|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:21 PM January 28th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
It is one thing to council boys that they shouldn't scare another boy, punish them in some reasonable way, and observe that they stop the undesireable behavior, but to criminalize them?
Marxist-Feminism is once again at work. They hate males, they got the laws rewritten, and now boys are being taken away in handcuffs.
This is not an accident.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 08:45 PM January 28th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Most of us, (those in the US, UK, Australia, most of Europe) are not in danger of falling victim to the inherent flaws of marxism anytime soon, although we're all suffering from one degree or another of feminism. If anything, here in the US we're in more danger from the fight against marxism overzealously leaving us with economic anarchy, which are just as bad as marxism.
Just as regular anarchy is not freedom, economic anarchy is not economic freedom. You need laws to ensure the safety and well being of the citizenry and you need economic laws to ensure the safety and well being of the economy. The lifeblood of any healthy economy is competition, it's oxygen supply is consumer spending. Both must be strongly protected to keep true capitalism alive. If monopolies are allowed to manipulate the market and remove the possibility of competition, the economy as a whole suffers. If minimum wage is not sufficiently high and there are too many potential workers, companies will exploit the fact that they need to work to survive in their pay structure, especially when those survival needs are costly as is the case currently when we factor in housing. Only when neither the potential employers nor the potential employees must agree to a deal in order to survive are honest deals made, leading to increased consumer spending and thereby a stronger economy. In other words, instead of companies operating by the principal that "If you won't work for barely enough money to survive, we can easily find someone else who will since so many are struggling to do so", they would operate by the principal that "We pay based on what people feel is a fair wage to do the job we ask of them, because if we don't nobody will work for us."
Of course, in order to make this work, tariffs need to be imposed and enforced on foriegn trade such that no extra profit can be made by giving jobs to foriegners instead of Americans, (or Brits, or Aussies, etc.) and thereby exploiting either that countries workers or the currency exchange rates.
Wouldn't a higher minimum wage hurt companies? Not at all. Those who can produce competitive products and services will find that the revenue increase they get from everyone else's employees having more money to spend on their products and services will be greater than the extra cost of paying their own employees. The increases in income and sales tax as a result would also give the government more money and thereby increase government spending, (at least, make less of it defecit spending, which should keep those companies who sell primarily to the government happy as it might slow down the bankruptcy of the US which would cause them to collapse). Only those companies that can't produce competitive products, those which can only survive by exploiting the worker's need to have a job just to survive would be injured, and why should we let them hold back the economy just because they can't produce competitive goods?
Without extending this post even further by getting into details, the other main tenants of a healthy economic system would be protections for new and small businesses, as well as taking action to lower the cost of living, (and thus create more disposable income in consumer hands). Also, I should point out that even though you might not personally work for minimum wage doesn't mean your pay isn't affected by it. Completely unskilled positions only need to pay minimum wage. Slightly skilled positions, (like an IT help desk worker), only need to pay a little more than unskilled positions, (and companies will only pay the minimum they need to). Positions which require a bachelors degree only pay a little more than the slightly skilled jobs. It's a pyramid, and the lower minimum wage is the lower all the other wages are. Even commission based jobs are dependant on higher minimum wage because those commissions are based on how much money consumers have to spend.
Old money neo-cons who couldn't compete on a level playing field, who inherited their wealth, who want a stagnant economy to protect the status quo, absolutely oppose these ideas. They oppose competition, they oppose restrictions on immigration, they oppose tariffs on goods produced in foriegn countries. They oppose newcomers trying to work their way to the top and are against the American dream. They are not in favor of anti-trust laws which give small businesses a chance. They don't want consumers to be protected if their products contain a harmful defect any more than they want them to be able to sue if an inept doctor grievously injures them. They view laws which keep workers employed and earning a reasonable income as problematic. 99% of the time I hear people talk about "marxism", they are repeating neo-con propaganda and these are the laws they are complaining about. Marxist? That's like an anarchist complaining that laws against murder are totalitarian!
Besides, when you look at Mexico and see the results of laissex faire *cough* "capitalism" *cough*, they look amazingly similar to the marxism we're supposed to be so afraid of. A few people control all the nation's property, decide what wages everyone gets, and own the government. Occasionally, those in power go out and lecture on the evils of the other system, before flying home in their leer jets to their 40 room mansions with the only difference being whether the sign on each reads "public" or "private" property but it makes no difference anyways, as their is no means for the average Soviet or Mexican worker to attain such things.
*************************************************
Now, does any of this in any way contradict the views of the men's movement? Does any of that sound pro-feminism at all? What people are mislabelling a battle against marxism, is really a battle for economic anarchy. I oppose that battle, and am often labelled a Marxist for it. Considering that, can you understand why I might not be enamored by the use of the term Marxist-Feminist? Can you understand why I don't like linking attacks on feminism with attacks on *any* governing of the economy? The term Marxism is rife with political undertones, and linking it with feminism chases away anyone who isn't right wing, and some who are. I don't care that the soviets were involved in promoting feminism in America in order to create discord, or that Marx himself espoused much of the feminist ideology, that's totally irrelevant to today's world. Fighting Marxism, even fighting true Marxism, (as opposed to fighting for "economic anarchy"), is a distraction from our real fight as men's rights activists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Nambla on 05:22 PM February 4th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
first of all a couple of paragraphs to give the idea of modern day socialism ideas.Because remember whoever wins the war writes the history.That social state,or whomever comtrols it can demonize whatever it wishes to demonize.Medicare is socialism,social security is socialism. But do you think grandma and grandpa want to be known as the benefactors of socialists,Hell no.Not after the cold war and the demonizing of the "S" word.
whatwe are missing here is a factor of the first amendment.The forefathers of this great nation did not even fathom TVs let alone 24 hour networks and national news that hits the fan as soon as it happens.when 99% of the major media outlets are controled by time warner,r
upert Murdoc,and 4-5 minor roleplayers.People get tunnel vision.Mens Activists are a victim of this inevitable byproduct of capitalism.What does it create for the both of us, you as a Mens movement supporter,and I a socialist. Dumb fucking people.Oh you still have freedom of press go ahead and print up all the fliers you want,bummper stickers,whatever. If you get lucky you will be deemed as a radical and pointed out by you local news for littering flyers all over or even better demionized on CNN or FOX as a "threat".They dont have total control of public opinion but they sure can sway it a hell of a lot.I would gladly give up the Food network or MTV2 for Al-jaizira,you know the one that supports the terriorists;P.No way in hell we are getting it tho.Hell we cant even see caskets comming home of our brothers,sisters,moms,dads,anybody! WHy? well because they learned from vietnam if people even have an inclination of what war was like...[fill in the blank]
John stewart did a great job blowing a hole(ok making a dent)
in the media machine on the now internet famous clip of him on crossfire
http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=2652831&ht v=12
The following paragraphs are from a good socialist paper found at this website
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/ twosouls/twosouls.htm
yearning for emancipation-from-above is the all-pervading principle through centuries of class society and political oppression. It is the permanent promise held out by every ruling power to keep the people looking upward for protection, instead of to themselves for liberation from the need for protection. The people looked to kings to right the injustices done by lords, to messiahs to overthrow the tyranny of kings. Instead of the bold way of mass action from below, it is always safer and more prudent to find the "good" ruler who will Do the People Good. The pattern of emancipation-from-above goes all the way back in the history of civilization, and had to show up in socialism too. But it is only in the framework of the modern socialist movement that liberation from below could become even a realistic aspiration; within socialism it has come to the fore, but only by fits and starts. The history of socialism can be read as a continual but largely unsuccessful effort to free itself from the old tradition, the tradition of emancipation-from-above.
"The state owns the means of production -- but who "owns" the state? Certainly not the mass of workers, who are exploited, unfree, and alienated from all levers of social and political control. A new class rules, the bureaucratic bosses; it rules over a collectivist system -- a bureaucratic collectivism. Unless statification is mechanically equated with "socialism," in what sense are these societies "socialist"? "
NOw the last paragraph illuminates the "inevitable" corruption of socialism.Showing that when it becomes corrupt it can no longer logicly be called socialism.
Corruption will happen in ANY type of a free society when people are not paying attention.I feel our society needs to wake up in the US because i believe we are slowly falling into fascism.What is it? Ill be totally honest,i diddnt know until a caller on cspan called the current administration a bunch of um so i looked it up here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definition
corporatism--- the forth point is obviously happening and without a socialist influence to counterbalance it the power that the masses have is eroding.
Now Hombre,
As for tariffs to help american companys succeed what for? Most of the american companys already outsource the american jobs for the exact reasons you described,people are willing to make sacrifices as we see it(they dont) in there standard of living.They never won the global lottery of being born in the united states.As i see it theres no way to stop it. Eitherour paychecks go down pay or we sacrifice american corperations ability to compete in a global market and they colapse like the many small buisnesses that have already in the united states. What will happen in the near future is like the old phisophical problem.Would you let an innocent child be mutilated,beat up,psychologicly abused,really every bad thing that could happen to a person for the rest of that society to live in eutopia? Or have everything happen as its happening now in the real world.Thats the choice,and the children are the indians(from india),many african nations and the people begging for bread all over the world.The US is the eutopia.So either we improve the standard of living around the world or keep on outsourcing and the wealth of the world will be divided evenly among the working class,amaricans would reaaaly hate the latter.Of course Im being a little extreme in the point but i hope you understand the jist of it.
As for raizing the minumium raize,well it pretty much goes along with my first point about tariffs.If the US corperations and the people want to live in a fishbowl and not interact with the poorer nations(i.e. everybody else) sure raize minumium wage thatll work. Its a global market tho,the cats out of the bag.
capitalizm byproducts of a democratic state
---corperations and special interest groups influncing elections,and the elected officals actions
---pyramid scams big and small,either housewife social circles with dinner plates or enron.
---I was tempted to use the trade deficit of the most sucessful democracy in the world,then i decided i would be just like the socialist demonizers. I dont belive this goes hand in hand with a democratic,or capitalistic,
society.It just happens to be.
---reasons to NOT cure diszeses dont give
immunitizations but to treat them with drugs you would have to buy over the years.AIDS is a lot more profitable that way then giving someone a shot when there a baby.Pennicilin is p
hizers worst enemy.Lotta dizeses out there.yea i cant spell very well if ya havent noticed.
---even more diabolical make new problems to treat or come up with ones that people have
always had.
ADD,depression,anxity.Market it like crazy until it becomes a need.make them really believe it!
---bush is trying to do the next one,Limit how much you can sue a doctor for or a insurance company.Its less than 1% of insurance premiums but if ya make it sound like itll drop your insurance rates thro your media machine itll pass. Now back to the first flaw,the special interests are satisfied for helping ya get into office.
In conclusion what we should do to solve all of the above mentioned problems is KILL all of the dumb fucking people;P
Nambla
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Nambla on 05:26 PM February 4th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
oh and one more thing
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:00 PM January 30th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep.
The reason the word "man" or "men" is being replaced with the word "male", is because the word "man" implied humansess. Male animals are not refered to as men, because they are animals.
Men are now refered to as "males' because we are precieved as animals, as well. It is done to rob us of our humanity, in the same way the word "Injun" or "Buck" (for men) and "squwa" (for women) robs my people of our humanity and the word "nigger" is used to remove the humanity from Blacks. The word "male" has basicaly come to mean the same thing when refering to men as a whole. It is simply used ti denote infiriority.
I can't count the number of times I have heard or read men and women refered to as "a woman and a male", "or women and males". or "be on the look out for a woman and to white males".
Even here on this site I see it done. ("Women and males") It is almost an un-concious act.
Yes, it is no fluke that women are refered to as "women" or "ladies" and men are more and more often refered to simply as "males". Just as if one were sexing a farm animal..., "Male" is the way women call men "Injuns" and "Niggers". Simple as that.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(long_ponytail@yahoo.com)
on 10:50 PM January 28th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
It's been a while, but if I recall correctly this is something that my friends and I routinely did to exorcise the hate we felt toward a bulley, or bullies or someone we just plain didn't like. Thoughts of actualizing our drawings never even entered the equation. It was a good way to blow off steam. I don't know the whole story about why the boys drew what they did. Only they know, but I have serious doubts that they ever intended to commit murder or mayhem. This has taken the "Woman good, Man bad" mantra to a new level. Are female "Thought Police" the next step?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 12:31 PM January 29th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Notice that the depictions are no more violent and indeed bear a strong resemblance to the "Boys Are Stupid Throw Rocks at Them" t-shirts. You don't hear a peep out of the administrators about girls sporting their violent paraphenalia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:04 PM January 30th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Hunchback-
Exellent point.
This DOES blairingly illustrate the hypocricy.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
From the "males are dangerous and must be strictly controlled" files,