Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. – Frederick Douglass
For years I’ve warned that the United States was moving toward a state I call “universal criminality”; as I explained in my column of one year ago today, governments of the late 19th and early 20th centuries realized that the easiest and most subtle means of social control is simply to establish so many complex, broad, vague, mutually contradictory and intrusive laws that every single person is in violation of at least some of them at any given time. Then when any “authority” from the chief executive down to the lowliest cop wants to teach one of the peons a lesson, all he has to do is find a law to charge him with and the machine then proceeds to grind him up psychologically, financially, politically and often physically.
The process began with the “social purity” laws which criminalized behaviors (such as drinking, prostitution or even masturbation) which were previously considered private. It then grew during the Great Depression, proliferated in the post-World War II era (mostly under the excuse of “security”), and increased exponentially after the mid-1980s, at which point I began to see the writing on the wall. There are now so many criminal laws that they are literally uncountable; the last serious attempt to enumerate them was made in 1982, and that failed miserably. The Department of Justice estimates that there are over 4500 federal “crimes” and over 300,000 regulations with felony-level criminal penalties, and that grows by over 50 new “crimes” and innumerable regulations every year. And that’s only federal crimes; multiply that number by some other x factor (10-40 perhaps?) to estimate the number of state laws, and roughly 40,000 new state laws went into effect on January 1st. Then there are county and municipal laws…
Obviously it’s impossible for anyone to know all of these, but “ignorance of the law is no excuse”; the requirement for the prosecution to prove mens rea (criminal intent) was discarded sometime in the ‘90s, and juries are routinely instructed that if the prosecution can prove the facts they must vote to convict even if they believe the defendant did not intend to do anything wrong. Of course, that only applies to citizens; government actors, including cops, lawyers and even judges, are excused as “acting in good faith” even when a defense attorney can prove that a victim has been charged with something that isn’t a crime, or when the cop or lawyer actively breaks laws himself in order to persecute a victim. Given all these facts, no one can declare with certainty when the goal of universal criminality in the United States was reached, but it’s probable that it happened sometime in the last decade when politicians again used the excuse of “security” to gut the Bill of Rights, shred the last intact portions of the constitution and establish procedures which enshrined police and other government actors as de facto nobles, a ruling class who are subject to neither laws nor common human decency.
Cops are now allowed to arrest anyone for any reason (including “suspicion”); invade the homes of citizens without cause or warrant; maim or murder them (and their children and pets) without consequence; steal their property (and keep it even if the victim is never charged with a crime); and brutalize, rob and arrest anyone who tries to document the behavior. Citizen complaints are either ignored or handled with token “investigations” by the same department which is accused of the crimes; these “investigations” invariably result in exoneration of the criminal “officers” or infliction of penalties so minor they constitute a further insult to the victims. Prosecutors can charge one action or group of actions with any of dozens of charges, and will generally reserve several so if the first trial goes against them, they can use the others to get a new trial for the same offense without violating prohibitions against double jeopardy; even with no reasonable grounds for prosecution they can often continue the process indefinitely until they either “win” or bankrupt and ruin the defendant. They routinely lie, threaten and withhold exculpatory evidence, because the SCOTUS has granted them absolute immunity from either criminal or civil charges for their actions. And most judges are either tyrants who ignore the law to enforce their own whims, or bored bureaucrats who let cops and prosecutors get away with whatever they like. However, if any of these employees of the “justice system” commits a crime, it will be swept under the rug, excused completely or “punished” with a sentence several orders of magnitude less than that with which a private citizen would be inflicted.
Want to know what it’s like to live in a police state? Look around you. Like the legendary frog, Americans have remained content to sit in the pot while the temperature has gradually increased, and we’re all well and truly cooking now. The last of our civil liberties are being stripped away at a frightening rate, Congress is moving to take control of the internet, and the president recently signed legislation giving himself the power to use the military to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial if they own guns, are missing fingers or have more than 7 days’ worth of food in their houses. The government no longer even pretends to answer to the people: half of all Americans now recognize it as “an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens”, only 5% of Americans believe that Congress is doing a decent job, and a White House spokesman recently declared the majority of Americans who support marijuana legalization to be “extremists”. If you haven’t yet read Václav Havel’s “The Power of the Powerless” (as featured in my January 7th column), now might be a good time to do so.
It’s the same in my country too.
Alas, I think it’s happening in most of the world; it’s just particularly striking in the United States because it has always represented (and still represents) itself as the “land of the free” and champion of liberty, despite the fact that it isn’t true any more.
Was it ever true? Can we really point to a golden age of the rule of law in this country? The United States were barely out of their infancy when John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and attempted to silence anti-war critics. FDR sent Japanese-Americans to prison camps.
Police have always had broad power to do as they like to citizens – especially black citizens or poor citizens or gay citizens. The justice system is an appalling clusterfuck, but it’s neither as clustered nor as fucked as it was in the days of, say, Bull Connor.
You are 100% right about the troubling trends you’ve pointed out, but nostalgia for a more civilized age seems odd to me.
No, it was never entirely true, and there was never a “Golden Age”. But modern technology has allowed it on a grander and deeper scale than ever before, and even the formal legal restrictions on police and prosecutorial power have been suspended. In other words, it’s always been possible for government actors to tyrannize citizens, but because they had to hide it or excuse it before it couldn’t be practiced wholesale as it is now.
There is no such thing at “Utopia” and, there never will be. The U.S.A. certainly has never been a utopia. However, within the context of everything else that came before it – in it’s original incarnation – it was a pretty damned big and wonderful leap.
The problem is that humans only live for upwards of a century – and we don’t remember things from previous generations too well. Things like … ANY power a government has is ALWAYS abused. This is a rule that is as reliable as GRAVITY – yet we keep forgetting it.
We all know that we need to give the government SOME power … and the founders agreed it should be MINIMAL power. However, as soon as the ink was dry on the Constitution – the forces went to work in constructing incrementally increasing powers for government. After 200 plus years – this cancer is now beyond radiation and chemo.
Or even surgery to remove it.
The best way to create a utopia, is to kill everyone who doesn’t agree with you.
Ironically, I think Reconstruction might be the closest the US has ever come to a Golden Age of Rule of Law…
Not really; Lincoln’s actions, necessary as they were to preserve the Union, had already unleashed the forces which have brought us where we are now. And treating American citizens on American soil as a conquered enemy (again, as necessary as that may have been) can hardly be considered a sterling example of the Rule of Law.
When Lord Acton of Britain corresponded with General Robert E. Lee of the conquered Confederate States of America(CSA) from the United States of America after the American Civil War, he noted that if a state could not dissolve it’s relationship with the Union, then not only was the state not free, but it’s individual people were not free and the USA had traded chattell slavery which is wrong for limiting individual’s liberty for everyone. Acton thought that the last great hope for individual liberty had been extinguished, and it would only be a matter of time before the government would take more liberty from its citizens and the nation of all or nearly all of its individual persons of the USA would no longer be free, but be under tyranny. Acton had no idea of how right his ideas were, are and are becoming!
The Catholic Pope of the time sent a crown of thorns he made to CSA President Jefferson Davis because he thought Davis was a legitimate “Prince” or leader of his nation while Davis was imprisoned for two years after the American Civil War. The Pope knew that Davis was to suffer the much of ridicule and suffering that Jesus Christ did for being rightous. Davis wasn’t convicted of treason because he committed no treason. If he were to lead a rebellion today with the 14-16th ammendments, he would be executed to death for it. The 14th through 16th ammendments were past at the end of the American Civil War.
Davis and Lee were more Against slavery than USA President Lincoln and USA General Sherman. Most CSA citizens disagreed with Davis and Lee. the war was not primarily about slavery as slavery was considered a side show at the time despite the propoganda you hear today. It was about the right of the states to seceed from the USA and the increase of the Tariff which disproportionately hurt the South more than the North which is why the South seceeded to form the CSA. which was the main event so to speak.
Jefferson Davis was never brought to trial, because acquittal would be a PR disaster.
Very good article on how there was no golden age of lost liberty here, http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/06/up-from-slavery
However, I don’t think Maggie McNeil is guilty of such nostalgia, as much as pointing out that the gov. is becoming quite bold and using technology in a glad-handed way.
Decrying the growing militarization of the police and invasion of privacy is possible without nostalgia for a golden age, methinks.
Not this guy. If I’m ever on a jury – that “instruction” goes in one ear and out the other. I didn’t have to do jury duty in the Navy – now that I’m a civilian, they recently sent me a questionnaire so I assume I’m on the list. I’m totally capable of entering “nullification” land.
Sadly Maggie – you are right about the U.S. However, something more saddening – is the fact that we are still “the shining light” of liberty. I have been all over the world and the nanny states have taken over. The U.S. is still the most free nation I’ve been in. It’s still the nation that protects privacy and property rights the most – but … it’s really not saying much when you consider this is a marginal distinction only from the rest of the world.
Reagan once said something to the effect … “If we lose our freedom here – there is no place left to go.” He was right about that but it’s ironic that our own political leaders have used those kinds of words while simultaneously working to undermine freedom and liberty here.
I do think we’re going to have a chance very soon to reorganize things and regain those freedoms. However, the choices will be HARD for some. The kind of society you talk about Maggie – and the one I’d like to see – is one where a man stands or falls on his own. You cannot grant a man liberty without also giving him the power to succeed – and FAIL. That means government will have to get out of the business of social support programs like welfare and, yes – even Social Security. Money is power. People who hold the money which controls the healthcare and old age pension of a man – CONTROL THE MAN.
I hope all on our side are ready for this. There’s no half measure here.
Krulac,
“The U.S. is still the most free nation I’ve been in.”
You have obviously never been to germany. The US is FAR more restrictive than Germany.
I have to disagree – and I lived in Germany for several years.
Hi Lailah,
if you are female you may not notice the MASSIVE differences in Germany compared to “the west”. I do not even consider Germany “western”.
Germany is so different as to be almost a different planet if you happen to be a man. Some women trying to get unjust legislation passed like in the west but even the minister for women has said feminism has gone too far in Germany. It was one of the most commented on spearhead articles of all time. More than 600 comments.
1. There is no mandatory arrest policy in germany that can be exercised based on the lie of a woman. This means that what happened to me in my wife lying to the police and having me assaulted, injured, kidnapped and incarcerated in 1997 can NOT HAPPEN in Germany.
2. When a woman makes a rape allegation there must be physical evidence of the alleged crime. Her word is not enough.
3. Women who make false allegations are subject to a serious range of punishments. False allegations by women are almost unknown in Germany and certainly almost NO MEN are victimised by false allegations. Women here are astonished so many innocent men are victimised by women in the west.
4. In divorce the split of assets is seen to be fair by most men who experience it. There are some very unjust cases but they are FAR rarer than in the US.
5. It is simply not possible for spousal support and child support to exceed the mans pre divorce income. I am told it does not happen.
6. Women do not get ANY spousal support once a baby reaches three years of age. It is recognised that a woman has a breast feeding and nurturing role that can not be performed by a man and it is commonly accepted that the woman is better suited to caring for a child from 0 to 3. After that women are accorded NO privileges over men in the raising of children.
7. There is a very strong social backlash against women who use children as weapons.
8. Women believe women who commit crimes should be held accountable for them.
9. When dealing with police or public servants they will scrupulously follow their legislation and they are very, very reluctant to force anything onto anyone. Especially me. I have been in correspondence with numerous people including Angela Merkel and I have been dealt with in an exemplary fashion compared to the west.
10. Prostitution is legal and inexpensive. I have often theorised that one reason women are so nice here is because they know that prostitution is legal and inexpensive.
Geman women understand that they were more responsible for bringing Hitler to power than the men were and they remember how they betrayed their men into the last war. The might not talk about it but they do know their role in it. So they are scrupulously careful to live up to “being equal” with the men. At least the women I know.
And as one man in a bar I met said to me about “women wanting to be equal”?
“Women want to be equal to men? For two generations men were slaughtered in wars. They are welcome to it.”
I have never seen a land were the women are more willing to step up to their claims than in Germany. I have not lived in Russia or the Ukraine so I cant comment on those places to the same extent. But I can tell you that I really enjoy the company of women who live in Germany. Not meaning just german born as there are a LOT of foreign women here.
If you do not know that Germany is VASTLY better than the US to live in for a man that simply means you are blind to the oppression of men in the US. That would be normal.
You have illustrated how Germany is better than the USA. This is especially true for men. It wasn’t long ago that the USA used to better in every respect that Germany is better than the USA is now, I’d like to keep the freedoms that the USA has and have the freedoms that the USA used to have and Germany presently has. Germany is more sane on the relationships between men and women because most of the women and men believe in what Maggie McNeill believes, archeofeminism. Sadly, most Americans to include almost all Democratic Party supporters and at least half the Republican party supporters believe in what the owner of this site opposes as do I which is called neofeminism. Krulac and I have demonstrated how the USA is better while you have illustrated how Germany is better. Both nations should adopt what is better and discard what is worse so we can all have more liberty.
I can also note that when I am in germany I am not subject to any of its legislation. So that too is very freeing. They do have some archane legislation like talking about the holocaust etc.
Your ego FITS in Germany? WOW!
Laura,
this is a very serious subject and I am a very serious man. I have been in correspondence with Angela Merkel and her minions for more than two years now. I am also in correspondence with the head of immigration in Frankfurt and Stuttgart. If your claim that it is “ego” to take the position that I am lawfully equal to Queen Elizabeth and insist on my rights being respected then you can call it that all you like. It just shows me you do not know who you are lawfully nor how to claim, exercise and defend your rights.
I thought a lot of what Maggie is on about is sex workers rights. Well? If sex workers did as I did they too would not be subject to any legislation. Up to sex workers to do what I do or not. I cant make them do anything.
How about you stop with sarcastic comments and actually add to the knowledge base here?
Laura. you are so witty.
I use my wit as a FRONT because I’m an typical EVIL Western woman! 😉
In spite of recent (embarrassing) court rulings in the US – you’d be hard pressed to find any nation that respects private property quite like the US does and that includes Germany. And mind you – the US is still a heavily armed population and freedom begins with the ability of the people to defend themselves and inact revolution when it’s called for. The European nations have intentionally disarmed their populations to prevent this – as has yours in Australia, Peter.
Germany doesn’t even control it’s own currency and it’s being forced to bail out the rest of (non-productive) Europe. The whole EU thing is a mess – the people never voted upon it and the EU refuses to this day to hold a referendum on the whole concept of the EU – yet they are writing laws and applying them to the populations of Europe who have no say whatever in them.
Krulac
“In spite of recent (embarrassing) court rulings in the US – you’d be hard pressed to find any nation that respects private property quite like the US does”
You are kidding me aren’t you? TENS OF MILLIONS of men in the US have had their children stolen, their houses stolen, their incomes stolen by the USG via the family courts.
Oh, that’s right, those men don’t count as they are divorced and therefore have no property rights, right? The US is the WORST country in the english speaking world with respect to property rights. EASILY! Talk about ignorant.
If you actually knew what was going on Krulac, which you obviously do not, NO ONE can hold PRIVATE PROPERTY in the US unless they first perform what is called a “strawman redemption” or “strawman recapture”. This has been PROVEN. It is NOT an opinion.
The US, like all english speaking lands, is a totally communist society where the government actually owns EVERYTHING be deception which is why the COURTS can do things like decide who owns what in divorce.
Your statement marks you as being completely ignorant as to what is happening in the US. And that is how your masters want you to be. Completely ignorant.
http://www.henrymakow.com/peter_nolan.html
The links are broken now but were valid when I wrote the article.
Most people are completely ignorant of how bad the USA is, and how much it is sliding into a banana republic and tyranny. Even those like Krulac who know this is happening may not realize the extent of it. I may not realize the extent of it. Many are starting to wake up after a long slumber. In the USA you essentially have two camps. The Democratic Party camp is almost entirely filled with neofeminist women and male pussies. The Republican Party is at least half filled with religious Christian “conservative” female neofeminists and male White Knight dupes. The majority of both parties collude to create the the neofeminist dystopia which persecutes most men and nearly all sex workers(nearly all sex workers are women). My opinion is that the only faction which has any sense on this and other issues is the Ron Paul faction within the Republican party, and this is a minority. There may be others, but they are scattered disorganized and alone. I’m not saying every Ron Paul supporter is a tolerant of prostitution, but it is more likely in my opinion. Minor Political parties have almost no say in the USA and they end up fighting more for the Republican camp, e.g. Libertarians or Constitutionalists, than the Democratic Camp or they end up fighting for the Democratic Camp, e.g. Communists or Green Party, more than the Republican Camp. Either way liberty gets limited and destroyed. I’m afraid our American experiment with liberty has failed.
One of the ways among many in which Americans are ignorant is PROSTITUTION. Americans are also ignorant or too compliant concerning MARRIAGE,CHILD SUPPORT and FAMILY COURT. My beiefs are that the current system of prostitution, marriage, child support and family court are unconstitutional and should not exist within the USA.
When I stated that even “amatuer”women in South Korea, a country which I lived and worked, were more pleasant to men because of prostitution, most American were dumbfounded. This was especially so if they never left the USA except for wartime deployments to live and work, to a lesser extent if they lived and worked in South Korea, and were dumbfounded the least by my statement if they lived and worked and Germany. The reason why those who lived and worked in South Korea were more dumbfounded more than those who lived and worked in Germany was because Koreans were more skittish about “mixing” with foreigners in romantic or sexual matters but not platonic matters and this was even true of most Korean whores. The other reasons is because there simply is a greater genetic, cultural and religious barrier between most Americans and Koreans than there is between the Americans and Germans. My fellow American soldiers posted in Germany told me if you can’t get laid in Germany through seduction(GAME), you can’t laid anywhere, but that’s ok because whores are physically beautiful, racially diverse, plentiful and cheap as well as open to a well behaved customer who has enough money. The only thing I can say which is the same about South Korean prostitution is that it was plentiful and cheap like Germany, but on everything else it was different.
They did warn me that the only ones hunting down American miltary personell are the U.S. Air Force Office of Criminal Services(OCS), the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division(CID), and the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps. Naval Criminal Investigation Service(NCIS). They would send undervover agents to monitor the brothels and red light districts even though the German police would not help them. Upon discovery and return to U.S. military installation within Germany, the U.S. military personnell would be arrested for the crime of “sinning” against Article 174 of the United States of America’s Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ) prohibitting prostitution worldwide for American military personnell. Article 174 was instituted in the early 2000’s under great instigation from U.S. Army General LaPorte. I told them that South Korea was similar with the undercover work of the military agencies listed above. The South Korean police would seldom help, but usually weren’t happy about it and were under tremendous pressure from the USA. Germany has more means to tell the USA to stuff itself than South Korea does becausae of the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, German Reunification and North Korea’s military’s conventional, nuclear, biological and chemical threat which is at least partially backed by China.
Even U.S. military retirees are subject to UCMJ even when they are out of uniform, off duty, off installation and in a foreign nation. I’m an U.S. Army Iraq and Afghanistan Wars veteran, but not a military retiree. Fred Reed is a U.S. Marine Corps. Vietnam War Veteran but not a military retiree. He’s written articles on his blog about how the USA screws the presently serving troops and it’s veterans. I mainly agree, and know all too often our government and to a somewhat lesser extent it’s people really say, “Fuckyou for your (military)service!” when they smile and thankyou for your service. Here’s the link.
http://www.fredoneverything.net
Doclov,
“My fellow American soldiers posted in Germany told me if you can’t get laid in Germany through seduction(GAME), you can’t laid anywhere,”
You don’t even have to use GAME. There are so many lonely women in this place its not believable.
My buddies and I went to a popular bar the other night for a few beers. We normally go to better restaurants but one guy was over from the US and he wanted to go to one of the more popular places where there would be people hanging out etc. Germany is not really like that.
So we are at the bar and this woman about 40 walks in alone and sits opposite us at the bar. She orders a glass of wine. One guy approaches her and talks to her for a while and was dismissed. The next guy approached her and talked to her for a while. She finished her second glass of wine and went off with him. She was not there more than 30 minutes.
Our american buddy is like “did you see what just happened there? Is that normal? ”
We said “No. That is not normal at all. Usually the men would not bother approaching her, she would have to go and approach them.”
Which he was even more surprised about.
He was using GAME. It is a technique coined by Mystery(Erik Von Markovik) as “Fool’s Mate” which comes from the game of chess and is known as the two move checkmate. He doesn’t reccommend it, but acknowledges it sometimes works. Fool’s Mate is fast seduction. He advises more advanced stategies and techniques. He wrote the book, “The Mystery Method: How to Bed Beutiful Women”. He also had a VH1 show known as the “Pickup Artist” and another book. His friend Style(Neil Strauss) wrote about him and others in a book called “The Game”.
I’ve done “Fool’s Mate” in Korea. I walked up to a bar. I ordered a 40 oz. of beer while drunk. I looked at a woman next to me who was also drunk after recieving my beer. I drank some of the bottle of beer and said to the Korean woman, ” After I finish this beer, I’m going to fuck you!” Instead of hitting me or screaming or walking away in disgust or looking confused, she said, “OK!” enthusasticly. I finished my beer and went to my place. I had sex with her. we went to her place and I had sex with her again. It was a one night stand. This is a classic example of the GAME technique called Fool’s mate. It seldom works in most countries. I was in Polly’s Soju Kettle House, a bar on Hooker Hill in Itaeweon, Seoul, South Korea. It was one of the few bars which DID NOT have prostitutes(juicy girls in juicy bars or “hostesses” in hostess bars) on Hooker Hill, a small street in Itaeweon, Seoul, South Korea. I did not pay any money for sex from the aforementioned Korean woman. I was on Hooker Hill because the bars closed early in the morning at 7 a.m. or 8 a.m. or 10a.m. or noon. Then the bars on Itaeweon Road, the main bar and restaurant area with no prostitutes open at 11 a.m. or noon or 2 p.m. You could stay drinking and drunk in Itaeweon, Seoul, South Korea 24 hours a day and seven days a week in a bar or walking from one closing bar to an opening bar. Itaeweon is very close to U.S. Army installation known as Yongsan Garrison in Seoul, South Korea. Itaeweon, Seoul, south Korea serves more than U.S. military and has many foreign bussiness customers like yourself. The Korean woman was interested in trying a White man for sex which happened to be me, and as I was the first to approach and offer sex, I got laid. This is a classic example of GAME fool’s mate and not prostitution. I do think the whores there made it easier for men to approach and get sex from amatuer women though.
Roosh seems to have used it a lot in Iceland. It was usually a little longer and more involved than my personal example above. When he left Iceland, he wrote a book called “Bang Iceland”. The Feminists of Iceland were upset. His site is listed below.
http://www.rooshv.com
Why’s there a need to down Krulac as a person? Say he “doesn’t know what’s going on”, etc.? Did you ever think maybe he has time limits and can’t post everything he DOES know about? He isn’t “completely ignorant” and his posts prove that. 1 reason I enjoy his posts is because I’ve learned a lot about military life from him. I’ve also learned from Doclove about the military. It’s obvious from his posts that Krulac DOES follow the news and I think his point about the US not having COMPLETE gun control is a good 1 that needs to be put out there as much as possible.
Laura,
its how men speak to each other. We don’t bother about each others “feelings” because men are adults and are expected to deal with their own feelings.
Between men there was no “downing Krulac as a person”. Indeed. Us men speak completely differently to each other when women are not present. Women said they wanted “equality” but even when we speak to each other you try and tell us what we are saying and try and tell us how we should speak. Stop it. We don’t need to be told how to speak to each other. ok?
Unfortunately. Despite their claims of equality when we speak to women we have to modify what we say to accommodate their “feelings” because the strong and independent and empowered grrrrrllls are such delicate petals that if you send them an email they don’t want from 10,000 kms away you are a “stalker”. I was called a “stalker” today for this very “crime”.
You see. For taking exception to women discussing castrating men who are “rapists” I was, according to two women who are old enough to know better, committing the same crime as following a woman home, stealing her panties off the clothes line, perhaps breaking into her house while she is not there etc. You know. A REAL stalker.
Apparently women can not tell the difference between an unwanted email from 10,000 kms away and a psycho hanging outside her bedroom window who might just rape her any night now. So we have to take such dysfunctional thinking into account when we talk to women.
It sure would be nice to be able to talk to women like “equals” but, apparently that makes us really horrible people so we have to modify our speech to make sure we do not “upset your feelings”. Apparently, even though women claim to be adults, the vast majority are not accountable for their own feelings and the nearest male is……..go figure.
This is “equality”. I think its crap. If a woman is not responsible for her feelings why should the nearest man be?
Your rationalizations won’t work with me and never will. Putting people down is putting people down and it isn’t from others in society (ALL the women in the Western world are out to get us…they’re all horrible…they’re all out to rip off men in every way, etc., etc., gloom and doom, paranoia all the time, etc., etc.). It comes from within the people doing it. Speaking of stalking, the legal definision in this country (yes, the horrible, totally evil WESTERN US…lol) and the consensus of the experts on stalking is that it means any contact that a person doesn’t want (i.e., you tell a person don’t ever contact me again in any way). I’ve been through it on the job and it was HELL and the 1 who did it to me got fired for it. It didn’t involve any physical contact or anything in my home. It was all verbal and through e-mails. So those of us and the experts on it know it isn’t just what you’re talking about. I do agree with you on how some women ALL OVER THE WORLD are horrible BITCHES to men in court and out of it, but to constantly make blanket statements about it isn’t fair and also not accurate and to use that to rationalize your patronizing, arrogant and rude remarks to another is disgusting and a cop-out.
So those of us…wanted to add “have been through it”-sorry, it was really early when I wrote this.
Laura,
“Your rationalizations won’t work with me and never will.”
Your rationalisation hamster is working overtime. You pretend you can tell me how to speak to people while you stay SILENT on the MILLIONS of men who have had their children stolen by your criminal sisters.
Some about logs in your own eye, eh?
I do not tolerate lying hypocritical women any more. You said you were equal and we all know it is a lie. I will speak to whoever I wish however I wish and no one gets to tell me HOW I should speak. How ARROGANT of you to think you can tell me how to speak or what I say means. Typical western woman. No Eastern European woman would be so arrogant because they respect my right to express myself as I see fit.
You are a great example of why I NEVER date western women. They pretty much ALL think they can browbeat us into being pussies….speak like this, dress like that, hold your chin up, don’t slouch….blah, blah blah….us alphas have a message for you. We are sick of this shit and we are no putting up with it any more.
An FYI for you: when I see anyone being talked to unfairly I’m going to speak up for them. That’s totally different from ordering people around. You’ve shown from day 1 on here (and other places online) how you hate to be confronted in any way. I expect anyone to confront ME when I’m talking unfair also. I’m not just “out to get you” and “all the other men” (eyeroll). Also, you ASS-ume I’ve never cared and do nothing for your cause (BITCHES hurting men in court, etc.). You’re got that WRONG and it would HELP if you’d directly ASK people what they do in their spare time instead of ASS-uming the worst (another pattern you have: if anyone confronts you, you ASS-ume they’re against your cause). The truth is some of the activism/support stuff I do has involved these things. I won’t go into more detail than that because I choose to be discreet on these things. There’s exceptions: 1 is when I see my fellow MVS being talked about unfairly I’ll come out with my own MVS status, etc., because that’s needed to disprove ###*** about us. Also, a woman who is out to get the men wouldn’t have bothered to help men out sexually for a lot of years at NO charge. 1 big reason I did that (and will ALWAYS leave that option open) is because from the time I was a teenager I saw men being used as literal BANKS and hated it and resolved to be the opposite. The men who are poor in $’s deserve sex also along with the disabled men many of which can’t afford whores (INCLUDING streetwalkers) and also the men who don’t want to see whores for various reasons. A disabled man that started out as being a “friend with benefits” ended up being the love of my life (Sailor Barsoom on here). You’re welcome to ask Sailor my track record on honesty also with your “typical Western woman” label you try to put on me. He’ll tell you I’m the opposite of a gold-digger and do care about your cause, etc. He’ll also tell you how I don’t tell him to stand up straight, etc. My former sex only friends would tell you also how sometimes I took them out (dinner, etc.) on purpose. I’ll never give out their names (for various reasons) but if I did do that they’d tell you what I did (Sailor won’t be giving out their names either which is 1 reason I love him). Sure looks like I’m 1 of the greedy, mercenary Western women, doesn’t it? LOL! Again, you may want to actually ASK women about what they do in their spare time instead of ASS-uming they’re all out to get you and the other men.
Laura,
” You’ve shown from day 1 on here (and other places online) how you hate to be confronted in any way.”
I have not shown that as I quite welcome confrontation both intellectual and physical. I have no problem with either. I have physically confronted men MUCH larger than me. They ALWAYS back down. What you are doing, in my opinion, is merely projection. People who confront me, especially intellectually, are taken apart and they do not like it. In my areas of specialty few people best me. And when they do I congratulate them and they generally end up being my friend.
” your “typical Western woman” label you try to put on me.”
Laura, women who are NOT “typical western women” NEVER protest my comments on “typical western women” because they KNOW they are not like what I describe as well as KNOW the vast majority of western women ARE like that. The divorce stats are not up for discussion. In the US tens of millions of women have destroyed families (women cause 90% of divorces according to two women researchers) and caused untold misery to men and children based on greed and selfishness, the inability to keep vows, as well as committing crimes. 50% of women, when interviewed, ADMIT to using the children as weapons which is child abuse.
ALL THE OTHER WOMEN STAY SILENT. NONE of the other women want to put these criminal child abusing women on trial. Now. I do not know how that breaks down for sex workers as compared to women who are not sex workers. But there are enough sex workers in the US that if they spoke out about the criminal women committing perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft and child abuse in the family courts they would have quite a loud voice I would imagine. I don’t hear them speaking out very loudly. Do you.
Sorry Laura. I used to have a very positive and high opinion of “women in general”. Jennifer used to say to me “You put women on a pedestal, they are not all like your mother you know.” As is typical for women they criticise us men NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. You women HATE US so much you ENDLESSLY CRITICIZE US no matter what we do. And you wonder why we are FED UP and no longer listen to your opinions? Are you women really that stupid? I guess so. I will listen to an intelligent woman who puts her case well, eg Maggie.
Now…..Tthe VAST OCEANS OF HATRED that have been SPEWED at me these last 4 years for doing nothing more than standing up for myself and demanding Jennifer be treated as EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW has convinced me to MY SATISFACTION that the VAST MAJORITY of western women are liars and hypocrites. I mean 99.9%+.
If you wish me not to hold that opinion? Show me the all women courts and the all women juries that are prosecuting women who are properly accused of crimes. Oh…can’t show me that? Gee. What a surprise. Women remain silent in the face of the most dreadful abuse of the very best men, up to and including the kidnapping of our children.
As all sex workers in the US know. The current courts and legal process is nothing but a criminal cartel. Sex workers suffer the same crimes as fathers of divorce from the cops and legal fraternity. It is why I am here. maybe women who are sex workers might want to stand up for their own rights too.
I was about to say much of what Krulac stated. I will add try saying that you don’t believe Hitler and the Nazis killed six million Jews too loudly and too often. You will eventually be arrested and charged with a crime in Germany unlike the USA. I’m not advocating the idea that Hitler and the Nazis did not kill six million Jews and that they killed less in World War 2. However, a person’s right to say whatever he wants to say even if I bitterly disagree with it should be allowed. German laws do not allow the right to be wrong on the World War 2 Jewish Holocost or a person’s right to be a Christian Scientist. I think Christian Science is bunk too, and I’m Catholic, but they have a right to their religious views and I respect that. It’s easy to defend protected speech which most or all agree with. It’s harder and more necessarry to defend speech that most or all disagree with. It’s more necesssarry to defend unwanted speech for two reasons. One is they might be right. the second and most important is that protected desired speech may become undesirable speech tommorrow. You may find yourself as the unwanted speaker of the unwanted speech is the corrallary. Also if you think police brutality is bad in the USA, try Germany as it’s worse and essentially there really is no thing as Police brutality is concerned either in enforcement or in law in Germany. The German Police may be less likely to use brutality, but it in no way implies that they are forbidden from doing so. They are less likely to have anything done to them for being brutal too.
Germany is better for libertine fun not libertarianism. If a man wants to have hedonistic fun, he can in Germany much more easily than the USA. Hedonistic fun includes more drinking with less legal and social fuss as long as one doen’t have a DUI or is not harming anyone or damaging anything , easier time seducing women to have sex with a man and widely available reasonably priced legal prostitution. You may be right that in Germany, the men have less delusional ideas about women and prostitution than they do in the USA as you’ve said many times over at http://www.the-spearhead.com which I haven’t seen you comment on in a while. Prostitution is allowed in Germany and is cheaper unlike most of the USA. I was in the U.S. Army, and I am a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. Believe me that we compared notes so to speak. Germany definitely has better and more bread and circusses than the overly puitanical USA. The German women have a reputation for being sluttier than American Women. Even the Moslem women born and/or raised there have this reputation more than the American Moslem women. I’ve had soldiers tell me they easily seduced Women of Muslim Iraqi and Afghanistani descent into sex with the women knowing they were Amrican soldiers, veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, and with said women hating the USA’s military intervention in these countries. Germany also has more former Warsaw Pact nation’s women, and they deservedly have the reputation for being on average being physically the prettiest women in the world, being easier to date if not marry, and having more agreeable personalities than Western Women including the USA and Germany.
Would you happen to know if those “easily seduced” Muslim women were Shia?
Yes.
Thank you for your response.
I suspected these women would be Shia since that religious sect permits sex within the context of temporary relationships, while the Sunnis do not.
There were Sunni women who were either born or raised from a young age in Germany from immigrant parents such as most Afganistanis and Turks are who were also seduced into sex by these American soldiers.
Oh sure, it happens. But it is easier to do something if the religion you were raised in allows it.
Shia women dominate prostitution even in muslim countries where they are a minority.
That’ll get you excluded from a jury… that’s why I wouldn’t mention it during jury selection… not until you’re on deliberating, when they’re least likely to boot you off.
Of course, they’re so worried about jury nullification that Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) activists have been arrested for explaining people their rights as a juror.
The saddest part about that is, the Founding Fathers intended juries to have that power, so as to keep legislators and the judiciary in check. Ditto grand juries, which were intended to keep prosecutors from being able to indict ham sandwiches.
Spot on. The saddest thing is that none of the destruction of liberty has been done over the outraged protest of the people. In fact, if you look at almost every law passed, you’ll often find that some citizen or group of citizens, some “Mothers against frightening children” are pushing for it.
After 9-11, good old ‘Muricans lined up to see who could shout the loudest for laws “protecting them” from suspicious foreigners. Most well meaning people think that somehow, if only the right laws are passed life will always be safe and happy.
And we have the result.
>”which enshrined police and other government actors as de facto nobles, a ruling class who are subject to neither laws nor common human decency.”
If this is true, they are minor nobility only, like knights doing the bidding of the true lords of the manor, which are the rich and powerful. That’s why, no matter the crime, those people are never called to task, or given punishment beyond a slap on the wrist. The laws are different for the Nobs.
>”That means government will have to get out of the business of social support programs like welfare and, yes – even Social Security. Money is power. People who hold the money which controls the healthcare and old age pension of a man – CONTROL THE MAN.”
If you have an account in a bank, does the bank control you? A mistake in this kind of thinking is that the money is the government’s (A mistake the government encourages). It’s not. It’s your money, and you have a right to it. And on your terms. Again, that we’ve let anyone dictate to us the conditions stems from our own weakness.
As you know, I’m a socialist. I believe the only good arrangement for society is a voluntary agreement of cooperation among people. I don’t believe capitalism, a system that is based on bosses and concentrations of power can ever deliver freedom or equality.
Saddest of all is the Cop most of us carry in our heads. There’s where the real control lies.
Socialism has produced more distinctions in the upper castes and lower castes than capitalism ever has. Look to Communism or Naziism(National Socialism) or even the Scandinavian models as examples. Even if you can prove to me that the Scandinavian model has more equality of wealth, I say so what. All three have limited individual liberty more than they should have. Even the Scandinavian model of prostitution laws are at least as screwed up as the USA and maybe worse. Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the USA, remarked that a government that can give you everything you need or want can take it away from you. Benjamin Franklin, first U.S. ambassador to France, remarked that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner, and liberty happens when the sheep is well armed against the wolves.
The military of any nation is essentially socialist. The best thing the military is good for is killing, maiming and mutiliating people as well as destroying things. The same could be said of socialism. Krulac and I are former U.S. military and war veterans. He is a veteran of Iraq, and I’m a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. We know socialism is bad because we lived it. U.S. Congress Representitive from Texas,Ron Paul has his flaws, but he is consistently the most pro-liberty and anti-government and anti-Socialist candidate. One of the things you must ask yourself is why Ron Paul,U.S. Republican party Presidential contender, gets more contributers from the military personnell than any other U.S. Presidential candidate?
There is a fallacy that if we only had a better system or better people running things, then things would be better. It is simply not true. Socialism fails to take human being’s true behavior into account even worse than capitalism does. It’s why it fails more spectacularly than capitalism and more often than capitalism as well as libertarianism leaves a ruined people in it’s wake.
Oh I absolutely agree with you Doclove. It’s gotta be capitalism all the way, baby. After all, I must have the liberty to get rich, and everyone else can take the liberty to starve.
I don’t always agree with them. They don’t always agree with eachother. You should check out this libertarian site.
http://www.lewrockwell.com
You’re a lover of Antonio Gramsci and cultural Marxism, aren’t you?
And as for welfare and Social Security? Piss on that. Let’s bring back the workhouses. It’ll make reading Charles Dickens even more realistic.
Even Adam Smith, author of the book published in 1776, The Wealth of Nations, who is considered the father of capitalism noted that capitalism is for a moral people. John Adams, the second President of the USA, said the same thing about the American Republic and liberty in that it’s for a moral people with good sense and both would collapse without morality and good sense. Even unrestrained senseless amoral capitalism is better than Communism. Communism destroys quickly while Socialism erodes slowly, but both end up in the same place eventually unless corrections can be made. There is no Utopia, but there are better and worse hells on Earth. We humans are truly fallen.
Perhaps after you are finished reading English novelist Charles Dickens and watching film adaptations of his novels, you could read and watch something else. May I suggest Alexander Solzhnizen’s book, The Gulag Archipelago, or Vaclev Havel’s essay linked above in this article, The Power of the Powerless. If this doesn’t convince you, then maybe you’ll read Sidney Schanberg’s biography of Dith Pran called, The Death and Life of Dith Pran or watch it’s 1984 film adaptation, The Killing Fields.
Vaclev Havel warned people not to live within the lie as did Alexander Solzhinitzen. So I won’t as much as I can. I don’t want the workhouses of Dickens. I don’t want the Gulags or killing fields that Solzhitnitzen and Pran described. However, if forced between one hell and another with no other choice, I’m wise enough to know to choose the workhouses over the gulags and killing fields. There truly are better and worse hells on Earth. Choose wisely my Padawan(Star Wars films), for your destiny defines you, it does.
Yes, that’ll be GREAT! Those who have tried to work and can’t because of physical/mental disabilities let’s put them in workhouses and see them TRY to work and then call them names, punish them more, etc., when they can’t. What a great idea! Very accepting of the disabled people and caring towards them! Those Social Security losers-do the same thing! It doesn’t matter at all that many are old and can’t do much. That’s THEIR fault! They choose to be losers who can’t do much. Yes, let’s also go back to other things in the “good old days”: executions with no fair trial, the “divine right” of kings, public executions so we can cheer and scream “KILL!” and many other things. All those things will help us enjoy even more other books besides those written by Dickens!
Dear Susan, I read some of your other posts so now wonder if you were joking about the workhouses to make a point. If so, I apologize for my reaction above.
Not a good analogy. There’s a little thing called “terms of service” that the bank must adhere to … and if they do something with your money that they aren’t allowed to do … you can sue them – you have someone to appeal to for redressal of the grievance.
Government, on the other hand, is free to take your money and do with it whatever they wish. And, there is no higher power you can appeal to when they abuse that power.
You’ve written good commentaries about liberty and the U.S. Constitution lately. A friend of mine who is a doctor at a a Veteran’s Administration Hospital told me that anyone should be able to read the Constitution and be able to interpret it correctly, but sadly many people don’t and they read federal governmental powers which aren’t there. He also stated that even if one is stupid about the U.S. Constitution, then “The Federalist Papers” has excellent commentary of how to interpret the U.S. Constitution about everything which was intended and meant. I agreed with him. I also told him that “The Anti-Federalist Papers” which were written at the same time as “The Federalist Papers” in the late 1780’s stated why they were opposed to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and wanted to keep the U.S. articles of Confederation. Much of what “The Anti-Federalist Papers” has come to pass and as they predicted, we are losing our liberty under the U.S. Constitution. The Anti-Federalists thought liberty would be best preserved under the U.S. Articles of Confederation and not under the U.S Constitution like the Federalists believed.
Yikes. I had no idea mens rea had been discarded. This has been a principle of law that stretches back to the Roman Republic, if not even further. I’ve read several times that the US has more laws than any other country. I believe that cops actually make up charges which, if not dismissed from the court, become a precedent. The law is insane, and Obama has been an enormous disappointment in getting rid of the Patriot Act. I’ve watched conspiracy videos about 9/11 that make it seem plausible to me that it was done by an agent provocateur of the Government for the sole purpose of turning the country into a Fascist state. Many people believe that the battleship Maine was blown up to provoke the country into declaring war against Spain for the interests of the sugar companies. Makes sense to me.
If it was, Barack Obama is the first to implement it with his restructuring of GM and Chrysler along the lines described in The Coming Corporate State.
Hi Maggie, actually it is MUCH worse in Australia and UK than it is in most of the US….some parts of the US are as bad as UK-Australia.
Remember, in the UK a cop was filmed assaulting a disabled man and the man DIED a few minutes later from a brain haemorage and it was initially found that the cop had done nothing wrong.
The western world is a police state. More than two years ago I went into the australian federal magistrates court and PROVED it was a criminal cartel.
http://www.youtube.com/user/peternolan1109?feature=mhee
I then wrote the book that frees any person from this control grid who wants to be free.
Funny enough? Almost no one wants to be free. How about that?
I have been living this more than two years now. Guess what? I have never even been CALLED by any cops. They want NOTHING to do with me.
American women have supported this building of a police state by supporting and promoting so many anti-male laws.
Feminism was a large part in helping establish a police state. American women were simply willing dupes or useful idiots.
American women played a huge role in helping destroy America, so we should point out that they are guilty as well.
Nice to see one more woman awake Robyn.
I advise men to rescind their consent to be governed by LEGISLATION. Governments can NOT make “LAW”. They can only write legislation. And any man has every right to refuse to consent to it. I have done this. It really freaks people out.
I created an incident in Stuttgart airport on August 6th. The customs people claimed they had the right to violate my established claim of freedom of travel. I spent about 3 hours explaining to a number of officers they had no right to violate my right of travel. Of course they did not believe me. So I got them to fill in all their paperwork and they extorted me for EUR300 as well. Then I sent them back my paperwork on August 15th. They have not written to me again. They were supposed to have a court meeting that I told them I would video record. They actually found my video of my court meeting while I was talking to them. When I explained to them that the man at the front committed the crime of impersonating a magistrate one of them went ashen faced…..he knew EXACTLY what that meant…..a police state.
Women have been used to incite hatred against men and to demand more laws which their masters have been only too willing to enact. And those same laws will be used against women and children too.
Unless more people join in with people like me? Its going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
The cool thing about America is at least it contains the Constitution. The UK and other Euro countries don’t have such a thing.
Most countries have a constitution. The US is not unique in that.
We don’t in the UK 🙁
The British say they do, but it’s not written down in a document unlike the USA. We even have “The Federalist Papers” as a commentary as to how to interpret what is intended and meant in the U.S. Constitution and why it’s a good idea. Meanwhile, “The Anti-Federalist Papers” state arguements against the U.S. Constitution and why the U.S. Articles of Confederation, the former American government structure, were better.
I think what he’s referring to is that most countries which predate the US don’t have a written constitution; the “constitution” is merely the entire body of law and precedent up to the present. Countries which have been organized since the mid-19th century usually do have written constitutions, but as in the US they’re not worth the paper they’re printed on if the citizenry isn’t willing to resist violations of it by armed force. The next “leap forward” will be when some country establishes a very tight, rigid constitution which is extremely difficult to amend in less than a generation, forbids ANY laws that control consensual behavior and contains written rights to resist the imposition of such laws.
We can only hope!!!
Speaking of hope, I want to mention the group of radio hosts who I’m convinced are REAL (NOT stooges for the US government which is why you have to be very careful when you pick out radio shows to listen to) that work tirelessly to get info out on all the evil things going on in the US and have done things THEMSELVES to change things for the better (they don’t just talk) and expose the evils done by some US politicians and other figures involved with those in US government. At least some of these people work for donations only and/or completely free and I listen to 1 who works a full-time job during the day and does his show at night. There ARE people working for change and these hosts aren’t alone in that. I say no matter how bad things are never give up and keep working for change, protesting, signing petitions, etc., whatever NON-violent ways you can find to at least try to change things. Thanks for listening.
I think that Sam Adams would find himself in accord with Maggie.
How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
—
The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.
—
If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.
—
Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude and perseverance. Let us remember that “if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom,” it is a very serious consideration … that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.
And my personal favorite for all the government toadies out there:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
Thaddeus Russell argues, in Renegade History of America, that the Founding Fathers were more uptight than that — advocating the closing of taverns where men and woman mixed, the races mixed, there was dancing, there was drinking, and rooms were available for sexual pleasure both free and paid.
Certainly there were elements of that in the early American society after the Revolution. John Adams advocated sumptuary laws, the 1st Amendment and other parts of the Bill of Rights only applied to Federal Govt, not the State gov’ts and, as part of that, states that had established religions like Connecticut, Massachusetts, and, before Jefferson signed legislation amending their constitution, Virginia as well, could have you fined and publicly flogged for proselyting or preaching non-established sectarian doctrine.
But these were holdovers from the Puritan era. They were in conflict with the founding in the same way that slavery was. They persisted into the Constitutional era because the founders knew, like slavery, that they could not dispense with it and maintain the union.
Of course disestablishment did come eventually. I think that the latest was Massachusetts in the 1830’s. The expansion on the concept of separation of church and state came out of these established churches – most famously in the exchange between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut.
I find it ironic that some xtian conservatives like M. Stanton Evans look back at this time period and argue, then, that state establishment and promotion of religion is not unconstitutional and should be encouraged when the truth of the matter was these state powers were left alone for the same reason that slavery was, and they have the same legitimacy in a free society that slavery has; that is, none!
One of my favorite quotes by Jefferson comes from a letter to Benjamin Rush where he specifically addresses the attempt by some sectarians to establish a religion on the Federal level in contravention of the First Amendment.
“I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X.Y.Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.”
In parsing the historical occurrences of the post-Revolutionary period you have to distinguish between products of the Founders’ philosophical approach and those theological holdovers from the earlier authoritarian Puritans and Congregationalists. There was even a movement in the 1790’s, originating out of Pennsylvania, to ensconce a national government, ruling on the basis of Christian Communism. Fortunately it did not have the legs to get very far.
The social purity movement that, as Maggie pointed out, afflicted the latter half of the 19th century was an amalgam of Puritan holdovers, products of the later “Great Awakenings,” the import of German Philosophy in both its Idealist and Materialist schools and our own homegrown pragmatists like William James and Emerson. All of these formed the genetic roots of the Progressive movement that brought us the war-mongering of Teddy Roosevelt (William James moral equivalent of war), the RE-segregation of army and civil service that Woodrow Wilson mandated, the prohibition of alcohol and other drugs as championed by Carrie Nation, the criminalizing of consensual sex acts brought to you by Comstock, the YMCA, the Seventh Day Adventists and the Boothists of the Salvation Army, and the burgeoning Eugenics movement that inspired Hitler and persisted, in the United States, formally endorsed by the Supreme Court under Oliver Wendell Holmes, until the 1970’s.
All of these things were contrary to the philosophy of the Founding even though some Founders were mixed in their philosophy; advocating some things that were not consistent with a nation of free men, eg., John Adams advocacy of sumptuary laws.
Perhaps the best statement, outside of the Declaration, by way of expansion (in the negative) upon its fundamental point, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” we have Madison from Federalist #45:
But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object.
The purpose of government is to secure the rights of individuals. The revolution was not fought for the aggrandizement of government, be it Federal, State or local. This is something that certain politicians, Ron Paul among them, have forgotten.
And in accord with the import of Maggie’s point about Universal Criminalization, allow me to quote Lysander Spooner on a distinction that is utterly lost on our domestic nomenklatura today.
Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property. In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is wanting. It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practices a vice with any such criminal intent. He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others. Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property, and the corresponding coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.
Well said. I must borrow those for CAF.
Maggie wrote:
”which enshrined police and other government actors as de facto nobles, a ruling class who are subject to neither laws nor common human decency.”
My favorite comparison is that the ruling class in America has all the vices of the French aristocracy, none of their virtues, and without any moderating influence of noblesse oblige
—
And here is the complete version of Sam Adam’s quote about the “tranquility of servitude. ” It comes from a speech made at the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia on August 1st of 1776.
I think that the extended version accords better with the death and mutilation handed out at the hands of noble practitioners of Thugee; eg., in Fullerton, CA and in Ogden, Utah.
Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say “what should be the reward of such sacrifices?” Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!
>Government, on the other hand, is free to take your money and do with it whatever they wish. And, there is no higher power you can appeal to when they abuse that power.
And yet you say you believe in democracy and liberty? Yet you’ve ceded your power? You are the higher power. You and all the other voters. At least in theory.
The sad truth is that the banks are the higher power, because they have the money.
And the military is far from socialist, as they’re all about rank and hierarchy.
The military provides it’s personnell with food or a meal stipend, housing, military clothing, medical care and a salaried paycheck. If you retire, you still get medical care and a salaried paycheck. You are told what you can and can not do. You are given a job to do.That sounds like socialism to me.
The Catholic Church has religious orders such as the Domincans, the Jesuits the Carmelites etc. It does the same as the military for food, housing, clothing, medical care and retirement, but there is no salary, but there might be a small stipend of money every month. They are told what they can and can not do, and they all have jobs and a religious mission rather than a military mission. Some Catholic priests are military chaplains though and have officer’s ranks in the military too. Most are somewhay run like the military and this should not be surprising. St. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, was a Spanish soldier before becoming a Catholic priest. They elect their leaders for a proscribed term of a year or years. This other than their religious mission seperates them most from the military as the military has the top men decide who will be raised from the ranks. These Catholic orders of Priests, Brothers and Nuns or Sisters have the lower ranked elect their leaders. It sounds like socialism to me.
There are always hierarchies in any system humans have. I’d like to note that military chaplains of whatever religion are the best military people around. They deal with the heartbreak, stress etc. associated with military life. They deal with other military person’s problems and their own. Military Chaplains are also not allowed to be armed(carry or shoot a firearm) in a war zone due to the Geneva Convention(any nation which is a signatory e.g. Britain, Austrilia, Afghanistan etc.) and according to the United States of America’s Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ) if they are American military personnell.
Maggie, your arguments in favour of smaller governments appear to be supported by a recent study by the Institute of Economic Affairs:
“In general, more intrusive and bigger governments leads to a loss in well-being. … Increasing goverment spending by one third would cause a reduction in happiness of 5 per cent to 6 per cent. Smaller government tends to make peiple happier. Public spending cts could actually be the key to making Britain a happier place.”
Mark Littlewood, the director-general of the IEA, said the Goverment “needs to do less, not more. “It should stick to the very simple and straightforward tasks which it is just about capable of. All of us are better advised to pursue our own dreams, hope and goals than to entrust such personal and intimate things to David Cameron.”
Exactly. George Washington once said, “Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” That’s a wonderful metaphor; government is really good at some things, I daresay even better than anything else. Fire can’t bridge a river or grow crops, and though it can protect one from one’s enemies it can only do so by burning them out. Another good analogy for government is the sledgehammer: better than anything else for driving piles or spikes and pretty damned good at smashing things down, but not so good for driving in screws, breaking eggs or making things out of glass.
In the end, government has only one real power: violence. All of its dictates are enforced by violence or threat of violence, and as Asian emperors, Soviet commissars, and Roman or American slaveowners all discovered, threats of force gain only superficial compliance for the sake of appearances. And once the tyrant has made things so bad that death would be preferable, even the threat of force loses any power.
Maggie,
government resolves down to force which is why you must have the opt out option. It never ceases to amaze me how women can shriek about “men who are violent” when women “call the police” or “tell a boyfriend” about some alleged misdeed from a man to promote violence by proxy by the guvment or the boyfriend. We see women telling their boyfriend or partner “he did me wrong deal with it” and then saying “but I am not violent”.
Recently a woman ripped a mans testicle out of his scrotum and put it in her mouth to “teach him a lesson” for not wanting to date her. And in court claimed “I am not violent”. I beg to differ.
Just these last two days my friend “John Rambo” has been running a little skirmish with some women where a woman asked the question on linked in “should rapists be castrated”. Yes or no poll.
Obviously this is the incitement of violence. Anyone who says “yes” has just been incited to condone a serious act of violence against a man because a woman can’t be castrated. But thats ok because its only inciting violence against those “rapists”.
More obviously. Since this question was posed as “research for a new article” it may well be used as one of those “factoids from nowhere” as in “60% of women agree rapists should be castrated” and they will take this stuff to lawmakers” and say … “see the woman want to be protected from the bad men and you need to pass new laws to protect them”.
John pointed out that women rape men and boys and girls too. Simone de Bouviour was well known for “seducing” young girls. You see. When a man seduces a young girl its called rape and its a crime. When a woman seduces a young girl its called seduction and its ok. Right?
I pointed out that in MANY places the claim that any woman who has had “an unspecified amount of alcohol” who says she consents to sex can take that back as it is claimed women are not capable of consenting to sex if they have had too much to drink…but no one knows what “too much” is defined to be.
So we asked why only castration? Maybe women rapists should have their clitoris cut off. Maybe they should have their breasts cut off, right?
And since a woman taking alcohol before having consensual sex makes the man a rapist then MOST HUSBANDS who love and cherish their wives are “rapists”. Should they be castrated too?
And then we got the comments like “rape is about violence”. No. Not all these rapes that are caught in the expanded definition like “coerced to have sex”. Show me ANY normal 40 year old man or woman who has never, ever ONCE “coerced” someone into having sex. I mean. What does “coerce” mean? Us men HAVE to “coerce” women into sex otherwise it would be available just for the asking (or paying), right? Women DEMAND that we “coerce” them into sex 99% of the time.
This is the process of criminalising NORMAL behaviour and giving one party the “right” to call in the heavy hand of the state to commit violence by proxy against the other.
For some reason women do NOT see “should we castrate rapists” as a promoting violence and as hateful to men. I am sure the nazis did not start out saying “we should gas jews”…I am sure they started out with all the SINS that the Jews were responsible for and then suggested minor punishment or asked people if the jews should suffer minor punishment and then ratchet that on up to the gas chambers.
The way that men have become as oppressed as sex workers seemingly are is very much they same way. People inciting dehumanisation and hatred of their target and then asking the question “what should be done about these evil people” to garner “support”.
The whole area of “rape” is one where the guvments have so enlarged the group called “rapists” via manipulating the definition that it is now one of the most powerful tools of control there is in western society. What man is NOT afraid of being accused of “rape”. His life is over if that happens. The Duke Lacross 3 being a good example.
We put the thread over here if you want to click on it.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums2/tabid/369/forumid/232/threadid/1448/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Imnoangel
“Maggie, your arguments in favour of smaller governments appear to be supported by a recent study by the Institute of Economic Affairs:”
I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that most bad government came from too much government.
As someone who has often come up with great ideas following the Julius Sumner Miller line of questioning “why is it so” I asked myself a while ago “why do we need goverments”?
After all govern-ment means “control-mind”. I can see why the PTB want mind control but why would WE want it? And the answer nowadays is that we do not actually need governments. We can get by with legal bodies that may not have any monopoly over any service and they can co-operate and compete and their boards determine. The “watch dog” is merely a common law court mechanism to make sure that the people in these legal entities are doing what they are supposed to be doing.
When you broach the subject of NO GUVMENT with people they look at you like you came from another planet. But it is an idea whos time has come.
>The military provides it’s personnell with food or a meal stipend, housing, military clothing, medical care and a salaried paycheck. If you retire, you still get medical care and a salaried paycheck. You are told what you can and can not do. You are given a job to do.That sounds like socialism to me.
Sounds like capitalism to me. You have a boss, who tells you what to do, and pays you a bit for doing so, but controls all the financial cards.
My biggest problem with the “get rid of government” point of view is what replaces it? It will be something. And who or what does what government does when government is gone?
Take away government, or sadly capitalism with it’s bosses overnight, and Americans would be left milling about like sheep.
My biggest problem with the “get rid of government” point of view is what replaces it? It will be something. And who or what does what government does when government is gone?
Gangs, corporations, religious organizations etc. would rule in anarchy; and eventually these would create a new government.
That is why anarchy is not desirable, but power needs to be decentralized and kept as close to the people as possible.
I agree; that’s why I feel that it should be constitutionally prohibited for any level of government (nation, state, county, city, family) to interfere in the internal affairs of the next one down unless they directly impact another entity. In other words a federal government is only empowered to control interactions between the states, and families can only control interactions between individuals. The only exception (and it’s an important one) is that any level is empowered to stop the level below it from laws or police/economic actions that abrogate basic human rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, so that a nation can stop a state from legalizing slavery, a state can stop a city from stealing its citizens’ property through bogus “eminent domain” or “asset forfeiture”, and a city can stop parents from abusing their children.
It’s not a perfect system by any means, but it helps to stop the worst abuses by a distant, ultra-powerful government abrogating the rights of people too far beneath it to be heard. Take “child protective services”, for example; when people’s children are abducted by a state or nation there is little (if any) recourse, but if a city did so the victim could potentially raise enough of a stink that the politicians would be forced to reverse their actions.
1958…
Welfare state leads to disaster. This is a VERY important conversation.
Ayn Rand is such a minor philosopher that her work isn’t even entered into anthologies of philosophy. She’s so anti-Communist and Socialist because she lived under the Bolsheviks, who could hardly have been any more brutal. I’ll bet she doesn’t know a thing about stone age communitarianism and egalitarianism She’s pretty much a social Darwinist..
guinevereschampion,
Can you not separate what is said from WHO said it?
The most important piece of advice I ever got I got from my then SEVEN YEAR OLD DAUGHTER.
In all likelyhood? What I learned from her helped me save my life later on.
By the way? It is also rumoured that she was funded by the rothchilds to write atlas shrugged. I have not seen any good solid evidence of that yet.
Even some of the most evil people on the planet say things that happen to be true.
True. I don’t bear her any ill will. I just don’t like what she says.
Then leave out the comments about “Ayn Rand is such a minor philosopher that her work isn’t even entered into anthologies of philosophy” and please feel free to comment on her words in which she predicted that the theft of a mans property (taxes) by threat of violence and incarceration to force a man to his brothers keeper was guaranteed to destroy america and the western world. She said this in 1958. Clearly she is correct. Or do you have another opinion.
We are enslaved via mortgages and taxes. Both of which are not required to be paid in the US. Mortgages as currently sold are unlawful in the US and income taxes are voluntary as proven by Aaron Russo in his documentary “freedom to fascism”.
Aaron Russo became a personal friend of Nick Rockefeller as Rockefellers tried to recruit him into the CFR.
These are VERY important topics. I am pleased Maggie has done an article on them. The same methods used to oppress fathers are used to oppress sex workers because we threaten the same people. The likes of the Rockefellers.
Taxes came with civilization, and existed before that in the form of tribute to a stronger tribe.
As for capitalism being the only economic system that does not do violence to people, she’s dead wrong. Capitalists do this by negligent homicide (by forcing children to work 12 hours a day with dangerous machines, and by a despite for safety regulations). Socialism and communism are not better than capitalism when it comes to polluting groundwater and refusing or blocking legislation to reduce smog, which kills people of all classes. The real translation of laissez-faire is “let people die”. Capitalism had a long history of eliminating native peoples for the sake of their natural resources.
There is a good argument that the war against Iraq was for economic control of her oil exports.
The progressive income tax in America was passed by a constitutional amendment, meaning 2/3 of the states had to approve. Article 1 section 2
paragraph 2 of our Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to tax. This is stated even more clearly in Article 1 section 8 paragraph 1:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The ‘uniform’ clause is certainly in violation of the Constitution unless some Supreme Court decision has said otherwise.
Therefore there is no legal basis to argue that we don’t have to pay taxes, except for those who are too poor to pay taxes or those who are so rich they can hide their wealth everywhere. Be careful of your sources. There are major organizations that lie about everything, such as the Tea Party, and other organizations like the NRA which lie about plans to seize everyone’s guns, and of course the cops, who lie whenever they can get away with it.
Opinions are one thing, facts are another, and there are multiple resources on the Web to check facts, a good one being factcheck.org. As for polemicists like Ayn Rand, it’s a good idea to learn history as a background for assessing the worth of statements.
Unfortunately, people’s rights are in conflict with each other. The Palestinians and the Israelis each claim the so called blood drenched
psychotic Holy Land as theirs by right. One’s right to freedom, in a paranoid mind, might mean carrying a powerful assault rifle openly in public, but is a direct threat to my security. The right of authorities to confine victims of an unknown epidemic violates the personal right of each person confined, but surely is it not better to quarantine some then to let thousands or even millions of people to die?
I never claimed that communism, socialism, egalitarianism, communitarianism, utopianism or whatever are best for everyone. But when capitalists went unregulated under the theory of laissez-faire, they behaved like ravenous beasts. There is every reason to suppose that if laissez-faire returned they would do the same exact thing. Only now they have even more power.
OK, I’m going to step in here to point out a logical fallacy. Capitalism is NOT a system of government; it’s an economic system which has existed as long as there has been civilization. Capitalism is nothing more or less than the recognition that a free person’s labor and products of that labor belong to HIM and nobody else, unless he makes a free agreement to trade that labor or those goods for something else. Period, end of story. Anyone who owns ANYTHING for himself and would be upset if it were taken from him by force, is a capitalist whether he pretends otherwise or not. So, let’s not use the pronoun “they” when describing capitalists unless you literally own NOTHING, don’t work and subsist on handouts. EVERYBODY, including Marx himself, who values goods and recognizes ANY property rights is a capitalist.
Every abuse of others, every theft of the goods or labor of individuals, every establishment of a “principle” that some other or group of others has a right to take those goods or labor, is accomplished through either individual violence or group violence (AKA government). The ONLY valid, moral purposes of government are to protect the weak from the strong and to make sure people keep their bargains. As soon as a government crosses that line and uses force to enslave people, to penalize private actions which harm nobody, or to steal the goods and labor of individuals it becomes a tyranny, at which point it no longer matters whether its excuse is religion, “the Fatherland”, honor, “the people” “law and order”, profit, or anything else. The problem is TYRANNY, not the color of the flag the tyrant flies.
Maggie,
and this is why I bother reading what you have to say. You seem to be the ONLY woman who gets that if women DEMAND the state STEAL FROM MEN in the name of “for the benefit of the women and children” that is no more and no less a tyranny that when the Nazis stole from the Jews.
Indeed. We are killing more men than Hitler killed Jews before the outbreak of hostilities.
ALL government is by CONSENT. My friend Roger Hayes has written about this.
http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/article/consent-most-important-word-english-language
All men who are your readers in the UK are well advised to join Roger over at the BCG.
Brava, Maggie!
{curtsies}
Thank you, kind sir. 🙂
Maggie,
“The ONLY valid, moral purposes of government are to protect the weak from the strong and to make sure people keep their bargains.”
Actually I do not even think that a guvment should have these roles in the internet age. In our proposed alternative system the “government” does not do this. The “government” manages to processes of establishing courts, establishing contract samples, provides services to administrate courts and contracts on a fee basis etc. But does NOT actually participate in court proceedings etc. Those proceedings are performed by people who volunteer and make the selection criteria.
Peace Officers are proposed to follow the instructions of the secretary of a court and to follow the instructions of a jury where that instruction is unanimous. Apart from that Peace Officers are paid to collect information as to alleged crimes and they are paid by the people who wish the information collected.
If a community wishes to have peace officers “on the street” then that community directly pays for that peace officer on a VOLUNTARY basis. So, for example, I would not pay for a peace officer to be “on the street”. I can take care of myself. If women want peace officers on the street THEY can pay for them.
If I needed a peace officer I will hire one when I need one.
We have worked out pretty much all angles as to how we propose to have a second guvment. I called it the Mens Business Association. I would women women to create similar for women. We are not allowing women into the MBA on the basis that women are not held accountable for their oaths or their contracts and women feel no need to hold other women accountable for such. How can you run a business when all the women claim and DO that they are not accountable for their actions, words, contracts? You can’t. I fail to understand how women can not realise that not being held accountable for your actions, words or contracts damages the livelyhood of everyone.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/124/scope/threads/Default.aspx
“Therefore there is no legal basis to argue that we don’t have to pay taxes, ”
If you choose to enjoin yourself to the LEGAL system then yes, you take on the obligation to pay taxes. You volunteer to pay income tax.
If you choose to live in the LAWFUL system and interact with the LEGAL system via your strawman, as I do, income taxes are voluntary and this is recognised.
Aaron Russos documentary “Freedom to Fascism” shows there is no legislation that can force a person to pay income tax in the US. Pretty amazing really.
guinevereschampion
“Capitalism had a long history of eliminating native peoples for the sake of their natural resources.”
Oh come on! Get real. This is a very foolish comment. The people who slaughtered native peoples were the European aristocracy and you can comfortably call them the “Illuminati”. They are blood related and they cooperated in doing this. All the “conflict” between the european aristocracy was stage managed pantomimes. WW I and II were stage managed pantomimes as well.
There has not been a “capitalist” country in the western world since 1936. All countries were bankrupted by the banksters and converted to communism with the thinnest veneer of “capitalism” brushed over the top to convince the sheeple they were living in a free market economy. They were not. As soon as you get a “central bank” that issues the currency you are in a communist country. The US has has ALL ten planks of the communist manifesto implemented since 1936.
The one that most people do not realise is about “private property”. Through the deception of the NAME the guvment actually owns all property. Everywhere you sign what you think is your NAME you are actually acting and an authorised agent for THEIR name. If you sign you NAME on something then the guvment owns it.
Your mortgage, your house, your car, you bank accounts, your credit cards, your stocks, your deposit boxes. Everywhere you sign your NAME the guvment owns it.
The only way I know to change that is to claim all the property of the name back to your common law calling and make yourself the primary creditor and secured party for the NAME. When you are the Primary Creditor and Secured Party you are first in line to access the property of the NAME. If you also turn the name into a transmitting utility, like I did, the property is automatically transferred to you under common law.
Capitalism has gotten a very bad name for no real reason at all.
There is the question about moving back out of cities into more sustainable living arrangements where people are less dependent on each other because they grow their own food and catch their own water in tanks. The PTB offered “cheap accommodation” and electricity and water etc and people flocked to the cities. By moving into a city a person becomes eminently controllable. Michael Tsarion goes over this in great detail in “architects of control”. Well worth watching.
Cities are sheep pens for people…and any rebellious sheep is very easily dealt with.
This reply is for Nolan. Man are you paranoid! I don’t know what country you are from but only asses like Newt Gingrich denies that native peoples were trampled on. In the first years the Massachusetts settlers tried to treat Indians justly in their own eyes. They even fought alongside one native chief. Nevertheless as soon as King Philip’s rebellion began, even Indians who had converted to Christianity were forcibly shipped to islands in Boston Harbor, where there was no game and very little in the way of fuel. After that, the race war was on. Part of this was due to the loathing Puritan women had for native polygamy.
You should read the book “God is Red”. In the Eastern forests many natives raised corn and tobacco and other crops in villages. They used the land, but they didn’t own it. White pioneers and thieves got native chiefs drunk and tricked them into signing agreements giving away land they didn’t even own. North American Native Americans couldn’t comprehend European notions of owning land. In the main they thought they were giving them rights, not ownership.
This was cultural clash on an epic level. Do you think the ignorant and illiterate settlers in South Carolina cared about how many Indians they killed in seizing their land? Do you honestly think the settlers were Illuminati? Are you hallucinating?
You need to do some serious reading about American history through native eyes. In lieu of that Howard Zinn’s “The People’s History of America” is a good place to start. So what if he is a leftist. That doesn’t mean that leftists are incapable of recording the truth. If you want to get into an argument about leftists, I’m loaded and ready.
Same here! The whole thing with raising self-centeredness and self-interest (me, me, me) to the biggest level possible and reveling in it…literally nauseating.
Well Laura,
the me, me, me, me, attitude is EXACTLY what women do in the courts. You want to read my exs court submissions. Here they are.
ALL BUT ONE of the women around her supported her so you women openly support the me, me, me, me, me attitude of women in the family courts. If you did not you would join CAF and give us men the protection of the law that you are seeking for sex workers.
When it is a woman screwing a man over in the family courts upwards of 99.9% of women say “all is fair in love and war” and that extends to committing the crimes of perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft and child abuse.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/3/threadid/54/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Funnily enough. What crimes do sex workers suffer at the hands of POLICE…let me see if I have got this right Maggie because because I have never been a sex worker. I believe you are saying.
1. Cops lie under oath.
2. Cops arrest sex workers where no crime has been committed.
3. Cops ask for money or freebies so as to avoid the hassle of being kidnapped or ask for money to let the woman out of jail.
4. Cops sometimes simply take the property of the sex work without even extorting them for it.
I hope I have not misrepresented your writings.
So to me it looks like sex workers suffer from the cops committing the following crimes with impunity. Perjury, kidnapping, extortion and theft.
So. When it happens to sex workers the sex workers are all upset about it. But when it happens to fathers the sex workers could not give a toss, right? Not their problem, right?
“Injustice anywhere damages justice everywhere”. Martin Luther King
MLK was an Illuminati agent too by the way.
Given that sex workers and fathers are suffering the SAME crimes being committed by the SAME people they are well advised to collaborate against a COMMON ENEMY. Dont you think?
But no. For fathers there is a woman who benefits as well, so fathers can go f*** themselves….because divorced fathers sure do not have any money for hookers.
The above was to guinevereschampion.
Dear guinevereschampion, THANK YOU, my friend! The only other places I’ve seen paranoia on this level is from stuff I’ve read in true crime books, stuff in books about sociopathy and stuff on the most evil message board I’ve ever seen in my life (a board about the death penalty). That message board literally had me staring at it in open-mouthed shock when I 1st started reading there. Later I started laughing about it for various reasons and 1 of them was as a coping mechanism! Speaking of NEWT, 1 of the radio hosts I listen to calls him “NEWT WORLD ORDER”. I LOVE IT! It’s my new name for NEWT who deserves to be exposed for his many evils as much as possible.
Above remark I made about objectivism being literally nauseating to me. Sorry, it’s late!
It’s not possible to do away with government entirely at man’s present level of psychological and spiritual development, just as it’s impossible to do away with fire at our present level of technological development. Few would disagree on the need to keep a close watch on fire despite its usefulness, yet there are millions who think it’s OK to let government loose in a dry forest without any supervision at all.
It depends what you mean by “government”. What most people mean by “government” is MANDATORY submission to the legislation. And THAT we can live without.
We DO benefit from being able to create legal entities so as to cooperate more effectively. It is not MANDATORY but it is a BIG benefit. Remember the BIGGEST reason there have been “governments” were to raise armies in times of war. Once you realise that the wars were orchestrated between the leaders of countries you realise that “government” was a scam since bablyon.
The evidence I have read suggests that in Sumeria there was money, religion and legislation. It popped up out of nowhere with no anticendent. How about that. The religion was Nimrod, Sumeriamis, Tamus. And the three pronged diety has been recycled ever since. And the pope wears the Nimrod fish head if you actually go and look at it. The symoblism is what is important to look for. That is why it is important to know that when the President gives his state of the union presentation there are two fascai hanging behind him. Dont take my word for it. Go look at the video and look for the fascai behind the president. The fascai is a Roman symbol that indicates that the plebians are tightly bound to the paetoriate and the axe symbolises that the praetoriate has power of life and death over the plebians. (I think I have used praetoriate and plebian correctly….my mistake if not.)
Now why is THAT symbol presented on both sides of the President when he speaks? Because they are telling you that they consider they have power of life and death over you.
THAT sort of guvment we can do without but THEY can not do without that sort of guvment as they move towards their NWO one world guvment.
If we are to escape the One World Guvment the only way to escape is to denounce ANY mandatory participation in ANY collectivist enterprise. Only problem is women ALWAYS go for collectivism. Always have (see greek play assembly women) and always will….see gender breakdown of votes for democrats.
Why do women go for collectivism? Because they are smaller and weaker and guvment enforced enslavement of men to their benefit will get their vote every time. Seems the only women who are not on the “snout in the trough” list from the guvment are the prostitutes because the guvment hates prostitutes like they hate ex-fathers.
Hi Maggie,
this is 84 minutes so it might be a bit long for your readers. But G Edward Griffin gives a very good account of how collectivism works and comments on many aspects of what is happening today in the US. It is very informative which is why I thought your readers might like it.
Sex workers are a threat to the PTB because if men were “getting enough” they would be far harder to enslave to “women and children”. Men are controlled via two ways. Sex then food. Most men will give up a good meal for good sex, right? He knows he can eat later. He can not be sure when he will next have sex. At least not men with western women in general.
Are you aware that the persecution of sex workers and the stigma attached to sex workers is all about dominating and controlling MEN rather than women? Sex workers happen to be the “collateral damage” of the dominant men attempting to control the serf men. After all. We all know that the dominant men (politicians and rich men) get all the sex they know what to do with. Its the 95% of men who are serfs that have to be controlled via sex. And prostitution undermines the ability of men to dominate and control men via the women who want their own personal “man-slave”.
I was talking to my fav#1 recently for new years and I challenged her on this point. She finally confessed that yes…what women want for a husband is pretty much a man-slave. And the man-slave can only be had if prostitution is not a good option for most men. Men in the man-o-sphere are waking up that women want alphas to provide their babies. After all, its just “the right thing to do” to get the best genes for your baby. And they want beta smuck providers for man-slave husbands. This is not a new phenomenon and it even makes plenty of sense. So the beta smucks like me have to be sold a lie in order to get us to “protect and provide” for the “women and children”.
Prostitution is a BIG threat to that if it ever became socially acceptable, inexpensive, and widespread. You are as dangerous to the PTB as divorced men are….hence we are both oppressed for being dangerous to the dominant males.
I disagree that “all women” want a male slave; in fact I would say the opposite, that it’s only inferior women who want such a thing. Strong, competent women want strong, competent men; the desire to control and subjugate others, whether in men or women, is born of fear and a sense of inferiority. That’s why self-selected “leaders” are usually the least evolved in their society.
Hi Maggie,
“I disagree that “all women” want a male slave”.
For that to be true you only need to find ONE woman IN THE WORLD who does not wish to have a man-slave. Surely such an intellectual as you would not wish to forward such a weak argument. The NAWALT argument has been killed deader than a stone in the MRA area. We do not listen to it any more.
When us men point out 99.99% of women do something and say “women do xyz” we are no longer tolerant of the “rebutal” NAWALT. It has been used too many times to try and deflect attention from the 99.99% of women who do something over to the VERY RARE one who does something else.
“Strong, competent women want strong, competent men.”
That is NOT what happens in any number. The “strong competent women” are more and more demanding the man become the househusband so they can have their “glamorous career” after the kids arrive. THEN they have FAR higher divorce rates because they “lose respect for the man”. And it does not matter how “strong and competent” the man is. His chances of making househusband work are almost zero no matter what the woman wants. Giving a woman what she says she wants is a disaster for men. Me included. I would NEVER listen to a woman telling me what women want any more.
Fav#1 “Women do not know what they want to be happy. They need to be told what they can have by their man. Told to be happy about it. Then she will be happy.”
She includes herself in that by the way. I believe her. Once she said that to me and I reviewed that across the history of my life it strikes me as VERY true in most cases. Obviously there is ONE woman who knows what she wants. But most do not. Check it out if you do not believe me. Fav#1 is a very independent and strong willed woman. She is no shrinking violet. She is very intelligent as well. She knows what she said.
Funnily enough. In the family courts, despite the sex roles being reverse in the family, the man STILL loses the children because “primary care giver” somehow finds a way not to be applied in these cases and the mad still gets stuck paying alimony and child support despite being the non working spouse. And will ANY women talk about the hypocrisy of all this? Nope.
After my separation I dated THREE so called “strong competent western women”. One was a pharmacist who was the daughter of an ambassador. She was HYPER self confident. No wonder she was 40 and never married and no kids. She didn’t get a second date. One was a software developer. 40. Once married. No kids. She was IN-SANE. She blew the second date.
Third went well. 38. One kid 14. Divorced. Accountant and a leader in an area of education I am involved in. Thats how we met.
You know what they ALL had in common. They ALL wanted me to be the “man-slave”. Even my fav#1 admitted she wanted me to be her man-slave.
Maggie.
I am in the “strong competent man” category to the max. Hell. I am taking on the guvments of two countries risking my life doing so. Men do not come any more strong, competent, intelligent etc than me. EVERY woman I date tells me they have NEVER met a man like me…in a good way. When I first talk about what I do and what I am doing they usually just laugh at me and think I am crazy. When I go into a bit of depth and they get I am serious about taking on two guvments they still think I am crazy but in a nicer way.
EVERY woman I meet wants ONE THING from me….a man-slave.
I am not buying that deal again. So unless fav#1 chooses no babies? I would not take any other woman seriously. If women don’t like that? They have to look at how they have presented themselves to me.
Please give me more credit than that. The majority of people ARE weak-minded, which is why tyranny continues; therefore the majority of women you meet will be weak-minded just like the majority of men. Also, you’re confusing what women want with what they think they want, which are not at all the same thing. More women think they want a slave-husband (though they convince themselves it isn’t that) than actually want one, but even then it’s not anything close to 99.99%; I’d say more like 90% (if that), and pre-feminism it was probably below 50%. The fact that you perceive “only a few” exceptions indicates to me either a selection bias, or that you’re talking to the wrong women. And the fact that you can’t tell the difference between what women want and what they think they want, say they want or have been taught to pretend they want shows me you have a lot to learn about female psychology. It’s like these guys who sing the praises of “Game”, but fail to recognize that it only works on the weak majority, not the real quality women you might actually want a relationship with.
Hi Maggie,
I DO give you more credit than that. This is why I was very surprised you used NAWALT. It is beneath you. That you can retain ME as a reader is quite amazing. Your ideas are extremely well presented. Like I said. Yours is the ONLY womans blog I read. I am amazed you have so many readers. I would have thought you were far too intellectual for western women. I only know ONE other woman at your level.
Now. We both know that with about 1.5B men and 1.5B women there is an exception to ANY rule. Ok? We don’t need to say 99.99% in front of everything. We are smart enough to know when I say “women” there are exceptions.
I think you edited this as I have a copy in email that says:
“Your statements about “all women” actually only apply to the weak majority; the fact that you perceive “only a few” exceptions indicates to me either a selection bias, or that you’re talking to the wrong women”
I want to be clear. I never say “ALL women”. Perhaps the ONLY time I break that rule is when I say ALL women are prepared to lie to men to get what they want. This is true. I do not think there is even ONE woman on the planet who is not prepared to lie to a man to get her way. Very sad.
As far as “quality women” and talking to the wrong women. I certainly WAS talking to the wrong women. Western women. The number of “quality” women in the west is approaching zero. Even those women are not worth talking to because of the legislative system around them.
Women say “you have to find the quality women”. No. We don’t. We can ignore western women as the dangerous people they are. We can date eastern european women where we find a FAR higher percentages of “quality women”. I’ve dated about 25 women in just under 4 years. Three lasted longer than a year. Many were one dinner dates where I decided I was not interested. In a few cases she was not interested. I have known my fav#1 4 years now. We split 15 months ago but stay in touch.
I would stack up 100 eastern european women against 100 western women ANY day. Picked randomly I will get 60 or 70 decent women from the East and maybe ONE or TWO decent women from the west. Doing the numbers? Western women are not worth my time so I dismiss them. Remember. I am saying this in my own name in public. That is a very brave thing to do.
Western women are in total denial at just how good eastern european women are. The difference is STAGGERING from a mans point of view Maggie. It really is. Eastern women are like talking to a different species. When I go to the UK the attitude of the hyper aggressive masculinised women makes my skin crawl. I have as little to do with them as I possible can.
“The fact that you perceive “only a few” exceptions”.
In the WEST Maggie. I see few exceptions in the west. In Germany I have a seemingly endless selection of really nice women to be around.
MOST, and I mean 9 out of 10, western women actually LAUGH at me when I say my children were kidnapped and my house was stolen. They LAUGH Maggie. Do you have ANY idea how hateful that is? It is FAR WORSE than LAUGHING at a woman who has been gang raped by strangers and beaten. FAR Worse. Stealing a mans children is MUCH WORSE than a woman being raped. I wish you women would get that.
These include senior professional women you would claim to be “strong and empowered and independent”.
LAUGH….Maggie. Let that sink in.
Would you call a man who LAUGHED when a woman recounted being gang raped and bashed a “quality man”? No. So I will not entertain the idea that a woman who LAUGHS at a man who has been FAR WORSE criminally victimised a “good woman”. And there is nothing any woman can say to change that.
Now. Eastern european women? I have NEVER seen one laugh. In FOUR YEARS I have seen two twenty something AIRHEADS be less than supportive but they didn’t laugh at me. One of them I have a harrowing dressing down in the middle of the restaurant. I put her in her place like a kitten in a box. She actually went away and checked my web site on her phone and apologised profusely before I left the restaurant. No western woman has EVER apologised for laughing at me for the kidnapping of my children. NOT ONE…EVER.
Apart from those two? EVERY SINGLE ONE (100%) condemned my ex. 100%. MOST gave me a kiss and a hug, 80%. MOST (90%) offered me kind words of support. Fav#1s friends, women I DID NOT KNOW, would find me in the town square and give me a hug and a kiss and offer words of support and roundly condemn my ex as a child abusing criminal.
So in Eastern European women it is COMMON for them to act very nicely towards me. Western women are well advised to take a long hard look at themselves. They are not very nice people any more. This video is not far from the truth.
One of the reasons I would like to have prostitution accepted as the LAWFUL ACTIVITY IT IS all around the world is that these horrible women who LAUGHED at 100 MILLION men like me would get their come uppance quick smart.
Maggie.
In what I believe is your quest to have sex workers claim, exercise and defend their right to do whatever work they choose to do so long as both parties are in agreement? You have NO greater supporter on the face of this planet than me. None. If I had time and money to run test cases for you in Australia I would. But I do not have the time or the money. I am running down on my reserves and I need to put money into my bank account.
You will realise by now MEN do NOT donate money to men who are helping them. MEN will not even put a post onto a blog mostly. But a woman? Men donate money like crazy to cancer research etc. Men will buy hugely expensive gifts for women. You know the scene. A MAN needs help? F*** him. A woman needs help? Men THROW MONEY AT HER. That’s “equality”. Women would do well to reject that type of “equality”.
Remember how we first met? Someone was talking about USD1,000 lap dance without sex. I was shocked men would spend that much and I was pissed off that such men would not contribute to what I am doing. I have spent about USD500,000 of MY money on my efforts to re-introduce the rule of Law in Australia and Ireland.
I can GUARANTEE YOU that if I can make our new courts work they will be sex worker friendly in that any police officer who kidnaps a woman on the basis of ANY LEGISLATION will be prosecuted in our new courts.
That is what this topic is all about…the universal criminality being foisted on us….and my response has been new courts. I have been at it FOUR YEARS. Our “equal women” have to pull their weight as their claimed equals. You want us men to put cops on trial who are unlawfully kidnapping you and stealing from you? You want us men to protect you because you are obviously not able to protect yourselves?
What are you going to do for us, eh? Just give us a mere “thank you”? Or even THAT? High class hookers make USD2,000 a night. What are you prepared to pay to get the cops off your back, eh?
All I am asking is that WOMEN volunteer to sit on our new courts to protect us men from the criminal women who steal our children and our houses. As you can see from the links below. The response of western women to this call has been PATHETIC. I have NO RESPECT for so called “good women” in the west because they demand the protection of the law while at the same time refuse to extend the protection of the very same law to us men. It’s total hypocrisy. The ONLY group of women who seem to understand that the cops are OUT OF CONTROL and are a BUNCH OF CRIMINALS are sex workers.
Since sex workers and fathers of divorce have the SAME enemy? You might want to join us. That was my original idea in writing on your blog….nothing happened.
Well? Is now the right time to ask again?
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia-women/Home.aspx
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/ireland-women/Home.aspx
It’s not true that the ONLY group of women who understand how there are bad cops are sex workers. There’s many who aren’t that understand this and are fighting it with activism, etc. I find it hilarious you scream all the time about how women don’t treat men equal (those evil, evil Western women!) but when I brought up the NAWALT argument a long time ago on here you basically told me it was worthless, etc. LOL! You told me I was using the “lowest standard” of proof (I may not have your words exactly right here, but that was the gist of it) but here you’re pointing out how FEW of the Western women you met were decent, etc. What a low standard you have! I mean, isn’t that as worthless as my standard I put with the NAWALT argument? But, another woman besides me puts out the NAWALT argument and doesn’t hear the same ###*** I did. You sure treat people equal when they bring up the same argument. I’m impressed! Speaking of women sitting in court, please realize that many due to wanting to live independently, raising kids, helping other family members and/or friends, etc., that they don’t have the time to do this? But, they can do what they have time to do and they deserve credit. Petitions CAN and DO work and they take very little time. It’s really nervy and unrealistic to expect and insist that women can do the court thing. It isn’t “pathetic” that some women don’t have the time to do this. What an arrogant, unfair statement.
Laura,
” when I brought up the NAWALT argument a long time ago on here you basically told me it was worthless, etc. LOL! ”
The NAWALT argument is worthless. It only takes ONE woman in 1.5 BILLION to not be like that for this argument to be true. It is the lowest possible hurdle to set up and shows an intellectual laziness on the part of the person that uses it. We all know in a sample set of 1.5 BILLION there is bound to be an exception. This is why I said it was beneath Maggies considerable intellect to use it.
This is why I almost NEVER use ALL MEN or ALL women. All intelligent people know that ALL men or women is a hurdle so high that the statement can almost never be true. We are talking general traits of women and men and then again mostly I am talking about western women. Eastern European Women occur to me as almost an entirely different species of woman.
You see. Unlike feminists. I do not believe the kool-aid of “we are all equal”. That is the siren song to the mentally retarded so that they can unjustifiably consider themselves equal to those who are vastly superior in various skills.
I had a woman write to me this week. Her name was Kerry. Since Kerry is commonly also a mans name in Australia she challenged me as to why I would assume she was a woman. I told her it was because of the juvenile way she wrote. Only a mentally retarded man or a hopelessly feminised man would write like that. I get the sex of a write correct 90% of the time when there is a question. How about that?
As far as honesty of western women? Don’t make me laugh. They claim equality right? They wear high heels, they are not that tall and their arse is not that pert. They colour their hair, it is not really that colour. They wear tons of make up. Their lips are not that red. Their eyelashes are not really that thick. Their skin on their face is not really that colour. They wear lift and separate bras. Their tits are not that big.
In fact. If you walk down the street of ANY major city in the west you will find women LYING about what they look like to an amount of about 80% if not higher. How many men wear high heels, make up, tint their hair, wear lift and separate jock straps? Almost none. Men are MUCH more honest about even their physical appearance. Why do women spend BILLIONS enhancing their physical appearance? Because they KNOW they have little else to offer. Boo hoo. The truth is out.
Face it Laura. Almost EVERYTHING about women is about deception. Try reading Shopenhauers essay on women. It should be mandatory reading for teen boys.
If women wanted to be EQUAL in the workplace they would have worn suites, ties, flat black shoes, long sleeve shirts and no make up. And they would not have used their NATURAL “erotic captial” as an advantage in the office. But in the UK women office workers dress more provocatively than street walkers.
A little bit of honesty from women would go a long way. In my very considerable experience, western women are totally against honesty to men. Lies, deceit, manipulaation are their tools of trade in the west.
My fav#1 told me to my face she would cuckhold me if we married on the agreement of no kids and she changed her mind. THAT is honesty.
By the way? In a survey in the UK of 5,000 women 50% said they would LIE about the parentage of a baby if the cuckholded a man and wanted to keep the man. 50% Laura. 96% of the women ADMITTED to lying. 96%. Honest? Really?
“It’s like these guys who sing the praises of “Game”, but fail to recognize that it only works on the weak majority, not the real quality women you might actually want a relationship with.”
Actually..not true. In my extensive sampling of ONE…..my fav#1…..
She had dissed me a bit around christmas 2009. She figured she had “landed” me. I had as much said so. I was very relieved to still be alive and I told her that I wanted us to be together if we could work that out. I had expected to be killed or jailed for a long time in November 2009. So when I saw her just before christmas I was overjoyed and my mouth ran away on me as to how I really felt about her. Dumb beta smuck!
She responded by dissing me. Typical woman.That’s what they do to betas.
I was just onto my alpha training wheels. I was learning about game…so I decided to game her. Teach her a lesson about playing games with me. A mate helped me.
So….I started dating the woman who became fav#4 on a 50-50 basis. I told fav#1 that dissing me was not ok and she had to work harder now. She had lost her top cat status. She was FURIOUS. GOOD!
Fav#4 was determined to win me away and fav#1 wanted top cat status again. 2010 was a stellar year in terms of dating for me. I never had life so good as that year. I can die now I have had a year like that. Few men ever get such a year.
Game works because it operates on the subconscious level. There is almost NO woman who can resist it if you ask me. And remember. I had NEVER gamed a woman before and I was JUST on my alpha training wheels. I was a complete novice and the result was the BEST YEAR of my life as far as women goes. Not bad!
Now I am two years down the track on alpha? Women have zero chance around me. But now it is so easy? I am not that interested. Thrill of the chase and all that.
There is just not enough on the womans side to really want a relationship with a woman. What do they bring to the table that a man does not? You women talk about “you men would be so lucky to have a relationship with me”? Crap. Its a lie and I know it. I have asked THOUSANDS of women
“What have you got to offer a man like me”.
Almost UNIVERSALLY they have no answer to that. ONLY my fav#4 rattled of SIX things that she was prepared to put on the table to win my time and have a crack at changing my mind on babies.
Its not really the subject area of your blog maggie….but maybe one day you could address the topic of “what do women have to offer men in a relationship”. I think you will find sex and intimacy is high on the list….but if a man has game or is alpha he can get that any time he wants it. After that its a really short list. The whole thing is a lie. And I am pissed that I was lied to.
“Game” doesn’t work on any woman who knows her value and sexual power; when men have tried to use it on me (that I noticed), my reaction was amusement…and that’s pretty much the reaction you’d get from any woman who understands what Hakim calls “erotic capital”, such as most escorts.
Hi Maggie,
given you are the ONLY woman I read and I have only met ONE other woman in my life who is of similar intellect? And GAME would certainly work on her?
I am more than happy to agree that GAME may not work on you. But the other 99.99%? They stand no chance. We certainly do not know the SAME women. But the women I know. No chance.
Let me explain. When I was young, 15, my brother, my cousin, and another boy in our town made the national football side in Australia. And we came from a small town of 30,000. They were 17 at the time. The girls were throwing themselves at these three. They competed with each other to “collect the set” so to speak.
I would often be “lookout” for when mum would come home and warn my brother or cousin when mum arrived. These 16 and 17 year old girls were such sluts. Of course I knew most of them. Mostly they were “good christian girls” who went to church each sunday and presented themselves as the “sweetest of the sweet”.
My eyes were really opened as to what sluts teen girls were despite the risks of unwanted pregnancy. Because MANY of my friends were professional footballers I got to see “game” or “alpha male” up front and personal for many years. As a “good christian boy” I was looking for a wife not a slut. I wanted a woman I could be with for the rest of my life. I was so disgusted in all these slutty girls.
So I saw how a bit of the alpha male swagger draws sluts like flies. And 99% of them would swear on a stack of bibles they never did this sort of thing. Hell. I was the LOOKOUT. I know what was happening!
So one thing I did when I was looking for my wife was to NEVER go near alpha mode. I was a beta provider husband father wannabe loser smuck. The girls I really liked I would talk to just as I would anyone else. Quite a few I asked out on dates told me “I cant date you, you are like my brother”. I was in the “friend zone” as a teen.
I was one of those men that women SAY they are looking for. I listened to what my mum said, my aunts said, my dad said, my girl friends said they wanted in a man and I did that. They all told the SAME LIE which is why it sounded like the truth to a teen boy. In divorce I found out what women REALLY want. Money first through 99th. I am warning as many lads as possible. Nothing any woman says or does will change my mind. Not even you. You have access to ALL my court documents. You can read for yourself EXACTLY how men are treated in divorce. And I mean the BEST of men like me. There are NO husbands like me around. At least not many. Many men I know openly call me a liar when I tell them what I did as a father and husband and claim “no man is that good a husband”. That is among MEN Maggie.
Now I am not looking for a wife? I only need to use the smallest of small amounts of Game if I want. Indeed. I have had women give me their numbers and ask me back to their place on the ten minute tram ride to town from where I used to live. I mean women I never saw in my life before. I have women asking me home when I eat in restaurants alone. The fastest I have ever been asked if I am looking for a wife is three minutes. But now I know most women are so slutty and only after money and couldn’t care about me (or the hundred million other men they have screwed over in divorce) any more than the average cockroach they would step on on the sidewalk? I really am not interested in people who are such liars and hypocrites. Western women pretty much turn my stomach even to talk to with their support of the divorce courts.
I do not associate with MEN who are liars and hypocrites. Why would I associate with WOMEN who are liars and hypocrites?
I get the sense from your writing that sex workers are more honest than “other women”. Though I do wonder if all women are not sex workers at heart parlying their “erotic capital” into benefits for themselves via lies and deceit. My fav#1 is very honest….but the question remains “how honest” since women will not denounce women who are liars I have no way of knowing.
Maggie.
Do you have any idea how repulsive a woman who is a liar is to an honest man like me? My fav#5 told a lie about me a couple of months ago. We argued over it for a few days and then I dropped her and deleted her number. It was a real shame as I really liked her and it looked like we could spend some nice time together over the next few years. But one lie is two lies too many for an honest man. Women seem to not understand that.
And to trade on “erotic capital” you need a buyer. Japan is showing you that the number of suckers to buy such a bad deal is falling rapidly. Men are waking up that women are playing them for fools and they are VERY angry about it.
Why can’t women just be honest? Why do women have to LIE to us so much? I was taught by my mum honesty is the best policy. Didn’t you mums teach you the same?
Maggie.
Without any doubt in the world women are the greatest disappointment of my life. They really are. Some days I wish I had been born gay but I wasn’t. I really, really like women on a level I have no real control over. I am just very disgusted in the actions of 99.99% of western women.
The few eastern european women I have dated….25 or so….they seem really nice….but given that even my fav#1 tells me that, yes, the deal is they want a man-slave? I am no longer buying. And I tell as many lads as possible. I guess many of those lads will choose the pay now plan rather than the get screwed over in FC plan so what I am saying to lads will drive business prostitutes way I guess.
Equal my arse Maggie.
You use us and manipulate us mercilessly using our natural and normal sex drives. It is a vicious and cruel betrayal of men who would truly love you and adore you and fight and die for you if you would only be our wives and mothers of our children.
What a mess women have made at the behest of the likes of the Rockefellers.
Peter, you believe what you like: “You can lead a horse to water…” If you want to believe that your magical “game” will work on 99.999% of the women in the world, I can’t stop you from believing it. But I’m telling you that you simply don’t notice the ones it doesn’t work on because they ignore you and move on.
Hi Maggie,
we reached the furthest indent!
“If you want to believe that your magical “game” will work on 99.999% of the women in the world,”
Actually I don’t even use game any more. Too tiresome. I have this 3 minute “elevator pitch” that screams MONEY. Also. I never approach women. They approach me. So the qualification is done before we even meet. This works well enough for me.
It does not hurt that I am actually a gentlemans gentlemen and am now an alpha. Why would I chase a woman when I know they will chase me?
Sure…MOST women walk right past me as a percentage. But I know that they would be easy to pursue. Its just not worth my effort. More men are finding the same. I think rates for prostitutes will soon start trending down because of this.
Maggie.
Looking in the divorce courts? It is clear what women want. The worst thing that has happened to women in a long time was to allow me to be attacked in the divorce courts. Why? Because I was willing to publish all the documents and the video as evidence. The lads disbelieve “bad stories” but they can’t disbelieve stamped certified court documents.
The Australian guvment is now FLIPPING over this. They have sent swarms of on line agents out to do things like post animal porn into facebook groups where I am present to try and get me banned to take away the links to these documents etc. You and I have the same enemy…..my enemies enemy is my friend, eh?
Actually game doesn’t work on ANYBODY. Game does not exist. Game is a scam and really a cult. I know because I was in the cult for about 10 years until I finally got out.
See http://www.seductionmyth.com/
“I am in the “strong competent man” category to the max. Hell. I am taking on the guvments of two countries risking my life doing so. Men do not come any more strong, competent, intelligent etc than me”…
Laura,
women have been telling us how “strong and independent” they are for 40 years….until the ship sinks…then they demand men stay behind and down. We are sick of you hypocrisy. We are sick of your lies. We are sick of your flippant answers to serious issues.
“Woman up”. There are serious issues to be dealt with.
Tell me. When was the last time you put your life on the line for other people?
I do it every day.
“Woman up. There’s are serious issues to be dealt with”-you know, somehow since doing activism/support work of different kinds since 1990 I just had NO idea about that! None at all! Typical evil, evil Western woman reaction, right? LOL! Through doing activism/support work for various causes (which I’m pretty much discreet about for various reasons) I just never learned that at ALL! Yes, I know you put your life on the line every day. You’re so brave, so amazing, so intelligent, the best man that even any evil, evil Western woman could want! Has anyone contacted you yet about doing a movie/book, etc., about you? Like a “James Bond” type thing? Seriously, to ask someone about putting her life on the line every day (i.e., aren’t you just like ME? More evidence that you want people in safe little category boxes despite your contant putting that down) is literally funny. You’re literally saying that to do any good in this world you have to be risking your life every day. What the ?? I could give you a big list of people who have changed the world for the better that didn’t risk this every day but I’m sure you’d find something wrong with it. LOL.
If you’re going to follow stuff on Infowars you may want to check out Alex Jones’ connections to the John Birch Society and the Council for National Policy. Also look up on YouTube the Austin, TX gun rights rally that was held in February 2010 and the shows of Lee Rogers and Josh Reeves (you may be interested in their experiences with Alex).
Laura,
Alex Jones was pointed out to be an agent in 2000 by William Cooper, author of Behold a Pale Horse. I have been aware of that for years. Do you really think you are going to tell me something I do not know already? If you can I would be impressed.
That someone appears on Alexs show does not make that man an agent. For example Aaron Russo appeared on Infowars. The VAST majority (99%+) of what Alex Jones publishes is true. That is how subversion works.
Now. You say you have been into “activism” since 1990 like it is some sort of “badge of honour”. I would look at that and say it indicates your level of stupidity and ignorance.
Why? It took me less than ONE MONTH to realise the courts were a criminal organisation when I was attacked. It did not take me much longer to find out that the guvment and legal fraternity and media and medicos were in on the deal. Inside 6 months of being criminally abused I had a THOROUGH understanding of the control grid into which we are born. THOROUGH.
Given the breadth and depth of the control grid and the unlimited resources available to the PTB to keep it in place I wondered how I might develop a remedy. I then spent a YEAR figuring out a REMEDY and tested the REMEDY inside TWO YEARS of being criminally attacked. The REMEDY worked. INSIDE TWO YEARS.
The obvious question is this. Why was it that I was able to be attacked and “wake up” and get to the PROVEN REMEDY inside TWO YEARS when all these other people have been into “activism” for 20 years? Might that not indicate that I applied my God given intellect to the situation for the benefit of my fellow men and women? While others were effectively diverted and make completely ineffective? Hhhmm?
After all? The remedy that I have created works just as well for sex workers as it does for fathers. If sex workers want to adopt the remedy I developed they are welcome to. You respond like most MRAs who have been around for a while. When the remedy is put in front of them they reject it on the basis that “it can not possibly work” with no further reasoning as to why it might not work.
Dear Peter, if you’re convinced Alex is a government agent, then why would you trust any of his material and/or his regular guests? LOL! Most of his regular guests are members of the Council for National Policy. I challenge you to find anything good about this group and the people in it past and present. Speaking of Aaron Russo:
Whether capitalism or socialism, someone always holds most or all of the cards so to speak. It doesn’t imply it’s not socialism or even it’s not capitalism. Someone also gets to tell you what to do. There are more limits as to what a boss can tell you what to do than in socialism. Please Read Vaclev Havel’s “The Power of the Powerlessness” essay above and refuse to live within the lie. At least in capitalism, you can leave your job if you don’t like it unlike the military which will imprison you for desertion or being absent without leave. In capitalism, a boss can only tell you what you can do on the job, and has little to no authority over you when you are off duty. This is unlike socialism especially in the the most extreme examples of it namely religious orders or even more so the military. You can get into serious trouble and be punished for what you do off duty e.g engage in prostitution in Germany where it is legal.when in the U.S. military. This doesn’t happen on a capitalist job or seldom does. Usually the worst a capitalist job can do is fire you. This is not so in socialism where you can be imprisoned and executed to death. Maggie McNeill and gumdeo have explained why a more limited government is better in their responses to you, and since i can’t do any better, please read them. Socialism is too much government. We have already been SOCIALIZED too much and need to roll it back.
It’s not true that bosses have no power over us off the job. They scour Facebook and other social networking sites to see if someone has done something inappropriate (according to the boss’s values) for the past 30 years. We are told what we can wear at work. We are told we cannot gripe at work.Many people must submit to a drug screening test not just to get hired but at any random time. If you are caught in a police sting doing business with escorts, even though this has nothing to do with the job or your performance, you’re shoved out muy rapido.. Meanwhile the upper tier can do almost anything they want, including buying stock in poison infant formula. The boss doesn’t care that 50% of my wages are swallowed by my rent or that my wife can’t get maternity leave. I can’t use too much sick time because even though Republicans loudly proclaim themselves the party of the family they will do nothing to help poor families. In France and Germany families have extensive paid maternity and paternity leave. Here this is sneeringly called socialism rather than aid to families.
Socialism and communism were not invented by Karl Marx. He wanted to make a science out of communism (the word socialism was interchangeable at the time). The ancient Germans had no private property, the basis of capitalism. The general idea of land for Native Americans was usufruct, not ownership. In the stone age tribes the only property a person had was his or her tools, family, slaves,dwellings, and horses. Some recognized intellectual property rights for dreams and songs. The stone age tribes at least believed in sharing what they had, especially with those who were infirm.
In the late 1500’s a party of Jesuits went to Brazil to rescue the Guarani people from slave raids. Viceroys and popes had repeatedly issued laws against raiding Indians but the invaders from Portugal ignored the laws.
The Jesuits too a colony of them to Paraguay, where they set up a theological communism. The people were required to practice Catholicism of course. In return they were freed from slavery and remained that way for decades. The movie “The Mission” starring Robert de Niro and Jeremy Irons depicts this history in encapsulated form.
In Europe, the large monastic orders were communist in that individuals had no private property. I wouldn’t want to be a monk, but this at least proves that people can live under communism successfully.
As for the absence of government (unless the social contract highlights egalitarianism), nature abhors a vacuum, and what results is that a strong man takes power, who almost always declares himself dictator.Our social system is wrong. We put great emphasis upon status, success and wealth.
As they say, you can’t take your wealth with you beyond the grave. Instead we should have a communitarian model. This model exist as the nomadic Rainbow Family, in which everything (including lovers) is shared. This disorganization was founded in SF in the 1960’s and is still going strong.
These people are happy without much money because their social lives are so rich.
Whatever your life is like in the civilian world, it’s way worse in the military world. If you get fired for going to prostitutes on your personal time away from work, that’s the worst a civilian boss can do to you. In the military they can give you a dishonorable dicharge after imprisoning you which will screw your prospects up for life. I never said socialism doesn’t work. It works in some situations. It works in the military and even better in religious orders and maybe a few other groups too. You haven’t convinced me it will work for most people because I know most people are essentially not only selfish, but petty. and foolish. The biggest problem whether it is socialism or capitalism are the tyrants who rise to the top and won’t have a live and let live attitude when people are off of work. The real issue isn’t capitalism or socialism per se, but tyranny. It’s just that tyranny is more limited in capitalism than in socialism. I agree that there is too much tyranny in capitalism, but it’s less than socialism.
Laura,
It might be useful to see if your characterization of Rand’s philosophy holds. Here is a precis in her own formulations.
Ayn Rand named her philosophy “Objectivism” and described it as a philosophy for living on earth. Objectivism is an integrated system of thought that defines the abstract principles by which a man must think and act if he is to live the life proper to man. Ayn Rand first portrayed her philosophy in the form of the heroes of her best-selling novels, The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). She later expressed her philosophy in nonfiction form.
Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of Objectivism while standing on one foot. Her answer was:
Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism
She then translated those terms into familiar language:
“Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
“You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”
“Man is an end in himself.”
“Give me liberty or give me death.”
The basic principles of Objectivism can be summarized as follows:
Metaphysics
“Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are—and that the task of man’s consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it.” Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural—and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.
Epistemology
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).
Human Nature
Man is a rational being. Reason, as man’s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual’s choice. “Man is a being of volitional consciousness.” “That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.”Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).
Ethics
“Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man’s survival qua man—i.e., that which is required by man’s nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.
Politics
“The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force—i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.
I hope that this does not cause you any serious gastrointestinal upset.
Dear c andrew, thanks, but I read this stuff years ago so I didn’t just “write off” Rand’s stuff without reading it. I haven’t done that for a lot of years (thank God!) with anything. I want NO part of any philosophy or anything else that makes self-interest a huge thing and sees altruism as something bad and to be avoided. I’m convinced it’s pure evil and have SEEN 1st hand the results of this stuff. 1 result is people in the US who don’t have enough food (including kids who need what’s called “sponsorship”). In other words, ###*** the poor. 1 of the LOVED (eyeroll) solutions to this: just cut off all help to them. That’ll fix it all! RIGHT! That actually does the OPPOSITE to people truly in need. Imagine the shape the world would be in if EVERYONE followed this literal self-worship and also believed altruism is bad. Things are bad enough in this way but to have everyone believe and practice in this it would be a lot worse. I also LOVE (eyeroll) the arrogance of thinking that people aren’t affected by stuff they had nothing to do with. Please tell that to people who have been literally abused (especially by their parents), had their relatives and/or friends murdered and also the 1’s who have gone through any trauma that was no fault of their own. These things strongly affect people and have all through time. Yes, it’s up to people to do the recovery work and not self-destruct and live in bitterness, etc., but to say traumas that people don’t have anything to do with causing don’t affect them hugely is an evil lie. Thanks for posting this (not being sarcastic here), but I read this stuff years ago and it made me sick then and does now also and that won’t change.
Do you see? The General Welfare is part of the Constitution.. Even the Puritans understood this concept when they founded Massachusetts as a Common Wealth.
The reactionary German government under Chancellor Bismarck understood that the workers needed social security. Why are Americans so fucking dense?
Maggie, there are at least two forms of government that are purely run by the wealthy. They are plutocracies and oligarchies.
The fiction that free people own their products is disproved by the fact that without unions corporations can set wages at any level they want and even completely eliminate any kind of benefits. Although Soc. and Com. both are pretty bad about good wages, both systems provide fantastic benefits, including free education through to PhD programs. Kuwait, which is a monarchy, does this as well, although in this case it’s paternalism. Still, people benefit.
Marx recognized personal property such as tools, homes, domestic animals, and products of labor. What he so rightly howled against was the unequal exchange in which the producer is paid far less than what his product is worth. Capitalism, even in theory, treats people as a means to profit. Kant’s argument that to treat a person as a means to an end is immoral has never been refuted. Therefore, capitalism is immoral, but then so isn’t most of society and our institutions. The same is true for Soc. and Com.
We live in an immoral, inherently unjust world.
Or so says idealism.
No, the idea that free people own their own products is NOT a fiction; they DO own them, and any theft of them is morally wrong. The argument that people don’t own their produce simply because someone else steals it is like saying prostitution is wrong because it’s illegal. Might does NOT make right.
ALL systems of tyranny treat people as a means to profit. ALL. It doesn’t matter whether the profit is in money, power, or a perceived spiritual advantage. The only way to stop this is to establish ironclad rights for individuals which NO GOVERNMENT is allowed to abrogate for ANY reason, including “social benefits”. Until such rights are irrevocably established (and they never yet have been in any large culture), tyranny will continue; all the rulers have to do is promise to share the benefits of the pillage, enslavement or whatever with those in power (which in a so-called democracy is the majority) and they’re assured of support.
Maggie, I didn’t mean that it’s a fiction that people own their own products. I’m referring to the fictional “Free contract” theory of capitalism: That in search of labor a person is free to negotiate wages or salaries. This is very limited for low paying jobs and better for high paying jobs. Without unions, working people would still be working 12 hours a day 6 days a week with no safety measures, no pension plan, and practically no bathroom breaks. Completely free capitalism is a tyranny. Although Russian serfs were free at the end of the harvesting season to go to another estate to seek work, it meant traveling at the beginning of winter at a time when estates were huge (Ivan the Despicable put an end to this).
I agree entirely with your second paragraph. I am especially against torture, but I would resort to it if it meant saving the life of my kidnapped wife. Nothing is absolute, not even rights.
As for your earlier blog about mens rea, I asked a lawyer on Yahoo Questions and this was his response:
Mens rea is still a requirement in finding a defendant guilty. Mercy only enters as a consideration in the punishment phase, and the Congress and state legislatures have control over that. They have been requiring courts to impose harsh sentences, whatever the evidence for mercy may be. The states have begun to understand that prisons are expensive and counterproductive, though the public still likes harsh sentences.
“Free contract” is not remotely a fiction; that’s a defeatist position. Who organized unions (and their ancestors, guilds)? They certainly weren’t granted by a government. No, unions were freely organized by workers to increase their bargaining power. That is the free enterprise system at work. It’s only when the government acts to break unions or to enshrine them in law that the balance is destroyed. Public employee “unions” are the worst of all, since both “management” and “labor” are on the same side and the money they’re arguing about isn’t theirs to control but rather the people’s. Your example of serfs is a non sequitur; serfdom is established by GOVERNMENT through military force and the granting of feudal rights; it is not a natural economic development.
Mens rea is still a requirement in state and local cases, but not federal ones; I suggest you point your correspondent to Harvey Silverglate‘s website if he doesn’t believe that.
It’s true that unions were organized by workers. For a long time though in the US it was illegal to strike, and the strikes were broken up by private armies, sheriff’s deputies or state militias. There was a lot of violence over this. To fight back the Teamsters hired the Mafia . I guess that’s free enterprise too.
It took a Supreme Court decision to enable unions to recruit at places of employment. This was certainly not free enterprise at work.
The so called free contract is not free in practice. No worker can negotiate working conditions. It’s take it or leave it. As a nurse I had no right to refuse to work an extra shift if the charge nurse called in sick. I had the keys to the medicine cart, and that was that (I could not legally abandon my post). I had no time to eat on the job (theoretically, of course, but it would mean not getting the meds out on time, a crime in the eyes of the employer and the state). I had no right to organize a grievance. Most employers have a grievance process.
Not nursing homes, which are wicked thieves when it comes to Medicare.
I got fired from a nursing home for complaining about the working conditions.
These were people who were so criminal I wanted to horsewhip them in public.
I am bitterly cynical about employers. You’ve had an enjoyable life.
When I was homeless I couldn’t even get a job because my clothing was too ragged. I didn’t have a phone number nor did I know anyone who had a phone (this was a while ago). I also didn’t have an address, which means that if they had even wanted to hire me they couldn’t tell me.
The lawyer I mentioned did say Congress. That’s been going on ever since that rotten, despicable, rat brained RayGun got into power. Believe me, it’s the fundies who are behind this. I know Laura is an exception but I mean especially the fundies who follow the likes of Pat Roberson.
It was a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, who began to limit the behavior of the robber barons. All hail Teddy Roosevelt!
How do you view the government using its thugs to break up strikes as “capitalism” when it’s obviously tyranny? And if you believe the current situation is the fault of “Reagan” or “The Republicans”, how do you explain that it’s only gotten worse under several Democrat-controlled congresses and two Democratic presidents? The two “parties” are just two factions of one approved party, the “Big Government” party, which exists to do nothing but increase its own power no matter what the cost. And until people learn that, they’re going to keep getting exactly what they deserve…and taking the rest of us along with ’em.
Maggie, it wasn’t only Government in the form of county sheriffs or state militias, it was also done by private armies, notably the Pinkertons.
I think you are as cynical about government as I am about employers.
As for both parties pushing for ever more laws and regulations, you’re right. I believe that the real government is the insurance companies and bankers. Nevertheless, the two parties are much like the Protestants and the Catholics in the Reformation trying to outdo each other in purity. In this case, it’s not purity (or is it in regards to personal rights?), but zeal in punishment. This is extremely popular. As I said, our social system is wrong.
Americans are obsessed with punishment, and I believe this is a direct inheritance from the Puritans and the Calvinists.
The clause in the constitution about Congress passing laws for the general welfare cannot rule out laws about pollution emissions, safety regulations for automobiles, proper safety equipment in factories (courtesy of OSHA, that spawn of big government), labor regulations, minimum wage, and so on. In other words, Big Government does protect us as well as persecute us.
I’ve said for decades that we need a viable third party, but it seems to be impossible here.
We’re in agreement about the abuses of power, and, I think, for equally personal reasons. When an employer makes me feel helpless, it throws me into a murderous rage. I always use employers as an example of tyranny because they interfere with my liberty, and choices in life, much more than the government. The gov’t doesn’t care if I write a letter to the editor protesting the abuse of power, but if I post on Facebook a complaint about my employer he or she can fire me through email, for Heaven’s sake.
I was born in the wrong century in an alien world. Jefferson spoke about the tyranny of the majority, as did Emerson and Mark Twain. Getting Americans to understand this requires that they do some reading, which seems to be beyond them (except for the Bible). My arrogance comes out here. In the main Americans are purblind and anti-intellectual. Like Ginsburg said,
“HOWL!”
Not exactly; I’m cynical about any collective entity which uses violence to control people, whether it calls itself a “government”, a “religion”, a “corporation”, a “party”, a “philosophy”, a “cult”…
We have a right to revolt, but if we do, we’re legally defined as traitors.
The Renaissance Catholic Church promoted the violence of regicide,
presumably against tyrants. Henry VIII was a monster but he used violence to break the Catholic Church. He was right to do so. By the use of violence the power of priests was greatly limited in Mexico, Spain and France.
I sometimes feel that Nazis should be shot on sight.
Violence and even murder are sometimes necessary. This is why I can’t be a pacifist.
You are not a collective entity, and neither am I. And violence in self-defense or defense of one’s own is not remotely the moral equivalent of using violence to control others.
“The only way to stop this is to establish ironclad rights for individuals which NO GOVERNMENT is allowed to abrogate for ANY reason, including “social benefits””
Wow. You actually “get it”. This is the fact of the matter. The ONLY way to free ourselves from the tyranny that the Illuminati has created so very well is to NEVER ALLOW abrogation of an individuals rights….EVER…….
Even in the new courts we are creating the individual participates on a VOLUNTARY basis. If found guilty the guilty party will be offered a remedy instruction which has been unanimously decided by the jury. The guilty party can VOLUNTEER to perform the remedy instruction or LEAVE the society and go into exile. The person is OUTLAWED and if they do not leave or commit more crimes they can be killed with impunity as they are beyond the protection of the law and they CHOSE IT.
In a REAL system of LAW there can be NO FORCE. Everything is consensual.
Very few people understand this.
Maggie,
A bit off topic….but it shows you how criminally biased the family law is.
Here is a really good reason why us men are no longer getting married and having kids. We wind up in this position.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2088534/Why-Ill-NEVER-let-exs-new-girlfriend-meet-son.html
Note the comment.
Shocking as it may seem, this article is actually a good illustration of the current state of UK family law – women hold all the cards. If Rose were a man, her (his) actions would be construed to be proof of a “controlling and potentially abusive nature” in CAFCASS-speak and, following a 10–minute phone interview with a case officer, the child’s contact with (male) Rose would be reduced to 1 hour every two weeks in a supervised contact centre, where – for the child’s safety – there would be a care worker present in the room.
However, since Rose is, well, Rose, she gets to write an article in a national newspaper, dressing her abusive and controlling behavior up as “motherly love” while implying that more women should do the same!
As a divorced mother, Rose knows she is in the enviable position of being untouchable by the family law system, a secretive, deeply unfair system which seems to have only one goal: The separation of fathers from their children and their money.
– Ozzie Linden, Brighton, UK, 20/1/2012 11:48
And in other news? Liz Jones is one of the most MAN-HATING women on the planet. She has openly admitted to having TWICE tried to steal sperm to get pregnant….once from her husband of the time who has now divorced her.
She is lamenting how she wants her “true love”. Note the line.
“Madonna still feels, at 53 — the same age as me — that she is attractive and has a lot to give a man. ”
I often read the line “woman xyz” has a lot to offer a man. But I never see the details. Madonna is on record as saying that they day that she was denied the “right” to adopt another child from some african country was “the worst day of her life”. Maybe she should talk to some men who had their ACTUAL children kidnapped and compare “bad days”.
Women like Liz Jones and Madonna, who are openly championed by so many women, give women a bad name to us men. They might be very good for sex workers because they are sure turning a lot of young lads off marriage. It is like “I might end up with a shrew like THAT after 25 years? No thank you.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2089190/Why-women-like-cling-fantasy-swept-feet—-age-53.html
Dear Laura,
Right on, sister! I don’t care about anybody’s married life, but I care very much, about fire breathing hypocrites of everlasting matrimony.
“.. Like the legendary frog, Americans have remained content to sit in the pot while the temperature has gradually increased, and we’re all well and truly cooking now…”
Are you aware of the history of the Prussian ‘Schule’ system and how it led to the German population’s gradual acceptance of what eventually became Nazi Germany? I only recently found out about this.
Anyway, can you guess which country adopted this system? …. This (short) video really explains so much….
Everyone looks to politics (voting or protesting, it’s all the same) as a way to change society (because government schools tell us this is so), but really we just need to raise our children at a safe distance away from the state (home educating etc). It makes sooooooo much sense it’s almost an anticlimax. We just need to collectively NOT subject our children to a 16 year long state propaganda and hierarchy/ authority conditioning program (during their most formative years).
The most simple, elegant, peaceful revolution imaginable….. “the non brainwashing of children”. Love it! 🙂
It’s been a while since I found a post with NO comment from me. Well, there’s one here now.
[…] “new classes of crime”; after all, we can’t have the UK lagging behind the US in the number of ways for the police to lock people up, steal their property and trample on their rights. As for Ms. […]
[…] repeatedly grants to even its most minor actors immunity from the edicts by which it establishes universal criminality for the rest of us. But the only way there will ever be even the slightest chance of change is […]
[…] written on many occasions about what I call universal criminality, the crowning achievement of the modern police state, under which there are so many vague, […]