All Blog Entries

This post nicely summarizes so much. It was not written by me but dievas. But I like it and hope by blogging it is gets around. Well done dievas (-:

Before liberalism and psychology started "fixing" things:

• No gender issues whatsoever.
• No "identity" issues whatsoever.
• Everyone knew who they were, their place in life.
• People vastly more involved in politics.
• Healthier.
• Lower mental illness rates.
• Less euphoria but vastly more satisfied with life.

After liberalism and psychology started "fixing" things:

• Brain-dead zombies.
• People completely dependent on medications.
• People no longer able to problem solve themselves.
• People more dependent, less capable.
• People damaged from years of corporate psychology because of said fields constant fucking with their mind in order to make money.

If psychology is so great, why is marriage in ruins? Why are more and more children on medications for mental illness? Why are relationships between people in general falling apart? After almost 100 years of this field of study, why has our society gotten worse?

[QUOTE=Richard;252832]UK: The top story in today's (31/3/2011) Daily Telegraph is:

"Grandparents are set to get legal rights to see grandchildren after divorce"

full story: Grandparents will get legal right to see grandchildren after divorce battles - Telegraph



For the first time, separating parents will be expected to ensure grandparents continue to have a role in the lives of their children after they split up.

Parenting Agreements will be drawn up that explicitly set out contact arrangements for grandparents. These can then be used as evidence in court if a mother or father goes back on the deal.

The recommendation is part of a sweeping review of the family justice regime commissioned by the Government and led by David Norgrove, a former civil servant.

The Government is likely to accept the recommendations after Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said last year that it was “crazy” that millions of grandparents lost contact after separation and divorce. He said that they played a vital role if relationships broke down.

In 2009, 113,949 divorces were registered in England and Wales. Currently, one in three couples divorces before their 15th anniversary, compared with one in five a generation ago.

Ministers are keen to increase grandparents’ access because they can play a vital role in a child’s life, especially those who are torn between two parents.
Other proposals in the review include legal rights for children to decide which parent they want to live with and when they should see other family members. Parents applying for divorce should be forced to go through mediation, Mr Norgrove has also recommended.
Currently, grandparents have no rights of contact with grandchildren when their own children separate, despite the fact that they are increasingly relied upon for help with child care and family finances.
The Children Act 1989 gave contact powers to step-parents, but not grandparents. Research has suggested that, after a break-up, almost half of grandparents never see their grandchildren again, with those who have sons involved in a split faring the worst.
Mr Norgrove will today recommend that separating parents are made to draw up the agreements with the help of a mediator to “bring together arrangements for children’s care after separation”, thereby “reinforcing the importance of a relationship with grandparents and other relatives and friends who the child values”.
A Whitehall source said: “Mediators will encourage parents to speak to grandparents and engage with them, while grandparents will be encouraged to contribute to the arrangements and engage with their grandchildren.”
While the agreements will not be legally binding, it is recommended they can be used as evidence in a civil court if agreed access is denied.
Other proposals to be disclosed today include spelling out in law the priority that a child should have a “meaningful” relationship with both parents.
The review panel has rejected calls for a legal presumption of 50/50 contact and instead wants parents and courts to consider what the child wants and what is best for them in the long term, even if that means less time with one parent. The aim is to end the impression that custody cases are a “battle” where parties fight to win.
The review also calls for a single online and phone help point to make it easier for people to decide the most appropriate way forward. It is hoped it will give parents better information on how to reach agreements without having to go to court or use lawyers.
A Whitehall source said: “This is putting children at the heart of the system and making sure parents going through divorce think about how they can be best cared for both now and in the future.” The proposals will now go out to consultation.

There are two basic forms of power when it comes to influence. There is “hard power” which uses might, strength, aggression and whatnot to push forward ideas; and there is “soft power” which involves more subtlety, persuasion, and a different line of thinking.

When you combine the two, you get what Joseph Nye refers to “Smart power”. And we in the MRM need to start generating a bit more smart power. We need to do it, and fast. The sooner we harness smart power the sooner we can get rid of people like Mary Kellet.

The first part of smart power is soft power. Soft power involves the spreading of ideas, creating allies on all sides, and from time to time a bit of schmoozing. Think tanks, lobbyists, and scholars are solid sources of smart power when it comes to generating thoughts into the people’s minds. Strong PR campaigns portraying those that support an idea in the most positive manner possible are another must in the world of soft power. Essentially, it is a more passive manner of creating and enforcing a group’s influence.

For more on soft power, hard power, and how we put it all together click here

This happened without my knowing, but I was credited so I am letting it slide. A fellow blogger at Canal du Bufalo has published a piece of mine in Portuguese! If you can read it (or have a translator) go and check it out! Remember, if you want to republish something of mine, please ask first folks!

I did a quick check to see what had been written about the PUA's (Pick Up Artists) on this site. It seems there is a lot of negative opinion connected with them. I believe that the PUA's offer great insights into men and women and on how to be a "man".

I think that PUA material is a bit like a gun - a gun can be used to kill an innocent person, or to kill a dictator. A gun is neutral initself, it is the person behind the gun that determines the nature of the gun, and the same is true with PUA materials.

I started to explore the PUA world during my divorce and did I learn a lot about human/man/woman nature! It was among the best time I have invested and woke me up to a lot of realities and hidden truths in our society.

I used some of the material to meet women - hell, at 40 I was getting back into dating and needed some advice! I did not abuse the material. I ws happy to date one woman, be with her for sometime, but when things ended, it ended and I went back into the field to look for the next one. I learned how to be confident, a good man and spot the stupid women who were not worth my time. I guess I became a "serial monogamist".

I met many other men who had problems with women, took them out, and showed them a trick or two and set them on the right road. They were amazed that the stuff worked.

Women's magazines have no problmes talking about how to use/manipulate men, but if men begin to look at the mechanisms of attraction we are accused of all sorts of things. PUA material makes you conscious of these mechanism and helps you steer your life in the direction you want it to go, and to better understand what woman want, say and are all about, as well as what it means to be a man and have respect for yourself. I learned that at least half of this world is made up of women, and if the one I was with got on her high horse, I had no problems saying goodbye, knowing that the next one would be around the corner. In fact becuase I had this "abundance mentality" and did not hide it, all the women I dated were good women and our relationships were based o respect. Alas, most women want marriage, ec, and I was happy to have dates, etc, but not looking to live together, etc. I think a lot of the material should be taught in high schools to boys, it would solve so many problems we have!

I friend of mine, a rich friend, had a "few" problems and I told him about some of the PUA schools. He laughed at it, but I got a DVD out, put it and he listened to it for 30 mintues. Within mintues he stopped laughing and was listening attentively. He heard a description between women looking at men as either lovers or providers - and this hit his bullseye. He realized many of the mistakes he had been making and changed his whole strategy.

A lot of PUA stuff is not good, some is good, and some is VERY GOOD. I would certainly recomend David Deangelo or the RSD stuff - it is ethical PUA stuff.

MOST PUA stuff is NOT pick up lines, but on learning on BEING A MAN - and this fact is often forgotten. After all who teaches us what it is to be a man - hollywood films?

If you are down in the dumps, getting divorced, picking up the pieces in your life. Get some PUA material. If you can, buy it online, support the community, if your are poor/broke/unemployed, well, it can be downloaded for free, but try to put something back when you get your act together.[/QUOTE]

Mini Review/Summary of Nancy Friday’s “My Mother My Self,” 1977

Ever heard the saying „If you want to know what your wife will look like In 10-20 years, look at the mother-in-law”

Why is it that a relationship/marriage starts out great, but as the years roll by, it fades? Surely intimacy should bring you closer to your partner?

Why is the mother-daughter bond all about?

In her book “My Mother My Self” feminist writer Nancy Friday (author of a pathbreaking book on womens sexual fanatasies “My Secret Garden”), Friday explores the mother-daughter bond and seeks to explain why women/feminists might talk tough, but many end up being just like their mothers. It is quite amazing to read a feminist write who understands and explains the saying, „If you want to know what your wife will look like In 10-20 years, look at the mother-in-law”, and this will forms the central theme of her book.

Friday’s perspective is to look over the life-cycle of girls/women. She documents, on the basis of in-depth interviews with women/feminists, how mothers tend to control daughters far more than sons. She says words to the effect “mothers tend to leave boys alone, in fear that she might damage them in some way” (Please don’t quote me on this as I as writing this review not only away from the book, but also from memory when I read it about 2 years ago).

So girls are policed more than boys, told to come home “early” when they reach teenage years, while the father gives more scope for the boy to do what he wants..

When girls leave home/go to the city/go to colleague they suddenly have a new found freedom. Intoxicated with magazines like “Cosmopolitian” (which is the most widely read magazine by undergraduate females), they begin to seek ways to live the life of cosmo headlines (“10x better orgasms, etc, etc…). Freed from restraints of mum, they sometimes fulfill the image of “girls gone wild”. Now, for males in the same age, this is paradise. Boys want sex, and guess what, there are no shortage of frustrated/repressed girls who want to know more as well.

So boy meets girl, the sex is great. What’s next? They move, get a job, set up home, things are looking great. After years of mutual frustration both sexes have found what they believe is paradise. Yeah, but not for long !

Eventually they “settle down” live together/marry and there is talk of kids, and indeed there soon is a kid. This is where things often begin to go a bit boring.

The daughter no longer shuns away her mum, but often actively seeks it out. Marriage is an affair that women love and the marriage ceremony often reignites the mother-daughter bond, that has lied dormant for many years. With the birth of a child, the daughter will call on the continual advise of her mother and indeed, may even ask for babysitting. Thus the image of the “mother-in-law” is born. Some men may have no problem with this, some may note that the mother in law interferes too much. But HERES THE POINT – the daughter is looking to the mother for guidance and so takes on her cultural/personal features. Not all, but many men notice how their wives begin to resemble/have features like their mothers in law.

In this way, one generation after another passes on its cultural traits to the new generation. Think of this way – if you have grandchildren would you not like to spend time with them? Would you not advise your son/daughter on many things, from food, schools, to where they should live? Do they not come to you and ask for financial support/or you offer that support?

Critics might say “OK, but what if the wifes mother is in another country/hospital/dead/ or they are not on speaking terms – and this is often the case. In such a situation, the woman may begin to then fall back on memories of how she was brought up. A kind of default programming. After all, one of the first question a psychologist ass you is about you parents…

On a personal note, I remember my father was a very successful businessman, but then as I was turning 8, he had a huge financial crisis. I sought, as a father to be a better dad than my father was, but guess what, as my son turned 8, I also had personal and financial turmoil. I might have had pretense against my father, buy boy, and I finding out how tough it is to be a good dad now! My point is that no matter how hard I fought, certain elements in my family history are repeating themselves! And this is Nancy Friday’s point as well.

Now if you have a daughter and a son, look to see how is more “controlled”.

Mothers are not sexy?
Another key plank in her book is that, is that Nancy argues that women, like their mothers before them, often feel less sexy – they don’t like to think of their mothers and fathers having ...

Ages ago I decided I would do a series called “the struggle for fairness” well it didn’t take off as I planned and beyond the core concept which I wrote in a way I don’t think did it justice it really didn’t come out well IMO. So this is the last part of the “Struggle for Fairness” series, which is a more sophisticated and stronger retelling of the first part.

As a whole there is a gap between the sexes when it comes to power. And it is not a pretty gap either. However, the goal is not to take strength and power away from one group of sex, but to advance the other. Essentially, I am applying Joseph Nye’s concept of relative power (normally used for dueling nations) to the gender war. The core idea is simple: By empowering men we are not belittling women, and when we are empowering women we are not belittling men.

For the sake of argument, I am going to be looking at society as a whole. The charts below are not set up on a core factual number, and are merely meant to help visualize the situation. Near the end I will apply it towards different spheres of influence.

For the graphs, core ideas, and everything else click here!

Every day I grow more and more enamored with anarchy and the more I feel, that it can solve the problems that men face. This might seem radical to most...and it is, but my own personal views on the role of the state is one where it's a villain. I do not believe the state will solve these issues and I believe that the state creates a system of privileged elite.

I have mentioned before that I strive for a minimal state,however my current opinion is that there is nothing to be saved; the state is the criminal. I take the NAP seriously, and at it's logical conclusion one must agree that all government will inevitably violate that principle.

I refer you to this video.

I want you digest what that video said. No service should be provided at the barrel of a gun, the government is not here to protect and should be abolished. I want you all to think about a certain ideology and how it violated that.

Oh and then there is this video

Just think about it.

 <TABLE class=tr-caption-container style="MARGIN-LEFT: auto; MARGIN-RIGHT: auto; TEXT-ALIGN: center" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=center><TBODY><TR><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"></TD></TR><TR><TD class=tr-caption style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” ~ Frederic Bastiat</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Boys in America have a major educational crisis. Now making only 40% of students in college and continuously being unnecessarily drugged, they have fallen behind in math, literacy, and are not even thought to be as smart as their female counterparts by fellow classmates.

But before we create any sort of program in order to give boys more resources, we have to do one thing first.

We have to make boys want to learn. All the affirmative action program constructing (or deconstructing, depending on your beliefs) and additional high end resources isn’t going to do shit if boys are still turned off from learning in the first place.

So what is the key to getting boys to want to learn? Well one thing would actually be to improve the social status of teachers. In America teachers are highly undervalued, and not seen as incredibly noteworthy, and mocked for only working 9 months out of the year. Yet in other parts of the world they are viewed as nation builders. There is a clear gap in prestige for teachers (below a college level). Mix in pedophile hysteria and the notion that it is a job meant for women and you have a recipe for disaster. But how will increasing the amount of prestige involved in teaching increase boys achievement in education?

more here...

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” -Joeseph Goebbels



Goebbels was correct in his summary of propaganda, and it is easy for people to fall for it. What kinds of propaganda have we fallen for? What about the propaganda that tells women that they are victims or that men are super privileged abusers? I bet I know!

I am talking about victim ideology #1! Feminism!

<TABLE class=tr-caption-container style="MARGIN-LEFT: auto; MARGIN-RIGHT: auto; TEXT-ALIGN: center" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=center><TBODY><TR><TD style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"></TD></TR><TR><TD class=tr-caption style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">Does anyone see the irony!</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Why are my rights more important than a fellow human beings? I wonder... Is it because I have been oppressed? I sure as fuck hope not. Oppression? How the hell am I oppressed? I have a great life, wonderful husband, excellent job, and I am pregnant. Hell, I'm even the breadwinner!

I find it really <STRIKE>enlightening</STRIKE> revealing that I'm "pro-patriarchal" because I dare speak up for men. Fuck that noise. Men deserve rights and freedom as much as woman do. No, I don't want to get even for some crimes that happened for thousands of years. What horseshit.

Even if women as a group were specifically oppressed just for being women, how much of it is to blame on men as a whole? Certainly women had a role in it, women are half of the species you know and we sort of need that other half.

Propaganda has the ability to manipulate people's perceptions of things and is the tool for a manipulative state, in my last post, I left a quote:

"Do we desire to be cradled, and then carried throughout life to our graves by this partisan propelled bureaucratic monstrosity? ...As individuals of sovereign dignity, are we now so terrified, bewildered, and impotent that our main purpose is to seek asylum from the potential hazards of freedom? Have we no faith in our natural strengths and abilities?" ~ Sergei Hoff

I ask this is a serious question, would you rather be seen as a powerful woman or a helpless victim? I'd wager that most of us women want to be seen as a powerful woman and not as a victim. I am a powerful woman because I refuse to be anything lesser than that. I am like a valkyrie, I am either female demon of battle and violence or I am an idyllic chooser of the slain a wish-maiden.

What do you choose?

http://musingsofaprohuman.blogspot.c...ropaganda.html