|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Rand T. on 02:05 AM April 18th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
the Spanish inqui-- I mean the truth from feminists. I don't think even feminists expect the truth from feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bull on 03:13 AM April 18th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Now we don't want to confuse the situation with facts do we? Nobody ever accused a radical feminist of dealing with facts; they merely seek out information from any source (valid or not) that supports their rhetoric and ignore or minimize any information (regardless of the source) that counters their position. Sheepish lot that they are, I doubt any of them is capable of an original thought. Like the saying goes, you can’t graft a new idea onto a closed mind!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 05:48 AM April 18th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The FemNag propaganda Machine is built on disinformation, Lies, demonization of Men, and perpetual victimhood. Their base of support amongst Women is unravelling. More Educated Women are giving up careers to raise children. So their so called gains are evaporating. Yet the war on Men and Boys in Education continues unabated.
They cannot deal with reason, logic, empirical evidence as they are "Tools of the Patriarchy". Common guys you remember that get out of Jail free trump card the FemNags always use right??? Well their Media allies cannot continue to hide their lies much longer. Their sacred cows are revealed as frauds and Feminism as a Gender Hatred Movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 06:47 AM April 18th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree with the sentiment that (mostly White women) feminists do not see Black men as men. Most of them seem to think that Black men aren't even HUMAN to begin with. But then they don't think men in general are human, either, I guess.
You don't even want to know how they feel about American Indian men...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 05:23 PM April 18th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
It's maybe worth recalling that the feminists' practice of using selectively deceptive statistics and silencing their opposition was taken up wholeheartedly by Senator Joseph Biden and his VAWA 2005 hearing committee.
The aversion to actual diversity of opinion among those proudly advocating "respect for diversity" is one of the biggest lies that feminism has inflicted upon our culture.
Within the Stalinist ideology of the mutli-cultural diversity cult, "all opinions are tolerated."
Depart from that orthodoxy and you will be crucified. (My contribution to the religion thread on a parallel post ... about which I have zero actual expertise.)
The tolerance concept above was first coined by Fidel Castro --- "Within the Revolution, everything is possible.... Outside it ... NOTHING!"
Gotta admire Fidel. He has reinvented the ethics of truth-telling almost more times than Kim Gandy at N.O.W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was long held (mainly by women), that if females ran the world - everything would be fair and more comfortable for everyone.
As we have witnessed, where women get any voice or control, their drive is to disadvantaged every male in every sphere.
Gosh, and we may have two women running for President !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 10:58 AM April 19th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
>Gang-banged; "Gosh, and we have two women running for president!"
And I will vote for neither.
There was a time, many years ago, that I WOULD have voted for a woman. But looking at things the way they are now, my vote for a female candidate is very unlikely either now, or in the future.
From what I have seen of (many)women in power, they like the status quo of the "culture of misandry" and they do what they can to not only keep it in place but to further it and strengthen it.
As it is, you have male politicians who want what is best for women AND men. But I know of no female politicians who feel the same way. The female politicians want to put in place MORE advantages and PRIVLIGES for women and continue to beat males down.
However, if I was FORCED to choose a female candidate (between Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice) I would likely pick Condoleeza Rice over Hillary.
Hillary is a dyed in the wool far left-wing socialist feminist. The worst kind of feminist. She would do everything in her power to destroy men's civil and constitutional rights, As any far left, socialist feminist would. Rice MIGHT do the same to some degree, but I don't think she is above accepting constructive criticism. Plus I believe that she is a believer in both the constitution and the Bill of Rights, and is more likely to abide by them then Hitlery... Oops! I mean HILLARY.
But in the end, From the majority of women that I know, know of and have met, they all seem to be misandrists. Why would I vote for any people that have nothing but disdain for me because of my gender?
It's like me, as an Indian, voting for a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
No. Only when American women can let go of their hatred of men will i ever vote for a female candidate.
Oh, and for any feminist Trolls that may say; "Yeah, but you'd vote for a male candidate that hated women!" The answer is; No, I would not. I would never vote ANY candidate that had any hatred of ANY group of Americans, period.
I would never vote for David Duke because he is a racist. I would never vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a gender bigot. Get it? Good.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:02 PM April 19th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
The possibility of a Hillary vs. Condi election choice is frightening. I've also read that Hillary might tap my state's ascending pol-de-jour, Barack Obama. That move would force Condi to choose a male ethnic minority (probably Hispanic) to compete in a P.C. feminist Prez + V.P.-of-color multi-cultural charade.
Hillary's biggest problem is that some 45% of polled voters say they would "under no conditions" vote for her.
Condi's biggest problem would be distancing herself from her current boss as Iraq sinks into chaos, Iran gets tactically nuked in 2007, and Condi has to explain a record of total un- flinching support for The Shrub.
For voters, this comic opera would virtually guarantee suitcase nukes exploding in several major U.S. cities, $5.00 a gallon gas, and a resumption of the military draft ---- for boys and men only, of course.
Brave New World is only one election away....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 10:27 AM April 20th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
All this sounds eerily close to an Apache Elder's vision I was reading about.
Few good things are to come in the near future according to him. This sounds like the beginning of the end, perhaps. However this Elder said that we can avert disaster if we do the right things. But fewer and fewer people seem to want to do the right thing anymore. Humanity is destroying it's self from the inside out. We are destroying the very Earth we live on and "eating" our selves alive in the form of the current treatment of men and boys in Western society. This Elder also said that we must stop worshiping the god of sex, if we are to survive. In my opinion that could also mean we have to stop worshiping woman as goddesses and stop sacrificing male victims before her alter of government.
Again, this is just my opinion but I believe that the election of a female president in the U.S. at this point in time will spell disaster and in many cases even death for THOUSANDS of men and boys. Again, just my opinion.
I will have to read more about what this Elder has to say, but he seems to be right on track with the way things are going in the world, at this time.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:33 PM April 20th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
It's maybe a stretch to suggest that the historical experiences of American Indian men are an important forecast for what all men are now confronting in FemAmerica.
Native American men ignored, disbelieved, then (too late) heroically resisted the destruction of their tribal cultures and lifeways.
(Indians could not believe they were confronting a kind of human being without integrity, with no honor, with no shame, with only rapacious predatory intent. It was completely outside their understanding.... like aliens landed.)
Men today face a pervasive assault against masculinity from state-sanctioned radical feminism in all its guiles. (This is a predatory protocol.... feminism = YOU ARE PREY.)
The only possible response must be resistance, but first men have to actually recognize the nature of the war being waged against them.
I like this quote from Low Dog, an Oglala elder who advised his young men as the Great Whtie Father tried to coerce the tribes onto reservations and Custer approached (we're talking 150 years ago, i.e. yesterday...) --
"Why should I be kept as a humble man, when I am a brave warrior and on my own lands? The game is mine, and the hills, and the valleys, and the white man has no right to say where I shall go or what I shall do. If any white man tries to destroy what is mine, or take my lands, I will take my gun, get on my horse, and go punish him."
To paraphrase Low Dog --- the "game" is still ours to claim... only this time it's a political gender war and a (very serious) game of resistance to the destruction of men's place in society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 12:44 PM April 21st, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Roy, ol' friend, You hit the nail square on the head.
One of the main reasons I became an MRA was because of the shocking similarity between what we (Indian people) went through 100 years ago and the feminist movement, and it's effect.
Like the federal government a century ago to my people, feminism and the federal government are telling men who to be what to do and where to go. Both started out on "friendly terms", the Government making promises and deals with Indians (agreeing to share land EAQUALLY, only to go back on those promises, and destroy our cultures, our way of life and to take away our GOD GIVEN rights. The feminists with the HELP of the federal government Started out talking about and men agreeing on EAQUALITY between the genders only to do virtually the same thing with men as a whole, going back on the agreement (of equality) and erode men's rights slowly so that they become accustomed to it gradually, then go in for the kill, when men are at such a point of dis-advantage they can do little or nothing to stop it. To do this to Indians the federal government had the Buffalo all but rubbed out, because they were a food staple to tribes like the Lakota, Cheyenne, etc. This of course, would weaken them and make them less ale to fight. In the case of men in general our constitutional, civil and Human rights are being rubbed out, just like the Buffalo, all on the call by the federal government.
A century ago (and still to some degree today) Indians were called and thought of as a "sub-human class". Therefore we were not afforded the same rights as White people, and later Black people, Asians, etc. We were (are) called "Savages". Now a century later we see the same being said about men as a whole. You literally hear feminist (and many women, in general) refer to men as the "Male species" setting men apart from the "Female species", when ever a class or group of people are defined as "other than we" it makes what you do to them easier and in the mind of such people JUSTIFIED. If men are animals (as Indians were/are considered) then killing them isn't really a sin in the mind of the assailant. This is the very hallmark of bigotry. In small groups it is just annoying at worse, but when bigotry is adopted by the entity of a government it is deadly.
As an Indian, I easily recognise this mind set. Our people saw it in the early days of this Nation. We know how it all begins. And rest assured that we see it beginning yet again, only this time the target isn't so much we Indians, as it is "the Male species" as a whole.
Oh, and I almost forgot. For over 100 years it was actually a CRIME to be an Indian.(!!!!)
Now it is a crime to be a male.
Are these similarities just a coincidence?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 05:31 PM April 21st, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
T-Cloud,
If you were to comment on the major strategic mistakes that the Great Chiefs made, in underestimating the cultural genocide they were confronting, what would they be?
I suggested earlier that it was completely outside Indians' world-view to consider that their very way of life could be exterminated.
Is that, in your view, similar to what men now face with radical feminism and the state-sanctioned assault against men?
More importantly, if my theory is correct (you can't see what's unbelievably outside your reality....) --- what should men now prepare for?
As you know, there were chiefs who persuaded their people to go into the reservations, as a matter of survival.
Were they correct?
(Sorry for my "interrogation...." I'm a student of Indian history and will never have enough information about what actually happened.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 06:29 PM April 21st, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
TC, you are correct, the government played a very big role in what happened to the American Indians, and what is happening now. One might ask why? One might also wonder if there is a plan, where do they plan on taking us next? It cannot be good as all literature on societal control stresses that to control the Men one must first control the Women. Divide and conguer, seperate and isolate. Despite the communication systems that we have at our disposal we as a nation are the most seperated and divided we have been in our history. No TC, there is no coincidence. It has all been planned out, and we have been but the pawns in the plan, and pawns are disposable. "It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 03:12 AM April 22nd, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
T-Cloud observed -- "Like the federal government a century ago to my people, feminism and the federal government are telling men who to be what to do and where to go.."
It's so good to be living in freedom now, yes?
How exactly do we now know if we are free?
Maybe Ghost Dance time is coming soon?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 09:48 AM April 22nd, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
One might also wonder if there is a plan, where do they plan on taking us next? It cannot be good as all literature on societal control stresses that to control the Men one must first control the Women.
Further, when societies wish to control populations under their thumb, they first give women complete dominance at the family level. Women, keeping the role of nurturer and taking on much of the provider/protector role, then see men as extraneous and are allowed/encouraged to create a virtual matriarchy, a satrapy to the dominant interests.
In the new world order, with feminists as enthusiastic henchmen, men must either fight back or enjoy our role as serfs and cannon fodder.
---------o-----------
1st FEM: What do you call it when men get out of bed?
2nd FEM: What?
1st FEM: Serf's up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 10:24 AM April 22nd, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Roy-
I think that the biggest mistakes that the Great Chiefs and Indian tribes as a whole made (make) is that we do not act as a whole. We are to divided by our customs, spirituality's, "traditions" and old tribal wars. For instance we Cherokees still have grudges against the Muskogee (Creek) tribe and vise versa. The Lakota have an old "feud" with the Crow and Pawnee tribes and vise versa. We don't seem to be able to put aside our difference and unite for our common good. That is why we were so easily "defeated" and conquered.
The same problem exists for all men, in general, in the Western world. We are just TOO divided.
On one side we have men, like ourselves who want to see ACTUAL EQUALITY between men and women, but have to fight just to get equality for ourselves, then on another side you have the men who are complacent either not caring or not realising that their rights are being eroded, then still on another side you have the men that think that all men deserve some sort of punishment for what "men did to women", then yet on another side you have Chivalrist men who think that they owe women something and think that men should suffer for the good of women, then lastly, and worst of all, on the last side there are the Wussie-poopie males who WANT to be dominated by women and get off on the abuse.
We are so divided it isn't even funny. This will be our down fall, for certain, if we do not get it through the heads of ALL men that we are in great danger of losing, not just our civil and constitutional rights, but our very status as HUMAN BEINGS.
I must persist in saying that what happened to Our Indian people is almost exactly what is being done to men.
It all follows the same pattern. First a "trust" is formed then broken by the side that wishes to subjugate the other. Then the subjugators find what their victim needs to stay strong, and then wipe it out. In the case of Indians it was the Buffalo, in the case of men it is our civil and constitutional rights, political and social influences and our educations. Then once weakened (as men are quickly becoming) there is the divide and conquer.
To me the pattern is SO obvious. And it is consistent.
And to answer the second question; Yes. I do believe that it is outside of men's "world view" of women, to believe that they would want to cause us pain and even destroy us.
It was the same way with "my people". We couldn't conceive that there were a group of people capable of such hatred and desire to destroy us.
The difference is that Non-Indians, for the most part saw that what was done to Indian people was wrong, and changed their thinking towards us. We still have a long way to go, but things are certainly a bit better for us than they were 100 years ago.
Also, I believe that part of the problem men face is our "world view" of women. We are taught that they are virtuous, morally superior, gentle, nurturing, and the whole nine yards. Many of us can NOT conceive of women who are darker than Hitler, himself, who want nothing more than the total subjugation and even, in some cases, the annihilation of men.
And lastly. as far as the Chiefs that agreed to go to the reservations. I don't know that I'm qualified to say that they did the right or wrong thing. I think they did what they believed they had to do to insure the best they could the survival of the tribe.
I'm not sure what I would have done under those circumstances. I can understand the Chiefs that agreed to the reservations, but I can also understand those tho chose to fight.
As far as we as MRAs are concerned, will we have to make similar choices?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 10:29 AM April 22nd, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
First we Ghost dance, then we go to 'Bennigan's' for mozzarella burgers! :-)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:34 AM April 22nd, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
New Version of Ghost Dance! Instead of our young People, and old People hurting themselves to make a point, perhaps we should turn that around and make charges against those that conspire to deprive us of our natural rights as Human Beings, and hang them in their respective town squares? Just a thought, but I kind of like it! "It is a good day to die!" Freedom as such can only be defined if each and every Person that has the capacity to do so has a vote, and it counts as a vote. Anything less than actual Citizenship is nothing more than gilded slavery to benefit the elite. A government of the People, by the People, for the People, something that we only read about in history books that explain the culture of the American Indians. Nothing less, nothing more....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:50 PM April 22nd, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
T-Cloud -- "First we Ghost dance, then we go to 'Bennigan's' for mozzarella burgers! :-)"
Are you working on your stand-up comedy act?
The first Indian comedian with a deadly political angle?
You are a genius.
Or maybe you were dismissed prematurely?
Whatever. Keep writing sir.
;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 09:10 AM April 24th, 2006 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Am I a genius? No.
Am I a stand up comic? Not really.
Actually, Indian people on the whole are known to have a good sense of humor.
Most people aren't aware of it because of the Hollywood stereotype of us as deadly serious, stone faced and stoic.
Personally, I have been described as "Russell Means meets Mystery Science Theater 3000".
There is at least one American Indian stand up comic that i know of. Unfortunately his name escapes me at the moment.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Marc A. on 11:43 AM April 19th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006 /04/14/AR2006041400912.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 05:28 PM April 24th, 2006 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Today two articles appeared one in the AP and the other on MSNBC.com about Columbine style attacks foiled. One in Kansas the other in Fairbanks Alaska. I guarantee you that Ritalin or Anti-depressants are involved in one or both. We are mass drugging our Boys and creating a generation of vengefull angry Young Men. They want to get even. They are being demonized in School that is FemCentric.
Taught they are inferior to Girls. Being asked to surpress their normal Masculine Energies and are rebelling. Nobody will make the appropriate connections. We are heading towards a Harpers Ferry incident in the US. Women especially Feminists will be the target.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
QuickNick writes "The recent