Apparently, 13 year olds can be charged as adults

A 13-year-old boarder at the Toronto-based National Ballet School of Canada faces numerous charges after being accused of sexually assaulting two young classmates.

A 13-year-old student faces 10 sex-related charges.
(CBC)

The boarder was freed on bail Saturday after he was charged with sexually assaulting two classmates, aged 11 and 12, the Toronto Star reported Sunday.

He faces 10 charges, including seven counts of sexual assault, two counts of sexual interference and one count of invitation to sexual touching, the newspaper reported, citing police and legal officials.

The teen — an American citizen who cannot be named because of his age — was released into the custody of his parents.

He was arrested Friday after a police investigation determined that students at the school alleged they had been assaulted between September 2006 and October 2007.

"This is a terrible situation and not representative of life at the National Ballet School," Jeff Melanson, the school's administrative director, told the Star.

The investigation started after the Catholic Children's Aid Society received an anonymous tip about the boy, the paper said.

Apparently, 13 year olds can be charged as adults. (Source: CBC News)

Continue Article

Continue Article

Feminism as a cult evidence: Ignoring or ruthlessly crushing any theory that doesn't conofm

Continuing my penchant for long tittles, I've more evidence to present to support my thesis that feminism is closer to a religious cult than a rational political movement.

In this case we consider what feminists categorically reject any theory, or idea about rape which does not conform exactly with their very narrow definition. This is of course, in spite of any and all evidence which suggests that the conventional wisdom found in feminist theory is anything but.

In my last meditation on MGTOW, I uncovered research which strongly suggests that rape victims themselves see rape as a crime with varying degrees of severity based on whether or not the rapist was known to them, and whether or not the rapist inflicted substantial injury in the perpetration of the crime. I then went on to theorize that since most rapes are committed by someone the woman knows, and since few rapes are reported that it was relatively unlikely that a male rapist who knows his victim would be unlikely to inflict physical harm, and this would in turn reduce the likelihood that the rape would be reported. Therefore, awareness campaigns which do not address the fact that women do not always see rape in the same terms are unlikely to be effective. Therefore, the current feminist consideration of rape is inadequate to addressing the issue.

For evidence, I submit the feminist reaction to comments made by British politician John Redwood. In his comments Redwood openly stated that rape between intimates should be considered a "lover's quarrel." While it could be said that Redwood is effectively trivializing the issue, the weight of the evidence clearly shows that Redwood's comments are not without merit; non-violent date rapes do seem to take on different properties in the mind of the victim than in cases of violent stranger rape. Redwood certainly implies that current feminist-dominated thinking is not adequate; that some reconsideration is needed if the problem is to be solved.

As Richard Dawkins would happily point out, any true scientific approach to the issue would consider the new data and see how it fits with the hypothesis. If it does not fit, then it is the hypothesis, not the data which must change. I happen to agree with this empirical, scientific approach. Furthermore, I don't believe that this approach can be effectively called into question; it is by this method that the human race all agrees that it knows what it knows.

Therefore, if feminists are indeed a rational political movement, comments of this nature supported by evidence would result in consideration by feminists. If feminists are however, as I suspect closer to a religious cult, the data would be considered offensive, blasphemous, and therefore ridiculed, ignored, or suppressed.

Which do you think it was?

As if there was any doubt that the latter would be the result! Yes, see this article on feministing.com. Instead of considering what the man said, the women and men reading the article quickly brand him a "rape apologist," and categorically reject his comments as false. The feminist mind is unable to consider alternatives to accepted dogma, rather his comments only add to feminist paranoia.

The conclusion is inescapable. The categorical rejection of all reason and rationality has more in common with a group of religious fanatics than it does with a group of rational people. Feminists are therefore not rational. Feminism therefore deserves to be treated not as a political movement, but as a cult. Let feminism compete with the rest of the religions for the hearts and minds of followers, but its doctrine has no place influencing politics.

ACLAF Archives (Recreation) - It's not even about Consent

Luke, this one's for you. More post-necromancy!
---
Some time ago, the UK proposed a law that would turn sex with a drunk woman into rape. Much to the lamentation of cougars (shouldn't it apply to men after all?) and pick-up artists everywhere, The idea behind the bill is that a severely drunk woman cannot legally consent to sex on the grounds that her judgment is impaired. And thus, it is little more than a flimsy pretext to be trotted out whenever the government feels like sending more men to jail. Familiar? Thought so. My understanding is that the proposed law has now been killed, replaced with some other measure to send more people to jail, but this still raises a very important issue regarding our culture, in that this is not even about consent; it's about alcohol, and how we treat, or mistreat the devil's brew in western culture.

Ask any boyscout worth his salt about fire, and he'll tell you that fire is something to treat with respect, and care. We all learned as children that fire can be incredibly useful when used correctly, and absolutely devastating when abused. Just ask the folks in Southern California.

A stinkingly similar rule holds true with alcohol.

Most people love to forget the simple fact that alcohol is a form of poison! Alcohol can fucking kill you if you take too much! Alcohol is something that must be treated with respect. That's why don't allow children to drink, because it can cause them great harm, and they haven't yet demonstrated sufficient responsibility to be trusted to handle something that can be so deadly.

Studies clearly demonstrate that there is some sort of positive correlation between the amount of alcohol consumed by a woman, and the likely hood that she will make a rape accusation, whether the sex is consensual or not.

And here in lies the problem. By entertaining notions that alcohol can be used as a legal excuse for what might be regretted later, the state effectively allows women to regress. How can we trust a person who cannot drink responsibly in our society? How can we trust someone who can't be trusted not to burn down houses? You see, after they screw up, we put these people in jail, or in mental institutions to make sure that they don't ruin it for the mature responsible folks in society; the adults.

Put another way, what did your parents do when you did something wrong, and childish? They sent you to your room! What is jail sometimes but a more grown-up kind of room?

You see folks, an adult who cannot be trusted with booze is no adult! Alcoholism occurs when people loose control over their own lives, and allow alcohol to take control. The only difference between a grown binge drunk, and a child, is that one of these two has a rational human being in control of their lives.

So to get so drunk that you can't see, and sleep with someone isn't rape, it's childish! Anyone who entertains the idea of accusing the person they slept with while drunk is equally childish, and they deserve to be treated like that name sake. Suck it, up buttercup! Either such a person is responsible enough to handle drinking, and therefore takes responsibility for their actions while drunk, or they are someone who can't handle it, and doesn't deserve to drink at all, because they lack the maturity to use the poison responsibly! Alcohol is a privilege, not a right princess!

So you know what? You want us to prosecute? FINE! We'll prosecute! On your way out, turn in your identification, car-keys, and put on the chastity belt that will be provided.

If you're not ready to handle alcohol, how can you possibly believe that you can handle sex?

ACLAF Archives: So much for due process

What do feminists think of Justice? Well, seeing as how we know that Justice is not a lesbian man-hating feminist, but a blind person, only to be swayed by reason and proper argument, consider just the title of ScorpioGrrl’s latest post: “Rape, and why I believe that “Innocent until proven guilty” is a load of bollocks” Oh-my-god-what-the-fuck?
So much for due process.

English law states that a person is “innocent until proven guilty.
Now, maybe it’s because I can be so incredibly cynical about things, but I just can’t bring myself to agree with that.

Why am I not surprised?

But, actually, it has a lot to do with my feminism.

Yes, it actually does have a lot to do with her feminism. At least a feminist has finally stopped lying bout how they really feel about western systems of justice, which is actually pretty frightening, come to think of it.

Given that the national average conviction rate in England and Wales is a paltry 5.3%, that would seem to suggest that - according to English law - there only 1 in 20 men who are reported to be rapists, are guilty of rape. Personally, I think that’s a load of bollocks; especially when you take into consideration the fact that about 75-95% of rape victims do not report to the police, which therefore means there are a ot more guilty rapists out there.

Same old femcunt whinging. What is unique in this case is that this idiot thinks that she knows how to run a justice system. She begins with the wrong assumptions, and when they don’t pan out, presumes on the guilt of the defendant. With judges like this bitch wants, is there any hope for real justice?

I happened to mention the other day that, as far as I - an individual - were concerned, in cases of rape, sexual assault etc, the perpetrator was - in my eyes, at least - guilty until proven innocent (and, even then, I am not convinced by lack of conviction or justice). As I have mentioned, this is largely due to a complete and utter disillusionment and disgust at a system which convicts only 5.3% of alleged rapists. (emphasis added) I know I go on about this a lot, but that’s because it is an issue I am hugely concerned about. However, this guy took exception to this, because - and I guess this is, in part, his Christian beliefs coming through - shouldn’t see people in such a negative light, and that - anyway - some women do not say “no” explicitly enough.

Did everybody catch that? The crux of her entire argument is that the system simply doesn’t throw enough men in jail. And femcunts claim that they don’t really hate men?

You know, I guess that last part is what is called a “grey area” technically, but when a woman does not say “no” explicitly, it is essentially because - I believe - women are not exactly socialised to be assertive. But this could potentially lead to something else I have been musing about recently - that is, the idea which seems to be commonly held, that sex is inevitable. I will rant on about that in a little while, but I don’t want to digress too much.

So women can’t stand up for themselves now? I thought that women were supposed to be “liberated” and “strong,” and “independent.” These adjectives are starting to seem more and more like non-sense words and less like actual qualities every time a femcunt mentions them.

However, this view - that some women do not say “no” explicitly enough - is essentially victim-blaming, and it is assuming that the vast majority of cases reported to the police are those of women who didn’t say anything at the time, but then regretted it, and so tell the police it’s rape - I think that’s largely a myth.The thing is, I believe that an alleged rapist has more of a vested interest to lie than the victim. The thing is, I believe that the judicial system is weighted against rape victims. The thing is, I have to beg the question - how, if I am really, truly to believe that in such cases that someone is “innocent, until proven guilty”, when only 5.3% of reported rapes end in conviction?”
It does NOT add up.

So. A rape accusation should be enough to throw a person in jail? I have an idea! Let’s accuse all feminists of rape! That would work right?
Shit like this makes me want to be in favor of eugenics.

Meditations on MGTOW: Rape

In my last discussion on the philosophy of MGTOW, I discussed how it was impossible to reason with feminism, and therefore why it is so important for men to recapture the discourse. I wish now to elaborate on this theme by demonstrating how feminists have come to dominate the issue of rape, and how feminists are now using this dominance to systematically silence and destroy men.

This isn't meant to excuse genuine cases of rape. Rape continues to be a crime, and our goal is not to change this; we are not seeking to un-check barbarism. We cannot however continue sit idly by while feminists abuse their status as the undisputed over-ladies of the issue of rape and sexual assault.

As the evidence clearly demonstrates, a number of feminist myths have been propagated about rape for no other reason that the destruction of men. Feminist have of course become so loud in their constant protestations most of these myths, perhaps all of them have come to be widely believed as the truth. Of course, the tendency to obliterate the truth to try to score political points is what has allowed the MRM to build such a strong case against feminist lies. By so successfully convincing us that their side is the only truth two things inevitably occur; evidence emerges that contradicts feminist dogma, and that damning, scandalous evidence is proclaimed loud and wide because as we know, controversy sells many newspapers.

Myth 1 - Rape and sexual assault are exclusively a crime that men commit against women.

In fact, the top Google search when I was researching this article was, "Yet another female teacher charged with sexual assault." I encourage the reader to try it for themselves. Go to www.google.com, and type the words "teacher sexual assault."

My results were as follows: The very first page listed ten total hits. Of those, three dealt with male teachers having sexual relations with students, five dealt with female teachers having sex with students, and two were neutral or unrelated.

Clearly, women are entirely capable of rape, whether or not it is cloaked in the euphemism of sexual assault.

Myth 2 - Women do make false rape accusations, but only a statistically insignificant number, and therefore we should not be concerned about false rape accusations.

This is absolutely untrue. Many rape accusations are entirely false.

"Home Office research undertaken two years ago at six different referral centres found that a sixth of the complaints that were dropped by police were classed as false allegations. A quarter were dropped because of insufficient or no evidence." (Source "Justice? No, a violation of Common Sense," Camillia Cavendish, Times Online, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article2963335.ece)

"...perhaps the most prudent summary statement that is appropriate from these data is that false rape accusations are not uncommon." (Source: http://christianparty.net/kanin.htm, originally from study published; Kanin, Eugene J. "Archives of Sexual Behavior," Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, pages 81-90)

This is rather alarming, given how important the rape issue is to what can only be called feminist mythology. I term it mythology because it is clear that the facts do not correspond to the theory.

Normally, a rape accusation, once made is only treated as false if both the accuser withdraws the complaint voluntarily, and there is a lack of evidence.

Try this simple mathematical exercise for perspective. Assume that half of the quarter listed in the source above of rape accusations are dropped for absolutely no evidence, the other half has some evidence. That's 1 in 8 rape accusations are not taken to trial by police because there is no evidence, or 12.5%. These might be false allegations, but if the accuser never withdraws her accusation, they may only be classified as having insufficient evidence, and not part of the 1 in 6 figure. Since 1 in 6 rape accusations or 16.6% are are classed as false, that means that actual rate of false rape accusations in Britain has soared to somewhere on the order of 29.1%! That's almost 1 in 3!

Two percent indeed! Multiply that number by fifteen and you have something a little closer to the truth. To be fair, I've put my own interpretation onto the numbers, but even without my interpretation, 1 in 6, still equals 16.6%, a number fully 8 times higher than the figure routinely cited by feminists, and far too rarely questioned by us.

But where exactly did the 2% number come from? Normally, people cite this figure as having come from Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will. Immediately this should have caused everyone to question this feminist piece of pseudo-scholarship. But as the adage goes, if the lie is repeated often enough, people will begin to believe it.

According to Wendy McElroy, "legal scholar Michelle Anderson of Villanova University Law School reported in 2004, "no study has ever been published which sets forth an evidentiary basis for the two percent false rape complaint thesis."" Indeed Brownmiller seems to have conjured the number out of thin air! Years after the fact, she states that this figure apparently came from a rather vague statement in a speech by Lawrence H. Cooke. According to Edward Greer, in "The Truth Behind the Legal Dominance Feminism's "Two Percent False Rape" Claim figure," Greer explains that "These Judicial remarks do not suffice to determine whether or not there was any underlying report, although the locution used is suggestive of being based on a quotation from a newspaper article rather than a formally written text." It can only stands to reason at this point that this figure so often cited, is at best only tenuous proof of the mythology, at worst, a completely unsupported claim.

As a parting thought, I think Wendy McElroy evaluates the facts with honesty, and I believe that she perhaps puts it best:

"Although Kanin offers solid research, I would need to see more studies with different populations before accepting the figure of 50 percent as prevalent; to me, the figure seems high."

Agreed. This phenomena definitely merits more study. The 50 percent figure listed by Kanin may be an aberration, since the scope of his study was admittedly, only one city.

"But even a skeptic like me must credit a DNA exclusion rate of 20 percent that remained constant over several years when conducted by FBI labs. This is especially true when 20 percent more were found to be questionable.

False accusations are not rare. They are common."

All evidence available indicates that the feminist claim is simply false, and utterly false. Yet the figure is repeatedly cited to justify a complete destruction of any sort of jurisprudence, or presumption of innocence for men accused of rape.

Myth 4 - Rape is the vehicle by which all men keep all women subjugated.

This feminist myth of course implies that all men are rapists, while not explicitly stating this. Once again, Wendy McElroy in her paper, "The New Mythology of Rape," (source: http://www.zetetics.com/mac/rape.htm) does an excellent job of refuting radical feminist pseudo-scholarship in this area. In her paper, McElroy establishes that Susan Brownmiller has in effect made three interconnect claims, which are also myths about rape, that it is part of the patriarchy, that men have created a mass psychology, and that rape is part of 'normal life.'

This first claim naturally establishes much of the feminist ground-work for future assumptions and allegations about rape, but is of course, largely unprovable. In order to demonstrate that this is so, feminists must first prove the existence of the patriarchy, and then demonstrate how it serves the patriarchy. Assuming that we accept the patriarchy at face value, a concession which is far too generous, we must somehow demonstrate that the promotion of rape serves the patriarchy.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It stands to reason of course that the patriarchy must be, to some degree in control of society for it to even exist. Patriarchy is supposed to be the rule of society.

This presents a problem however, because rape does not serve the patriarchy at all; it undermines it. In McElroy's work, cites Camile Paglia who argues that society does not promote rape, indeed it is women's protection from rape. Since patriarchy can really only thrive in a relatively stable social climate, rape only serves as a destabilizing factor, especially in light of the multitude of false allegations that modern western society. There are several reasons why rape undermines the patriarchy. Indeed, it would actually benefit the patriarchy to eliminate rape.

• Rape costs tremendous amount of resources, both public and private. The state deals with a large number of rape accusations every day, and the cost of the investigation, prosecution, and if necessary, punishment of a rapist, must be borne entirely by the taxpayer, the vast majority of which are men. While it is certainly true that the wealthy can insulate themselves to some degree from this burden, most of a country's population cannot. In addition to this, many western countries have public women's shelters, and sexual violence awareness campaigns which further add to the cost of rape. If a man accused of rape cannot afford a lawyer, this cost must also be funded by the state. And a man who can afford a lawyer, must pay for that service. Rape accusations, whether valid or no, consume a great deal of resources for all involved.
• Rape accusations, true or false ruin men's lives. It is certainly not unheard of for previously productive members of society to commit suicide after having been accused of rape. Aside from this, a man might loose his job over the accusation alone, might need to relocate over the accusation alone, might even be threatened with death, assaulted or even killed as a result of an accusation alone which, incidentally will cos the state even more resources to investigate these new crimes. If the accusation is false, those who once contributed to society in a positive manner may find themselves unable, or unwilling to do so again, for the stigma alone.
• False rape accusations directly harm women, both by creating criminals out of women, and by opening them up to retaliation if the ruse is ever discovered.
• Associates of a man accused of rape can expect to either immediately loose a friend, causing broken relationships and chaos, or they can expect to experience a degree of guilt by association.
  

In short, nobody actually benefits from rape, and so neither does the patriarchy. As such, the MRM does not condone rape as a viable strategy to accomplish its goals. The burden of proof therefore rests with feminists to demonstrate how the patriarchy uses a tool to subjugate women which confers absolutely no benefit.

Brownmiller's second myth, that men have created a mass-psychology of rape also makes no sense. As McElroy points out, even assuming a one-to-one ratio for the 25% statistic, that can only mean that 75% of men are not rapists. If 75% of men are not rapists, then how can men have created a mass-psychology for something that most of them will never do?

Of course, for this to become true, feminists would need to demonstrate that all men are at least potential rapists. Of course, this is entirely unprovable. The only "proof" for this outrageous claim that feminism is able to offer is that because some men are guilty of rape, all men must be potential rapists. Absurd! Shall we now conclude that because some women are guilty of rape, that all women are likewise, potential rapists? Why do we accept one myth and the reasoning behind it, but not another which shares identical reasoning?

It shouldn't even be necessary to demonstrate that Brownmiller's third and final myth is just that, but this is the result of allowing feminist domination of the discourse. That rape is somehow part of 'normal' life is absolutely absurd. Since we can conclude that 75% of women will not be raped, how can we conclude that rape is anything but an aberration? It is largely accepted that the rate of violent crime in the western world has been steadily decreasing every year since the 1960's, how then can an assertion that rape is somehow normative be at all valid? It is just another feminist absurdity about rape; rape is not a part of "normal" life. Rape is only a part of "normal" life under perhaps one circumstance: prison, and then in nearly all cases it is male-on-male, not male-on-female. Otherwise, rape is hardly "normal" for men, in fact it is feminism, and not men which have made rape into something "normal."

The very definition of rape has been so distorted that it has become almost unrecognizable. Even the infamous 1-in-4 statistic so often quoted by feminists may be entirely mythical. According Allison Kasic, the original research for the 1-in-4 statistic derived from a survey of college women done in 1982. (Source http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/17178.html). In the research cited, Kasic claims that of the 25% of women who qualified as having been raped by the researchers, only 25% of those women believed they had been raped! But rather than report the statistic as is, feminists simply changed the definition of rape to criminalize more men! By repeatedly citing the 1 in 4 statistic until it became the de facto truth, feminists have been able to systematically criminalize large numbers of men, in cases as absurd as when consensual sex is later regretted! Alcohol and drug use is being put forward routinely as excuses for women who simply do not want to take responsibility for their own actions, and would rather ruin a man's life than face the fact that they made a bad decision.

Myth 5 - Most rapes go unreported

Actually, this one has some degree of truth, but the implications are much broader.

For starters consider this,

"A recent survey by two Carleton University sociologists -- financed by a $236,000 government grant -- revealed that 81% of female students at Canadian universities and colleges had suffered sexual abuse. Their survey descended into a maelstrom of controversy when it became known that the researchers included taunts and insults during quarrels within their definition of abuse.

The definition of sexual violence has been expanded to include what used to be called bad manners." (Source: http://www.zetetics.com/mac/rape.htm)

Furthermore, the commonly cited statistic is that between 6% and 8% of sexual crimes (including rapes) are reported to the police; 13%-15% of rapes or attempted rapes are reported to the police. This statistic, at least in part, stems from the Statistics Canada Violence Against Women survey of 1993. As feminists are all too keen to point out, most of sexual crimes against women are committed by someone who is known to the woman, and not a stranger, hence, date-rape. What feminists are very interested in keeping absolutely quiet, is that just over half of the incidents go unreported because the victim regarded the incident as being too minor to involve the police. The final piece of relevant evidence is that further research has demonstrated that women are far more likely to report the incident to the police as rape, if, and only if the incident resulted in physical injury, or harm, and if the perpetrator was a stranger. (source: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/162/5/659.pdf).

The conclusion to this is inescapable.

The logical mind can only conclude that victims of sexual crimes perpetrated by someone who is familiar to the victim, date rape, are far less likely to result in physical harm or injury. Perhaps there is some conception among women that forcible or coerced sex by non-strangers is not a serious crime, and even less serious if there is little harm or physical injury. This in no way meant to diminish the serious nature of these crimes, except to point out that the victims themselves consider such crimes to be considerably less serious than other violent crimes, and thus often do not consider themselves to have been victimized. Since feminists unanimously maintain that most sexual crimes are not committed by strangers, but by people known to women, giving rise to the date-rape phenomena, the only logical conclusion is not that men are violently raping women, or that there is a rape epidemic as feminists claim. This is not to say that date-rape cannot be traumatic, this is to say that the vast majority of date-rapes, and thus the vast majority of rapes, are not sufficiently traumatic as to cause the victim to adopt a victim mentality sufficient to motivate them to feel violated, and to seek justice. Heretofore, feminist scholarship has failed to explain this phenomena, and it seems that no amount of funding, or awareness programs will succeed at changing this reality.

The implication is therefore not, as feminism would have us believe that men are raping women as a matter of course, but that men and women engaged in sexual relationships, but that through some error, omission or feminist meddling, the communication skills and self-control that people need to exist within the complex realm of human sexual relationships, simply are not present. All of this indicates that if we seek to improve our society, it is absolutely imperative that we accomplish two things; first, we must re-evaluate the issue of date-rape, because it is clearly not the same phenomena as what people traditionally think of when someone mentions rape, and second and more importantly, men and women must re-evaluate sexual relationships and develop the necessary tools to handle the possibility of date-rape.

Sadly, feminists, under the auspicious of "liberation" have demanded that women always be considered as having the prevailing interest, indeed the only interest in all sexual matters, and thus crushed any hope of consideration under the present misandrist climate. Like it or not, men are no longer entitled to any rights in sexual matters; an unfortunate reality all too often punctuated by the lamentations of men victimized by a corrupt and out of control "family" court system.

This intolerable situation, spearheaded by feminist interest is one of the prime reasons for the development of Men Going Their Own Way. Since feminism has decided that all men are rapists, so long as feminism continues to dominate the discourse, there will be no resolution to the date rape issue; Men Going Their Own Way will not enter into any dialog on sexual relationships while on feminist terms, since those terms are not a negotiation at all, but an endless stream of accusation. MGTOW does not pander to rape-hysteria extortionists. This is the reason why MGTOW wishes to instill femininity in women and masculinity in men; because while both genders should be free to dialog on their own terms, there can be no dialog so long as one gender is determined to hate the other. There is no room in relationships for feminism.

And therefore, so long as women refuse to abandon feminism, the vast majority of the members of MGTOW want nothing to do with most women, and rightly so.

Fortunately, millions of men and women are starting to realize so many of the myths that feminism has been using to railroad men into oblivion, and are no longer submitting themselves to the minefield that is the modern relationship. People are beginning to realize that we're quickly becoming isolated from one another on gender-lines, and that feminism is responsible for it. Thus, men and women are turning away from feminism in droves. Sadly, it may already be too late.

One of the key strategies for MGTOW has been the marriage strike. A concerted effort by many like-minded men has denied as many women the opportunity to benefit from men's labor. Unfortunately, while effective, this is a scorched-earth policy. It can only work so long as most men, refuse to marry most women, and the only benefits to this activism serve to minimize the damage. The damage inflicted by this policy is compounded by the tendency for women to choose to marry later. MGTOW therefore does not gain the benefit of women's prime fertility, and thus the marriage strike claims as many men as it does women. It isn't that the policy is ineffective, but since feminism has largely achieved undisputed control of academia, feminists benefit from women's younger years. Thus, by the time women are prepared to abandon feminism and come to an equitable agreement with men, they are already passed the point of being effective.

And that is why it is so important for MGTOW to reclaim control of the discourse. The adage "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" is particularly apt in this case. The older a person is, the more likely they are to resist change, and we cannot afford the vast amounts of energy to overcome the inertia of age. Ultimately, the battle is over the minds of the idealists; the younger generation. So long as feminism dominates the discourse, they will never stop poisoning the minds of our sisters and our daughters. So long as the situation continues, we cannot hope to save women from the destructive hateful ideology that has penetrated every aspect of modern culture.

ACLAF Archives - Feminists are completely irrational

Another oldie, but a goodie

rational - adjective
(rash-un-al)
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.

reason - verb
(rea-szhun)

8. to think or argue in a logical manner.
9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
10. to urge reasons which should determine belief or action.
11. to think through logically, as a problem (often fol. by out).
12. to conclude or infer.
13. to convince, persuade, etc., by reasoning.
14. to support with reasons.

irrational - adjective
(IR-a-shzun-al)

1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.

logic - noun
(loj-ik)

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.


fear - noun
(feer)

1. a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.
2. a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights.
3. concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone's safety.

contradict - verb
(kon-truh-dickt)

1. to assert the contrary or opposite of; deny directly and categorically.
2. to speak contrary to the assertions of: to contradict oneself.
3. (of an action or event) to imply a denial of: His way of life contradicts his stated principles.
4. Obsolete. to speak or declare against; oppose.

Too much for feminists? Yeah probably.

The more you talk to any given feminist, the more and more they will eventually present an
entirely irrational and contradictory argument, yet they will automatically expect you to
support their position. If you call them on it, they will accuse you of simply "not getting
it," in spite of any attempt at intellectual honesty that you make. Therefore, anyone who is
willing to lable themselves a feminist, is over-emotional and therefore, irrational.

A feminist argument is normally nothing more than an appeal to a person's sense of compassion,
and so will often be characterized by wild distortions, embellishment, and blatant disregard
for both logic and reality. The goal is of course to provoke an emotional reaction in the
target of the argument in order to gain sympathy and agreement without encouraging the target
to give any rational, or reasonable thought to the agrument. For the feminist, being emotion
is more important that being logical, or rational. For the feminist, emotion rules while
reason is relegated to justifying the emotion, and is unconcerned with reality.

Most people however do not subscribe to this view, but will channel emotion through the lense
of logic and reason. Often, powerful emotions can be rationalized as appropriate in a given
situation. If a person's dog has just been killed, it is deemed appropriate for that person
to experience intense saddness accompanied by a feeling of loss. The saddness the person feels
is entirely appropriate and need not be justified.

So when that person cries over the loss of a pet, society reinforces this appropriate and
healthy response with comfort and sympathy. Expressing the emotion is necessary for the
healing process to take place.

Emotion however, is ussually not this simple, or even rational at all. If the person in the
example expressed their sadness, and possible anger by violently assaulting someone, this
would be clearly inappropriate, and despite their still very legitimate emotion, this person
has comitted a crime. A defense on the basis of emotion may be considered a mitigating
circumstance, but this should not result in sparing the offender from making restitution.
It would be more appropriate, and not illegal for the person to channel their anger through
the lense of reason, and express that anger in a positivist fasion, perhaps by attacking a
punching bag. Reason therefore, should rule the way an emotion is channeled.

Collectively, we tend to call this positive channeling of emotion rational, or reasonable
behaviour. The person may want to attack someone, but they do not. Doing so would be wrong.
The opposite, the negative channgeling of emotion, then attempting to use logic to justify
the damage done, is called irrational or unreasonable behaviour.

Feminist arguments are by their nature, irrational and unreasonable. A feminist argument is
based on what the feminist feels, while they try to find reasons to justify their feeling.
This method of argument is not necessarily better or worse than any other.

But when it comes to the feminist, even if no reason or logic can be found to justify the
argument, the argument is not changed, or disregarded, when logic would indicate that it
should be. Rather, the argument is instead amplified, and repeated as often as possible.

Any challenge to the argument is met with ridicule, accusations of ignorance, and accusations
of misogyny. No appropriate response to the challenge is ever offered, instead it is either
insinuated, or plainly stated that the challenger simply cannot possibly understand the
argument. Instead of the arugment being deficient, something is wrong with the challenger.
To the feminist, either the challenger must accept the argument as true at face value,
or ignored. The person must be changed, and not the assertion.

This approach is completely irrespective of reality. Even in the face of all contradictory
fact, the argument will not be changed, under any circumstances.

The result therefore, is that all feminists have chosen to live in a world of fantasy,
illusion, and normally perpetual and irrational paranoia brought on by the assertions of
a few radical misandrists.

It would seem clear, that it is irrational to allow the actions of a few men to produce
fear of all men, when it is clear that not all men are a threat. It is more irrational,
to allow that fear to affect a person to such a degree that all men are viewed with
suspicion, and terror. It is even more irrational to allow this absurd fear to affect a
person's behaviour, yet it very clearly does. A few women feel unsafe, despite evidence
which demonstrates that they are now more safe than they ever have been, and when presented
with evidence, the fear is not re-evaluated, it must be the evidence that is mistaken.

Such a state of mind, is likely to lead to dellusions, and psychosis, ultimately resulting
in a condition called, in polite circles at least, paranoid schizophrenia.

In other circles, a person suffering from such a condition is called a lunatic. In others,
it's called being STARK RAVING MAD! Full-blown batshit wacko-insane!

Since all feminists, without variation, knowingly practice this behaviour, and do their best
to impose it on themselves and on other women without prejudice, there can be only one
conclusion.

ALL FEMINISTS ARE LUNATICS! Feminists are CRAZY! Feminists are INSANE!

Feminists therefore don't need our scorn, they need someone to take them to the nearest
mental hospitals where they can be protected from society, and their disease can be treated
by a team of trained medical professionals!

Feminists! I understand now, and I'm really very sorry, I'd like to offer you an apology for
acting inappropriately. I made the mistake of assuming that you were in posession of all
your mental faculties, and I truly had no idea that you were ill and in need of professional
help.

I'd therefore like to ask my fellow MRAs to treat feminists with a degree of sympathy. These
poor unfortunate creatures don't really hate men, they're just crazy. They really can't help
their insanity, and we should take it upon ourselves to help these creatures by directing
them to seek the proper medical attention.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


NOT!

ACLAF Archives - Closer to Princess: The Surrendered Wife

An old post, probably originally published in July of 2007, but a good one.


Disclaimer: I know I'll draw some criticism for this, and I don't care. This idea is just too interesting to ignore.

Do my eyes decieve me? Have I taken leave of my senses? Did I take the blue pill? No, apparently, I'm reading this correctly, and there really is such a thing as a Surrendered Wife.

Increddible. Seven days ago, I talked about how modern women would never figure it out, that they seemed destined to a life as cruel and vindictive stepsisters. Today, it is obvious that I spoke a little too soon. Today's modern feminist certainly has that curse, but today's modern Surrendered Wife will definitely not share her fate. Pride goeth before a fall, both for me, and the modern feminist.

But the modern feminist is about to fall harder and farther than my little tumble.

Enter: The Surrendered wife.

Just what is a surrendered wife exactly?

Among other things, it's a misnomer, but in as short as I can manage, a "surrendered wife" is a woman who simply stops trying to exert control over her husband.

That's all it is. Stop trying to run your husband's life, and you get a happy marriage. Or so says a book entittled, The Surrendered Wife: A Practical Guide to Finding Intimacy, Passion, and Peace with Your Man by Laura Doyle (Simon & Schuster,Jan 2001, ISBN-13: 978-0743204446)

Feminists absolutely hate this idea.

Of course, they don't really understand it either.

To the feminist the surrendered wife is little more than a slave, and now that there's apparently a Surrendered Wives movement, perhaps the biggest threat to their dominance, and the sufferened wife does so WILLINGLY! This is something that I'm going to go into detail during a later post.

But for the moment, I'd like to explain why The Surrendered wife is more happy than her moronic feminist counterpart. While it is true that there are some people who will take being a surrendered wife to extremes, such as having the wife put toothpaste on the husbands toothbrush, and putting on a blindfold while her husband drives. I certainly don't think that a husband necessarily needs to choose his wife's outfits, or act like a lazy slug. But then again,
this is no worse than the behaviour of some women, who rountinely tell their husbands how to dress, walk, talk, work, etc. At any rate, no marriage is identical, and therefore, no single micromanaged solution will work for everyone. Just remember for a moment the key, that a surrendered wife doesn't control her husband's life, and in any healthy marriage the details will work themselves out. That's not to say she doesn't influence, but she does so in a positive way, a way that befits Cinderella, and in doing so she BECOMES Cinderella, and she does live happily ever after.

You see, through some social fluke, Doyle has come to some understand that men are born programed to value pleasing women.

Much ink in the MRM has been spilled discussing the pitfalls of chivalrous behaviour extended towards today's modern woman, but as most MRAs would attest, chivalry is not so easy to abolish, and there's damn good reason for that. You see, providing for the needs women was for quite some time necessary to the survival of the species.

In modern context however, this impulse has caused many men a great deal of harm, and so it remains wise to continue to suppress it... Well... That is, unless you're lucky enough to have ended up with a surrendered wife.

In "It's Evolution Baby!" I talked about how gender specific idiosyncracies had various evolutionary componenets. I also however, described men as problem solvers.

If one takes a moment to consider a neolithic family on the African Savahna, much as it is today, one can immediately imagine how many challenges this family will face as it struggles to survive. If you consider the usual family of one man, one woman, and perhaps a few children. In the case of an infnat, it goes without saying that the father will have do most of the risky work, and help his woman wherever possible. He must provide for his woman and children because they cannot provide for themselves. What happens if dad runs off, or does not provide for his woman? His line will cease to exist, because without a man's support, his woman will not be able to support his offspring, and they will both probably die. We are not the offspring of deadbeat dads, because those kids died a long time ago! If the woman behaves like a selfish feminist and decides not to care for her children, then her line ceases to exist, because her children will not recieve what they need and they will die. We are here, because our distant male ancestors evolved
to put female needs above their own, and our female ancestors evolved to depend and value male support, and generally put their children's needs over their own. There was a time, when these behaviours were necessary to survive.

And some of these instincts are still with us today. It is well documented that unless drugged, if a newly born baby is placed on its mother's stomach, it will in a relatively short period of time crawl to her breasts. Mother and father also experience an instincual bonding with their children, sometimes within a few minutes after birth.

This explains the relatively common phenomena of couples who seek to save troubled marriages by having a child, which while misguided, is at least somewhat founded in what could best be described as proto-logic. Since it is well documented that both parents are very likely to develop an instinctual bond with the baby, they stay together not because they are happy together, but because they are more closely connected with the child than with each other.

All of this, has an evolutionary basis, because it was at one time, necessary to behave this way for the species to survive, and over time, this behaviour became an instinct.

And this is the underlying reason why the Surrendered wife is more likely to be happy than her quasi-femcunt counter-part.

There is a degree to which men will very easily give up control, and follow the leadership of someone else, which is also an evolutionary adaptation. When possible, neolithic peoples would form small groups, or tribes for mutual protection and assistance. Many hands make light work after all. And since the role of the man was the role of the hunter, and hunting was very much a team effort, it undoubtably became sometimes necessary for a leader to emerge. Since hunting would require people to preform a variety of different tasks, a leader would be necessary to ensure success by assigning those tasks. Again, this was necessary for survival at one time, and a man who consistently opposed, or made trouble for a leader would no doubt risk being ostracized. Thus, we've evolved to readily accept roles as followers, to a certain degree.
Obviously, if a leader calls for unnecessary personal risk, or abuses their position, the group would stop obeying the orders of a corrupt leader. And thus, we have theories of leadership which still hold true today. A leader should never ask a follower to do something that the leader would not be willing to do themselves. This is not to say that men aren't individuals, or don't have strong personalities, it does however mean that men accept leadership more willingly than women.

This also means that men evolved to be more comfortable and accustomed to leadership roles, and function best when the role of leader is most obvious. Therefore, when a man would be alone with his wife, he would have felt that he should take the lead, not to be abusive, but to make decisions, and try act as the sound foundation for his family, to ensure everybody's
survival, and therefore, the continuance of the species. At home, a man was a leader, and responsible for his family's well-being, no matter what he did in the outside world, and he did his best, because if he failed, they would fail with him. Thus men also evolved to feel burned by leadership, because so much rested on their shoulders.

A wife could feel safe and secure in the knowledge that her husband would always put her first, and try to make decisions that would be best for all, while she, as the bringer of life would be free to focus on that supremely important task. And thus, the two genders evolved into two fundamentally different, but complimentary roles.

Of course, this would eventually result in some of the abuses that we're familiar with today; a family is by no means a bed of roses, but for the most part, the system worked. And as long as it is generally workable, evolution says that humanity the species will survive, and people will be for the most part, happy.

That is, until we got feminism.

Feminism started by convincing women that they were not happy with the way that we evolved, and that women were really meant to be different. And by different, feminists meant that women should be more like men, and that men should change to suit women's whim, and if a man wasn't willing to do so, then fuck him, he doesn't deserve you! And in that moment, women
stopped being like Cinderella, and they became just like her step-sister. Not all at once, the transition took time. And at least at home, men offered little resistance to this female role, because men are generally willing to accept the role of a follower more easily than women.

And through years of misandry, feminism also convinced women that men were flawed and inferior to women. For the feminist, it doesn't really matter how good a man is, he's always going to fall short of any given woman.

Women however, never had the same evolutionary leadership training that men had, and thus while feminism convinced them that they all really were destined to be leaders and crusaders for women, it never talked about proper leadership. Feminism didn't and still doesn't understand leadership; leadership is a uniquely masculine trait. And so, since according to feminism,
men are flawed, and women are leaders, it naturally falls to women to change men for the better. Feminism says nothing about how to accomplish this impossible task, it only says that men must change. And not only that, feminists have made the mistaken assumption that leadership is about control, and therefore through female henpecking and nagging, which is what passes for female leadership, men will eventually come around to the feminist way of thinking, and everyone will be happy again. Of course, they were happy before, but feminism doesn't like to talk about that.

There's just one problem, and that may be man's best defense against feminism. When someone leads, men become followers, and that is exactly what had happened to many husbands of newly converted Surrendered Wives. When a man's wife becomes domineering and nagging, he simply accepts her leadership and withdraws. The more she nags, the fewer decisions he makes for himself; he is relying on his new leader to tell him what to do. The more she micromanages his life, the more he needs to be micromanged because in his mind it's her responsibility as a leader to give orders. If something goes wrong, he blames her, because she's made herself the leader, and it is her poor leadership which has allowed this to happen. And if such a wife fails to give orders, the man will do as he pleases, untill she corrects him. Many women have nagged themselves right into unhappy marriages.

Depending on what choices she makes, there are a few different possibilities for what will happen in such a scenario. If she continues to try to play the role of leader her husband will withdraw farther and farther untill the couple is married in name only. They may find a balance, but the happiness that they enjoyed at the beginning of their marriage will never return. If the nagging continues far enough, one of the two parties will eventually get fed-up, either the woman will leave, and the two will end up in divorce court, or the man's instincts concerning leadership will kick in and arguments will begin. If the arguments progress far enough, the man will eventually resort to physical violence to try to get the woman to give up the leadership role. He does this not because he wants to harm her, but because this is how he would treat a man who had become the sort of corrupted leader that his wife has become.

Of, if the couple is very lucky, the wife will surrender. She will stop nagging, and she herself will withdraw. At first, the man will be confused and insecure, but in a relatively short span of time, his instinct to provide for his family will assert its self. If his wife shows trust in him, he will feel like a leader, and he will begin feel the leader's obligation. If she is vulnerable he will feel compelled to protect her. The more she allows him to lead, the more he will lead. He will eventually come out of his withdrawn state, and begin to be a pro-active contributor to the marriage. And when his wife expresses need for intimacy, he will happily provide for her emotional need, not because he is being forced, but because he is being allowed to do so. If his wife allows him to love her, he will, because remember that if he does not, his line will not survive.

This does not mean that a wife needs to completely suppress her personality, it does mean that she needs to do away with feminist notions of "female strength," which is simply code for "acting like a bitch." Remember the only thing that a surrendered wife really needs to do is to stop trying to run her husband's life. I certainly don't think that it's absolutely necessary in every case for a husband to micromanage his surrendered wife's life either. I recognize that in order to learn how to surrender, some women will need an extreme level of micromanagement from their husbands, but this should probably be a temporary solution, and a few truly stubborn ones will need it constantly. But for the most part, once a woman learns how not to try to control everything about her man, then the two can easily come to a more balanced arrangement, as long as she doesn't try to exert control over his life. By the same token, a husband should be highly receptive to his surrendered wife's influence and advice. A good leader responds to the needs of his followers, and carefully considers what they have to say.

And thus, in this way, a surrendered wife will always be happier than her feminist counter-part.

Meditations on MGTOW: Why it is impossible to have a rational discussion with feminist

As many in the MRM have noticed, it is absolutely impossible to have a rational discussion with a feminist. Attempting to do so normally ranges somewhere between the intellectual equivalent of trying to eat with one's feet. While there are a few with the flexibility, and dexterity to make this feasible, most of us just end up frustrated, and angry for ever having attempted something so foolish in the first place.

And why not? Feminism is a cult of brainwashed fanatics that would put even the wildest dreams of L. Ron Hubbard (better known as the founder of the scam called Scientology) to shame!

For instance, the Wizards of the Coast Dungeons and Dragons forums recently featured a thread called, "What is Wrong With Being a Feminist D&D Gamer?" And this discussion has at the time of this writing filled fourteen pages of forum posts! And worst of all, this is only one of several threads discussing these sorts of gender issues! Isn't it a little disturbing that feminism is so important to some people's identities, that they simply cannot divorce it from a hobby which is primarily escapist and fantastic in nature? Rather than simply enjoy the game, these feminist gamers actually use the fantasy to explore feminist ideas, completely forgetting that the whole point of the exercise is to escape from reality! Actually, given what can laughingly be termed feminist reality, it's rather easy to see how feminists cannot separate the real world from fantasy; for feminists they are one in the same. But I digress.

This extends across all aspects of society; feminists neophytes consciously make the decision to view absolutely everything through a feminist lens, something which no rational organization, or political ideology endorses. Feminists actually become slaves to feminism, unable to be at all objective; feminists turn every issue into a feminist issue, whether related or not. It must be a very difficult task to find sexism in everything, but then again, there are legions of idealistic women feminists happily prepared to do just that.

I wish I was making this up.

And we're barely scratching the surface! Did you know that according to feminist theory women are incapable of being sexist? It's true! The feminist argument states that sexism cannot be separated from power, and since women don't have power, women cannot be sexist! Feminists concede that women can be prejudiced, but cannot be sexist, since sexism only exists when one is prejudice and uses power to oppress someone.

As far as men are concerned, even if we accepted this definition of sexism (which we do not!), we cannot help but point the fact that women in western society effectively have nearly unlimited power over any man who comes into their line of site; we can instantly point to the fact that women can ruin nearly any man's life, simply by making an accusation of sexual assault. Women gain even more power by entering into a relationship with a man, and for many the temptation to abuse their power is too much to resist.

For these reasons, the feminist premise behind sexism; that women do not have power over men, and therefore cannot be sexist, is utterly without value. Women clearly have power over men, and therefore are entirely capable of sexism. This idea however is willfully ignored by feminists, despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

The conclusion is therefore inescapable: that feminism has much more in common with a quasi-religious institution, where the acolyte lives and breathes dogma every nanosecond of the day, than a political, or academic ideology. This is also incidentally why feminists cannot get along with religious conservatives, and vice versa; they are in effect two competing sets of dogmas, both of which vehemently deny that they are based entirely in pseudo-scholarship, unproven theories, and frequently make what can only be interpreted as ludicrous truth claims. The only difference is that religious conservatism has a few hundred years of "tradition" to give it legitimacy, while feminism is relatively new. Mark my words, the most Holy Church of Dworkin is not far away.

And this gentlemen is why it is so important that we actively take stewardship of the MGTOW philosophy. Men Going Their Own Way is more than just a road-sign, it is a response to feminist domination of all gender-related issues. MGTOW is an assertion of our right to take the discourse away from the irrational, truth destroying feminists, and put it where it back where it belongs, with the truth. We do not dare to fail in this duty, as the logical conclusion to feminism will be to enslave or destroy all men. We can no longer tolerate feminist domination of the issues. We are entitled to live on our own terms, and do not need feminist approval.

That being said however, we are faced with a very difficult dilemma. Since MGTOW informs us that we are entitled to live and act on our own terms, it implicitly states that no member of the MRM really has a position of authority over another, and yet, it is clear that to continue in the our present fashion may only lead to perpetual servitude. We are making progress, yes, but very slowly. Many good men, are unwilling to consider activism since in the present socio-political climate it is so dangerous, and worse, many are themselves already tools to be used by feminists. Our position is precarious, we are faced with either moving too fast, being to radical and therefore being crushed, or by trying to go unnoticed and get nothing done at all. And what's worse, whenever anybody wants to move things in one direction or the other, we tend to turn on each other by standing on MGTOW, "You can't tell me what to do! MGTOW, RAH RAH RAH!"

And so, while this may be a fool's errand, I must propose that we take a more pro-active approach to this unfortunate situation. For too long, we have been reacting, when we should have been developing strategies for dealing with infighting, and combating feminism.

Gentlemen, I propose that it may still be possible for our voices to be heard without resorting to violence. I do not believe that western governments have become so corrupt that they cannot reverse the feminist/banker tide. It will not be easy, I am very hopeful that we can retake the positions of power, and restore a rational dialogue for all concerned. For instance, Ron Paul's (a noted pro-life presidential candidate) candidacy and consequent popularity give me hope that this is possible. But to do so, I believe that we shall have to make sacrifices and to some degree change our image.

Radicals will no doubt propose an isolationist solution. Progressives will no doubt propose an inclusive solution. Gentlemen, I don't know the answer, but I believe that it is essential that we start talking. We need to shift our focus onto finding solutions, not simply keeping an ever expanding chronicle of injustices; this task will never be complete so long as it is all we do!

We need more solutions like the marriage strike! It's working! Of course, it's primarily based on attrition, and not action, but at least it's getting results.

Gentlemen, I believe that the time has come to stop waiting for results, the time has come to create them. So let's create those results! Let's expose feminist injustice! Let's demonstrate misandry! And most of all, let's start developing and testing real strategies, real tactics so that we can take this fight to them!

We didn't start this, but by God, we're going to finish it!

The End of an Age - Part 2 - The Primacy of the United States of America

In my last post, I discussed the way that the central banks of the world conspire to keep the people enslaved. I stated that in this post, I would discuss the methods that the power elite use to create compliance, but I'm afraid that I'm going to have to delay that post, in favor of a discussion about the importance of the United States of America to the men behind the curtain.

2. The Primacy of the United States of America

Make no mistake, those in power have substantial interest in the good ole US of A. In fact, their eyes are focused on the United States almost non-stop, and for very good historical reasons. And thus, virtually all of the methods that the power-elite use to create compliance are tried, tested, refined and perfected in the US, before being exported to the rest of the world.

Why? Because the United States of America is perhaps the only country in the world to have realized and successfully resisted the machinations of the men behind the curtain, even if only for a limited period of time.

For those who are unaware of history, one of the reasons cited by Benjamin Franklin for the American Revolution was the Currency Act of 1764. Before the introduction of this law, the American colonies had printed and issued their own currency, called Colonial Scrip. Colonial Scrip was not based on a gold or silver standard, and was printed as fiat money, similar to European mercantile systems of the time, but with one important difference: "Colonial Scrip, however, were "bills of credit" created by the government, based on the credit of that government, and this meant that there was no interest to pay for the introduction of money." (Emphasis added) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Scrip.

Since the English bankers, which of course viewed the colonies as part of Great Britain, undoubtedly came to the realization that the thirteen colonies were producing vast amounts of wealth that they had no hold on, they no doubt felt that they had to act, and take a portion of that wealth for themselves, as they had always done before. And so, in 1764, the British parliament passed the Currency Act which outlawed the production of paper currency in the British colonies. This would in effect force the colonies to adopt a system of material currency. But, since the colonies had not yet developed any sort of mining industry, the colonies were left with no choice but to issue currency borrowed from British banks at interest, immediately plunging the colonies into debt, and causing substantial financial hardship. But since most colonists still thought of themselves as British subjects, it would take a number additional injustices to cause them to defy the crown.

It is within this ambiguity that modern elites now dwell, for they know that if they do too much, they will incite a similar revolt, and loose everything. Thus the program has proceeded rather slowly.

But back to the colonies. Prior to the war, bankers had been able to count the authority of the King and parliament, combined with the compliance of the people to help guarantee their profits. But now in America, patriotism was synonymous with questioning authority. The Constitution became a substantial setback in the New World. The Canadian colonies were not nearly as profitable as those that had rebelled. And worst of all, the people of America had just won a major victory and a new national ethos now accompanied it. Liberty and freedom weren't just rhetoric, they were real principles that were being implemented in America.

A rebellious, cavalier, pioneer, spirit once lived at the core of American patriotism and guided the actions of the American people. Being entrepreneurial by nature, perhaps Americans alone could have the courage to defy the mightiest empire of the time, create a nation that would server as a beacon of liberty, freedom and justice for the world, without resorting to draconian repression, and the mass executions of other nations of the time like France.

For central bankers, their system of legalized slavery could not hope to prevail so long as America remained defiant. American's were watchful, thoughtful, and vigilant against any threat to their freedom, or infringement of their constitutional rights. But if this fervor could be harnessed and guided away from freedom and towards fascism, the men behind the curtain could develop a blueprint that they could use to gain control of any nation that went a similar way. Also, since America was something of a beacon of liberty, unique in the world, it would be necessary that the American example be turned on its head so that no other country would follow. In spite of their defeat in the Revolution, the elites sensed a new opportunity.

America largely stood alone. While France became an ally as a result of America's defiance of Britain, France was still an ocean away, and by the early 1800's, in a complete reversal of the aims of the revolution would have to deal with a Corsican dictator. America's isolation could therefore be its undoing: if all the world came to look to America for guidance, and then watch the American spirit be turned on its head until it came to mean the opposite of what it had once meant, conformity and obedience instead of rebellion and pioneering, what hope could there be for the rest of the world? In other words, if Americans could be made to view political dissent, with suspicion instead of praise, then the unquestioned then the bankers, who knew that political processes could be easily exploited, could still have their vision of wage-slavery.

But first, all eyes had to be on America, and so they had to temporarily divert attention away from internal-looking Europe and onto America. In order to accomplish this, America's sense of isolationism which took hold in the 1800's would have to be destroyed. So long as America was happy to stand alone without becoming involved with other nations, the world would not be focused on America. America had to become an empire.

But for any of that to happen, the central bankers would need to be able to exert control over the economic system. Experience in Britain had taught them that politicians could easily be controlled if one had control of the economic system. Two attempts at creating a lasting American central bank were defeated, but with the panic of 1907, a new central bank of the United States was created under the guise of the Federal Reserve. With the Federal Reserve, bankers could assist politicians sympathetic to their desires, and since they now literally printed the wealth of the nation, they could easily arrange for the silence of any who defied them. When Louis McFadden threatened to bring impeachment charges against members of the board of the Federal Reserve, it is widely believed that members of Federal Reserve tried to have McFadden assassinated. With the Federal Reserve, the power-elite had achieved their first step in gaining control.

Gold was still a problem, but that could be dealt with in time. The important thing was that now, they were free to experiment with their newfound power, and begin to change the American people into a form that would be more conducive to their plans. And meddle they did.

It is believed that the bankers helped to orchestrate the entry of the United States into World War I, by arranging for the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, but this is to some degree dubious.

The fingerprints of the central bankers are all over the American stock market crash and ensuing depression. They caused it all, at least in part to form a pre-text for robbing the nation of its gold, and thus effectively eliminating any competing currency. It also allowed them to buy-out any rival company at very low cost, allowing the bankers to consolidate their base of power.

With their power base in the New World now all but assured, the bankers could turn their attentions truly beginning to alter the American spirit, and America's position in the world as a whole.

It therefore seems likely that the bankers pulled the strings behind World War II. Among other things, it gave them a pretext to exploit and rob European Jews. But as far as America is concerned, it is widely known that that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was known about for weeks in advance! Furthermore, there is some evidence that strongly suggests that the American President provoked the Japanese into firing the first shots, and therefore giving the US reason enough to enter the war. While the bankers certainly reaped massive profits from the war, it was the fallout that was far more conducive to their purposes.

The atomic bomb must have looked like a godsend to the bankers, because, once the USSR developed their own bomb, the bankers could for the next forty or so years continually maneuver both nations into a state of perpetual Cold War, allowing them to invest heavily in the defense industry, and pocket all the profits knowing full well that an open war would never come.

With the Cold War well underway, the bankers could now experiment with sustained open warfare, and thus began the Vietnam war; one of the longest wars in modern history, all of it orchestrated by the men behind the curtain. This was done under the guise of fighting Communism, but actually served to develop ways to prolong wars for greater profit.

But what about the American character? By this point, America was certainly central on the world stage, but the plan wouldn't work, unless the American spirit could be controlled. To do this, the American people needed to be convinced that, "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength" They stated with war, followed it up with ignorance, and have now set their sites on slavery.

It worked.

It continues to work.

Bob Dylan's "The Times they are a-changing," once an anthem of rebellion and a rallying cry for the deconstruction of the corrupt establishment, has become an anthem for the establishment. In 1996, BMO Financial group, and independent subsidiary of the Bank of Montreal, used this once proud song to promote their product. The American spirit has become one of conformity, and support for the establishment.

You need only look at the once proud and mighty American people from the outside to see this program at work.

American's are now over-medicated, under-educated, miserable, beaten-down people, oppressed by those who they once trusted to protect them. Every day, we see new stories of police abusing their powers, tasering innocent people without any real cause. Every day Fox News (an oxymoron if ever I've heard one!) throws unwavering support behind the establishment. Thousands upon thousands of commercials now bombard every square inch of public space trying to create new "needs" in the American people. Every day, new drugs are developed under the auspicious of medical treatment, for conditions that are largely created by the same companies that manufacture the drugs!

The young radicals of the 60's are gone; they've traded their souls for business suits.

In my next installment, I will discuss the methods that these people have used to crush the American spirit.

The End of an Age - Part 1 - The Men behind the Curtain

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It's good to be back. It's been a long enough time since I last blogged. For those who know me I'm back, older, wiser, smarter, tougher than before.

Unfortunately it is not on the best of terms that I return. Things in this world are changing, and I firmly believe that soon, life as you know it will be no more. I didn't want to believe what I have learned, but I can no go on longer simply ignoring the facts.

For this reason, I choose to share those facts with you, perhaps in the vain hope that we can still avert the coming darkness.

I am not a particularly religious man, but may God stand between us and those who would seek our destruction. Whatever spiritual reality exists, it may well be our only hope.

1. The Men behind the Curtain
Without venturing too far into the realm of the baseless accusations of the conspiracy theorist, I open by telling you that all is not well in modern western society, and all of it seems to point to the central banking system that is now in place in virtually all of the world's nations. What this means, and what most people don't realize is that you do not own a single dollar in your bank account. Not even a penny. All of your money is owned by the central bank of your country of citizenship, and not by you.

Now most people won't believe this without proof, so let me supply some.

Here is a photo of an American five dollar bill:
Notice anything? No? How about at the very top of the bill?

Had you noticed this?

Or this?

This is a sample picture of a Canadian five dollar bill:
Had you noticed this?


I don't even have to zoom in for my British example.

But aside from marking all of a country's paper currency as the property of the issuing nations central bank, what does this mean exactly?

A central bank is normally tasked with minting the money for its country as mandated by that country's government. But a central bank is not part of that government; a central bank is typically an entity which is entirely independent of the government that it works for, and it does not provide its services for free.

Have you ever wondered why so much attention is payed to a country's interest rate? Why would an institution which can theoretically print as much money as it wants need to collect interest?

Central banks operate entirely on the basis of collecting interest on money that they print and loan to people!

"...established British school of economics in which the Government borrowed hard money (gold and silver) from private banks at interest, and it was viciously opposed by the British banking interests for this reason." (Emphasis added)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_Act

In other words, when a central bank issues currency as mandated by a countries government, it does so at a variable rate of interest, which the bank controls. Every single unit of currency in any modern western country is owned by a central bank loaned at interest. It's virtually guaranteed that every dollar in your bank account has actually been loaned to you by your country's central bank at a rate of interest and for the privilege of holding onto that dollar and using it as you need, you owe your country's central bank a certain additional percentage, currently 4.5%! And worst of all, you can only repay this debt by getting more money from your country's central bank, for which you will also owe interest!

The only possible result of this system, is debt for a country's population, and profit for those who control the central bank.

Short of using force, no person or government becomes capable of stopping the endless cycle of debt. Even just by accepting a country's currency, government use alone places a burden of debt onto a country's population. And this is at the heart of many of events that you see happening every day around you; in order to perpetuate their power, those who control the central banks need to immunize the institution of the central bank from using force to bring down the system.

So who are these men behind the curtain? I don't know. Like every other conspiracy theory, I can't prove who these people are. I have my ideas, and after reading this you probably do too.

What it is important to realize is that these people essentially have no power. You and easily steal their power, simply by loosing faith in your country's currency.

Currency is a funny idea, because it doesn't really exist anymore. Currency used to be linked to precious metals. A certain amount of any given of currency used to be guaranteed to be worth a weight of gold. But in order to manufacture people's acceptance of their power, it became necessary for the men behind the curtain to abolish the gold standard, which was done in the 1930's. Now, a unit of currency isn't really linked to anything. There's no guarantee at all, that one dollar today will buy the same of anything as one dollar tomorrow. By divorcing people from the idea that currency had to be tied to a physical substance, the men behind the curtain could influence the people to exchange their labor providing services to the central bankers without any sort of real compensation-slavery. But since people would never allow this form of overt slavery, the men behind the curtain would need to compensate their slaves in some way. Without a gold standard, or any guarantee of value people are compensated with nothing but valueless paper money, which by way of being loaned to people for interest, guarantees additional services, by forcing the wage-slave to exchange yet more labor for more money, and more interest; ultimately producing a system of wage-slavery which does nothing but perpetuate its self, and force people to labor endlessly only for the benefit of an elite few.

And thus, slavery. The endless legal exploitation of entire nations, for the endless benefit of those few in power.

Unless of course, the slaves just stopped working, and stopped using the currency.

A fatal flaw in the system. The lynch-pin of it all, is nothing more than your continuing, uninformed consent.

Since those in power created and control the system, they don't need a contract to keep you compliant with their aims; they only need to keep you uninformed and unaware of their machinations, and you are in effect granting defacto consent to your own slavery!

Faced with the possibility that large numbers of people armed with with little more than a critical mind and the proper facts behind the issue, could theoretically unplug from the matrix and draw back the curtain, laying bare the awful truth, the men behind the curtain have invested very heavily in producing systems, institutions, and practices which have a single goal: to keep you unaware, and thus compliant.

And that is the topic of our next discussion. Next time, I will discuss some of the tactics that those in power use to keep you quiet, distracted, submissive and therefore, compliant.