children produced via marriage should be presumed to belong, by default to the father. If women want to have children without men, then they can remain single and get knocked up by Bugsy the Mobster out of wedlock, or via Thomas the Turkey Baster, and raise said child in whatever manner they see fit - without defacto support provided by such men or the taxpaying citizens. It's time for women to stand up on their own two feet and quit oscillating between being "strong, empowered women," and being "mutilated beggars" who are too weak and frail to make it on their own because of the choices they have made themselves.

Life sucks, get a helmet!

Friday, August 31, 2007

Friday, August 24, 2007

Why Rob does not blog so much anymore...

As some of my regular readers may have noticed, I have not been blogging as much as before.

There is a reason for this.

It is that I am no longer sure about the direction of the Men's Movement.

It bothers me to no end that there is so much "egalitarianism" in the movement. If people have not yet realized that "equality" is exactly the virus that is being used to remove people's freedoms.... It simply does not matter whether it is "equality" from a feminist perspective or an MRA perspective, equality is an impossible equation.

Crying for equality is tantamount to crying for the right to be enslaved!

The last thing that the Men's Movement needs to do is to enable the government to further intrude into people's personal lives. I am not even so sure that I wish to support those lobbying for Shared Parenting. Do they realize that they are pleading with the government to let them see their own children? This is exactly the kind of situation that Cultural Marxists aim for... it is not who gets the biggest piece of the pie, but rather that both sides find themselves running to the government to ask for their piece!

Do I care about fathers, mothers & children?

YES!

Do I think that people should be begging the government for access to their own children?

NO!

I wonder how people 100, or even 50 years ago, would have responded to such a situation?

Why should we think any differently?

Why are we not demanding independent inquiries into corrupt No Fault Divorce laws, rather than re-affirming the validity of them by insisting on further unneccessary government intervention with the right to see your own flippin' child?

------------------------------------------------------

Please read Angry Harry's piece about "equality" and how it is unachievable:

Equality Between Men and Women is not Achievable - by Angry Harry

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

Thursday, August 02, 2007

Kady O'Malley Defends Pierre Elliot Trudeau

Some of you may remember a few months ago when I appealed to you to vote for Pierre Elliot Trudeau as the Worst Canadian in History.

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/05/worst-canadian-of-all-time.html



Well, guess what, folks... (drumroll please), the winner is Pierre Elliot Trudeau! Yes, the Prime Minister who was fascinated by Marxism before entering politics, who alienated both the West and Quebec, who introduced no-fault divorce, abortion, multi-culturalism and who increased our national debt by 600% during his reign of socialist lunacy is actually considered by enough Canadians to be the biggest dirty rotten bastard in Canadian history to win a silly little poll put on by the ever less influential Main Stream Media.

Kady O'Malley Wets Her Pants: But, But, You Canadians Got It Wrong!

But, as per typical Main Stream Media fashion, you Canadians are just too stupid to know what you are talking about! This is why, I assume, Kady O'Malley of Maclean's Magazine mentioned the Mightiest Blog on the Web (you know it as No Ma'am) on her blog at said magazine, as she insinuated the poll results were wrong because bloggers such as moi used our wide reaching powers to influence the masses.

http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dip&pid=65852&tid=65852&eid=48&so=1&ps=0&sb=1

"Fresh on the heels of the Great CBC Facebook Wish List Fiasco, Canadian history magazine The Beaver has once again demonstrated that, when it comes to free-for-all online voting, democracy simply doesn't work. Or at least, that's the only conclusion one can draw from the results of its recent online poll to determine, once and for all, the Worst Canadian in history.

The winner? Pierre Elliot Trudeau, whose supporters - er, most fervent detractors - made sure that He Who Haunts Us Still got more votes than child serial killers Clifford Olson (#9), Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka (#5)- not to mention Vegas-ensconced songbird Celine Dion (#7). He also easily beat out both other prime ministerial contenders, Stephen Harper (#6) and Jean Chretien (#8)."

The only conclusion one can draw? Excuse me, Kady O'Malley, but I can only conclude that people in journalism waste a lot of money on their education. Even a 3rd Grader could conclude pretty quickly that there is no shortage of Canadians who truly despise Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

And of course, throw some murderers in there, Kady O'Malley. Try to discredit people who actually respond, as was requested of them, by insinuating that somehow Clifford Olson forever influenced the direction of Canadian History. I mean, how many suicides, how many alcoholics, how much poverty, or how many dismembered fetus's has Clifford Olson caused compared to the man who slammed through No Fault Divorce & Abortion - causing untold psychological problems for millions of people, especially children who don't know why Mommy and Daddy aren't living together anymore nor why Mommy is now sleeping with a biker. Teenage pregnancy (& teen abortions), suicide, low academic performance and a host of other problems have all been directly linked to the anti-social policies Trudeau forced upon Canadians. And, of course, they are all Marxist policies, which is not surprising, given Trudeau's fascination with the writings of the one man who caused more deaths than any other person in World History! http://www.arthurhu.com/index/genocide.htm

Of course, there is one thing in there that Kady O'Malley said which I do agree with, and that is that democracy doesn't work. Democracy doesn't work because the monopolized Main Stream Media has had so much influence over the people, that they have been telling us what the issues are supposed to be in our lives - over and over again, for decades. Much like how Kady O'Malley doesn't appear to like the results of the little guy having free speech and using that free speech to influence others, she fails to explain how the Main Stream Media is also not massively guilty of using their influence to attempt to control Canadians' thoughts to be in accordance with what the left-wing media thinks is important.

Kind of like the ceaseless propaganda that said Main Stream Media keeps spewing out about how scientists can now predict the weather a hundred years in the future to within a few degrees (yet yesterday it was supposed to be 25 degrees and the thermometer went past 30), and how the Main Stream Media is attempting to use their influence to convince Canadians to give away their prosperity & sovereignty for a Marxist-Communist solution which is "based on science" only because the Main Stream Media says it is based on science over and over again - certainly not because there are not a host of qualified scientists who oppose the Main Stream Media's message, but are rarely reported on by our "un-biased" media. Don't even get me going about the ceaseless "women are victims" noise they spew out daily which is akin to hearing nails on a chalkboard. How democratic of the Main Stream Media to air all sides of the debate in an unbiased fashion so the average Canadian can use his own brain to decide what is important. Good job, the media!

"On the other hand, the wisdom of the e-mob is at least partly backed up by the results of a slightly more scientific Angus Reid poll, which revealed virtually no public sympathy for Tenth Worst Canadian Conrad Black. According to Angus Reid, 48% of Canadians believe the jury "got it about right," and an astonishing 69% want to see him do time, rather than just pay a fine."

Of course, mention Conrad Black. I would like to point out that it appears that 52% of Canadians must also believe the jury got it wrong. But why let that get in the way? Math is no longer a strong point of study in our schools anyway. The leftist media just loves to hate Conrad because when Conrad was involved in Canadian Media he was a staunch conservative - and battled many times with the leftist media which now dominates the Canadian scene. The coverage of Conrad Black by the lefty Canadian media was naught more than petty revenge against their long time enemy. After all, look at the ceaseless talk they make about some guy who was found guilty only of 3 counts of mail fraud and defrauding shareholders of a mere $2.9 million. Somehow I fail to see how the Main Stream Media is not directly responsible for unduly influencing Canadians to get Conrad to make the list, right below serial child murderer Clifford Olson, for a fraud totalling a few measly million. Explain to me how the Main Stream Media is "innocent" in all of that, Kady O'Malley. Who's calling who on influencing the "mob?"

But, even Kady O'Malley is not as out to lunch in her response as The Beaver magazine itself, who put up the poll. It appears they were so insulted that Canadians think Pierre was an asshole that they ran to 10 "respected historians and writers of popular history" to tell us Canadians what we should really be thinking.

http://www.historysociety.ca/bea.asp?subsection=ext&page=WC

"To balance this admittedly unscientific survey, we also polled a panel of experts—ten of Canada’s most renowned historians and writers of popular history—to come up with an alternative list, one that’s arguably more measured and takes into consideration the full breadth and scope of Canadian history.

Trudeau didn’t make the cut on the alternative list—but many of you did vote for at least some of the experts’ choices. In fact, the response was overwhelming, with almost 15,000 votes cast."

How competely arrogant and condescending of The Beaver, to insinuate that 10 academics they chose (and are no doubt from Marxist Politically Corrected Academic Ivory Towers), have an opinion that is more qualified of what Canadians should believe than 15,000 actual Canadians. No wonder Canadians are turning off the TV and turning to bloggers on the web. And no wonder, when I did a "more scientific poll" of my family and friends, I found an overwhelming consensus that The Beaver and Maclean's magazines are far better suited to help light the woodstove than to actually inform them on issues about which Canadians feel are important.

Lol! 10 academics from Crackpot U telling 15,000 Canadians that they are wrong. That is exactly the type of "democracy" that Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the Main Stream Media believe Canadians should have.

Perhaps Kady O'Malley can talk to her editor at Maclean's, and they in turn can talk to the editors at The Beaver, about paying for an advertisement somewhere on the sidebar of No Ma'am to help combat their ever dwindling circulations in a world where people no longer believe the filthy leftist lies the Main Stream Media keeps spewing at the people. Lol! I'll only charge them what Maclean's charges for a typical one page ad, which is a good deal, since both Kady O'Malley and The Beaver acknowledge the far reaching influence that No Ma'am apparently wields.


Read more about Trudeau the Treacherous Traitor to see why our Socialist inspired media loves to love the man who brought Cultural Marxism to Canada:

Pierre Elliot Trudeau: Cultural Marxist Wrapped in a Canadian Flag

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/pierre-elliot-trudeau-cultural-marxist.html

and

The Multi-Tasking Pink Proletariat

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/03/multi-tasking-pink-proletariat.html

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

A Great Historical Outline of Cultural Marxism

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55833

Who Stole Our Culture? - by William S. Lind

Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, traditional values.

Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the '60s feel like it's a foreign country? Did it just "happen"?

It didn't just "happen." In fact, a deliberate agenda was followed to steal our culture and leave a new and very different one in its place. The story of how and why is one of the most important parts of our nation's history – and it is a story almost no one knows. The people behind it wanted it that way.

What happened, in short, is that America's traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as "political correctness" or "multi-culturalism." It really is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms in an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, but to World War I. Incredible as it may seem, just as the old economic Marxism of the Soviet Union has faded away, a new cultural Marxism has become the ruling ideology of America's elites. The No. 1 goal of that cultural Marxism, since its creation, has been the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion.

To understand anything, we have to know its history. To understand who stole our culture, we need to take a look at the history of "political correctness."

Early Marxist Theory

Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their governments and create a new Communist Europe. But when war broke out in the summer of 1914, that didn't happen. Instead, the workers in every European country lined up by the millions to fight their country's enemies. Finally, in 1917, a Communist revolution did occur, in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it.

After World War I ended in 1918, Marxist theorists had to ask themselves the question: What went wrong? As good Marxists, they could not admit Marxist theory had been incorrect. Instead, two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary (Lukacs was considered the most brilliant Marxist thinker since Marx himself) independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a Communist revolution was impossible in the West, until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism's goal right at the beginning, has never changed.

A New Strategy

Gramsci famously laid out a strategy for destroying Christianity and Western culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, he said Marxists in the West should take political power last, after a "long march through the institutions" – the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That "long march through the institutions" is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s. Fortunately, Mussolini recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him. His influence remained small until the 1960s, when his works, especially the "Prison Notebooks," were rediscovered.

Georg Lukacs proved more influential. In 1918, he became deputy commissar for culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik regime in Hungary. There, asking, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" he instituted what he called "cultural terrorism." One of its main components was introducing sex education into Hungarian schools. Lukacs realized that if he could destroy the country's traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying its traditional culture and Christian faith.

Far from rallying to Lukacs' "cultural terrorism," the Hungarian working class was so outraged by it that when Romania invaded Hungary, the workers would not fight for the Bela Kun government, and it fell. Lukacs disappeared, but not for long. In 1923, he turned up at a "Marxist Study Week" in Germany, a program sponsored by a young Marxist named Felix Weil who had inherited millions. Weil and the others who attended that study week were fascinated by Lukacs' cultural perspective on Marxism.

The Frankfurt School

Weil responded by using some of his money to set up a new think tank at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. Originally it was to be called the "Institute for Marxism." But the cultural Marxists realized they could be far more effective if they concealed their real nature and objectives. They convinced Weil to give the new institute a neutral-sounding name, the "Institute for Social Research." Soon known simply as the "Frankfurt School," the Institute for Social Research would become the place where political correctness, as we now know it, was developed. The basic answer to the question "Who stole our culture?" is the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School.

At first, the Institute worked mainly on conventional Marxist issues such as the labor movement. But in 1930, that changed dramatically. That year, the Institute was taken over by a new director, a brilliant young Marxist intellectual named Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer had been strongly influenced by Georg Lukacs. He immediately set to work to turn the Frankfurt School into the place where Lukacs' pioneering work on cultural Marxism could be developed further into a full-blown ideology.

To that end, he brought some new members into the Frankfurt School. Perhaps the most important was Theodor Adorno, who would become Horkheimer's most creative collaborator. Other new members included two psychologists, Eric Fromm and Wilhelm Reich, who were noted promoters of feminism and matriarchy, and a young graduate student named Herbert Marcuse.

Advances in Cultural Marxism

With the help of this new blood, Horkheimer made three major advances in the development of cultural Marxism. First, he broke with Marx's view that culture was merely part of society's "superstructure," which was determined by economic factors. He said that on the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society.

Second, again contrary to Marx, he announced that in the future, the working class would not be the agent of revolution. He left open the question of who would play that role – a question Marcuse answered in the 1950s.

Third, Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt School members decided that the key to destroying Western culture was to cross Marx with Freud. They argued that just as workers were oppressed under capitalism, so under Western culture, everyone lived in a constant state of psychological repression. "Liberating" everyone from that repression became one of cultural Marxism's main goals. Even more important, they realized that psychology offered them a far more powerful tool than philosophy for destroying Western culture: psychological conditioning.
Today, when Hollywood's cultural Marxists want to "normalize" something like homosexuality (thus "liberating" us from "repression"), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.

The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.

New Developments

Taking advantage of American hospitality, the Frankfurt School soon resumed its intellectual work to create cultural Marxism. To its earlier achievements in Germany, it added these new developments.

Critical Theory

To serve its purpose of "negating" Western culture, the Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called "Critical Theory." What was the theory? The theory was to criticize. By subjecting every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless, unremitting criticism (the Frankfurt School was careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against), it hoped to bring them down. Critical Theory is the basis for the "studies" departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, those departments are the home turf of academic political correctness.

Studies in Prejudice

The Frankfurt School sought to define traditional attitudes on every issue as "prejudice" in a series of academic studies that culminated in Adorno's immensely influential book, "The Authoritarian Personality," published in 1950. They invented a bogus "F-scale" that purported to tie traditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and women and questions touching on the family to support for fascism. Today, the favorite term the politically correct use for anyone who disagrees with them is "fascist."

Domination

The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or "dominance" over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled "oppressors," while other groups were defined as "victims." Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.

Though Marxists, the members of the Frankfurt School also drew from Nietzsche (someone else they admired for his defiance of traditional morals was the Marquis de Sade). They incorporated into their cultural Marxism what Nietzsche called the "transvaluation of all values." What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil "fascist." That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America. (The Frankfurt School wrote about American public education. It said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right "attitudes" on certain questions.)

Media and Entertainment

Led by Adorno, the Frankfurt School initially opposed the culture industry, which they thought "commodified" culture. Then, they started to listen to Walter Benjamin, a close friend of Horkheimer and Adorno, who argued that cultural Marxism could make powerful use of tools like radio, film and later television to psychologically condition the public. Benjamin's view prevailed, and Horkheimer and Adorno spent the World War II years in Hollywood. It is no accident that the entertainment industry is now cultural Marxism's most powerful weapon.

The Growth of Marxism in the United States

After World War II and the defeat of the Nazis, Horkheimer, Adorno and most of the other members of the Frankfurt School returned to Germany, where the Institute re-established itself in Frankfurt with the help of the American occupation authorities. Cultural Marxism in time became the unofficial but all-pervasive ideology of the Federal Republic of Germany.

But hell had not forgotten the United States. Herbert Marcuse remained here, and he set about translating the very difficult academic writings of other members of the Frankfurt School into simpler terms Americans could easily grasp. His book "Eros and Civilization" used the Frankfurt School's crossing of Marx with Freud to argue that if we would only "liberate non-procreative eros" through "polymorphous perversity," we could create a new paradise where there would be only play and no work. "Eros and Civilization" became one of the main texts of the New Left in the 1960s.

Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School's intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred "victims groups" of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness's favorite words, "tolerance," and gave it a new meaning. He defined "liberating tolerance" as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for "tolerance," they mean Marcuse's "liberating tolerance" (just as when they call for "diversity," they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).

The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous "guru," he injected the Frankfurt School's cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute's beginning, Marcuse and the few other people "in the know" did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America's traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America's traditional culture lies in ruins.

A Counter-Strategy

Now you know who stole our culture. The question is, what are we, as Christians and as cultural conservatives, going to do about it?

We can choose between two strategies. The first is to try to retake the existing institutions – the public schools, the universities, the media, the entertainment industry and most of the mainline churches – from the cultural Marxists. They expect us to try to do that, they are ready for it, and we would find ourselves, with but small voice and few resources compared to theirs, making a frontal assault against prepared defensive positions. Any soldier can tell you what that almost always leads to: defeat.

There is another, more promising strategy. We can separate ourselves and our families from the institutions the cultural Marxists control and build new institutions for ourselves, institutions that reflect and will help us recover our traditional Western culture.

Several years ago, my colleague Paul Weyrich wrote an open letter to the conservative movement suggesting this strategy. While most other conservative (really Republican) leaders demurred, his letter resonated powerfully with grass-roots conservatives. Many of them are already part of a movement to secede from the corrupt, dominant culture and create parallel institutions: the homeschooling movement. Similar movements are beginning to offer sound alternatives in other aspects of life, including movements to promote small, often organic family farms and to develop community markets for those farms' products. If Brave New World's motto is "Think globally, act locally," ours should be "Think locally, act locally."

Thus, our strategy for undoing what cultural Marxism has done to America has a certain parallel to its own strategy, as Gramsci laid it out so long ago. Gramsci called for Marxists to undertake a "long march through the institutions." Our counter-strategy would be a long march to create our own institutions. It will not happen quickly, or easily. It will be the work of generations – as was theirs. They were patient, because they knew the "inevitable forces of history" were on their side. Can we not be equally patient, and persevering, knowing that the Maker of history is on ours?

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Banned Trojan Condom Ad

Watch this Misandric Crap of an Advertisement from a company that creates products specifically for men:

Don't go thinking that by some change of attitude the execs that banned this ad did so because they realize it is extremely degrading to their main target audience, however.

Fox said it had rejected the ad because: "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy."

(and further in the article):

Directed by Phil Joanou, the commercial for Trojan condoms is entertaining.


But it also has a message, spelled out at the end: "Evolve. Use a condom every time."

Both networks had accepted Trojan's previous campaign, which urged condom use because of the possibility that a partner might be HIV-positive, perhaps unknowingly.

A 2001 report about condom advertising by the Henry Kaiser Family Foundation found: "Some networks draw a strong line between messages about disease prevention — which may be allowed — and those about pregnancy prevention, which may be considered controversial for religious and moral reasons."
.



I'll tell you what No Ma'am's official position on this situation is:

This is a company that is obviously filled with such a bunch of misandric morons that they cannot figure out that ads like this are degrading to their main target audience... and if they are that stupid, why should I continue to have confidence they are smart enough to build a product that is actually reliable enough to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies? The upper level of this company is stating to the world how incredibly inept they are - and shit runs downhill, people!

This ad is a very good reason NOT to buy Trojan Condoms.

They are doing a double whammie on themselves.

First, they show us how inept they are with their marketing skills, thus giving rise to the speculation of what else is lacking in quality control at Trojan.

Second, they are fueling the already growing Marriage Strike by perpetuating the myth that men are a bunch of pigs when they want sex... (misandry, hate men, you sexual pigs, ALL MEN ARE PIGS), effectively causing even MORE men to begin to desire a life without women... and thus shrinking Trojan's market.

Those in charge of Trojan Condoms are not sending a message that consumers should trust their professionalism - and therefore, by extension, their products. Trojan is a bust!


BTW, this is apparently Trojan's entire new marketing campaign called "Evolve." As in, "Men, evolve from being the pigs that you are."
.
Check out their site here where you can further click links to the "Trojan Evolve" website:
.
http://www.trojancondoms.com/default.aspx
.
I looked for a "Contact Us" link, but maybe I'm blind, because I can't seem to find one. I'd dearly like to send them an e-mail telling them that No Ma'am says: GFY!

I'm still waiting for the ad, in this age of "equality," that says: "Women, stop letting your hormones make you into such a psychotic Medusa - Take a Midol and evolve!"

Monday, June 18, 2007

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

Excerpt from The Woman Question, by Stephen Leacock - written in 1916

http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/leacock.htm

I was sitting the other day in what is called the Peacock Alley of one of our leading hotels, drinking tea with another thing like myself, a man. At the next table were a group of Superior Beings in silk, talking. I couldn't help overhearing what they said--at least not when I held my head a little sideways.

They were speaking of the war.

"There wouldn't have been any war," said one, " if women were allowed to vote."

"No, indeed," chorused all the others.

The woman who had spoken looked about her defiantly. She wore spectacles and was of the type that we men used to call, in days when we still retained a little courage, an Awful Woman.

"When women have the vote," she went on "there will he no more war. The women will forbid it."

She gazed about her angrily. She evidently wanted to be heard. My friend and I hid ourselves behind a little fern and trembled.

But we listened. We were hoping that the Awful Woman would explain how war would be ended. She didn't. She went on to explain instead that when women have the vote there will be no more poverty, no disease, no germs, no cigarette smoking and nothing to drink but water. It seemed a gloomy world.

"Come," whispered my friend, " this is no place for us. Let us go to the bar."


---

I've heard this before, somewhere, there's a group of people running around in the modern day and age that says this kind of tripe too... Oh yes, they are called feminists.

Jeez, the second and third wave feminists of the modern day really are whacked out, aren't they. Nothing like the noble suffragettes who only wanted equality.

The thing is, if one checks out one the major arguments against women's suffrage, back in the day, in that it wasn't equality at all what the suffragettes wanted, but rather the full privileges and entitlements of both sexes. Which of course is not equality at all. And... what many of those had fretted about would happen, has happened. Go figure.

The suffragettes were no more noble than Dworkin.

Check out this page filled with cartoons about feminists from around 1910 - these are the "noble feminists." Every one of these cartoons is just as relevant today as it was nearly 100 years ago.

http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/suffrage.htm

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Book: The Fraud of Feminism - by E. Belfort Bax

Yup, Anti-Feminists keep popping up out of the woodwork everywhere...

Here are some excerpts of a preface from the book:

... Feminism in this and in some other countries has won well-nigh [near] all its formal demands.

...and so the pitch-forking of women into administrative posts proceeds galore. But the main contentions of The Fraud of Feminism have not been affected by the change in question.

Though women have been conceded all the rights of men, their privileges as females have remained untouched, while the sentimental "pull" they have over men, and the favouritism shown them in the courts, civil and criminal, often in flagrant violation of elementary justice, continues as before.

The result of their position on juries, as evinced in certain trials, has rather confirmed the remarks made in Chapter II. anent [concerning] hysteria than otherwise.

The sex-bias of men in favour of women and the love of the advanced woman towards her sex-self show no sign of abatement.

Proposals to the effect that in the event of infanticide by a mother the putative father should be placed in the dock merely because he is a man are received with applause.

The other day, at a court held in a fashionable town of the south coast, on a prostitute being brought upcharged with soliciting, a female "justice," recently appointed, declaimed against the wickedness of punishing prostitutes for soliciting while men were never brought up charged with the offence. (Needless to say, there was the usual male fool to be found in the body of the court, who shouted:"Hear ! Hear !")

Now is it conceivable, I ask, that anybody can be so infatuated with Feminism as not to see that a prostitute who solicits nightly in the exercise of her trade-- i.e . for the purpose of money-making--is in a different position from a man who, once in a way, may, urged by natural passion, make advances to a woman?

Such a person must be unable to see distinctions in anything, one would think. Besides, it is not true that men, if charged with the annoyance or molestation of women, cannot be, and have not been, prosecuted for the offence.

The lady "justice" in question would probably like to see a man paired with a prostitute in the dock every time the latter gave occasion for police action. Such is the Feminist notion of justice.

There are a vast number of men who cultivate the pretence of having a contempt for, or a prejudice against, their own sex. The idea seems to be to pander to the sex-vanity of the "New Woman."

Every popular writer caters for this prejudice.

No one can have failed to notice the persistent journalistic and literary "stunt" by which the man is portrayed in the light of a miserable and abject living creature as a foil [frustration] to the "noble animal"woman.

There is scarcely a play, short story or novel the plot of which in any way admits of it where this now stale device is not dragged in in some form or shape.

... This sort of thing is not without its influence on the course of justice, as the daily papers still continue to show us. Times have not changed in this respect.

... There is no indication that the general public has a dawning sense that, to adapt the common metaphor, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

Everywhere we hear the same old bogus grievances of the female sex trotted out as crying for remedy, but never the injustice of a man being compelled, whatever his economic position, to keep his wife, while a woman is under no corresponding obligation to keep her husband. No urgency is suggested for removing the anomaly that a husband is amenable for his wife's libels and slanders; none that a boy of fourteen is punishable for a sexual offence to which he has been incited by a girl of sixteen, who gets off scot-free; none that the obligation of a husband, whose wife wishes to bring an action for divorce against him, to furnish her with the money to fight him, should be abolished.

On the other hand, every law, every judicial decision, every case in the courts, civil and criminal, that on the most superficial view can be exploited by the conventional Feminist claptrap to prove the wickedness of "man-made law" to woman, is gripped by the beak of the Feminist harpy to help build up her nest of lying sex-prejudice, whence she and her confraternity may sally forth and by their raids on male sentiment not merely help to buttress up existing female privilege, but wherever possible to increase the already one-sided injustice of the law and its administration towards men in the interest of the other sex.

August, 1921

http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/bax.htm

DID YOU MISS THE DATE?

AUGUST, 1921!

Still believe in "equity feminism?"

Still believe that the suffragettes were noble creatures fighting to "liberate" women?

Still believe that it was only second wave feminists that were fucked up?

There was no such thing as second wave feminism, people. When you read up on women's behaviour in the 1920's they were already getting out of hand... then the Great Depression happened, re-uniting men and women, crushing fembot lunacy with the hard reality of poverty... then World War II happened, compounding upon the depression... then we came out of the war, and within one generation, "Second Wave Feminism" picked up right where those responsible for Suffragette Feminism left off in the 20's.

There is something deep within women's nature that makes them antagonistic and hostile to men. This has been acknowledged since the Bible where God tells Adam that he will put enmity between him and the woman.

We think that Warren Farrell is the only guy who has written about feminism from the male perspective, when in fact, we men are doing ourselves a MASSIVE dis-service by refusing to acknowledge the plethora of literature that has been written about "Gender Studies" from the dawn of time up until WWII. Yet we think somehow think that we are discovering something new.

Every MRA who spends countless hours a year on MRM forums should spend a few evenings sifting through the writings of those before our times, and compare them to the issues we are facing today.

Here are two good places to start:

http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/home.htm
(read the fundamental arguments at the beginning which are excellent, and then scroll down to find a reading list about "gender studies" that is in chronological order and spans centuries.

and:

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/woman.pdf

It's up to you. You once discovered that you were living in the "Matriarchy" and you chose to unplug... do you think it is impossible, after that experience, that there could possibly be even a deeper level to this whole thing?

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Amorality

The title says it all! Only a year ago, I got kicked off a prominent "Men's" board for a month for trying to discuss the apparent amorality that exists in women. The moderater exploded at such a wild generalization, being that he is a closet mangina posing as an MRA. I won't expose his name here, as I believe it is up to each pussy whipped, chivalrous mangina to come out of the closet on his own accord... But, this mangina did me an unwitting favour. Lol!

After my shunning punishment, I left the sicko world of the mangina-styled MRM which has gained absolutely zero ground (and actually lost ground), by adhering to the time proven failure of a philosophy of speaking softly and carying no sticks. Lol! The mangina-styled MRM caused me so much frustration because they still adhere to politically corrected Marxist party line of never calling women on their bullshit! And, this is how the finest blog on the web, also known as No Ma'am http://www.eebell.net/mwc/nomaam.mp3 came into being. So that I could freely say things like this:

Women are inherently amoral.

Yes indeed, they are, and until women prove me wrong, my superior opinion will be regarded as the gospel truth here at No Ma'am. Quite frankly, I don't see how anything will ever be accomplished within the "Sexual War" until some glaringly obvious things about women's collective behaviour becomes regarded as a fact which can be freely discussed, rather than "known but ignored" out of politically correct fear.

First off, let's look at a definition of Amorality.

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

Amorality is the quality of having no concept of right or wrong. 'Amorality' or 'amoralism' may also refer to knowing of right and wrong but lacking a belief in the absolute existence of any moral laws.

However, "amoral" must be distinguished from "immoral" in that amoral persons either do not possess ethical notions at all as a result of an unusual upbringing or inborn traits (see Antisocial personality disorder) or else do not subscribe to any moral code.

Lol! I've had some women get down right furious at me for suggesting that their sex has a tremendous problem with amorality. However, the only way women will ever be able to shake an "amoral moniker" is to behave with a strong ethical code of right and wrong, and women are apparently reticent to do this in any meaningful way, so, the label fits. Sorry, girls.

And what, pray tell, illustrates the collective amorality of testosterone challenged humans better than Battered Women's Syndrome? We should all thank fembot psycho-ologist Lenore Walker for inventing such an absurd notion, thus proving the amorality of women for the world to see. Once we get over our fear of telling the Empresses that they aren't wearing any clothes, the amorality argument falls into place rather neatly.

Now, think about what "Battered Women's Syndrome" really implies about women. Forget, for a moment about how wrong you know it is, and think about what it says about women's psychological make up.

Battered Women's Syndrome (BWS) makes women into the most weak-minded human beings that exist on our planet - it makes women out to be less mentally capable than a typical child!

Think about it. The whole notion of BWS is that it is perfectly natural for a woman, if faced with mental and physical abuse, to turn into a murderer, because of a woman's psychological make up.

There is no Battered Man's Syndrome and there is no Battered Child Syndrome. Only women turn into murderous psychos when faced with abuse. Since women commit the majority of child abuse, one might think that Battered Child Syndrome should be prevalent in our society, in fact, scores of children should be blowing the heads off of their abusive mothers and getting off scott free, with sympathy, in the court system - but children are not murdering their abusive mothers. Only women get away with murdering people who "abuse" them.

When children and teens are subjected to bullying by other children, they don't go crackers and murder the bully, either.

Nope. Only women turn into killers when faced with abuse.

Think about what that implies about the psychological weakness of women.

Battered Women's Syndrome should be the biggest slap in the face of "liberated" women that exists in our society, for the very notion of it says that women are so psychologically weak that even children are capable of controlling themselves better than women. Otherwise, we would have Battered Child Syndrome, wouldn't we?

Women should be outraged about people like Lenore Walker and her Bullshit Women's Syndrome, making women out to be weak-minded, uncontrollable psychos.

Why are women not outraged and speaking out against the travesty of justice displayed in the Mary Winkler case?

When I first heard about the Winkler sentence of "3 years but might get out in 60 days," I thought they were talking about how long she would be held in solitary confinement before being released into the general prison population to grow old and die in her new pinstripe suit.

But no, this is instead the whole sentence a woman receives for taking a shotgun and blowing out a man's spine while he is sleeping.

Q: Why aren't women outraged that they, collectively, are being regarded as too weak-minded of human beings to be held accountable for such disgusting behaviour?

A: Amorality

I believe that most women really do know that Battered Women's Syndrome is a bunch of bullshit. If they don't, then it would be easy to make the case that women are really, really stupid - and I don't believe that women are stupid.

Men do not let other men get away with miscarriages of justice like this. One would think that moral women would be outraged at the nothing prison sentences given to females when they commit hideous crimes like murder or infanticide. One would also think that feminists would be outraged at the notion of weak-minded women being easily transformed into psycho bitches in the face of adversity.

As long as women in general stay silent about these miscarriages of justice, they are illustrating complicity with these criminal women and they are rightfully earning the label of "Amoral."

Don't like the label, ladies? Think about how this type of "zero justice" behaviour on the part of women would have to labelled without using the notion of Amorality... it would invite an even nastier notion about women... that they purposefully choose evil over justice.

More on this subject to come...

Monday, June 04, 2007

Video: The New Rulers of the World - by John Pilger

Thanks to Pjanus for leaving a link to this excellent video about the effects of Globalization on the Third World, and the complicity of Multi-National Corporations, the IMF & World Monetary Fund, the Media, and yes, even our own Governments.

The video is 53 minutes long and well put together (read: a better use of your time than listening to the propaganda box you have playing in the background - you know, it's beckoning you, "turn off your brain, internet reader... come watch my screen... let me think for you..." Click!).

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

The Invasion of the Russian Gold-Diggers

You Decide!

Invasion of the Russian Gold-Diggers - by Tom Mitchelson

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=458832&in_page_id=1879

Forget the oligarchs, no one is attracted to money like the new army of Russian beauties taking over London. Femail went undercover to find out what they're REALLY after...

People stare at Natalia. She is stunningly beautiful, elegant, and with a figure that a movie star would die for.

I've known her for four hours and we have just had a bottle of champagne that cost me £200. Now we're strolling down Old Bond Street in London.

She pauses at a jewellery shop and stares in the window. With an exquisitely manicured finger, she points to a diamond encrusted wristwatch.

"This is lovely," she tells me. "Will you buy it for me when the shop opens tomorrow?"

"It's £33,000," I choke. She looks at me, puzzled.

Her blue eyes freeze and she removes her hand from my arm.

"Is money a problem?" she asks, in a caring sort of way.

This is not my normal life. It all started a few weeks earlier when I heard that Britain is under siege from a monstrous regiment of Russian temptresses - arriving here on the billionaire coat tails of Roman Abramovich and his fabulously wealthy friends, and set on grabbing a British boyfriend, a British expense account and a British passport.

Was this true? Or was it just an urban myth? It is certainly widely believed, I found.
There's plenty of talk around the place about Rapacious Russians and Slavic Sirens stalking our streets in search of men - and men with money, at that.

If they exist, they are a glittering army of clever, glamorous, ambitious, sophisticated vamps, descending, locust-like on London, the world's leading financial centre, in a mad search for merchant bankers, commodity traders and City bonus - pocketers.

But was this picture correct? To find out, I would romance the Russianistas, uncover the Ukrainians, and leave no Estonian unturned.

My technique is simple. I shall adopt the persona of a wealthy young man-about-town.
Not wanting to be caught out by elaborate lies, I tell anyone who asks that I inherited my money and amuse myself by writing screenplays.

The truth is I am not a City high-flyer and not even a plumber. In fact, I'm a penniless young writer. But I do own one good suit and I know how to act.

I resolve to spend money I don't have as if there's no tomorrow - and keep a diary that may go some way to keeping me.

I begin my quest in a nightclub in the West End. It is guest-list only. I talk my way onto the list and saunter in.

The crowd is heaving. Sleek women of uncertain backgrounds dance round their handbags, and I can hear the murmur of Slavic accents.

"There's a lot of Eastern Europeans in tonight," I say to the barman.
"Yeah, it's Russian night. Every night is Russian night."

It is 2.37am when I find what I've been looking for. Natalia and I click.
We flirt, we dance and exchange numbers. We arrange a date.

The following evening I'm in a five-star hotel in Mayfair - her choice of meeting point. It seems to be a favourite haunt of hers.

High heels echo over the marble floor and Natalia enters, her Slavic cheekbones accentuated by her tiedback hair.

She's wearing something blue and filmy that shouts money.

She doesn't want to eat because she's worried about her figure, but she does want to drink.
Her tipple is Bollinger 1998 at £180 a go.

My jaw drops, but I have to remember this is her world. As confidently as possible, I take out my wallet.

She tells me that though she's from Moscow, she holidays in Mustique and Monaco and loves Prada.

I ask if she's heard of Primark. She hasn't. And then we're off.

Natalia wants us to meet her friends at a nightclub. I
t's called Pangaea and it's popular with visiting Russians and the younger members of the Royal Family.

This is where Prince Harry took it upon himself to lash out at a photographer, so I know it must be a classy joint.

She gets in free, but it costs me £30. We sit with two other Russian girls and Natalia demands I buy more champagne - which leaves me £150 less well off (not that I was well off anyway).

There's much laughter and joviality. Unfortunately, much of it is in Russian and I'm beginning to feel my function is merely to pick up the bill.

Where is this going? Does Natalia see all men - me included - as cash cows?

It is 4.23am when Natalia and I leave, together, and she sees the wristwatch - £33,000-worth of antique gold, silver and precious stones - in the shop window. So that's where she thinks it's going.

I make my excuses, as they say, and leave. I feel a little let down by Natalia's commercial approach and decide it's wise - if only for the sake of my bank manager's sanity - that we don't see each other again.

Natalia seems less than upset when I tell her so.

Next day, I head west to Chelsea, home of the ultimate oligarch, Roman Abramovich.
There seem to be more Russians in Chelsea than were at the Siege of Stalingrad. They haunt stylish bars, ostentatious restaurants and swanky hotels. Understated good taste is not their scene.

It is here that I meet Svetlana. I'm pretending to be working on my laptop in a bar when I hear the now unmistakable sound of Russian being spoken. Time to make my move.

I've perfected a blatant approach. Once I'm fairly sure the girl is Russian (normally by eavesdropping on her conversations), I sidle over and make lighthearted small-talk to assess the situation. Favoured topics
of conversation would be the barman, for example, the bar or the club.
Continuing a conversation with an available Russianista from there on isn't difficult.
After all, she was there to find a suitable man - and I was there to find a suitable woman.
I take Svetlana to the American Bar at the Savoy.

Even without her sixinch heels, she is tall. (I'm 6ft 1in and she towers over me.)
She's from St Petersburg, she tells me, and is 24. She adores nightclubs and giggles about getting in free on account of her uscule skirts.

She tells me: "I find myself very good-looking."

She is proud of her curves - "Men are not dogs, they don't like bones" - and long legs.
As she sips her chilled Vodka Martini she tells me she wants to see more of the world, travelling first class.

Top of her list is Venice. "Venice is one of the seven wonders of the world," she informs me.
As the evening goes on, it turns out Svetlana thinks Disney World in Florida is another of the seven wonders of the world.

As is Nelson's column, apparently. I steer the conversation away from the Millennium Wheel, the Dome of St Paul's and Big Ben...Svetlana turns her attention to hair colour and asks me if I think brunettes are more intelligent than blondes. I tell her I don't.

She nods enthusiastically. "Yes, because if you were a blonde and dyed your hair brunette, how would that make a difference?" I'm impressed by her logic.

"There are even people who think blondes are stupid," she laughs, shaking her golden hair in delight.

I order another Martini. Svetlana tells me that an ex-boyfriend bought her a convertible Mini. I sense she would expect the same from me.

I have a fun evening with Svetlana, but it is obvious that my most important charm (apart from my tolerance of endless discussion of hair colour) is what she believes to be my wealth.

That's what she's looking for - and she'll find it, because she's determined to. But not from me.
In a hotel bar near Hyde Park Corner, I find Ludmila. While ordering drinks, I strike up conversation. She is a brunette and intelligent. Frighteningly intelligent.

She's 23 and has a Double First from Cambridge.

She's been in England since her parents sent her to boarding school at the age of 15.
We go to a restaurant and she suggests we drink straight vodka.

She is doing her final practical training to become a pathologist. I watch in awe as she expertly dissects her rare steak.

In order to justify my interest in Russian women, I have claimed a knowledge of the nation's literature.

To my horror, between bloody mouthfuls she starts to question me on Tolstoy. I more or less carry it off - and adjust my mental stereotype of a Muscovite moll.

It's an enjoyable evening, and oddly I don't feel she is one of the Russianistas seeking wealth above all else.

Money, however, seems to be assumed in an eligible man.

The meal costs an arm and a leg - the best part of £200. Ludmila does not bat an eyelid and she has no plans on going dutch.

I wonder when the last time was that she paid for anything.

I drop her off in the taxi, and the next morning she sends me a text message telling me she had a nice time.

In other circumstances I might have seen her again, but my wallet would not allow it.
Nastia proves less complicated. She's pretty, pale-skinned and has a pixie-like expression. Audrey Hepburn meets Bjork.

Having overheard her accent in a small coffee shop in central London, I strike up conversation and invite her out for dinner. She consents.

I am sensing a pattern here. These gals will happily accede to a request for a date from any man who looks loaded.

Whether you ever actually get a second date depends on whether you really are rich.
Perhaps there's a sliding scale: first base if you're worth a million, second base for two million.
I ask Nastia where she'd like to go. She says Nobu (one of London's most fashionable and expensive restaurants).

Nastia tells me it's her particular ambition to get to know an Englishman and explains that she is turned on by "money and power". At least she's honest.

She would like to meet a "self-sufficient man which is engaged in favourite business".

I'm delighted when she tells me she finds me a "cheerful person" and that it would be "desirable to communicate further with me".

She adds: "I hope for serious attitude from you."

I take Nastia to Nobu and she apologises for her English.

I tell her it's far better than my Russian. She asks me what I mean. The evening turns into a series of mistranslations.

I ask where in Russia she comes from.

"Vilnius." she replies. "But that's Lithuania," I say, exhibiting my GCSE geography.

"When I born, it in Soviet Union. So I'm Russian. I don't like Lithuanians."

Despite the language barrier, Nastia seems keen and at one point leans over the table and whispers in my ear: "You are my white horse man."

Keen not to lead her on, I tell her I ought to make the last Tube home.

She tells me: "I think we met because of satellites hitting."

She really must think I'm Mr Moneybags to be giving me this spiel.

Having remortgaged my flat, I am able to pay the bill at Nobu, and Nastia and I part as friends. I am beginning to think that even if they are all golddiggers, they are tremendous fun.

But then I encounter Oxana from Ekaterinburg, whom I've been put in touch with through a friend.

She wants to meet me near the Bank of England. This is clearly a woman who likes the proximity of money.

I book a restaurant with a Michelin-starred chef and wait in the bar for her to arrive. Blonde with harsh features, she briskly shakes my hand and refuses a drink from the bar. She wants a cup of tea.

Then, in a whiney voice, she begins to catalogue her complaints about life.

She hates the weather, she is cold, she is tired and she doesn't feel well.

And she doesn't live in Kensington, near all her Russian friends, and is angry about it.
We move into the restaurant and examine the menu.

After a moment she puts it down and says: "There is nothing I wish to eat on this card."

"Nothing at all?" I ask. "Nothing."

I mentally shrug and go over to the maitre d' and explain discreetly: "I'm very sorry but something's come up and we have to leave."

At this point, Oxana joins us. "To which restaurant do we go now?" she asks loudly.
Finally we find a restaurant she approves of.

Now she doesn't want tea: she grabs the wine list.

She explains to me that she had been married to a man from Azerbaijan who was resident in the UK.

Now they are divorced. On the basis of my evening with her, he will have had no difficulty proving unreasonable behaviour.

Throughout the meal she keeps talking on her mobile phone (in Russian).

She asks me whether I have any single friends because all her friends want to meet men.

"Are they Russian?" I ask. "Of course."

I bid farewell to Oxana, muttering good riddance once she's out of earshot.

Natalia, Ludmila, Nastia, Svetlana, Oxana - were they typical? It had become clear to me that I had only scratched the surface - that there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands out there, looking for a rich British date.

But let me offer a word of warning to over-sexed Englishmen hoping for an easy catch and quick escape.

These Russians are no credulous bimbos. Nor are they one-night escorts in search of a smart restaurant, champagne and a taxi home.

They may be hot stuff, but they are smarter than you, more determined than you - and probably taller than you, too.

So think twice before messing with an unattached Russian lady. Believe me, there will be a high price to pay.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

On behalf of No Ma'am, Rob Fedders would like to reaffirm his delight in the following website:

http://www.nomarriage.com/

Monday, May 14, 2007

Another Anti-Feminist Blog!

Yes, another man of good character has said: Enough! You Shrill Harpies!

http://anotherantifeministblog.blogspot.com/

Check it out! He's got some good things to say, as do all men who have not been fooled by Delilah!

Thursday, May 10, 2007

The Privatization of Water?

Watch the 10 minute video clip from the authors of the new book, Thirst: Fighting the Corporate Theft of Our Water.

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

Then, please take the time to read this article by Tara Lohan in regard to the book,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LOH20070425&articleId=5483

(Some selected excerpts from the article):

All across the United States, municipal water systems are being bought up by multinational corporations, turning one of our last remaining public commons and our most vital resource into a commodity.

The road to privatization is being paved by our own government. The Bush administration is actively working to loosen the hold that cities and towns have over public water, enabling corporations to own the very thing we depend on for survival.

---

"We came to see that the conflicts over water are really about fundamental questions of democracy itself: Who will make the decisions that affect our future, and who will be excluded?" they wrote in the book's preface. "And if citizens no longer control their most basic resource, their water, do they really control anything at all?"

---

...privatization means transforming citizens into customers. Or, in other words, making people engaged in a democratic process into consumers looking to get the best deal.

It is also means taking our most important resource and putting it at the whims of the market.

Currently, water systems are controlled publicly in 90 percent of communities across the world and 85 percent in the United States, but that number is changing rapidly, the authors report in "Thirst." In 1990, 50 million people worldwide got their water services from private companies, but by 2002 it was 300 million and growing.

There are a number of reasons to be concerned.

Globally, corporations are promoting water privatization under the guise of efficiency, but the fact is that they are not paying the full cost of public infrastructure, environmental damage, or healthcare for those they hurt," said Ashley Schaeffer of Corporate Accountability International. "Water is a human right and not a privilege."

---

The companies first pushed water privatization in developing nations. "But in many instances, those attempts didn't pan out as planned, it being difficult to gouge governments and customers that don't have a lot of money," Public Citizen reports. "The U.S., by contrast, presented the promise of a steady, reliable revenue stream from customers willing and able to pay water bills."
---

In Felton, Calif., a small regional utility ran the water system until it was purchased in 2001 by California American Water, a subsidiary of American Water, which is a subsidiary of Thames Water in London, which has also become a subsidiary of German giant RWE. Residents in Felton saw their rates skyrocket, "Thirst" reports. A woman who runs a facility for people in need saw her water bill increase from $250 to $1,275 a month.


(Link to the entire article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LOH20070425&articleId=5483 )

Lol, AND THEN, read this piece describing "Public-Private Enterprise" and how Al Gore, the same traitor who is instrumental in causing the Global Warming Hype which threatens national sovereignties world wide, was also a major player in bringing about the whole notion of "Public-Private Partnerships."

Excerpt from an interview with United Nations expert, Joan Veon (interviewed by Geoff Metcalf for World Net Daily, August 27th, 2000):

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19651

Q: I'd like to throw a few key phases at you and get your response. "Public-private partnerships." That sounds pretty benign.

A: One of the things to remember is the United Nations never defines words. Actually, words end up becoming very hidden in their meaning. That was part of what I was trying to figure out in trying to understand what their agenda was. Public-private partnerships is a phrase I first came across in 1996. I spent six months researching it. I've written two books about it. It is extremely simple and very, very key. And let me say, it is Al Gore who has spearheaded a complete structural change of our government through public-private partnership. Interestingly enough, he's not even talking about it as to why the American people should elect him president when he has already restructured our Constitution. But a public-private partnership is exactly what it says.

Q: Break it down for us into its various components.

A: First of all, it is a partnership. It is a business arrangement. That is extremely important. The idea of any business is profit. The partners in this particular arrangement are both public and private. The public partners pertain to government: local, county, state, federal, foreign and international governments. They can all be involved, one or two or three can be involved.

Q: We have a real good example that was just pushed through and it seemed benign at the time. The agreement that Andy Cuomo blackmailed Smith and Wesson to sign was ostensibly a public-private partnership, which would have resulted in government control of a private industry.

A: The private partners are business, multinational, transnational corporations -- as well as nongovernmental organizations, these minions of a different philosophy other than the Constitution who are all funded by the foundations of the multinational, transnational corporations. So, what is a public-private partnership? It is the shifting of government responsibility and government services into a partnership with other parties -- primarily those who have deep pockets -- because your county, local and state governments are all bankrupt. What they are now saying is, "Look, we need stronger hands, deeper pockets to help us do what we used to do. We're going to do it a little differently."

Q: Once again, the golden rule: The guy with the gold makes the rules.

A: Exactly. They say, "We're going to do it in a partnership, a public-private partnership." The people of Dallas don't want their taxes raised, so they have to use what they call "innovative financing." The city sewer system has just shifted from being owned by the people of Dallas into this new entity, which is a partnership jointly owned by government and business. These people are sitting around the corporate table. The bottom line is, who has the power? Obviously, you and I know very clearly -- whoever has the deepest pockets and the most money has the power. What has just happened?

Q: A redistribution of assets?

A: Yes, sir. A major asset has been shifted out of governmental hands into a new relationship, a public-private partnership that is for business, which is, by way of philosophical bent, fascism, because fascism is the marriage between government and business. The bottom line now is profit -- and the citizens now become customers.

Why not privatize water, eh? Just steal it from us, the people, and then force us to buy it back at a profit for whichever Multinational Corporation stole it from us in the first place.

I mean, it's not like we haven't seen privatization popping elsewhere - like private mercenary forces hired by the government to go to the Middle East... or privatized "police forces" to suppress and terrorize the citizens of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Put the pieces together, people. This is some serious shit that is happening right underneath our noses.

I'd say "welcome to the New World Order," but I think the new leaders frown on Serfs believing they have a right to speak for themselves.