Why White Women are on the Asian hate bandwagon

I'm stealing yet another post. This time it's from Outcast Superstar's (I think) repost of The Black Misogynist:

First off, Merry Christmas to the 6 of you who read
this blog according to my stat counter.

I touched on this subject in an entry last month and
now I am going to expand on it. Anybody who has ever
heard a Black woman rant and rave about how white
women "steal" all the good successful black men away.
Well, It is basically the same situation here with
Asians and White girls.

More and more white women are running off with the
morons while young hot and dumb and after they are
done they hope/pray and expect a straight edge guy
with his life together to sorta come by and pick them
up and most often their fatherless kids as well. The
term that best describes these guys is "Captain
save-a-ho." Problem nowadays is that those guys who
would have played that role are being met and picked
up by Asian women in droves especially foreign born
ones or ones from real traditional families that are
born here.

First came across this hate a few years back as a
teenager working in a Wendy's. A late 20 something
year old white woman who still looked great for her
age was complaining about a man she had set her sights
on. Seemed she knew him from a few years back and she
knew he had a thing for her but she wasn't interested.
Now she was all of a sudden for you see. She had a kid
by some thug and had to work in a fast food restaurant
as a second job to get enough money. While said guy
worked some odd job in a law firm making plenty of
money. But didn't seem to be showing the same interest
he once did.

If that sounds familiar to those six readers who come
here. It is because of this blog entry. Seems to be
the norm eh? A few days later her hopes were dashed
however and she ended up sad and a few female
coworkers were consoling her. He wasn't interested in
her anymore because he was already involved with an
Asian woman. Turns out she wasn't alone in this as all
of a sudden multiple girls started giving her their
own experiences of evil Asian women dashing their
hopes for a good man. One even at the young age of 18.
The thought that perhaps she should have dated him
before instead of the thug she did and got pregnant by
didn't cross her mind. Wasn't her fault she wanted an
exciting bad boy. But it was that Asian woman's fault
for picking the nice guy with his life together.

A few years later in college I'd run into the Asian
hate once again. This time by a group of racist
feminist while on a group lab project. Don't even
remember how the subject came up. But the bigotry
flowed. With the blanket idea that all Asian women are
ignorant and weak willed, poor, Horny sluts and
prostitutes. Then there was the so similar story of
some guy who was doing well that one was dating. She
claimed that he dumped her and is now going to marry a
Chinese girl who couldn't speak English because she
was that stupid[because only intelligent people know
English?]What got me was the reason she claimed he
broke it off with her. "He couldn't handle me because
I am too strong and independent. What a weak sexist
pig to go with some weak slutty chink girl he can
dominate and oppress."

WOAH, Isn't that some sh*t. The near exact excuse
Black women use to explain away black men who date
white women.It is bullsh*t for Black women and it is
just as bullsh*t coming out of their mouths. On a
forum I witnessed an argument over a guy saying he
used a dating website to find his wife of then going
on 4 years. A few women launched into how much of a
loser he had to be that he had to look overseas for a
wife. He admitted that in a way it was true. He did it
because a friend used the same agency and his marriage
looked great while he couldn't get a date. Ready for
some deja vu? He started telling everybody his past
dating life. Technically they were right he was a
loser to women around him. He is an unimposing guy and
was shy. No "edge" to him that domestic women his age
wanted. So he was snubbed over and over and over
again. Till he met somebody else with the same problem
who solved it by getting an attractive loyal Thai who
didn't mind that he didn't know how to play any sort
of dating game.

That is the real difference it seems. A lot of Asian
women seem to look past the silly games and don't mind
a guy that just treats her well. They directly pick up
the captain save-a-ho and bypass the stupid sh*t other
women are doing. So he asked all the women
complaining. What should he have done? Stayed alone
and dateless till some woman any woman would have him?
If no American woman wanted him then why can't he find
an attractive Filipino girl who did want him? Their
answer? One was bold and actually said yes, He
should've stayed alone. One said he was a weak man who
only did it because he couldn't handle the strength of
Modern women.

Another woman gave an interesting answer. That he
should have waited longer. Why? Here comes some more
deja vu. Because the way he is NOW he would have been
able to attract many American women. Why? Because he
would have been dealing with older more mature women
and that is when they want nice decent men like him
who have his life together. Indeed he did have a good
job and had quite a nice house.
Ding.

That is the bottom line folks. That is the reason more
white women are jumping on the "I hate Asian women"
bandwagon. Because Asian women are swooping in and
picking up the guys white women are trying to save for
later. They are fast losing their place as the most
wanted type of female that they have enjoyed for the
longest of time. White women just like black women are
spending too much time with the wrong type of men.
Then get angry when the decent men are picked up by
others and they are stuck with more losers.

Unlike black women however, White women actually have
political power here in the states and they are too
bratty and spoiled to just accept this.
Soon I am sure there is going to be a law passed that
somehow stops men from finding Asian wives and
bringing them here. Or at the very least attempt to
shut down the websites that help men do it.

Right of Way

Tonight is part 2 of 3 articles on the history of civil rights and the democratic party. Again from the now defunct Calpatriot.org here is:

Right of Way
Escaping from the bondage of racial liberal politics

Orginally post at:
http://www.calpatriot.org/february03/bondage.html


Black Americans are being held in ideological bondage by a party that demands full political allegiance but offers no valuable returns. Though
black leaders attempt to reduce all their followers to the same
leftist-centered dogma, the Democratic Party is not the sole
custodian of black interests.

The reality of increasing black influence and leadership
from both sides of the party divide illustrates that the GOP
may also offer relevant solutions to issues that concern black Americans.



Unfortunately, black conservatives who break with this tradition
of blind allegiance to the Left are denounced by other black
Americans. Former head of the NAACP, Benjamin Hooks, denounced
black conservatives as a "new breed of Uncle Tom . . . some of
the biggest liars the world ever saw."


This attempt to purge black America of individuals who hold differing
views is cowardly and shameful. Ironically, the individual success
stories of blacks are now being shunned simply because they do not
conform to the ideological stereotype perpetuated by black America
and the NAACP. This only retards the progress of diversity in our
nation and is clearly counterproductive.



While the Left claims to champion black advancement and special
interests, it often hurls anathemas at many of the black community's
firmly held values and beliefs regarding abortion, the death penalty,
education, and religion.

On the topic of abortion, in 1990, a Gallup poll reported that 40 percent
of black Americans felt the statement "abortion is just as bad as killing
a person who has already been born; it is murder" best
described their feelings on abortion.

Blacks stand to make great gains most from reforms in education.
A 1999 survey by Public Agenda, a nonpartisan research group, found that
68 percent of blacks favor school vouchers.


If black Americans have conservative leanings on these critical issues,
how then has the Democratic party managed to maintain the largely
overwhelming support of the black community and its leaders?

The dispute over affirmative action on American campuses provides
provocative insight. Statistics show that an overwhelming majority
of blacks support the Democratic platform on the issue of racial
preferences. However, affirmative action ironically implies the view
of blacks as intellectually inferior and unqualified under
regular standards.

Democrats would like to portray themselves as the singular guardians
of black interests to maintain their voter stronghold.

But the respect gained by blacks in the Bush administration's two years
demonstrates that the Republican Party is no longer an enemy camp.



Rather, it is the Left that holds the black voters in a stranglehold.
They demand full allegiance for any economic advances and employment
opportunities enjoyed by the black community, implying individual blacks
could not have accomplished these things by way of their own merits.

Successful blacks in this country have not advanced into their
influential roles because of the government's helping hand.

These exceptional politicians, intellectuals, and professionals have
achieved great successes through education, personal motivation, and
determination. The success of blacks, especially those who support the
Republican ideology, is an example of the progress America has made and
will continue to make in the future. From this, we should hope for a
stronger and more diverse political party as conservatives continue
to offer innovative solutions to the issues of black America.

The real deal on Liberals and Civil Rights

Firing more shots over the bow:



Tonight the first of three post regarding the history of Democrats as guardians of the civil rights movement.

Anyone who really knows their history will know that this is not true. Unfortunately, thanks to the media, academia and the entertainment industry liberals have become synonymous with civil rights.

That's why I decided to repost this article that's been gathering digital dust on my hard drive.

This article was posted at the now defunct Calpatriot.org. The site featured conservative students from different California colleges whom posted articles about current events, opinion pieces and articles like the one you see below...

So, for anyone that's still in the dark about the real history of the democratic party then I suggest you read this one through throughly..

The Dark Side of the Democratic Party

Orignally posted at:
http://www.calpatriot.org/february03/erasing.html


The racist left is revealed through historical
analysis

Those on the left of the political divide, especially
ones of the Democratic variety depict themselves as
champions of racial justice while portraying
Republicans as demagogues of hate. They will list all
Republican injustices, real or imagined, while
conveniently forgetting innumerable Democratic sins:
Woodrow Wilson’s segregationism, William
Jennings Bryan’s support of the Ku Klux Klan,
and Franklin Roosevelt’s indifference to
anti-lynching legislation. Fortunately, in the light
of history, their arguments fall far from the truth.

Many have forgotten that Democrats were not just the
party of slavery, they were the party of Jim Crow, of
segregation, of “separate but equal,” and
until as recent as the 1960s, the party that required
blacks to count the number of jellybeans in a jar as a
“test” to be registered to vote. President
Bush’s National Security Advisor and close
friend Condoleeza Rice, arguably the most powerful and
influential black woman in the history of America,
likes to tell the story of how her father became a
Republican because Democrats would not allow him to be
registered to vote. Let it be known that in the 26
major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of
Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80
percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican
majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of
the votes! If one were to peel back the layers of
history even further, one party has stood on the
grounds of racial equality and civil rights, and that
party is the Republican Party.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352) was
largely based on Civil Rights legislation sponsored by
Republicans in years past that had been watered down,
defeated by segregationist Democrats, or struck down
by Democrat-controlled courts. Republicans, the
minority party at the time, voted in higher
percentages for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than
Democrats. In the House of Representatives,
Republicans voted for civil rights by a margin of 80
percent to 20 percent, 138-34. The Democrats margin
was 152-96, or 61percent to 39 percent.

However, the most important vote for civil rights
legislation was the vote for cloture of the anti-civil
rights filibuster where two-thirds of the Senate was
needed. On June 10, 1964, Senate Republican leader
Everett Dirksen made an impassioned speech before all
100 senators for ending the filibuster.

"There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked
and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said
that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his
diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all
the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time
has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of
government, in education, and in employment. It must
not be stayed or denied."

Civil Rights legislation was not stayed nor denied.
Republicans voted overwhelmingly to break the
filibuster by 81.8 percent (27-6), while 65.7 percent
(44-23) of Democrats voted for cloture. Nine days
later the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the senate
73-27 with 6 Republicans and 21 Democrats opposing.

With the subsequent passage of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965, one has to ask why it took a century after
the end of the civil war to achieve civil rights for
Black Americans.

It is to be said that Democrats, from Andrew Johnson's
presidency to Lyndon Johnson's, sought to reassemble
the Jacksonian coalition of northern machines and
southern segregationists. In 1924, Franklin Roosevelt
advised Democrats to raise only issues of importance
to the entire nation--which meant that they should
abstain from the questions of integration and racial
equality. While Truman did integrate the military and
Kennedy did enforce court orders to integrate Southern
state universities, their support for civil rights was
luke-warm at best. FDR, Truman, and JFK looked upon
civil rights advocates primarily as interests to be
managed rather than integral parts of their electoral
coalitions.

As a matter of record, John F. Kennedy's civil rights
record before 1963 was neither a rejection of civil
rights legislation nor a clear endorsement. Southern
segregationists preferred jury trials to bench trials
because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil
rights violators. Well aware of this fact, Kennedy
still voted to allow juries to hear contempt cases. As
a Massachusetts senator, Kennedy had the opportunity
to vote in favor of the 1957 Civil Rights Act.
Unwilling to jeopardize his presidential ambitions,
Kennedy elected to pass along the legislation to the
Senate Judiciary Committee--dominated by
Democrats--where it would have been shelved.

To be fair, John F. Kennedy was a Democratic
politician of his time, and like all politicians of
any party, his first priority was to gain and maintain
power. In his narrow win over Richard Nixon in the
1960 election, Kennedy needed to keep the old
Jacksonian coalition together and as a result barely
mentioned civil rights as part of his presidential
campaign. After his election, JFK did not produce any
new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. During
this period the civil rights movement generally
proceeded without Presidential Support. However, by
1963 American opinion had forced the issue.

A poll conducted by The National Opinion Research
Center of Northern Whites in 1963 determined that the
number of Americans who approved neighborhood
integration had risen 30 percent in twenty years, to
72 percent in 1963. Support for integration of schools
was even higher at 75 percent. Democrats could no
longer appease southern segregationists and win in the
north. Years of peaceful protests by blacks and whites
made civil rights the most important issue in the
coming election for a substantial segment of the
American populace. As a result Northern Democrats
overwhelmingly joined the Republican Party in
supporting civil rights.

Democratic politicians did not lead the charge on
civil rights, they merely took credit. Although
Republicans have for decades voted in great majorities
for civil rights, neither Democrats nor

Republicans can claim sole credit for the passage of
the Civil Rights. It was efforts by Protestant and
Catholic clergy, Urban Leagues, the NAACP, Martin
Luther King Jr., and countless other groups and
individuals of all races that forced civil rights to
be crafted into federal law. However, the group that
deserves the most credit for bringing upon civil
rights is black Americans. During their 250 years of
bondage and 100 years of segregation, black Americans
conducted themselves with nothing less than dignity,
perseverance, and bravery. Black contributions as
fighting men in both World Wars coupled with the hard
work of millions of blacks, their families, and their
churches were the keys to success in the civil rights
movement.

Realignment and the Rise of Southern Republicans

When Lynden Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of
1965, he ruefully quipped that he had just delivered
the South to the
Republican Party for the next generation. Many people
attribute this to the South’s racism; however
they tend to forget that at that time the overwhelming
majority of blacks in the south were Republicans.
Blacks in Georgia alone accounted for 70% of the
Georgia Republican Party. Lynden Johnson clearly
thought he gave Republicans millions of votes across
the south that were disenfranchised in previous
elections.

However, when given the ability to vote those Black
Republicans became Democrats. This process started in
1933 when northern blacks joined Roosevelt’s New
Deal coalition and began a gradual realignment of
blacks towards the Democratic Party. As late as 1960,
Richard Nixon still received 32 percent of the black
vote. The Republican share of the black vote in 1964
dropped to a mere six percent and a Republican
candidate has not received above 15 percent since
then. What happened between 1960 and 1964 to make the
black vote almost unanimously Democratic?

Whereas Lyndon Johnson supported the civil rights
bill, his opponent in the 1964 presidential campaign,
Barry Goldwater, opposed the bill on the grounds that
its public accommodations section violated
people’s rights to do business with whom they
pleased. Goldwater felt that discrimination in the
workplace was morally wrong, but feared government
would “require people to discriminate on the
basis of color or race or religion.” Although
called a racist by the left, Barry Goldwater, a
pro-choice libertarian-conservative, was perhaps one
of the least racist politicians in America. Goldwater
was a staunch NAACP supporter who had voted
affirmative for every previous civil rights bill. In
his state of Arizona, Goldwater desegregated the
National Guard before Truman desegregated the
military. Alas, Goldwater is proof of how one
politician can change the perception of an entire
political party for decades to come. Martin Luther
King Jr., who had remained neutral in the 1960
presidential race, enthusiastically endorsed LBJ in
the 1964 race. While King declared that Barry
Goldwater was not racist, his positions gave aide and
comfort to racists.

Goldwater’s vote against the Civil Rights Act of
1964 coupled with his 1962 statement that electorally
Republicans should “go hunting where the ducks
are” convinced blacks that the Republican Party
was hostile to blacks and hastened their political
realignment. Although Republicans delivered the
overwhelming margins needed to pass Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and were champion of previous civil rights
legislation, Goldwater’s tactics severed black
America’s link to the Party of Lincoln.
Furthermore, the GOP’s opposition to big
government policies such as the Great Society in later
years strengthened that view.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, Goldwater’s
opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the
subsequent shift of blacks to the Democratic Party,
did not send a flood of segregationist whites towards
the Republican Party. The GOP did not, and has not
become a racist party. Only one Democratic Senator who
voted against civil rights shifted allegiances to the
Republicans. That Senator, Strom Thurmond, later
renounced his segregationist past and voted for the
Voting Rights Act of 1980. Most democrats who opposed
civil rights such as Albert Gore Sr., J. William
Fulbright, and future Democratic Senate Leader
(1977-1988) and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd (who
democrats now call the conscience of the senate)
remained Democrats. The vast majority of southern
segregationist did not become Republicans.

Segregationist created the Dixiecrats and returned to
their party of origin- the Democratic Party- when the
civil rights movement succeeded. Republicans did not
make gains in the south till much later, when a new
breed of Southerners emerged and thousands of
Northerners began moving south. In the 1968
presidential campaign began, polls showed that Nixon
was at 42 percent; Humphrey at 29 percent, and
segregationist Democrat George Wallace was at 22
percent. When the presidential race ended, Nixon and
Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13
percent. The 9 percent of the “racist”
vote that Wallace lost had gone to Humphrey.
Nixon’s southern strategy was not based on race
as his critics have claimed.

When Richard Nixon began his campaign for president in
1968, he penned a column on the South that declared
the Republican Party would build its foundation on
states rights, human rights, small government and a
strong national defense. In that letter he declared he
would leave it to the “party of Maddox, Mahoney
and Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political
juice out of the rotting fruit of racial
injustice.” In this campaign Nixon only endorsed
those Republicans who were not members of the John
Birch Society. During the Nixon presidency, budgets
for black colleges were doubled and the share of
Southern schools that were desegregated from 10
percent to 70 percent. Among Nixon’s more
notable achievements on Civil Rights was his work on
the passing the 1957 Civil Rights Act, for which
Martin Luther King Jr. thanked personally.

During the 1960s and 1970s Republicans only mustered
one-fifth of the white vote in southern congressional
elections. As the old Southern Democrats began to lose
power (or die), a new type of non-segregationist
Southerners grew. The South’s shift away from
the Democratic Party to the Republican Party largely
occurred during the Reagan Era. Exit polls taken in
eleven southern states in 1982 showed the GOP’s
weakness among white voters: on average, 45 percent of
southern white voters were Democrats and only 23
percent were Republicans. Ronald Reagan’s
platform of racial equality, cultural conservatism,
family values, low taxes, federalism (i.e. small
government), a strong military, and a hawkish stance
vis-à-vis the Soviet Union began to attract Southern
white voters. It was not until the 1990s when the GOP
gained an advantage in party affiliation and 1994
marked the year Republicans captured a majority of
southern house and senate seats. In this past
election, the state of Georgia elected the first
Republican governor and senator since reconstruction!

With the rise of southern Republicans, the Republican
Party has become a truly national party that is
competitive in every state. While it is true that the
Republican base is centered in the Western and
Southern states while the Democratic base is centered
in the North Eastern states and California. The states
where Democrats enjoy the largest percentage of
registered voters - Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Hawaii, Maryland, New York and Connecticut - all have
Republican governors.

The Republican rise in power in the south and
consequently the entire US was not predicated on race
as commonly trumpeted in our universities and the mass
media. Our party’s position on civil rights
since the age of Lincoln has been constant: we believe
government should be color blind and that all people
should be judged equally as individuals in the eyes of
the law. Unfortunately, the left believes that not
supporting items on their agenda all comes down to one
issue: race.

They charge that voting against massive transfer
payments from one group to another is a display of
racism. If you don’t believe in preferences for
any group of Americans, you are racist. If you
don’t believe in high taxes and an expansion of
government programs, you are racist. Fifty years ago
Democrats campaigned by stirring up racial fears,
opposing color-blind laws, and silencing those who
oppose them. In many ways they still do.



So there you have it. Liberals haven't always been so quick to support the rights of blacks after all. I'll have some more on this tomorrow night.

Changed the layout again

I just changed the layout of this blog for I think the 4th time, however this one might be permanent. I saw that the links I posted were clipped by the links and other material on the side of the blog.

So now all of the extra stuff is at the bottom of the page and not blocking any of the post.

Now it's just like one great big web page.

I hope that this will be better for the readers of this blog and you'll be able to reap the full benifits of being able to see all of the information posted here.

Well that's it for now. Thanks for visiting and good night...

Privacy and Anonymity

As a MRA blogger keeping you real identity hidden from others is an aboslute must. But how to go about doing that is the question. The obvious part is the user name or pen name that you'll be using to blog with.

If you're the creative kind then you probably don't need any help in that department. However, for others who may get stuck at this point here are some tips. First off, if you can try not to pick an obvious name like Indiana Jones, or Homer Simpson, or other well-known famous characters.

Pick names from lesser-known films or fiction books.

If that don't work then there is always the online name generators:


http://www.bannerblog.com.au/2007/03/mini_action_name_generator.php

http://noemata.net/nbng/

http://www.myprecious.us/name_generator.php

http://www.fakenamegenerator.com/

http://gangstaname.com/

http://www.chriswetherell.com/hobbit/

http://www.rinkworks.com/namegen/

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/toys/namegen/

Okay, next you need to know about anonymous browsing. The best thing you can do is use something like

Incognito:

http://www.patdouble.com/content/blogsection/3/6/

It's a live operating system that runs directly from the computers cd tray. The only thing with Tor is if you use it to do a lot of searching then you may find yourself blocked from certain search engines, this is why I don't use it.

Just pick something from one of these links and use it when you want to do your posting to the internet:

http://www.debianhelp.co.uk/debian.htm

http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php

http://www.linuxbasis.com/distributions.html

http://lwn.net/Distributions

http://www.securedvd.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LiveDistros

http://www.linux.org/dist/



Now you need to find some hosting. Unfortunately at this time there doesn't seem to be many options. But I do have 3 host (besides blogger and wordpress) that can be used:

https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net

http://yohost.org/

http://www.cotse.net/

and here you can find a few more tools, more on how to protect yourself, and also what you can and cannot do as a cyber activist:


http://web.media.mit.edu/~nicholas/Wired/WIRED6-10.html

How Tor works:

http://tor.eff.org/overview.html

Anonymizer's Anonymous Surfing:

http://www.anonymizer.com/anonymizer2005/1.5/

A list of fired bloggers:

http://morphemetales.blogspot.com/2004/12/statistics-on-fired-bloggers.html

The Bloggers' Rights Blog:

http://rights.journalspace.com/

A Technical Guide to Anonymous Blogging (An Early
Draft), by Ethan Zuckerman:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/globalvoices/?p=125

EFF's Legal Guide for Bloggers, a larger, more
comprehensive look at the legal issues facing
bloggers:

http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/


http://www.torproject.org/

http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-privacy.php

http://www.pcmesh.com/anonymous-surfing-faq.htm

http://www.anonymousspeech.com/

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html

http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv/net-anonymity.part1-4/msg00001.html

http://faqs.org/popular/popular1.html

http://faqs.org/faqs/faqsearch.html

http://www.anonymousspeech.com/anonymous_payment.aspx

http://www.chillingeffects.org/johndoe/faq.cgi

http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/blog-anonymously.php

http://www.freeproxy.ru/#english

http://www.shadowbrowser.com/

http://www.katzglobal.com/hosting/hosting.html

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/privacy/anon-server/faq/use/part1/

http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/07/newbies-guide-t.html

http://www.mutemail.com/anonymous-email-service-faq.html

http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Anonymity_with_Tor_and_Privoxy

http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ

http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/200flspub6717.pdf

http://www.nodezilla.net/install_guide.html

http://www.iusmentis.com/technology/remailers/index-penet.html

http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/fighting-back/anonymous-remailer-faq

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Internet/E-mail/Anonymous_Mailers/

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/alt/alt.privacy.html

http://www.anonymitychecker.com/faq.html

http://www.my-proxy.com/

http://www.openssh.com/

http://www.offshore.com.ai/security/

http://maildropguide.com/

http://www.perfectlyprivate.com/

http://network-tools.com/

http://privacysig.com/

http://privacy.net/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_server

http://www.s-mail.com/

http://blacklogic.com/

http://www.openprivacy.org/

http://www.stayinvisible.com/

http://www.anonymize.net/faq.html

http://pps.nntime.com/faq.html

http://www.hackerz.ir/e-books/remailer.html

http://mixmaster.sourceforge.net/faq.shtml

http://www.spywarewarrior.com/uiuc/info20b.htm

http://www.cyberslapp.org/about/page.cfm?PageID=7

https://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/12/10/213152/57

http://www.inetprivacy.com/a4proxy/a4p_support.htm

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/communications/cmc-list/internet-cmc

http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/advocacy/anonymous-blogging-with-tor/

http://www.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/Human_Rights_and_Liberties/Privacy/

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Security/Internet/Privacy/

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Security/Internet/Privacy/Products_and_Tools/Free/

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Security/Products_and_Tools/Cryptography/

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Security/Internet/Privacy/Products_and_Tools/

http://www.w3.org/Security/Faq/www-security-faq.html

http://www.andrebacard.com/privacy.html

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/9648/pgut-links.html

Here are some newsgroups you can subscribe to:

sci.crypt, comp.society.privacy, alt.privacy, sci.answers, comp.answers

alt.answers, news.answers

alt.privacy, alt.privacy.anon-server

Along with THIS post you should now have all of the knowledge necessary to do some anonomus activism.

Thanks for reading and good luck...

The 20th Century Anti-Suffrage Movement

I've decided to fire a few show over the bow before Christmas I wanted to post a little something about the early 20th Century anti-feminst movement. Some of you probably didn't even know that there was and anti-femist movement way back then, well there was.

They spanned the lenght of the country from New York to Nebraska to Missouri and probably a number of other places in between, only back then it was known as the anti-suffrage movement becuase women didn't yet have the right to vote.

Without further adieu here are the links:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/hkfp7


http://www.thelizlibrary.org/suffrage/booklist.htm


http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/suffrage/history.htm

http://www.mainememory.net/bin/Detail?ln=5470

http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/suffrage/home.htm

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2twra9

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/woman-suffrage/ny-petition.html

http://www.hsd.org/Women_AntiSuffragist_Thompson.htm

http://www.salzburgseminar.org/ASC/csacl/progs/reform/suffragists.htm


http://www.aspenhistory.org/antisuf.html


http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/suffrage/victory/dandyhubby.html

http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/history-anti-suffrage.html

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.rbc/rbcmil.scrp6005403

http://www.jsu.edu/depart/english/robins/waysta/way02tpb.htm

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.rbc/rbcmil.scrp1009301

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-suffragism

http://preview.tinyurl.com/36t8he

http://www.johndclare.net/Women1_ArgumentsAgainst.htm

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7300

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/TT/vbtvw.html

http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/njwomenshistory/Period_4/antisuffrage.htm

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/03sep/0309suffrage.htm

http://www.ioba.org/newsletter/archive/v13/rd1.php


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_National_Anti-Suffrage_League

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/37.2/sparacino.html

http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/thumbnail309.html

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/vfwhtml/vfwhome.html


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/works/1910s/13_10_17.htm

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/bio/fbi-file.pdf

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/index.htm

http://www.tcr.org/tcr/essays/CB_Female_Suffrage.pdf

http://dpsinfo.com/women/history/timeline.html

http://www.42explore2.com/suffrage.htm

http://www.primaryresearch.org/suffrage/

http://winningthevote.org/res_anti.html

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SUanti.htm

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/suffrage.html


http://www.spub.ksu.edu/ISSUES/v100/FA/n005/cam-suffrage-riley.html

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/us19thamendment.htm

http://preview.tinyurl.com/8v84

http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0604almanac.htm


http://preview.tinyurl.com/3x2vct


http://www.fact-index.com/w/wo/women_s_suffrage.html


http://www.marxist.com/womenandmarxism.asp


http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/4dads/4dads5.html

http://1912.history.ohio-state.edu/suffrage/newpage7.htm

http://1912.history.ohio-state.edu/suffrage/SocPlatformSuffrage.htm

http://1912.history.ohio-state.edu/suffrage/Consequences.htm

http://1912.history.ohio-state.edu/suffrage/workingwomen.htm

http://www.newsoftheweird.com/cgi-bin/search/newsweird.cgi?query=gable&num=1



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

Take this post with you. Then go here and type in the link to this post and have it sent you the email address or your choice:

Free Pdf Convert

http://www.freepdfconvert.com/

UK Mens Issues Activist Needed for TV Show

This from Angry Harry's activism page (link):


UK MRAs wanted for TV programme ...

Dear Harry,

I apologise for contacting you out of the blue but I am researching a new TV programme and wondered if you could help...

I am hoping to make a new programme about people who feel a sense of dislike towards, or are uncomfortable with, members of the opposite sex and/or gender-specific movements (feminism etc).

As one of the most-linked anti-feminist bloggers, [did he say 'one of the most-linked anti-feminist bloggers'? Huh! This man needs a lesson or two on how to flatter far more effusively a man of my most magnificent stature!] I wondered if you could write a piece on your blog about what I'm looking for and encourage people to get involved.

andy.cadman at endemoluk.com

Many thanks and I hope to hear from you soon.

Andy

So, there you go, Boys - and Girls. Here is your chance to let rip and have a really good moan about all those horrible feminist wimmin out there. Show them no mercy. Eat them alive. Squash 'em like pesky bugs.

Rip out their throats. Stomp on their heads. And then whack their behinds till they blister and burn.

Saw them in half. Boil them in oil. Pulverise them with ...

Goodness, I don't know what came over me.

I feel faint.

But, before I pass out, if you've got nothing better to do - and, let's face it, if you're hanging around here then you clearly have got nothing better to do - then email Andy and check out the angles.

Print A Blog

Just found two new resources that might be useful to readers here:


Shared Book Blog Printing

Allows you to print blogs just like a book and take it with you.

http://blogger.sharedbook.com/

HP Smart Web Printing

Allows you to turn any web site into pdf(s) file(s).

http://h71036.www7.hp.com/hho/cache/482779-0-0-225-121.html

Operation Intense Thunder under way

Before I took my break in late 2006 I was going to keep a list of both Male friendly and anti-male businesses. This list has now been updated and is available HERE.

On the list of Male Friendly Businesses:

http://www.asda.com/

http://www.topman.com

http://www.oliversweeney.com/

http://www.hahaonline.co.uk/home.asp

http://uk.virginmoney.com/cancer-cover/bigvevents/

http://www.virgindigital.com/

Morphy Richards

http://www.keepyoureyeontheball.org/

http://www.theboodles.com/

http://www.labseriesformen.co.uk/

http://www.ultimategolfchallenge.co.uk/

http://www.cathaypacific.com/

http://www.cartridges4causes.co.uk/

http://www.officegreen.co.uk/

http://www.magictaxi.co.uk/default.aspx?ck=icr

Lloyd's TSB

http://www.lge.com/

http://www.smirnoff.com/

http://www.smirnoffice.com/


So go check them out, and if you like what they have to offer even if it's just a key chain please buy it from them and support their business...

Thanks!

Update:

I forgot some:


Ray Mears
http://www.raymears.com/

Delta (Airlines)
http://www.delta.com/

United (Airlines)
www.united.com/

New Immigration Link - Happier Abroad

Several weeks ago I posted a rough Immigration guide. Here is one link that I forgot to post:

Happier Abroad

http://www.happierabroad.com/ebook/Contents.htm

Road to Heterophobia

I just found another article from my old notes I'm going to post here that seem ironically timely in light of the latest advice from father's rights activist Dr. Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D. not to marry or have children .

I think it's important to give readers as many pieces of the puzzle as to how we've reached this point as I can. So without further ado an article from Dr. Daphne Patai "The Road To Heterophobia":


http://www.mens-network.org/
The Road to Heterophobia
An IWF [http://www.iwf.org] Speakers Series featuring author Daphne Patai


I have read a great deal about sexual harassment law-"how to" books written for policy-makers and administrators and colleges and workplaces. And I have been astonished to find that, far from the kind of thoughtful, serious consideration that I thought the problem merited, what I very quickly recognized in those readings-since I was trained as a literary critic-was their highly contentious, rhetorical browbeating. The gist of the rhetoric was that sexual harassment is a terrible evil akin to rape. Very often commentators would begin: "Like rape, sexual harassment is an ignored problem. Like rape, women are ashamed to come forward and describe their experiences." And so on.


Instead of taking it for granted, as readers were obviously meant to, I said to myself, "Ah, inflammatory analogies. That's the technique here." Our brains were being invited to flip over the differences between sexual harassment and rape and to see them all as one thing.



I got interested in how something becomes classified as a social problem. Clearly that was what was being done with sexual harassment. It had become a social problem, not because it was suddenly so devastating, but because there was a group of people who had starting agitating about it.



I turned to the work of a very interesting sociologist, Joel Best, who wrote a book called, Threatened Children, in which he talked about the social construction of child abuse as a problem. What I learned from Best was that there's a predictable process by which a group of claims-makers sets forth a problem and brings it to public attention. There are a series of stages through which the public becomes aware of the problem and begins to accept the terms of the debate as set forth by this group of claims-makers.



They engage in a series of techniques, what Best calls "expansion of the domain of the problem." The public is told that it's not simply a specific problem occurring in a specific setting, but that it's a much broader problem. That way it tends to escape from its borders, so that we become aware that the problem is much, much larger than we thought.



For example, sexual harassment was originally understood as quid pro quo ("this for that"), in other words, sexual extortion. But it has now moved into the realm of hostile work environment. And it isn't just relationships in which there are power discrepancies-a powerful employer who has coercive power over an employee. It's now also a whole range of other things, such as harassment between equals, about which the Supreme Court made a decision in May.



We have ended up with a mish-mash of unclear categories. If we look at the definitions of sexual harassment as they are written into specific policies, we find that they're anything from a look to rape: unwanted touching, looks, jokes, or repeated invitations. The law has accommodated this sensitivity on the part of women to a really phenomenal extent.



I use the term "heterophobia" in my book because I feel that it captures in a nutshell the key problem that is driving a great deal of the legislation about sexual harassment. It is also driving the non-lawyers who are supporting this legislation and who are attempting to implement sexual harassment policies in universities. The trainers, the policy makers, the counselors-the sexual harassment industry-is by now a very large money-making part of our society.



Antagonism Toward Men



I'm aware that there are many feminists and many feminisms. However, there is also an identifiable trend within feminism of antagonism toward men and male heterosexuality above all. There is a fear of heterosexuality, male heterosexuality in particular, and sometimes the heterosexuality of other women.



As I was reading more and more of the sexual harassment industry literature, these how-to books, I became aware of the presuppositions that underlie these texts. And, this is where I have to be careful not to sound loony because I start sounding as if I think there's a plot out there to abolish heterosexuality. It's really rather funny because, I don't for a moment believe there's a chance in hell that would succeed.



But that already tells you something about what I do believe. I believe that heterosexuality is natural. Isn't that what everyone thinks? Well, no. Within women's studies and feminism what you learn is something else. You learn about the social construction of heterosexuality, what Adrienne Rich called "compulsory heterosexuality." Following this are the types of [negative] attitudes toward men expressed by Andrea Dworkin in very vulgar language and by Catharine MacKinnon in much more eloquent language. We have scholars such as Marilyn Frye, a professor of women's studies at Michigan State University who says women are "rigorously required to be sexual with and for men."



There is a new book called The Houghton Mifflin Reader's Companion to U.S. Women's History. By its title, you would expect it to be a normal kind of book that anybody could pick up. This is what the entry under "heterosexuality" says: "Sexuality is not private, but is political and related to power. 'Compulsory heterosexuality' is part of a power structure benefiting heterosexual males at the expense of women and homosexuals. This inequity is justified by an ideology that sees heterosexuality as natural, universal and biologically necessary and homosexuality as the opposite. The system also is reinforced by legal sanctions and violence against women (rape, battering, incest, and murder) and against lesbians, gays, and transgendered persons (verbal harassment, physical assault and murder)." This is the definition of heterosexuality that has found its way into a standard reference work by a major publisher!



I've documented many, many cases of what sound like lunatic statements made by feminists about the unnaturalness of heterosexuality. Some of the more mellow people say you can't blame a woman for having been heterosexual in the past, because after all she was trained to it, but now that she hears what we have to say, she certainly is responsible for the decisions she makes in the future. So, in other words, heterosexuality is obviously not the thing she should be choosing.



I conclude from all of this, that there is antagonism to heterosexuality within the women's movement. Now, this isn't news. It's just that feminists have spent so much time pretending this isn't true and insisting that the accusations against them of "male bashing" was just backlash against feminists.



They claim it's a misrepresentation of feminism, but it's not a misrepresentation. As someone who spent 10 years in women's studies, I know that male bashing has always been a very important part of feminism.



This mindset, which has shaped so much public discourse today, has found its way into law. I call it feminist extremism. The language used by feminist extremists has become so ubiquitous that it is very difficult for reasonable people to frame arguments in something other than that language.



I believe heterophobia has played a tremendously strong role in making people accept some truly dreadful laws and policies. Sexual harassment law is a very good case. The problem with the extension of sexual harassment from quid pro quo harassment to hostile environment, is that no one really knows exactly what that is. Sexual harassment legislation is an instrument by which the micromanagement of everyday life is being undertaken. The real aim is to change the relations between men and women in a fundamental way.



Why? Who benefits from this? The only people are those radical extremists who want to disrupt male and female interactions, and they have done just that in the workplace, the colleges, the high schools, the grade schools, and even the kindergartens. Everybody is now on notice. And, it's not for nothing. As Catharine MacKinnon said in 1986 when hostile work environment was established as a type of sexual harassment, "We made this law up from the beginning and now we've won."



Daphne Patai, Ph.D., is professor of Brazilian literature at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Translate Page Into Your Language

Image Hosted by UploadHouse.com



Image Hosted by UploadHouse.com









del.icio.us linkroll

Archive

Counter

Counter

web tracker

Widget

Site Meter

Blog Patrol Counter