U Not Gonna Like This

So you think that sweet lil' thang your with now isn't capable of cheating on you. Did she tell you some lie about how she'd never run around on you and that the two of you would be together for a long time?


The truth is that before she comes home from work she **could be** off doing another man in the parking lot of the building where she works..

She could be at a motel doing the vertical mambo with some playa.

She could be even polishing the knob of one of her co-workers....


Don't believe me, then read this old post from FM Watkins previous blog "Another Day In The Jungle":



View original post here.

This post was not written by me. It was written by a PUA (pickup artist) and he explains how women so easily fall for his bullshit. It's a bit sad but it shows how gullible they are.

------------------------------

A straight-talking post that was controversially posted across half of usenet in 2003.

I wasn't a sexist before I understood women. There was a time when I was blissfully ignorant. I grew up watching Disney cartoons, I believed in romance and "true love conquers all" etc. I wanted to find a woman who could be my equal, my partner. I believed in finding that one true love and being committed to each other forever. You know, like in the marriage vows, "for better or for worse, through sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer" etc. And I believed that women basically wanted the same thing. Now I understand that this was only possible when society was structured to enforce it. Now that women are "liberated" (and thus at the mercy of their own emotions and baser instincts) this is mostly no longer possible in today's society. Victorian society, or many Arab societies, are examples of how society used to be structured to keep women as faithful as possible.




I'd like to point out that I am not a misogynist...I love women. But I AM a sexist, in the sense that I believe women are vastly different than men and, according to the standards that men hold for other men, women are inferior as well.




I must be a bitter loser, right? In fact, I enjoy more success with women than most of the men in this city. I have slept with over 200 women in my life. I am sleeping with 5 different women right now. They are all normal, healthy, well-adjusted, good-looking (8+ on the looks scale) professional women. (At least as normal and healthy and well-adjusted as women can be - most women have issues.) But that's not all. I can go out any night of the week and pick up a woman. I can pick her up in front of all her friends (with 80% efficiency for each approach.) Women will slip me their phone number when their boyfriend is in the bathroom. I can talk to women on the street or in the grocery store and within 30 minutes, I can usually have sex with them right there in my car or get them back to my place. If I have to settle for a phone number, and I meet her on another day, assuming she doesn't flake, I WILL do her that next day.



Let me point out right now that my Modus Operandi doesn't change in the slightest if she single or if she has a boyfriend or husband. I just do my normal routine and I get her. Sometimes she brings up the boyfriend so she won't feel guilty when I've done her because now it's "my fault." Sometimes she hides it from me until after I've fucked her, then she admits it. I can't tell you how many times I've been laying next to some chick, all sweaty cause I just finished busting a nut all over her face or in her mouth or on her back, and suddenly her phone rings and she's on the phone with her man, giving him some bullshit story. This is with NO GUILT WHATSOEVER!!! The sweetest most innocent girls you ever laid eyes on, will cheat at the drop of a HAT. The one thing that most men value most - loyalty - is just not there with women. Women don't think in terms of honor, women don't say "word is bond;" women are basically emotionally driven. If they feel it, they do it, period. Then they rationalize it to themselves later. Nothing is more meaningful, or compelling, to a woman than (1) the way she feels and (2) learning more about her own inner self and having emotional realizations. That's why women love astrology, chick flicks, soap operas, stupid Cosmo quizes, other random bullshit topics that supposedly reveal info about yourself, etc.





I must be really good looking, right? NOPE. My looks are marginal; I'm maybe a 7. I don't work out (though I'm not fat or anything.) In fact I didn't have any success with women until I was in my early 20's. That's when I decided to go out a lot and start trying to get laid... I was willing to face rejection a thousand times a night, and do it over and over, trying everything, until I got it right. I had to completely set my ego aside. I didn't get laid at all for the first few months. Then every now and then. Then pretty often. Then downright consistently! I'm in my early 30's now and I am basically a sexual god. I wouldn't have even believed this were possible when I was in high school. The ONLY factor that determined whether a woman would cheat was my own skill level. When my skills were poor, women shit all over me. (Everyone knows how women think they have license to be rude bitches in social situations... in fact I understand and appreciate that behavior now.) But once my skills got good, I could just about anyone's wife or girlfriend. And many times I didn't know they had a man until after I fucked them.



Look, I'm not saying that men are perfect, or whatever. Far from it. I'm just saying, I've spent a lot of my time studying women and interacting with them, and I know how they are. In fact, sometimes I hate knowing it. Sometimes I wish I had taken the blue pill, and never went down the rabbit hole, because now there's really no going back. I didn't want to believe these things... but how could I ever get married now? How could I ever be the chump who pays for everything and blissfully goes through life not worrying about his woman because he trusts her? Look, would you leave your dog alone with a steak? You can't hate the dog for doing what's in its nature. You can't trust a dog, BUT you can trust a dog to BE a dog. Some men are disloyal... but I could *never* trust a woman to be loyal. Some men are bad presidents...but I could *never* vote for a woman to be president. I can rarely expect a woman to regard her own promises as more important and compelling to her than the emotions she feels in the moment. She will rationalize it to herself later.




Here's an interesting fact. Did you know that the median 22 year old woman has TWICE as much sex as the median 22 year old man? You might ask, how is that possible? If a woman's having sex, doesn't that mean a man is having sex at the same time? And thus, shouldn't men be having just as much sex as women? NO...because most men hardly get laid, or if they do, it's because they "got lucky." But a small group of men get laid ALL THE TIME, and with LOTS AND LOTS of women! It's evolution at work. Women follow their emotions, and that leads them to sleep with men like me (who know how to control female emotions.) Women want the top man...so the top man fucks lots of women. That's right - the sexual revolution, feminism, etc has resulted in a return to harems. Women, at the mercy of their own emotions, are volunteering for the modern-day equivalent of harems. Lucky for me!! Heh.



You might say, "But...but...I'm so nice! I'm a nice guy!" Guess what? That's like a fat chick saying, "But I'm so smart!" As if those things have anything in the world to do with sexual attraction!




I'm going to give some tips here for the poor sucker guys who are posting online trying to get laid and who are spending hundreds / thousands of dollars on all those whores out there without getting any play. (You bitches know exactly what you're doing, and I'm on to your game!)



* Don't be sexually judgemental in any way. A woman's worst fear is to be perceived as a slut. She will suck your toes and take it in the arse if she thinks you don't view her poorly for it (and she knows her friends won't find out.)



* Don't get angry at her. Women know they have emotional outbursts and they need to trust that you can handle that. It's ok (and necessary) to occasionally put your foot down...just make sure she knows you are fully in control of yourself.



* Don't let her manipulate you or control you in any way. She will immediately lose all respect for you. Always be leading. It's just like dancing - women hate a man who can't lead.



* When first approaching a woman or a group, they tend to get a feeling like this is just your little scheme to get close to them, when you really just want something from them - like sex. (And they're right.) It's important to structure your body language and conversation so that they honestly don't believe you want something from them. They should feel like you are about to leave at any second.



* DON'T TRY TO IMPRESS HER IN ANY WAY. Don't show off. Don't talk about accomplishments or possessions. As soon as she perceives that you are trying to prove yourself to her, she loses all interest.



* Don't ignore her friends. A woman values her friend's opinions more than just about anything else in the world. Nothing matters to her more than what other women are thinking. Give her friends lots of attention and get everyone laughing. If one woman is feeling different than the others, she will drag them away. They will follow like a flock of pigeons. Society is the book of women. (Notice that men do NOT behave this way! Women are very different!)



* To get a woman attracted / emotionally vulnerable, give her lots of emotions and feelings. Don't just make her feel good. Make her feel good, and angry, and sad, and connected, and astonished, and intrigued, etc. Make her laugh. Tease her. Tell stories about your sick puppy. Tell her why things would never work out between the two of you. Call her a dork. If she gets heated up, she will start touching you...playfully push her away. If she calls you a jerk and punches your arm, you are doing it right. If she gives you that "I can't believe you just said that" look, do NOT back down, do not say "Oh I'm just kidding" or anything like that.



* As she gets more emotional, she will try to ruin things by throwing in logic. She will ask you if you are a player, or if you say this to all the girls, or whatever. The trick is this: Don't take it seriously by giving it some logical answer! That's right...women lose interest if you take them seriously!!! It's crazy but that's how they behave. Just blow it off or misinterpret what she's saying as though she is coming on to you. If you fail these tests, she will be gone so fast your head will spin.



* She will start asking you lots of questions. This is what chicks do when they suddenly find themselves attracted to a man they know nothing about. This is your chance to open up a little and also find out more about her and build a deeper connection. You have to do this, or she will flake later (even if you've kissed her!) Women are the worst flakes in the world! Don't make it too easy for her, make her work for it a bit. Then talk about connections and childhood memories and things you have in common, etc. She needs to feel that this is genuine. This is usually the time when I throw in a few fake vulnerabilities, like pretending I'm shy or insecure about something. I know it's fucked up but women need to see that there are at least a few small holes where they can sink their hooks in you. They get uneasy if you are too perfect.



* Make sure she gets the feeling that you have standards and that you are judging her based on them. Ask her questions that show her you are checking her out to see if she is up to snuff. Women don't like to feel like you are with them only because you can't do any better. They prefer to feel like you have high standards; you can get any chick you want, but you chose HER because she is SOOOO special and SOOOO different from all the others. Yeah, I know.




* Move her to different locations. Take her next door for a drink. Take her across the street to check out some art. The more locations the better.




* Take responsibility for every escalation. A woman will do just about anything as long as she doesn't have to feel like it was "her fault." Make it YOUR fault. Make it "just happen." She will rationalize it to herself later using the same bullshit generator that women use to flake out on dates at the last minute. Don't get her horny until you get her isolated. Believe me, emotional is better than horny.



* Keep the woman always swinging somewhere between validation and rejection. If she feels rejected, she drops out or gets REALLY MAD. And if she feels too validated, she will ditch you in a heartbeat. So push her away (emotionally) and then pull her back in.



* BELIEVE YOUR OWN BULLSHIT. Chicks do not look at your excuses and try to see if they are bullshit or not... because that is the logical thing to do, and chicks are not logical. Rather, what they do is see if YOU seem to believe your own bullshit when you say it. If you look like you do, then chances are, they will believe it too. So the key is to believe your own bullshit, and other aspects about yourself that you want the chick to believe about you too (alpha male..whatever)... because your own self beliefs for some reason will automatically 'impart' to the chick!



* One more thing...many guys make the mistake of listening to female romantic advice. Don't listen to them, THEY DON'T KNOW WTF THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, and they WILL steer you wrong. They will tell you what they THINK they want, instead of what they actually RESPOND to. And furthermore, a large part of the female sexual experience IS the inability to admit these things BECAUSE they derive sexual pleasure from putting up resistance and being overwhelmed.



If you do things this way, after a few months practice you WILL get laid like a rock star. The guys who get laid are the ones who know what they are doing, because they have practiced on lots of women. Ironically, women are most attracted to the men who are most likely to fuck them and then dump them on their arse - because those are precisely the men who have so many other options because they practice on lots of women. That's why you always hear women bitching about how men are arseholes that only want to them and dump them - because those are the men that they gravitate to.



Women tend to wise up when they get towards their 30s, and they start looking for a nice wimpy beta male to settle down with and pay for all their shit. As they get older, they will get more and more desperate to find this guy. Once they do, they will cheat on him with an exciting fun guy like me. (But who wants to some old chick in her 30's? That's what beta males are for! Heh)



(Sorry dude, but just in case you don't know guys like me are catching on to this and THERE WILL BE A SHORTAGE OF BETA MALES. It's called Men Going Their Own Way!!)


Hey, don't blame me - I didn't make things the way they are. I was just a guy who wanted to get laid. And I do.

--- Priceless!

Indeed..

The now defunct "Outcast Supestar" blog had a great article about how men are placed into two categories by women. Suckers and Fuckers:

After reading the nomarriage ebook, the author talks about two groups of men fuckers and suckers.

Keep in mind western women love excitement and hate boredom. When they are in their teens and early 20's they don't want stability that suckers have to offer because that is boring.

Keep in mind that women don't think for themselves but decisions on who they date or sleep with is usually made by the council not by the woman herself. This council is usually made up of her mother, sister, and friends etc. If dating a nice guy is not considered to be fun and popular by the "council" he is going to get snubbed.

There is another group of guys called fuckers. Women love to have sex with these guys during their prime years. Although they offer no stability to these women, however women will still sleep with them. The reason why women will is because they are unpredictable and therefore they are deemed as very exciting.

Once these women get to there late 20's - early 30's they will fraudulently sell their looks to suckers who make a good income in order to get married. In other words they will put on a pony show for them until they get the ring. After a few years of marriage, these women are going to get bored and everything is the suckers fault. They will look for affairs and cash out on their suckers knowing that they will get the house, child support (if they have children), and alimony. All she has to do is file a false abuse charge (no proof necessary) to make all this happen. Even as a bonus, the sucker even gets to pay for her attorney fees.

Also, remember guys a women's fertility starts to decline at age 27 not in her 30's and 40's. If any of you want to start a family I highly recommend to make sure that the woman you are going to start a family with is no older than 25.

Despite their not being any legal justice in this country, Mother Nature has a justice of her own.

Those suckers who once ached for these women will lose interest in them once they get to be in their mid to late 20's. The last thing they are going to find attractive are used up women in their late 20's-30's. In fact these women must be avoided at all cost. They got a disease called baby rabies. They are going to do everything possible to get pregnant and trap you into a long term relationship where they can get provided for.

However, once those "suckers" get financially stable they will get to travel to foreign countries and enjoy beautiful women. Also, while in the United States, they will have developed fun hobbies to do when they are not working. In fact these "suckers" will not have to deal with the stress of fear of divorce, a nagging whore, false abuse and rape chargers, get to keep their sanity and money, won't have to worry about raising kid that aren't theirs etc.

However, the women who neglected the “suckers” in favor of the “fuckers” during their prime years are going to have to face justice. It's not legal justice but Mother Nature justice. Once they get to their late 20's for every year a man ages, they will be aging by two years. They will wrinkle and get ugly very fast. Investing thousands of dollars in makeup in order to form a bond with a “sucker” is not going to get the job done because they failed to form a bond with a "sucker" during their prime years. Their biological clocks will be ticking and they will get very desperate. They are going to want to be talking care off, like living off a “sucker” so they won't have to work. Disgusted by their behavior, the "suckers" will not want anything to do with them and will rebuke them. They are going to have to work long hours for the rest of their life because they could not find a "sucker" to take care of them.

They will whine and complain that the "suckers" will not commit despite them snubbing them in favor of the "fuckers" during their prime years. They will rot all alone with no one to take care of them, many of them will not get to have children, and will be living very miserable lives until death all because they thought it was cute to let the "suckers" rot all alone while they go squander their prime years to the "fuckers."


That my friends is what I call justice!

Just incase you didn't know I made an rss feed for this site that you can copy and paste into any feed reader:


RSS Feed
http://feeds.feedburner.com/UNotGonnaLikeThis

ATOM Feed
http://unotgonnalikethis.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

I believe that the second feed is an atom feed. You might want to validate the feed first before trying to put it into your reader.

If I can remember to do so I'll put the links on the site later with buttons for visitors to get the feeds..

Several months ago I stumbled across this post by Mirror of the Soul called the Bachelor Manifesto by "ColdHammer" please **help spread the meme** by putting a copy of this article up on your site or blog.


The Bachelor Manifesto By ColdHammer

This is my command - to spread this Declaration to all MGTOW and never surrender it to outsiders for they have no knowledge or wisdom in living well and free forever.


We, like many other men, live the bachelor lifestyle where we live the way we want without anyone telling us what to do. There is no wife or girlfriend to nag us OR drag us into doing something we don't want to do. No kids to support. Probably not even a pet (well, maybe a dog or a great car). Let's face it: we are the growing mainstream demographic of the American/Western culture that has been created because of the women's liberation movement. When it used to be where the man would work and the woman would stay at home, take care of the kids, and do the domestic chores are no more. Women, however, are now entitled to their liberation and can join the men at the workplace should they choose to do so. But since the women are no longer obligated to provide the child-caring and taking care of the home, men are no longer obligated to marry women or provide for them. Women can do whatever they want according to their deepest desires because right now it's the start of a new beginning of when women are in charge and the men don't care.


But "you men can't live without us, women" the ladies exclaim. Truth is, "no, we don't." We, the great men of this world, are living proof that we don't have to have a 'significant other' in our lives. All the money we make is our decision to spend on whatever we want rather than burn our hard-earned cash on mindless, stupid, trivial items such as shoes, handbags, and clothes we don't have to have or even NEED. If women want to spend it on those items then go ahead, use your own friggin' money! Invest in your damn fantasies. Just leave us and our wallets alone! Go! Shoo! We would rather instead spend our money on appreciating assets and items that will give us experiences and pleasures in life. What experiences and pleasures you ask? Well, some of us men like to go smoke cigars, discuss politics and economics, talk about which stocks and bonds that could increase in value, go hunting, go fishing, go scuba diving, learn another language, etc.

We develop ourselves as human beings to become more knowledgeable about the world like people from other countries do. Go ask any European, "who are the presidents and/or leaders of their governments in neighboring countries" and a majority can answer that question. If we asked an American female, who are the prime minister of Mexico and the president of Canada? The usual response would be "I don't know." First of all, Mexico doesn't have a prime minister. It's a President and his name is Felipe Calderon (2006) and Canada doesn't have a president, it's a prime minister and his name is Stephen Harper (2006). It's all about knowing outside of the 'mainstream women pop culture' that we're going to be experts in, not about what Tom Cruise had for breakfast, if the colors of the shoes match the jacket, or whether to contemplate buying expensive jewelry.

We live in this niche of the American/Western system as forever bachelors, single by choice, the truly free of the free. We understand that marriage in the Western World is a losing battle since the divorce rate hovers around 70-80% and not the media propagated figure of 50% (certain states like California don't publish their divorce rates because they are too embarrassed to publish 80+% rates and also, not taken into account, are the vast numbers of couples who are separated but not formally divorced). Still don't believe us? Fine, go ask any divorced man if marriage was worth it and he'll quickly respond with a big, fat "HELL NO!" Why does he say no? That's because in this society of "me, me, me" and feminism, women are being taught to think for themselves what's "best for me" and not for the family or group. So as a result, women initiate 90% of the divorces with the courts deciding in her favor which result in men being taken to the cleaners. This type of thinking will also make us men follow the same mentality as women, "it's all about me!" No ring! No wife! No kids! My life, woman! Not yours! I can do anything I want to do in life! I'm free! Yay!

Typical stories about divorced men usually go like this (and there aren’t any happy endings):All of his money is gone including future wages. His once confident mentality is gone. His youth, the best days of his life, are also gone in a matter of seconds. He's been financially raped. He slowly dies alone, desolate, and poor, wondering how did all of this happen when HE didn't commit any crime?! More than likely, he will say the following: I wish I never got married at the age I did or never at all. He’s just another statistic that the right girl is nothing but a myth.

Worst of all is still being married to a fat, lazy AW/WW. Such disgustingness to an extent that even the man’s health decreases dramatically. Even those who are not married should be cautious because there are possibilities of being called a rapist even when there was no intercourse involved and wrongly arrested. And if isn’t about that crap in personal affairs, then men have to worry about gender affirmative action and sexual harassment at work. When a man talks dirty to a woman, it's sexual harassment. When a woman talks dirty to a man, it's $3.95 per minute. Such double standards… how unfair.

Yet, no one reports this in the media because it's biased against men especially in paternity fraud when the guy never met the woman! She just picks a guy out of the 100 guys she screwed trying to play lottery and every time she wins unless the guy objects. Women claim that they need more money, "it's for the children, it's for child support." You honestly believe that you need thousands and thousands of dollars to support a child? Sometimes that figure can go up to be in the millions of dollars in the case of celebrities and rich people. I think women just want all that money to destroy men and justify themselves into investing in shoes, clothes, new cars, jewelry, etc., all in the pursuit of material wealth despite having children to look after. Besides, it's usually the women who file the divorce papers or even cheat to break up a marriage. Sure, there are some bad men but that's because young women blindly pursue these bad guys in their youth. What ends up happening is that the woman wizens up (or gets tired of it, aka her clock starts to tick loudly), has some bastards, and looks for a sucker, aka nice guy, to support her and her kids via divorce or wage slave. Sorry, but most men don't want to get into that part of your life which are your worst days of your life.

Maybe we dwindled into the divorce part too much and we'll get into the relationship part instead. We bachelors stay single because we like to live alone and go out to meet with friends and create new experiences. Did you get that part clearly, women? WE LIKE TO LIVE ALONE! We like the fact we can do anything we want and not to have to deal with that girlfriend crap of asking them on a date, being told what to wear, buy this and that (when we don’t need it), deal with these freakish anti-social, fake-friend cliques (god we hate these!), etc.

Here's a story for all you women wondering why HE doesn't call after the first date:

I went on a date once and I thoroughly analyzed her on what she talked about (herself). My rational mind found that she threw too many red flags to get involved with. What's a red flag you ask? These are indicators telling me that a relationship with her would never, EVER work out short-term or long-term. I'll tell you two big red flags I remembered about her: ONE, she talked about her ex-boyfriend and I simply don't give a crap about that "point in her life," not to mention how times she banged a bad ass bastard (okay, so she’s a unmarried slut). TWO, I asked her if she wanted to have a beer with me and she said she can't have alcohol because she's on anti-depressant medicine. Wait a minute... did she really say that? Oh yeah, she did. Any girl on drugs always rings a big fat bell, indicating that she has major psychotic problems.

So rather than analyze every girl that comes our way even if she is perfect, we just don't want to bother with women at all. Yeah, we're horny guys alright so if we need to get laid, we'll just go out and get a hooker because she's cheaper and a professional at it. She'll also think that we’re sex gods and many women want us. Oh, and by the way, she's also cheaper than a girlfriend or wife. How's that so? Take a look at this equation:

Take all the money you've spent on a girlfriend/wife divided by the times she's given you an orgasm will always be higher than the amount it takes to spend the night with a prostitute. For example, that date story mentioned earlier, how much did he spent his hard earned cash on transportation, dinner, and entertainment for that 2-3 hours? $150. Did he get laid? Nope. Got the Friend Zone treatment. And how much does an hour with a smokin' hot hooker cost? $100. Seriously, it comes down to this question, "how much brain damage are you willing to accept for a little coochie?" or would you rather get laid?

We have to say that we fully believe in prostitution because it's like a romantic love story but without the BS. We get to spend an hour (or the whole night should we choose) rather than spend 24/7 with a fat-ass, un-loyal, complaining PMS girlfriend/wife. Still have problems with prostitution, women? Just know it’s your liberation at work and many women take this freedom sexually, for a price. Besides, we like to wake up each morning feeling a new woman.

And if anyone wants to mock prostitution, just compare the so-called 'numbers game' of how many people you've slept with. Chances are the guy who bought prostitutes slept with more women than the insulters:

I remember talking with a former jock from my alma mater who made fun of me for 'not getting any, lately' (3 months, big whoop). He boasted how he had 2 ex-girlfriends and one girlfriend right now that he's screwing. Never-mind, that the current girlfriend is fat and old, but it was the look at his face that made my day when I told him confidently that "I think I had over 20 girls in 3 years or was it just last year and that is no BS." Years after graduating high school... and to think how funny it is that we switched statuses, roles - that I'm now an alpha male and he's... nothing. What’s more impressive? A guy who slept with 100+ smoking-hot prostitutes or a guy with a sub-par girlfriend?

"But not all women are like that! Women are loving, loyal, and caring, too!" women want to exclaim. True, it's very true that some women are in fact amazing but they are, how should we say it, 'in very, very short supply.' What can we say? The majority of us want a younger, loyal, pleasant stay-at-home wife who cooks, cleans, raises kids, is a whore in the bedroom, is flexible and won't change the husband in anyway. Yes, yes, we know that some men may have a taste for other types but what we described is the ideal girl most guys would fully appreciate to have. Sure there are a lot of women who would call us a caveman or barbarian expecting a homemaker and denying her chance at making the money with a career but let's face it - that's why we're not getting married at all. It's our way or no way!!! We're going to do the reversal on women themselves by, "expecting to have everything." She has to be the PERFECT soul mate in every way otherwise marriage will never be considered.

Sure, we're human like anyone else and it's very possible that some of us have fallen in love before like this guy here...Actually, one perfect woman did exist in my life, in high school. She was beautiful, had the best looks, gorgeous long hair, great personality to go with, innocent, and best of all - she knew me! Unfortunately, she passed away - she's now a thug gangster girl who is now ugly, does drugs, has two bastards by five men, and is actively looking for a sucker to support her and the kids. She's alive but in my mind, she passed away long ago that I'm still holding out for her, in being loyal to her, in respect to her youth. That's what I tell all women that I had a woman but she passed away and in the end she'll be waiting.... that's when I laugh secretly.

Like we said, the term, “soul mate” doesn’t exist because it’s really a work of fiction. We really don't think the most perfect woman in the world exists because in several years later she's no longer the "fairest of them all.” Women age quickly, that is a fact of life. Women are like cars: every several years you have to replace them with a new one otherwise you'll spend a lot of time, energy, and money on maintaining one. Bah, screw that. We'd rather replace the aging BMW with a new one with leather seats, that new car smell, better gas mileage, and of course - 0 miles on the odometer! Whoo hoo! Yeah, a lot of us will stay a bachelor our whole lives listening to the cliché shame and blame tactics of "you're not manly," "you probably can't satisfy a woman," "you must be single, sad, and lonely," etc. I can already hear myself laughing the entire time listening to all the insults as I cruise away in my brand, spanking-new Lexus.

Just listen to all that dribble out there as we do our own thing such as vacationing at tropical white-sand beaches and possibly looking for a great young foreign girl to have a great time with:

"You're not a man unless you have a woman!"

"Aren't you going to settle down soon?"

"You must have a small dick that can't please women!"

Look at the pathetic insults. They're all the same.

FINE!

Just this once, we'll imagine that one insane man out of us will consider marrying a woman:

Yeah, I'd love to get married to a great girl. Here are my expectations in 4 lines or less...She'll always loyally support me while I quit my job and play videogames all day and night and I STILL get laid at night when she comes home from work! If she doesn't "give it up" and/or becomes fat and ugly, then I'm entitled to go get a hooker then. Also, in the event of a divorce, I get half of her assets and paid alimony for life.

So there! What girl would want "such a lazy-ass man like that?" Chivalry and supporting a woman is dead. Go support your own ass, woman. We're going our own way! Oh, and by the way, some of us have already had over 100+ women and in today's gangster/thug men's culture that should make us a MAN! Why settle? Why concentrate all energy into one woman when you can “spread the wealth?” Haha!

Oh yes, in the future, should we ever reverse ourselves on the position of marriage, we'll go out of the country to find the most pleasant, young foreign woman in the universe. If we don’t find her, then who cares… God put everything that a human being needs onto this planet - great food, great music, great women. He just did not put it all in one country.

And yeah, we did say foreign woman (it’s called out-sourcing) because the Western World's system is becoming highly unstable by the day. Despite what you might think of any Western World country being the safest country in the world - it is not, especially in the US! The US has the highest crime rate in the world along with teenage pregnancy, m*rders, obesity, brain/mind problems, etc. The only good thing about the US is making money and what's what us bachelors are going to do, exploit the system by making our cash and get out to another country for 'the ultimate fun in the sun.' We’re pretty sure some of us men will be retired by age 40 and work all day and night like some…

Those “some” happen to be everyone else, who are chasing that rat race dream of a job, career, wife, kids, big house, dog – well, screw all that! We're going to make my own way and give the finger to all those who chose the rat race, the dying institution of marriage, and get away from all those gold digging, leach women. The middle finger is also for all the wage slave men who blindly married (chained) themselves to a chain and ball.

Yeah, it would have been neat to be a husband and father to kids of our own, but the thought of dealing with a nagging woman and hopeless, screwed up kids are totally unacceptable. Since technology and science get better all the time, we would rather choose cloning ourselves over the alternative any day. So to all the women in the science field who actually do real lab work, making cloning a better possibility every day, total thanks! Haha!

As bachelors, our goals are simply making money, developing ourselves as better human beings, and building a brotherhood that will last for ages. Having a significant other is totally over-rated and success with a woman does not mean success in life. We all live alone and will die alone even if we did get married (women live longer than men on average). We just believe it is just far better for us to have each other as friends, brothers in arms where we can simply be men and not just become some single feeble-minded amoebas looking like we're rejects of society. Wrong! We reject society because society doesn't fit us in its screwed up system. Instead, we're out to silently exploit the system that we fully understand on how it works and utilize it for our gains. We will become rich in mind, soul, and also our pockets! We'll live the lifestyle that everyone would want to live except we have fewer problems because we made the right choices at a younger age and understood where it would take us to, paradise.

We now belong to a special niche where many others may have been forced into against their will. But those who join this special section of society do it by their own free will. We are talking about the Ghost Nation, groups of people that have fallen off of society's radar screen and no one has any idea that these people exist. Rather than intermingle with the rest of society by interacting with regular people by having a regular job, going to clubs/bars/parties, attend big-time social events, etc. we drift in and out without being noticed.

Being a Ghost is great for some because it means no interaction with women, period. No BS or headaches for this guy:

I remember some neighbors were gossiping about their friend, a 'hot girl,' and how she could never find herself a decent man. Want to know why I didn't go for her? Because every week I could hear through the thin walls of my apartment that she brought home a new thug to screw. I remember on the day I moved out she was pissed off because 'I didn't go out of my way to help her' like all men did after all that time I lived right next door. HAHA! Guess what, girlie? I don't care. I am a not a Captain-Save-A-Ho! I'm a Ghost. And no one recognizes Ghosts and those who freely became one, like it that way. And women like her complain, "where did the good men go to?" That's easy. We CHOSE to disappear. You can screw all the guys you want but you don't have my body (or wallet). Our bodies, our decisions!

We have good reasons why this world is going to hell and we as men are the best ones in position to save our own hides because we don't need 'special attention.' We actually hate attention and thank god that people think we're just regular Joe-Schmos on the street especially the women who think of us as "nothing." The few women who do get to know us, wow, they're going to want us especially when they turn 30. But their fate is the same as all others: to live unhappily single and eventually die alone. That's RIGHT - you wanted a career so you have it now, even if it is just a minimal wage job at the grocery store or working long hours at the office. And, HELL NO! We are not bailing you out either because even if you're beautiful, we've tuned out all women!

What can we say? We've learned our lessons about women throughout my life like this guy:

I'm a former nice guy who turned into an Alpha Male then turned ghost. "They" don't see me. If women ever found out what I do and how I carry myself - I'd be swarmed by tons of them. But I don't EVER want that! I mean I travel to see new places, I workout so I'm built and fit, I have money, I'm positive in my thinking, and I can analyze and philosophize about life. This thinking has been my greatest asset and I utilize it into my own life which thus becomes my attitude and eventually my altitude, flying high above all others who are trapped in the matriarchy as wage slaves. I do not pity them for they made that choice nor I do try to produce a solution for them because a 'massive one-size fits all cure' would not fit the millions, billions... many will not take the cure willingly until it is too late. Besides, why conjure a cure for their happiness when they cannot understand our way of life? Better hop on the train or get lost.

Let’s face it. Feminism, high divorce rates, excessive consumerism, climate change (debatable), and working women are here to stay and won’t stop. This is called change. Change is constant and only those who evolve with change will succeed the greatest. So, embrace this change. Dare yourself to be different. In old Roman and Greek times, bachelor men would be taxed for not getting married, but you, however, are able to have your dreams and desires to be fulfilled rather than live a mass-produced, cookie-cutter boring life. You Can Be Different! The Men wanting “Something for Nothing” and who are unwilling to make significant sacrifices to achieve their dreams always end up failing. Life is not all about what you can BUY next in this consumerism culture. It is whether you are WILLING to do the right thing in life and make change for yourself! Society will try to define what it means to be masculine, but true masculinity means to face your fears and do it anyway. Go beyond the boundaries of what you know! Once you’ve felt this fear and want to succeed in anything, anywhere, and every-time, then you have reached true masculinity: you’re a winner and no one can take that away from you. Not even women.

Sometimes we put it off, thinking there will be plenty of time later in life. So whether it’s your dream to fly planes, go bungee jumping, go sky diving, climb Mount Everest, backpacking Europe – it’s all in your hands. Just think what the typical AW/WW does, “I work (or go to school), I like to party, drink, go clubbing, chill with friends.” They have few real interests. Just think HOW MUCH YOUR LIFE CAN BE! The ever-lasting glory of accomplishment…. so get off that damn couch! Does TV advance your goals? Do you really want to come home just to watch “other people work?” Do you really want to look back on your life staring at some screen most of the time?

The best compliment one guy received (despite an AW) was this:I was eating dinner with a friend and his two co-workers. We ate dinner, talked about this and that, and the female co-worker out-of-the-blue told me, “You really look like a man, act like a man, and talk like a MAN which is rare in today’s world. Do you have a girlfriend?” I laughed and secretly smiled knowing I’m on my way to achieving my dreams where women will become distractions trying to get attention.

Women are a gift in our lives but many throw their prizes away without knowing how grateful they are. Usually, when time passes by, women realize that they will never be movie stars and are no longer as desirable. Only then when they see us living well is the greatest revenge. Hahahahaha. It's like what we'd said before - OUR WAY or NO WAY!

To fellow brothers in arms! To those who are flying high in the sky! We live the life! YOU CAN!


Cheers to being single!

ColdHammer

Some time ago a female writer by the name of Devvy Kidd who ask why aren't men protecting women any more. Again being a copy and paste guy I'm going to repost the entire repsonse from MaryMark.

Here is Ms. Kidd's Article:







Now HERE's MarkyMark's repsonse:

Ma'am,

I was reading the comments to a Men's blog I read, and one of the posters alluded to your article. While I don't agree with his assessment that you & other conservative women hate men with as much fury as the feminists, I can see why he'd think that. While you lambasted us men (much of it justified), it seemed to me that you gave American women a free pass; it seemed to me that THEIR role in our societal decline and onset of tyranny was glossed over. Say what you want, but it looked to me as if you were absolving our women of the blame that is rightfully theirs.

Question #1 is this: why are our women WORTH protecting, hmmm? I can't think of a reason, not when they're skanks & whores. Whoa, that's a serious charge! Yes, it is; I'll also back it up. Did you know that over 1/4 of women aged 14-59 are infected with HPV (Human Pappiloma Virus), which causes genital warts, cervical cancer, nice little problems like that? Did you also know that, among women ages 20-24, 44.8% (almost half!) of them are infected with HPV? BTW, these figures are from the CDC; no one made them up. A large percentage of our women are also carrying, HSV-1, HSV-2, and Hep-C. These aren't like the STDs of old (The Clap, Syphilis, Chlamydia, etc.), which are curable; no, these are SERIOUS STDs that one carries for life. How did our women get infected with such serious diseases? Why are they infected in such great numbers? I'll tell you why: they live a wicked, debauched, and promiscuous lifestyle-end of story.

That may be true, but there are men sleeping with them, you say. That's ok; I'm ready to counter your argument, Ma'am. Yes, men are sleeping with women (it takes two to tango), but it's only a small percentage of men. Because of social proofing, women will only chase after & sleep with men whom their girlfriends think are cool; IOW, if a man is seen desirable by women, the more women there are who will want him. I've seen this in action myself. I remember going out to a restaurant with a colleague, who's involved with his church's widow/widower ministry. Because I'd been with a group of women, hot babes who normally wouldn't give this 45 year old Jersey boy the time of day were giving me The Eye. The attention wasn't directed at me because I'm hunk material anymore, either; I'm far from it these days! Hot babes were checking me out because other women wanted me; in turn, that made them want me. I ignored these women; I don't need them or the BS they'll surely bring into my life.


These men, the men that all the women chase, tend to be the players, bad boys, thugs, jerks, etc.; good guys like me are deemed too boring, too nice, etc. The fact that we are good husband material means nothing, nor does the fact that we have good jobs, are self sufficient, etc. I and most guys I know are NOT sleeping around at all; hell, we're lucky if we can get the time of day from women, let alone spend any time with them; forget about sleeping with them! Yet these same women will chase after the biggest jerks around. Just look at Heather Locklear & Pam Anderson; they BOTH just had to have Tommy Lee, one of the biggest degenerates to ever live. These are beautiful women who could have had ANY MAN ON THE PLANET, yet they choose Tommy Lee! Furthermore, Pam Anderson married Tommy after Heather Locklear did; one would have thought she would have learned from Heather's example, i.e. her mistake, but I guess not. Carmen Elektra took up with a couple of bad boys too; Dennis 'The Worm' Rodman came first, followed by Dave Navarro, a musician with another big rock band. Here's yet another woman who could have any man she wants, yet she took up with TWO BAD BOYS in a row! I could go on, but I don't want to hit you with overkill; I've made my point. The fact of the matter is this: multiply this by the decisions millions of individual women make, and you have a lot of good, decent men left on the sidelines, while they chase the same, small group of men that women deem desirable-until the women's looks fade, and they need a sucker, er husband, to support her & her bastard children. Yea, just what I always wanted-to be someone's consolation prize! No matter how you slice it, bad boys, jerks, thugs, or players are what women want; those are the guys almost all of our women sleep with, and from whom they catch the 'wonderful' diseases they are carrying.

I and other guys on the Mancoat forum (where I'm a moderator) are inclined to think that 90% of women are chasing after the 10% of men deemed to be most desirable; another figure I've heard is that 80% of women are chasing 20% of the men. While our figures aren't scientific, they do confirm our experiences; they line up with what we've observed, both in our own lives and the lives of other good, decent, hard working men. One, this means a vast majority of men are not sleeping with women; a vast majority of men aren't even dating anyone. Two, this also means that a small group of men are sleeping with almost all the women; one man (in the desirable 10%-20$ of men) is having many female sexual partners. So, while you'd be right in saying that there are men sleeping with our promiscuous women, it's only a small percentage of men who are doing so.

Why else are us men walking away from women? Well, there's divorce, which is DEVASTATING to men. All 'Cupcake' has to do is file for divorce, and a man will be in the poorhouse for the rest of his life; many men are left homeless (and 95% of the homeless are men) in the aftermath of divorce. She'll keep the house, while he keeps the mortgage payment; he (Hubby) will also have to pay an obscene amount of his income in alimony and child support. From where I sit, that is NOT a fair deal. If Wifey really wants to be vicious, all she has to do is dial 911, and say that she's afraid of her husband, and three cop cars will show up at her doorstep. Hubby will be arrested (thanks to VAWA and its mandatory arrest provisions); the cops HAVE to arrest someone, and with the women=good/men=evil paradigm, it will be the husband who's arrested. The fact that he may have done nothing wrong is immaterial; she pointed the finger, so he will leave HIS house in cuffs, probably never to return. Combine that with the fact that it is the wife who files for divorce 70% of the time, it's no wonder men are walking away from women.

Our women are liars too. They commit paternity fraud, accusing innocent men of fathering their children, children who they had by ANOTHER man. Ah, but the biological father may not have a job; if he has one, it doesn't pay much. So, the woman will find a guy who pulls down a decent paycheck, and point the finger at him. The hapless man is screwed; even if DNA testing proves beyond ANY doubt that the innocent man isn't the father, the child support order will not be reversed; the poor sap will have his paychecks garnished for the next 18 years minimum.

How else do our women lie? They lie about pregnancy to trap their boyfriends into marriage. The British magazine, "That's Life", did a survey of women on how often they lie about pregnancy. An ASTOUNDING 40% said that they would lie about pregnancy and/or the use of birth control, so they could force their boyfriends into marrying them. One woman said that she saw nothing wrong with forgetting "accidentally on purpose" to use her birth control, because damn it, she was ready for marriage, and if her man wasn't, then she'd give him a "little nudge". Not only was this witch a liar; she's selfish. She didn't care whether or not her man was ready or desirous of marriage; she wanted it, and that was all that mattered. I'm sorry, but women who are liars, selfish, and believe that the end justifies the means are NOT what I'd call good women; they're certainly not worth protecting. Did the Founding Fathers put their lives on the line for skanks like that? I doubt it.

You and your sisters have literally made it a crime to be male; masculinity has been criminalized. Let's look at courtship & romance, shall we? If I talk to a woman, it's harassment, especially in the workplace. If I pursue a woman, many of the old school methods of pursuit run afoul of stalking laws. If I have consensual sex with a woman and she regrets it later for ANY reason, it's rape. If I upset a woman for any reason, she can point the finger, accuse me of something, and I'll be jailed-all without question or evidence.

Oh, and I'll hit one more point before I close. For the last 40-50 years, you and your sisters have bashed, impugned, mocked, disparaged, and hurt us men in every way imaginable. You've blamed us for everything. You've used the gov't to take away our jobs, even if you weren't qualified for them. You've made it a crime to be a man. You and your sisters have acted like skanks and whores. Are you all WORTH protecting? Are you all worth marrying? Are you even worth any interaction? The answer for me is no.

Why did I say you & your sisters? Because, other than Phyllis Schlafly, Beverly LaHaye, and a handful of other decent women, I haven't seen you and your sisters lift up your fingers to help us men over the last 40-50 years while Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and their ilk were running amok and wreaking their destruction. Therefore, I and my brothers are inclined to conclude that most women went along with feminism, at least tacitly; they may not have been burning their bras or carrying picket signs, a la the militants, but they were secretly cheering on the feminists, joyous over the pain being inflicted on us men. After all, we were scumbags and oppressors; we deserved it. We didn't see or hear women defending us; I didn't see any women crying out against the prevalent, incessant man bashing I've seen in offices where I've worked in the past, either. But, if I were to say one of the things that women utter thousands of times every day in offices all over America, I'd be fired...

Why did I bring that up? Because, the old school men your crying for to protect you are lacking one important thing: the old school women who'd have our backs-that's what! When we took a woman for a wife, we did so knowing that, in addition to having her back, she had ours; we knew we could count on her to be our helpmate. Yeah, we may have gone out slaying the dragon for you, but we also knew that, when we got tired, thirsty, or needed an intact & sharpened sword, you'd be there with what we needed; we knew that you'd refresh us, rearm us, and pat us on the back before we got back in the fight. You ask where are the men who are like the Founding Fathers, ready, willing, and able to lay it all on the line for their women & children? We men ask: where are the Molly Pitchers, the good, TRUSTWORTHY women, to HELP us take the fight to the enemy, hmmm? Sorry, but I don't see any...

You point the finger at men, and you say we're materialistic, selfish, etc., while giving women a free pass. Let me ask you a question: how many women have tens, if not hundreds, of pair of shoes, hmmm? How many women just HAVE to buy that $1,000 Prada bag? How many women have to buy that designer dress, Darlin'? When I worked @ Fortune 500 company years ago, I knew young woman fresh out of college; she had SIXTY PAIR OF SHOES! Women are materialistic too. Hey Kettle, meet Pot; Pot, Kettle. Which do you want to be?

As for my selfish pursuits, I'm into my motorcycles; yes, I have two, and I look forward to adding to my stable, thank you very much. Why do I prefer bikes over women? Mainly because, if I take care of my bikes, they'll take care of me; if I perform the regular maintenance they need, they won't let me down when I need them most, e.g. out in the middle of nowhere tens of miles from the nearest gas station. I can't say the same for modern, American women. Taking care of them, treating them well, etc. is no guarantee she'll stick around; soon as she gets bored, it's divorce time. If anything, the only thing I can count on from modern, American women is that they WILL let me down. Why bother?

Oh, and here's a newsflash: chivalry is dead, and you women killed it! Now that you killed it, you want it back?! Here's another newsflash: just because you have a vagina doesn't automatically entitle you to chivalrous treatment; you have to be WORTHY of chivalrous treatment if you wish to receive it. BTW, in the days of knights, chivalry wasn't extended to everybody; it was only given to the noble classes. You gals seem to forget this; it's amazing what you all forget when it's convenient to you, huh? To borrow the tag line from the old Smith Barney commercial, if you and your sisters want old fashioned treatment from men, EARN IT.

In closing, women are no longer worth protecting. Though I didn't touch on this in the message, our nation is too far gone to save anyway; the best one can do is to survive the decline as best as he can (go to http://ourcivilisation.com for more). Chivalry is dead, and you women killed it. You want to lambast men? Fine, we deserve it. But, you might want to lambast women too; they are guilty too. You want men to protect women? Then be WORTHY of protecting! You want us to treat you like ladies? Then act, dress, and talk like ladies-sheesh! Until then, don't talk to us men about our faults, not when you and your sisters have plenty of your own. To paraphrase Jesus, you make a big deal about the splinter in mens' eyes, all the while ignoring the big, honkin' 2x4 in yours (i.e. women's eyes). Thank you.


MarkyMark

Since I stumbled onto that message of her's several years ago I always though it was kinda unfair of her to blast men that way. Eventhough it's almost 6 years later I'm glad someone still was able to post the kind of response that article deserved..

One of the best MGTOW blogs is back in business. After a several month rest period Duncan Idaho is back.

He finally put to rest all of the rumors about his long absence and is blogging again.

If you've never read any of his material here is the archives of his orginal post

Eternal Bachelor Archives at Wordpress

http://eternalbachelor.wordpress.com

And his orginal home blog which is now active again:

Eternal Bachelor

http://eternalbachelor.blogspot.com

I found this article several weeks ago (but lost it) and found it again days ago. I've been wanting to post this one for a long time but just couldn't find it. Now for yor reading pleasure an article from the Men's News Daily Archives:

Whiplash vs. Trueheart: The Politics of Melodrama

October 30, 2003

by Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D.

The plot was simple: Snidely Whiplash versus Tom Trueheart for the love of Tess. Tess was young and desirable, torn between Whiplash and Trueheart.

It's a theme that's been played out before and since, but it took definitive shape in the American melodrama. Melodramas are not as popular
as they once were, but you can still find them at your
local dinner playhouse. And over at your local NOW headquarters.

Whiplash certainly had his appeal: wealth, power, cunning. He could provide much the fellow in the white hat could not. Inevitably Tess falls for Snidely, only
to realize it's a Faustian bargain. Yes, he's rich, but he desires her more than he loves her, and when she begins to withdraw because she sees his true
character, he resolves that if he cannot have her, no man can.

So he ties her to the railroad track, where tons of steel would render her delicate form lifeless were it not for Tom, who rescues her at the last minute and
does in Snidely.

In the good old days, melodramas were about the personal choices made by men and women.

For women, it was a choice between two types of men:

pure-hearted Tom or evil-hearted Snidely. Tom has a heart full of love but a wallet with more dreams than dollars. He loves Tess, for sure, but bad boys have
their appeal, so Tess picks Snidely.

For men, it was about what kind of man they wanted to be: Snidely or Tom, the villain or the hero. Snidely was a man who used his money and power to gain what he wanted, yet had no respect for women. Tom was a real man, the kind who respected women and treated them with respect. Not a SNAG, not a wimp, for he can take care of himself-but the kind of man a woman really wants because his heart his true.

The moral was simple. Women, choose the good guy. Men, choose to be the good guy-and good guy is good because he is good to women. He provides for and protects the woman he loves because he loves her. He is strong when
strength is needed and gentle when gentleness is needed. Just the type of man all men want to be. And the type all women want.

Of course, in the melodrama mercy and justice are doled out differently to men and women. Even though Tess chooses Snidely over Tom, she still hopes Tom
will rescue her from her tormentor, forgive her, and take her back. Tom does, of course, revealing the love in his heart that finds her more to be pitied than
censured. Tom doesn't hold her accountable for her mistake. Tess receives the mercy she deserves-largely, one suspects, because she is a woman.

Men, on the other hand, are accountable. Snidely is not simply forgiven and allowed to go away in peace; he loses his life at the hands of Tom, receiving the
justice he deserves.

All men want to be Tom Trueheart, to be the hero. All men also know there's a bit of Snidely Whiplash inside them, but that's why the choice matters. We can choose
to be Snidely or Tom, but most of us choose to be Tom. And the melodrama simply pointed out the wisdom of that choice. In the end, Tom, not Snidely, got the
girl.

This basic triangle of good guy vs bad guy for the love of a woman is very persistent, starting with Homer, when the Greeks take up arms against the
Trojans to bring back the fair Helen. In truth, most men despise wife beaters and rapists, and most men seek to protect women. And most men are very
uncomfortable fighting against women or finding they have to protect themselves from women. Men like to be the hero who saves the woman from the railroad track, but neither the victim nor the villain.

All of which is prelude to understanding that Snidely Whiplash of ideologies-modern, twenty-first century feminism.

Modern feminism turns women against men, turning the friendly battle of the sexes into full-scale war. It's a war men don't know how to fight, how to win, a war
that forces men to fight against women instead of for women. Of course, as the melodrama tells us, as soon as a man fights against a woman, he becomes Snidely
Whiplash. So if anyone opposes feminism, he's portrayed as a Snidely, a misogynist, a villain.

So how does feminism get men to do as it wants? By turning the melodramatic triangle into a political triangle: good politicians vs average schmuck for the
love of Tess.

Or at least her vote.

The feminist hero is a man with enough power to give women what they want: freedom from the consequences of their actions. To get the good politicians to do this, feminism portrays the average man as a wife beater, a deadbeat dad, an uncaring slob who hogs the remote, molests his kids, and only works to make money for himself. In short, the average man is Snidely Whiplash. The average politician is-or should be-Tom Trueheart, ready to rescue poor helpless women from the vile clutches of these everyday Snidelys.

It portrays women as Tess, tied to the railroad track waiting for the politician or the judge to come rescue her.

Even when she's tied herself to the railroad track. After all, a victim ideology needs victims. And the easiest way to become a victim is to make yourself
into one.

Feminism did not start a new game, but plays the same old game women have played for centuries. It's melodrama redux, poor Tess the helpless victim who is
not responsible for her actions expecting mercy from the man she rejected. But with a twist-the triangle now consists of woman, a man, and a powerful
politician.

That's why Bill Clinton is the iconic feminist politician. He treated his wife shabbily, his daughter worse, but the feminists adored him because he was
pro-choice.

And what do the feminists want? Primarily, as far as I can observe, choices without consequences. Freedom without responsibility. In a word, license.

That's why abortion is their flagship issue. Abortion means sex without consequences.

And what's their argument for abortion? Usually, compassion-for the woman who made the "mistake." Like Tess who selected Snidely over Tom, she's found
herself in a bit of a mess-and she needs rescuing by a friendly Supreme Court who will allow her to stay off that train due in nine months.

Abortion also denies the rights, even the humanity, of the other two parties-the unborn child and the father. By legal technicality, the unborn child has no rights.
By biological technicality, the father has no rights.

And that leads us to the primary triumph of feminism-that the needs of women trump the needs of men and children.

Most non-feminist societies are based on the following hierarchy of needs: the child's needs come first, the woman's needs come second, and the man's needs come last. It was because of this hierarchy that men went down with the Titanic.

In a feminist society, as the US has become, the needs of the woman comes first, the needs of the child comes second, and the needs of the man come last. In a
feminist society, the men and the children go down with the Titanic, the women get the lifeboats.

The feminists achieved this triumph with the oldest feminine game in the book. Like Tess in the melodrama, they played victim. No responsibility. No blame. No
guilt. Like Tess, they deserve only compassion and mercy.

It's a game that appeals to both liberal and conservative politicians. To liberals, it's about protecting and liberating women from the cruel Snidely
Whiplashes who ruin their lives. To conservatives, it's about dishing out justice to men who richly deserve it.

So men-at least the average, everyday Joe Sixpacks-are portrayed as, well, Joe Sixpacks, more interested in sports and beer and hogging the remote than in being loving husbands and fathers.

And yet most men are loving husbands and fathers, who do far more good than evil, who work longer hours than women, who die more frequently at work or on the battlefield, who give more time to their kids today than ever before.

But only by demonizing and denigrating men, by treating them legally as Snidely Whiplashes, can much of modern jurisprudence be justified.

Take domestic violence. The Violence Against Women Act is based on the assumption that only men batter, yet studies show women are as likely to batter as men. And further, that women are more likely to abuse and murder their children than men. Yet when Andrea Yates killed her children, the feminists placed the blame on Mr. Yates.

And when Clara Harris murdered her husband, she still got custody of her kids-even though she's in a jail cell. Both were portrayed as victims.

Take divorce. Most divorces are initiated by mothers, who commonly receive the children, the bulk of marital property, and child support. Yet official policy is to
treat them as victims, to provide them with welfare and legal assistance, and to hound divorced fathers as "deadbeat dads." Women are treated as victims even
when they choose their victimhood.

Take work. Women benefit from affirmative action and are protected by sexual harassment laws. These make it easier from women to procure jobs and provide women greater protection, but it make it more difficult for men to procure jobs and provide men with less protection.

Take the military. Even though many women freely participated in Tailhook, only the men were held accountable.

The result is a system in which men feel increasingly alienated and in which women feel increasingly entitled, a system in which increasingly women have
rights without responsibilities and men have responsibilities without rights. No, we're not quite there yet-but the train is definitely headed down that
track.

Of course, the system is a house divided, and as it begins to fall, the government applies the only measures it has: money and force. It gives money to
the women and uses force on the men. Thus, a woman who can't support her kids is given welfare, but a man who can't support his kids is put in jail.

And yet the system has gone as far as it has because of a very basic reason: most men want to be and choose to be Tom Trueheart.

If the system rewards victims, canonizes victims, creates official classes of victims (mostly, women and minorities), then being a victim becomes desirable.

But men don't like to play victim. They prefer to play hero. And it's this very willingness to play hero that allows the system to continue. Men want to be the good guy in the white hat, often not recognizing that the system deems them the villain no matter what they do.

So they do the right thing, as men-at least true men-have always done. So the child support gets paid and the custody order gets obeyed, and the system
continues.

And though men can be victimized by women because women today have very real legal power-granted to them by Tom Trueheart politicians-men are very
uncomfortable in the role of victim. They don't like going to the legislatures and the judges with hats in hands to beg for relief.

They don't like being victims. They like being heroes.

And heroes never fight against women. Heroes fight to protect women and to provide for women. And to protect children and to provide for children.

And so men suck it up and do what The Man requires.

They play Tom Trueheart.

Because their other option is to play Snidely Whiplash.

By playing Snidely Whiplash they justify society's demonization of men-they are portrayed as angry men who deserve not to be heard. So many turn suicidal,
some turn homicidal, and others lapse into a half-life, their anger and hurt and sense of injustice muted by alcohol, drugs, sex, or too much work. Their
pain finds no voice.

But worse, the pain of children finds no voice.

After all, children don't vote. And women today have been seduced by a feminism that puts the needs of children second. Children easily become pawns to get
more entitlements-have children, play victim, get money.

Modern feminism has liberated women not so much by freeing them from the yoke of men, but by freeing them from the yoke of children.

You see, if women have responsibility for children, then women might have some restrictions on their freedom.

So, instead, the responsibility is placed on men, even when women make the choices.

If the children of divorce have problems, if the children of unwed mothers have problems, it's because men don't pay child support. Woman victim, man
villain.

If a single moms need childcare to work, the government provides that childcare. Woman victim, government rescuer.

It's the oldest con game in town-a free lunch. If you're a victim, you get a free lunch. To get a free lunch, become a victim.

Tie yourself to the railroad track, and trust you'll get rescued by some politician.

Sounds foolish, doesn't it?
It's exactly the kind of foolishness the melodrama warned against.

And exactly the kind of foolishness modern feminism embraces.

I forget where I got this one from but I though that I would post it for all to read:

Why Men Can't Win

from the net author unknown...

If you work too hard, there is never any time for her.

If you don't work enough, you're a good for nothing bum.

If she has a boring repetitive job with low pay, it's exploitation.

If you have a boring repetitive job with low pay, you should get off your butt and find something better.

If you get a promotion ahead of her, it's favouritism.

If she gets a job ahead of you, it's equal opportunity.

If you mention how nice she looks, it's sexual harassment.

If you keep quiet, it's male indifference.

If you cry, you're a wimp.

If you don't, you're insensitive.

If you make a decision without consulting her, you're a chauvinist.

If she makes a decision without consulting you, she's a liberated woman.

If you ask her to do something she doesn't enjoy, that's domination.

If she asks you, it's a favour.

If you try to keep yourself in shape, you're vain.

If you don't, you're a slob.

If you buy her flowers, you're after something.

If you don't, you're not thoughtful.

If you're proud of your achievements, you're an egotist.

If you're not, you're not ambitious.

If she has a headache, she's tired.

If you have a headache, you don't love her anymore.

If you control the money you earn, you're a sexist, controlling pig

If she controls the money she earns, she's liberated.

You share everything 50/50.

What's yours is hers and what's hers is hers.



Just remember this next time you deal with a western woman..

If you don't already know about it the United States economy is on the verge of a nasty recession possibly even a depression. As I stated in an earlier post banks in the United States made "sub-prime loans." These loans were made to people who would not normally qualify for regular loans. (Example: people with low incomes, bad/poor credit history. )

If you want some idea of how bad this situation is here are a few headlines for you:

Protections for home-loan borrowers OKd

The House approves restrictions on lenders that the president and the mortgage industry oppose. The measure's future in the Senate is unclear.



The House voted as the mortgage market continued to be roiled by mounting foreclosures and the fallout on Wall Street reached into the billions of dollars.



Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. recently said there could be more than 1 million foreclosure proceedings started this year, with 620,000 of them dealing with sub-prime loans made to people with poor credit. Some analysts say a much larger number of mortgages are headed for trouble.

and this:

FT.com

Another week, another memorable encounter with a nervous financial beast. This time, however, the animal in question is Royal Bank of Scotland, the British banking group.

Last week, RBS raised eyebrows when it was widely reported that one of its highly respected credit analysts had predicted that subprime losses could eventually rise to between $250bn and $500bn or twice previous estimates.

and this:

The fallout




The sub-prime loan crisis has put a question mark on the health of the American economy. Dollar has depreciated against major world currencies over the last three months. With inflationary pressures building up and the clouds of credit crunch still looming over head, the outlook for the global economy seems to be pessimistic even though the outlook for core economic fundamentals like unemployment rate, trade, manufacturing etc. remain extremely positive. The property market activity in matured markets has slowed down significantly.

and this:

Mortgage crisis echoes through region spared most of its effects



For nearly two years, the house at 3345 Arcadia Drive — a three-bedroom, 1950s-style bungalow with a backyard pool and remodeled kitchen — has been vacant, its last owner ousted, neighbors said, by a subprime mortgage he could no longer afford.

“He had just reached out too far,” said Charles Adams, who lives next door to the foreclosed property. “He had two trucks that he had [borrowed] money on, and it all hit him at once.”

Subprime adjustable-rate mortgages have starting interest rates well below the U.S. Treasury standard. Rates adjust upward, often dramatically, after a period of time. In the current economic climate, many borrowers cannot afford the new rates, which can boost monthly payments by as much as 35 percent.

and this:

Barclays calculates £1.3bn sub-prime loss

Barclays bank has taken a £1.3bn hit on the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US. Britain's third biggest bank said it had written off £500m during July, August and September, and £800m in October alone.

Barclays' share price has been under severe pressure in recent days as concern mounted about losses the bank could be facing. Last Friday shares were suspended as rumours swirled of £10bn, and investors rushed to sell.

and this frighting story:

Goldman Sachs warns on surge in loan troubles

The subprime mortgage crisis in the US could lead to the opening up of a US$2 trillion black hole as banks and financiers stop lending money because of mounting losses, the leading Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs warned on Friday.

Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius, who is regarded as an expert on the domestic housing market, warned that losses on outstanding loans could balloon to US$400 billion as borrowers struggled to repay debts.

That figure is well ahead of the US$50 billion or so losses already announced by major banks including Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, and well ahead of the Federal Reserve's own estimates. In July Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke estimated that losses on loans could be up to US$100 billion.

But the effects of the crisis are already being felt in other areas of the economy as banks tighten their lending criteria and speculative investment vehicles, which invested heavily in subprime mortgages, find it increasingly hard to borrow money on the short-term markets.

and this:

£3bn And Counting ...

THREE MONTHS into the biggest crisis to have hit the financial markets this decade, it is only now that we are starting to see true extent of the fall-out this side of the Atlantic. With the financial reporting season for the British banks finally under way, HSBC and Barclays announced write-downs totalling £3 billion this week, and everyone is waiting to see how Royal Bank of Scotland will be affected when it reports in several weeks' time.

The latest bout of debt ratings by Standard & Poor's tells you everything you need to know about the extent of the problems. Last week, the ratings experts delivered their verdict on a total of $38.4bn (£18.7bn) worth of the latest tarnished bundle of mortgages.

and this:

Shinsei Profit Decline Widens on Subprime Loan Costs

Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Shinsei Bank Ltd., the worst- performing Japanese bank stock, said first-half profit plunged 40 percent, a steeper decline than it reported three weeks ago, after setting aside more provisions linked to U.S. home loans.

Net income slid to 23.1 billion yen ($210 million) from 38.8 billion yen a year earlier for the six months ended Sept. 30, the Tokyo-based bank said today. On Oct. 25, Shinsei reported a 31 billion yen profit for the period.

The meltdown in U.S. subprime mortgages forced Shinsei to add $69 million in provisions for loans to providers of such credits, boosting total charges to $172 million. Profit is also being squeezed by bad loans in Japan's consumer finance industry after the government and courts cracked down on interest rates.

``Shinsei shares will continue to be pressured as long as the bank has exposure to the U.S. mortgage market,'' said Shinichi Tamura, an analyst at UBS Securities Japan Ltd.

and this:

Subprime loan foreclosures hurt communities, report finds

Subprime loan foreclosures are having a spillover effect on communities, resulting in an estimated price tag for the nation of $223 billion, according to a new report.

and this:

How will the subprime housing crisis affect you?

WASHINGTON -- Much is known about those directly affected by the subprime mortgage crisis --- like the lenders and hedge funds that relied heavily upon subprime loans, as well as the borrowers who struggle under the increased burden of readjusted mortgage interest rates and declining home values. But less is known about the indirect effects that the crisis will have on consumers who have not taken out a subprime loan and who do not live in areas where such loans are prevalent.

The magnitude of the impact of this crisis on the national economy is not clear yet. But there is little doubt as to the indirect impact it will likely have on consumers. Here is a summary.

and this:

Wachovia Credit-Loss, Loan Reserves Reach $1.7 Bln

Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Wachovia Corp., the fourth-biggest U.S. bank, said mortgage-related losses and reserves for bad loans total $1.7 billion so far this quarter, more than the lender reported for the previous three months.

Wachovia set aside as much as $600 million to cover loan losses in the fourth quarter and said securities linked to subprime mortgages fell by $1.1 billion last month. The Charlotte, North Carolina-based company's $1.3 billion of writedowns in the third quarter prompted its first earnings decline in six years.

Chief Executive Officer Kennedy Thompson bought Golden West Financial Corp. for $24 billion in October 2006 to expand into California as housing prices reached peak levels. California and Florida are now Wachovia's most challenging markets as more borrowers pay late or default on their mortgages, Wachovia Chief Risk Officer Donald Truslow said on a conference call today.

There's so much more but I can't possibly post it all . But, this should give you some idea of the massive problem we're facing. Bankers greed for creating these sub-prime loans along with unbridled consumerism on the part of the people who signed up for these sub-prime loans will create the worst nightmare this generation has ever seen...

This is part of the reason why in my previous post I urged readers to buy bullion coins. The fall out from this one is gonna be really bad. So I urge you to protect yourself now by trying to earn your money in Euros and buying bullion coins.

HERE is a little something I found while doing searching for that article I just posted on Critical Theory. The webmaster of the site called New Totalitarians has a series of articles up under a section of his web sites called the Looming Matriarchy. This preveiw from Mach - April 2007 and the feminist abuse of the legal system:

The fourth issue -- March/April 2007 -- of the journal in this series addresses other flagrant misuses of the legal system via the feminist attack on innocent men falsely accused of rape. The now notorious Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, which has yet to go to trial, involved a terribly flawed prosecution by Michael Nifong of three Duke Lacrosse players. The outrageous prosecutorial errors in the handling of this case have resulted in the hatching of a new verb in our American lexicon -- 'to Nifong.' An astute columnist has proposed that we can "Nifong" someone when we want to trump up criminal charges based on flimsy evidence allegedly for political purposes. In short when we want to screw up someone's life. This issue will use the Duke Rape Case as a yardstick with which to measure the equally outrageous prosecution of Lamar Owens, a former Naval Academy football star, for the alleged rape of a character-flawed female midshipman and when declared 'not guilty' by a military court martial is still being held in limbo by the Naval Academy Superintendent, VADM Rodney P. Rempt. This case will surely result in a new verb in the American lexicon -- 'Rempt Rape.' That is, one is Rempt-Raped when his name, honor, character, and future have been raped by a male agent of the radical feminist matriarchy -- a superior officer whose position and power is used to further his career at the expense of justice in a case of a false sexual accusation by a female. In a previous case, we will show that Midshipman Michael Pilson was Rempt-raped by another Superintendent of the Naval Academy in 1999. Others have been Rempt-raped in the interim years. The ticket-punching, careerist Rempts of the military services do the bidding of the entrenched American Matriarchy in carrying out their cultural Marxist revolution. In this case at our nation's premier service academies.

If you need a free pdf reader please go either HERE, HERE, HERE, or HERE to get one.

In an earlier post I said that I would state the reason why feminism has managed to deconstruct the most basic foundations of our society. Almost all of the major destructive criticism you'll see and hear in leftist/liberal circles today is based in something call "Critical Theory." If you don't have the time to read this the short answer is that Critical Theory is economic Marxism translated into social terms.

If you can stay around a while oull up a chair and a cold one as you read the more about the roots of Critical Theory:


What is the Frankfurt School? ©

by Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson CDR USN (Ret.)
Copyright 1 August 1999

If you have absorbed any of the background material presented in this series of essays on "'Cultural Marxism' at the U.S. Naval Academy," you should be quite concerned that our future naval officers are being subjected to psychic intimidation and indoctrination by behavioral psychologists and clinicians whose methods descend from Wilhelm Wundt [1]. The 'facilitators' and civilian professors in the 'Leadership and Ethics' program at the Academy are Wundtians all. The 'cultural Marxism' that has invaded our military academies and other military institutions is pervasive. As a result, these future naval officers will not have an understanding of the essence of what they are chosen to protect, that is, American civilization [2] -- the most vital and precious descendent of Western civilization.


One must wonder who 'they' are. Who in America today is at work destroying our traditions, our family bonds, our religious beginnings, our reinforcing institutions, indeed, our entire culture? What is it that is changing our American civilization?


Indeed, a thoughtful person should ask himself or herself whether or not all this 'change' from America's traditional culture is simply a random set of events played out by a random set of players, all independent of each other -- all disconnected from any central premise or guidance. It is entirely possible that chance is at work here and all of these 'threads' of American culture are the random workings of the human intellect (the pursuit of what is possible, vice what is appropriate) in a free, democratic society.


But suppose you were to learn that nearly all of the observations made in this series of essays are completely consistent with a 'design' -- that is a concept, a way of thinking, and a process for bringing it about. And suppose one could identify a small core group of people who designed just such a concept and thought through the process of infusing it into a culture. Wouldn't you be interested in at least learning about such a core group? Wouldn't you want to know who they were, what they thought, and how they conjured up a process for bringing their thoughts into action? For Americans with even a smidgeon of curiosity, the answer should be a resounding yes!


If such a core group could be found, then it would still depend on your personal 'world view' as to its significance. If you believe in the 'blind watchmaker,' that is, all cosmic and social events are random and guided only by the laws of nature, 'evolutionary' in the sense of competing with other random events for survival in a 'stochastic' world, you may choose to believe that such a core group was meaningless -- it may have existed but so what? It may have been only one of an uncountably large number of such 'groups' in the world's history. And you may believe that any particular group's 'window of opportunity' to influence future generations was passed by and did little to influence the course of America's history.


If you believe, instead, that nature has a 'design,' and that all events can be connected and we humans can make sense out of many of them if we will only 'connect all of the dots,' then you may believe that this small core group has great influence, even today, in American Culture. If this is your world view, you may (but not necessarily) even believe in a 'conspiracy. and 'conspirators' which and who aim to alter our culture on a vast scale.


It is clear, however, that irrespective of one's 'world view,' it is informative to at least know of such a core group (if it, indeed, existed), what it believed, what it set out to accomplish, and what methods it followed to take action on its beliefs.


Just such a core group did, indeed, exist. That is, history identifies a small group of German intellectuals who devised concepts, processes, and action plans which conform very closely to what Americans presently observe every day in their culture. Observations, such as those made in this series of essays, can be directly traced to the work of this core group of intellectuals. They were members of the Frankfurt School, formed in Germany in 1923. They were the forebears of what some proclaim as 'cultural Marxism,' a radical social movement that has transformed American culture. It is more commonly known today as 'political correctness.'


'Cultural Marxism' and 'critical theory' are concepts developed by a group of German intellectuals, who, in 1923 in Germany, founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University. The Institute, modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, became known as the Frankfurt School [3]. In 1933, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled to the United States. While here, they migrated to major U.S. universities (Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley). These intellectual Marxists included Herbert Marcuse, who coined the phrase, 'make love, not war,' during the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations.


By promoting the dialectic of 'negative' criticism, that is, pointing out the rational contradictions in a society's belief system, the Frankfurt School 'revolutionaries' dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed [4]. "Their Critical Theory had to contain a strongly imaginative, even utopian strain, which transcends the limits of reality." Its tenets would never be subject to experimental evidence. The pure logic of their thoughts would be incontrovertible. As a precursor to today's 'postmodernism' in the intellectual academic community, [5] "...it recognized that disinterested scientific research was impossible in a society in which men were themselves not yet autonomous...the researcher was always part of the social object he was attempting to study." This, of course, is the concept which led to the current fetish for the rewriting of history, and the vogue for our universities' law, English literature, and humanities disciplines -- deconstruction.


Critical theory rejected the ideal of Western Civilization in the age of modern science, that is, the verification or falsifying [6] of theory by experimental evidence. Only the superior mind was able to fashion the 'truths' from observation of the evidence. There would be no need to test these hypotheses against everyday experience.


The Frankfurt school studied the 'authoritarian personality' which became synonymous with the male, the patriarchal head of the American family. A modern utopia would be constructed by these idealistic intellectuals by 'turning Western civilization' upside down. This utopia would be a product of their imagination, a product not susceptible to criticism on the basis of the examination of evidence. This 'revolution' would be accomplished by fomenting a very quiet, subtle and slowly spreading 'cultural Marxism' which would apply to culture the principles of Karl Marx bolstered by the modern psychological tools of Sigmund Freud. Thus, 'cultural Marxism' became a marriage of Marx and Freud aimed at producing a 'quiet' revolution in the United States of America. This 'quiet' revolution has occurred in America over the past 30 years. While America slept!
What is 'cultural Marxism?' Why should it even be considered when the world's vast experiment with the economic theory of Karl Marx has recently gone down to defeat with the disintegration of Soviet communism? Didn't America win the Cold War against the spread of communism? The answer is a resounding 'yes, BUT. We won the 55-year Cold War but, while winning it abroad, we have failed to understand that an intellectual elite has subtly but systematically and surely converted the economic theory of Marx to culture in American society. And they did it while we were busy winning the Cold War abroad. They introduced 'cultural Marxism' into the mainstream of American life over a period of thirty years, while our attention was diverted elsewhere.


The vehicle for this introduction was the idealistic Boomer elite, those young middle-class and well-to-do college students who became the vanguard of America's counter-culture revolution of the mid-1960s -- those draft-dodging, pot-smoking, hippies who demonstrated against the Vietnam War and who fomented the destructive (to women) 'women's liberation' movement. These New Totalitarians [7] are now in power as they have come to middle-age and control every public institution in our nation. But that is getting ahead of the story.


The cauldron for implementing this witches brew were the elites of the Boomer generation. They are the current 'foot soldiers' of the original Frankfurt School gurus. The counter-culture revolution of the 1960s was set in motion and guided intellectually by the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School -- Herbert Marcuse, Eric Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Wilhelm Reich, and others [8,9]., Its influence is now felt in nearly every institution in the United States. The elite Boomers, throwbacks to the dangerous idealist Transcendental generation of the mid-1800s, are the 'agents of change,' who have introduced 'cultural Marxism' into American life.


William S. Lind relates [10] that 'cultural Marxism' is an ideology with deep roots. It did not begin with the counter-culture revolution in the mid-1960s. Its roots go back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci [11]. These roots, over time, spread to the writings of Herbert Marcuse.


Herbert Marcuse was one of the most prominent Frankfurt School promoters of Critical Theory's social revolution among college and university students in the 1960s. It is instructive to review what he has written on the subject:


"One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the
whole cultural establishment, including the morality of existing society ...
there is one thing we can say with complete assurance. The traditional idea of revolution
and the traditional strategy of revolution have ended. These ideas are old-fashioned ...
what we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system."


This sentiment was first expressed by the early 20th century Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci.


Gramsci, a young communist who died in one of Mussolini's prisons in 1937 at the age of 46, conjured up the notion of a 'quiet' revolution that could be diffused throughout a culture -- over a period of time -- to destroy it from within. He was the first to suggest that the application of psychology to break the traditions, beliefs, morals, and will of a people could be accomplished quietly and without the possibility of resistance. He deduced that "The civilized world had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years..." and a culture based on this religion could only be captured from within.


Gramsci insisted that alliances with non-Communist leftist groups would be essential to Communist victory. In our time, these would include radical feminist groups, extremist environmental organizations, so-called civil rights movements, anti-police associations, internationalist-minded groups, liberal church denominations, and others. Working together, these groups could create a united front working for the destructive transformation of the old Judeo-Christian culture of the West.


By winning 'cultural hegemony,' Gramsci pointed out that they could control the deepest wellsprings of human thought -- through the medium of mass psychology. Indeed, men could be made to 'love their servitude.' In terms of the gospel of the Frankfurt School, resistance to 'cultural Marxism' could be completely negated by placing the resister in a psychic 'iron cage.' The tools of mass psychology could be applied to produce this result.


The essential nature of Antonio Gramsci's revolutionary strategy is reflected in a 1990s book [12] by the American Boomer author, Charles A. Reich, 'The Greening of America.' "There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and the culture, and it will change the political structure as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is the revolution of the New Generation." Of course this New Generation would be Reich's elite Boomer generation. And the mantra for these New Age 'foot soldiers' of the Frankfurt School prophets, would be 'have the courage to change [13].'


The Frankfurt School theorized that the 'authoritarian personality' is a product of the patriarchal family. This idea is in turn directly connected to Frederich Engels' 'The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State,' which promotes matriarchy. Furthermore, it was Karl Marx who wrote about the radical notion of a 'community of women' in the Communist manifesto. And it was Karl Marx who wrote disparagingly about the idea that the family was the basic unit of society in 'The German Ideology' of 1845.


'The Authoritarian personality,' studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of 'women's liberation' and the New Left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, '...the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.' The Marxist revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded in accomplishing much of their agenda.


But how can we claim the 'causes' of the breakdown of our schools, our universities, indeed, the very fiber of our culture were a product of a tiny group of intellectuals who immigrated from Germany in 1933? Given all of the special-interest groups involved in these activities, how can we trace these 'causes' to the Frankfurt school? Look at some of the evidence.


As an example, postmodern reconstruction of the history of Western Civilization (now prevalent in our universities) has its roots in the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. This rewriting of history by the postmodern scholars in America has only recently come under attack. Keith Windschuttle, in his book, 'Killing of History,' has severely criticized the rush to 'relativism' by historiographers. What is truly astonishing, however, is that 'relativism' has largely supplanted the pursuit of truth as a goal in historical study [14]. George G. Iggers' recently published book, 'Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge,' reminds us of the now famous line by Hayden White, a postmodernist, "Historical narratives...are verbal fictions, the contents of which are more invented than found." He quotes other postmodernists, mostly non- historians, who [15] "...reinforce the proposition that truth and reality are primarily authoritarian weapons of our times." We now recognize the source of this postmodern assault -- the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School who became experts in criticizing the 'authoritarian personality' in American culture.


Herbert London refutes White's proposition by observing, "...if history is largely invention, who can say with authority that the American Revolution came before the French Revolution?" He observes that evidence has taken a back seat to inventiveness. He thus cuts right to the chase -- the inventions of postmodernism, which are cutting successive generations of Americans off from their culture and their history, evolved directly from the 'cultural Marxist' scholars of the Frankfurt School.


How did this situation come about in America's universities? Gertrude Himmelfarb has observed [16] that it slipped past those traditional academics almost unobserved until it was too late. It occurred so 'quietly' that when they 'looked up,' postmodernism was upon them with a vengeance. "They were surrounded by a tidal wave of faddish multicultural subjects such as radical feminism, deconstructed relativism as history and other courses" which undermine the perpetuation of Western Civilization. Indeed, this tidal wave slipped by just as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School had envisioned -- a 'quiet' revolution. A revolution that could not be resisted by force.


It is of interest to note that the 'sensitivity training' techniques used in our public schools over the past 30 years and which are now employed by the U.S. military to educate the troops about 'sexual harassment' were developed during World War II and thereafter by Kurt Lewin [17] and his proteges. One of them, Abraham Maslow, was a member of the Frankfurt school and the author [18] of 'The Art of Facilitation' which is a manual used during such 'sensitivity' training. Thereby teachers were indoctrinated not to teach but to 'facilitate.' This manual describes the techniques developed by Kurt Lewin and others to change a person's world view via participation in small-group encounter sessions. Teachers were to become amateur group therapists. The classroom became the center of self-examination, therapeutic circles where children (and later on, military [19] personnel) talked about their own subjective feelings. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives.


It is important to realize that this movement, 'cultural Marxism,' exists, understand where it came from, and what its objectives were -- the complete destruction of Western Civilization in America. That is, these 'cultural Marxists' aimed to destroy, slowly but surely from the bottom up, the entire fabric of American Civilization.


By the end of World War II, almost all the original Frankfurt School members had become American citizens. This meant the beginning of a new English-speaking audience for the school. Now the focus was on American forms of authoritarianism. With this shift in subject matter came a subtle change in the center of the Institute's work. In America, authoritarianism appeared in different forms than its European counterpart. Instead of terror or coercion, more gentle forms of enforced conformism had been developed. According to Martin Jay, [20] "Perhaps the most effective of these were to be found in the cultural field. American mass culture thus became one of the central concerns of the Frankfurt School in the 1940s."


Since the 1940s, subtle changes appeared in the Frankfurt School's descriptions of their work. For example, the opposite of the 'authoritarian personality' was no longer the 'revolutionary,' as it had been in previous studies aimed at Europeans. In America, it was now the 'democratic' who opposed the 'authoritarian personality.' Thus, their language matched more closely the liberal [21] "...New Deal rather than Marxist or radical.." language. Education for tolerance, rather than praxis for revolutionary change, was the ostensible goal of their research. They were cleverly merging their language with the mainstream of liberal left thought in America while maintaining their 'cultural Marxist' objectives.


Toleration had never been an end in itself for the Frankfurt School, and yet the non-authoritarian
(utopian) personality, insofar as it was defined, was posited as a person with a non-dogmatic tolerance for diversity [22]. This thought is dominant in today's power elite of the Boomer generation, the New Totalitarians.


One of the basic tenets of Critical Theory was the necessity to break down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that [23] "...Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change." The 'generation gap' of the 1960s and the 'gender gap' of the 1990s are two aspects of the attempt by the elite Boomers (taking a page out of 'cultural Marxism') to transform American culture into their 'Marxist' utopia.


The transformation of American culture envisioned by the 'cultural Marxists' is based on matriarchal theory. That is, they propose transforming American culture into a female-dominated one. This is a direct throwback to Wilhelm Reich, a Frankfurt School member who considered matriarchal theory in psychoanalytic terms. In 1933, he wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of 'natural society.'


Eric Fromm, another charter member of the Institute, was also one of the most active advocates of matriarchal theory. Fromm was especially taken with the idea that all love and altruistic feelings were ultimately derived from the maternal love necessitated by the extended period of human pregnancy and postnatal care. "Love was thus not dependent on sexuality, as Freud had supposed. In fact, sex was more often tied to hatred and destruction. Masculinity and femininity [24] were not reflections of 'essential' sexual differences, as the romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined." This dogma was the precedent for today's radical feminist pronouncements appearing in nearly every major newspaper and TV program, including the television newscasts. For these current day radicals, male and female roles result from cultural indoctrination in America -- an indoctrination carried out by the male patriarchy to the detriment of women. Nature plays no role in this matter.


But in terms of destruction and disintegration, Critical Theory absorbed by the 'change agents' and other social revolutionaries has led them to declare their intent to restructure America. As they proclaim, this means their activities have been directed toward the disintegration of the traditional white male power structure. As anyone with eyes to view present-day television and motion pictures can confirm, this has been largely achieved. In other words, Critical Theory, as applied mass psychology, brought forth a 'quiet' psychic revolution which facilitated an actual physical revolution that has become visible everywhere in the United States of America.


It was the destructive criticism of the primary elements of American culture that inspired the 1960s counter-culture revolution. As the name implies, this false 'spiritual awakening' by the idealist Boomers in their coming-of-age years was an effort to transform the prevailing culture into an inverted or opposite kind of culture that is a necessary prelude to social revolution. Now that these elite Boomers are in positions of power in the United States, they are completing their work of destroying every institution that has been built up over 200 years of American history. Their aim is to destroy any vestige of the Anglo-American path [25] taken by Western Civilization in forming the unique American culture.


Most Americans do not yet realize that they are being led by social revolutionaries who think in terms of the destruction of the existing social order in order to create a new social order in the world. These revolutionaries are the New Age elite Boomers, the New Totalitarians [26]. They now control every public institution in the United States of America. Their 'quiet' revolution, beginning with the counter-culture revolution of their youth, is nearly complete. It was based on the intellectual foundation of the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School. Its completion depends on keeping the American male in his psychic 'iron cage.'


The confluence of radical feminism and 'cultural Marxism' within the span of a single generation, that of the elite Boomers (possibly the most dangerous [27] generation in America's history), has imposed this yoke on the American male. It remains to be seen whether or not he will continue his 'voluntary submission' to a future of slavery in a new American matriarchy, the precursor to a state of complete anarchy.


If we allow this subversion of American values and interests to continue, we will (in future generations) lose all that our ancestors suffered and died for. We are forewarned. A reading of history -- it is all in mainstream historical accounts -- tells us that we are about to lose the most precious thing we have -- our individual freedoms.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:

1) Lionni, Paolo, "Leipzig Connection," Heron Books, 1993. Wundt, in the 1870s, advanced the then-radical notion of man as an 'animal,' not accountable for his conduct, which was said to be caused entirely by forces beyond his control. According to Wundt's thinking, in a human being there is nothing there to begin with but a body, a brain, and a nervous system. Therefore, teachers must try to educate a person by inducing sensations in that nervous system. Through these experiences, the individual will learn to respond to any given stimulus, with the 'correct' response. Thus, a child's actions are thought to be preconditioned and beyond his control, because he is simply a stimulus-response mechanism.

2) Vazsonyi, Balint, "America's 30 Years War: Who is Winning?,' Regnery, 1998.

3) Raehn, Raymond V., "The Historical Roots of 'Political Correctness,'" Free Congress Foundation, Number 44, June 1997.

4) Jay, Martin, "The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social
Research, 1923-1950," pp. 77, University of California Press, 1973.
5) Ibid, pp. 81.
6) Ibid, pp. 82.


7) Atkinson, Gerald L., "The New Totalitarians: Bosnia as a Mirror of America's Future," Atkinson Associates Press, 1996.

8) Jay, Martin, "The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950," University of California Press, 1973.


9) Wiggershaus, Rolf, "The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance," The MIT Press, 1994.


10) Lind, William S., "What is 'Political Correctness?," Essays on our Times, Free Congress Foundation, Number 43, March 1997.
11) Ibid.
12) Reich, Charles A., "The Greening of America," Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1995.
13) A phrase commonly heard during the 1992 Presidential campaign.
14) London, Herbert, "Discipline of history under assault," The Washington Times, 26 October 1997.
15) Ibid.
16) Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Panel on 'Academic Reform: Internal Sources,' National Association of Scholars, NAS Sixth General Conference, 3-5 May 1996.
17) Marrow, Alfred Jay, "The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin," Teachers College Press, new York, 1977. Kurt Lewin was a primary figure in the wartime research that was later translated into the techniques used today in 'sensitivity training.'
18) Raehn, Raymond V., "Critical Theory: A Special Research Report, 1 April 1996.
19) Editorial, "The crying of the admirals," The Washington Times, 3 November 1995. The U.S. Naval Academy has added female 'role models' to the faculty. In August 1994, the Academy placed a new emphasis on conflict resolution and consciousness-raising. "As 'Lean On Me' started playing, Master Chief Liz Johns gave the plebes her final orders: stand in a circle, sway to the music, sing along, and hug. From the circle came the sharp sniffle of sobs. The future admirals of America were crying."
20) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 172.
21) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 227.
22) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 248.
23) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 135.
24) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 95.
25) Vazsonyi, Balint, "America's Thirty Years War: Who is Winning?," Regnery, 1998.
26) Ibid, Atkinson, Gerald L.
27) Strauss, William and Howe, Neil, "Generations: The History of America's Future -- 1584 to 2069," pp. 382, William Morrow & Company, 1991. "We can foresee a full range of possible outcomes, from stirring achievement to apocalyptic tragedy...Boomers can best serve civilization by restraining themselves (or by letting themselves be restrained by others) until their twilight years, when their spiritual energy would find expression not in midlife leadership [for which they are not equipped], but in elder stewardship."