MGTOW Activism – Part One

Posted August 9, 2013 by fedrz
Categories: Uncategorized


The difference between being a Men’s Rights Activist (M.R.A.) and being Men Going Their Own Way (M.G.T.O.W.) is the way in which we deal with the situation at hand. While both have pretty much identified the same problems and concerns in society, the approach to “fixing” these problems is entirely different. In fact, they are so different that they are in direct opposition with each-other.

Change comes from within.

MGTOW: Taking the Personal Out of the Political

To refer to the MGTOW Manifesto: “The goal is to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work toward limited government! This is something that is not congruent with the Men’s Rights Movement’s (MRM’s) form of activism, which by its very nature is political. In other words, the goal of the MRM has always been about such things as raising money to fund lobby groups which demand the government change XYZ for them. (Take your pick: Divorce reform, child custody reform, men officially included as domestic violence victims, male-studies at universities, ad nauseum). In each of these cases, men are demanding of government to fix their problems for them and in doing so, they are increasing the scope which government has over our lives. It suggests that men are incapable of changing their lives unless the government assists them in doing so.

Don’t get me wrong. Sure, some things only the government can fix… but the fixing they need to do is repeal laws and get out of our lives, rather than expand their laws so that men are included under their umbrella of power. This is not just a small difference between MGTOW and the MRM, but rather, it is a fundamental difference that makes them as opposite as night and day!

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the very fact most men seem entirely unable to consider any form of action valid besides “running to the government,” is merely further evidence of the feminization of our culture. The “male principle” is independence, freedom and self-reliance, while the “female principle” is dependence, security and ‘Someone! Anyone! Please fix this for me! Don’t you know I’m a victim?!?”

““Movements,” like harems, herds, and other collectives, are for females. It’s been remarked that men’s first priority is freedom, while women’s is security. Thus women are natural herd animals, for security is most easily and immediately found in numbers. And thus the inclusion of women in political life must inevitably lead to totalitarian collectivism, as it has everywhere it’s been tried — at this point, essentially the entire planet, which is fast turning into one vast nursery, where “everything that is not prohibited is compulsory.” Women instinctively seek the security of such an environment; when women rule, this is where everyone must live.
“Do you want to be free, or do you want to be taken care of?” Answer this question honestly, and you’ll know where you stand on the male–female spectrum, regardless of what form your personal plumbing may have.”
Philalethes #10 – Male vs. Female Thinking

As we all know, feminism and the totalitarian growth of government hasn’t really helped women as much as everyone reflexively thinks. It has distorted women’s thinking into believing they have become “independent” by not needing any looooser ma-yaan to provide for them… but only because they have substituted the support of the men they married in the past, for their dependence on their new alpha-husband, Big Government. They are still as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland, just like they have always been. The only difference is that now they have unwittingly taken on Men’s Curse as their own. Also, now that they are under government “protection,” they may soon find that what was once a social expectation of them to fulfill certain obligations to individual husbands who loved them and cared for their well-being, will become a legal expectation to fulfill obligations to their collective husband, The Government, who has no feelings for them, and throughout history has proven to be downright harmful to them.

Government, bureaucracies, lobby groups and academia are appealing to women, and increasingly to men, as “the solution” to any and all problems because such organizations are relatively abstract, distant, conceptual entities which can easily be imagined to be perfectible. Ultimately, one should think of it in this way instead: Would you give authority to your neighbour to decide how you should live your life, and allow him to punish you if you didn’t agree? Most would say ‘no’ pretty fast, wouldn’t they? But, the people in government are the exact same fallible and self-serving people as your neighbour. It’s when they’re in an abstract concept like government that we trick ourselves into thinking that they should do the right thing and be void of any other influences. History is filled with examples of people making this mistake, and many of them were not able to live to regret it.


When government bureaucracies, lobby groups, or activist arms of academia are created, they almost immediately turn into organisms that serve themselves first and foremost, while hood-winking their supporters and the public in general into believing they are serving some higher altruistic purpose. One of the main reasons this happens is because they operate under the “budget principle” rather than the “profit principle.” Both of these principles work under the same human motivations of greed and the desire for power & prestige, but they differ in how they achieve those goals.

Under the profit principle, one satisfies greed, power, and prestige by making more money. Thus profits are made larger by creating a greater demand while cutting away unnecessary costs. In order to do this, companies advertise to increase the desire in people for their products, while cutting costs by laying people off, off-shoring their manufacturing, or automating their labour force.

Under the budget principle, greed, power and prestige are satisfied by showing a need for larger budgets. Thus, the directors of government bureaucracies and other such organisms always come in over-budget, and then run to their benefactors with their hands out in order that they may meet this need.

Now, for the most part, I consider myself a capitalist (small “c”) and prefer the profit principle over the budget principle. Private enterprise creates a miracle a minute while government bureaucracies fumble around making excuses but never performing. Thus, we see in Canada that when we de-criminalized marijuana and made its medical use legal, 15 year old boys were able to grow killer weed in their closets without their parents finding out, while a gaggle of government scientists in multimillion dollar underground facilities were unable to produce marijuana with sufficient THC levels to benefit cancer patients, resulting in those cancer sufferers still seeking black market outlets to satisfy their needs.

However, I also see an inherent problem with the profit principle, such as when mega-companies like Merck are able to influence government policy to artificially create a demand for their products, like Gardasil. I don’t have an answer for this completely, except to point out that if the government didn’t have the authority to artificially create a demand for Gardasil, companies like Merck wouldn’t seek to influence the government in the first place. Also, there comes a point when mega-companies become so large, that Capitalism ultimately become a form of Communism in itself. Thus, the small mining town where the lone mining company also owns the town store and extends credit to keep its employees enslaved to them, which is no good either. Further, in the U.S.S.R., the car manufacturer Lada was essentially granted the evil of monopoly capitalism, in that no matter how crappy of cars they built, they still had a 100% market share, which undermines the notion of a miracle a minute. (If you don’t like our Lada cars, you are more than welcome to go down the street and buy… a Lada!). Lol! But we’re getting off topic here!

The budget principle, however, is truly insidious. It outright seeks to create problems and inefficiencies. If a bureaucracy has a budget of $100 million, the only way to gain power is to get that budget up to $120 million. And once a budget of $120 million is achieved, they again show they are short of cash, and do whatever they can to intensify all sorts of the problems that still need to be fixed, so that they are granted a budget of $150 million next year. What they absolutely don’t want to do, however, is actually fix any of the problems they are tasked with solving, because then their budget would be reduced to $75 million, and those within that bureaucracy would lose power and prestige. Thus, a bureaucracy’s goal is to create as many problems as they possibly can, while dealing with them in the most inefficient ways they can get away with.

It pains me deeply to see how Men’s Rights Activists (MRA’s) seem to believe that creating White House Councils on Boys and Men, or Male Studies Departments in academia, will magically behave differently than any other bureaucratic organization that has come before them – which is mainly to say that they will simply feather their own nests. Like I said earlier, the only reason MRA’s believe it to be so is because such organizations created to “solve” our problems are abstract, conceptual entities that should operate in “this” manner or “that” manner. If we wouldn’t allow our neighbours to decide who we are and how we “should” act, why should we assume that Warren Farrell, Stephen Baskerville, Strauss & Gelles et. al. are somehow morally above others? If you watch them all closely, and read their “solutions” to our problems, they all boil down to “the government must…” and “more funding is needed…” and… and… and…

Dr. Phil and Warren Farrell are simply different ends of the same spectrum as it is. Both have achieved fame and wealth from the Gender War, not by actually solving it. In fact, had Farrell “solved” the Gender War only a few years after he got booted from being the head of the National Organization of Women (N.O.W.), he would not have sold so many books, as he would be just another schmuck with a useless Ph. D. in Psychology (Even my dumbass, irritatingly feminist sister has one of those, and nobody knows her name!). As it sits, Farrell would suffer greatly if the Gender War actually stopped tomorrow. Plus, not only has he many times recommended fallacies such as “equality” since he became the foremost (and best paid) men’s activist, but often he recommends more androgyny, which we all know is a complete disaster! Furthermore, androgyny is completely against the MGTOW Manifesto, which has the stated goal of instilling masculinity in men and femininity in women! That is decidedly not about androgyny or equality (at least not beyond equality under the law as defined by the American Founding Fathers).

I highly encourage you to watch this video by Ezra Levant, which illustrates so plainly and clearly how any organism that is created, no matter how noble and pure it sounds on the surface – such as encouraging people to stop smoking – ultimately turns into a self-serving, lying, statist organization that either simply feathers its own nest, or benefits its master (Big Government), in order to maintain its funding – while accomplishing absolutely none of its stated goals!

Organisms representing men will become no different. Why? Because it is in their nature! 

Left. Right. Left. Right.

“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent them.” — Karl Marx

The debate over whether one ought to vote for left wing parties or right wing parties is never ending. Just to be clear, I would prefer a right-wing, conservative government, but the truth is that it doesn’t really matter because such a thing simply doesn’t exist anymore. Furthermore, most people have no clue where most parties actually sit on the political spectrum anymore anyways. Take our ruling Conservative party here in Canada. It gets bandied about all the time that they are right-wing (spit) nazis who are like the George Bush Republicans in the States. But the truth of the matter is, we haven’t had a political party as right-wing as the US Republicans for decades. Our present Conservative party is actually a centrist party, and if one were to place them on a political spectrum compared to the States, they would actually be the same or to the left of the Obama Democrats. So what’s the point? People think the Conservatives are evil because they are the furthest to the right in Canada, and yet, the same people think Obama is the Messiah because he is the furthest left in America. If Obama were a Canadian, he would be a Conservative. It’s all just silly.

Even more troubling is that since we stopped teaching civics classes in our schools several decades ago, replacing them with social-studies, we have stopped educating the masses on their rights and why our forms of government were created in the ways in which they were in the first place.

I have opted out of voting altogether. In our elections, only about 60% of the people actually do and it gets to be less and less people each year. Pretty soon, since we are running under a democracy, the majority will not have given their consent to be governed, and no winning party will truly be able to claim a mandate… which hopefully will cause a host of problems and force the government and the governed to examine our political systems a little closer and actually re-learn the importance of setting things up in the proper ways. Well, one can dream. We are supposed to have a Constitutional Monarchy in Canada and a Republic in the USA, both of which have similar features which counter the evils of democracy. This also blows all sorts of holes in women’s cries that they were “oppressed” for not having the vote – here’s a clue, there is no “right” to voting for either sex, just like there is no “right” to a job, cheap housing, or free healthcare. “Rights,” as they were originally intended, are supposed to protect us from the government, not to empower them to “fix things” for us.

The real government isn’t the people you vote to represent you in Parliament or Congress anyways. The real government is the unelected bureaucracies right beneath them – the ones that never change and are unaccountable to the people. I mean, does it matter whether the Conservatives or the Liberals are in power? (or the Republicans or Democrats in the US?). Has the judge in your community’s divorce court changed? Does it change his biases? Does it change the bulk of the 900 miles of legislation and policy that backs his authority? Do the police automatically allow more freedom when a “right wing” government gets elected and then clamp down harder under a “left wing” one? Nope! They just keep marching on the same no matter what. Do all of those bureaucracies (organisms) that have been formed to “protect” or “help” us stop creating policies that only feather their own nests? No again. It just simply doesn’t matter. The real government is the bureaucracies beneath the elected government, and it marches on no matter what.

An Awareness Movement

A long time ago, Zed and I were having a conversation during which he related to me the Disney story of Fantasia.

Sometimes, no matter what you do, you can’t stop something once it has been put into motion. All you can do is let it run its course. In other words, you can’t put the genie back into the bottle, or, as was the case with Pandora’s Box, once things are gone, they are gone, and all that is left is hope. In the meanwhile, it’s time to recognize that a storm is coming, and since it’s smearing shit in our faces, it’s obviously going to be a shit storm.

Not only will being a political activist simply further the dialectic and empower the government to have more control over our lives, but things are way too far gone already for this to be stopped. The time to stop it was forty or fifty years ago. Today, we must figure out ways to adapt and survive – and thankfully, adapting is what men excel at.

I am not Jesus Christ. It is not my destiny to be the saviour of the world. Furthermore, as a bachelor in a world that constantly undermines any action I may take to be part of society in a meaningful way, I don’t owe society anything more than it owes me – which I am constantly told is nothing. Therefore, all that I owe is to myself, and what I have come to realize over the years of studying and writing about these subjects, is what I ultimately owe to myself is as good a life as I can live with the cards that are dealt to me. Life has never been a cakewalk for men, but things are certainly better for us today than they were throughout most of human history, regardless of the social climate of the present day. What I can do, however, is stop trying to paddle against the river’s current and rather, turn my canoe around, seek safety and shelter, and clear away as many snags along the shore as I can so the filth will pass by me as quickly as possible. This notion is best described by the phrase “being an Ethical Sociopath.”

All I can do is take the red-pill, bring awareness to others of what is going on, and hopefully help them figure out how to pull themselves out of the fire before they get too burnt.

This is not a political movement.

It is an Awareness Movement.
Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”
…. \_/………..

The Liberation of Men

Posted August 8, 2013 by fedrz
Categories: Uncategorized


To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” — Genesis 3:16-19

And so it has been ever since, until feminism convinced women to unwittingly take on men’s curse as their own.

And what’s a man to do about it, after all? Despite corporate and feminist attempts at designing various ways for emasculated males to take on the pains of child-birth, there can never be a true understanding for males of what it is like to give birth. This is women’s curse, and it is their curse alone to bear, for it is impossible for men to share equally with her in it – even if men were so stupid to want to.

Apparently though, this is not the case in reverse, for women seem to not only be agreeable to take on man’s curse, but they are downright using every bit of power their feminine wiles can muster to force it into social and legal acceptance, and if it tosses men aside in the meantime, then so be it! Ever heard about Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn and the great whitewashing of the fence fiasco? Well, this situation is similar, except that the one’s holding the short end of the stick (men) aren’t the one’s doing the manipulating!

No, in the situation of men’s curse, it is actually the women that are manipulating behind the scenes for the curse of toil and labour, without any real encouragement (nor discouragement) from the males. Apparently, women are demanding to alleviate men from their curse. Well, gosh and golly, I suggest that the slaves let them! What slave on the plantation would scorn his master for demanding the slave work less, so that his master may reap the benefits of being a cotton-picker?

But, it’s not all quite so simple. Perhaps we should look at this a little closer.

Doing the Math

This morning, as I was watching the Business News Network (B.N.N.), Rona Ambrose, the Canadian Minister for the Status of Women (S.O.W.), trumpeted out the same old tired song about women on executive boards once more. The refrain goes like this: “Research has shown that having more women on executive boards is good for the economy. Therefore…”

Really? Is that so? Or is it simply that when you only consult advocacy researchers from an ideologically driven and politically activist arm of academia (Women’s Studies), you will only receive results that are consistent with their ideology.

For example, since the stock market crashed back in 2008-2009, the Business News Network has relentlessly trumpeted that women who were investment managers fared better than men, because women are more “risk averse.” And this is true, so long as you cherry-pick through your research and ignore any factors which don’t support your ideology. The real truth of the story, however, is that while female investment managers lost less money during the crash than male investment managers, in the run-up to the crash, women also created less wealth because of their aversion to risk. All you have to do is run a few numbers to see what a fraud the Business News Network is promoting as “fact.”

For example, if a man invests $10,000 and averages a return of 9% a year for 8 years, he will have $19,926. Then when the economy collapses and he loses 20% of it, he will be left with $15,941. And, if, during the same time frame, a woman invests $10,000 and averages a return of 6%, after eight years she will have $15,938. When the economy collapses and she loses only 10% because of her aversion to risk, she will have $14,345 left. Hmmm… so, sure, during the market crash, it appears that she “out-performed” because she lost only 10% as opposed to the man’s 20% loss, but overall, you would still be better off with the man’s pot of cash than with the woman’s. In fact, the man still earned 11.1% more than her during the same time frame. These are quite some “facts” media shills like the Business News Network are promoting, aren’t they? Indeed, making less money than men shows how superior women are, so long as the real facts are distorted and hidden. Makes you wonder why anyone would watch such a channel trying to learn “the facts,” doesn’t it? I guess they are trying to make sure that women aren’t oppressed by math.

Another ideologically driven “fact” that gets bandied about is that women somehow bring more ethics and morality to the workplace – especially when they are on the board of directors of major companies. This “women are more ethically pure fact” is just more smoke and mirrors, since it has long been known that while men are more prone to break the law with crimes of violence, women break the law in greater numbers than men in crimes of deceit, such as perjury, fraud and embezzlement. The shucksters in academia and the media get their “women are more morally pure” trope from the fact that women are prosecuted less for these crimes of deceit than men are. Women are also given far lighter sentences for the same crime when they are actually convicted (this is true of all crimes), and so it is that there are more men in prison for crimes of deceit than women, even though women commit the majority of deceit crimes. This is indeed an interesting fact that insinuates many things about our society and our notions of “equality under the law,” but in no way does it stand as valid research which proves women’s ethical and moral purity is greater than men’s. For these very women who release such “facts” which are obviously lies in themselves, it illustrates something very negative about their ethics and morals in the first place, wouldn’t you agree?

And yes, my goodness, I know, women only receive $0.76 for every dollar a man earns! This has been debunked so many times by so many people that I feel rather foolish even mentioning it, but here we are. Women are not paid $0.76 for doing the exact same work as men, (this has been illegal in America since the Equal Pay Act back in 1963) rather, because of the choices women make and the lesser hours they actually work throughout their “careers,” they only earn 76% of the wages that men do.

Imagine for a moment that there are two young boys, Jack and Tom. Both are eight years old and have identical abilities in every possible way. Both of them have a dream to be accepted to the basketball team when they enter university, and so they start practicing for when the day comes that they will be given the opportunity to try out for the team by shooting hoops each day after school.

Jack dedicates himself by shooting hoops for 60 minutes every day. Tom, however, has taken it upon himself to also have a paper route so he can earn a little pocket-money, and in order to make the time for delivering his papers, he only practices for 45 minutes a day. After four years of practice, 12 year old Jack will have spent 1,460 hours practicing as opposed to Tom’s 1,095 hours, and by now, Jack is able to put the ball through the hoop with 8 out of every 20 attempts. Tom, however, is only able to sink 6 out of every 20 attempts, because he practiced less than Jack. Out of frustration at his lack of performance, Tom wonders if perhaps basketball isn’t for him after all, and so he quits practicing and takes up karate instead, while Jack continues shooting hoops faithfully for 60 minutes a day. But after three years of karate, the now 15 year old Tom decides that he really did like basketball better than karate after all, and so he quits his karate classes and resumes practicing hoops for 45 minutes a day. At this point, after 2,555 hours of practice, Jack is able to sink 14 baskets out of 20, but Tom, who hasn’t practiced at all in the last three years and is now a bit rusty, is only able to make 5 out of 20 baskets. But, both boys continue practicing for the next three years until they finally enter college and are able to try out for the team. By now, Jack has spent 3,650 hours practicing and he can sink 20 out of 20 shots every time and he easily gets accepted onto the team. Tom, however, has spent only 1,916 hours practicing over the past ten years and is only able to make 10 shots out of 20… and so he doesn’t make the team. The two boys were of identical ability, remember, and their outcomes were different only because of the choices each boy made throughout the past ten years. Had Tom made the same choices as Jack, he probably would have made the team too.

It’s pretty easy to see how this translates to the workplace. Is Tom only getting “paid” $0.50 for each $1.00 Jack makes? Nope, he’s getting paid exactly what he deserves. Is there a patriarchal basketball players club conspiring behind the scenes to keep Tom off the team? No again. Choices have consequences. What a revolutionary concept!

All you need to know about how false the $0.76 propaganda which academic and media charlatans like BNN spews forth is this: If it were true that women only made 76% of the wages as men for doing the exact same thing with the exact same efficiency, then there would be no shortage of people who would simply buy a company, fire all the men, and replace them with the far cheaper labour of women. They would make money hand over fist while putting the competition out of business for secretly conspiring behind the scenes to pay men more than women. It’s such a simple formula for success that it’s amazing no one has thought of it before, eh?

Equal Opportunity or Equal Outcomes?

You can see the fraud of feminist “academics” and the media’s complicity in perpetuating their lies fully exposed by the way they reported on Wal-Mart’s recent Supreme Court case regarding whether there was “a culture of discrimination” against women in their organization. Keep in mind that even though Wal-Mart successfully defended themselves, they did not entirely “win” either. It was because feminist lawyers tried to launch a class-action suit that the Supreme Court said there was no definite policy at Wal-Mart which favoured men over women, and thus they did not entirely throw the law-suit out, but rather said that it must be dealt with in the lower courts on a more individual basis instead. And how did the BNN cover this story? Why, in order to get a “balanced and unbiased” view on the decision, they interviewed a feminist from Eastern Canada and another feminist from Western Canada. (Gee, I guess degrees in Journalism are about as useless as degrees in Women’s Studies). The consensus was that this culture of discrimination against women was allowed to persist because there were too many of those dastardly right-leaning men on the Supreme Court still perpetuating the infamous “Old Boys Club.” But don’t worry, they pointed out that soon Obama will be able to stuff a couple more of these “morally and ethically pure” women onto the Supreme Court, so that when a case like this is inevitably brought before the court again, the decision will be in favour of women.

What they glossed over completely, however, was the absurdity of the argument itself, and the dire implications it would have had on Wal-Mart, as well as every other company in America, and they failed to extrapolate the implications further to its effect on the economy over-all.

One of the core arguments of the lawsuit was that men were promoted to management positions ahead of women because women were unable to work as many hours as men and women could not as easily move to undesirable locations where they would more easily advance their careers because of the other responsibilities women had outside of the workplace, such as caring for children or elderly parents.

In other words, if we take this back to our basketball example with Jack and Tom, the argument becomes that since Tom had other things to do besides practice shooting hoops, such as his paper route and karate classes, the university had no right to “discriminate” against him for only being able to make 50% of the baskets as Jack, and both boys should be equally accepted to the team, regardless of their actual performance abilities.

That’s literally what was being argued in this Wal-Mart case. Because women have other responsibilities that are completely not related to the workplace, it is workplace discrimination for them not to receive promotions and pay commensurate to those who actually did work more hours and made more sacrifices which advanced their careers.

Thus, if the BNN were actually in the business of reporting the facts, and Wal-mart had lost their case, rather than reporting it as a “triumph for women,” they would have been more accurate to report it as follows:

“Wal-Mart Forced to Replace Top-Notch Management with Mediocre Employees. Long-Term Outlook for Stock Valuations is Grim!”

This is not a slam against women, this is simply the truth. It wouldn’t matter if the employees were male or female. If you take employees willing to work 60 hours a week and relocate wherever they need to, and replace them with employees only willing to work 40 hours a week and only in desirable locations, it doesn’t matter which gender, you would be severely handicapping the company.

In the same way, if Jack and Tom’s university would insist that out of the five basketball players on the court, at least two players who are capable of making 20 out of 20 baskets must be replaced with players only capable of making 10 out of 20 baskets, the performance of the team would suffer – especially against teams that are not burdened in the same way. It is pretty easy to see the numbers. If five players take 100 shots and 100 of them go through the basket, such a team will far out-perform a team that can only make 80 out of 100 baskets, which is exactly what would happen if the team were to replace two players at Jack’s 100% ratio with two players at Tom’s 50% ratio.

And you thought globalization and cheap foreign labour was the only reason the Western World is falling behind the Developing World, eh?

Equal or “Equal?” (Wink! Wink!)

“Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, make unequal treatment not unequal at all.” — Catharine MacKinnon, “Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law,” Yale Law Journal, 1991

When the Status of Women Canada, the “academic” juggernaut of Women’s Studies, and the Business News Network (BNN) continually make the case that more women deserve to be on executive boards regardless of their abilities (due to outside choices women themselves are making in their lives), you will discover they never argue that it extends that women also, therefore, deserve to be equally represented in jobs that don’t carry prestige and high pay. After all, when was the last time Minister Rona Ambrose got on the TV and argued how ridiculous it is that women are “oppressed” because they make up less than 10% of the garbage collectors in the country? I mean, you would think that the government would want women to take on more of the low prestige, dangerous and dirty jobs, since careless and clumsy men are accounting for over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths. The government and Canadian employers would save billions a year in Worker’s Compensation expenses by increasing the amount of women in these types of jobs. This is simple feminist math. If over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths are males, then if we increase the amount of women in these positions to 50%, we will reduce such injuries and deaths by around half as well! It’s so simple!

Of course, you know I am being facetious.

But seriously, what does anyone think will happen to the men who are in these high paying, prestigious jobs such as CEO or Chairman of the Board? When the government of Norway made it law that all corporate boards must have at least 40% women, do you think they simply created more positions and only hired women until they made up 40%, or did they keep the amount of positions the same, fire the required amount of men, and then replaced them with women? I think you know the answer without my stating it.

What you find in the workforce is the same that you will find almost everywhere else when you compare men and women. While our averages are pretty close to the same, how we reach those averages is quite different. For example, men and women both have similar averages of IQ, however there is far greater variability in male IQ than in the female IQ, which is clustered around the mean in greater intensity than with males. Thus, even though we have similar averages in IQ, there are far more males who inhabit the areas of extremely high IQ and extremely low IQ. This translates also into the workforce, where you will find that the very powerful and wealthy (like CEO’s or those on executive boards) are mostly male, and also that most of the very poor, like the homeless, are male (85% of the homeless are males). It’s not only intellectually dishonest to selectively observe only the men who have risen to the top while at the same time ignoring the men that have fallen through the floor, but it is also socially irresponsible. It’s like taking the examples of Denzel Washington and Will Smith as successful and powerful black millionaires, and therefore claiming there is no poverty problem in the Black Community. But this is exactly what is done every single time that “our betters” in the government, academia, and the media address women in the workplace.

If, as a society, we are going to boot out qualified men from top positions to make way for less qualified and less motivated women, it will cause a chain reaction all the way down and increase the amount of those at the bottom. After all, if those who would have merited an executive board position are restricted from achieving those levels, they will be stuck being over-qualified and underpaid at the middle-management level, where again, they will be displacing those who should have merited middle management positions, and forcing those men downwards to lower management and basic employee status. Thus, the men currently in those lowest of positions will be losing their jobs and sleeping on the streets.

The Return of Aristocracy

It’s not hard to see that if fully qualified men are displaced from high level prestigious positions, to be replaced with less qualified, less motivated women – while at the same time ignoring the fact that women are not equally represented in the less desirable positions like garbage collector, ditch digger, or enemy moving target – we will be returning to an aristocratic class structure in society, except based on gender rather than bloodline.

Again, it is just simple math. If women only replace men at the top, in the most prestigious and well paying of jobs, then you are virtually guaranteed to increase the amount of men in the dredges of the workforce, or drive those men out of the workforce entirely and into the streets.

Quite frankly, men would be twits if they continued working their tails off 60 hours a week trying to get ahead in the corporate rat race, if they had no chance of making it because a woman who only works 40 hours a week will be preferred for the job anyways. It will very quickly become that men will simply stop trying to be successful in those jobs at all and abandon them en masse for jobs where they don’t have to put up with such nonsense. You don’t think that will happen? Have a look at how men have virtually disappeared from the teaching profession since every man in close proximity to a child has become viewed as a pedophile. Men simply said, “No thanks,” and moved on to other professions.

In a generation or two, you will see the class distinction between men and women quite clearly. Women: Good paying, high prestige jobs in air-conditioned offices. Men: Shutting up and shoveling the gravel to keep the electricity on and the sewers working. That’s some “equality.”

Hypergamy and the End of Marriage
The essence of hypergamy is that women “marry up” while men “settle down.” Thus, we see in society that, while men are not necessarily “better” than women in general, women do insist that the men they marry are “better” than they are. Male doctors marry female nurses. Male lawyers marry female secretaries. Male factory workers marry the waitress at the diner, and so on. Conversely however, female CEO’s do not marry auto-mechanics, but rather, they tend to seek out a mate who is “higher” than she is. The problem is, when you are a female who is near the top of the economic food chain, there are very, very few males who meet this criteria, and of the ones that are actually around, hypergamy dictates that those males are attractive to all the different levels of females below him. Not only are there slim romantic pickings for women at the top, but they have to stand in line with, oh, about a gajillion other women for the only men they are attracted to.

Now, many women counter this by saying that they “had to” marry upwards, because it was the only way they could be socially and financially mobile under the dreaded Patriarchy. If men were just to step aside and make room for women at the top, things would change. It’s too bad that this is not the case though. In fact, there is much evidence that it is not men’s super-sized egos that demands they must earn more money than their wives, but rather it is women themselves that are angry at husbands who don’t earn as much money and thus, they aren’t “pulling their weight.” This is further evidenced by “kitchen-bitch” marriages, where the roles are reversed with a female breadwinner and the man being more focused on the home. The divorce statistics for regular marriages are bad enough, but in kitchen-bitch marriages, divorce rates sky-rocket to 90% – yes, that high!

Hypergamy is a very real force to be reckoned with – especially if we are to continue shoe-horning women into top positions of power and wealth. If we create an aristocratic class of women and a peasant class of men, then marriage – as screwed up and broken as it already is – will pretty much grind to a complete halt. The prince marries the maiden Cinderella who scrubs her step-mother’s floors, remember? Snow White did not marry one of the Seven Dwarves.

Perhaps now you can understand why men work their tails off more than women to have a successful career. It fulfills women’s hypergamy and makes men sexually attractive to women, whereas women are not considered either more nor less sexually attractive because of their social and financial status. They don’t have near the motivation for it as men do! Furthermore, women are not socially considered to be deadbeats if they are not economic performers, nor are they considered to be “bums” if they take a few years off and let their husbands fully support them while they pursue other things they want in life. Working, for men, is not a choice like it is for many women. Either men work or they become invisible. It only makes sense then, that men will put in more effort to make their jobs “work” for them, while women, who have other options, will not view the workplace with the same intensity as men.

“Only 14 percent of female middle managers aspire to be CEO; the figure is 45 percent for middle managers who are male.” — Newsletter of the Women’s Freedom Network, Spring 1997

Mutilated Beggars

During the economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, we termed the resulting recession as “the mancession” because the vast majority of the jobs lost were those done by men. If I remember correctly, it was three men losing a job to every woman who became unemployed. But, when the economic stimulus was injected into the economy, they had feminists appearing on the Business News Network (BNN), madder than wet hens that women were not equally receiving stimulus money as men. It really did make sense that more money was spent on men’s jobs than women’s, since those were the vast majority of the unemployed, but feminists demanded 50/50 equality in the spending of stimulus funds. See how this works? America had become A Woman’s Nation because they finally outnumbered men in the workforce, and they were so gracious about it that they cackled and laughed and wrote about The End of Men, spitting in men’s faces when they were down. But when it came time to deal with the problem and get men back on their feet, they screamed and wailed that they were victims for not receiving equal funds – funds they did not need nearly so much as men.

And further, when people mentioned that a lot of those men were supporting families, you could almost see the hatred spill from the now ex BNN news anchoress, Kim Parlee’s eyes, matching the spirit of her “unbiased” panel: a gaggle of feminists pulling The Mutilated Beggar argument. You see, women support their families too! Therefore, it was sexist to insinuate that it was higher priority to put those men back to work instead of women.

Except… let’s not forget that, at the behest of feminist and media brainwashing, we now claim that “all families are equal.”

But they aren’t.

When we talk of men and their families, we are talking about a man, a woman, and the children they might have together. When we talk of women and their families, however, we are talking about a single or divorced woman and the children she has. The man is non-existent in this paradigm.

But does that mean that man has truly ceased to exist?

Nope, what it means is that the man, whose job was taken by a woman, is now sleeping down by the river beneath a bridge.

You see, men take care of themselves, women and children. But women? They take care of only themselves and children, while leaving the man to fend for himself. Thus, if you wanted to benefit the most people in society with jobs, you would first give the work to men who then turn over their paychecks to their wives. This simply does not work the same way in reverse.

This Way to See the Great Egress!

There is a great old story about PT Barnum. One of his shows was so successful that the crowds were becoming dangerous. People were so packed that there was a real danger of some of them getting trampled. So, he had his carnies open some of the gates and his barkers start shouting “This way to see the great EGRESS!” The herd surged through the gates and found out that “egress” means “exit.””

Feminism has done far more to liberate men than it has to liberate women, although most men don’t think it has at first glance.

All throughout history, men have had the curse of having to work. Society greatly enforced the “gender role” of men being the breadwinner who then passes on “the bread” to females. Up until the feminist revolution of the past fifty or so years, the only men who got away with being socially acceptable without tying themselves to the responsibilities of a job, a marriage, and supporting a wife and children, were eccentric rich men. For the rest, if you didn’t follow in the condoned path you were considered a social outcast. But remember, men only need to expend around 20-30% of their labour ability in order to survive – when yoked to a woman and children, the excess went to them, not to the man.

Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. This goes all the way back to when we were living in caves. When the woman heard a rustling outside, she pushed her caveman out first, using him as a shield to check if it was a sabre tooth tiger. Once the area outside of the cave was secure, the woman took over the immediate area around the cave while she sent the man further out into the dangers of the wilderness to hunt mammoths and bring her back some meat for dinner. Once the male has made things safe and easy, the woman takes over and pushes the man away, insisting he move on and make more things safe and easy… and when he succeeds in doing it, she takes over that space too!

The same thing happens in the workplace. Work was never been “fun” for men. It has been oppressive and often downright dangerous. The 50 some odd men who gave their lives so that the Hoover Dam could provide electricity for women and make their lives much easier probably didn’t feel overwhelmed with their “patriarchal power.” But, as soon as men make a certain area of the workforce safe and pleasant, women immediately move in and claim they were “oppressed” by not having the opportunity to do such work throughout history. Today, women are not claiming they are being “oppressed” by not being represented in great numbers in the construction industry. But this kind of work is often dangerous and dirty, climbing around on roofs and scaffolding while pounding away with a hammer and being exposed to all sorts of inclement weather. However, once construction work becomes so computerized, safe and pleasant that one can build a house by sitting in an air-conditioned box, pushing buttons while gabbing mindlessly with one’s friends, women will claim they have been “oppressed” throughout history for being “denied” the opportunity to do such work, and they will force the men out so that they may exercise their girl power.

I say, “Let them!”

Sure, men still have to find some work to do in order to provide for themselves, but so long as they aren’t attached to women and children – which feminism has done everything possible to make happen – they really don’t need to work that hard. If you don’t get saddled down with debt for a useless degree, or a useless McMansion, or a useless wife who secretly hates your guts, but rather find something decent to do like being an electrician or a plumber, you could easily save up enough money by 35 or 40 to run off to Mexico or Thailand and live like a king, never having to be a wage slave again.

Women are demanding to have our curse because “They don’t need no Ma-yan!”

Let them take it!

Work sucks! A bad day of fishing is better than a good day at work! 

You Go, Grrrls! Men have better things to do! 

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”
…. \_/………..

What’s Next? Cries of Sparta?

Posted August 7, 2013 by fedrz
Categories: Uncategorized


Um, actually… Yes!

Lol! I had a case of rant-itis the other day over at Dr. Helen’s, not that you care to read my ramblings… oh, wait… why are you here again?

Anyway, the gist of my argument was that academics are stooooopid, and it must be the biggest stimulus package of all time to have thrown away scores of knowledge about humans & the relations of the sexes that was known in the past, under the horrific charge of “misogynist,” only to now pay our modern-day slackademics big bucks to “rediscover it.”

Captain Chivalry showed up with his cape wrapped tightly around his eyes… as well as a professional victim-screecher, er, dissimulator… well, anyway, the link is up there. It was good fun.


It seems the equality-seekers have found another university study revealing some shining light on knowledge “never before known.” I guess we can now talk about it, since the seekers of truth have sanctioned it with a real study! Yippee! It must be real now!

Study Shows Disparities in Criminal Sentencing

“The assessment of fees and fines also appears to be influenced by defendant characteristics: Hispanic defendants are assessed significantly higher fees and fines than white defendants, and male defendants are assessed significantly higher fees and fines than female defendants.” – The Assessment and Consequences of Legal Financial Obligations in Washington State

(dumb dee dumb dumb… moving along…)

“The report urges the state to overhaul the way Superior Court judges assess those penalties.”

Attorney Marc Angelucci writes that this study corroborates others that show, for example, ‘gender differences favoring women are more often found than race differences favoring whites.’ (Crime and Delinquency, 1989, v.35, pp.136-68)”

Ssh! Quiet! Can you hear it?


Yup. That’s the sound of yet another door to the Mysteries of the Universe being unlocked by our modern high priests, the Slackademics.

Yessirree! And the Dean of the Department of Useful Idiotology recommends the following actions:

Step One: Run to the government.
Step Two: Hold onto your crotch like a toddler needing to pee.
Step Three: In the whiniest voice possible, repeat the following phrase: “DOOOooooOOOoooOOOooo something! We’re not EEEEeeeEEEeeekwal!”

Of course, for a lot cheaper, they could have just read this kind of stuff:

Excerpts from The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women

Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state… / …in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury… / …But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt.


Whatchoo talkin’ about, Aristotle?

You mean to tell us that it’s near impossible to bring both sexes equally under the law?

I call BS! Has there been a peer-reviewed study done on this?


Then shut up, you misogynist! Telling us clearly with your words that women belong in the kitchen! The nerve!

Obviously women never get into trouble with the law because they never sin! Don’t you believe in equality?

How else can you explain it?

(Dissimulation = A form of deception similar to pool hustling).

Excerpts from Schopenhauer’s Essay on Women

“… Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength, but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and cuttlefish with its dark inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic for the very stupid as the very clever.
Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to those weapons when attacked; and they feel that in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all…

Holy crap, Arthur! You Neanderthal! How dare you say that women should be chained to the bed but the chain should be long enough to reach the kitchen?

What’s that? You say it should reach the bathroom too? Cause you ain’t cleanin’ no toilets?

What do you mean Darwinists ought to believe this too? You’re so full of it. One of the basic premises of Darwinism is that animals devolve into creatures that are less suited for tasks and defences… isn’t it?

Well, since I do believe that men and women are equal – but vastly different, and especially since I believe that we are equal in sin… let’s make sure that men don’t get let off the hook completely.

Here’s an excerpt of Otto Weininger’s preface from Sex and Character:

“Where my exposition is anti-feminine, and that is nearly everywhere, men themselves will receive it with little heartiness or conviction; their sexual egoism makes them prefer to see woman as they would like to have her, as they would like her to be. 

I need not say that I am prepared for the answer women will have to the judgment I have passed on their sex. My investigation, indeed, turns against man in the end, and although in a deeper sense than the advocates of women’s rights could anticipate, assigns to man the heaviest and most real blame.”

Okay then, as long as it’s men that are being blamed and not women!

Mutter, mutter… you’re still a cretin… mutter.

The fact is that women have always been able to get away with being treated with kid gloves.

“Lizzie Borden took an axe, gave her mother forty whacks. When she saw what she had done, she gave her father forty-one.”

But, Lizzie Borden was not punished. Scores of people rushed to her defense and she was acquitted. There was no investigation afterwards.

When was the last time a woman was executed in the USA anyway? How many men have been executed since then? And they’re just figuring out that men and women aren’t treated equally before the law?

Why wasn’t Genene Jones fried? She was a mass baby killer. She’s getting out of jail in another 8 years. She should have swung from a rope, and then gotten fried. Better yet, she should have been hung from an electrified rope!

Belfort Bax, writing in1908’s The Legal Subjection of Men and in 1913’s The Fraud of Feminism wrote extensively of the phenomenon of women being treated more leniently than men by the courts… so much that, well, I just don’t even know where to begin. You can find examples of all sorts. From society demanding that innocent fathers also be charged when a woman alone commits infanticide… to 14 year old boys being charged for sex crimes when engaging in the deed with 16 year old girls who were the sexual aggressors… to demands that men who hire prostitutes ought to be charged equally as the prostitute herself…

Kinda makes you think that academics who claim to be “studying” this stuff while putting out their palms and asking to be paid for it… well… their integrity certainly ought to be scrutinized, or at the very least, the integrity of their “superior” degrees.

Of course, one could always just do a head count of how many men are imprisoned in the country and then do the same for women… of course, there are not equal numbers – mainly because women sin less. Isn’t that right Mr. & Ms. Equality, Ph D.? You could probably just google it.

Women have been performing the same types of crimes for a long, long, looooong time already as well.

Genesis 39 is the story about how Joseph was falsely accused of rape by Potiphar’s wife for malicious purposes.

Judges 4:21 describes the “Mary Winkler’s” of old – killing men in their sleep:

“But Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and seized a hammer in her hand, and went secretly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went through into the ground; for he was sound asleep and exhausted. So he died.”

There is nothing new under the sun – we have only wilfully thrown away all of the old knowledge about the sexes – and we did it all to make the ladies happy.

It’s time to stop listening to these charlatans and toss slackademia into the sea where it belongs. The Social Sciences in particular ought to get an extra ass-kicking.

It’s time to start telling people who demand a “peer-reviewed study” to “prove” something, to shove it up their ass. Is that where the Absolute Truth originates? From a panel of idiots giving another idiot the thumbs up?

Sure, there are some uses for slackademia. Toilet paper has some uses too.

But, it’s time to tell the Ph D’s and other slackademics to shut up and sit at the back of the bus – they’ve done more than enough damage already.

It’s not something that has spun out of control in women, but moreover, it’s that society has thrown away the previous knowledge of how the sexes worked and somehow, idiotically, now believes that men and women can be treated equally under the law.

It is impossible to treat men and women equally under the law.

That’s why society used to treat men and women differently. Men respond more to being controlled by the law, but women respond to socialization and shaming – to fashion, as it were.

The Marxists who were behind the Women’s Movement from the beginning knew this too. See what one of the most esteemed forerunners of Marxism thought of the subject?

“…Women may have happy ideas, taste and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated – who knows how? – G.F. Hegel

In other words, women form their ideas and opinions from fashion and socialization, rather than by universal principles and logic.

While men are controlled by the law, women are controlled by socialization and shaming. And since women don’t much care what we men think, such socialized and shaming control must come from other women. And that’s usually how it was done – the older ladies clucked and shamed the younger ones, and shunned the women who behaved outrageously. (They do just the opposite today, and their socialization encourages bad behaviour).

This does not mean that women are only good for cooking and birthing babies… although, given our below replacement level birthrates, a few babies might not be a bad idea. And yes, a good meal once in a while would be nice too.

But no matter how much that is given to lobby groups to “change the law,” it still won’t matter.

There are fundamental differences in how we operate. Trying to control women by the same factors that are used to control men is completely fruitless. One might as well try to keep a flock of geese in a field by use of a cattle fence. It ain’t gonna work. Men and women must be treated differently.

Far more effective than funding lobby groups to bully the government to pass more laws would be for men to start brainstorming on how to motivate women to start “shaming the sense into eachother.”

As Karl Marx himself noted, women are society – they lead, since men are the sexual servants of the female. Too bad they lead by a sense of fashion and sisterhood, rather than by the logic of universality and the rule of law.

“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” – Karl Marx

(Keep in mind that Marx’s idea of “social progress” is the destruction of Western Civilization)

Aristotle explains this in the The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women as well.

“But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.” – Aristotle

Don’t expect any help from the ladies though. For as Aristotle further points out:

“…the influence of the Lacedaemonion women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy.” – Aristotle

Is this not what we see all around us as well? There are obvious things wrong, and every time a man tries to point out the obvious, the women all gather around him and throw every damn monkey wrench at him as possible. Making sense does not matter to the ladies… but throwing monkey wrenches at the men does matter.

That our children inherit a safe, stable and prosperous society is truly the utmost “best interests of the child” that there is… but, point out the factors that are destroying us… nope, here come the ladies and their senseless monkey wrenches.

They obviously feel that bitching at men and confusing everything what men say is the main purpose of their lives. Otherwise they would smarten the hell up and recognize that they are also part of society and thus, are also part of the problem – and the solution. They refuse to do that. The ladies love to dissimulate.

“SPARTA!” Fedrz cries.

The professional victim/dissimulator, that showed up to argue about senseless crap over at Dr. Helen’s is a good example of the type of “help” we can expect from the ladies as our civilization begins to crumble about us.

There was a reason why things were the way they were in the past.

No, women don’t necessarily need to be in the kitchen. Who ever said that, except for the monkey-wrench-throwing women themselves?

Women would obviously rather have 100% of nothing than 50% of something.

If society refuses to acknowledge these things about the way the sexes interact with eachother, then no amount of laws being changed, or studies being done, will ever help – not one single bit!

These academics “discovering” such things while accepting payment for it are discovering jack-shit. It has all already been discovered and socially censored into oblivion under the politically incorrect charge of “misogyny.”

“Why were things in the past so misogynist?” That is the question that our ill-esteemed academics ought to be studying. The blanket reason for “why” has been “the evil patriarchy,” when it is obvious all around us that the old guys were right, while the “new intellectuals” of slackademia are spineless idiots.

Remember the first reason God gave when he cursed Adam and kicked him out of Paradise:

Genesis 3:17

(17) To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘you must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”
…. \_/………..

Government, Keep Your Thievin’ Mitts Outta My Pockets!

Posted August 6, 2013 by fedrz
Categories: Uncategorized


QUOTE: “…which is part of the reason I don’t mind a little wealth redistribution. I also believe that if we aren’t ensuring that individuals with the most merit are educated properly then we are harming our competitiveness versus the other world powers in the long run.”

Those two things, wealth redistribution & ensuring individuals with merit are educated properly to promote competitiveness, are in opposition of eachother. It’s like pushing and pulling at the same time.

The only type of wealth redistribution scheme that has any merit at all is a consumption tax. This is what the USA (& other places in the West) used to have, and it is also what many tax havens such as the Cayman Islands or the Turks and Caicos Islands still have.

For example, in the Caymans, you pay about 33% tax on what you spend. (Or import). Not on what you earn. That is why things are so expensive there – but, they have no income tax, property tax, inheritance taxes, capital gains or dividend taxes etc.

And this does promote wealth distribution, because rich people spend more money than poorer people. But, if a person were to work hard, and be thrifty at the same time, it is much easier to pull ahead and start getting your money to work for you, rather than you working for your money.

For example. If you live here in Canada, and gross around $4,000/month, after taxes and deductions, you will be left with around $2,700-$2,800 net take home pay. And from there, you pay for your living expenses, most often eating it all up.

However, the other way around is, I earn $4,000 a month, with zero tax, but I pay $2,750/month for living expenses plus $925 in consuption taxes for my goods, totalling up my expenses, including tax, to $3,675/month, and I am now $325/month ahead of the game than the other way, and since I am now batting above my living expenses, and I can directly control my living expenses, hot damn am I going to be motivated to hustle my ass to make some more money. Why, I might even get up off the beach and put in a few hours overtime!

That leads to excellence.

In the same way, I see no problem with wealth redistribution via things like mill rates for property taxes, as per the justification put forth by Adam Smith on that particular subject: Since wealthy people have larger houses, with more things in them to protect etc., it is only fair that their property taxation be higher (as per assessed real estate value, which again becomes a controllable consumption tax, rather than each citizen paying exactly the same amount regardless of their real estate value) because they have more to protect, and therefore are more in need of things like fire and police services, and often times will use them more. Fair enough.

However, progressive taxation on income is a silly invention, that retards economic growth, and removes the motivation to excel by merit There is a reason that Karl Marx puts this out in the Communist Manifesto – because he wants to destroy Capitalism, and civilization.

Also, anything the government touches generates about 30% wastefulness compared to the private sector. And while the government needs 15 workers plus 25 supervisors just to change a friggin’ light bulb, the private sector manages to crank out a miracle a minute. We should stop punishing the private sector and people with initiative, and start punishing the government instead.

Most people are just willfully blind to what they are saying the government should do.

For example: With the Haiti Earthquake, the Canadian government offered to match any private donations made by the people to Haiti. And here everyone goes off nodding their heads, “Yup, yup. T’is a good thing they do that. Uh huh, uh huh.”

No it isn’t! I not only feel like taking out my whacking stick on the government, but also on the people who feel this is a good thing. Hosers!


What is really going on is they are saying, “Geez Fedrz, how generous of you to reach into your righthand pocket and give away $100 to Haiti. So, allow us to reach into your lefthand pocket and match that with another $100 of your money.”

“Whack!” Fedrz swings his whacking stick.

”Whack! Whack! WHACK!”

Assholes did the same thing with the Tsunami, after the citizens donated hundreds of millions of dollars privately, and the government didn’t want to appear cheap. I guess better a thief than a cheapskate, eh?



But, if any one feels the overwhelming need to redistribute any of their hard earned cash to someone who needs it… my pockets are feeling a little light – especially after the gov’t has been pick-pocketing my generosity, as well, my beer kitty jar could use some wealth redistribution from other people’s labours.

“Whack,” goes the whacking stick. “Keep your theivin’ mittens outta Rob’s pockets!”

Related: The Pitfalls of Inviting More Government Into Our Lives

Previous Index Next

…. \_/………..

The Women’s Vote Question

Posted August 5, 2013 by fedrz
Categories: Uncategorized


[Do you believe women have the right] to vote?


I’m not sure that a person who believes Somalia is in the Balkans should have a say in who represents us in foreign affairs.

I’m serious.

Furthermore, I don’t believe that 51% of the people should have the ability to vote to take away the rights of the other 49%, but that is exactly the situation we find ourselves with in a system of Universal Democracy.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” – Benjamin Franklin

I think that questions like “should X have the right to vote?” could be compared to a typical family:

Imagine four children and two parents.

Should everyone have an equal vote in this six person family?

Why or why not?

Aren’t they all equal human beings?

Why or why not?

I think most rational people would say the four children should not be allowed to “outvote” the two parents; yet, they still have the right to live in the family’s house and to sit at the family’s dinner table.

Don’t you agree?

Is there a situation where this should change? What if, say, the oldest two children go out and get jobs and start paying room and board?

Should that increase the “power” of their wishes?

Many people would say that it should, and I don’t disagree. But what if the two oldest children decide to “vote” to knock out all the walls in the basement so they have greater space to play floor hockey?

Should they have the “right” to do such a thing just because they have a vote?

I think most people would agree that just because the two older children now have a greater say, this in no way gives them the authority to break certain general rules.

And what if the two children who now pay room and board decide to “vote” that Mom and Dad should pool their monthly incomes with them and thus greatly increase the resources available to them? Should that be allowed? Why or why not?

Perhaps, the two children paying room and board might “vote” that Mom and Dad should purchase a second car for the kids to drive, or for an expensive swimming pool in the backyard. Should that be allowed? Why or why not?

I think most people would agree that low income people having the “right” to vote to take away the resources of high income people, and use those resources to benefit themselves (the low income people), is nothing more than legalized theft. Why should a low income person be entitled to steal the resources of the higher income person?

In the story of the Good Samaritan, he stopped along the way and gave of his own resources to help someone in need.

Would he have been a “Good” Samaritan if he had stopped you by gunpoint, stole your resources, and gave them to the needy? I think he would have been a Crap-Ass Samaritan. Don’t you?

And what if this Crap-Ass Samaritan ended up stealing so much of your resources that you no longer had enough left over to actually give anything of your own accord? I don’t think that is a good situation at all. Do you?

To answer the original question, “[Do you believe women have the right] to vote?”, I don’t think that anyone should have the “right” to vote unless they can demonstrate they possess enough understanding of our country’s constitution and history, plus illustrate they have an adequate understanding of political science in addition to a basic general knowledge of both domestic and foreign affairs.

We make people take a test to ensure they are knowledgeable and responsible enough to drive a car. Don’t you think it would be equally wise to make people take a test before granting them the power to drive the country?

I do.

I also think we should be living in a country that adheres to the principles of a Constitutional Republic, which means that the people are equally responsible to a system of “impartial rule of law” and where no man or woman is above the law. And I think that the leaders of this Constitutional Republic should be decided by a Limited Democracy.

A Universal Democracy, however, is a really, really bad idea and never leads to a good end.

“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” – Alexander Hamilton, June 21, 1788

What most of the political correctoids fail to comprehend when they screech about “democracy” and women’s “right” to vote, is that our countries were not intended to have universal democracy – not for men or women. There are far too many people who believe Somalia is in the Balkans for that to have been a wise idea.

Even men did not have the vote for much longer than women. Oh sure, some men had the vote and held positions of power, but the vast majority did not. Most countries in the Western World began granting the “right” for landless men to vote during the mid-Nineteenth Century, anywhere from 50 to 60 years before it was granted to women. Men certainly did not have the vote for “thousands of years” before women.

The rise of the philosophies of Socialism began in earnest during the time frame of the mid-Nineteenth Century to the early Twentieth Century. It was also during this time frame that our Western countries changed from adhering to the principles of a Constitutional Republic to those of a Universal Democracy.

“Democracy is the road to Socialism.” – Karl Marx

Yes indeed, Mr. Marx.

And it is interesting to note that a fairly good spattering of the Suffragettes were deeply involved with the Socialist Movement. One naturally wonders then if their demonstrations for democracy had more to do with the advancement of Socialism than it did with the issues of “women’s rights.”

In fact, one might say that a wise person who wishes to condemn that women did not have the vote for the approximate half century when only men did, would do well to at least examine the arguments of those who opposed women’s suffrage before attempting to speak with authority on the subject. Don’t you agree?

Should one undertake such a task, one would soon find that many of those who were opposed to women’s suffrage took such a stance out of concern for preserving the nature of the state. They were concerned about the changing of the principles of a republic into the principles associated with a democracy, and what affect women’s nature would have on this.

You see, it has long been known that women tend to choose collective security over individualism and freedom. This was well known in the past and it is still well known today. Sure, sure. Some men will choose security over freedom as well, but in general women choose collective security while men choose individual freedom.

Have a look at who the majority of women vote for today as opposed to men. In the USA, women overwhelmingly support the Democrat Party and its socialist principles of bigger government while men tend to be the majority of supporters of the Republican Party, which theoretically stands for smaller government and more individual freedom.

In fact, here is a study titled Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government? — by John R. Lott and Lawrence W. Kenny. It illustrates that since the advent of women’s suffrage in the early Twentieth Century, women have consistently voted for larger government and more Socialist policies.

Now, all political correctness aside, if it is shown that the women’s vote is slowly but surely changing our countries from places which enshrine the values of freedom into nations which do not allow for freedom, but rather enshrine the values of totalitarian Socialist government… do you think that people should have the right to discuss this phenomenon freely with out the shrill chirping of feminists and their mangina enablers in their ears?

I mean, you do believe in free speech, don’t you?

And oddly, free speech is actually a universal “right” which is laid forth in our constitutions while, curiously, the universal “right” to vote is not. Even a five year old has the right to free speech, but not the right to vote.

One might even go so far to suggest that a responsible citizen has a duty to point out that if we keep following down this road without creating some checks and balances, we soon will wind up with a form of government in which none of us has the ability to vote at all.

Political correctness coupled with intimidation from feminists and manginas does not change “facts,” and such people who believe that they have the “right” to vote for the destruction of the constitutions upon which our countries are founded, are in fact exercising a vote of treason.

People who would vote for treason, regardless of their sex, should not have the “right” to vote at all. Don’t you agree?

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one” ~Benjamin Franklin

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”
…. \_/………..

Further Reading:

Philalethes #11 – The End Results of Female Suffrage

Philalethes #18 – Opposed to Woman Suffrage?

Republic versus Democracy

The Balance of Power — The Men’s Tribune

How to End Domestic Abuse

Posted August 4, 2013 by fedrz
Categories: Uncategorized


“[Do you believe women have the right] to be free from domestic abuse?”



In fact, I think that we should strive to put an end to all forms of domestic abuse, and I don’t think we should rest until domestic abuse is completely eradicated from our society.

I also think that domestic abuse should be removed from society not only in the terms of male on female violence, but also in regard to female on male violence.

I’ll bet you think that I’m going to start quoting statistics illustrating that females are just as violent as males, don’t you?

Come on, admit it!

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t think that’s the best way to end domestic abuse.

I believe the best way to “end” domestic abuse is to simply abolish the term “domestic abuse” from our language, from our mindset, and definitely from our courts.

I’m serious. Out of all the feminists who cry out to “end domestic violence,” to all the holier than thou academics who study domestic abuse in an effort to “solve it,” to the plethora of politicians who pledge to pass more laws to “prevent it,” and yes, even to the multitudes of Men’s Rights Activists (MRA’s) who demand to be “included as victims of it,” have you ever heard of such a sound plan as mine?

I am the only one with a sure fired, guaranteed formula to actually end all forms of domestic violence!

Why, oh why, am I paid so little?

Why do we have the term “domestic abuse” in the first place?

Weren’t there already laws in place that protected us from violence before the feminists thought up the term “domestic violence?”

Living together in the same house does not somehow free one from impartial judgment by the law of the land. At least, I can’t find the law which says that it does, or ever did.

Were there laws on the books that granted “spousal immunity” in regard to general assault and battery laws?

Could you legally murder your spouse before the term “domestic abuse” was concocted, or did homicide laws protect people regardless of their marital status?

If someone were to, say, threaten to “pound something into my thick skull,” can I not go to the proper authorities, report it, and ask for a restraining order regardless of whether the person is in my immediate family or not?

Wasn’t all of this covered already before the term “domestic abuse” became a household word at the behest of the feminists’ socially redefining academic and legal juggernauts?

We can end “domestic abuse” completely by simply getting rid of the term itself and going back to allowing the law to protect us in the way it used to.




I’ll send the government my bill.

And by golly, YES, I will accept that tenured position at the University of British Columbia!

Does anything better illustrate how sick we have become as a society than the phenomenon that we can no longer comprehend how to function without begging the government to impose more laws upon us?

Not only do we ask for less freedom, but we demand that problems be completely solved by passing more and more laws until every last aspect of the problem is gone.

Imagine a lobby group was formed to “end speeding” and they pledge to keep fighting until every last speeder is removed from the roads.

It starts off small, perhaps with a policy of “zero tolerance” for being even one mph over the limit and increasing the fines by 50% to hurt people in their jeans.

But, some people are still speeding.

What to do, what to do?

Well, let’s give speeders points on their driver’s license which will increase their insurance premiums!

“Zooooooommmmm!!!” The sound reverberates in a rubber-necker’s ears.

“There out to be a law!” he exclaims, “Doooooo something!”

So, we pass a law that anyone caught speeding will have their car impounded for 6 months.

But still, someone will speed, somewhere.

I think you can see where this is going. In the end, there is absolutely no possible way to remove every last speeder from the road… except, that is, to make it illegal for anyone to drive a car, period. That is the only possible end to the equation.

And so it is. Transportation by automobile benefits mankind to an enormous degree, but there are certain negatives we must accept that go along with the positives. If we want easy, fast mobility and cheap transportation of goods, we must also accept there will be a certain amount negatives that are unavoidable.

There will be speeders, there will be accidents, and there will be injuries and deaths.

And we must accept that there will be these negatives or we will not receive the positives.

This concept is all around us in nature. Mankind must not be as smart as he thought if he can’t see what is all around him.

People who say they will not rest until the problem is completely solved are preaching totalitarianism and should be made to spend an afternoon in the stocks; letting some tomatoes smarten them up a few IQ points.

The world will never be perfect.

Only Marxists preach that they can create Heaven on Earth. And they preach it will be achieved by slavery to a totalitarian state.

Marxists are evil idiots. Many feminists and academics are unabashed Marxists.

Have a look at how the Abuse Industry works with our children.

Instead of asking a hard working farmer and his wife of 40 years how they successfully raised eight law-abiding, successful children, we ask someone completely different for “expert” advice.

Who do we ask?

We ask an angry 45 year old lesbian with a Ph D in Whatchamacallit, who herself comes from a broken home. She has one 3 year old child which was spawned by Thomas the Turkey Baster.

These kinds of people are our “experts.”

And, what do our “experts” recommend?

Parents should not be allowed to decide how to discipline their own children! Some parents have “over-disciplined” their children, and therefore no parent should be allowed to discipline their child with spanking.

That parents have successfully raised their children with the aid of physical discipline for thousands of years now becomes irrelevant to our academic gods. Times are different now. Yes, fine individuals like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were spanked as children, but children were born with leather asses back in those days. Children born today are different from them. Can’t you tell? They now have three arms and green skin!

“Parents have been wrong for thousands of years,” cries our Sapphic guru, “and some parents have abused spanking to the point where it is physically abusive, therefore NO parents should be allowed to do it!”

It is much better to let a child learn that playing in traffic is dangerous by sitting the five year old down and explaining it to him. If discipline is needed, a “time out” is recommended, and ultimately, children need to figure out and learn these things on their own anyway. That Mack truck has a natural lesson it will teach your child, so what the hell do you parents think you are doing, giving your child a smack on his bottom? You Cretins!

You see, our “intellectuals” have manipulated our legal systems with a belief that it is better to have all children raised at 50% capacity, rather than to have 95% of children raised at 100% capacity, with the remaining 5% raised at 25%.

They believe they can prevent this:
By making everyone live in a Utopia that looks like this:
Our lesbian lecturer will tell us that this is for “the greater good,” but it becomes obvious that she is not an expert in mathematics.

You see, 100% of the population at 50% equals 50%.

But (95% of the population at 100%) plus (5% of the population at 25%) equals 96.25%.

A population operating at 96.25% capacity is greater than one operating at 50%.

Who’s telling who about “the greater good?”

Everywhere you look in nature you will find this formula.

It’s time for us to recognize that laws can also be repealed!

We already had legal mechanisms protecting us from violence. We didn’t need to have a whole further myriad of never ending laws bringing the whole herd down to 50% capacity.

And we certainly don’t need to lobby to be included within them, feeding the Utopian beast even more.

End the Abuse Industry NOW!

It’s the only sure fired way to rid the world of Domestic Abuse.
“Heaven on Earth” is a nice fairytale theory. But in practice it becomes a Living Hell.

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”
…. \_/………..

Feminine-ism: The “Nicest” Ideology in the World

Posted August 3, 2013 by fedrz
Categories: Uncategorized


“Feminine-ism” is a manifestation of the “feminine spirit” or, the “feminine principle.” Often we refer to “the totalitarianism of women,” and really what it is is the feminine principle which is trying to impose niceness on us. This is the underlying evil of the feminine principle. Women have no concept of cause and effect, but they do want everyone to be nice and they are willing to use totalitarianism to force it upon you.

Look at the Temperence Movement that arose at the exact same time that women’s political power starting coming into our culture. Ah, Prohibition! Some men (and even a few women, gasp!) are lousy with hooch, and some families are negatively affected by it. Therefore the government should pass totalitarian laws forcing everyone to be nice. Of course, this led to the rise of wonderful citizens such the mass-murdering Al Capone and his mirror image, the thugs with guns that enforced the laws at women’s insistence. But as always, everything women do is indirect so when their totalitarian actions caused a massive disaster, women easily side-stepped the blame and said, “See! It is the evil men who are the criminals, and it’s the violent thugs with guns that leave other men bleeding in the gutters. Oh my, we are such victims now, we can hardly walk the streets! Pass more laws to make everyone nicer!” It’s a dangerous spiral that “seems nice” on the surface, but quickly turns into an ugly totalitarian monster where the only “safe” and “nice” thing to do is sit at home and watch the ceiling fan go round and round – until, that is, women start talking about how it would be “nice” for the environment if only have electricity for 3hrs a day, and so they pester and badger men to impose more laws upon society to make everyone “nice” in that regard too.

There are no limits to how much “niceness” women will impose upon others. The one thing women have actually invented is a quite remarkable perpetual motion machine that creates laws imposing niceness forever and ever.

Women view us as little boys and they want us to play nice. If we don’t play nice for them, they have lost control… because men don’t play nice at women’s insistence. Men might play nice for their own reasons, but never at a women’s insistence. Boys succumb to mother’s power but men realize the true nature of women and that the “unfair sex” can’t keep two thoughts straight in their head past the next glittering trinket that distracts them, completely cleaning their heads of whatever thoughts someone falsely deduced were actually in there to begin with. Women have power over little boys – watch a woman looking over her brood, and how she gets them to “play nice.” She exercises her power over them to impose “nice” on them, and if they aren’t nice… “Wait till your father gets home!” – More indirect social aggression, with the intention of imposing “nice” on people – through the force of others.

The males of Western Culture are suffering from a form of arrested development because of the overwhelming feminization of our society. Women don’t think they should let males grow out of boyhood (where women are in 100% of them) and into men because women have zero control over a man. And despite their protests to the contrary, they have to change their panties every half hour when in the presence of a man – someone they can’t control because he has risen above her petty bullshit in the same way that an adult rises above the pettiness of a child.

Look at everything that feminine-ism has imposed upon society:

– No more grades in school, because failing is not “nice.”
– No more keeping score in schoolyard soccer games, because losing isn’t “nice.”
– No more boys playing with finger-guns, because that is not “nice.”
– No more women having to raise their bastard spawn alone, because it isn’t “nice” of men to make her pay for her mistakes.
– No offensive language in the workplace that isn’t “nice.”
– No boss demanding she work a full day for her pay, rather than “flex-timing” at his expense – because it would be “nice” for him to think of the children, rather than keeping his business afloat (and providing jobs for others).
– No men hitting on them that they don’t like, because they don’t find it a “nice” experience.
– Nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice.

“Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. … Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as ‘macho,’ a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. … Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women.”Fred Reed

Previous Index Next

…. \_/………..


Further Reading:

Philalethes #1 – Feminist Allies?

The War Against Men – by David Shackleton


“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C.S. Lewis