Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Conspiracy Theory

Main / Which Type is your Type?
Aug 21, 2005, 08:55 PM
I have a lot of 'types' when it comes to chicks.

I can go for the Scarlett Johanson look:

She has a variety of looks I like.  Dark hair, blonde, red head.

Another chick I like is Emmy Rossum, who can totally do it for me:

I never knew who she was until I watched Phantom (because I'd seen everything else).

But thin, big pouty lips.  Man I'd love to bang her.

There might be others, and if you post porn please forwarn everyone who might be at work.  Thanks!

If anyone can help me out, I got a debate going in which some evidence would be handy.

Don't feel as though you have to go out of your way, just if you have something you know of of the top of your head etc...
Main / Feminism, GPS, and Whathaveyou.
Aug 16, 2005, 08:14 PM
Alright, now here's a conspiracy.

All the rage is with this GPS tracking stuff.  (I say buy stocks now because they'll shoot like a Peter North facial).  

They want their kids to have cell phones in case of emergency, this is incremental to basically implanting kids with tracking devices.  For protection.

They want criminals implanted.  And my guess, is that they're giving out cell phones to women, just in case.  Corporate socialism in my opinion.  

How long will it be before women, for their protection, start injecting gps tracking in case they go missing, and blah, blah, blah.

Now.  I mentioned Corporate Socialism a minute ago.  And it's something I fundementally believe.  Feminism is sponsored by major corporations like car companies because they want to sell more cars.  Not because they care about women.  So, bunk research is established to show women oppressed and blah, blah, blah, blah, now we have a constitutional violation that fundementally establishes a transfer of wealth from men to women to Corporate America, or in this case Auto Manufacturers.  Think about it.  It makes sense.  Considering that they control the media, it's certainly in their best interest to keep the men's movement down, or ridiculed.

Well.  Now that we are moving towards that Big Brother society, which I find it difficult for anyone to argue against, look for incremental steps in which women, under feminist propaganda ie male violence, will be accepting gps tracking for their protection.   Maybe even direct "panic buttons" to warn authorities.

Again, call your brokers and buy some stocks.  IT will go up.

Here's a diagram of how it works:

Men$$$---->Women$$$---->Corporate America$$$ (The buck stops here)

Now please for your safety, keep your hands in the car at all times.

Main / Uhg! Hillary Clinton in 2008
Aug 16, 2005, 02:41 PM
Looks like it's getting pretty serious.

Hillary playing the "moderate".  I laughed so hard milk came out my nose.
It is my belief that the use of Feminism in third world countries, (and actually including our own) is a weapon of mass destruction.

That feminism is something that is "off shored" to other countries as a form of military tactic.

I for one believe the UN is a total front.  And that all their "helping" around the world is going to get us all killed or worse.  

Just because these fools don't use guns and kill in the conventional sense does not mean it isn't a military tactic designed to colapse countries from within.

Wars can take years.  Decades even.  Feminism can undercut mortality rates to less than 2 points in a matter of years.  It can destroy families, and the will to defend.  It can imprison men and bring about forfeited power to unruly leaders such as the UN, which is exactly what feminism does.

If the idea is to conquer a nation.  One does not have to use bullets to annihalate.  One can use abortion, sterilization, birth control along with bio chemical weapons like aids, hepititus, malaria and a variety of other diseases.  See the UN's failed attempts at reducing aids holocaust in Africa.

Here at home propaganda mixes legislation of how it is "men" that spread aids in Africa.  Causing more eugenic like phobias and hysterical crises.

Feminism is designed to destroy entire continents.  Think about it.

Yesterday Germany, Today the World.

Main / Question for Devia
Aug 15, 2005, 10:56 AM
I've known Devia for a long time.  

In fact I was one of the first people to welcome Devia to the 'SheThinks' boards like 5 years ago.

In that time I got into some nasty flame debates with Devia in regards to gender issues.

At that time Devia was convinced that women were the abused and men the abuser.  That I was a miscreant with a persecution complex.

Devia even invited friends to look at my posts, including her boyfriend/husband? to call me names and try to belittle my points with the typical emasculation insults that in my opinion are psychologically designed to censor the debate rather than foster a solution to the problems of what feminists seek.

I would like to ask Devia a few questions:

1) Do you believe men are victims of domestic violence at the same rate as women, and that it is a human problem not a gender issue?

2) Do you believe that incidients of sexual assault and rape are drastically over implied through current feminist methodological research?

3) Do you think that the remark that "Only 2% of accusations are false) is proven not to be empiracal or founded in regards to gender issues?

4) Do you now believe that the feminist research model of "We will now be referring to the perp as 'he' as mostly it is men who commit such acts?"  
(I won't even mention how feminists would never stand for such a thing if done in reverse)

5) In your time here on this forum and she thinks has your view changed at all.  Or do you still believe in the standard feminist mantra?

Devia, most of the time I see you as being genuine, not sure though.  I think you believe in the issue of equality and bring up some good points.  However in the beginning it was clear that you stuck to the same 'feminist' role model.  

I look forward to your response.

Feel free to chime in and give your 2 cents.
Hopefully this will be a constructive thread.  And everybodies input is welcome.

If you are interested and I hope you are,  let's just jot down a few ideas on activism that can be done outside of this forum.

There is no wrong answer,  and no stupid ideas.   We should take the time to creat a decent list and perhaps create a sticky thread,  or its own section as a suggestion to activists who want to go beyond this forum.

Here is one thing.  When my car had the bumper sticker on it, it garnered a great deal of attention.  Guys would check it out and say to me on the road they were going to check it out.  Some would actually drive out of their way and beep at me to find out what the sticker meant.

Now this doesn't have to be  mensactivism sticker,  but it can be a sticker that refers to issues, or something related.  Its simple and it does the work for you,  and it reaches a large amount of people when you are driving.  It could be as simple as  "Men have rights too",  or "Paternity Fraud is Wrong"  or  "False Accusations Hurt Everyone",  with modern technology you can have custom stickers designed in a heart beat for a low price.

There are all kinds of people out there who don't know of our existance.  Each one of us could be ambassadors in local communities,  evangilizing the movement.   You may have one in ten that only agrees with you,  but after a hundred you have 10 who do,  after a thousand, you have 100 that do and a thousand who know about you that may decide to agree in time.

So my first suggestion is bumper stickers.  I will let some others give some suggestions.
Check it out here.

Feel free to join, it is free to join, and explain some further details on the subject to people outside of our realm and not a "preaching to the choir" site.

Try to be respectful and stay on point avoid flame and they'll have no reason to ban you for speaking the truth.
With the big push for the new movie 'The Dukes of Hazard' one thing is clearly apparent:  Daisy Duke gets hit on a lot.

Jessica Simpson has an entire video devoted to kicking, or punching men who drop her compliments or sexual innuendos.  

The commercial is based on the same the exact same scenario.  With such stupid lines as "We noticed your initials are double D",  which for some reason gives her the privilige of pile driving the guy to the floor and sticking her heel on the guy's throat.

Okay great, the film writers and producers think this is fine and that this perticular character doesn't like being hit on.  But in the next scene you have the same girl using her sexuality to her advantage,  enviting sexual connotations, sexual advances, and special treatement.

Talk about mixed messages.  

Alright, this is just one movie, one character.  But in my experience this seems to be the stereotype character for many, many, many women coming from hollywood.

Is this type of person even real?  Or is she a fabrication designed to 'condition' us?  Or is it just a way to flatter women into watching this movie?  And if it is an ego flattering scenario does this really tell us more about women?

For example:  Do women really want to be hit on all the time?  I mean why even have it in the movie anyways unless it appeals to someone?  The scene is based on a woman's reaction, not a man's action.  The scene of men being rejected by a woman doesn't really go over with men,  but a scene involving a woman who is drooled over by men, then having the power to reject the man and stomp on his face just might appeal to a woman's ego.  

So ask yourself,  where would the scene be if the man wasn't "attracted" to Jessica Simpson?

Is the scene a 'response conditioning formula'?  As in, guy lays cheesy comment on woman, she responds by kicking his ass?

Clearly the only ego flattered here is the woman's and the women who want to identify with her.  

Personally I don't think anything that comes out of hollywood anymore is actually art, but rather propaganda or mass brainwashing (response conditioning) "education" films.

The Daisy Duke character is a formulaic character seen over and over again coming from hollywood, and may very well be the reason why women are becoming so violent and thus facing more criminal charges of assault.

This psycho-analysis could go on, but I think you get the point by now.  

Any thoughts?
Sign's the men's movement is going forward.

There are a few tell tale signs that makes the men's movement far more noticiable than a role call or head count.

It is the constant "Punch--Counter Punch" of the movement.

For a long time feminism was left unchallenged because many men wanted women to have equal rights and were egalitarian anyways.  And since the movement 'claimed' that's what it was all about how could anyone stop them?

Historically movements like feminism made a lot of claims for their advancement and nobody did anything about it until it was far to late.  Nazism claimed egalitarian motives,  the Boleshiviks,  the Red Chinese and so on.  

The Machiavellian style politics was to 'lie, lie, lie' about everything and then do what you wanted to do once you got the power.  As in the Red Chinese who claimed they were democrates all along then when they could deny it no more (but had enough power anyways) admitted they were communist and saw Joeseph Stalin as their very own Big Brother (literally).

Denying Feminists are marxists is like denying toothpaste and orange juice tastes weird together.

The Red Chinese were already working on 'feminist' like theories in the 40's on campuses across the country.  However at that time they were teaching both 'men' and 'women' together in classes.  They encouraged divorce at all costs.  Not just women, but men too.  Just like feminists today, in Red China, men were encouraged to divorce their "reactionary wives" or women who had the 'conservative' upbringing.   It was communist brainwashing and the teachers of it feared their students would "relapse" into returning to their previous values if they returned to their spouses.  This was for both men and women students.   The encouraged marriage was among fellow students of the same mentality.

When communis failed in the west it transformed into a one sided approach of that mentality 'Feminism'.  What they did was take the exact same principles and only taught the girls.   Women were chose for the obvious reasons,  population control is easier to maintain through them.  They have made women dependant on 'them' their by able to control future generations by giving women custody and pushing the father out of the family and procuring feminist doctrine to women who were the sole child rearers.  

Of course there were 'step dads', but this is a gradual decay of culture in order to ursup power.  If you notice, in many communist countries marriage is a strong institution.  But that's only because the power has been ceized already and the state no longer wants to pay for women as dependants but keep all the booty for themselves.  

In the west were are approaching this, but because of that damn constitution it's taking longer.  If you notice, in all areas where 'marxism' is an issue or the  underlying principle in the social movement is the exact same place that the constitution is literally ignored.  This is no coincidence or accident.  This goes for all countries in the west.

Shifting the focus to the men's movement.  To show that the men's movement is gaining ground here is the punch counter punch arguments feminists and the men's movement are now employing.

Marxist feminists designed VAWA.  I say if you look at the beginning you will see the end result on this one.  VAWA is going against nature and truth.  Of course it has to in order to reach it's ideological goal.  Using lies and distortion are not intended to bring about just results, they are intended to bring about sufering.  The sufering is designed to bring about control.  Usually control by the state.  Or federalism in the US's case.

But now a men's movement is undeniably on the counter.  The Men's movement is promoting statistics that show women are violent too.  They want VAWA changed and a different approach encompassed.   Feminists who have relied far to long on the fact that nobody challenged their "authority" on the issue really do have their panties in a twist (and not just the female ones either).  So the fight begins.

Just like a real sparring match.  Opponant A strikes than opponent B counters, dodges or gets hit.  Opponant B strikes looking for a score and the fight developes, and so to do the fighters.  The fighters feel eachother out.  Get familiar with eachother.  Learn to anticipate the other's move.  Look for weaknesses and telegraphed moves.

The odd thing about this is that the fighters often develope a respect for their opponent.  Even an understanding.  Further still a friendship.

This is the worst thing that could happen to those political ideologues who are using us all as pawns in thier little game of chess.  Fratrinizing with the enemy can tear down the ranks and the agenda in one night.  This is the main reason feminists don't debate openly but rather accuse.

For instance someone who challenges rape statistics is automatically called a "rape apoligist" rather than simply looking at the data or confronting the issue to solve the problem as a 'team' objectively.  Again the same thing goes for Domestic Violence.  If one challenges the notion they are quickly labled as abusers and woman haters etc... Rather than the objective look at the research and a 'team' effort to truly solve the problem.

This is no mistake or grassroots developement.  This is 'mass scale conditioning'.  This conditioning is necessary in order for the group 'such as feminism' to work as one organizm on one subject.  For example one of the feminist tenants was when bringing up domestic violence stats is that the stats were done by "Rich Men's Activists".  No proof of this is given.  But it doesn't need proof.  The point is the 'delay' in the understanding of the issue, the continual division of the two parties (men and women), the continued collectivism of women under the issue.  It is "propaganda" that is designed as a counter punch to the men's movement.

This counter punch technique is significant evidence that the men's movement is making progress.

Another significant 'counter punch technique' against the men's movement is the 'hijacking' or 'misdirection' of the men's movement as a specific gender.  

For example:

Take a look at the increasing efforts towards getting men to "do their part".  Originally I looked at these groups like the White Ribbon Foundation (Men against men on women violence) and other groups like it as mislead and misinformed.  After following the money I now realize these groups were and are plants and profiteers.  The media is ramping up its efforts to reach men on the topic.  My guess is, they want to reach men before the MRA's do and instill thier one sided doctrine which equals to "men bad, women victims, give us more money and power".

This is a tremendous sign.  

Another sign was that study done in Quebec in which the government gave thousands of dollars to feminists to essentially 'spy' on the father's and men's movement.  And as usual they blacklisted them as a hate movement designed to 'take away' women's rights rather than 'democratically' view the issues and see if their is in fact a problem.

This to me shows this is more about *power* than truth, justice or solving the problems related to the genders.  It also evidently shows there is a great concern from those in positions to be intimadated, which means the men's movement is advancing.

In the end it probably is only about left vs right in political dogma.  But there are concerns about the pitfalls of the movements and the 'battle' so to speak.  Quite often in history movements or defenders become just as tyrannical as the oppenant.  


When going out to battle a 'bully' be careful not to become a bully.

When going out to battle a hate movement be careful not to become a hate movement.

Feminists clearly have become a hate movement their actions and reactions show us this.  Their methods and social conduct of pre-emptive striking through censorship and ad hominem attacks.

My suggestion is to engage feminists and discuss the issues as much as possible.  We must also learn that most of them have been "conditioned" or "prejuduced" long before our arrival.  And dissarming that prejudice is essential.
Reading this article I found something very fabulous for those commenting on the issues in regards to 'data', and that is the secrecy in which it is collected.

After several decades of feminist-driven social and behavioral research, it is by now a cliché to say that domestic violence research has been hopelessly politicized. Research on domestic violence is not conducted to discover truth, but rather to promulgate an established doctrine on male-female relationships, namely, that they are driven by male power and control, rather than love and reciprocity

"In her book "Who Stole Feminism?," Christina Hoff Sommers painstakingly catalogued the lengths to which feminist researchers went to deny access to their data--even to her, a fellow female professor in the social sciences. Needless to say, Basile's repeated requests for the data underlying the Harvard/Wellesley study were similarly frustrated. Eventually he received a terse letter from the chief legal counsel of Harvard's President Summers, warning him to cease his efforts."

"Basile's research is honest, accurate, and statistically sound. He examined every available restraining order docket for one entire year, to mitigate against any seasonal abnormalities or any accusations of selective sampling. And Basile makes his data openly available."

The open objectivity of this matter is what will lead familes to better understanding of the issues.  Those vieled in secrecy should be reviled with suspicion.

On a side note, in regards to Haily Baily in regards to VAWA she was just on Spike TV urging men to go to a website to see what they can do about Domestic Violence.  More on this when I get the web site down.
Main / Do "boycots" actually work?
Jul 21, 2005, 11:37 PM
When it comes to marketing and advertising the rule of thumb is "do not offend your target market group".

Now, let's say feminists have a beef with something alledgedly sexist.  And men have a beef with something misandrious.  And christians have a beef with something not christian etc....

Do product marketers really care if these groups of people boycot their product?

I mean a tampon commercial can demonize men for the fact women menstrate does men boycotting the product really matter to them?

If feminists are pissy about an issue of Sports Illustrated having an annual Swim Suit edition does it really matter if they "boycott" the product?  Iam assuming that the Advertisers were never considering those groups as potential prospects anyways.  And with the feminists protesting in front of the Rockefeller building against the Swim Suit Illustrated issue only brings about publicity for the edition rather than "Social Justice"?

Seriously.   :D
Main / VAWA and Reparations for Men
Jul 21, 2005, 12:45 PM
I felt this needed its own thread.  

With the blatent abuses of VAWA against men, the MRA community should actively be discussing reparations for men who have been abused by the VAWA legislation.

The factors involved would be the immediate pardons and release of men who have fallen prey to this act.  The list would be quite extensive and a fuller terminology can be hacked out by experts along the way.
Main / Law and Order Special Victims Unit.
Jul 21, 2005, 09:49 AM
This show has got to be the most rediculous show going.  The show continually spits out statistics and psycho bunk masquerading as dialogue the entire episode.

This show has to be connected to either the Justice system or the Military Industrial Complex or something.  It is propaganda being sold as entertainment.

It's goal must be to subvert and taint potential juries for the state.  People watch this show get called in for jury duty and believe what they hear on TV before common sense.  As it always lends favour for the prosecution.

There is absolutly no quanitative substance to this show.  

In 'A Clock Work Orange',  the subject was tied down to the chair and forced to watch the television re education programs for hours.  In reality we are just like that person.  The difference is we watch it willingly so to speak.  It has been proven that tv is actually adictive and an addiction very difficult to break.  

We are being controlled and "educated" by the tv.  And I have to say, this show Law and Order: SVU is got to be pure propaganda designed with that in mind.  Entertainment or brainwashing?  You be the judge.  (pun intended)   :D
Main / What's the deal with Nancy Grace?
Jul 20, 2005, 05:41 PM
I'm sitting here watching CNN,  Nancy Grace, and it just seems to me that this entire show is based on or around crimes committed by men against women only.

Can anyone educate me on this, or think the same thing?
Main / Bukkake
Jul 20, 2005, 05:29 PM
The term Bukkake is becoming more and more common in the West.  Here is Wikipedia's definition of Bukkake. (I highly suggest going to the link)

Bukkake is a Japanese invention, credited to adult filmmaker Kazuhiko Matsumoto in 1998. Bukkake originally became a porn trend because of the mandatory porn mosaic in Japan. Since the directors could not show penetration they had to figure out new, visually appealing ways to approach sex acts that would satisfy the audience without violating Japanese law.

Fetish forced bukkake movies are popular in Japan. The typical plot features a naïve, uniformed schoolgirl or a demure office lady somehow finding herself in the predicament of being tied up and drenched with semen against her will.

I personally hope the connotation of giving a facial sticks, but the whole forced connotation can leave..  But then again, what consenting adults do in their own time.   :D
Main / How to breed a suspicious society.
Jul 17, 2005, 06:52 PM
I was watching the 'Family Guy' tonight and in the scenes they had a potential kidnapping.

Granted it's a cartoon and it's a joke, or is it?  A woman was shopping for groceries in the scene, and a guy was standing there in a trench coat trying to abduct the child.  

My point is that TV land is our sense of reality (or it's distortion of it) and the breeding of a suspicious society is given to us via the medium.
Main / Feminism is the Bull
Jul 12, 2005, 03:09 AM
Hopefully you have seen the movie "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" that way you will understand this a little better.

Rogue Agent Sands played by Johnny Depp as a great scene that can be accurately used to describe feminism.

"Agent Sands: Bullfights. Bull hockey. Do you like this? The bull is stabbed, prodded, beaten. The bull is wounded. The bull is tired before the matador ever steps into the ring. Now, is that victory? Of course it is. Wanna know the secret to winning? Creative sportsmanship. In other words, one has to rig the game. "

In the scene Agent Sands has the Matador strapped with an electrical charge that goes off at the right time and blows the Matador's conciousness and the bull wins.  

Feminism is not much different.  Women, as a group are stabbed, prodded, beaten and wounded continually in order to make them charge.  Who stabs and prods women?  It is the media, the schooling system, it is activists all around using images of fear and constant aggression.  It is VAWA by shadowy analogy.  Lying to women.  Why?  To get women to charge.  How do they charge?  They fight for legislation that creates things like VAWA.  Who is the Matador?  The Matador is the Constitution, the Congress, the Senate.  It is America's checks and balances against the corruption of this "bullfight".  And of course the game is fixed.  The Matador is set up, bought off, blackmailed, electrically charged, so he can't do his fight that he was intended to do.  

The Romans have a saying, 'Qui Bono'.  Who Benifits?

Always ask yourself this,  Qui Bono?  Who Benifits?  And that will lead you to the best suspects available.
Main / Circumcision to reduce HIV risk?
Jul 07, 2005, 11:03 AM
Here is the link to the article in question.

The current hypothesis is that those men circumcised have a 70% reduced chance of contracting HIV because there are so many white blood cells in the foreskin of men.  HIV being attracted to white blood cells makes those uncircumcised apparent higher risks.  They believe the research has a long way to go to become conclusive.  But might be of interest to those who dissagree with circumcision or just have a general interest.

Here is also a link to a site that claims that HIV and AIDS have no proven connection to eachother.  Very worth the read.