No orginal articles at this site. (Just like this blog. 
) But plenty of archived web pages that make great refrence material. So if you haven't been by there check him out:
JTest 28 Anti-Feminist pages
http://www.jtest28.com/Anti-feminismpage.html
This is what Darren Blacksmith wrote about in this page on the JTest 28 Anti-Feminist Pages:
Amoral Women?
By Darren Blacksmith
I have a theory that men have a greater potential for good or evil than women. In order to be truly evil or good you have to have made a moral choice. Like in the story "A Clockwork Orange" a young boy who leads a life of bad behavior needs to choose to become good, but instead the state put him through some brutal therapy that makes him ill whenever he thinks of doing something bad. But this doesn't make him good, it forces him to not be bad. There's a difference. Without the capacity to make moral choices in our behavior we are a living thing that has become mechanized, like a clockwork orange.
Men feel these choices more than women. Men choose. Men are pre-eminently the moral creatures.
We are taught by our upbringing, education and the media that women are good, men are bad. We are told to think of Mother Theresa and Florance Nightingale. Yet these are no more representative of most women than are serial killers representative of most men. Women in general don't behave themselves because it is the RIGHT thing. In fact most women these days balk at the idea of any code of morals. Rather they behave themselves because they want to appear good, socially acceptable, attractive and they don't want to confront bad feelings. Their code is not based on platonic system of morals. It's based on feelings. In other words, they are not so much moral or immoral. They are amoral which is something even worse. They haven't made a moral decision. They haven't even acknowledged that there was one to make in the first place.
Why is this so? Men know about morals because we virtually always have to deal with the consequences of our actions. Women hardly ever have to. Chiefly because they are protected from the consequences by society that treats them more leniently than men, and by their own capacity for self-deception. They never face up to taking the blame for any actions they take that have bad effects. They make excuses.
Amoral women get away with their bad actions. They are let off more easily in court cases. This week, commenting on the case of a woman who had been falsely imprisoned for killing her two babies, British TV presenter Anne Diamond said "Even if she had 'done something' to them, I'm not sure that jail would have been the right response." This attitude shows two things to me:
1) when a woman does something evil, it's downplayed. Its given a euphemism of 'done something' rather than 'killed'. This helps perpetuate the idea that women don't do bad things.
2) Even if a woman kills, people are reluctant to punish her for it. She does not have to face the consequences of one of the most evil acts.
This sheltering from the consequences of their acts starts in an almost inadvertent way when boys and girls are told off. Because a boy's misbehavior is easier to spot - ex. hitting another boy - he is more likely to be told off, but the girl's misbehavior takes the form of psychological warfare, ostracizing a friend, spreading rumors. It can be devastating to the victim, but is rarely spotted and punished. She thus learns she can get away with her bad behavior.
And then this continues into adulthood. A woman's behavior is not bound by any moral code (and even male criminals often have some sort of moral code), but is purely bound by what she can get away with, what society will turn its back to. Thus women emotionally manipulate their husbands and drive them to the edge, they decide now, in the UK, to kill one in four babies that are due to be born (although obviously it can't be expressed in this language, it has to be abstracted and called "terminating the pregnancy"), they support and date the bad men, and leave the good men in on a Saturday night, and even if they do give a good guy dates they will sense the weak and vulnerable position that his personal morals leave him in and walk all over him.
Of course, I've simplified the world a GREAT deal in this argument, but nevertheless I believe there is a great deal of truth in this. And it's an unspoken truth.
Evil doesn't need all men to be bad, it just needs a small number of men to make a wrong moral choice, then the majority of women will support them.
Comments anyone?
This is a very long post but please bear with me as I have copied all but two replies from a thread on the Online Dating Rights Forum about dishonesty on Wikipedia by the Tahirih Center
Here's the thread from Online Dating Rights forum:
tristan
Administrator
Wikipedia fraud by Tahirih
« on: January 30, 2007, 12:25:00 PM »
Our researchers have noted in the past that a teenage boy named erald Kolasi, son of a Tahirih employee, has developed the Tahirih Justice Center entry in Wikipedia and zealously guards it against any and all changes.
Wikipedia has policies to prevent a biased person from taking control over a website with which they are connected. The main policy is that such control is absolutely forbidden and that anyone posting must do so neutrally.
But what Tahirih has done is to write the Wikipedia entry as if it is a fundraising statement for them. The entry is hardly neutral and in particular it parrots Tahirih's political position that men who go abroad to find romance are sick, disgusting rapists waiting to happen.
Several members of this website have become editors of Wikipedia as anyone can become an editor and this is the foundation for maintaining accuracy in its entries, i.e. if enough people create and constantly edit the entries they will come out neutral. Even if some editors are biased, there should in theory be enough unbiased people to catch and change biased changes to an entry.
But it doesn't work that way, at least with respect to Tahirih. For instance, when our members made any edits to make the entry neutral, the teenager immediately deleted them using his power also as an editor. Other changes were made for neutrality, and the boy changed them right back to their original bias. This went on for a while until the members of this board gave up; the teenager has more time and energy on his hands (and more at stake due to his mother's connection with Tahirih) than did our members. (Example: one change was merely to add mention that a federal judge has issued a TRO against IMBRA where the entry discusses the IMBRA litigation; the boy will not permit that information to remain on the entry.)
Now, in light of a NY Times article today about how judges are using Wikipedia to make decisions, this unethical tampering with the public record by Tahirih's supporters takes on heightened importance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The article reads in part: "Cass R. Sunstein, currently a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. “I love Wikipedia, but I don’t think it is yet time to cite it in judicial decisions,” he said, adding that “it doesn’t have quality control” He said he feared that “if judges use Wikipedia you might introduce opportunistic editing” to create articles that could influence the outcome of cases."
Indeed.
------------------------
VeteransAbroad
Reply #1 on: January 30, 2007, 05:25:41 PM »
His name is Erald Kolasi or Erald Kalosi. The kid made me sick in early September as he psycopathically refused to compromise on anything. The saddest thing was that he entered this huge fight with me on what should have been the best days of his life: his first few days at college.
I took the memorable moments of his first days at college.
His new college roommates clearly thought he was weird and they broke into his Wikipedia account and wrote "I am a homosexual" in a lot of places. Erald then thought I had broken into his account and complained to the Wikipedia editors. Then he admitted that it was his roommates.
At that point I realized that this teen with a retarded social growth was going to eat and sleep at his computer, trying to promote feminism in the hope that he would get laid.
But Layli isn't going to sleep with him nor would Layli, the racist, ever set him up with anyone.
Male feminists are usually Beta Males who honestly think that feminist women will want to have date them and reject the anti-feminist Alpha Males.
But I have news for these demasculinized men: We anti-feminists actually do much better dating the American feminists whom we don't want to MARRY than the obsequious twirps who do their bidding and betray other guys.
Taylor and I differ on the subject of whether the men who date foreign women are the Alpha Males or Shy Males. But the Beta Males who support feminism in the hope of getting laid are the real losers in the end.
-------------------------------
Sluggo
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2007, 10:38:00 PM »
Can we talk psychology here? If I am an expert on anything it would be teenage boys, because I was one for seven years.
I was a bit geeky like Erald. And if I had the chance to pal around with my mother's co-workers at an ALL-FEMALE OFFICE, there is no doubt that I would have done so at every opportunity and I would have been very eager to please them.
A boy at that age thinks about sex every 15 seconds or less, and he has sexual fantasies about, well, many, many women. Surely this boy is entranced by all the estrogen at the Tahirih office and the women there, such as Layli Miller who wears lots of makeup and has long hair in a perm, provide him with a rich source of masturbatory fantasies. And since he is the son of an employee, the women there will always treat him nicely and be happy to see him and to know how he is doing in college. In contrast to his female classmates who, if he is geeky as Veteran suspects, probably roll their eyes when they see him coming.
There is no way that appealing to this kid's intellect can compete with his biological instincts to suck up to these women in the chance, however small it may be, that he will get laid someday.
--------------------------------
VeteransAbroad
Reply #3 on: February 01, 2007, 03:18:06 AM »
Whatever the motivation for his bizarre behaviour, the owners of Wikipedia need to understand that all of the above is no excuse for letting a 19 year old dishonestly defraud the public by preventing editors from making the Tahirih Justice Center article more objective and professional and not the outrageous marketing brochure that it is now.
Here is his blog:
http://eraldicsector.blogspot.com/
You can see a teenager wrestling with religion (wanting to be religious).
The thing is, the guy has the potential. He is "intellectual", understands Napoleon's principles of propaganda ("What is history but a fable agreed upon"). He is not that bad looking and has at least 9 years of living among real men in Albania. He just needs to get a spine and talk with one of us on the phone for a half hour. He needs to understand that the crowd of older women who are so nice to him, happen to have passed the most draconian dating law in the history of democracies and none of these women will ever be his wife. They are ultimately not on his side if he wants to meet an Albanian woman from the homeland.
When I was trying to get some fairness written at Wikipedia (when I still believed the Wikipedia editors were fair) he tried to discredit me at Wikipedia by saying "This guy says on his blog that he is against feminism. Anyone who says that automatically loses all credibility".
I am not kidding. He said that.
The incident with this young man is like the end of the movie "The Bridge on the River Kwai" when British commandoes are trying to blow up a bridge, but it is a British prisoner who built the bridge who ends up stopping them and saving "his bridge".
But as he is mortally wounded and looking at all the dead British soldiers that he, as a British soldier just got killed, he says "What have I done?!" and falls dead on the detonator which finally destroys the bridge.
When it comes to IMBRA, I keep thinking of that scene in that movie.
There are men with the power to blow this thing wide open...who don't because they are somehow scared of their own shadow (are beta males).
-------------------------------------
frank johnson
Reply #6 on: February 06, 2007, 09:26:47 AM »
How about some social intercourse with Erald and Veteran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin/Archive_2
[edit] Alert
Well...it's sort of an alert. The Tahirih Justice Center article has been discovered by someone who is very anti-IMBRA and who made some major changes to the article recently. I have reverted these, but I may need your help in the future so I'm just letting you know. This person apparently started a whole thread in an online forum where there is even some discussion about personal matters relating to me (see here). He might need to be banned, although we'll see what happens.UberCryxic 17:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This guy (EnglishGarden) already opened a discussion on AI about me. I've added the link about my personal information there. I have to admit he is a little bit unstable. Just wait and see I guess.....UberCryxic 18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Umm Kirill, I'm having some more trouble. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tahirih Justice Center edited by son of fundraiser volunteer, one person wrote,
" I would be wary of editing articles where a conflict of interests might be presented. On one hand, you're a Wikipedia editor and must maintain NPOV when editing. On the other, it is your job, or a family member's job, to promote this organization. I would steer clear of the article if you're unable to be neutral. Furthermore, it is incorrect for you to assume bad faith in the complaining editor. He may have been accused of sock puppetry in the past, but that is niether here nor there. Please remain on topic. Regards to both"
No apparent care for the personal information.
EnglishGarden has written things like,
"You are still not disclosing whether there is financial remuneration in this for yourself. A 19 year old male isn't going to work hard as the webmaster of a Wikipedia article on a women's political organization in the Washington area whom his mother is a fundraiser/volunteer for...without some kind of interest."
"Erald's mother is a fundraiser volunteer for the Tahirih Justice Center. He has written a blatant fundraiser advertisement. Please check the changes I made. Here is the proof that she is a fundraiser/volunteer Mrs. Kolasi"
Can you please drop a word in there when you have time? Thank you very much. I'm sorry if this is all too sudden. It was definitely weird for me. I came back from class and for two hours straight I've had to deal with this stuff.UberCryxic 18:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I requested that now.UberCryxic 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, can you at least write another message to EnglishGarden telling him to stop using personal references and to stop being disruptive....or something to that effect. His focus on my mother precludes me from responding. As I told him, I would ignore any personal remarks from now on in the talk page. He is really flying off now, and he continues to make inflammatory and incorrect statements (claiming the person who I told you about was an administrator when in fact he wasn't) in his website. Thanks.UberCryxic 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
EnglishGarden wrote this in reply to your message,
"Thanx Kirill. I have proven that this young man's mother is a fundraiser for the TJC. He has admitted as much on the complaint board. He has not disclosed that he is not receiving remuneration as the webmaster for this article. There is a family conflict of interest and another member has asked him to steer clear of this board as a result.
For removing POV, the words "exploit" and "marriage broker" and "mail order bride" either need to be removed or placed in quotations so it is very clear that the editors do not pass judgement on the online dating industry where there is a restraining order on the IMBRA law in question. See Restraining Order. This is the son of a fundraiser for Tahirih who is obviously the chosen webmaster. He should take a step back and ask himself what he is doing. This topic is clearly not in his personal interest otherwise."UberCryxic 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Kirill, thanks for all your help man. This guy is really weird; he's talking crap about you now on his site. Really awkward person....UberCryxic 22:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Kirill, just a few minutes ago someone made an edit on my userpage with my username. They changed the statement "My name is Erald Kolasi and I have been a regular Wikipedia..." to "My name is Erald Kolasi and I AM A HOMOSEXUAL ... " Obviously I don't know who it is. I've changed my password but now I'm afraid to log back out because that person could change it again. I'm not really sure what to do except to not panic haha. Should I report this somewhere?UberCryxic 03:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, nevermind. Apparently it was my suitemates screwing around. Bastards...UberCryxic 04:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Kirill, the guy's back and in the past hour has made statements in the TJC talk page like...
"You state your name openly and everyone knows that your parents are on the fundraiser committee for Tahirih. You should have no responsibilities for this article."
and...
"You publish your name openly in your profile and your Mom is a fundraiser for Tahirih."
I'm wondering if any of this makes him liable for a ban now.UberCryxic 18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
He's...still making personal statements about my family. I told him again not to but I don't think he's listening.UberCryxic 21:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, why should he not be banned at this point? He won't stop talking about it. And you did say that personal information about the families would get either him or me banned.UberCryxic
21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah good points. I've now asked another admin to take a look at it.UberCryxic 21:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Kirill, another admin warned him about continuing incivility on his talk page, but he still continues to make not only untrue references about my parents, but just references period, despite my best efforts at requesting him to stop. Can you give him another warning when you have time please? Thank you!UberCryxic 17:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kirill: In regard to the 2 day argument I had with Ubercryxic last week, I just discovered how this guy was actually asking you to help him keep the Tahirih Justice Center devoid of criticism. He lives online and was doing well enough alone in reverting changes that even lawyers were trying to make to no avail. I have zero time to waste on Wikipedia (with all due respect to you if you like hanging out here). But, because online searches these days favor Wikipedia articles, people have to deal with the people here now and then, if only to get a word in edgewise.
Please look at the reputable data I provided (court documents are reputable) and note that the 5th Amendment guarantees that a restraining order placed on a law like IMBRA (the supposed jewel in the Tahirih Justice Center crown) is a restraining order on all similar plaintiffs (in this case dating websites). IMBRA is dead in the water but the article calls it an accomplishment that allegedly provides "important" information to foreign women instead of "sensitive" or "private" or "too much" information, which would be just as POV laden.
There is no objective reason to call dating websites "Marriage Brokers". I provided the reputable document (the IMBRA law) that defines even social referral websites as "Marriage Brokers". It is a farce for Wikipedians to adopt the language of Tahirih and a law under restraining order when we are talking about matchmaking sites like MySpace and Match.com would be if their membership were >50% foreign. Meanwhile I've dated dozens of "mail order brides" but never married any of them. The term refers to women from a certain geographic areas and the term is racist if used in the pejorative.
The Tahirih Justice Center recently found a sympathetic judge in Ohio who said "The Supreme Court has never explicitly held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American meeting a foreigner for an intimate relationship". If this kind of attitude gets ignored or glossed over at Wikipedia, it won't be more than a year before you can take the words off "intimate relationship" and just have laws preventing Americans from meeting foreigners for any reason.
I happen to be an expert on the Tahirih Justice Center but who doesn't have the time to waste on Wikipedia arguing with an obdurate webmaster who thinks the article belongs to him because he got it somehow "peer reviewed". Ubercryxic, in addition, has been reverting small changes that a lawyer tried to make to make things more accurate. Ubercryxic practices complete reversion and doesn't try to work with anyone. Please end the problem by at least taking the change someone else made recently and finding a compromise so at least part of the small change can hold.84.56.10.252 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
---------------------------------------
VeteransAbroad
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2007, 11:39:37 AM »
And the dishonest Wikipedia moderator called Kirill said "I don't care if he is the son of a Tahirih fundraiser, you cannot accuse him of this on Wikipedia".
Of course, Layli Miller-Muro of the Tahirih Justice Center would never do anything to prevent one-sidedness anywhere would she?
The willingness of American males to bend over backwards for "women's organizations" is being documented in this IMBRA fight.
I will have such a thick book to publish on this bad joke called "IMBRA and the Demasculinization of the American Male" that my problem will be trying to cut great material out of it.
This from the Online Dating Rights Forum:
Vatican Radio broadcasts shocking lies about men
« on: January 26, 2007, 06:38:33 PM »
UPDATE: LINK TO BROADCAST TAKEN DOWN THEN PUT BACK UP!
Susie Hodges and editor Charles Collins of Vatican Radio broadcasts shocking lies about men who romance foreign women. Their reports claims that these man subject their wives to "brutal violence", most of whom are "serial rapists".
http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=114630
scroll ahead to minute 17 to hear this feature
Hodges got all of her information from Sen. Sam Brownback, Miller of Tahirih and her sleazy lawyer Ross Goldstein of Arnold and Porter. She did no fact checking of anything. Thus, she reports that a number of lawsuits challenged IMBRA (there were two) and that one in Ohio was defeated (it was withdrawn by the plaintiff). She says that IMBRA was passed with wide bi-partisan support when the law was passed on a voice vote hidden behind another bill and no one knew about the law except for four Congressional sponsors.
She records Miller stating that many of the men who do this are serial rapists, that the law is narrowly tailored and that the women are often tortured, subjected to violent sexual fantasies and murdered.
Goldstein talks about one case where a famous Ukrainian green card shark was brutally raped and strangled (so he claims) and suggesting that this is what happens to many foreign women who marry American men.
I sent Vatican Radio a long letter detailing their horrific (Miller's favorite adjective to describe how we treat our wives) false reporting and I demanded equal time.
Vatican Radio is a propaganda machine spewing completely false facts and hate against Catholic and other men who seek foreign wives.
NEW UPDATES: Veteran spoke to reporter Suzie Hodges who hung up the phone on him after insisting that women need more protection.
Editor Charles Collins wrote Dave Root a letter stating that:
"Having taken a close look at the report causing your concern, we have to disagree it was unbalanced."
"...I can assure you that we are certainly not biased in any way."
So Charles Collins thinks that if there are two lawsuits against IMBRA, it is accurate to state that there are "a number of lawsuits". If one lawsuit was commenced by a group of mom and pop agency owners, Collins thinks it is accurate to state that "a number of lawsuits were commenced by consortiums of industry groups". Even though there has never been any arrest/conviction or admission by anyone that a single man who married a foreign woman is a serial rapist, Collins thinks it is balanced to report that many men who marry foreign women are "serial rapists".
How do guys like this get to keep their jobs? Could it be that the entire management of Vatican Radio is corrupt?
has against the family is rape. According to this post at Carnival of Reaction:
It is important to understand why rape hysteria is so powerful so that we can protect ourselves against it. Arguing against the latest made-up-on-the-spot statistics will not do the trick because the feminists have no interest in truth (or in protecting women from rape for that matter). What matters to them is power and public funding.
Rape gives them this.
Just as women are hard wired by nature to protect children, men are hard wired to protect women. In particular we are compelled to protect women against rape.
Why does rape have this special power over us, as opposed to (for example) road traffic accidents?
We never see feminists protesting that women may crash their cars and yet this is a far more realistic threat. Three thousand people die each year in the UK from traffic accidents and far more are injured.
Yet where are the feminists demanding protection from cars?
The fact is that rape is a uniquely powerful way to get men to act against their own interest. Almost every war in the history of the world was fought because men could be persuaded that some other group of men wanted to rape their women. The authorities never believed this of course- their motives were the usual mix or greed and cant. Nevertheless it is always possible to get men to fight other men by crying rape.
Why is this?
To answer this we must look to our old friend evolutionary psychology.
The most frightening thing facing any man from an evolutionary perspective is not the death of his mate or even of his children. These are terrible disasters and yet it is still possible for a man to reproduce with other women. From an evolutionary perspective he is still in with a chance.
The worst thing that could befall him is that he might spend his time raising a child that is not his own. This (from an evolutionary perspective) is worse than the death of his wife!
We sometimes hear rape called "a fate worse than death." On an individual basis this is absurd, but from the viewpoint of evolutionary psychology it makes perfect sense- but only from the husbands side!
The feminists know by some strange instinct that a man is more bothered by the idea that his woman may be raped than he is by her death. They have no idea why but recognise it as a weakness to be exploited. This is why they continue to invent fantastic tales about rape- it works better than other stories.
Rape is also a good tool for the authorities to get individual men to surrender their liberties. If men are willing to die as volunteers on the Somme to protect women from rape, then he will surely be willing to accept unfavourable laws on the same pretext.
On the individual level a man can be reduced to a sort of nodding dog for feminism. All they need to do is convince him he is part rapist, or that his fellow men are part rapists. He then becomes easy to control. He may become self hating or so distrustful of his fellow man that he will only follow women. In either event, he becomes a shadow of his former self.
Understanding the reason feminists and governments obsess about some minor threats and ignore other, much more real ones will help you to gain perspective on what is really going on.
There is very little terrorism and very little rape- yet the state runs huge scare campaigns on both subjects.
Surprise, surprise! The state wants more power to protect us from these very threats!!
Meanwhile heart disease and cancer continue to kill millions. The state says nothing because there is no power to be gained by doing so.
N.B There will always be a few real cases behind every scare- they should be treated seriously but the brain should remain switched on at all times.
Just ask yourself who is profiting from the panic.
From: Carnival of Reaction
Feminism For Male College Students - (A good primer for anybody new to anti-feminism really.)
http://www.angryharry.com/notefeminismforstudents.htm
The Benefits of Feminism
http://www.angryharry.com/nobenefitsoffeminism.htm
One of the hardest working MRM's in the business besides Angry Harry, and Christianj of What Men Are Saying About Women. He only blogs every once in a while now a days but is a regular on several forums you can check out his blog at the address below:
Khan Krum The Bulgar
http://my.opera.com/khankrumthebulgar/blog/
Is what one commenter writes about at What Men Are Saying About Women:
Curiepoint writes:
Women wouldn't wake up if you set off a cherry bomb on the night stand next to her head. Not in any statistically significant numbers, anyway.
I know lots of women through my professional life as well as personal, and I can tell you that in thirty years of freely associating with them, it amounts to a large number of women. Not one in all that time has ever shown herself to be anything other than engorged on entitlement attitude. If that attitude resulted in weight gain, they would be as round as ticks on a coon-dog, and twice as parasitic.
The blood that they fed upon would come from men, because we are the ones who pay for it.
Before anyone accuses me of being misogynist or bigoted, let me just say that I pray fervently every day that I am shown to be wrong. I would gladly eat my words while immersed in pig shit up to my nostrils if I could be convinced that I am wrong. Hell, turn it into a reality mini-series: Curiepoint In Shit.
I know that it will not happen though. The collective Chip-On-Her-Shoulder has taken permanent and debilitating root. Isolated incidents of sensibility and equity from women does happen, and for this I can say that I am grateful. But, this attitude is rare and very fragile. If it can be kept alive, it just might ripple down through the cadre of women. Personally, I think this is roughly akin to trying to grow roses in the dead of winter, but hey...anything is possible, I guess.
It won't happen in my lifetime because the entitled victim class found it's advent in my generation and is only now grown to full and furious height. Marriages are on steep decline, divorce is way up, and there are whole websites devoted to the proposition of helping wives and girlfriends cheat on their partners without a shred of guilt. You won't find a lot of sites out there that offer the same to men.
It's time to close up ranks, guys. Muffin over there may be as adorable as a baby raccoon wearing diapers, and she may be as sweet as honey on a Moonpie, but it will not endure a lifetime.
The only allies we have are ourselves, and those that earn our trust by deeds. Never base your trust upon what anyone says; base it upon what they do.
This from Women are Sexist:
White women. White women are the standard of beauty in the west. They grace most magazine covers, movies, and TV shows. But IMO, they are the most neurotic of all the races. They have a princess complex, feel exceedingly entitled to everything, believe the feminist lies, and arent giving or willing to sacrifice for their man. Personally, I think it is the romance movies and novels that ruin white women. They honestly expect everything to come to them without having to work for it. They are looking for that white Knight in Shining Armor.
In their youth they will ignore the decent men (men with manners who are actually concerned about their economic future). Instead they will go for the bad boys, fratboys, jocks, rich kids, or the tall guys (taller than say 6 ft). But lets suppose they are actually interested in you. They dont know how to send direct signals most of the time. They expect you to get it through osmosis. They will send quick glances from across the room, and then expect you to get the hint. That might be sufficient, if they werent such attention whores. A recent study in England showed that 65% of women there would rather be strippers or a magazine model rather than teacher, engineer or any other traditional job. I know what you're saying. How can you compare England to the US. Let me answer with this. Do you honestly believe that the USA is less degenerate than England? Just look at the trend of obesity rates and you will see that England is still behind us. Back on topic. There are white women specifically who will stare at you and smile from across a lecture hall for hours. There are women who will smile out of nowhere as they are walking by. There are women who will come up to you everyday and rub your arm and say "Hi, Ty!" But guess what they say when you approach them? "Oh sorry, I have a BF."
This is proof of a few things.
1. They are attention whores. They know that prolonged eye contact will prompt most men to approach them.
2. They have no consideration for how difficult it is for some men to approach women. There is some anxiety involved for most of us, and a woman jerking our stick makes it more likely for us to stop approaching women altogether. Because...how can you tell which ones are attention whores and which ones arent?
3. No consideration for the damage it does to male-female relations. As mentioned in number
2, it will make men less likely to approach, which makes it harder for strangers to meet. Studies show that 70% of people meet through friendship (I assume this also includes the proximity of work and dormitories). The other 30% probably meet while in some intoxicated state.
I want to note a difference between the German women I met and an American woman. When I was in Germany I had to return a rental car and then go back to the place where I was staying. The girl that I was currently "dating" volunteered to drive to the airport to meet me, drive me where I had to go, then drive back to her place. All this was more than 100 miles for her. All this because she felt that I needed a 'good woman in my life'. Contrast that with an American girl who LIKED me. I had missed class one day and I asked her to photocopy the notes. She said yes but she never did it. She proceeded to ignore me every class after that until right before the spring semester was about to end (I assume she wanted a summer BF), then she started paying attention to me again, but I ignored her. This girl would walk 4 miles out of her way because she felt she ate too much food. But she was only around 4'11'' and 90lbs. I could have tossed her with one arm. Why does any of this matter? Relationships are about sacrifice on some level.
Black women. I will make the most ignorant, generalized statement I can regarding black women - JUST STAY AWAY! By far, these are the most man-hating (misandrist) women on the planet. Their attitudes are definitely intolerable. Unless you are an Eminem type, you dont want to deal with the attitude that eminates from the average black woman.
(Note: That's not an ignorant statement. For more information please see Diary of A Tired Blackman and Love Prescription: Ending the War Between Black Men and Women)
Here's a test. Talk to 30 black women. I bet at least 25 of them will have horrible attitudes. They think it is their right to add their 2 cents to your conversation, although they dont know you. They will embarass you in front of your friends or the girl you are with. What recourse do you have because she's a woman? And she knows this. She knows the reason she can get away with such horrible attitude is because she's a woman, and there's nothing a man can do about it. Thats not to say that these women are polite to white or latin women.
(Note: Sadly, all of the above is true..)
If you want to live long, you must keep the amount of stress in your life to a minimum. Black women will take great pleasure in aggravating you. In comparison, white women are easy to deal with, despite being neurotic.
Personal story, and this is just one example. I was sitting in a diner with a young lady once. I had my back to a group of black women. There was some commotion behind me. The girl I was with started to giggle. So I turned around to look. (who wouldnt look?) This beautiful black girl behind me says "Turn your head around, motherf-cker!" It was that experience, along with about 20 more experiences just like it, which made me realize that the common factors were me and black women. White, latina, and Asian women never treated me that way.
Latinas. By far these are the best kind of women. I believe this is because the family is still ruled by the patriarch, who most likely came to the USA with only a few dollars in his pocket (at least isnt that how the story always goes?) They will give direct signals as to when they want you to approach. They will smile when they are interested. They will make direct eye contact without looking down or away like a shy robot. They do appreciate a man who takes charage, and, in my experience, they will offer to pay and they will pay their half of the bill. This is not to say that they cant Americanize. I find some Puerto Rican women to be very shrewd. But on average, I'd have to say that latinas are more family oriented than any other kind.
I still wouldnt marry one if she grew up in the USA though. But seriously date them? Definitely! White and black women can kiss it where the sun doesnt shine! And no, Im not latino.
I havent had extended contact with Asians because they seem to only run in cliques. The few I knew who had accents did seem wonderful. The others who were American born seemed no different from the white women, except for appearance of course. The same is true for the Indo-Pakis.
Just found the archives of 16 Volts (Hat Tip: Pete Patriarch) For those of you that have forgotten 16 Volts (orginally located here: http://sixteenvolts.blogspot.com) was the blog of Ilkka Kokkarinen who worked at a university in Canada. Unfortunately, a student complained about the blog and it was deleted under pressure from his bosses.. However someone archived the blog and most of it is still on the web.
Archives of 16 Volts
http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~7Echc007/ilkka.html
Update:
It seems as though the link above *might not work.*
Try it. If it doesn't then please use the link below:
http://tinyurl.com/2hp7wg
 |
 |
 |
