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?
Sunday, June 17, 2007
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.
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...
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/
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!
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.
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.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Spring Is Here!
.Yup, Spring has come to Beautiful British Columbia and it isn't the daffodils that tipped me off.
.
Nope.
.
I'm a guy, and I don't notice Spring by blooming flowers or hundreds of baby bunnies hopping around.
.
In BC, we know it's Spring when the @#%&$ Canucks get eliminated from the playoffs. It has happened every year of my life. The Canucks lose, I look out the window and go, "Hey, it's Spring out."
.
.
Grrrr!
.
Well, maybe after we get over-run by the Marxofeminist Totalitarian State, we can send the losing team up to the Arctic for the summer. Perhaps that will motivate them to win the Cup just ONCE in my lifetime!
I suppose that the DV Shelters throughout the province will be having a busy night tonight, given that men must be taking out their frustrations by beating up their wives and probably even extinguishing cigarettes into their children's arms... I mean, the Stanley Cup Playoffs are Canada's Superbowl.
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/02/lest-we-forget-super-bowl-sunday-hoax.html
Sigh. Tomorrow, after I've calmed down from my violently drunken stupor, I'll cash in all my empty beer cans and donate the money to the local anti-family propaganda shelter/divorce center. You know, to show my support for the liars in the Pink Proletariat.
The Worst Canadian of All Time
Thanks to Suzanne of Big Blue Wave http://www.bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/ for making me aware of this.
.
.
Read why I despise Trudeau in the following posts:
.
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/pierre-elliot-trudeau-cultural-marxist.html
.
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/03/multi-tasking-pink-proletariat.html
.
.The Beaver Magazine is holding an online poll for who is the Worst Canadian of all time. I know, I know, lots of you are thinking Pierrette Bouchard http://www.fathers.ca/news_stories_on_sow_report.htm - close! She's a rotten filthy Canadian alright. But she's not the worst!
.Hmmm... who could Rob be thinking of? Could it be Jean Chretien? That forked tongue dictator? Nope, I'm not thinking Chretien... but that is getting awfully warm!
.
Sheila Copps? Nope.
.
Irene Matheson? Nope.
.
Maria Minna? Nope... well... oohhhh, that's a toughie, but nope.
.
Of course, the Worst Canadian of All Time is: PIERRE ELLIOT TRUDEAU!
.
Please vote for Trudeau the Treacherous Traitor here:
.
.
From No Fault Divorce & Abortion Laws to creating the Socialist Soviet of Canuckistan, the man was a traitor in the first degree. Its too bad that he is no longer alive for it would have been nice to see him spend some time behind bars for betraying his country.
.
Although, Chretien is still alive, and we all know how he loves to step in for Trudeau...
.Read why I despise Trudeau in the following posts:
.
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/pierre-elliot-trudeau-cultural-marxist.html
.
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/03/multi-tasking-pink-proletariat.html
Monday, April 30, 2007
Peeing for Society!
.
A Ghost for German Toilet Seats http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1378083,00.html
.
Boys Told No Standing To Urinate http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52189
.
I encourage all men to stand up and pee directly into the garbage can next to the toilet, so as not to offend the ladies.
.
No Garbage Can?
.
Try the bathroom sink (If you're standing, you can make it).
.
"Consider urinals and the Army. They were never a problem, because men regard the entire earth as a urinal in waiting. The side of the road, the middle of the road, a tree, the ocean--they don't discriminate. The way feminists see oppression everywhere, men see urinals. It's a design feature." -- Fred On Everything http://www.fredoneverything.net/index.html
.
Fembots STILL don't get it. We aim for the toilet just to be polite!
A Ghost for German Toilet Seats http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1378083,00.html
.
Boys Told No Standing To Urinate http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52189
.
I encourage all men to stand up and pee directly into the garbage can next to the toilet, so as not to offend the ladies.
.
No Garbage Can?
.
Try the bathroom sink (If you're standing, you can make it).
.
"Consider urinals and the Army. They were never a problem, because men regard the entire earth as a urinal in waiting. The side of the road, the middle of the road, a tree, the ocean--they don't discriminate. The way feminists see oppression everywhere, men see urinals. It's a design feature." -- Fred On Everything http://www.fredoneverything.net/index.html
.
Fembots STILL don't get it. We aim for the toilet just to be polite!
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
End "Singles Suffrage"
Think about this: How the world would instantly change if we only granted the vote to people who were married.
It's not unthinkable. Countries like the USA are set up as a Republic with limited democracy, after all. This is why men in the USA did not receive universal suffrage until 1856 and women not until 1920. (And a little math for you ladies, 64 years is not thousands of years!). I copied and posted a speech made by Robert Welch back in 1961 about this subject, if you would like a little background on this: http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/04/republic-versus-democracy.html
The advantages to only allowing married people to vote would be enormous!
First and foremost, the nuclear family would become rock solid, which would be highly desireable as everybody knows the family is the basic fundamental unit of society. Even Marxofembots and their Homomarxist allies who attack marriage know this. This is, of course, why they ferverently attack marriage; to cause enough societal destruction to make the population malleable and enable them to socially re-engineer society according to their sick ideas. (And no matter what you think about democracy - nobody voted for this!)
"Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society." -- Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993)
"The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
Marriage would again become something desireable, rather than scorned. After all, if only married couples could vote, the government would have to cater to them in order to get elected - and they would also start to ignore the whack-jobbies in Academia who continually spew forth their treasonous subversive plot to alter society without the people knowing it.
Married couples will, of course, always vote for their own best interests. This is human nature, but this is a good way to harness human selfishness, because what married couples want is for their families to be protected, safe and secure. Even the Supreme Court of the USA has acknowledged this, twice:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0442_0584_ZS.html
(Phyllis Schlafly wrote http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/june06/06-06-21.html): Americans have always assumed that parents share decision-making authority because only parents can determine what is in the best interest of their own children. Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing in 1979 for the majority in Parham v. J.R. (Linked above), stated that ever since Blackstone (who wrote in 1765), the law "has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children."
and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZS.html
(Phyllis Schlafly wrote http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/june06/06-06-21.html): As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville (linked above) reaffirmed this principle and upheld the "presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children." The Troxel case rejected the argument that a judge could supersede a fit parent's judgment about his or her child's "best interest.
So, think about it. What is in best interests of the child?
Ultimately, the best interests of the child will lead to married people voting for issues that encourage society to be safe, strong and economically viable. They will also vote for strong marriage laws, which is good as this is the cornerstone of civilization, but they will not likely vote for destructive laws discriminating against divorced people because they will know, deep down, that but for the grace of God, they may one day be divorced themselves and no longer have a say.
Married people will not vote against single people, because they will recognize that their own children will likely be single adults for a spell before they find a suitable mate - and in the meantime, parents will want their single, adult children to succeed. So they will vote for governments which encourage this.
Married people will not vote against widows/widowers, because they will know that one day, they will likely end up in that situation themselves, and therefore will want to ensure that society treats such people fairly and with dignity.
Giving the vote only to married couples would also completely even out the sexes at the ballot box. It would be exactly 50/50 between the sexes, so both would receive equal representation.
Giving the vote only to married people would also restore much needed stature to the institution of marriage, as married people would become the "ruling class." It would be an extra incentive to be married.
Nobody would be discriminated against, because everyone has the opportunity to choose to marry and become part of the ruling class. You could even easily allow for politicians to run for office while being single, but only married people could vote for them, so they would still cater the family/the fundamental unit of a sound society. And this is good, because I will likely be single when I run for the First President of the Republic of Western Canada. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/03/solution-to-save-western-civilization.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Canada_Party
It's not unthinkable. Countries like the USA are set up as a Republic with limited democracy, after all. This is why men in the USA did not receive universal suffrage until 1856 and women not until 1920. (And a little math for you ladies, 64 years is not thousands of years!). I copied and posted a speech made by Robert Welch back in 1961 about this subject, if you would like a little background on this: http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/04/republic-versus-democracy.html
The advantages to only allowing married people to vote would be enormous!
First and foremost, the nuclear family would become rock solid, which would be highly desireable as everybody knows the family is the basic fundamental unit of society. Even Marxofembots and their Homomarxist allies who attack marriage know this. This is, of course, why they ferverently attack marriage; to cause enough societal destruction to make the population malleable and enable them to socially re-engineer society according to their sick ideas. (And no matter what you think about democracy - nobody voted for this!)
"Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society." -- Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993)
"The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
Marriage would again become something desireable, rather than scorned. After all, if only married couples could vote, the government would have to cater to them in order to get elected - and they would also start to ignore the whack-jobbies in Academia who continually spew forth their treasonous subversive plot to alter society without the people knowing it.
Married couples will, of course, always vote for their own best interests. This is human nature, but this is a good way to harness human selfishness, because what married couples want is for their families to be protected, safe and secure. Even the Supreme Court of the USA has acknowledged this, twice:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0442_0584_ZS.html
(Phyllis Schlafly wrote http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/june06/06-06-21.html): Americans have always assumed that parents share decision-making authority because only parents can determine what is in the best interest of their own children. Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing in 1979 for the majority in Parham v. J.R. (Linked above), stated that ever since Blackstone (who wrote in 1765), the law "has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children."
and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZS.html
(Phyllis Schlafly wrote http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/june06/06-06-21.html): As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville (linked above) reaffirmed this principle and upheld the "presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children." The Troxel case rejected the argument that a judge could supersede a fit parent's judgment about his or her child's "best interest.
So, think about it. What is in best interests of the child?
Ultimately, the best interests of the child will lead to married people voting for issues that encourage society to be safe, strong and economically viable. They will also vote for strong marriage laws, which is good as this is the cornerstone of civilization, but they will not likely vote for destructive laws discriminating against divorced people because they will know, deep down, that but for the grace of God, they may one day be divorced themselves and no longer have a say.
Married people will not vote against single people, because they will recognize that their own children will likely be single adults for a spell before they find a suitable mate - and in the meantime, parents will want their single, adult children to succeed. So they will vote for governments which encourage this.
Married people will not vote against widows/widowers, because they will know that one day, they will likely end up in that situation themselves, and therefore will want to ensure that society treats such people fairly and with dignity.
Giving the vote only to married couples would also completely even out the sexes at the ballot box. It would be exactly 50/50 between the sexes, so both would receive equal representation.
Giving the vote only to married people would also restore much needed stature to the institution of marriage, as married people would become the "ruling class." It would be an extra incentive to be married.
Nobody would be discriminated against, because everyone has the opportunity to choose to marry and become part of the ruling class. You could even easily allow for politicians to run for office while being single, but only married people could vote for them, so they would still cater the family/the fundamental unit of a sound society. And this is good, because I will likely be single when I run for the First President of the Republic of Western Canada. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/03/solution-to-save-western-civilization.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Canada_PartyAnd would Marxofeminists and Homomarxists complain that they are discriminated against? Most likely. But how much should we care when they openly admit that they are intent on altering society and even human beings very core nature, by subversively causing division and chaos?
"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the instution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161
"[Marriage] enforces women's dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation." -- Alison Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature
"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past." -- Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.
"The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations - for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right - these institutions are real and they must be destroyed." -- Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood: Prophecies And Discourses On Sexual Politics - The Root Cause, (Harper & Row, 1976)
They never asked the rest of us to vote on whether we wanted to be fundamentally changed according to their ideals either. They just assume they are better than the rest of us. Nope, these people don't respect democracy or rights anyway, except to manipulate them subversively in order to pass their agenda by way of Critical Theory and Hegelian-Marxist Dialectical Arguments. (Or was I sleeping when the vote was held on whether we wanted to be transformed in marriageless, family-less, "new humans?") http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-is-marxism-and-how-does-it-work.html
***************************************************************
Some quotes illustrating the Marxofeminist's "desired Utopia" which we did not vote for:
"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, MAKE UNEQUAL TREATMENT NOT UNEQUAL AT ALL." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law," Yale Law Journal, 1991
"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female
"...[W]omen and men are distinct species or races ... men are biologically inferior to women; male violence is a biological inevitability; to eliminate it, one must eliminate the species/race itself... in eliminating the biologically inferior species/race Man, the new Ubermensch Womon (prophetically foreshadowed by the lesbian separatist herself) will have the earthly dominion that is her true biological destiny. We are left to infer that the society of her creation will be good because she is good, biologically good. In the interim, incipient Super Womon will not do anything to 'encourage' women to 'collaborate' with men--no abortion clinics or battered woman sanctuaries will come from her. After all, she has to conserve her 'energy' which must not be dissipated keeping 'weaker' women alive through reform measures. The audience applauded the passages on female superiority/male inferiority enthusiastically. This doctrine seemed to be music to their ears." -- from a panel on "Lesbianism as a Personal Politic" that met in New York City, Lesbian Pride Week 1977; Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, - Take Back The Day - Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea (1977), (Dutton Publishing, 1989) p.146
"Not merely about equal rights for women ... Feminism aspires to be much more than this. It bids to be a totalizing scheme resting on a grand theory, one that is as all-inclusive as Marxism, as assured of its ability to unmask hidden meanings as Freudian psychology, and as fervent in its condemnation of apostates as evangelical fundamentalism. Feminist theory provides a doctrine of original sin: The world’s evil’s originate in male supremacy." -- Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p.183 (***Note: Patai & Koertge write from a critical perspective of where feminism has been going and use the above in the context of an example to illustrate their case. See Daphne Patai's website here: http://www.daphnepatai.com/ And read about her work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai )
*****************************************************************
Monday, April 23, 2007
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Aaghh! My Complete DISGUST with Uccelline for Encouraging a Culture of Death Amongst Babies!
http://abirdsnest.wordpress.com/2007/04/19/scotus-you-displease-me-mightily/#comments
.
"I made it, you sick fembots! I'm gonna be a MGTOW Blogger when I grow up!"
.
(Lol! I think he might be related to Fred X!)
http://fredxblog.blogspot.com/
YUCK! The work of the Devil Himself! This is INDEFENSIBLE!
.And somehow, men blogging to voice their opposition against feminism is considered by Marxofeminists to be a hate crime and contributing to a "culture of violence against women."
.
Good Grief, Charlie Brown!
.
Feminists are the lowest form of life on the planet.
.
I am sickened by this.
.
I demand that feminists be given another name than "human."
.
Feminists are vile and sick. They are NOT the same species as me.
.
I am better than them, and I know it is true because for all my shortcomings, I can recognize them as sadistic murderers while they cannot.
.
***********************************************************
.
A quote I'm shamelessly pinching from Eternal Bachelor's blog:
.
.
As a trainee doctor I had to watch a late abortion. The girl, we were told, was pregnant through no fault of her own. Possibly she didn't know that sex was all about making babies. The operation was full of euphemisms. At no point was the victim identified as a baby and only once as a foetus. Reference was made to 'stopping the heart' as if the heart didn't belong to anyone. At no point was it mentioned that the baby was being killed or was dead. In fact the dismemberment was carried out with the heart still beating because it took too long to stop. The 'contents of the uterus' were extracted - arms, legs, torso and a head like a cracked egg dripping white brains. The 'products of conception' were then checked and the procedure deemed successful. This is not what I signed up for. I want to help heal, not kill. Instead of talking about abortion it would be more honest to say 'killing unborn babies' because that is what happens.
.
***********************************************************
.
A survivor of the feminist death culture gives his opinion of Marxofeminists:
.
.
(Lol! I think he might be related to Fred X!)
http://fredxblog.blogspot.com/
Diary of a Tired Black Man
I picked up this tip for a movie to watch from the MGTOW forum, and Egghead http://egghead.adamsspace.com/ wrote a good short little paragraph about it so I figure I'll just copy & paste his comment here:
Diary of a Tired Black Man
Diary of a Tired Black Man is an independent film that is generating a lot of discussion amongst men's rights activists. I encourage everyone to see it, and spread the word about it to others.
-----------
Also, another couple of good blogs for you to check out:
Wacko World Chronicles
http://wackoworldchronicles.blogspot.com/
and
Rand's World
http://randsworld.blogspot.com/
Diary of a Tired Black Man
Diary of a Tired Black Man is an independent film that is generating a lot of discussion amongst men's rights activists. I encourage everyone to see it, and spread the word about it to others.
-----------
Also, another couple of good blogs for you to check out:
Wacko World Chronicles
http://wackoworldchronicles.blogspot.com/
and
Rand's World
http://randsworld.blogspot.com/
Monday, April 16, 2007
Why General Motors Deserves to Go Broke
The only TV Channel I watch anymore is the Business News Network, and even that is getting awfully shaky because the female anchors just love to promote fembot propaganda in between reporting stock prices and business stories. It annoys me to no end.
But what really pisses me off is that GM Cadillac thinks that displaying this anti-male advertisement OVER and OVER on the Business Channel will actually increase their sales.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nug8kK5_6go
I will NEVER drive a Cadillac because of this ad.
Here's a message from No Ma'am Blog to General Motors:
Hate Bounces, you tin crap producing assholes. GFY!
---
If this ad annoys you too, let them know here (scroll down and click "other" to get to the comments section):
https://contactus.gmcanada.com/english/email_us.aspx
Feel free to link this blogpost and send them a simple message like this:
GFY! http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-general-motors-deserves-to-go-broke.html
.
But what really pisses me off is that GM Cadillac thinks that displaying this anti-male advertisement OVER and OVER on the Business Channel will actually increase their sales.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nug8kK5_6go
I will NEVER drive a Cadillac because of this ad.
Here's a message from No Ma'am Blog to General Motors:
Hate Bounces, you tin crap producing assholes. GFY!
---
If this ad annoys you too, let them know here (scroll down and click "other" to get to the comments section):
https://contactus.gmcanada.com/english/email_us.aspx
Feel free to link this blogpost and send them a simple message like this:
GFY! http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-general-motors-deserves-to-go-broke.html
.
Some Fembot Claims and Demands Men Should Support
There are a few things that men should stop criticizing and in fact do a complete about face and start supporting instead.
1). Men should agree that fembot claims of a homemaker's value being equal to $134,121/yr is completely accurate. http://www.azstarnet.com/news/127624
Of course, this claim is ludicrous. We all know that. We are linear thinking men after all and men are accutely aware of how difficult it is earn $134,000/yr - even with all of the secret boy's clubs and the invisible yet ever present Patriarchy giving us an unfair advantage over those poor victimized women.
But, women love to trot this fabrication out and men should not only let them, but agree!
If it becomes accepted that a woman's marital contribution is equivilant to $134,000/yr, then imagine how this will look in court when Princess decides to "cash out" of the marriage.
Hmmm... hubby earns $60,000/yr and contributes this to the family well-being, but wifey contributes a value of $134,000/yr, making the combined value of both spouses $194,000/yr. Divide this by two and you get $97,000, therefore by Corrupt Divorce Court logic, wifey should be coughing up $37,000/yr to help hubby maintain a lifestyle to which he was accustomed.
Now that she is gone, he will have to hire a substitute to the tune of wifey's claimed value of $134,000/yr to maintain his previous lifestyle. Yes or No?
Men are getting angrier and angrier at the fembot corrupted divorce industry, and we are going to change it. Women should be held to this ludicrous claim they love to trot out, because it can easily come back to slap them on their infinitely expanding posteriors.
---
2). Men should encourage, and in fact rally for, the State Run Daycare which the fembots screech on and on about.
This demand shows the depth of useful idiot logic, which makes up 99% of the fembot forces.
Yes, give women State Run Daycare. This will only advantage men while disadvantaging women.
First off, during the nearly guaranted divorce proceedings, wifey turned Medusa will not be able to claim Daycare as an expense.
Not only that, but State Run Daycare will mean the end of private daycares. And does anyone notice that "Big Sister" is now starting to preach out the word that children must go to pre-school in order to give their children a "leg up." In fact, not putting your child into pre-school is downright irresponsible...
Do women really not see where this is going?
Marxofembots have stated all along that they wanted to destroy the family and motherhood.
Marriage has pretty much already been destroyed, as per fembot ideology...
"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan (ed), Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall 1969
Job well done, Marxofembots. Men have been made to be completely useless as far as families are concerned, supported by recent false propagandist fembot declarations that fathers are completely unneccessary in the family.
Gee... well, now that a massive wedge has been successfully placed between men and women, what would be the next logical step for the Marxofembots to take? Could it be the end of motherhood?
"[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
"[I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100
And how, oh how, could the fembots hope to destroy something so biologically natural as motherhood... how could they do this... come on linear thinking, you can do it...
"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179
"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Welleslry College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman
"It takes a village to raise a child." -- Hillary Clinton, future dictator & anti-christ.
Yes, ladies, you're next! You are about to find out what it is like to be the men who you've gleefully bashed for the past 30 some years.
The push will be on for women to give their children to the State right from the get-go so you can work your ass off in the fields.
Why do you think all of the Marxofembots keep on hammering on and on about the $0.76 myth? Do you think that they don't know what really causes the wage-gap? Do you think that they don't understand it is because of women's choices? Do you think that they don't understand that the only way for the wage-gap to be solved is to take away women's choices and force them to work like equal slaves right alongside the already work-enslaved males which they have convinced you to despise?
They know what they are doing. Most rotten traitors are quite aware of what they are doing.
You're next, ladies. And you know what, men aren't going to give two shits about the plight of spoiled entitlement princesses after the way they've gleefully degraded men's worth in society, time and time again!
And how are they going to bring this in?
Well, they will start to turn family courts against women. They will no longer accept so many arguments that women should be able screw men financially because of the "best interests of the child."
The courts will start to say that there is no excuse for you ladies. Children will not be your cash-cow anymore! The courtroom decree will be: "Get off your ass and get to work!"
Eventually, even married women will be forced to bring their children to the State Run Daycare Centres, much like the Public School system, and motherhood will be abolished the same way that fatherhood has been destroyed.
And you will work, work, work.
And you will earn $1.00 for every $1.00 that a man earns.
Congratulations!
You will also likely learn how to swing a sledgehammer or how to empty trash cans into the back of a garbage truck.
And men should support this! Yes, men should support the fembot demands that we need State Run Daycare because it just doesn't seem to matter how many times we explain things, very few entitlement princesses are willing to look at the big picture or to imagine how things will be 10 or 20 years from now. The only way that greedy princesses will "get it" en masse, is for men to allow feminism to have its way and in doing so, make women miserable by giving them what they have been convinced to ask for. Not to mention that it will aid men financially in family court decisions by relieving them of slaving for childcare expenses.
Nothing will finally turn all women against feminism more than being forced to live life according to the true feminist goals themselves. They certainly won't turn on feminism for men's sake, or even their children's sake. This has been vividly illustrated over the past decades. But me thinks they will turn on feminism when feminism turns on women.
Feminism is a poisonous snake. Now that it has killed off men's role in the family, it is coiling up to strike women's role in the family and since men have no more stake in the family except as a wage slave, it is in men's best interest to encourage women to become "equal" wage slaves right along side of the men.
Feminism was never about "women's rights," it was always about destroying people's close relationships and eliminating the nuclear family. They are half done, State Run Daycare will be the first strike against women, just like No Fault Divorce was the first strike against men.
1). Men should agree that fembot claims of a homemaker's value being equal to $134,121/yr is completely accurate. http://www.azstarnet.com/news/127624
Of course, this claim is ludicrous. We all know that. We are linear thinking men after all and men are accutely aware of how difficult it is earn $134,000/yr - even with all of the secret boy's clubs and the invisible yet ever present Patriarchy giving us an unfair advantage over those poor victimized women.
But, women love to trot this fabrication out and men should not only let them, but agree!
If it becomes accepted that a woman's marital contribution is equivilant to $134,000/yr, then imagine how this will look in court when Princess decides to "cash out" of the marriage.
Hmmm... hubby earns $60,000/yr and contributes this to the family well-being, but wifey contributes a value of $134,000/yr, making the combined value of both spouses $194,000/yr. Divide this by two and you get $97,000, therefore by Corrupt Divorce Court logic, wifey should be coughing up $37,000/yr to help hubby maintain a lifestyle to which he was accustomed.
Now that she is gone, he will have to hire a substitute to the tune of wifey's claimed value of $134,000/yr to maintain his previous lifestyle. Yes or No?
Men are getting angrier and angrier at the fembot corrupted divorce industry, and we are going to change it. Women should be held to this ludicrous claim they love to trot out, because it can easily come back to slap them on their infinitely expanding posteriors.
---
2). Men should encourage, and in fact rally for, the State Run Daycare which the fembots screech on and on about.
This demand shows the depth of useful idiot logic, which makes up 99% of the fembot forces.
Yes, give women State Run Daycare. This will only advantage men while disadvantaging women.
First off, during the nearly guaranted divorce proceedings, wifey turned Medusa will not be able to claim Daycare as an expense.
Not only that, but State Run Daycare will mean the end of private daycares. And does anyone notice that "Big Sister" is now starting to preach out the word that children must go to pre-school in order to give their children a "leg up." In fact, not putting your child into pre-school is downright irresponsible...
Do women really not see where this is going?
Marxofembots have stated all along that they wanted to destroy the family and motherhood.
Marriage has pretty much already been destroyed, as per fembot ideology...
"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan (ed), Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall 1969
Job well done, Marxofembots. Men have been made to be completely useless as far as families are concerned, supported by recent false propagandist fembot declarations that fathers are completely unneccessary in the family.
Gee... well, now that a massive wedge has been successfully placed between men and women, what would be the next logical step for the Marxofembots to take? Could it be the end of motherhood?
"[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
"[I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100
And how, oh how, could the fembots hope to destroy something so biologically natural as motherhood... how could they do this... come on linear thinking, you can do it...
"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179
"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Welleslry College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman
"It takes a village to raise a child." -- Hillary Clinton, future dictator & anti-christ.
Yes, ladies, you're next! You are about to find out what it is like to be the men who you've gleefully bashed for the past 30 some years.
The push will be on for women to give their children to the State right from the get-go so you can work your ass off in the fields.
Why do you think all of the Marxofembots keep on hammering on and on about the $0.76 myth? Do you think that they don't know what really causes the wage-gap? Do you think that they don't understand it is because of women's choices? Do you think that they don't understand that the only way for the wage-gap to be solved is to take away women's choices and force them to work like equal slaves right alongside the already work-enslaved males which they have convinced you to despise?
They know what they are doing. Most rotten traitors are quite aware of what they are doing.
You're next, ladies. And you know what, men aren't going to give two shits about the plight of spoiled entitlement princesses after the way they've gleefully degraded men's worth in society, time and time again!
And how are they going to bring this in?
Well, they will start to turn family courts against women. They will no longer accept so many arguments that women should be able screw men financially because of the "best interests of the child."
The courts will start to say that there is no excuse for you ladies. Children will not be your cash-cow anymore! The courtroom decree will be: "Get off your ass and get to work!"
Eventually, even married women will be forced to bring their children to the State Run Daycare Centres, much like the Public School system, and motherhood will be abolished the same way that fatherhood has been destroyed.
And you will work, work, work.
And you will earn $1.00 for every $1.00 that a man earns.
Congratulations!
You will also likely learn how to swing a sledgehammer or how to empty trash cans into the back of a garbage truck.
And men should support this! Yes, men should support the fembot demands that we need State Run Daycare because it just doesn't seem to matter how many times we explain things, very few entitlement princesses are willing to look at the big picture or to imagine how things will be 10 or 20 years from now. The only way that greedy princesses will "get it" en masse, is for men to allow feminism to have its way and in doing so, make women miserable by giving them what they have been convinced to ask for. Not to mention that it will aid men financially in family court decisions by relieving them of slaving for childcare expenses.
Nothing will finally turn all women against feminism more than being forced to live life according to the true feminist goals themselves. They certainly won't turn on feminism for men's sake, or even their children's sake. This has been vividly illustrated over the past decades. But me thinks they will turn on feminism when feminism turns on women.
Feminism is a poisonous snake. Now that it has killed off men's role in the family, it is coiling up to strike women's role in the family and since men have no more stake in the family except as a wage slave, it is in men's best interest to encourage women to become "equal" wage slaves right along side of the men.
Feminism was never about "women's rights," it was always about destroying people's close relationships and eliminating the nuclear family. They are half done, State Run Daycare will be the first strike against women, just like No Fault Divorce was the first strike against men.
Cuckoo's Nest?????
You know, it really annoys me that Uccelline believes that censoring my requests for her to answer my posts directed at her will erase her hate-inspired attacks against this, the most magnificent blog on the web - sometimes referred to as "No Ma'am."
Why doesn't Uccelline answer me?
I left another comment on her blog just last night, which was censored AGAIN! That is only about the 10th time!
Why do Marxofembots like Uccelline think they can attack me, and then when I provide absolute proof that she is a USEFUL IDIOT, she feels she can ignore my well reasoned replies?
Are you a purposefull TRAITOR, Uccelline?
Is http://abirdsnest.wordpress.com/ just another treasonous website intent on suppressing the freedoms of civilized people world-wide?
This begs a response, Cuckoo!
I'm not going anywhere, Uccelline.
I stand by what I say. Where do you stand?
Are you a Marxist?
I had never even heard of you or your silly blog until you attacked me... do you think I'm going to go away if you just keep on censoring out my solid arguments of why you are a useful idiot/now a traitor because YOU KNOW?
Here's a lesson for you straight out of nature, Uccelline:
Mess with the Bull and you'll get the horns!
Waiting for your reply.
Tap, tap.
Still waiting...
Not going to go away.
.
You pissed off the wrong anti-marxofeminist.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Build a Better Mousetrap...
Now, if these ingenious youngsters could just build a similar system for feminists and the spineless politicians who cater to them!
http://www.killsometime.com/video/video.asp?ID=870
http://www.killsometime.com/video/video.asp?ID=870
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Kumogakure School's Latest...
The Tyranny of Tolerance III
http://kumogakure.blogspot.com/2007/04/tyranny-of-tolerance-iii.html
A most excellent piece from Kumogakure School. The blog that is the latest rage in the MGTOW World!
I'd write more about it, but I've got no time... the hockey game is starting soon so I'm off to the pub!
http://kumogakure.blogspot.com/2007/04/tyranny-of-tolerance-iii.html
A most excellent piece from Kumogakure School. The blog that is the latest rage in the MGTOW World!
I'd write more about it, but I've got no time... the hockey game is starting soon so I'm off to the pub!
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Videos: Taking Liberty - How Private Property is being Abolished in America
I came across this very well put together video series which details how the Environmental Movement has been moving to abolish private property in the United States. (Need Macromedia Flash Player 6.0 or higher)
http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html
People, these things are all connected - feminism, environmentalism, multiculturalism etc. etc. We cannot be opposed to one while ignoring the others, because they work in concert with eachother. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/03/multi-tasking-pink-proletariat.html
It's the same as the Global Warming Hoax - remember, that if the United Nations can use Global Warming as a tool to establish itself as a legitimate government (as it is close to doing), then it will also be slamming the CEDAW, which is basically International VAWA on steroids, down the throats of every person on the planet - as well as its "rights of the child" rider, which is nothing more than a plot to attack parental authority and further demolish the family.
Screw the U.N.!
Screw Environmentalist Shit Heads!
Screw Fembots!
And Screw the U.N. again!
How about the UN Headquarters gets relocated to No Ma'am's proposed Antartican Penal Colony where they can have all the totalitarian control they want over Environmentalists, Fembots and any other Politically Corrected Communist S.O.B.'s that are trying to undermine our nations.
Rotten Traitors!
Grrr.
.jpg)
http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html
People, these things are all connected - feminism, environmentalism, multiculturalism etc. etc. We cannot be opposed to one while ignoring the others, because they work in concert with eachother. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/03/multi-tasking-pink-proletariat.html
It's the same as the Global Warming Hoax - remember, that if the United Nations can use Global Warming as a tool to establish itself as a legitimate government (as it is close to doing), then it will also be slamming the CEDAW, which is basically International VAWA on steroids, down the throats of every person on the planet - as well as its "rights of the child" rider, which is nothing more than a plot to attack parental authority and further demolish the family.
Screw the U.N.!
Screw Environmentalist Shit Heads!
Screw Fembots!
And Screw the U.N. again!
How about the UN Headquarters gets relocated to No Ma'am's proposed Antartican Penal Colony where they can have all the totalitarian control they want over Environmentalists, Fembots and any other Politically Corrected Communist S.O.B.'s that are trying to undermine our nations.
Rotten Traitors!
Grrr.
**************************************************************
.
Article from Feb 3, 2007
.
Support Shown For New Global Environment Agency
.
.
.
Updated Sat. Feb. 3 2007 11:31 PM ET
.
Associated Press
Associated Press
.
PARIS -- Fear of runaway global warming pushed 46 countries to line up Saturday behind France's bid for a new environmental body that could single out - and perhaps police - nations that abuse the Earth.
PARIS -- Fear of runaway global warming pushed 46 countries to line up Saturday behind France's bid for a new environmental body that could single out - and perhaps police - nations that abuse the Earth.
.
"It is our responsibility. The future of humanity demands it," President Jacques Chirac said in an appeal to put the environment at the top of the world's agenda.
"It is our responsibility. The future of humanity demands it," President Jacques Chirac said in an appeal to put the environment at the top of the world's agenda.
.
He spoke at a conference a day after the release in Paris of a grim landmark report from the world's leading climate scientists and government officials that said global warming is so severe that it will "continue for centuries" and that humans are to blame.
He spoke at a conference a day after the release in Paris of a grim landmark report from the world's leading climate scientists and government officials that said global warming is so severe that it will "continue for centuries" and that humans are to blame.
.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report sparked calls for fast, planet-wide action. But not everyone at Chirac's conference welcomed the idea of a body that would define and possibly enforce environmental rules.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report sparked calls for fast, planet-wide action. But not everyone at Chirac's conference welcomed the idea of a body that would define and possibly enforce environmental rules.
.
Key world polluters - including the United States, China, India and Russia - steered clear, while Europeans embraced it. A total of 46 countries agreed to pursue plans for the new organization, and to hold their first meeting in Morocco this spring.
Key world polluters - including the United States, China, India and Russia - steered clear, while Europeans embraced it. A total of 46 countries agreed to pursue plans for the new organization, and to hold their first meeting in Morocco this spring.
.
Without naming the United States directly, Chirac expressed frustration that "some large countries, large rich countries, still must be convinced." They are "refusing to accept the consequences of their acts," he said.
Without naming the United States directly, Chirac expressed frustration that "some large countries, large rich countries, still must be convinced." They are "refusing to accept the consequences of their acts," he said.
.
Chirac, 74, is seeking to leave his mark on international affairs before he leaves office, likely in May. He has long expressed concern about environmental affairs, though his environmental record over 12 years as France's president is spotty.
Chirac, 74, is seeking to leave his mark on international affairs before he leaves office, likely in May. He has long expressed concern about environmental affairs, though his environmental record over 12 years as France's president is spotty.
.
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, whose documentary on the perils of global warming has garnered worldwide attention, cheered Chirac's efforts.
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, whose documentary on the perils of global warming has garnered worldwide attention, cheered Chirac's efforts.
.
"We are at a tipping point," Gore said in recorded remarks shown at the conference. Friday's report was "yet another warning about the dangers we face. We must act, and act swiftly. ... Such action requires international co-operation. "
"We are at a tipping point," Gore said in recorded remarks shown at the conference. Friday's report was "yet another warning about the dangers we face. We must act, and act swiftly. ... Such action requires international co-operation. "
.
Many questions remain about the proposed environment body, including whether it would have the power to enforce global climate accords.
Many questions remain about the proposed environment body, including whether it would have the power to enforce global climate accords.
.
Chirac's appeal says only that the body should "evaluate ecological damage" and "support the implementation of environmental decisions."
Chirac's appeal says only that the body should "evaluate ecological damage" and "support the implementation of environmental decisions."
.
Many countries have failed to meet targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions laid out in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The United States never ratified the pact.
Many countries have failed to meet targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions laid out in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The United States never ratified the pact.
.
In an interview published earlier this week, Chirac warned that the United States could face a carbon tax on its exports if it does not sign global climate accords.
In an interview published earlier this week, Chirac warned that the United States could face a carbon tax on its exports if it does not sign global climate accords.
.
"We have 700 multilateral environmental agreements, and none of them seem to work. Environmental institutions are extremely weak," said Cristian Maquieira, a Chilean government environment official.
"We have 700 multilateral environmental agreements, and none of them seem to work. Environmental institutions are extremely weak," said Cristian Maquieira, a Chilean government environment official.
.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Denisov said that creating a new environment organization would require too much time and money. Instead, he urged reforming the existing U.N. Environment Program AND EXPANDING ITS POWERS.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Denisov said that creating a new environment organization would require too much time and money. Instead, he urged reforming the existing U.N. Environment Program AND EXPANDING ITS POWERS.
.
He praised Chirac's efforts, however, as a "strong chess move" in the campaign to draw attention to the environment.
He praised Chirac's efforts, however, as a "strong chess move" in the campaign to draw attention to the environment.
.
Several participants called for taxing actions that hurt the environment, or labelling products according to how ecologically clean they are.
Several participants called for taxing actions that hurt the environment, or labelling products according to how ecologically clean they are.
.
U.S. economist Jeremy Rifkin urged governments, businesses and activists to work together to create a "post-carbon" era.
U.S. economist Jeremy Rifkin urged governments, businesses and activists to work together to create a "post-carbon" era.
.
"Climate change is going to be more responsible for bringing about a borderless world than free trade," Rifkin said.
"Climate change is going to be more responsible for bringing about a borderless world than free trade," Rifkin said.
.
The CEO of French energy and water giant Suez, Gerard Mestrallet, said, "businesses share the conviction that there is an urgent need to act."
The CEO of French energy and water giant Suez, Gerard Mestrallet, said, "businesses share the conviction that there is an urgent need to act."
.
Some 200 scientists, government officials, industry officials and environmental activists from more than 60 countries joined the conference.
Some 200 scientists, government officials, industry officials and environmental activists from more than 60 countries joined the conference.
.
------------
One has to question why our governments are not enlisting special advisory scientific task forces to examine the U.N.'s data and report it's validity to our Prime Ministers and Presidents. Given that no country on earth has clauses in its constitution which allow handing national sovereignty & policing powers to governing bodies outside of said nation. Because that would be TREASON!
.
Yet, all of our politicians are merrily hopping on the Global Warming Band Wagon and singing the environmental song, welcoming the upcoming "blessing" of Globalization/Communism. (Yes, I'm talking about assholes like you, Stephane Dion & your treasonous Liberal Party! All of you!)
.
Politicians must be pretty confident that this scam will bring about a new form of government, because not all countries are as kind as Canada, where traitors are only sentenced to life in prison. I wonder what the penalty could be for Al Gore if it could be proven that he knowingly played up to this hype with the intention of bringing in a government that supercedes US Authority?
.
I view the UN's Global Warming hysteria to be the BIGGEST attack on Western Civilization EVER! Just because it didn't come as an armed force does not mean it was not an attack! The long term impact of the actions our governments take today could haunt us for eternity.
.
Read about the massive taxes the UN had previously proposed in regard to Carbon Tax: http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/in_our_opinion/global_taxes.htm and read this: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21252 They want TRILLIONS of dollars! That has to be the most MASSIVE conflict of interest in the history of the world!
.
Don't forget that the UN has also wanted their own "armed police force" for a long time http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/reform/standby.htm and http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/reform/mcgovern.htm
.
Read about the U.N.'s demands of scientists to fudge the numbers to make their reports look even more scary, despite qualified scientists saying different: http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1457
.
All they have to do is get their foot in the door and establish themselves as a true governing power. And if you think that in 10 or 20 years they will be smaller, perhaps you should examine the history of governments around the world!
.
And if the Global Warming hype succeeds in establishing the UN as the "top level government" in the world... well, we might as well quit blogging about being opposed to feminism too!
.
.
.
.
Everything we are blogging about won't mean jack shit if the power-crazed UN, our insane Governments and the foul Media get away with establishing the UN as a governing power over us.
.
Buy an axe, pack your gear, and head into the bush.
.
****************************************************************
.
"Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of 'emergency'. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And 'emergency' became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains." -- Herbert Hoover
.
"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order." -- Mikhail Gorbachev, quoted in "A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind", by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5
Saturday, April 07, 2007
A Must Add to Your Links!
Damn, this guy seems familiar - if it wasn't for the forget machine!
.
.
.
.Please add to your link list and browser! I seem to remember this guy came from somewhere!
.
.
KUMOGAKURE SCHOOL
.
.
He may seem familiar to some - and to some he may not - that he should be in your blogroll, however, is not a question, but a must!
. ********************************************************************* 
.
.
. Do your part to fight Global Warming: Turn off your TV!
.
You might watch a fine internet video instead:
.
The Real Face of The European Union (EU):
.
.
Spot the Marxism...
.
What do you think the United Nations will behave like after they establish themselves as a legitimate government with the Man Made Global Warming Hoax?
.
**************************************************************
.
OUT, DAMN BOX! OUT!
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html#guilt
Guilt induction and self-criticism (confession) sessions formed the core of the Red Chinese brainwashing program, and they are still used by many cults. Edward Hunter wrote a beautiful book about the Red Chinese brainwashing that was done to the American, British, and other United Nations prisoners of war in North Korea during the Korean War. He explained the mechanics of "brainwashing" this way:
The Reds had found that the easiest way to subdue any group of people was to give its members a guilt complex and then to lead them on from self-denunciation to self-betrayal. All that was required to put this across was a sufficiently heartless exploitation of the essential goodness in people, so that they would seek self-sacrifice to compensate for their feelings of guilt. The self-sacrifice obviously made available to them in this inside-out environment is some form of treason. -- Edward Hunter, Brainwashing, From Pavlov to Powers, p.169
So, first, the Communist guards would do something like make the prisoners feel guilty for being part of "a rich racist society where they never cared about the fate of the poor Negroes", and then the prisoners had to confess that in self-criticism sessions, and then the only way to atone for such sins was to love and praise the wonderful Chinese Communist society where everyone was equal (but some people were more equal than others).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of brainwashing, I stumbled across this blog which is directly about the brainwashing that Mary Kay does to its sales reps. Read about reports of women being encouraged to lie to their husbands, how to manipulate your husband into going further into debt by bitching about him being unsupportive - and even how to use Mary Kay to justify and hide affairs!
http://www.pinktruth.com/category/relationships/
“Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption.” -- Hillary Clinton
Lol! Exactly what research is that Hillary? I doubt such research was ever done - and if it was, it was likely funded by Mary Kay!
“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not.” -- Hillary Clinton
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
One of the Best Posts I Have Ever Read
This post keeps ringing through my mind ever since I read it a few months ago at Mirror of the Soul, a truly Magnificent Blog . It is short, sweet, to the point and completely honest.
And given the bullshit attacks on Fred X from the ***Crickets Chirping Boomer MRM*** http://fredxblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/message-to-critic.html
All I can say is that what the following post says resounds even louder and louder in my own mind when I see activity like the afore mentioned.
The Question:
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, is the men's movement going anywhere, if anywhere at all?
.
The Mirror:
I will spare you the about 200 comments on this topic that I read on a supposedly men's site that will remain nameless, where a bunch of baby boomers were going back and forth debating if the men's movement was dead, alive, or on life support.
The baby boomers have utterly failed as a generation in many ways, and it is up to you men in generation X and Y to bulldoze what is left of their mess and rebuild from the ground up. That is what Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) is all about, that is the Men's Movement. The question is not whether MGTOW's should join the baby boomers' men's movement, but whether the baby boomers will join the MGTOW's and get with the program.
The MGTOW's are attacking feminism on all fronts, primarily their modus operandi is preventative - meaning pulling men out of situations (i.e., marriage) before they even get into them. However, they also expose the wide and encompassing anti-male laws and misandric culture so prevalent in the Anglosphere.The MGTOW's have drive, determination, goals, objectives, etc. - and even their own logo.
That sounds like a movement to me - alive and well.
---
Well said, Mirror!
ONLY IMITATE THOSE WHO ARE AS SUCCESSFUL AS YOU WANT TO BE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
