Friday, November 02, 2007

TBA's Request: Rob's Farewell Post

tba said...
A final request before you leave please post your comment on the front page of this blog. That long comment you just posted was classic and it explains the deep problem well and why you are leaving. It is easily your greatest and most important writing on this blog and it needs to be your final, farewell blog post.The manginas who come on this blog need to read that post. I've already saved a copy of myself.


Here it is:

Hello everyone, Thanks for all of your kind words. Wow! I didn’t know that I was actually having an impact on anyone.

The thing is, what I can’t get passed, is that this problem is so incredibly deep and complex that I just don’t know where to begin. This is NOT a problem that has only cropped up in the past few decades, but rather a problem that has snuck upon us over the past few CENTURIES!

Like I said, I just don’t know where to begin. And it is not really fair of me to expect people to “get it,” because I did not “get it” myself until I did a massive amount of reading on a variety of subjects that are not directly affiliated with the MRM. I have had an abnormal amount of free time on my hands over the past few years because of health problems. These problems had me really upset and depressed, and I decided to pull myself out of that funk by getting my brain busy, rather than dwelling on my problems. So, I basically spend anywhere from 4 to 12+ hours a day reading – and I don’t read the constant drivel of news articles that display “misandry,” which the MRM seems to be solely focused on.

Yes, Debra LaFave did indeed commit statutory rape, and yes other women are doing this as well, and another woman will do it again tomorrow, and so on. We should all know that by now. The question should be, rather, WHY is this happening? (And I am not just talking about this certain type of crime – but ALL of the problems that feminism has brought to us)

In order to understand this problem, one really has to turn off people like Warren Farrell and go deep – waaayyyy deep. This is a problem that is rooted in Anthropology, Sexology, Political Science, History, (honest) Sociology and (honest) Psychology. Only 1% of the people are going to “get it” and even among that 1%, many of those will probably not like what they find.

I am quite sure that it is for this reason that during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 that the US Founding Fathers pretty much locked themselves up - to keep themselves from talking to, and being influenced by, the masses. Basically, I think, they recognized how incredibly stupid the masses are, and that it is a necessity for wiser men to decide things for them, much in the same way that a father decides what is best for his child without always bothering to explain exactly “why” to the child. I think that during the Constitutional Convention, there was likely much talk about how incredibly stupid “we the people” really are, and this is why they came up with so many checks and balances – to protect us not only from intrusive government, but also from our own natural stupidity. There was probably no way that they could have rationalized exactly WHY they made things the way they were, without forcing every citizen to sit down for a few years and educate themselves on a variety of subjects first. All of the Founding Fathers seem to have been amongst the most brilliant and well read men that existed at the time.

What may surprise many of you, is that I actually think that many of the feminist thinkers & authors were 100% correct in their analysis. They really did peg it correctly when they talk about the human condition. I doubt they actually thought it up themselves, but likely got it from wise men that came before them. The difference being, though, that feminists are Marxists, and the goal of both is to DESTROY society and build “Heaven on Earth.” They did, in fact, target things that wise men before them had already identified about the human condition, and they use those things to destroy society.

Men have indeed “oppressed women.” Especially sexually. Misogyny did indeed exist throughout patriarchal history – and for damn good reasons too! In order for civilization to advance, women HAD TO BE OPPRESSED! This created the vehicle that pushed society forward in much the same way that it was sheer genius to “oppress” horses for the good of mankind.

I tend to view civilization/society as if it were the body of a sailboat. The sail represents women, and the keel & rudder represent men. The sail is "oppressed" by the wind, and the keel is "oppressed" by the water. Society has been busy cutting the ropes which oppress the sail to the mast, without realizing that without the sail's oppression, the keel's oppression fails to work properly. Sure, you may float about for a while, you may even drift in the right direction sometimes. But the keel is useless, and you can no longer tack into the wind. The rudder doesn't work either. Eventually, you will drift towards the rocks, and everyone will start screaming to the captain to use the rudder and steer out of harm's way, and he will scream back to "hoist the sails" but everyone looks at him like he's smoking dope and says, "but that's oppressive, we can't do that!"

These problems we are having did not arise from the 1960’s style of feminism. It did indeed come from the 60’s, but dial that a century back to the 1860’s and you will likely begin to find the roots of the problem. In the 1860’s, it became normalized for women to gain custody of children, and the divorce rate has steadily increased ever since that date up until today. There's another thing that one can thank the noble suffragettes for. The whole point of marriage and women’s sexual fidelity was that women “sold” themselves, along with their reproductive abilities, to men in a legally binding economic contract called marriage. Women sold men a family that was assuredly his own, and men paid for it by providing and protecting. This is why, throughout history, women were condemned so harshly for adultery, while men were not. There were no DNA tests back then, and men needed to know that their children were actually theirs - and would remain permanently so. Women do indeed have just as strong of a sex drive as men, as is evidenced by anthropological studies of societies that do not have marriage. The women in those societies are hump-monkeys just like men, and none of those societies have ever become advanced. Women's sexual oppression = men's work oppression = advanced civilization.

All things between men and women seem to "equalize," just as sex drives. Men have large, but less frequent "spikes" while women have smaller, but more frequent "rythyms." It works this way for sin, it works this way for sex, it works this way for intelligence, it even works this way with happiness - as men have a major mid-life crisis, while women have a series of smaller but more frequent "mini" mid-life crisises.

Marx & Engels themselves identified correctly that women were the proper vehicle to bring about the ideas which they wanted - those which would destroy civilization. Women control our social values. Feminism was born of the Socialist ideals of the Transcendentalist Movement of the early 1800’s, which itself was born of Rousseau and the French Revolution. (***Note the correction posted at the end of this article***). This movement became Marxism in 1848, the same year that Feminism officially became organized. Ever since, it has been a movement of giving women more and more power, and using women’s nature to lead society to its current state of near self destruction. This is what transferring “ownership” of children to women was about, and what giving women the vote was about. The more you empower women, the easier it is to bring forth the conditions which will destroy civilization.

This is not to say that it is all “women’s” fault. Indeed, women’s power is born of men’s natural stupidity in regard to their behaviour around women.

This is easy to see when one looks back throughout the history of mankind.

Entitlement princesses are not new, and neither are manginas. In fact, both were talked about repeatedly throughout history. Aristotle talked of the Spartan Women and how, when they gained economic power, society fell apart. Genesis tells us that God put “enmity” between the man and the woman. Sodom & Gomorrah worshipped androgyny/homosexuality, and they were wiped from the face of the earth – much like how our Christian based civilization has begun to worship androgyny and is also being wiped from the face of the earth – by our ever decreasing birthrates. We soon will not exist.

Here is a piece that was written 700 years ago, but could have been written just as easily by any MRA of today:

“This female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din doesn’t stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell. A nagging wife couldn’t care less whether her words are wise or foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She simply pursues her own ends; there’s not a grain of sense in what she says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She doesn’t want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or clear sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented. Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of hell, with its chains, fire, and iron.”

These problems we are struggling against ARE NOT NEW, but rather are very, very old and are an integral part of the human condition.

The last king of Persia, Darius III, who at the time ruled the greatest empire the world had ever seen, lamented that “my men have become women and my women have become men,” as he was getting his ass handed to him by Alexander the Great.

The Greeks, recognizing that women had caused the downfall of other civilizations, made a very specifically misogynist state with the intention of controlling them, so that their civilization would flourish – which it did.

It was said that during the height of the Roman Empire, that women married intending to divorce, and divorced intending to remarry. The state tried to force men to marry women to stave off declining birthrates, but the men back then decided to go their own way, and wouldn't touch the women. The decline in birthrates caused a shortage in labour, so they imported foreigners (the Vandals, I believe - though don't quote me on that), who did not consider themselves part of Rome and were unwilling to defend it. Kinda sounds like multi-culturalism, eh?

When the Ottoman Empire was over-run, it had negative birthrates.

Delilah deceived Sampson and in doing so, destroyed the strongest man on earth.

Eve tempted Adam, and like any pussy mangina of today, Adam said, “yes, ma’am!”

Reading the works of Belfort Bax, and others who wrote during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, one can hardly distinguish the timeframe, as it could have just as easily been written by Angry Harry only yesterday!

Esther Villar states that “women’s lib” in the 60’s had pretty much accomplished all of its legitimate goals within ONE YEAR! Why has the MRM not been able to accomplish even a peep in 25 years? Because of the human condition – we are dealing with things that we should have never been dealing with in the first place.

Aristotle says that society will remain stable only if all men are equal before the law. Well, because of manginahood, society has never been able to make women equal to men before the law. Men always excused them, and women have never demanded that other women be punished as harshly as men constantly demand other men be punished. I believe the only way that society was able to control women within society was to remove their "legal rights" and place them under the direct authority of one man, her husband, who is responsible for her actions - and thusly her discipline. Then society controls the man through the law - something which men, because of their linear thinking & abstract thought, do adhere to (while women do not). In this way, through marriage, society was able to somewhat make both sexes "equal" before the law.

At the zenith of civilizations, men and women seem to repel from eachother and then conditions set in which cause society to collapse. Maybe we are like lemmings, the only difference being that we are on a longer cycle. Who knows?

These problems are not “new.” They are very, very old. They are part of the human condition. Women are natural manipulators and dissimulators, and men naturally come to “heel” for them. It is not women’s fault that they are like this, it is just their naturalness within the human condition. It is not “wrong” for rattlesnakes to have venomous fangs either.

The genius of civilization has been recognizing that women are manipulative and that men are pussy manginas when around them – and thusly, 1% of people who were smart enough to see this accurately, devised a system in which women’s powers were severely limited so as to cause a civilization to come about. I believe that this is why we have religion in the first place. Religions are in fact, gigantic “constitutions” with completely immoveable goalposts. They prevent mankind from destroying himself and civilization by preventing mankind from using his greatest tool, the ability to reason, as a weapon against himself. Some things are just beyond what we should rationalize about, and this is what patriarchal religions have given to the world – an immoveable law that restricts us from asking questions which would destroy us.

The MRM will always be filled with pussy manginas. It has been ever since the start. It has also been entirely ineffective because men cannot bring themselves to show real anger and hostility toward women, even when women are showing hostility to men. The MRM will always be beaten down into the ground by men themselves. We are dealing with things that are integral to human nature and which we should not have been dealing with in the first place. The MRM has always been running around saying “not ALL women,” yet hardly even noticing that not a single woman around them says the same thing when laws get passed against ALL men because of a one in 15,000,000 nutball like Marc Lepine. (Yes, every year since 1989, Marc Lepine has been used as an excuse to remove the rights and powers of ALL Canadian men.) When will men wake up and tell these people to FUCK OFF? Never, that’s when! Men cannot hardly bring themselves to whisper even a bit of protest in the face of women. The MRM is rife with manginas trying to make sure that no-one is misogynistic, yet, our very civilization is based on patriarchal misogyny, which feminists and Marxists have correctly identified.

Is it fair to women that it is this way? Certainly it is not.

It is not fair to ask men to die for a social construct called a “nation” in times of war either, is it?

It is not fair that horses have been oppressed by mankind either – but it is a damn good thing that they were!

The thing is, what the MRM is doing is actually hurting men. This civilization has to be reconstructed, and it likely will not happen until things get REALLY bad. A major economic depression or a major war will smarten women and manginas up REAL FAST! It is pretty hard to be an entitlement princess when you have to beg a man for food which he has hunted for or grown himself, or to get warmth in the log cabin which HE has built. Women will likely be more than happy to scrub floors and give unlimited blowjobs to any such man if civilization were to collapse. Women’s “power” only seems to come about when a civilization gets powerful and wealthy enough to afford it to women. Have a look at previous civilizations. It seems almost uncanny that at their zenith, men and women have repelled from eachother (because women gained too much power over men), and then the civilization soon collapsed, and men and women rejoined forces out of necessity FOR WOMEN – a man can survive with a garbage bag and a pocket knife. Lol! Even when women have caused the destruction of great civilizations in the past, men were still manginas enough to take them back. It’s a good thing too, I suppose, or none of us would be here. It is human nature for women to manipulate, and for men to be pussies and manginas in regard to women.

But… what we have to keep in mind is the thing called the “generation gap.”

All we are doing is slowing this beast down – we will not be able to stop it, Marxism has NEVER been defeated. And the longer it takes for this civilization to collapse under the weight of women’s big fat asses, and from the hot air from their mangina lackey boys, the less we will remember about the issues of the previous generations.

For example, none of us really questions women’s “right” to vote, or even men’s “right” to vote. (Universal Suffrage = a Marxist Ideal used to bring about Socialism) These issues were hotly fought over in the 1800’s & early 1900’s. There was much talk back then about the changing of a Republic into a full blown Democracy – and rightly so, when one starts reading the reasons WHY a Republic is superior, and WHY Democracies have always imploded. But, because of the passage of time, we don’t even hardly question these ideologies anymore. In fact, the Republic which was NOT founded as a Democracy, is now running around killing people all around the world in the name of making the world “safe” for Democracy. That should show the disconnect in our thinking right there!

Marxists know all about the passage of generations, and use it to their own advantage. We are now entering into the passage of generations that will no longer question “divorce.” 50 years from now, divorce will be moot point discussion, as the reasons for strong marriages will be as forgotten as the reasons for having a Republic instead of a Democracy.

I say that all American MRA’s should vote for Hitlery Clinton. That stunned cow will likely be men’s greatest ally in the end. Let’s kill this cancer called feminism in our society by, well, killing society. That’ll work, won’t it?

But, let’s not do it slowly, like a little baby, crying as the bandaid gets pulled off slowly. Let’s rip the thing right off!

Let’s not “slow it down” but rather speed it up! Let’s make sure that it happens in only one generation, so that there will be men around who understand the ideals we should strive for when we have to rebuild from the ashes.

What most of the MRM seems to fail to realize is that because of the nature of men and women, you cannot just fix some things and not other things.

Think about a ball and a hill.

The ball will only remain stationary at either the top or the bottom of the hill. It will NEVER stay in place half way up the hill, but will always roll back down again. The MRM seems to be led by the belief that we just have to pick up the ball and run it halfway up the hill, put it down, and all will be fine again. Well, that just ain’t gonna work! Women will always manipulate males into giving up more power again – it is their nature! We need the ball to be completely stationary at the TOP of the hill for this problem to be fixed. The rise and fall of previous civilizations should show this to us accurately.

The MRM is only slowing down the inevitable, because it is apparent that the MRM cannot rid itself of manginahood. It is full of little thinking but much talking idiots who buy into the Marxist-Humanist RELIGIOUS belief that it is possible for humans to be so powerful to make the Lion lie peacefully with Lamb. Religions specifically tell us NOT to do this – and for good reason! Religions tell us that we have to accept that good and evil are all around us, we must fight against evil and uphold goodness, but that we, as humans, are not powerful enough to defeat evil. Only God can defeat evil and make the Lion peaceful to the Lamb. We should not try. Both the Feminists and the MRM seem to be completely sold on the notion that mankind is in fact more powerful than God or Nature. Marxism is the religious belief that man is God and has the ability to create “Heaven on Earth.” It sells the idea that it can eliminate evil. The MRM seems quite full of this belief as well. Well, I’m saying that it can’t. But, this is why manginas are everywhere in the MRM and why they are telling all of the men who actually think, that they shouldn’t think like that. It is human nature to do so – but these are things we should NOT be rationalizing about, as it will bring about our destruction.

What was the moral of the story about Icarus flying too close to the sun? Wasn’t it about mankind defeating himself when he tries to overpower nature? Yup, I think it was.

Keep in mind that Cultural Marxism is the melding of Freud into Marxism. It full well knows that women are manipulative and men are manginas. What does everyone think the study of sex would indicate otherwise? Marxism also full well knows that giving women power has caused other civilizations to crumble and fall. The, um, entire goal of Marxism is to destroy civilization, so of course they would want to do what has brought destruction to the Persians, Greeks & Romans.

Well, as you can see, I don’t know where to start, nor where to finish. I also know that these are entirely complex issues and that I will have little ability to relay this accurately to the MRM, because many in the MRM are really not too concerned with anything except their own ideological involvement within the MRM – much like why Father’s Right’s Activists so often distance themselves from the MRM. They are only concerned with their own part of the puzzle, certainly not about what the whole picture looks like.

These issues are far too complex to just “explain” to people. In order to effectively fight this madness, there would definitely need to be “top down manipulation” because, in general, people are just too stupid, or too apathetic. We are in this rotten situation because of Top Down Manipulations – there is no doubt about that – and there is no doubt that the same will be needed to stop the madness. Either that, or one can just get a bag of popcorn, step aside much like a Judo move, and fight by not resisting.

Wait to see how much women won’t like what Hitlery brings to them when she institutes this Kiddy Lib madness…

When she was First Lady, she did much work to bring this crap into the UN, as President, she will bring it right to women’s front door step.

But watch, after 40 years of male bashing, watch how all of the manginas will run to defend the women when they realize how badly they’ve screwed up.

Men are already defeated, and have been for decades, if not centuries.

Now the Howitzer is turning and getting ready to fire on the women.

Why should I care? You gets whats you sow, ladies. I’m no mangina, and I won’t be coming to their aid.

Far more important for us to be ready to fight viciously for the proper ideals after this cancer has been killed, AFTER the destruction of the ill host, which has become our civilization.

It might possibly be that the worst thing we can do is slow down the inevitable, because doing so will only eliminate, via time, the men that will be needed to inject the proper, patriarchally misogynist ideals that will be needed to form a new type of civilization.

Well, that said, I am also going to take a break from this game and regain some sanity in my life – take time to smell the roses, more or less.

I have no wife. I have no children. I have no alimony or child support payments. I have zero debt. I have a nice tidy sum of cash saved up due to investing in stocks & commodities over the past few years. I own gold in case the economy goes for a shitter. I realize that I don’t have to work my ass off in order to survive, as I have managed to survive quite nicely over the past few years without being a work-slave. I have a crappy old car to drive around in, and I still live in one of the most beautiful areas of the world. I have little direct stake in this whole game, except for my annoyance at the situation. It is quite possible for me to live a nice life despite the madness which surrounds me. My health problems are going away and I expect (or demand) that I am on the other side of it by spring, and I am finding a desire to move on with my life.

So I am going to disappear. I might come back some day, as these issues seem to be a continual annoyance once one realizes what they are. Lol! They have been annoying me since before I wrote my first anti-feminist article, as an English Lit term paper for college back in 1992, criticizing the anti-male bias found in the university’s student handbook in regard to violence and rape. But if I come back, I would likely kill off the fictitious Rob Fedders, and maybe try to go a bit more main-stream with my ideas – lol, as un-mainstream as they are.

But I will always be a man who chooses to go his own way.

Cheers guys, thanks for all the nice comments.



Anything that you find on this blog that was written specifically by me, any man may pinch, quote, steal, plagiarize or do whatever the hell else they wish to do with it. You need not ask permission, nor even link if you choose not to. Anything that I have specifically written of my own accord, I hereby transfer ownership to men in general. I get a kick out of seeing my pieces posted around the web, and I need no credit for such things, as Rob Fedders does not even really exist.

Keep your stick on the ice!


***Correction to this article by "Confused" at Nice-Guy’s Forum***

Rob Fedders wrote: "Feminism was born of the Socialist ideals of the Transcendentalist Movement of the early 1800’s, which itself was born of Rousseau and the French Revolution."

Only correction I would like to add is that Transdentalism movement was inspired by adopting some of the vedantic thinking from Hindu scriptures.

The spiritual hunger of the age that also gave rise to a new evangelical Christianity gave rise, in the educated centers in New England and around Boston, to an intuitive, experiential, passionate, more-than-just-rational perspective. God gave humankind the gift of intuition, the gift of insight, the gift of inspiration. Why waste such a gift?

Added to all this, the scriptures of non-Western cultures were discovered in the West, translated, and published so that they were more widely available. The Harvard-educated Emerson and others began to read Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, and examine their own religious assumptions against these scriptures. In their perspective, a loving God would not have led so much of humanity astray; there must be truth in these scriptures, too. Truth, if it agreed with an individual's intuition of truth, must be indeed truth.

And so Transcendentalism was born. In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, "We will walk on our own feet; we will work with our own hands; we will speak our own minds...A nation of men will for the first time exist, because each believes himself inspired by the Divine Soul which also inspires all men."

Yes, men, but women too.


Thanks, Confused -- RF

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

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

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

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

Friday, October 12, 2007

Marriage Strike Discussion

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


Yup, men are wising up!

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

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

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

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

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

History of Marriage Licenses in America

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

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

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

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

What Should We Do?

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

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

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

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

The Research & Statistics Commission

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, September 27, 2007

A Few Tidbits To Peruse

The Communist Plan for American Women, by Alan Stang

Just Doing His Job - (Video: 9min) - A KGB trained subverter tells the overall pattern of Soviet style take-over of free societies.

The Case for Father Custody - by Daniel Amneus

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

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

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

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

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

The Garbage Generation by Daniel Amneus

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

Life sucks, get a helmet!

Friday, August 31, 2007

Friday, August 24, 2007

Why Rob does not blog so much anymore...

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

There is a reason for this.

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

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

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

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

Do I care about fathers, mothers & children?


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


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

Why should we think any differently?

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


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

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

Thursday, August 02, 2007

Kady O'Malley Defends Pierre Elliot Trudeau

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pierre Elliot Trudeau: Cultural Marxist Wrapped in a Canadian Flag


The Multi-Tasking Pink Proletariat

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

A Great Historical Outline of Cultural Marxism

Who Stole Our Culture? - by William S. Lind

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

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

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

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

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

Early Marxist Theory

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

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

A New Strategy

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

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

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

The Frankfurt School

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

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

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

Advances in Cultural Marxism

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

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

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

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

New Developments

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

Critical Theory

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

Studies in Prejudice

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


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

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

Media and Entertainment

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

The Growth of Marxism in the United States

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

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

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

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

A Counter-Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Banned Trojan Condom Ad

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

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

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

(and further in the article):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are doing a double whammie on themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, June 18, 2007

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

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

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

They were speaking of the war.

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

"No, indeed," chorused all the others.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

The suffragettes were no more noble than Dworkin.

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

Sunday, June 17, 2007

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

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

Here are some excerpts of a preface from the book:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every popular writer caters for this prejudice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

August, 1921


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:
(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.


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?