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 - Amber

Main / ..
Nov 04, 2003, 08:38 PM
Main / Students for Democracy
Nov 04, 2003, 04:43 PM
I found on that website where they mention me.

It's actually Dan they mention first, and take offense to his message regarding women can be violent too.
Someone sent this to me,

I just wanted to remind everyone that Bernie Goldberg's new book "Arrogance:
Rescuing America from the Media Elite" hit the shelves today.

While his first book "Bias," laid bare the narrow Leftist agenda which
drives most journalists, "Arrogance" explains why it continues and what
Americans can do about it.

In addition to it being in bookstores everywhere :) you can also get it on
Amazon. Here's the link.
Main / del
Nov 03, 2003, 08:08 PM
Main / Women in the armed forces
Nov 03, 2003, 01:13 PM
Fine, let's revisit this topic.

Quote from: "Radical Angel"
"Furthermore, with regard to the armed forces, there are women who could do anything and everything that the average male participant can do, and then some. There is no reason to reject a woman who can pass all the tests and complete all the training successfully, unless male soldiers use their penises somehow to fight enemy troops."

First of all:  no, most women cannot do as much as men can.  Not even the best women compared to average men.

Second, one can still stop them from joining, even if they are as "qualified."  The reason is female presence decreases unit effectiveness.  Even if a woman is good, she destroys comradery among the men, makes them men want to protect her instead of kill the enemy, etc.

The purpose of the military is national defense.  All decisions must be made with the thought of what will keep our nation safe the best.  If that means keeping women out; that means keeping women out.  Allowing a woman the "freedom" to join the military, as if she needs to join otherwise her lifelong career goal is going to be suffocated, is not adequate reason to let her join.

I know it is very unorthodox to think in terms of doing what is best for national defense, among all sorts of politicall correct, social engineering projects, but I figure if I keep repeating it, it will eventually sink in.  

I believe the primary reason they let women into the military is to decrease military effectiveness.  The reason why no one thinks in terms of what is best for the military is because our intellectual leaders don't want us to think of what is best for the military.  The explicit goal is to destroy Western civilization:  one method of which is destroying our military by letting women join.
Main / First all women parking lot
Nov 02, 2003, 11:33 AM
With the high rate of attacks on women in secluded parking lots, especially during evening hours, the Minneapolis City Council has established a "Women Only" parking lot at the Mall of America.

Even the parking lot attendants are exclusively female so that a comfortable and safe environment is created for patrons. Below is the first picture available of this world-first women-only parking lot in Minnesota.



I unapologetically advocate that women should be feminine and men should be masculine.  Ever since the sexual and feminist revolution, our culture has been dead set on twisting these roles, making men feminine and women masculine.  I wanted to find out what the arguments were for this kind of gender bending, so recently, I picked up the book Androgyny:  Towards a new theory of sexuality by June Singer from the library to get an explanation for it.  

Technically, androgyny is not the belief that men should be feminine and women should be masculine.  It is the belief that men should be both feminine and masculine, and women should be both feminine and masculine.  The author describes her ideal is that men and women would come and develop harmony between their allegedly masculine and feminine sides.  She even critiques the feminist movement for it advocates women be like men so much that they deny the feminine side.

The evil cleverness in Singer's book is she doesn't explicitly define masculinity or femininity, leaving what she is referring to in vague, fuzzy terms.  Indeed, there is a reason for her doing that.  

Here is how she defines what is masculine and what is feminine.   These are not even her definitions; they are, according to her, what "any group of people (would list as) qualities they thought would fall into masculine and feminine stereotypes."  

"The masculine stereotype would invariably include aggressivity, dominance, hardness, logic, competitiveness, achievement orientation, thinking, inventiveness, reason; while the feminine stereotype would include passivity, compliance, softness, emotion, co-operativeness, nurturance, intuition, conservation and tenderness."

My basic question is:  what do any of these things have to do with masculine or feminine?

These dichotomized values have more to do with a more traditional Apollo (the god of reason) versus Dionysus (the god of emotion and chaos) debate, or a Western culture versus Eastern culture debate.  Traits such as logic, emotion, cooperativeness, aggression, or achievement have nothing to do with sexuality.  The only trait I concur that has to do with sexuality is assigning men the trait of "hardness."  

The author goes on to say, regarding the quoted list of masculine and feminine traits:  "(I)t has become apparent to both men and women that each person possesses a mixture of qualities from both lists."  All I have to say is:  no kidding.

Embracing both logic and emotion; achievement and people, etc., has nothing to do with a person's sexuality.  It has to do with becoming an integrated person.  These things do not define a masculine man or a feminine woman.  

I particularly take offense at assigning logic and thinking to masculinity - as if to be feminine, a woman must be chaotic and emotional (in fact I think the opposite is true).  If reason is a value to you (and it is to me), it should apply to both men and women.  Reason has to do with the mind, and the mind is not a gendered organ.  

But, notice what happens.  As the author sets up the straw man regarding what is supposedly masculine and what is supposedly feminine, the reader will nod their head in agreement that they desire both.  Who wouldn't want both logic and emotion, cooperation and competitiveness, achievement and relationships?  

They accept these arguments, but under the name of masculinity and femininity.  Hence, they accept the arguments as they want to be an integrated person, but the end result is they reject masculinity and femininity.  People accept the author's arguments benevolently, wanting both logic and emotion, achievement and relationships, etc., but the end result is a confused sexuality.  

It could be argued that the author is simply a little na´ve.  Indeed, there probably is a stereotype that masculine traits and feminine traits are as described as above.  She may not explicitly want to set up the straw man just to destroy a person's sexual identity.  But the book is called Androgyny:  Towards a new theory of sexuality.  Clearly, it is sexuality the author ultimately wants to challenge.

Sure, when it comes to the sexual dance between men and women, masculinity is indeed tied up with aggression, initiative, strength and femininity is tied up in seduction, openness, submission.  But the author never explicitly says she is only talking about sexuality.  She includes a broad range of things, that have nothing to do with sexuality in her definition of masculine and feminine:  a person who is logical, who desires relationships with others, competition, etc.  The only thing I will concur is that the former are indeed androgynous.  But sexual things should still remain sexual.  Men's sexual identity should still be masculine. Women's sexual identity should still be feminine.

[Will fit in more later regarding what it explicitly means to be masculine and feminine, and what aren't masculine and feminine traits.]

The following is for my reader's (particularly young reader's) benefit.  It is to help you identify the methods and arguments of authors as to decipher what is truthful and what is not.

The book starts off more like a poem than any kind of honest, scientific body of work.  The first sentence of the first chapter is "Soaring into space."  The author then goes on to describe how she loves to fly.  She describes it as "doing something against human nature."  Finally she concludes: "Uncovering the sources of the principle of androgyny ... does not depend upon logical thinking or linear reasoning.  The recognitions come through immersion in the material, contemplation of the images and meditation on their significance."

The author clearly starts off the book by encouraging us to feel, not think.  Notice how she glamorizing "going against human nature" as being something akin to flying in space.  She also describes studying androgyny like flying, for it as if you aren't even part of earth.  She adheres to an imagination-reality dichotomy, in which imagination must come at the price of reality, and we are to imagine the possibility of things, regardless of what is actually workable in the real world.  

All of these things alerted me immediately to the fact that this woman has no scientific, truthful knowledge.  Talking to us about how wonderful flying sounds more like she is prepping to tell us a fanciful story as opposed to any real, honest, hard-hitting body of knowledge.  It preps us to not think of things in terms of reality, but in fact to detach us from reality.  

For further proof of her lack of credibility:  the rest of the book does nothing more than examine myths.  She describes many different myths throughout cultures, and how all of their myths display androgynous elements.  There you have it.  Don't study human nature by studying humans, but human's wild stories.  This author is worse than Christians in her mystical approach to life.  

I have not, as of yet, found a rational reason as to why a woman should be masculine and a man should be feminine.  As far as I'm concerned, as a heterosexual person, I know that masculine men attract women and feminine women attract men.  As such, my conclusion about gender bending remains:  they encourage people to gender bend as to make the sexes unattractive to each other, cause gender warfare, and ultimately break down the family.
Main / Clinton on Amber
Nov 01, 2003, 10:32 AM
Chapin posted this at chapin nation.  :laugh2:

Clinton on Amber:
Dear Amber,
I got your email address from Makbar Fahzuli, my Iranian chauffeur [I had to look up his name on the W2--I usually refer to him as, "get Hillary some more tea you f---ing peasant!].
He informed me you were 21...oh, and a great writer or sculptor or whatever. Listen, I'll be frank, I love your work on that blog and your articles at Thats my favorite website. I go there everyday.
You know, I once got drunk and vomited all over a couple of feminists at Penn State in 1971; so I think we have a lot in common.
Being so young, wouldn't it be a great to form a giving, and you will give, relationship with a former President of the United States? I though't youd agree. Heres my cell: 1-301-[xxx-xxxx]. If any other girls answer, say youre delivering a pizza.
Oh, and don't believe what you've heard about me. Im not a leftist in any way. I'm actually a Libertarian or objectified objectionist or whatever you are. Yeah, I'm what they call a confiscatory, reprocratic, distributor of others peoples profits-- poll the populace before I go to the bathroom-- Libertarian. I love Libertarianism and I'm into the Wicca thing too. The bottom line, my dear full-lipped chick, is that I'm very diverse and dynamic. I stand for school uniforms, naughty girls in school uniforms, and people who exercise the right to take off such uniforms in public or in my limousine (ask Makbar). Call me, I'll fit it in, I mean I'll fit you in.
William Jefferson Clinton
P.S. Any friends or sorority sisters are welcome. I'm inclusive!
That's not the exact quote, but one that fit in the title.

From Weekly's Standard's interview with her:

Some feminist circles have hailed you as one of their own. What is your reaction?

The problem that women face in Muslim societies is not because of religion. It is a result of the patriarchal culture.

What we need is a gender-neutral reading of Islamic texts. The humiliation inflicted on women is the result of a diseased gene that is passed to every generation of men, not only by society as a whole but also by their mothers. It is mothers who raise boys who become men. It is up to mothers not to pass on that diseased cultural gene. I am not against men. I am against a patriarchal culture that denies equal rights for half of humankind.


There you have it.  Women aren't decapitated for warding off a rapist because of the text of the Koran.  It's because of men!

Weekly Standard are a bunch of pussies.  They did the cowardly thing and simply interviewed Ebadi, who of course spreads propaganda.  A real reporter would have investigated the issue further, talked to more Iranians themself (and if they want email addresses, I have them); TOURED SOME TYPICAL IRANIAN MEDIA, for christs sake.  And, no, talking to Iranians in Iran is not enough.  You have to talk to Iranians in foreign countries who can, you know, actually have an opinion without being killed.
Oct 31, 2003, 07:44 PM
Finally found the link for this.  Don't try googling for this.  At least a few days ago, had no luck finding it.

October 30, 2003 -- Researchers have found a surprising link between anxiety levels and watching TV queen Oprah Winfrey.
"Either watching Oprah leads to anxiety, or severely stressed Americans are drawn to Oprah," said behaviorist Hale Dwoskin, who commissioned a study that found that 5 percent of the nation's adults, or 9 million people, say they are so stressed out they can't cope. And half of those are Oprah fans.

The research also concluded that 76 percent of Oprah fans say they wish their lives were calmer, a figure that's 20 percent higher than non-fans.

Bill Hoffmann


Given the show just about glorifies struggles, hardships, and drama ... I can see why.  I cannot sit through that show.
Main / War on Pornography
Oct 31, 2003, 06:21 PM
While I was passing out candy to the little gremlins, I was watching Hardball with Chris Matthews.  On it, they said Bush announced this week is War on Pornography week.

They said pornography had a negative effect on families and they were asking families to only watch family appropriate shows this week.

I'm searching for info now on it.

They had a woman from Concerned Women for America on.  I've often liked CWA.  I endorsed them while in college.  I saw them on Fox News once, and they were pointing out that women in abusive situations needed to take some responsiblity for themselves.

CWA supported the War on Pornography.  The woman, Sandy Rios did a poor job of defending her position.  It sounded like she had talked about it for sometime, already came to her conclusion, and couldn't really provide the specifics or the grounds for why she came to those conclusions.

I could see what she was getting at in some of her arguments.  First, her main point was to enforce the laws already in existence.   That is a semi-decent position, because unlike gun control nuts ... it alerts me to the fact that she is not a statist, because she is advocating enforcing the laws in existence now, not making more ones.  I think she was genuine in her concern over pornography.

She was also saying the pornography in question isn't just naked women, but bestiality, having sex with babies, and the like.  Her points would have been stronger if she could have defined what she meant.  I don't think she got around to it because I think she does actually want to ban all pornography, therefore wasn't willing to make the differentiation between some really nasty porn and more regular porn.

The one thing that got to me about the anti-porn laws was that the only criterion for them are what holds up to "community standards."  This does not make for objective law.  "Community standards" puts anyone, anywhere at the risk of arbitary enforcement.

Now, for my views.

Yes, I agree, pornography is bad, and specifically has a negative influence on families.  This War on Pornography week preys on people and women like me, who are not only opposed to pornography within a family, but feel absent and loss in our quest for it, since the culture is so hostile to people like us.

But I don't think leadership needs to come in the form of a gun.  In theory, I do not support making pornography illegal.  

However, if we were to go by the guidelines of the Constitution, I do believe local governments have the right to "legislate morality."  As a Constitutionalist (which I consider myself to be), I would not question these local laws against pornography.  However, I would voice concern over the basis being "community standards" instead I would say it should be "objective law."

Indeed, in a local community, things like pornography will effect your home even if you don't buy it yourself.  If I'm raising a family, I don't want a strip club down the street or adult advertisements in windows.  Keeping it at a very local level would allow a person massive choice in where they choose to live, thus those that want to be freaks can go to freaky places and those that want clean neighborhoods can go to clean neighborhoods.

Although the argument could be made that the free market would handle itself; since a strip club would not set up shop where it is not wanted.

Here, I found a press release from the

Protection From Pornography Week, 2003
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

Pornography can have debilitating effects on communities, marriages, families, and children. During Protection From Pornography Week, we commit to take steps to confront the dangers of pornography.

The effects of pornography are particularly pernicious with respect to children. The recent enactment of the PROTECT Act of 2003 strengthens child pornography laws, establishes the Federal Government's role in the AMBER Alert System, increases punishment for Federal crimes against children, and authorizes judges to require extended supervision of sex offenders who are released from prison.

We have committed significant resources to the Department of Justice to intensify investigative and prosecutorial efforts to combat obscenity, child pornography, and child sexual exploi-ta-tion on the Internet. We are vigorously prosecuting and severely punishing those who would harm our children. Last July, the Department of Homeland Security launched Operation Predator, an initiative to help identify child predators, rescue children depicted in child pornography, and prosecute those responsible for making and distributing child pornography.

Last year, I signed legislation creating the Dot Kids domain, a child-friendly zone on the Internet. The sites on this domain are monitored for content and safety, offering parents assurances that their children are learning in a healthy environment. Working together with law enforcement officials, parents, and other caregivers, we are making progress in protecting our children from pornography.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 26 through November 1, 2003, as Protection From Pornography Week. I call upon public officials, law enforcement officers, parents, and all the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth.

Main / Trick or Treat
Oct 31, 2003, 02:56 PM
I have to hand out candy to a bunch of gremlins tonight.

I was thinking I might give them a trick.  It is trick or treat, you know.

Hmmm, silly string, buckets of water, handing out out creepy spiders ... ???

Maybe I'll hand out beer, or something.  

Then I can eat all the candy.   :)  :twisted:
.. someone?

Hmmm?  Especially when you actually mean it.

Anyone who publicly declares they want to kill someone, should be investigated by the government.

The reason why Joe McCarthy went on his "witch hunts" is because the Communist Party of the United States openly advocated the overthrow of the US government.  He had every right to.
Main / Dr. Evil
Oct 31, 2003, 11:01 AM
Dr. Evil, in case you missed it, I asked you to ban any posts from AW (or others, I guess), which advocate violence.  Even if it's in a joking manner.  I thought AW was mostly joking with his AFA stuff, but it turns out he wasn't.  

Up to you how to handle it, just my .02.
I just got an email from a friend that says those on the forums are cheering a feminist being gunned down, and are expressing extreme bitterness towards women in general.

Ya, way to go guys.  :roll:

Main / The non-thinking thread
Oct 30, 2003, 09:50 PM
I'll probably be dead asleep in 20 minutes.  I really just don't feel like thinking, and that includes typing coherent posts.  However, I feel like posting.  And I feel like posting beautiful things and funny stories.  So, I am going to post this picture that I think is awesome and tell quirky stories.    

Here is the quirky story.  The guy who sent me that picture is an Islamic friend of mine that lives in Pakistan.  Get this:  he told me my writings REMIND HIM OF WHAT THE KORAN PREACHES.  Can you believe it???  Me and the Koran????   Hahahaha, that's hilarious.
Main / Is Bush financing terrorism?
Oct 30, 2003, 06:26 PM
Letter to the Editor from the Ayn Rand Institute

Dear Editor:

President Bush recently announced that he would supply $157 million to
help Indonesia's school system. The Indonesians will apparently accept
the donation but have made it very clear that they would have total
control over how the money would be spent and that they would not
teach American values.

Given that Indonesia is a hotbed of Muslim terrorism, it is obvious
that this money will be spent, in part or in whole, to teach hatred of
America and everything she stands for: reason, freedom, individual
rights, capitalism, technology, and progress.

In short, this money will be used to subsidize the teaching of ideas
aimed at bringing about our own destruction. Karl Marx said that
capitalists would sell communists the rope with which the Marxists
would hang them. But what President Bush is doing is much worse. Rope
is simply a material object, but Bush's subsidy will help spread the
ideas that encourage others to kill us--with rope or any other weapon
at their disposal.

Giving this subsidy to Indonesia is simply suicidal; it would be like
giving educational subsidies to the Nazis or Communists. It would be
the most shameful act of President Bush's career. Let us hope that
more rational members of the administration will change the
President's mind.


Edwin A. Locke
Ayn Rand Institute

This letter is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), and cannot
be reprinted without permission except for non-commercial, self-study
or educational purposes. We encourage you to forward this letter to
friends, family, associates or interested parties who would want to
receive it for these purposes only. Any reproduction of this
letter must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in
reprinting or redistributing this letter for any other purposes should
contact [email protected]. This letter may not be forwarded to media
for publication.
Objectivist Epistemology will be the Final Liberator of Women

There is a saying in Texas that goes something like this:

"God didn't make men and women equal; Samuel Colt did."

The obvious implication in this is that guns equalized the playing field between men and women.  Women, by nature less strong than men, do not stand a chance against a man if she (god forbid) finds herself in a threatening situation.  But with a gun she can.  God bless technology.

Nature sometimes isn't so nice to any particular species or human being.  This is relatively true of women.  Nature made women weaker than men; bonded to pregnancy if she chooses to have sex; and generally dependent on men if she does not live in an advanced society.  

But there are several things that liberated women from nature's wrath.  The first is technology (almost all of which was invented by men).  As mentioned, guns have liberated women.  Also, birth control has liberated women by allowing them to plan pregnancies.  Secondly, capitalism has liberated women.  Capitalism produces such an overwhelmingly prosperous society that a woman thus can compete and provide for herself.  Jobs are primarily intellectual in a capitalist society - one does not have to live hand-to-mouth in nature - allowing women to work and live independent lives, if they so choose.  

Now, brace yourself for what I am about to say.  I have often wondered if nature also made women less strong than men intellectually.  That is, if men do in fact have a stronger natural propensity towards reason than women do.  

I have to conclude that they do.  But, I have decided, it doesn't matter for, just as discoveries and inventions have liberated women in other areas, so a woman can train herself to be a creature of reason.  Reason is an act of choice, thus a woman if she so volitionally chooses, can accomplish it just as well as any given man.

When people meet me, I know they usually like me, and the primary reason they do is because I am so functional (not something people are used to seeing anymore).  I can function both in mind and body.  I can golf; I can read a map well; I have an engineering degree.  I was told once by a guy that I'm the only girl he knows who can tie her own shoes.  Not only can I do things with my hands and negotiate myself around, I am very observational of the world around me.  I can do all these things because of my training in Objectivist epistemology.  

Objectivist epistemology unapologetically advocates reason.  It teaches man how to observe reality, gather facts, and come to valid generalizations (i.e. concepts) about the world around him.  Objectivism also (the philosophy of Ayn Rand), as a whole, shows man that production is his only means of survival, that there is no mind-body dichotomy, and pushes man to become a creative producer, inventing anything from great art to great technology.  

If women were to understand these principles, it would give her the technology to govern her brain properly.  Like giving a woman a gun thus equalizing the playing field between men and women, a proper epistemology would completely equalize the playing field between men and women intellectually.  She could function as well as any man could

So as long as a woman fundamentally makes the choice to be a creature of reason, there is no doubt that she can be.  But she has to make that choice.  Perhaps that is why women aren't creatures of reason.  Men, knowing they will be expected to function, usually do make the choice to adopt reason.  Women, expecting to be taken care of, simply do not make the choice.  

Of course, there are a lot of women who have already made the choice to be creatures of reason, and have contributed great things to society.  But I would like to see more women adopt these principles.

One would think feminists, who announce that they have an overwhelmingly desire to help women everywhere, would advocate what I just said.  Do they?  No, of course not.

In fact, they are completely hostile to reason.  Reason, they say is for men; emotion, they say, is for women.  A "woman's way" of thinking, they say, doesn't utilize facts or logic, but is concerned with intuition, compassion, and feelings.  

Of course, nothing else could be worse in holding women back from success and independence.  In fact, I believe feminists are opposed to women succeeding.  They don't want women to be creatures of reason, for they need women to be impotent, therefore angry in order to accomplish their goals.  

But, in all fairness, conservatives are not much better at getting women to be creatures of reason.  In fact, I've been told by conservative women not to be too much reason, for then I would be unattractive to men.

I find this to be complete and utter crap.  In fact, as a creature of reason, I've found I can not only attract more men, but keep them, for I am more interesting, useful, and valuable to them.  

Being a creature of reason does not mean that you will necessarily tinker with engine parts, or become a "boring" scientist (although both of these things should be admired).  Indeed, it is only with reason that one can have a taste for things like art and beauty.  Reason can be thought of as putting a very strong pair of glasses on man in order to understand and see reality.  What could be better in regards to art and beauty?

Although Aristotle thought of women as inferior to men, it is fundamentally his work (which laid down the first laws of reason and reality), which will ultimately liberate women.  Even if women are, for some biological reason, naturally intellectually inferior to men, it doesn't much matter, for reason is an act of choice.  It is in her hands if she wants to learn the correct method of thinking, in order to become a functional, independent adult.  Objectivity epistemology, along with technology, capitalism, etc., will be the final liberator of women.
Seeing as women's rights were invalid from the start, given it gives a group rights, when the only rights that should exist are individual rights.  It, of course, being collectivist, was grounded in victimhood, negated objectivity, and called for socialism.

The men's movement is doing the same thing.

Why should it have any more validity?  Why are you doing the same exact thing the feminists did?  Except, for yourself. :?:

The solution to a women's movement is not a men's movement.  The disinfectant to feminism is objectivity and a return to individual rights.