The Financial Crisis and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State: Time to Fund a Men’s Rights Organization
In the 15 years since HIllary Clinton came to power in the USA (and never lost it), radical feminist organizations have proliferated in the USA with the help of unconstitutional federal funding and an American media controlled by only 5 politically correct corporations.
There are no seriously funded men’s rights organizations (MRO’s) as of late 2008.
Why the discrepancy? Here are some reasons:
1) Men have a natural chivalrous nature that has been exploited by clueless demagogues like Republican Senator Sam Brownback to blind the majority of American males to the fact that they are being slowly boiled alive by increasing feminist regulation of men via legislation and court rulings. The pace of increased regulation has been so slow that it is going unnoticed by most males, who are not being informed by the media in any case.
2) The leadership of the Republican Party decided, with the rise of the Neoconservative (Neocon) after 9-11-01, that the kind of American feminist who wanted to see dead Muslim male chauvinists was precisely the kind of pro-troops person to pander to. Neocons never once thought that this kind of “Red State Feminist” might also want to see tons of dead or jailed American “male chauvinists” among whom would ultimately include all American alpha males. In this past election, many of the troops fighting overseas were very aware that a Republican Party pandering to “Security Moms” was not really on their side despite all the rhetoric to the contrary. Everyone knows the Department of Homeland Security cares more about finding and punishing “deadbeat dads” and “potential future wife abusers” than they do about finding and punishing terrorists.
3) The type of male who would be a low paid journalist by trade (including most, but not all, full-time bloggers) is usually NOT going to be an alpha male, but rather a beta or gamma male who ultimately resents alpha males (this includes the war bloggers who think our troops are fairy princess angels who don’t read porn). One can assume correctly that the journalists who would fight for men’s rights would be females (Chris Matthews might be an exception in that he showed himself to be an alpha male when he correctly referred to male Hillary supporters as “Eunuchs singing in the Castrati Choir”).
In addition, the leadership of the 5 corporations that run the American media apparently assume that, since American women supposedly control household budgets and make the buying decisions for buying most products and services, no form of feminism should be criticized. This leadership, including Rupert Murdoch, have simply forgotten (or do not wish to acknowledge) that most American women are not feminists and/or don’t need to be pigeon holed as adhering to gender identity politics.
4) The slowly growing anglo-saxon Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) has, up to the present moment, mostly been a disorganized bunch of mostly divorced socially conservative males. These men, until recently, tended to concentrate mainly on what is called the Fathers’ Rights Movement (FRM) rather than on issues that more men would be interested in if those issues were publicized, such as the need to fight the bipartisan political movement to background check all males before they are allowed to talk to women online.
Shockingly, despite all the focus on divorced dads’ rights, no rich divorced father has donated significant amounts of cash to the cause of father’s getting more rights in an anti-male society One probable cause for the lack of interest in funding: Fathers’ Rights advocates have “cause-linked” themselves to social conservative politics despite the fact that social conservative “think tanks” like the Heritage Foundation have completely turned their back on men (and won’t recognize that their betrayal of men has caused them destruction in two consecutive elections).
This unecessary “loyalty” to a social conservative movement that hates men would explain, for instance, why Paul McCartney, after being trashed by Heather Mills in a divorce involving massive amounts of money, wouldn’t consider funding an MRO.
5) Most important of all, before the current financial crisis, almost all competent and talented management-oriented American males were fully occuped in their business careers. Only two alpha males have, until now, chosen to make a full-time career out of fighting for men’s rights in the USA: Glenn Sacks and Marc Rudov.
In the context of the above factors that have hindered funding for the MRM, we should look with some concern at the rise of Hillary Clinton as the US Secretary of State.
We all know that Hillary Clinton is going to make “Sex Trafficking” her number one foreign policy concern while in that office and nobody in the US media will bother trying to parse her radical feminist definition of what “sex trafficking” is (it includes all women who voluntarily want to marry American men and all women who voluntarily strip or do massages). Quite simply, she will continue the Bush policy of trying to get foreign countries to arrest any American male who even wants to say hello to foreign females.
Like Bush’s people, she will use blackmail to get third world countries to adopt their own versions of the viciously anti-male International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA blocks online contact between Americans and foreigners until after the foreigner reads the background check report of the American) and the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act (VAWA encourages dishonest foreign women to marry American men and destroy them). Bush’s people recently worked hard, and thankfully failed, to get the Finnish and Estonian parliaments to pass laws where any American caught with a prostitute would be arrested and jailed with the prostitute (defined as a slave to the patriarchy) being allowed to run free to snare her next victim. Hillary’s people will be more motivated to get draconian anti-male laws passed at least in the pro-Hillary leftist third world.
Hillary will be able to count on the American “Christian” right to support her on all of the above.
Some American male Republicans can hopefully look at Hillary’s position as Secretary of State as finally killing the unholy alliance between McCain supporters and Hillary supporters (PUMAs).
Too bad McCain himself is now pledging to maintain the alliance.
Considering that, even after punishing Repubican traitors at the polls, American men simply cannot trust Republican politicians to be on their side, the MRM is going to need the support and attention of a lot of American Democrat males plus the attention of the non-anglo-saxon male world if they are going to stop the Hillary feminist juggernaut when she becomes Secretary of State in January.
What can men do now? Here are some thoughts:
1) Misguided notions of chivalry and morality, especially trains of thought that promote male on male violence, have to be fought everywhere. A month ago I noticed that half the male commenters on Glenn Sacks blog were defending the way a father hit a young naked male over the head with a lead pipe who was found in his daughters bedroom. Men can work to keep the Republican Party on an “individual rights” track and not continue on the “chivalry and morality” track that has caused Republican politicians to work against us.
2) Hillary’s rise to US Secretary of State should finally end the unholy alliance between Republicans and Hillary supporters. Her ascendancy now can be seen as Obama giving her (and the feminists) the Presidency itself. Remember that Joe Biden, the VP, is completely in the camp of anti-male feminists (I assume via some serious blackmail involving his previous interns). While I state that her rise SHOULD end the unholy conservative-feminist alliance, note that the neoconservative (neocon) Weekly Standard is already overjoyed that “their woman” is now about to take charge of US foreign policy and continue the Bush foreign policy with all its pro-victim-feminist aspects.
3) Men’s Rights forums and blogs, especially Mens News Daily under its new editor, should work hard not to pigeon-hole themselves as “right wing blogs” and “bastions of social conservatism” for an American society where most social conservatives seem to be bitter old women who hate young single men (especially the desires of the young single men) and seem to be leading their impotent husbands along on a leash (noting that most MRM activists are socially conservative males, it should be obvious that not all socons fit the above description of wimps).
4) Most important, because of the financial crisis and the temporary upheavals it has created, there is a limited window of opportunity where some of the readers and commenters of MRM blogs and forums will be CEO types who are available now to lead a funded MRO.
I am an example of someone who would be available to lead a funded MRO.
But here is why time is of the essence in getting an MRO funded now:
I was recently in a meeting with potential foreign investors for several ideas I had for a new enterprise.
One of those ideas was a Russian-funded MRO that would attack US feminism.
The men in the room said “That is a great idea”.
The one female in the group of investors then said “Let’s fund that other idea instead”…and the conversation turned. She wasn’t a feminist herself…she just liked the idea of funding matters that fit her interests more.
This shows that, because of someone like her, I (and many other managerial types) can soon be diverted (bribed) into another line of work than fighting for men’s rights.
| More from Jim Peterson
Stumble It!
November 19th, 2008 at 5:51 am
…and don’t forget that Obama has picked Holder (who has accepted) as the Attorney General running the Justice Department. Holder was an assistant in the Justice Department in Clinton’s administration and it was Holder who proposed and engineered the selection of Biden as VP. Biden is the author of the VAWA.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:55 am
Hi Jim,
Great analysis, particularly on chivalry.
What other major organization would we try to reason with other than Heritage? I know Podesta and the Center for American Progress, and have spoken with him. Zero interest there.
Heritage is coming around. I had a long call with Rector yesterday. They know they missed the big targets, and are looking for answers. It took a lot of statesmanship last year to convince them that welfare reform was a disaster. They admit it was not the success they thought it was. That resulted in Rector’s article “Poor Politics”, where he said that “three-quarters of poverty would disappear if mothers married the fathers of their children.”
They now realize that marriage education and other passive efforts will be unsuccessful without changing federal programs that gut marriage from the underside. It took a while to get them to see this fact.
They are coming around on VAWA due to the Eagle/Heritage/RADAR DV conference held on Oct 1. I have suggested some doable, sensible legislative changes that I believe they like. We might see some changes there.
They know they and Republicans are being eaten alive, and are highly motivated to effect substantive attitudinal changes. They are having the same problems we are: the RNC is still on autopilot and does not listen to them either.
The good news is that we do have a consensus building amongst the leading Republican think tanks, some of whom are becoming far bolder than ever before. They will never be fathers right advocates, but given sound reasoning and policy, call for Marriage Values policies.
It took 80 years for radical feminism to export itself from the WKKK and take over America. We will not change attitudes or law overnight. It takes time to deprogram long-held subtle feminist thinking that panders to men’s natural sense of chivalry. The pendulum will move slowly, if we all pull on it together, brilliantly.
November 19th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Okay Jim, I’ll play along.
You want to lead a men’s/father’s rights movement. Naturally, people are going to want to know who this leader is, and ask questions about his past. If you are serious about leading such a movement, and expect people to donate money to this effort, then you should have no problem answering a few questions. Please keep your answers as concise as possible.
Who are you, meaning your religion, occupation, past and present political affiliations, married, divorced, children?
1. Who did you vote for in the recent Presidential election and why?
2. Are you “pro abortion� Yes or no. Give a brief explanation.
3. Do you advocate for “shared parenting� Yes or no. Give a brief explanation.
4. Should women serve in front-line combat positions? Yes or no. Give a brief explanation.
5. Do you believe a man has the equal right to give a biological child up for adoption the same as the mother has that right? Yes or no. Give a brief explanation.
6. If a mother is allowed to abandon a child without any consequences, financial or otherwise, should a man be afforded equal protection? Yes or no. Give a brief explanation.
7. Should people who make a career out of drawing welfare be allowed to vote? Yes or no. Give a brief explanation.
8. Should an unwed female be able to keep a child she gave birth to in order to scam welfare? Yes or no. Give a brief explanation.
9. Should an unwed female be allowed to give birth to multiple children when it’s obvious that she’s only scamming welfare? Yes or no. Give a brief explanation, and offer possible alternatives.
10. What do you see as the single most important issue we face as American Men.
And finally, what would you do to a man found naked in your daughter’s bedroom, and perhaps more importantly, what would you do to a woman found naked in your son’s bedroom?
I could make up my mind, whether to support you or not, based on the answer to these few questions. The only problem is that like many men, there isn’t much I could afford to give in the way of direct financial support.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Chilvary I always see a knight in shining armour? NO chivalry is not the problem. It is a lack of organization and a doable national agenda.
Well Mr Peterson if you want to be the national head of a fathers rights movement, you will need to study history and see why sucessful movement were sucessful and incorporate those characteristics into this movement.
I think I could give you a few pointers. First the movement is disorganized, because no effective way for men to fight back has been developed. I think I found that method. Teach these guys the law, especially the significants of the concept of subject matter jurisdiction. Teach these guys how to challenge it. Because if this jurisdiction is lost, the system has no power. The system is corrupt, but they still do have to follow their own rules and use their rules against them. It know it works, because I have done it.
Create local organizations, in every major city and town. Make funds available, for legal work, to help these guys rebuild their lives and to start the PR campaign to get correct information to the people. People are going to be pissed off when they are told the truth, but this will bring them to our side and put pressure on the corrupt system.
Once men can fight back and win, this will dispel the hopelessness that I think is dragging our movement down.
There will be something that they will be able to do, it will empower alot of these guys and ifwe can’t teach our enemies to respect us, then they will end up learning to fear us, not just disrespect and disreguard us like they do now. Once the corrupt system starts to loose considerable money, power and control, it will have a telling effect. Beware, our enemies will get desperate and very dangerous, tyrants in danger of defeat always go for the most deadly and dangerous behavior they can muster.
So, basically it boils down to three things, teach the law,so men can fight back, make resources available to rebuild these guys lives and begin a nation program of telling people the truth. Oh,lasty, go on the web and look up an old boy from Oklahoma, Richard Cornforth, his research on subject matter jurisdiction is golden. It is a good place to start if you don’t know anything about the law.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Jim,
It occurred to me after posting those questions that you may be from another country. If that’s the case, please don’t bother answering the questions.
Nothing personal, but this is still a world of sovereign nations, whose laws are at odds with each other, and therefore, in my opinion, preclude any sort of international leadership.
I have no respect for a Monarchy or a Socialist State, and have very little respect for people who do. I would rather die than pledge allegiance to a King or Queen.
I hope you understand that it’s nothing personal, just business, if in fact you’re a foreigner.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:39 am
The modern women’s movement became viable as a force to be reckoned with when baby boomer men and women came of age in the 1960s. I can understand you being dismayed that in 2008 there is no via men’s movement. But you should not be surprised. The same question can be asked: why has there been no countervoice by baby boomer men and father’s since the 1960s? Having asked that, why should you believe that now is any better time in history to expect men to speak up? Men possibly will have to suffer even more before they decide as a group to speak up. Even then, they may not. The new male victims win be the sons of baby boomer men. The same lessons will be learned again all over by new cattle sent to slaughter. I would think alpha males such as Donald Trump would want to finance a men’s organization-he likes to win-and he hates to lose. Apparently, the more macho alpha-male thing to do is stay quiet as one takes it up the ass by an ex-wife and the courts.
Men will have a pretty tough time over the next 8 years.
There will be no viable “Marriage Movement”.
Intelligent men don’t marry-or don’t marry American women in America.
Men that go running into burning buildings should not be surprised when they get burned. So stay away from burning buildings.
You can still live well but you have to be smart.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Thanx for some informative and interesting responses.
I am about to go down to the lobby of the Russian hotel I am in and have a good meal knowing that the Heritage Foundation actually recognizes that Republican attitudes on men’s rights might have to change.
That is the best news I have heard in a year since the DOJ fought last Christmas to keep dating agencies out of the new TVPA trafficking law’s definition of trafficking organizations.
One of the big problems with me particularly running an MRO is that I must, in order to be happy, spend at least half my time in Russia or Eastern Europe where the women are so fantastic.
Someone like Dave Usher would be a better candidate because he is OK with living in the USA.
Of course, I could take long business trips to the USA.
What I could do if funded would be:
1) Actually challenge VAWA and IMBRA etc in a US federal court as a private citizen. Most agree that, if I were the plaintiff in such a case, I would rip much of the nonsense apart. I am one of the few men online who consistently gets into debates with feminists and wins. Currently, only Roy den Hollander of NY is challenging only parts of VAWA unfunded…and the wording of the final section of his complaint is so specific that he is not even giving conservative justices the opportunity to declare the basic premise of VAWA unconstitutional. He has broken ground in actually mentioning the word “feminism” in his complaint, but he has failed to provide the courts with a comprehensive history of the MRM and its concerns, nor more than 10% of the arguments that I would be prepared to make.
2) Glenn Sacks and Marc Rudov broke ground but there needs to be another MRA on television who would actually explain VAWA and IMBRA to the audience and show how our right to meet and maybe marry whom we want has been abrogated. Marc panders to the social conservative right too much for my taste and, in fact, we are not on speaking terms (his decision) because he says that the male Fox News audience would consider foreign dating services to be a bad thing like they would apparently also think of sex tourism as a bad thing that needs to be regulated.
I would like to debate Marc Rudov on Fox News or CNN and call his bluff. Every male I have ever mentioned IMBRA to in person has been astonished that a law like that could exist. Marc is plain wrong to avoid talking about that on TV.
If Marc was doing his job, I wouldn’t feel the need to start an MRO.
At the very least, I want to break through the nonsensical presumption that male conservatives would supposedly be against James Bond traveling the world and meeting foreign women (conservative women would definitely be against their men doing that).
Now obviously, in light of the fact that MND registers only hundreds of $ in donations per month, I would probably have to get funded by a single very rich individual or organization who happens to read this and then flies to Europe to meet me, etc.
My article above is designed to get SOMEONE funded, not necessarily myself.
Regarding the questions:
Who are you, meaning your religion, occupation, past and present political affiliations, married, divorced, children?
Protestant salesman Army-vet with 3 European languages who voted for Bush in 2004 and Reagan in 1988 but never felt the need to vote for anyone else (I would have voted for Bob Barr this year if he had said even one word about men’s rights or even one word about stopping Internet regulation).
It should not be lost on the Republican think tanks that the Ron Paul and Bob Barr movements appealed primarily to single males.
I am glad that Bob Barr took North Carolina and Indiana away from McCain because, since McCain was losing anyway, it was good for the Republican think tanks to see how they were getting eaten alive by their OWN consituents.
2. Are you “pro abortion� Yes or no. Give a brief explanation.
The MRM, if it chooses to get involved with this issue at all, would state that Roe vs Wade is unfair because it does not give males the same right to opt out of parenthood as it does females. That is hardly a pro-life view but, as Marc Rudov has proven by saying this on Fox News, it suits the purposes of getting more American men onboard the anti-Roe platform.
This is important because most American single males like premarital sex and aren’t going to want to PUSH the idea that they should be liable for $250,000 or more in payments if they make a mistake with a poor woman who wants to squeeze him for cash. The pro-life people actually tend to condemn premarital sex and I believe that many of them are against abortion because they are against premarital sex rather than against premarital sex because they don’t want to see unwanted fetuses created.
This is a subtle difference that is not lost on the majority of the public. That is why the anti-abortion crowd lost big this election cycle and probably will now that the older generation is dying off.
Giuliani was smart to talk about adoptions because he took away the pro-life argument that people should not have premarital sex at all.
I believe that abortion has been dealt with properly by the German and Dutch governments where it remains illegal but not prosecuted as long as women get counselling and wait 48 hours.
This compromise has allowed conservative parties to compete in elections in Europe. It is not as if the majority of American conservatives really want to actually throw people in jail.
Yes, I could advise a woman to abort in rare circumstances.
Having a pro-life MRO would, therefore, keep too many men from joining. However, if an MRO is funded by those who want abortion to remain an issue, the “official view” on that can be worked out so as not to sound in any way like men feel they have the right to renounce fatherhood.
3. Do you advocate for “shared parenting� Yes or no. Give a brief explanation.
Yes, but I travel so much that I would like to see my kids settled with the mother as long as she is not psycho.
I could never run a Fathers’ Rights Organization unless I had kids myself and was being blocked from ever seeing them.
4. Should women serve in front-line combat positions? Yes or no. Give a brief explanation.
I don’t see the men’s rights aspect of this. In desert training, it was a gorgeous female who finished with me and a small percent of other trainees in a “forced death march”. Many of the tough guys collapsed in the heat and were tranported by ambulance ahead of us. The American tradition of not leaving a buddy under enemy fire makes it so that any weak comrade should be kept from missions where there is a probability of everyone dying trying to save the weak link…but that weak link could include many guys.
5. Do you believe a man has the equal right to give a biological child up for adoption the same as the mother has that right? Yes or no. Give a brief explanation.
YES. That is a men’s rights issue. But it could be excluded in case a social conservative funds the MRO and insists that we do not go there.
Unfortunately, money often comes with strings.
But I would be a bad candidate for taking social conservative money if the benefactors want the MRO to condemn premarital sex.
6. If a mother is allowed to abandon a child without any consequences, financial or otherwise, should a man be afforded equal protection? Yes or no. Give a brief explanation.
This is different from trying to give a child up to great adoptive parents.
7. Should people who make a career out of drawing welfare be allowed to vote? Yes or no. Give a brief explanation.
No. But I would not push this left right hot button while pressing for men’s rights.
8. Should an unwed female be able to keep a child she gave birth to in order to scam welfare? Yes or no. Give a brief explanation.
Yes. Germany and Russia reward women for having more children. The USA is the only country that doesn’t seem to want more of them. But I don’t like it when men are tricked into paying $250,000 for some premarital sex and I do not like it when social conservatives view premarital sex as something irresponsible in and of itself.
9. Should an unwed female be allowed to give birth to multiple children when it’s obvious that she’s only scamming welfare? Yes or no. Give a brief explanation, and offer possible alternatives.
Again, most countries would welcome the increased population and pay for it willingly. My beef would be regarding any men who were tricked.
10. What do you see as the single most important issue we face as American Men.
I agree that any law that makes it unadvisable for a man to get married dooms a society to destruction. I also believe that a man should maintain the right to be single and unfettered by draconian financial punishments for past relationships that include more than just money to support children. Most important to me are violations of our right to assemble, meaning any laws like IMBRA that prevent people from saying hello or laws like the anti-staring law in New York City that could get you arrested for glancing up a woman’s skirt if she is on the stairwell ahead of you.
And finally, what would you do to a man found naked in your daughter’s bedroom, and perhaps more importantly, what would you do to a woman found naked in your son’s bedroom?
It would depend on whether the daughter and the male was above or below the age of consent. It would depend on how the woman looked.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
As much as I would push the fact that societies crumble when marriage becomes a liability or a joke, I agree with Dennis’ maxim that you don’t run into burning buildings and expect not to get burned.
Because of VAWA, I have little interest in getting married now, especially to one of the foreign women I love to meet but whom the femininists and our new Secretary of State would encourage to betray me with tons of incentives.
Some woman should challenge VAWA based on the fact that her husband refuses to get married while it exists.
Furthermore, I would really like to go on the offensive and attack the following:
Paranoia and rudeness being taught to American women in terms of how they should treat single males they meet.
Whereas I would contradict Marc Rudov’s call for men not to pay for dinner on a date, I would like to publicly advise men to ask women for their phone numbers and not just email addresses because, in light of the fact that men always used to ask women for their phone numbers, we should not allow technology to enable women to get more paranoid and closed off from us.
Similarly, I would publicly advise men to ask women how many males they are “not speaking to anymore” and how many men from their past whom they would not like to meet on the street. Odds are, if a woman can name more than 2 such men, you will someday be added to the pantheon.
Whereas Marc says “Don’t enable women to think of you as an ATM machine” (a valid argument), I would be saying “Don’t enable women to be paranoid of you and most other guys”. This means advising men not to try to play the knight in shining armor who is “different” from all the bad competitors.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:28 am
I think we need to go back to the basics of freedom, individual liberty and constitutional rights. Feminists support many causes, but the one cause they don’t support is the only one worth fighting for — freedom. They believe they can regulate away every sorrow and pain and legislate a social utopia. How many men out there know that a law exists that restricts your right to email or write a letter to someone’s personals ad? How many know that there are female scholars graduating from law school who define international personals advertising as sex trafficking and exploitation, and make no bones that they want it stopped? How many men know that your freedom to place or answer an ad in the personals section of your local newspaper may one day come under assault? While they give a free pass to abortion and homosexual advocates, they handcuff and put heterosexual men in straight jackets.
I think the men’s movement should espouse conservative principals, NOT the current “conservative” movement as it exists today. We should go back to the basics of the founding fathers. America is not a nanny state and was never intended to be. We are a nation of law, but a nation where people are free to make their own choices without government babysitters getting into their bedrooms and address books.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Jim
Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail to the questions I asked.
We disagree on a lot.
Rather than go down the list of things we disagree on I’ll just say this. Women need to be treated *exactly equal* with men under the law. That’s the law in America according to the Constitution and there is no room for equivocation.
Women have been demanding equal rights (paying lip service) for my entire life. It’s time that a men’s/father’s rights movement crammed those *rights and responsibilities* down their collective throat.
That means if you spread your legs you take responsibility for the child you create.
That means if you want to reserve the right to give a child up for adoption then that right must be equally afforded to men.
That means if you get equal pay for being in the military, you take the same *front-line* responsibilities that your brothers do.
That means you register for selective service the same as your brothers do.
I could go on but I’m sure you see my point. Most importantly of all, I think the principles need to dictate who will finance the movement, not the reverse.
Thanks
November 19th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Jim is an International Man by profession and knows that the issue of Men’s and Father’s Rights is an international phenomenon. A start on properly organising an MRM has to be made somewhere and the USA might be as good a place as any, but the discussion so far has ignored the other Anglophile countries or their possibilities.
Consider a different place to start.
Seeds grow where the conditions best suit and the ‘predators’ are fewer.
Three other places come to mind: The UK, Australia and Canada.
All the Anglophile nations share the same basic political philosophies, and their divisions. What happens in one, happens in the others. This has been an unspoken understanding within Feminism and has enabled it to spread. The particular expressions may have differences in different places – such as VAWA in the USA – that are not identical elsewhere, but be overall similar.
I would suggest that were an MRM to grow and develop, it needs to be International, right from the start, but be planted in one place for nurturing while preparing ground elsewhere for transplanting.
It would have a main ‘home’ focus of scoring a win of International importance. For example, Merck asked “What do you see as the single most important issue we face as American Men”? I would ask ‘What do you see as the single most important issue we face as Anglophile Men? Men everywhere.
I would answer – destroying the Family Court and its attendant philosophy. (For this discussion, for the moment, I will hold short of outlining proposals of what fiendish fates would be in store for all the corrupt Judges and the legions of rent-seeking scum that attend their Star Chambers).
Before one goes off hampering and harassing well known and respected MRAs on TV we need to establish Core Principles. There are, as people such as David point out, a lot of ‘friendly forces’ out there that go about things in a different way for different ends, but can nevertheless be co-opted if we just leave aside the differences for a while and focus on the shared benefits of partial co-operation. For this we need to hold our powder and keep it dry until the battle fleet is massed.
But Jim does go to the heart. Two things are essential even just to start. Money and a dedicated ‘Office’. Leadership.
Which do you want first? I would suggest an ‘Office’ with an initial focus on getting just the sort of money we need. If the great conspirator’s boogy-man the ‘Illuminati’ has a branch office near you, maybe a small team of MRAs can relieve it of its small change one evening. Failing that, a concerted effort, well planned and rehersed, to actually convince the Paul MacCarneys of the world to ‘invest’ in Sainthood.
The seed is unlikely to be ‘Political’ That would attract far too many ‘predators’. So the Principles must include a ‘Human’ appeal with a fundementally educative focus. We need to arouse the Populations. While Glenn and Marc have seen this clearly, the only organisation so far to have grasped it is F4J. All three are on the right track.
Jim raises many very pertinent points: of organisation, financing, legal monoliths, political histories, individuals, et al. The only Organisation ‘plan’ that I have seen to date that could be termed ‘credible’ and contained all the essential components of such an organisation (bar its International Body)was drawn up by George Rolph several years ago.
Maybe a revision of that might be timely.
It is not just a ‘One Leader’ that any ‘Office’ would need but several strong leaders for a number of clear, distinct functions. The CEO would be just that. Chief amongst Executives.
I do not like to see diverse items lumped together though and dismissed from out ‘arsenal’ of strategic possibility – such as chivalry and morality. These are distinct. The major, umbrella, issue plaguing western nations is the decline of morality. The Character and Integrity of men is as shot to pieces as that of women. Our Institutions and Laws have all been corrupted by this decline in Character and Integrity. It is essential that any issue dealt with in any list of priorities includes an element addressing Morals. The populations of silent majorities are waiting for a moral steadying. This is not to be confused with Religion however, particularly as America sees religious affilaition and association.
The Character and Integrity of the MRM would need to be welded into place before we go off and change the world.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I think Merck is correct to point out that, in a perfect world and if all issues had the same priority, we would get large donations from those who would want us to claim that men should have the same right to sign a child off to adoption as a woman does (if the woman disagrees then she becomes solely responsible financially for bringing up the child).
But my priorities would be on retaining the right of men to say hello to women in the first place (stopping the IMBRA law and new trafficking laws that the Obama DOJ will promote and get – Obama and Clinton will make it so an American can be arrested both for meeting a foreign woman for a date online as well as for visiting a massage parlor in a foreign country – Obama will want more extra-territorial jurisdiction for the US government).
To get donations from those who want the male right to opt out of an unwanted fatherhood, MND would have to change its focus to go after the anti-religious crowd. But I do not see that happening, especially since MND has started to have some effect on Republican think tanks.
Maybe there needs to be a liberal version of MND that would work hard to get Democrat males in line. One can say that GlennSacks.com is the liberal men’s rights forum. But Glenn Sacks himself will not go that route I think. Plus, I am too busy hoping Glenn will talk more about IMBRA and the upcoming trafficking laws.
From MND, the kind of conservative donor who is most likely to fund an MRO would probably draw the line at saying that men should never have to pay more than $300 or $400 per month child support if they do not have custody of the child the woman wanted to keep.
Capping payments would discourage women from trying to earn a living off of getting pregnant from rich men, which is a serious issue I have seen first hand several times that DESTROYED the life of the rich man (caused him to lose his freedom to travel because he wasn’t so rich as to be able to pay $600 per month child support and still go on vacation all the time to meet women).
The men ended up going from being James Bond to being your average sad sack Joe living in a small town and wishing he were elsewhere.
Too much financial obligation will destroy a man’s life and make it impossible for him to find another great woman and have kids with her.
This is what we are talking about here.
In our lifetime, with both political parties against us and with the governments of the world not so partial to men on this subject either, I don’t see much hope of escaping serious financial problems if a man makes a mistake fooling around with a woman on a Saturday night.
But an MRO can work hard to keep judges well aware that excessive child support payments that end up being eaten by the adult caretaker (or used to fund her boyfriend’s lodging) weaken the pursuit of happiness potential of the payer.
I have often lived for free with a woman whose ex was paying the rent by court order. I kept thinking “what a sucker that guy was for getting married and having kids”.
I agree that the pro-life people don’t just have women’s right to “choose” motherhood in their sights, but men’s right to choose fatherhood as well. They will say that a mistake on a Saturday night should be paid for heavily…which indicates a disdain for premarital sex itself. All the talk about personal responsibility boils down to “you shouldn’t have been messing around in the first place” which is an attitude that young Americans told me this year was the reason they were voting for Obama.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Amfortas,
Some foreign governments would likely become interested in funding an MRO especially if Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State.
An office need only seed funding from which the CEO would approach foreign governments and both liberal and conservative think tanks for the big money.
It would be worth far more than money if the leadership of a foreign government started to directly attack Hillary Clinton’s feminist ideas publicly.
That almost happened in Finland and Estonia last year when US diplomats pretended to be “neutral” when they were deciding on laws (that American feminists wrote) about whether to incarcerate males who knocked on the doors of brothels (while leaving the brothels intact as decoy traps).
What happened was the men in those governments quietly said “this is anti-male” and quietly engineered a foil to stop the feminists by adding a line to the law at the last second that defined “trafficked women” as those who were operating against their will. The feminists were horrified when they walked into parliament to vote on the law and found it changed. Everyone voted FOR the law except the feminists who knew that voluntarily prostitution was now perfectly legalized as a result of their efforts (the table had been turned on them).
But these Finnish and Estonian men did not loudly talk about all this for fear of being seen by their wives and friends as wanting to see prostitutes themselves (feminists tend to go after male freedoms that men would be embarrassed to say they should be allowed to retain).
Our biggest problem in internationalizing outrage to stop US feminism will be in stopping Hillary from going after that which foreign governments and males would be embarrassed to oppose.
Hillary’s main focus will be “Human Trafficking” which she will quietly define as any form of interaction between women and men that falls outside the bounds of feminist orthodoxy and Sam Brownback’s “Christian” ideal of high school sweethearts marrying each other. Some organization needs to keep foreign officials aware of her (and his) true agenda.
I used to work at the UN. Someone in NY or Geneva could work the crowd there to see which governments would be most tuned in to publicly oppose initiatives that Hillary puts forward.
When Sam Brownback, as a presidential candidate, went on Radio Vaticana to slander American men with the help of the feminist organization he got funded…I called everyone at the Vatican. Brownback had said that all American males who wanted to date foreign women were “just out to fulfill their fantasies”(as if there is anything wrong with that) and “needed to be regulated”.
What I learned was the following:
1) Only the English Language Service of Vatican Radio was willing to let Sam Brownback slander American men who met foreign women. The German Language Service and Spanish Language Service and the French said “this is not of interest to our listeners” which was the right answer.
2) The English Language Service was run by a gay American man from Boston named Charles Collins. Charles fired an Australian female intern who worked for him and agreed with us. She had taken the Brownback slander broadcast off the Vatican English website when we asked. The American traitor, Charles Collins, put it back on saying “I’m in charge here”.
3) The Italians at the Vatican + Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) were all too old and senile to even realize what was going on and what was being talked about.
Plus they are all gay. The Pope was knicknamed “Ratzi” on the Munich gay scene back in the 1970s. The last thing these guys care about is heterosexual prerogatives.
But it is better to have German, Italian and Polish gay males leading the Vatican than the likes of gay traitors like Charles Collins of Boston.
Charles even admitted to not being Catholic before he hung up on me and other MRAs who protested the Brownback broadcast.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:56 am
By the way, while their Finnish and Estonian brothers have retained their balls, Swedish eunuch male cops hang out in expensive Stockholm hotel bars where they observe how male guests interact with some cute Russian decoys that sit there and try to snare men.
I have never heard of an American man snared and punished but many Swedish men have been caught and allowed to walk away with a fine of about $2000. The fine letters are sent to the man at his place of work to be opened by him. Talk among feminist legislators in Sweden is for the letters to be sent to his private home so his wife might have a higher chance of opening it and finding out.
Since this new development is so obviously designed to turn men and women against each other, Sweden would be a great test market for an MRO to savage feminist ideology.
I know Swedish businessman are dying to take on the feminists but they are individually afraid to stick their neck out, especially on that subject, in a country where jobs are hard to find and people hold on to them for life when they get them.
The subject is just too embarrassing. This is where the feminists have us all by the short and curlies.
But an MRO can make major headway in Sweden by reminding Swedish men that their Finnish and Estonian brothers refused to be castrated long after they started singing soprano.
Did you know that the Swedish military flag’s lion has been literally castrated because some female servicemembers opposed that.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Jim, with respect, Sir, I would be apalled at the thought of an MRO funded by ‘foreign’ Governments. You are talking of other Governments countering your own nation. They are hardly going to do it for ‘Men’ but for their own agenda or to destabilize America. They don’t need to. America is doing a good job of that itself.
I am against States of any sort funding an MRO. There are ALWAYS strings. It is a nag with too much ‘Carthorse’ in its genes to put in the Kentucky Derby.
As a ‘furriner’ I do not want my Guvmunt, crooks and liars and corrupt gits that they are, funding me via an MRO so that I can undermine your country.
The tactical successes you speak of, nevertheless, are inpressive. Influencing other countries’ legislative bodies is fine by me if it counters Feminism. But despite my dislike for specific individual politicians in various countries, it is not a good idea to have other countries asking me -via an MRO – to undertake politically damaging action against your country or mine.
I think it is a dangerous path your mind is wandering down. Tread carefully, Sir. You are a valuable and valued MRA.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Any candidate for MRO leadership has to be able to read the following DOJ letter to Congress and understand what is going on:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/pdf/dept-view-letter-hjc-on-hr3887.pdf
An Eric Holder DOJ might allow the Eunuch Congress to take away even the power of the DOJ to identify women “victims” and put it in the hands of a higher authority organization that would be unanswerable to the DOJ, DHS, HHS and the White House. American men overseas could then be arrested overseas (or when they return to the US) for doing anything involving adult women and money, to include operating or visiting a beach bar in Costa Rica or operating or using a pen-pal service in Russia (any foreign woman who would want to meet an American man is considered a victim by definition).
Democrat males know nothing about this. Playboy, Maxim, GQ…are all in the dark. Larry Flynt of Hustler is senile and dying and his new editor, David Bruce, is really on the other side (Bruce told me on the phone that he despises his own readers).
When men finally start getting arrested (which has not happened under the Bush Administration) what can we imagine will happen in the MRM?
The way things are going now…nothing.
Because American men mostly don’t travel, you could take away their right to a passport and they wouldn’t so much as yawn.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Amfortas,
All nations should fund a United Nations Men’s Rights NGO or Committee.
You make a good point on not working *for* a foreign government, but you slightly miss the point on the need to help and influence foreign males by getting them involved in supporting organizations that they feel will protect them from feminism. And who would build those foreign organizations? Like the US feminists get federal funding, the foreign NGOs would have the same.
As I will note below and have said many times, the world needs a Muslim-Russian-Latin-Asian Alliance against Anglo-Saxon Marxist Feminism and the non-anglo-saxons will pay for advice on how to protect themselves.
We are talking idealogical war against an element inside Obama’s administration (that Obama and Biden probably despise but feel they need to work with) and not economic or military war against the USA itself.
The Obama-Clinton regime will mean almost total Marxist feminist control of the US government. I really hope I am wrong on this but do you really think a Holder DOJ would have written the above linked letter to stop Congress from making Americans overseas criminals if they talk to women?
We cannot really believe that Hillary will not perform treason when she blackmails and strong-arms foreign governments to undermine males. She will pay them if she has to. She will certainly refuse foreign aid if they do not adopt Marxist feminist domestic policies.
Bush blackmailed Brazil by refusing $millions in Aids money unless they outlawed the purchase of sex. The men of Brazil spit in Bush’s face on that. They will not be able to resist Hillary for internal political reasons. The Brazilian men are probably goners.
Blackmail money will flow to some third world countries and the desperate males still left in the governments there will want to kick back some of that back to try to counteract the influence of their feminist blackmailers in the US State Department.
Who is to say that an American MRA in Costa Rica shouldn’t accept that cash and use it to save the men of Costa Rica by using the money for an MRO and exposing Hillary to American Democrat males and getting her unelected in 2012 or 2020?
You don’t think Bush and Company weren’t making personal deals with foreign governments? Heck, McCain’s main foreign policy advisor was getting paid a huge monthly salary by the Georgian government.
You don’t think McCains rhetoric on Georgia has not been documented as bought and paid for by Georgia’s government?
It will get worse with Clinton’s feminist state department except our tax dollars will be bribing foreign governments to adopt feminist policies.
All these people should have their security clearances revoked…but they are operating on rules above the rest of us honest folk.
If she becomes Secretary of State, we MRAs want the same ACCESS to top officials in foreign governments that she has.
That is not undermining. That is common sense.
How we get that access is a good question.
It is, however, easier to get access to important people when they seek you out for advice.
Why should Hillary have more influence than men with any given government?
Of course there could be no strings attached on foreign financing of an MRO and it should not come directly from a government.
Meanwhile it would be naive to think that America is going to come out from under the Marxist feminists without undermining itself such as in the recent suicide vote where conservatives punished Republicans by voting them out of office.
The fact that many of us libertarians undermined John McCain shows that we were ready to torpedo Republican politicians who were many times safer for men and for peace than their leftist eunuch counterparts due to come in January.
Obama is going to invite major terrorism.
Because I undermined John McCain, I will feel guilty of having undermined my country if and when that happens.
I am not talking about helping Iran get nukes in order to counter US feminism (although it would be brilliant of All My Jihad to announce to US troops what has been going on regarding their rights back in Washington).
Nobody else is letting our troops know what is going on.
I would only undermine the attitudes of US Government officials and policies that support Marxist feminism. That may or may not involve educating foreign government officials on how to speak out (to us free of charge) about that which we need to fight inside the USA.
It wouldn’t be like saying “I know the secrets to US nuke submarine construction”.
I am also not talking about advising Russia to say it will withdraw its nukes in Kaliningrad in exchange for Hillary starting to like men.
That would be treason. Meanwhile, Hillary will perform treason on her own when she agrees with Russia to stop the missile shield in exchange for Russia adopting her Marxist oriented anti-trafficking provisions that will make American men criminals for saying hello to women.
That being said, I frankly don’t think that any anglo-saxon source is going to support an MRO…not until foreign organizations start embarrassing us (as opposed to undermining us).
Putin has not yet called American men pussies for letting Hillary become Secretary of State…but I would love it if he did and have told some low level Russian government employees that (with which they had a great laugh).
If Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State and tries to take my rights away (she wrote the TVPA bill that the DOJ criticized in the letter above), you can only barely make the argument that she still represents me and American men. Only on certain topics will that be the case and those will involve soldiers’ lives and the long term integrity of the USA.
Since the State Department issues our passports…we would have to be careful about how we deal with our new boss.
But does anyone here really think that Hillary will NOT push an agressive anti-male foreign policy agenda?
If the Saudi Government were to refuse landing rights to airplanes that had “known feminists on board” I would be right with that. But Hillary would be squawking about sending in US Marines to kill Saudis if they did that.
Would we be “siding with the troops” if Hillary moved them on a country that refused landing rights to planes with feminists on board?
She would not be representing me or any men if that happened. And I would loudly tell her to shut up.
If the Saudis were to openly refuse a $billion contract for an American company saying “you guys have to start dealing with your feminists” then maybe some rich American businessmen would get off their duffs and start funding MROs on their own.
Not that I would advise foreign governments to boycott American companies and products on that score. That would also be treason…unless I mentioned specific American companies like Chase JP Morgan that support radical feminist causes.
Plus I believe in playing real hardball.
If my MRO had contacts in a foreign government and knew a US corporation had a big deal being decided on by that foreign government…and the company would not stop funding anti-male women’s shelters, I would ask them politely to change their attitude or risk losing the deal.
You know the feminists are doing this themselves.
A place where it would be treason would be if I were to say that Al Qaeda should keep its current adherence of violence while switching its criticism of American culture to hone in on our feminism.
That would cross the line extensively.
Al Qaeda has already been doing that to an extent but their people are idiots and could not hone in effectively. For instance, they say in videos that they kill American soldiers because Brittany and Madonna kiss on TV. That kind of rhetoric is just foolish.
But I believe we could make peace with Muslims now if we again found a common Marxist enemy to verbally oppose like we had during the Cold War.
We need a Muslim-Russian-Latin-Asian ideological Alliance against Anglo-Saxon Marxist Feminism.
I am talking about a short-term ideological alliance and not a military-economic alliance.
If just a few countries from more than one world region spoke out loudly on Hillary’s feminism, the US Republican Party might get a clue and want to become part of the alliance.
Wanting something like that is not treason. That is self protection and common sense.
All countries should fund a United Nations Men’s Rights NGO or Committee.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:39 am
Nobody argues that many American troops have been killed by fanatics, driven by Muslim imams, who are outraged by seeing Madonna and Brittney kiss on TV.
Most of us want to eliminate those fanatics from the face of the Earth because they oppose freedom.
I know US servicemen who say they’ve aimed and fired for the right to see Muslim women in bikinis and I agree with that.
Of course, the US neoconservatives say they want the troops to fight to get the women out of burkhas (which, by the way, keep the women’s skin soft and supple in the hot Middle Eastern sun).
Whatever…when enough of the fanatics have been killed, there will remain a core of Muslim imams who are sensible and will only want to save their cultures from the regulation of males that we ourselves are only starting to experience.
Hillary, like Madeleine Notbright, will have no respect for this. She will want to keep killing. I hope I am wrong on that.
I should do an article on the fatal attempt by the CPA in Iraq to get US Marxist feminists to educate Iraqi girls.
History shows that Madeleine Notbright did a lot to inflame the Muslim world and invoke 9-11.
Hillary will probably be more devious and try to get her hidden agenda snuck in under the wire.
While we cannot allow Iran to get nukes, we also have to remember that the Bahais of Iran adhere to a feminist religion. The last thing we want is for the Muslims to be overthrown for the Bahais.
Obama wants direct talks with the Iranians. I think that is smart and maybe should have started in 2003 (which may or may not have saved a lot of lives). But those talks will go nowhere if Hillary really wants to promote Marxist feminism in the Middle East.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Jim, I am old enough to recall the time when the UN was seen as a ‘Hope’ in a dark world. It has proven a fruitless hope. I would no more trust a Men’s Rights NGO in the UN as a asp in my pocket. The UN is corrupt.
I agree with you in part that men internationally should be encouraged to counter feminism, but I just do not trust any Government enough to participate. It is the men themselves, business men, wealthy men, poor saps, who have a sense of balance and outrage that need to come together in a manner completely separate from Government.
Taking Taxpayers monies against their will and applying it to causes they have little interest in or outrighly disapprove of has become a modus operandi of the corrupt. I fear the corruption of any MRO that goes down that track.
You are going to have to work hard to convince me that a “Muslim-Russian-Latin-Asian Alliance against Anglo-Saxon Marxist Feminism” would do us any good at all, given that the Russians – in particular – are behind such a lot of western destabilisation and have been for a century. Patrice Lamumba University was a nerve centre for destabilisation planning. Comintern was an international paymaster for western destabilisation. They may have ‘disappeared’ but their means are simply less visible. The Asians have no great love of the Principles that have evolved in the western ‘Enlightenment’. The marxist pox-marks are visible all over Asia. The Latins are what, precisely? Bolivians? Columbians? Brazilian’s have already had their allegiences carved into pubic hair.
No. Get support from male European, Austalasian, American whathaveyou business people and citizens outside of Government influences by all means and you are on a much more ‘people-controlled’ track.
National Governments are not going to fight feminism. Saudi Arabia is not going to turn back a 747 with a feminist stewardess on board. No foreign Government is going to turn down a $billion deal just to play with Hillary’s head.
“If my MRO had contacts in a foreign government and knew a US corporation had a big deal being decided on by that foreign government…and the company would not stop funding anti-male women’s shelters, I would ask them politely to change their attitude or risk losing the deal.”
Sure. Not that they would take any notice at all unless you had a big stick. Can you, as CEO of an MRO, build such a stick? Again, convince me.
Again I suggest that we have to get some runs on the board. A win. Very ‘public’, Against Government. That will attract attention to Men’s Rights. Not ‘IMBRA’, which is a singularly American issue but against the Family Court. FCs affect ALL men in the west. The wealthy particularly.