|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by bull on 03:36 PM June 4th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
If there is any doubt the femnags are gearing up for Hillary’s run at the presidency, try Googling “Hillary for President” or “Hillary Campaign” and you will see for yourself. On the lighter side, I found this cartoon during my search: Cartoon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As always a great article from mr. Carey Roberts, but there is something missing in it. Like many others he mentions the disease, but he doesn't mention what caused the disease, he doesn't mention that it was men who allowed feminazism to take over and ruin western societies.
Feminazism must be brought down, no matter what, even if it needs some violence to put them back in their place. But we should not forget to deal with the traitors of our own gender, like some members of this board, N.J., TomP, mr. chickern and a few others.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 05:37 PM June 4th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I thought about moderating this post out or officially denouncing it as a moderator but decided to leave it here as an example of the sort of destructive communication by and among MRAs that is just what our opposition LOVES to see.
Think before you click the 'Submit' button, guys.
-- Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go ahead and moderate whatever you want, it won't change a damn thing to the fact that you are a bunch of pussy whipped wimps. The feminazis kick your sissy asses and you'll say thank you very much ma'am.
Again, that's fine with me, but don't you fucking call yourself MRA, nancy pansies like you are a fucking insult to real men.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 02:51 PM June 5th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you suck mommy's tits today boy?
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mr. chicken on 03:32 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
"traitors of our own gender, like some members of this board, N.J., TomP, mr. chickern and a few others. "
First off, how am I a traitor of my own gender? I am just as concerned about our issues as anyone else here. I have asked this before, and you haven't explained your point of view? Maybe it's because it's not backed up with anything other than needless hate? Maybe because you consider yourself the arbiter on who is and isn't a traitor to their gender? Please, before people make assumptions about me, present your case for why you consider me a traitor, "Arbiter". This way I can debate what you have said, and people can hear both sides of the story. Bias sucks, Bert.
People like to have an opportunity to speak for themselves when they are spoken of. If they are not around to speak for themselves, there is only one side being shown. Only the plaintiff's case is allowed to be presented, and, with the way you talk about others, without any evidence of the reason for prosecution. That's an unfair trial, Bert. My point is, show some reason for why I am a traitor to you so people don't make assumptions about me. I want respect, not intolerance or lies about me.
Second, B-e-r-t, have some respect and spell the name right.
How exactly would I go about "fucking call yourself MRA"? Is there a difference between "call yourself MRA" and "fucking call yourself MRA"? How about the difference between an "insult" and a "fucking insult"?
Oh, by the way, I guess I'm not a real man even though my biology is male, at least by your logic. I suppose, if not a real man, I must be a fake man? Paper or plastic? Would someone who is not a real man train to join the military, as I am doing now, by weightlifting, cycling, and running? How about karate? I don't think so. I am quite certain that disqualififes me as a "nancy pansie", Bert. I am sure that "nancy pansies" don't have the courage to ride motocross, one of my numerous hobbies.
I am here to speak out and stand up for what I believe in. I believe in the whole philosophy of men's rights, from DV to false accusations, etc.
Now, if I believe in men's rights and stand up for said rights by speaking out about it, both here and in public, how am I not an MRA?
There is only one correct answer: I am.
Now, Bert, there is nothing you can say to refute that. All you can do is talk trash and say, " no you're not" without backing up what you have said. There is nothing to back up that statement.
Enough is enough. I'm through screwing around, Bert. I have proven my point. You can't prove yours. Quit talking about me, it's useless.
It's not like you ever actually add anything to a conversation anyway.
Long post...
Now that's taken care of, I can get back on topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey mr. chickenshit, you're not even the shadow of a man, you're more like a bitch, meaning you talk too much.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mr. chicken on 04:05 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Hahahaha!
I talk too much?! Oh, that's great, Bert.
You're still full of it, and you still didn't back up your viewpoint.
Shoo, Troll, don't bother me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mr. chicken on 04:23 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
It's vulgar, it's unreasoning, it's unstoppable!
It's Bert!:http://www.ee.nmt.edu/~myates/bert.jpg
Seriously, I don't care what you think. You're an idiot. All you do is stir things up and cause us grief. You're not an MRA, an MRA wouldn't go out of his/her way to make us look bad. You're a troll.
Could someone please moderate this guy? I'd like to be able to filter out his posts so I can read good stuff by people like Thundercloud, Hombre, Randomman, Philathes, and others without being interrupted by his garbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 05:25 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
I get trashed everytime I defend the presence of trolls and antagonistic personalities.
I've been banned from so-called MRA forums because of one simple belief ---
There is nothing any MRA-Troll-Femnag-HugoBoy-on-a-screen could say to offend you, revolt you, shake you up ...
unless you let it happen.
Nothing scrolled acroos your PC screen could even begin to approach what feminism has already done to you, while you ignored or dismissed or fought against the four decades of provocation and subterfuge and legal racketeering.
In other words, I believe men are still in the infancy of learning how to rhetorically fight; even though we're widely celebrated as the violent gender.
Every troll is an opportunity.
Every voice you believe to be a troll is an opportunity.
The first to learn political combat stragegies; the second to interrogate your own beliefs.
Trolls might be defined as any voice that is capable enough to cause you discomfort, yes?
And do we all agree that when, not IF, but when the Men's Right's Movement storms Congress, we will be faced with a HOUSE OF TROLLS beyond anything you could experience in cyberspace.
Gents, consider this a nice, comfortable, occasionally challenging dojo.
A place to practice and refine combat skills that will be desperately needed soon.
Of course, the mods can choose to shut it all down.
Just like Fem-Daddy Senator Joe Biden did at the House Judiciary Committee hearings on VAWA.
The best time to dismiss an opponent is when you have total power.
Otherwise, it's better to learn from one's adversaries, while cultivating total power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mr. chicken on 05:37 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent point, Roy. You've shown me a whole new side to Bert. I might disagree with him, but I can learn from him how to deal with people like him. I think that right now, the best thing is to ignore him and make people understand that his beliefs are not representative of the large majority of MRA's. I know I don't believe in beating the hell out of people who disagree with me or calling people names, and I'm sure that you are the same. Gandhi was famous for his peaceful ways, and he got things accomplished that would have been impossible using violence and hate. The same goes for the other people who will surely follow in his (Bert's) footsteps.
From now on, I won't let this fool's words bother me. They don't matter. All that matters is that we accomplish what we have started on: equality for men.
Roy, you opened my eyes. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:22 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
mr. chicken wrote ---
"From now on, I won't let this fool's words bother me."
Well, obviously I am a deficient teacher, because you have learned nothing.
I could tell you why.
But then I would be doubly deficient as a teacher.
Reconsider closely the values underneath the sentence in quotes above.
That's really all I can do to point a way for you....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mr. chicken on 01:30 AM June 7th, 2006 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
By ignoring it I will learn nothing from it. I'm pretty sure that's what you mean.
If you ignore something, it is mentally not there. How do you learn from it if it's not there? You don't.
In order to fight the extremists like this guy, I have to know how. Here's an opportunity. And I was going to ignore it.
I think I have it figured out, Roy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:49 PM June 7th, 2006 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
mr. sir chicken ---
"By ignoring it I will learn nothing from it."
Yes, grasshopper.
You have passed the audition.
Learning is always better than ignoring.
Open is always better than closed.
Power from learning is always better than victimhood from denying what is facing you.
Although, you could also have learned something by ignoring it!
You seem like you want to walk a proper,correct road, with nice signage.
That road cannot be found on any map.
YOU have to create that road for yourself.
A whole lotta people are walking their pathways.
Don't be too judgmental unless you want to walk in a swamp with no charity signs along the way...
I hate advice, of any kind.
Giving it is far more painful than taking it....
Seen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 11:21 PM June 4th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
But we should not forget to deal with the traitors of our own gender, like some members of this board, N.J., TomP, mr. chickern and a few others.
Three possibilities here. Either you have some serious issues, you are somebody who tries to damage men's activism's image with your radical bs, or, most likely, you are simply a troll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:32 AM June 5th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
So, we might just get a Woman president! Well we have had presidential wives running the show in this country for years; since the beginning. We need to change the dog and pony show. But, then again that would entail doing something about the illegal activity of our government wouldn't it? Just a thought Folks.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 10:59 AM June 5th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Let's say for a moment that one of the two current front runners wins the next presidency (Condi or Billery). The Republicans know the only shot they have if the Dems run a woman is to run a woman themselves, in order to negate the misandric "only women matter"/"women are better than men" vote. Nominating Condi would be a brilliant (if transparent) move on their part at this stage.
So, the woman gets into office, and immediately starts doing things that benefit women only, and women first. The US continues to go through hard times, and their blatant sexism becomes obvious for all to see (I believe this would happen alot sooner with Billery than Condi, as the latter doesn't appear to be openly sexist in her thinking).
In addition to totally invalidating the myth of the "patriarchy", the idea that only straight white men can be conservatives (if Condi were to win) AND undoing the idea that women (or even minorities) can't be sexists, it will, once and for all, break the myth that a woman would do a "better job", or that a woman would be "fairer" in one hell of a hurry. If their policies are sexist, the press would have a stroke trying to figure out whether to support open sexism, possibly by a member of a visible minority, or to bash it just as hard as they bash everything else a president does. It will be fun to watch them contradicting themselves, don't you think? Either the current sexists in the media expose themselves as sexist, pandering hypocrites by openly supporting sexism, in which case the rest of the press will eat them alive for it, or they start bashing sexism for what it is. That's GREAT!
Consider this: if a woman tries to push a woman-only agenda the way Clinton did, it comes across as a clear conflict of interest, just as it would if a male president tried to push men-only initiatives (same idea for racist or religious policies). Women don't experience chivalry, and wouldn't need to pander to women as a man is expected to do, just to get their self-centered votes. In fact, if the woman in the Oval Office is sexist, after a short while, this "conflict of interest" effect could actually serve to muzzle feminists! In Condi's case, there's also a chance that she might even be a passable leader who could restore true conservatism (smaller government, less invasion of the individual's life by government) to the Republican party. Today, plenty of conservatives are pretty deeply pissed off about massive deficits, those ridiculous signing statements and other massive, intrusive-government stuff that the Bush administration has done, and aren't likely to get out and vote. Think that might change if Billery is on the ticket? I do!
Most men and women don't support feminism or openly support discrimination against men, but there's such a strong current of misandry and feminism in popular culture that I think it's inevitable at this point, and the impressionable sheep out there need to get this misandry out of their systems. But just as the Brits and other countries have discovered, you try it once, figure out it's no great improvement, and it doesn't happen again for a long, long time because people immediately go back to voting for the best candidate instead of the one with the popular genitals. People need to get it through their heads that female supremacy is a hate movement based on lies, and this will speed the process along nicely. Don't forget that a president doesn't make the laws: the people's representatives do, and there's exactly a snowball's chance in hell that most of them will be women in the next 10 years: elections for Congress and the Senate are not so easily co-opted into misandry, because true democracy is still operating there in most cases (unless the parties start running women in every district to prove how anti-man they can be). We need to get the whining leftists over the idea of female superiority once and for all, and a catastrophically bad president who happens to have a vagina will do the job nicely. Short term pain, for long term gain, gentlemen, and either way, men's rights will benefit from a female president in the long run, either because she exposes feminism for what it really is and breaks the "women are better than men" myth, or because she, as a woman, can tell the feminists to go fuck themselves without losing the female vote! Those are some seriously happy thoughts, at least for me.
So I say let a woman give it a shot, make a complete fool of herself as many men before her have done, and give the people who blindly support misandry and feminists something to think about. If a conservative woman wins, there's even a chance of a decent government coming out of it. Don't forget how many conservative women reject feminism.
4-8 years is a long sentence to try and undo popular misandry and expose feminism for hate, but if nothing is done, how many men will languish in debtor's prisons and support gulags, never knowing their children, never having access to shelters and other services for DV? ALL men putting up with a final blast of misandry, i.e. doing 4-8 years for being male, is a smaller price than generations of marginalized men. Sure, it's a hefty price to pay to prove a point, but I think it might be the only way to finally stem the tide of misandry in US culture and restore some form of balance out there. Let the misandric yahoos get it out of their systems, and while it's happening, we can expose feminism for the hate movement it really is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by PPaul on 12:41 PM June 5th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Of course we had the example of a female P.M. in the UK with Margaret Thatcher. She claimed she was no friend of feminism, but still managed to do a great deal of damage to men through what appeared to me to be nothing more than the typical (not necessarily feminist) woman's narrow-minded view of the world. That is to say, one where women's needs are paramount and men are supposed to cater for them, no matter what the cost. And where men's lives are highly dispensable (female leaders nearly always manage to embroil their countries in wars that of course predominantly or entirely kill men. Mrs T kept up that dishonourable tradition).
Of course women only come to the top when the men are weak; and Mrs T ensured she was surrounded by weak men within her own party. They took eleven years to muster the guts to challenge her.
I have also predicted that I will see a female president of the US in my lifetime; but probably only one. I think it will go the same way in the US as in the UK. You will get a female president not because any woman is the best person for the job, but for the simple reason that until you get one there will be a continuing agitation that won't be satisfied until it happens. And with women having been flavour of the month for about 40 years, it is just a question of time. But once you have had the experience, you will not be in any hurry to repeat it. Just like the UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by TomP on 02:42 PM June 5th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I have to disagree with the idea that a woman president might not be a bad thing. Consider the way a frog is boiled.......
I suspect that the media will play up anything that might be made to look good, and stay mum on anything that might look bad. Most folks seem to believe media before their own eyes - the first woman president will be a triumph, regardless of what actually happens. She will certainly get re-elected, whoever she is. About the only thing that could mess up her fabulously successful term in office is a Great Depression or an unsuccessful major war....and even that might not do it.
Depend on it - whatever happens during the term of the first woman president, her term(s) will be on of the high points of the Republic, according to the media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 03:30 PM June 5th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
whatever happens during the term of the first woman president, her term(s) will be on of the high points of the Republic, according to the media.
Perhaps you're right, and it will certainly be a "miracle" presidency for the first little while, to satisfy the narrative desire of the aging, materialistic baby boomers. But then again, look at what happened to Neil Lyndon in the early 90's and compare it with what is happening today. Feminism still has far too much influence, and remains the false dogma of the day thanks to an aging generation of failed, greedy ex-hippies who need to cling to the idea that they had some impact on society beyond inventing some ridiculous clothing and popularizing greed, but at least it is now politically acceptable to criticize feminism as a false idol, which might open the door a crack if a misandrist every assumes the presidency. A crack is all we need to point out the blatant lies and hypocrisy of feminism, and it will be all the easier with a woman in the spotlight, particularly if she attempts a campaign of misandry and further privilege for women. There are some admittedly small cracks in the armor of feminism today, and we don't need much leverage to widen them and shine a spotlight on the polluted abyss of hatred and lies at its core. A feminist president could very well behave foolishly enough to allow us that opportunity. We should be so lucky...
I don't know that the feminist junta will be able to demonize men to their general advantage quite as effectively in this case, now that the aging "me" generation is too busy wondering how the hell they're going to retire to bother trying to manufacture another artifical legacy. We shall soon see, I suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:03 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
RandomMan -- "Feminism still has far too much influence, and remains the false dogma of the day thanks to an aging generation of failed, greedy ex-hippies who need to cling to the idea that they had some impact on society beyond inventing some ridiculous clothing and popularizing greed, but at least it is now politically acceptable to criticize feminism as a false idol, which might open the door a crack if a misandrist every assumes the presidency.."
RM, I can't tell if you are bashing feminism or eviscerating an entire generation?
You appear to be guilty-as-charged for "age-ism!"
And as for your lack of fashion sense, all that retro crap is still major bank today! Even madras fabric is coming back! Jerry Garcia ties cost a fortune! Jefferson Airplane is touring again. And Keith Richards survived his fall out of the palm tree in Fiji!
And if the hippies popularized GREED, you are criticizing them for that? Were they supposed to defeat 400 years of capitalism while smoking all that ganja?
That's what we expect of elected Democrats in Congress today, man!
So, what exactly is your point?
Something about wanting to see any aging feminist gal as Prezodent so that it will be a hundred years before another woman gets elected Commander in Chief?
Actually, that's a GREAT plan!
Even my aging Republican parents would go for that!
Nobody hates Hillary and Condi more than our grandmothers.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 11:14 AM June 5th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know.
I certainly won't vote for Hillary Clinton.
At this point in time I wouldn't vote a female for president, at all. I mean if we guys think we are being robbed of our rights now, with a MAN in the White house, just think what will happen when a woman gets in there.
It's possible that a female president would be fair and consider the right of ALL, but I'm not ready to take that chance.
Just listening to the majority of women i hear when they talk about men, it's always; "I hate men", "I would love to castrate him", "I want to kick him in the balls", "Men are pigs", "All men are bastards", "Girls rule boys drool", "Men are dogs", "Patriarchy", "If women ruled the world...", "Men are scum", "Kill all men", and so on and so forth. (I NEVER hear men say similar things about women) What man in his right mind would vote for an individual that as a group holds so much Naziesque hatred for him? Not me.
If I HAD to choose between Condi and Hillary, I'd have to go with Condoleeza. I think she would be (I have to say it) the lesser of two evils.
Of course keeping in mind that even the lesser of two evils is still EVIL.
Condi may cater to the chivalrous Right, but Hillary would definitely cater to the feminist Nazi left.
Hard to win, either way, I guess...
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 08:21 PM June 5th, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
My country has a conservative, female head of state now and she is known for not being that symphathetic to feminists. Probably less than Chancellor Schröder who would just blindly sign anything coming from women's groups, following the "new chivalry".
I remember him clenching his fists on some women's congress of his party and yelling "we finally want to reach achieve equal rights in Germany!". Really, it can't get much worse than that.
Merkel has a physics degree and to my knowledge got to the top without the special privileges that put many women into their positions. Such women, if determined enough, can be very hostile toward the privilege seeking sisterhood since it is seen as unfair competition.
Consequently, before the elections, women's groups warned that feminists shouldn't be too happy that they could finally vote for a woman.
Also, a landmark sentence a while ago that resulted in jail time for a mother who kept the father from seeing their child against the court's orders was spoken by a female judge who was, according to her statement, fed up with the defendant's unobedience and disregard for the court.
The right woman assuming office can be a good thing, but of course it can very badly backfire if it's someone like Hillary Clinton. I wouldn't vote for Mrs. Rice either, though, because that means an intensified war against [whatever it is this time] and more madness involving a fetish for "security" and games around international hegemony.
As we like to say, you'd have the choice between the plague and cholera.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:42 AM June 6th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, TC. There was a great scene in the movie "Master and Commander" where there was two worms on the table in front of the "commander" and a junior officer. The question was put to the junior officer what he should do, about the two worms. He replied, "Why kill them both Sir!" Then the "commander" said, "When in service one must choose between the lessor of the two evils, and just kill the big one." You hit the nail on the head TC, the choices are both evil, so perhaps we need to choose outside of the box, you think? Kill both of the worms, and start fresh? "It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 02:35 PM June 7th, 2006 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Definitely. Kill BOTH worms and start a-new.
P.S.
And to any feminists who may be reading this, No, I don't mean kill Condi or Hillary. It's just a figure of speech, so don't even try it....!
I have enough aggravation.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:24 PM June 9th, 2006 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
"Kill both of the worms, and start fresh?"
Excellent metaphor!
Now please explicate ---
Theory
Strategy
Tactics
Politics
Gender anti-wars
You know...
Your "grand" vision?
There was a "box" implicated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 05:29 PM June 5th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
The election is fixed, and both major parties are owned by the same group. No matter who they decide to have win the election we will get...
- More feminism
- Bigger government
- Higher taxes
- More attacks on our freedoms
- More war
Although you might want to vote just so you can feel like you "did something", but as long as you're decieving yourself into thinking someone will see your vote why not cast a vote that might matter if it were seen? Vote for someone you might actually like as president or at least vote for someone who'd be preferable to whichever two mainstream party fraternity brothers we're given to choose from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 06:59 PM June 5th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Vote for someone you might actually like as president or at least vote for someone who'd be preferable to whichever two mainstream party fraternity brothers we're given to choose from.
I can't help but agree with your pessimistic views on western "democracy" these days, HombreVIII. But by all appearances, there's a reasonable chance that Americans are going to have to choose between two party sorority sisters this time around. Have a look at the wikipedia page on it - just scroll down to "frontrunners". Scary shit!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Philalethes on 10:44 PM June 5th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
The election is fixed, and both major parties are owned by the same group.
Hombre, you've figured it out; this is not just a metaphor, or a complaint, but the exact truth. If you want to waste your time participating in a charade ... well, you'll be wasting your time, and contributing to the success of the charade.
On the other hand, what if they gave an "election" and nobody came? Frankly, I doubt that'll ever happen (before it gets anywhere near, they'll pass a law that forces everyone to vote, like in Australia), but for me, the most meaningful "vote" is not to "vote" at all, which is what I've been doing since 1988, when I decided not to hand over a Social Slave Number in order to "register".
"... behind the feminist and other popular movements are some very ugly scheming people who want to destroy the institutions of civilisation so they can rule over the wreckage." (Graham Strachan)
And they're getting close to the realization of their long-planned dream -- so close, they're becoming hasty and careless, but still the sheeple just won't see what's right before their eyes.
In 1990, nobody'd heard of Bill Clinton. In 1991, he was invited to the Bilderberg Group meeting, the annual conclave where the Ruling Class decides what will happen in the world. In 1992 he was "elected" President of the United States. Gee, wonder how that happened?
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years." (David Rockefeller at the 1991 Bilderberg meeting, Baden Baden, Germany)
It does look pretty likely at this point that Hillary will be our next "President". She certainly is a perfect tool for the Rulers. But then, so are the rest of the possibilities; nobody gets on that list unless they've long ago sold their soul. But Hillary (and Condoleezza) are special: in the age of "gender equality", they have a head start -- because of their gender.
"It has been evident for years that the country was doomed to run the full length of democracy." (Robert E. Lee, 1861)
And the same, I suppose, must be true for feminism. Once the "19th Amendment" was passed, the eventual result was inevitable. Women are masters of self-deception; they'll go on believing that their "having the vote" must bring us to paradise until America consists only of ragged bands of starving outlaws, killing each other with stones for crusts of bread. The peculiar American experiment in republican government is over. Very few ever understood what it was about anyway. It was not about democracy.
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." (Alexis de Tocqueville)
Carey Roberts is great (read more of his articles; links at the bottom of the referenced page), but on one point I'd disagree with him: he keeps talking about "radical feminists", as if there's any other kind. Feminism is feminism; even women understand that there's no such thing as being "a little bit pregnant". Once the basic premise is accepted -- the eternal "it's not fair!" victimhood of the female, which must be redressed by giving her ever more "rights" (i.e. privileges) -- only one end is possible.
“When the family declines, ancient traditions are destroyed. With them are lost the spiritual foundations for life, and the family loses its sense of unity. Where there is no sense of unity, the women of the family become corrupt; and with the corruption of its women, society is plunged into chaos.” (Bhagavad Gita 1:39-42)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 10:54 PM June 10th, 2006 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"It was not about democracy."
Well, I have my own rant on this topic.
It is mostly about how "freedom" is never fully defined, with the specifics...
of WHO GETS TO DO WHAT TO WHOM, AND HOW MANY TIMES???
Freedom is always best if you own it!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
bull writes "Carey Roberts’ article, “The day the matriarchy came to power,” summarizes key events during what he calls the “Clinton Co-Presidency” that firmly entrenched feminists in key positions of power. Hillary may have a shot at the presidency in 2008. Roberts’ article gives a good feel for what one might expect with her at the helm. It would be a sad day for Men’s Activism should she be elected! Excerpt: