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 - richard ford

Main / Ciao!
Jun 16, 2005, 01:04 AM
Ciao! Copyright Richard Ford.

Some message boards will pay you to post your opinions. This may seem too good to be true but interesting opinions draw people to websites and advertising can be sold off the back of this. You will probably never make a living from this- but then again it has been done. The secret is to find the right board and to be intelligently active.

One such board is Ciao! This board seeks opinionated people to rate different products or services they may have used, sharing their opinions with potential buyers. Unfortunately nobody will pay for men's rights opinions as such because reading such opinions does not fill one with a desire to buy anything. Advertisers can be fairly sure that people reading reviews of digital cameras (for instance) are quite likely to buy one at some point so are willing to pay for even unfavourable reviews.

Predictably this activity is dominated by women at present. Women love to shop and they love to talk- Ciao combines both activities so it is bound to be a hit with them. There is nothing preventing us from getting involved ourselves, and the very minimum it will achieve is the following.

1. It will put some money in the pockets of men. Probably not a great deal but every little helps.

2. It will make the needs and opinions of men known to the wider world. It is pretty clear that industry, advertising and government is pandering only to the needs of women. This is because women are more vocal consumers than men.

3. By joining through my website you may support my site at no cost to yourself.

4. Membership entitles you to place a little information on yourself that may be read by other members. Remember to mention your favourite men's rights organization!

5. Best of all- it is all completely free!
Protecting the strong against the weak. Copyright Richard Ford.

Legislation often presents itself as protecting the weak against the strong, but more often it is the other way around. Let me give you an example...

Suppose group X has sufficient power to push forward favourable laws to protect itself from group Y. This can only be done by claiming a special victim status for the protected group- in other words it can only be done by reversing the truth completely. If group Y were really so powerful and aggressive then it would not have been possible for group X to have used the force of law against them- in fact it would have been worked other way around. The more obsessed society becomes with 'equality' the more unequal it becomes. Religions are among the richest and most powerful institutions in the world yet they are now protected from 'hate speech' while you and I are not. Why are you and I judged to be less vulnerable than the mighty religious organizations with there legions of lawyers? The truth is they are protected because they are powerful- not because they are weak.

We have the mighty feminist consensus that fathers are disposable. Any man who loves his children is looked upon as possessive or even a pervert. He will find it hard to work in any government job or large company with government contacts. In short he faces ruin for the simple crime of being a father. How has this come about? Money. The money flowing into family destroying bodies is colossal. Every time a family divorces then the money is divided three ways not two. The family home will be sold and lawyers will get the greater share. The father will be made homeless and the children are made fatherless. In time the children are more likely to commit crimes, take drugs or fail in life. All of these problems involve payments of public money to the privileged liberal elite. It is this powerful group that will rule out of order any attempt to save the family because this would end their power.

The destruction of the family is an ecological disaster as well as a social one. It creates more households and every expense is doubled. Two cookers, two TV's two everything. Twice as much power consumed, twice the land, twice everything. Britain will not get its CO2 emissions under control unless it reduces the total number of households- and it cannot do this unless it saves the family.
Main / Mankind advances on two fronts.
Jun 15, 2005, 11:36 AM
Mankind advances on two fronts. Copyright Richard Ford.

Mankind, the UK men's charity is working on two projects that will do more to help men and fathers than anything it has ever done in the organizations history.

Mankind is seeking funding for the first hostel for battered men in the country. The best way to make this happen would be for everyone who reads this to join as an active member. This would give the organization 'clout' to be taken seriously. The real reason men are not taken seriously in government is not that we cannot prove need- it is that we do not join things. Please join mankind this year, ideally as a life member at £500.

The other front is in parliament. The Labour party is now the only party that supports discrimination against men in child custody. Not only that but we have many Labour MP's who support equal parenting despite the official line.

When an MP considers whether to defy the PM he considers the political cost. Will defying the whip earn him friends as well as enemies? He will be far more likely to stand up if he has a mass organization on his side.

This is another reason it is vital that membership doubles over the next year. Please help if you can.
History and Politics / How to help Africa.
Jun 15, 2005, 11:03 AM
How to help Africa. Copyright Richard Ford.

Africa is in fashion again. A potent mix of first world guilt, relative prosperity and the lack of any alternative ideological or religious outlets is brewing. Good people everywhere have decided to 'save' Africa and Africa should be very worried.

There is no greater waste in the entire world than a good person who does harm accidentally. Human goodness is to precious to waste in this way.

When we read someone working eighty hours a day in a sweatshop for a pittance our first instinct is to boycott whatever product is being produced. Yet why should anyone seek work in such a sweatshop anyway? They must be escaping something even worse (hard as this is to imagine). If we throw them out of work they will have to find other work for even lower rates elsewhere. The poor need more sweatshops, not less.

Furthermore the great advantage of sweatshops is that it transfers wealth to those who work- which is fundamentally democratic. Aid programmes increase the power of 'experts' over the lives of working people. It places money in the hands of politicians and makes them more powerful. Even if the money is not stolen it will certainly be used for political advantage. If we want to increase the power of ordinary people we must find ways to put money in their hands directly rather than allowing this to be controlled by those who would be their masters.

I believe we should help the poor and not the rulers. This means giving the poor power by allowing them to trade directly with people all over the world. No matter how much money we may give them in aid we cannot give them independence because the money will always be handled by someone else. Only trade can liberate the individual. Yet the greatest friends of the poor have set themselves up as the enemies of trade.

We should open our markets to poor nations but cut our aid budget. This will feed the poor directly while denying governments the cash they need for social engineering. Unfortunately fashionable opinion says that we should do the opposite- but when did progress ever depend on fashionable opinion?
Main / Mens Environmental Network.
Jun 15, 2005, 08:04 AM
Men's Environmental Network- a progress report. Copyright Richard Ford.

I have written about the need for a 'green' men's movement and the need to make sure that it is more than one more protest movement. I want men to move directly towards a solution to these problems rather than simply point out what should be done (a very easy and cost free option on the internet).

Furthermore I believe that I am now in profit! Consuming less of the worlds resources should always save you money- anyone who tries to sell you an environmentally sustainable lifestyle that costs more than what you are paying now is a conman. It is rather as if you were in a café and were not particularly hungry- you ask for small portions and were charged more as a result!

The great advantage of this approach is that it is possible to start very small and then grow. If you have a garden of piece of land then create a composting system so that the ground becomes more fertile over time. You can also enjoy delicious, free food while getting more exercise.

Unfortunately I have no garden so I must start with what I have. A few years ago I invested in a wind farm (that turns wind into power). I received tax breaks for doing so and also receive a good dividend. This money was reinvested into a second company that sells ecological products by post. One of the benefits of this is that I receive a discount on my purchases of  twenty percent. I am buying a 'T Wave' (which used to be called Tsunami Wave) that bounces around in the washing machine and supposedly means that no washing powder is needed. I have bought a steam cleaner that makes a frightening noise but can clean anything in the home without chemicals. I hope that both of these things will save me money in the longer term but this is only a side product- the main profit is that my home is emptying of chemicals and I am poisoning the world less. I am using a toothpaste tube squeezer and shaving with a brush.

The 'men going their own way' philosophy is about being free of entrapment and complexity. This comes in many forms- some legal, such as marriage, some emotional such as dependence upon women for approval. We have entrapment due to debt and entrapment due to materialism. Living 'green' can help to free us from the need to own things. If managed well it will also free us from debt.
I will let you know how it goes.
Main / Mystery shopping.
Jun 15, 2005, 06:53 AM
Mystery Shopping, Copyright Richard Ford.

I have a paying hobby - I am a mystery shopper.

Mystery shoppers visit restaurants and shops posing as customers so that they can then report back to the managements of those companies to tell them what is really going on in their stores. This gives the mystery shopper free products and a little cash in return for the effort of visiting the store and filling in the questionnaire.

Until recently this was an area that was closed to men for a variety of reasons. Before the internet mystery shoppers were recruited on a face to face basis by battleaxes in their mid fifties. These women really were a special breed of person- they were able to work in a profession where hours were irregular because they were supported by their husbands and yet they rarely seemed to think much of men. The general view is that men were wimps (they would often tell you this to your face) and would refuse to place you on their books for this reason. I think men got their reputation for blowing out of assignments and being short term because we have to earn a living wage and do mystery shopping in addition to full time jobs.

Mystery shoppers therefore came to resemble their recruiters more and more - menopausal woman who held men in contempt. This resulted in lying mystery shopping reports and easily recognised mystery shoppers. It also magnified the cost of mystery research because recruiting organizations had to pay recruiters as well as the shoppers.

When the internet came along it opened up mystery shopping to men and other non traditional groups for the first time. Potential shoppers could surf the net and accept assignments without facing the subjective judgements of embittered recruiters. I have often wondered what they were so bitter about and I have decided that many of them were caught in a particularly toxic trap that feminism lays for working women with families. If a woman in this situation is forced to work outside of the home she resents it - why should she be forced to do 'two' jobs simply because her husband is a failure? She will continue to punish her husband, male co-workers and her children until she takes responsibility for her own life situation. In most cases she is not working because her husband is unable to support her at all- she is working because she has been persuaded that she needs to buy a new pair of shoes each weekend. The terrible thing about this resentment is that she will continue to resent her husband even if he is gets a rise at work- more so in fact because she now resents him for his success!

Fortunately the stranglehold of the recruiter is now broken forever- the internet allows shoppers to be recruited directly, trained and then sent on assignments without the employer ever even meeting them! Mystery shopping indeed! One by product of this is that pay rates have fallen, but it still remains an enjoyable hobby.

If the idea of eating pizza and being paid for it appeals then your first stop should be to the MSPA  this will give you an overview of the industry.

I wish you the best of luck.
Main / MEN
May 30, 2005, 02:11 PM
Men's Environmental Network. Copyright Richard Ford.

There is an organization in the UK called the Women's Environmental Network which has been built up over many years with great patience by a woman called Bernadette Valley who once offered me a quick fuck at a Friends of the Earth reception. I turned her down (despite being flattered) and she took no offence. Here is a feminist who lived up to her ideals by taking rejection like a man and being open about her sexuality. Despite this she remained a firm believer that feminism was all about female privilege and seriously told me that women should pay a lower rate of interest than men on their mortgages.

The women's environmental network is all about complaining- men should change, the government should do more and so on. The whole movement is founded upon women's natural moral superiority over men. When you believe yourself to be the master race then there is no real reason to examine ones own behaviour and therefore no need to change.

I have aimed to do the exact opposite in my life- rather than complain I act because the only person I can ever control is myself. Furthermore I do not ask money of anyone else.

Simple living is generally more environmentally sustainable than the rampant consumerism of the matriarchal societies. We consume less when we decide to stop competing with other men to offer the most fabulous gifts to women. We find therefore that men going their own way have all the qualities that the WEN women claim to have but do not.

Furthermore our motives are purer. We are not interested in telling the world what we are going to do- we move directly to the accomplishment of the task.
Main / Own your own insurance company!
May 30, 2005, 11:49 AM
Owning your own insurance company. Copyright Richard Ford.

Many of us contribute to insurance schemes of one kind of another. Many US readers will have private medical insurance which I will not cover here. What is an insurance company in reality? An insurance company is nothing more than a sum of money you rent so that you can behave as if you are more liquid than you are in reality. Let me give you an example. You realise that you cannot afford to replace your home belongings very easily- to do so would force you to sell securities at the wrong time or borrow large sums of money at high interest rates. We overcome this problem by buying an insurance policy which gives us a claim on someone else's money if things go wrong. We are in effect 'renting' liquidity so that we can live as if we had the money at hand to deal with various crises when in fact we do not.

I personally believe that people should hold as little insurance as possible because risks are usually smaller than we imagine them to be. How do I know this? I know this because there would simply be no other way for insurance companies to make money otherwise! I do not buy insurance for the same reason I do not gamble- it must be a losing game if the other party is making money from it!

In order to do without this insurance we must find some other way of creating liquidity that does not involve paying a fee. The simplest (but not the easiest) way to do this is simply to save it. A surprising amount of cover can be generated from a few thousand pounds. For example- we may have insurance cover for £20,000 worth of house contents insurance but in reality we need only a few hundreds. This is because thieves rarely take more than your DVD and your laptop. They really are not interested in trying to sell a whole lorry load of furniture.

Many of the ways in which we can cover ourselves against risk do not involve money at all. For example, your computer may be stolen and the main cost this brings you is not the replacement of the hardware but the information contained within it. Backing up our data costs nothing.

Liquidity may be created in two ways. Firstly a sum of money may be put aside. Secondly a source of credit can be reserved by (for instance) building up positive equity in the home you own. Owning money directly is the more expensive of the two options but more sure. It is very rare to be able to lend money to banks at the same rate that you borrow so keeping money aside has a cost. One way to do this is to set up a mortgage which allows the borrower to borrow money at the standard rate against the equity in their home. This seems to be a cost free way of doing the job but has some disadvantages. Firstly your equity is likely to disappear just when you need it most- when recession bites. Secondly you may need your equity for other purposes such as the creation of new businesses or the purchase of new property.

My own aim is to have some free equity in my home and also to hold about £1000 in a deposit account. In addition I aim to hold about £2000 in safe government securities. This may well seem excessive to many people but remember this is what I aim to have- not what I have most of the time. Whenever I pay my credit card bill I lose much of my 'on deposit' money and I gradually build the balance up over the coming month. Much the same thing happens over a year as I buy my annual train ticket.

This is what £3000 buys me....

1) I have no need of house contents insurance.

2) I save approximately £200 on my travel costs.

3) I place as many of my expenses as possible on my credit card and avoid interest charges while doing so.

4) I earn cash back on my credit card purchases.

5) My credit with the bank is excellent.

6) I can negotiate discounts with suppliers for cash discounts.

7) I do not fear losing my job.

8) I do not buy credit card insurance because in I can afford small losses. These are usually limited to £50 per card.

9) I do not buy extended warranties. This can easily save £100 a year.
10) In addition I receive a modest income from the money itself and avoid overdraft charges.

This seems a reasonable return for tying up a maximum of £3000 but the main financial return comes from cancelling insurance policies. I have never had to call upon my money which tends to prove my point about insurance being overpriced. A further £1000 would cover me against the loss of my home in the event of my becoming unemployed.

I would therefore advise anyone thinking of becoming rich to start by bringing their insurance back in house. After accumulating £3000 or £4000 you will find it possible to believe you are capable of accumulating a million for the first time. The first million is always said to be the hardest- the same thing can certainly be said of thousands. If you can put aside one thousand pounds then you can put aside your second. If you can put aside ten thousand then you can certainly put aside twenty. This is yet another reason to start now.
Main / A Purple Wedding
May 22, 2005, 08:53 PM
Get married in purple!

Copyright Richard Ford.

People get married for a variety of reasons. They may wish to make a public commitment to a person they love or they may wish to make the same promise to God. Very few people get married simply to divorce their partner later on although I accept this does happen.

Two people may commit to one another with the purest of motives. They may believe every word of their vows and intend to live their lives together and rear children in a stable home but they have signed a legal contract at the moment of doing so. This contract is the polar opposite of their intentions at the time of marriage- family law is essentially divorce law and is written in the expectation of divorce. It does very little apart from lie there like a landmine thought the marriage until the first difficulties arise. Then it will explode and destroy the family.

This is what the happy couple think they are agreeing to.

Unconditional faithfulness and commitment to one another.

Lifelong partnership.

Pooling of resources. This is to be done in an unselfish and unconditional way. The roles may be the same or different but there is to be no careful account of what each side gets out and what each party puts in. It is to be done in an open hearted generous way.

A commitment to stability- to sort ones own problems out in an adult way.

This is what the happy couple have agreed to in reality.

Commitment for the time being until one changes their mind. Women, in particular cannot be expected to control their sex drives and may choose to throw the father out of the home he has worked so long to pay for. What matters is not the welfare of the child but that the woman gets her oats. No child can be allowed to become attached to their father because they are replaceable.

A partnership of one year or more.

Conditional pooling of resources. Each side to receive 51% of the benefits and 49% of the costs. If this (impossible) situation cannot be achieved then divorce ensues.

No commitment to stability. All chaos and turmoil can be safely exported to society at large. There are lawyers, social workers, welfare departments and advisors galore to help.

This is clearly dishonest. The married couple have been tricked and should be angry.

The solution? Get married but do not do it legally. You may declare you love to one another in a thousand ways without signing that contract.

I will even do the ceremony myself!

This would not be legal.

But that is just the point.....
Main / Becoming a Minister.
May 21, 2005, 11:59 AM
Becoming a Minister. Copyright Richard Ford.

I wrote some articles a little while ago that I am not sure anyone really understood. If they did then the idea may have because was seemed otherworldly and not relevant to the problems we all face.

If this is the case then I will try again. I am a minister (by my own definition) and it is the most rewarding thing in my life. I am not personally religious although I respect those who are- I am trying to return to the very oldest and original meaning of the word. A minister is one who ministers to the needs of others. Over time this word has been used by the powerful and well connected and has been corrupted. A Church Minister is the one that all the parishioners pay their money to while Government Ministers are the ones that receive and spend our tax monies. In other words the word minister has come to mean the opposite of its true meaning- we have come to serve ministers of both kinds rather than have them serve us. We serve ministers whenever we earn money for them and when we give them prestige. The ministry to which I aspire is the opposite to all of this. When I do something for someone I do it with my own money- and I do not expect special prestige for doing so.

A true minister is simply a person who voluntarily devotes ten percent of his income to helping others. The usual way of doing this is to pay tax and to submit to the myriad regulations that govern us in the belief that we live in a democratic society even if we do not always approve of the government. Some men have realised that the politically correct party will be elected whoever we vote for and have opted out of state control altogether. It is surprisingly easy to do this- I will put some of this information on my website. You probably know more than you think already. This is the ultimate revolutionary act because it denies our enemies resources while freeing ourselves in the most direct way possible. There is a moral responsibility that comes with this freedom because we could easily find ourselves living at the expense of others because we are reliant upon some state expenditure even when we do not use state services. We rely upon the state to provide a minimum level of stability and order that makes daily life possible. This is why I have elected to become a minister even before achieving freedom in the other areas. I have created a charitable trust (the Richard Ford Charitable Trust) that will be used one way or another to support battered men. I will finance this trust by paying at least ten percent of my post tax income into it.

I find myself struggling with an overdraft and a credit card. How might I find an extra ten percent when life is already so hard? I will stop playing the game of life using rules that ensure I can never win. Most of my debts come from my marriage which has been over for nearly three years. Trying to bribe a woman into behaving decently very rarely works- and I am still paying the price now. I will never do the same again.

Look around your home right now. What do you see? You probably see some very expensive things and yet you probably have no money. Imagine that you have ten thousand pounds worth of things (or dollars- it does not matter much). How much do you think these things are costing you right now? You may not think they are costing you anything provided you have paid for them. This would be wrong because you would have the benefit of the cash if you had not spent it. This should be calculated at the highest rate of interest you are paying- if you are paying ten percent then your stuff is costing you five hundred pounds a year. The easiest way to reduce debt is simply to reduce the number of unproductive things you own. There is no advantage in simply throwing these away- you must ensure that you only buy productive things in future. What is a productive thing? A productive thing is simply something that generates a benefit that is greater than the cost of owning it. Energy efficient bulbs are productive things because they pay for themselves many times over. Buying a good quality washing machine that is energy efficient is usually more productive than a poor machine. Extended warrantees are a disaster- it is much better to invest the money and buy a new machine when it goes wrong. The idea is not to live in self denial but to make sure that every pound's worth of stuff you buy does something useful.

Let me give you some real life examples from the last couple of months.

Changing my electricity tariff by joining a budget scheme. This gives me an eight pound a year discount in return for 'smoothing' my payments. In effect this is an interest free loan to the power company of between fifty and one hundred pounds. I estimate that I will win more than I lose.

Buying a large quantity of washing soda very cheaply. This will unblock sinks, boost laundry detergent, prevent calcium build up, act as bath salts and a grease cutter for the oven. I estimate that if I can extend the life of my washing machine by one year I will make a big profit.

Use up some old spices by making curry in bulk. This forced me to buy several chickens but used up the spice and other things before they became totally tasteless.

Gathering up all my change and banking it.

These measures may seem totally meaningless in isolation but they release capital and reduce my running costs. My aim is to do this month in and month out until I can live on almost nothing.
Main / A Purple Navy
May 21, 2005, 01:39 AM
A Purple Navy. Copyright Richard Ford.

I have a fanciful dream I would like to share with you.

In the wealthier parts of England many men have a problem in finding decent accommodation despite earning quite good money. This is because the economic success of this area has driven property prices up so high that even well paid men cannot live well. Naturally single men are excluded from all social housing simply because we are men and this means that it is impossible for many of us to take jobs. As a result a whole group of us are growing up without the work habit or any sense that being responsible pays- this leads to a generalised anger at everything, self destructive behaviour and criminality.

The answer to this problem is not yet another demoralising government training scheme- higher wages would not help in the longer term because men would simply bid up the price of existing housing still further. The only answer is cheap housing that working men can afford.

Once a man has obtained his housing he needs to be secure within it. He cannot build a future for himself if everything he has can be taken away from him at the whim of a judge and this means no women. When a woman moves into male space she takes possession of it immediately. She will move her own belonging in (which are always more numerous than a man's) and generally take over the space. She will start to invent rules that must be followed by any man living with her such as not leaving the toilet seat up. Eventually she will obtain legal ownership when the relationship breaks up. Now, you may say that this is the business of the man himself. If he wishes to enslave himself in this way then he is entitled to do so- but he is not the only one that suffers.

When a relationship turns bad it is not just the man who is on the receiving end who suffers. His friends can see that he is unhappy and failing at things that he previously did well. They are aware of bad atmospheres and tension in the air when they visit him. Very often women will try to control their men by preventing him from seeing his friends (this is regarded as normal behaviour by many even though it is clearly abusive). Again, other men suffer. If there is violence then his friends will probably see him being hurt again and again while defending her. Finally he will be driven from the home. She will know by then that this behaviour works and will turn on any remaining men when he is gone.

The only answer is not to allow her to move in at all. This must be an absolute rule. No exceptions. None. Never, never, never make an exception. If you do then the entire project is finished.

The cheapest accommodation around is on the canals. A boat can be had for between £30,000 and £60,000 and can accommodate two men. In theory it is possible to fit more than that but even two men in this space is stretching brotherhood a bit.

If the boat is mobile it is possible to avoid mooring fees and council tax as well. TV works, as does broadband internet through a 3G card. No electrical bills (this comes from the engine) and no ground rent. The downside is a that boats depreciate rather than appreciate and they tend to attract vandals.

Nevertheless this is the cheapest way to live- even if it is a bit cold in winter. The boats could be bought on a share basis for about £15,000 a person. Many of us could avoid a mortgage altogether in this way.

Many men would use this boat as their UK base while working abroad. It would be possible to further reduce costs in this way- possibly offering a half share at £7500 per man.

This way of life is well suited to men as we do not need 50 pairs of shoes and are less territorial than women.
Main / British Megalomania Society
May 14, 2005, 08:03 AM
The British Megalomania Society.

I will shortly have some business cards printed announcing to the world that I am a Megalomaniac. Apart from making myself look a little foolish, what will be the point of this?

Firstly, I am seeking the company of fellow megalomaniacs. By this I mean people who have ideas way above their station, janitors who have convinced financiers they are film producers, men who think they are as worthy of respect as women- that sort of thing.

I am looking for men who are determined to remake their world according to their dreams and ideals. If it were not for men like this we would still be stumbling our way barefoot, our path lit only by a campfire. Almost all human progress has been made by men who refuse to accept the status quo, yet this 'egotistical' approach has become unfashionable. We are now supposed to accept our limitations and fall in line with feminist groupthink which is all about limitations. If a man conceives of a way to make himself and his family rich then he is torn down because he must be stealing from other, less creative people. Successful nations are denigrated in much the same way- wealthy nations are supposed to adopt the values of poorer ones and to cringe with shame at their own histories. Feminism, and political correctness in general would like nothing more than to reduce everyone to the level of the most wretched and unhappy person that can be found.

The feminist wants others to fail because she feels fundamentally unable to create anything for herself. She wears her failure as a human being as a badge of pride because she thinks that if only she is 'oppressed'  then she is entitled to feast on the earnings of more productive people. Despite this she hates success and happiness to the core of her being and seeks to bring failure and death to all she touches. One reason for this is that healthy people hold a mirror to her without even intending to and show her what she really is. His leads to a deep and murderous rage towards anyone better than herself. As a result she will....

1. Promote the values and ideas of unsuccessful societies and groups over successful ones. Third world nations are held to be the holders of all wisdom. Within third world nations the most primitive tribes and cultures are selected as role models such as hunter gatherer societies that have totally failed to adapt to civilization. Within the west, criminal subcultures are promoted and glorified. Criminals are helped to evade personal responsibility because 'society' is to blame and feminist will frequently support the worldview of the most violent male criminals.

2. Men who dare to dream that things can be improved are ridiculed and accused of being egotistical. In this way the most powerful force for progress in the world is neutralised. All forms of individual enterprise are discouraged, starting as early as possible during a child's schooling. A boy is expected to sit quietly and to be 'good'. Being 'good' (meaning passive) is not what boys are good at. Boys are like small men in that they have boundless energy both for good and evil- many of them are also original thinkers before they can even walk. This means that to may female teachers, boys are 'stupid' and 'difficult'. In fact what is really happening is that the boy is trying to work the world out for himself and is less willing to memorise 'facts' that he has not tested for himself. This is why feminists love to drug little boys with Ritalin. It makes them easier to control.

3. Promotes unproductive sectors of the economy over productive ones. Companies that are successful at meeting the needs of their customers are disparaged as being capitalistic and money grubbing even though they continue to expand and employ more people. Anything loss making is suddenly seen as vital and in need of preservation. On the rare occasion that a loss making enterprise becomes a growth industry then it is possible to see an amusing reversal of opinion. What was previously thought of as worth preserving at any cost suddenly becomes worthless- simply because it now pays its own way. This is packaged along with a pretended concern for the unemployed while stabbing them in the back. The ultimate economic aim of feminism is a population dependent upon benefits system that is controlled by themselves. Only then can they feel both safe and powerful.

The British Megalomania Society is a gentleman's club that seeks to undo some of this damage. Come and enjoy a good meal where no one will invalidate you. You will feel better for it.
Main / I need a million pounds.
May 06, 2005, 03:09 AM
I need a million pounds! Copyright Richard Ford.

I need a million pounds- I am sure that most of us do but my ambition is to kick start the men's movement in the UK with this money. Even one million pounds may seem insignificant when compared to the twenty seven million pounds (each year!) the Government gives to the feminists for domestic violence programmes, or the way that almost any Government comes with feminism riding on its coattails. Nevertheless, I have set this goal for myself because it seems impossible but is probably just about doable.

How might a working class man make this money honestly? I have written a great deal about overcoming stress and materialism in life by learning to live with less. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage as I can now live quite comfortably with very little but have not thought very much about how to raise my income. I live a blissfully simple and stress free life living day to day and working when I need to. I am also carrying quite a lot of debt from my marriage, I have an overdraft of about £2800 ($4000) which I urgently need to reduce before I do anything else. Fortunately there are no nasty bills hiding round the corner apart from my divorce which is grinding its way through the courts right now.

I need a plan to make me rich. I am 43 year old man who was severely injured and left to die by his former wife. Quite apart from the physical pain  I suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (flashbacks ext). Objectively it would seem that I had very little chance of success. I have been worn down, my belongings destroyed, my bones broken. Yet I have some things going for me. I have supported woman for many years and this means that I have become used to working long hours and consuming very little of what I produce. Women have become convinced that they need twenty pairs of shoes or they cannot live. Men have no such illusions.

The first requirement of accumulating money is not a large income. It is the ability to generate a surplus and I can do this quite easily. If you have been supporting a woman and somehow managing to survive then it is child's play to put a little aside each month when you are supporting only yourself.

As some of you will know I have created a charitable trust - the Richard Ford Charitable Trust which exists to help other men through the nightmare of domestic violence and divorce. This contains about £3000 at present and I hope to add to it soon. I have also joined a number of useful men's organizations such as the Mankind Initiative. When I add all these sums together I find that I am slightly under half of one percent towards my target. This may be encouraging or discouraging depending on how one chooses to look at it. The first ten thousand pounds will be the hardest because interest has not yet started to do my work for me. The first ten thousand will have to be paid in sweat but each time I do this it will be easier than the last.

My first aim is to set up a positive cash flow. This will be accomplished from June onwards as I will have paid off all of the loans I took in order to keep my former wife happy. I will have a surplus of about four hundred pounds a month to play with.

Four hundred pounds a month is not much in a city such as London. It is important that this money is not simply frittered away as it could so easily be. I must find a way of using this money to generate a snowball effect so that my income increases each month.

The really great thing about starting from this very low level is that every one of you can read my progress and say to yourself 'Yes! I could do this too'.

How many of you could make some modest sacrifices and put aside $600 each month? $400? $200? All of you, probably.

If you can generate a surplus over your living expenses and interest payments then you can grow rich- fact. Your income is irrelevant.

By posting my plans on the net I commit myself to them because I will have to explain to you all why nothing has happened if I do not!

JUNE 2005
My overdraft will peak and then start to reduce. I will be feeling the benefit of no longer paying off loans but have made promises to my bank to reduce my overdraft as soon as possible.

I will also no longer be paying interest on my credit cards and will use them for loyalty points and for interest free credit only. This will gain me about ten pounds a month.

JULY 2005
My overdraft continue to fall. I will increasingly use gift vouchers (from my railway company) to pay for groceries ext. This will save me another ten pounds a month- perhaps more. Take some mystery shopping work when I enjoy it and have time. This will bring in another forty pounds a month or so.

Pay for a language teaching course. Overdraft rises temporarily.

The important fact to remember is that you can do the same. I will keep you posted.
Main / Blair is back!
May 06, 2005, 01:55 AM
The election of a Labour Government is the worst possible result for men in the UK. Labour (Blairs party) is now the only one commited to excluding fathers from their children after divorce. It is the only party running 'woman only shortlists' by which the public can find themselves with a woman MP even if they would have prefered a man.

Many US readers quite like Blair as he has been a friend of your country- nevertheless he is weakened and on the way out.
Main / The Case for Canals
May 05, 2005, 11:50 AM
The Case for Canals. Copyright Richard Ford

Yes- you read me correctly. Canals, those unloved relics of the industrial revolution are making a comeback in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. I have been following the revival for two reasons...

Firstly- I am a man. Men tend to take interest in technical subjects for absolutely no reason whatever and are particularly prone to transport obsessions (I like trains as well).

Secondly- and more importantly, the canal revival has a bearing on many of my other preoccupations such as the environment, regional development policy, freight transport and even terrorism (a bit). They also provide a nice pointer to the way in which I expect European society to develop over the next 75 or 100 years.

I will even try to say something about men's rights so that I do not get flamed for going off topic.

The future will be brutal but it will probably be free. Capital and skilled labour are now so mobile that it becoming harder and harder to tax or regulate either. This does not mean a future without tax or regulation- their may well be more of both in twenty years time- but the taxation will tend to be spent for the benefit of those who earn the most rather than as a means of redistributing income to favoured groups.

Let me give you an example. Suppose you are a company or individual who is looking for a country to call home. You will have a large number of countries eager to welcome you because you will be a net contributor wherever you go. Quite simply the host nation will make a profit from your presence in their country. Governments will spend more and more time worrying about the welfare of the mobile and less time worrying about the welfare recipients who elected them. They will attempt to fund affirmative action or welfare programmes by being very successful at attracting capital and productive people to their country. Ultimately this is a contradiction that cannot be resolved because there will always be another country that is willing to make a little less profit from the mobile people in order to have more of them. In other words, the power of those people who wish to enrich themselves at the expense of productive people will continually reduce. This will hurt the feminist movement more than anyone as they are the ultimate non producers.

Not all countries will face up to this choice. Some will simply choose to fail because they lack political courage- there will always be an international scapegoat when everything falls to ruin. It may be the World Bank, the IMF the Jews, Capitalism or any number of other groups. In fact it will be all of them at the same time because it is the job of international institutions to bring bad news and collect debts.

I like to speculate about what a truly successful society in this new world would look like. What would a British government that really intended to win this game do?

There are many criteria a traveller may use when choosing a country. Tax is only one of them. The major consideration would be- how nice a place is it to live? If the individual wants to live in such and such a place and he can make good money there, then he will not mind paying tax.

Environmental and cultural spending therefore moves from a virtual irrelevance to centre stage. We have become used to thinking that we can spend money on beautiful buildings and parkland once all of the other things have been done. Now we realise that it must be the other way around! Our economic situation will improve once we have the beautiful buildings and parkland! In other words we must strive to make our countrys somewhere people dream of living.

Government is not good at predicting the future so the canal revival was well underway before anyone noticed it. Funding is tiny, about sixty million pounds this year from central government- plus some small change from other funds. Yet future government will be frugal by necessity. British Waterways is earning more and more money from commercial activities such as transporting water from wet to dry regions and waterside property developments. Volunteers do much of the hard work of canal dredging which also keeps down costs. What society gets in return for this money is a place to walk, fish and cycle. A chance to see waterfowl and a reduction of freight carried by road. More freight is carried by river and canal than by train. It is also possible to live on the river in a narrowboat. This is a romantic dream for many but serves a practical purpose too. Boats are cheaper than houses and more mobile- your home can follow your work.

I mentioned terrorism earlier. There is also a very small benefit to this country from the hotel boats that ferry people up and down the canals for pleasure- the fewer people take holidays abroad the safer they will be from terrorist attack.

Plus.. I just like them.
Main / The Problem of Sex
May 05, 2005, 07:52 AM
The Problem of Sex. Copyright Richard Ford

Why is it that societies that have valued men (so called 'traditional' societies) have always prohibited sex outside of marriage? This seems counter intuitive at first. Surely it is men who desire sex with every woman they meet while women are focused more upon the family? Yet I have never come across a society, a political movement, or even an individual who did not value faithfulness to marriage to the same extent that they valued men. Occasionally we see societies where sex becomes so regulated that it stops serving the family or reproduction at all. I am talking about societies of monks and nuns here that have given up the possibility of children in return for heavenly rewards. Nevertheless- the same pattern emerges. Monks and nuns live separately from one another. They recognise the differences between the sexes and their organizations generally have a very 'male' and hierarchal nature which is as far from feminism as it is possible to get.

We see this within our own society on many levels. Imagine reading a newspaper report of a traffic accident. If a woman is killed then she will be given a name and we will be told a little about her. If a married man is killed then this will be mentioned as well but if he is single it is unlikely his death will be worthy of mention. In other words- his value is determined by his marital status. Religious and conservative communities come closer to believing that men have innate value simply because men are humans too- yet this is an illusion. If you talk to these people you will find that they simply relate to all men as future husbands. They believe that it is the duty of men to marry and that it is a tragedy that this particular man has not had the opportunity to do so. If the victim is divorced or gay then the victim is doubly insignificant.

We also see that feminists have always introduced some form of free love or even compulsory sexuality in their experimental communities. I saw a BBC documentary a little while ago called 'Prisoners in Paradise' or some such thing about just such a group. There was a great deal of hypocritical cant about breaking patriarchy as the camera panned over about two hundred writhing bodies. This looked (to me) as erotic as a plateful of pink maggots. The BBC generally takes the line that the family is the oppressor of women and this was obviously anti family so it must be liberating.

Later the commune introduced something called the 'bach' system to force men to do their sexual duty. Here we had healthy men who were living a teenage sexual fantasy yet had to be compelled to have sex. Why? One reason may be that it is quite impossible to 'have' a woman in such a society. A man is simply one more guest passing through her vagina. The most any man can hope for is to be slightly more memorable than the man she had the previous night and still to be remembered in a weeks time. It was forbidden for two people to have sex more than twice in a row. In this way a man is denied any possibility of being special in any way- his sexuality becomes a commodity and in a way he does too. One effect of feminism is to rob selfless acts of their significance. For example- the act of a man providing for his family is very beautiful under patriarchy. It gives meaning to the work that he does outside of the home and makes the most unpleasant jobs bearable and an act of love. This is no longer true when childcare is socialised and men can only provide for their children through tax and child support payments. What was previously an act of love becomes a drudgery that drains meaning from life rather than adding to it. Feminist socialisation of sexuality has much the same effect. It is unhealthy and destructive to maintain a sexual relationship where there is no commitment to the other parties well-being. If we are looking for proof  then we need only look at the lack of respect between prostitutes and their clients yet this is just the sort of thing that feminism seeks to impose upon everyone else. The bach was basically an orgy organised by committee by which certain people were ordered to attend. Most telling of all was a scene in which a fourteen year old girl was shown stripping for yet another committee on her birthday. The voiceover dolefully explained that the commune had become no more than 'a traditional patriarchal family' that attempted to judge women by their beauty and regulate their sexuality.' This makes one wonder just what the BBC believes happens in families. Do feminists really believe that fathers force their fourteen year old children to strip for their pleasure? Does the BBC think this is normal?!

As a side issue.... If any man were to transmit this tape over the internet without the feminist cant he would probably go to prison for child pornography but it is quite OK for feminists to degrade children in this way because everything they do must be enlightened.

To cut a long story short- the feminist/socialist utopia went the way of all such chimeras. The membership were forbidden to deal with the outside world, then they were forced to engage in criminal activity because nobody had any reason to work. Finally the leadership (mostly men) were sent to prison for child abuse. The impression given by the documentary was that the only problem with the project was that it was not feminist enough. If only men could be eliminated from society altogether then paradise would follow.

I mention this because we see something similar in every feminist experiment. Sometimes it takes a very extreme form and destroys itself in a few decades- sometimes, if the disease is less severe the death of a society can take a century or more. This is the case of our own society.

It seems counter intuitive that men should favour (and prosper in) societies with strict sexual morals because men always seem to be the ones breaking these barriers down. I use the word seem because I think this is also an illusion. Firstly, society has always entrusted male institutions with the defence of sexual morality. This is an instinct held by both sexes without anyone being quite sure why it should be important. Women are generally held to be the moral betters of men and yet they exclude themselves from organised religion above a certain level. Women have always had the option of joining churches that accept women as priests apart from short periods when the Catholic church was willing to use violence to maintain its monopoly. Even when this was the case I cannot imagine the Church being unable to prevent an informal association arising if their was truly a demand for it. We must remember that through most of history it took a week to travel just a few miles across land and the logistical problems in supplying an army were much greater than they are today. I cannot imagine the Catholic church imposing its will through violence over such a vast area for so long against the will of the population.

In matters of sexuality it is generally the woman who leads- by making the man feel that he has initiated the contact. For example- a man may 'pursue' a woman sexually but this will be in response to some glance, some flick of the hair, some comment or other that made him think there was a chance of success. This works most effectively when the man truly believes that he is the pursuer. The same sort of thing is happening today on a collective level. Every factor that is working towards the abolition of marriage was initiated by feminists or 'progressive' opinion one way or another. Yet men are held  responsible. When a woman gets pregnant for a government home and a handout she is not blamed for her conduct- the father is. Have you ever heard of a deadbeat mum?

Men have to realise that woman are the backseat drivers of our lives. This is a blow to our pride of course- but there is freedom at the end of it. We would prefer to believe that we go to Iraq for patriotic reasons when we are packed off by women saying 'be my hero' (so that they do not have to be.) There is no moral obligation on any man to sexually entertain women. A woman may signal her availability from time to time but do not imagine that you mean anything to her. Women do not discriminate between partners in the same way that men do. This is why you see attractive women with unattractive men- he was simply the first available man when she put out the signals- but almost anyone would have done. This is also why you will meet men from time to time that are wildly successful with women. If you observe them closely you will see that they approach every woman they meet, fat, thin, ugly or beautiful- they approach them all. Most women will not be interested but from time to time he will meet one who is on heat and she will sleep with him.

It is enormously liberating for a man to know what his personal morality is. Every man must work this out for himself but I will never sleep with any woman I would not trust to be the mother of my child. I have no interest in sleeping with women simply because they are on heat or allowing myself to be obligated. I find this degrading because she has no idea who I am and simply has to relieve a hormonal itch. As I write this I feel a weight lift from my shoulders and I know that I will not be backed into situations that damage me. Life becomes a lot more simple too.

So what is my solution?

Firstly, I believe we should seek to strengthen marriage because civilisation is impossible without it. We cannot do this by sleeping with other men's wives and trying to change your average western woman is like teaching a camel to dance. My first duty to the patriarchy is to bring up a healthy and happy child- abroad if necessary.

Secondly, embrace celibacy as something positive in the mean time. I can keep my self respect this way and save my money for someone who deserves it. It is a dignified option.

Thirdly, value male friendship.
Main / Demon posession and feminism!!
May 02, 2005, 07:17 AM
It is very interesting that many people studying mental illness become mentaly ill simply by knowing the symptoms. I also wonder if this is so very different from so called 'primative' societies that suffer waves of demon posession ext.

These illnesses gvie a blessing to behaviour that would otherwise be condemmed (attention seeking, destructiveness ext) and also fulfil a powerful need in other people to help.

I suppose feminism fulfills a similar role itself. A feminist can step outside of normal morality, destroy peoples lives at will and will be rewarded for it with attention and belonging.

Yes.... I think this flies.

I will write an article on it.
I had some problems with my site but I am now back for good.
Main / For Mary
Apr 27, 2005, 12:09 AM
This was very moving. This post was supposed to be a reply to her Thai post

Whenever a life is set to paper it seems little more than an account of chaos and waste. Hardly anyone ends up being the person they really intended to be. John Lennon said life is what happens when planning other things.

Your father came from an unpromising beginning but was able to support a family and have his daughter love him. He can be proud of this. My own father is probably dead but I never knew the time or place.

You have also received some hard knocks but you have never taken the easy option and hated men because of it. You had an excuse to do so.... you had a bad divorce for instance. You even share your fathers low self esteem! I hope this is improving now.

Do you condem yourself because you did not get educated like your father? I bet the Jehovas Witnesses discoraged you from this. They call it 'selfish learning'.
Main / Underground Railroad is no more.
Apr 24, 2005, 11:18 PM
Lycos could not process any of my valid cards. They can accept some cards issued by Mastercard but not others.

They have not given any alternative means of payment so closed my site.

Watch iths space.