This is the second installment of a multi-part series about the evolution, or devolution, of the American woman throughout the arc of American history. Click here for the first installment here.
The Gilded Age in America followed directly on the heels of the Civil War that lasted up until the assassination of President William McKinley. It is a widely misunderstood era, as serious rumblings began with regards to the changes in society – many of it dominated by female voices. It was referred to as the Gilded Age because a thin veneer of gold lined the serious, festering problems of wider society. The 1950’s wasn’t the height of patriarchal approaches to family, leadership and society in general – it was the last gasp. The Gilded Age was the zenith of patriarchal society in America, with storm clouds slowly but surely gathering of the horizons of North America.
First off, the 1850’s were a tumultuous period in American history as the country teetered on the verge of civil war. A handful of ineffective American Presidents were elected who did little to stave off what would eventually erupt in a bloody and costly civil war. When Lincoln was elected in 1860 it all but assured Southern secession. The war ended four years later, with North winning a decisive victory; Lincoln himself was assassinated the next year. This setup of events leads to the Gilded Age – an age of unprecedented American economic growth and social transformation.
Consider the massive influx of European immigrants into the country. Irish, Italians, Brits, Germans and all manner of Scandinavian flooded the country. They did for many different reasons – mostly related to chasing wealth in the US. This was a time of rapid urbanization and immigrants flocked to the cities, looking to work for factories. Urban centers became hotbeds of disorganization, crime and poverty. Modern approaches to urban planning and policing came out of this era. Many moved West and formed communities all over the country, often taking to farming as indigenous Americans were more keen to move to urban areas. This created much racial and cultural strife, most especially for the Irish and Italians. Times were tense and two marked depressions struck the country – in 1873 and 1893. As such, issues like monetary policy and tariffs were huge political issues.
What was going on with sex relations is more fascinating than the rapid urbanization. There are two categories of female that competed against one another in this age: the “New Woman” and the Gibson girl. The “New Woman” was the literal embodiment of the primitive feminist. White, middle class and upper class and college educated, they were the founders of modern feminism. Many of them never married and never had kids. They flocked to urban areas, as there can be no feminism on a farm. They enjoyed increased employment opportunities during this era, contrary to mainstream feminist thought.
Women regularly were typists, telephone dispatchers, worked as secretaries and, in some states, worked in the civil service. They championed looser sexual mores, but were far more discreet about it than later generations. Also, understand the legal concept of coveture – whereby a woman gives up her legal rights to her husband upon marriage. If a woman remained unmarried, her right to own property and contract were maintained. Not marrying was a way of retaining legal rights that might otherwise get extinguished.
![[Image: 220px-Victoria_Woodhull.jpg]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Victoria_Woodhull.jpg/220px-Victoria_Woodhull.jpg)
The champion of this sort of woman was Victoria Woodhull. Born into poverty, she worked her way up the ladder and became rich and engaged in a variety of activities. She married at 14 to a 28 year-old who was by all accounts a very charming doctor, but he turned out to be a raging alcoholic and a serial womanizer. As usual, a woman with serious psychological issues becomes a feminist pioneer.
She founded the first female-run Wall Street brokerage firm with her sister and they were financially successful. She was the first female candidate for the Presidency, running under the Equal Rights party. She also was the first woman to advocate for “free love” for women. Based on her experiences in her first (of three) marriages, she concluded people (women) should have the universal ability to marry, divorce and get custody of the children – with maintenance (alimony), of course. Despite her professed love for monogamy, she said people personally reserved the right to “love others exclusively” outside the marriage.
In contrast to “New Women” were Gibson girls. The term Gibson girl was coined in 1892 (towards the end of the era) by Charles Dana Gibson, as he saw the Gibson girl as emblematic of the beauty reflected in the era. She was tall, skinny with “ample bosom and buttocks.” This woman did incorporate some of the “New Woman’s” ways while trying to maintain some sense of tradition. She was considered to be upper-class, refined, educated and sensitive. However, she broke traditional convention, as she could be seen working out in public, like biking. She typically eschewed campaigning for women’s suffrage or any political movements. She would most likely be whispering in husband’s ear about the changes she wants to see in society or starting or helping in charities, the church or just general social betterment.
She was seen as not usurping masculinity nor male roles, but carefully sought out to expand her world. She sought to be more worldly, intelligent and to help her community in roles outside her home. Part of this impetus was urbanization and the strict gender role divide that emerged. Note that in rural farming communities, a level of equality exists as there is too much work for a woman to just sit around and dust the house – she has to feed livestock, tend to the yard and all manner of other stuff. The wage earning male that leaves a woman behind to tend to the home makes her restless. Plus, considering these women had excess income to hire nannies, tutors and maids, it makes sense they could get bored. As usual, these women assumed their grievances were universal to all women.
The final important point was the development of the concept of the “domestic goddess.” These women helped play up these roles, as they wanted more and more accolades for their domestic endeavors. Further, the men (betas) of the era sought to edify these women. Common complaints about the era involved men fawning over the beauty of women, as such fawning treated women as objects. Further, there were complaints of sexism about “domestic goddess” concept. The important takeaway is that the home was seen the under the control of a “domestic goddess,” while work outside the home was seen as best under the control of a male. Pure gender role division.
![[Image: 300px-Gibson_Girls_Magnifying_Glass_by_C...Gibson.jpg]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Gibson_Girls_Magnifying_Glass_by_Charles_Dana_Gibson.jpg/300px-Gibson_Girls_Magnifying_Glass_by_Charles_Dana_Gibson.jpg)
However, Gibson girls emphasized propriety, marriage and refinement in women. She helped popularize the corset and started and aided in many important charities in cities across the nation. Like the above picture, they began to belittle men. They would run cartoons like this one, showing men to be weak, ineffective and impotent. They referred to themselves as equals to men and sometimes considered themselves to be the snarky sidekick to their husband. They liked to portray men as impotent fools. Their growing distaste for American men is palpable. It’s almost as if when men give women what they claim to want they immediately begin to resent the men who give into their demands.
Once again, this sort of social setup reeks of privilege. These women were fairly close to or at the apex of society. Of course, they could afford to be single and not reproduce. For the “New Women,” they depended on poor women and Gibson girls to keep up fertility rates so they didn’t have too. As for Gibson girls, they didn’t step outside the box, but backed up right against it. They flirted with stepping across the line, but ultimately did not. However, they helped pave the way for feminism to penetrate into society.
Women will always—once a degree of comfort and wealth is accumulated as a society—demand “free love” and be allowed to indulge their hypergamic impulses. It will start at the top of society and trickle down the poorest, once welfare programs are established that allow for a woman to have a husband’s income with no husband. Women will call it “helping the poor” but I think part of the impulse is helping other women achieve hamster transcendence and allow her to have two distinct men in her life – providers and alphas. Of course, she may know the provider as a husband or not, as he is just a taxpayer. In this era, there were not many federal or state programs to help women, but part of this is that women who decided to go without marriage went without children. Per usual, poor women who worked still had many children.
Notice how generous women are with men’s money. In the Gilded Era, men made the money that went to taxes. There was no federal income tax and the jobs women did often did not produce much tax revenue. Women shamelessly spent men’s money on all sorts of pet projects that allowed them to self-aggrandize. Most resources I read about these women seemed to be reverential of generosity women displayed.
A rich guy in the era founds a university? Greedy 1%er better cough up the damn money.
A rich guy’s wife founds a soup kitchen? Women really are the morally superior sex.
In sum, privileged women began to haltingly assemble the machinery of feminism. They helped alter fashion and social standards. Most importantly, they helped establish the idea of the domestic goddess and a woman’s moral superiority. This idea is very relevant to today, as this idea has seeped into any institution in which women have sought access. American women, of all ideological stripes, consider themselves morally superior to men and this era was an important step towards cementing that mindset.
Read More: The Roots Of Feminism In America
Money is the roots to all evil,
All the social evils that we see today is the result of mass wealth accumulation. Think about it,
Wars =money
Feminism=money
Racism=Money
Modern day marriage=Money
divorce=money
In a 100 years, our descendants will mock our idiocy.
I just read The Cancer Stage of Capitalism recently. While I don’t agree with everything in the book, I have to say it’s a pretty damning and accurate critique of the modern economic system, and it confirms everything you just said. Put simply, “You’ve got to create problems that don’t exist to create profit.” Wars create profit for the military-industrial complex. Feminism maximizes profits by encouraging frivolous spending since women control all the money, whether married or single. Racism allows the masters to divide and conquer us. Marriage forces men to either become simpering, slaving Beta providers or takes what they do have away from them through divorce. It’s really quite a perverse system to behold.
Sorry to burst your bubble here, but most men are suckers when it comes to money and are just as bad as women. Just take a look at Roosh’s post on China as a classic example of what I’m trying to point out. It’s a classic example of herd behavior and group think on the topic–it’s that kind of thinking that makes me want to go short ASAP. He clearly hasn’t done any work on the topic at all(anyone who has would be saying the exact opposite of the stuff he’s saying).
Take a look at what happened over the past 30 years in the US as another example. The idiots in charge actually believed that real wealth is created by asset inflation, but most of those people were men! I actually think those kinds of policies were critical to the kind of income/wealth inequality we’re seeing today, but that’s a different issue/topic/argument for a different day.
Try getting stuck in a group of 5 men where you’re the only one who stands out against them on any topic, whether it’s important or not. They’ll all isolate you and gravitate towards each other’s positions while becoming more extreme than any of them would have done so in a one-on-one interaction. When a group of men get together in such a manner, dissent is no longer tolerated while asking questions becomes a sin. It’s the kind of groupthink/herd behavior that sinks societies into the ground. Do we really want those kinds of men in power? Do we really want those kinds of men who aren’t even willing to stand up to others of the mere sake of being right to have charge? I, as a contrarian, think it’s better if those retards are manipulated and controlled by women. They are betas, so why should they have any power/control? Is it even a good idea to give them control?
Before feminism, most families had money in savings. In fact, around 1960, the savings rate was around 10% of a man’s annual income. We’ve had a negative savings rate (spending more than you earn and taking on debt) since the 1990s. Yes, there are other factors that go into the savings rate, but I think you have to account for the effect that feminism has had on frivolous spending.
The US actually had very high consumption rates(and low savings rates) throughout the 19th century. The primary reason for the low savings rate(I think) is because of the highly unstable financial system where no one really trusted the banks. If people did save during the 19th century, it was mostly in the form of specie or land. Go ahead and take a look throughout US history and tell me how many times we’ve had people take on debts they couldn’t afford–it happened all the time.
I actually think the low savings rates over the past decade was due to international capital flows and mismangement by authorities(mainly the Federal Reserve). The current account deficit peaked at 7% of GDP, which basically meant that there was a massive inflow of capital from overseas(primarily China), which created excess liquidity in the banking system. When you have excess liquidity combined with extremely low interest rates, you’ll get asset bubbles and consumption booms. The same thing(in terms of capital flows) happened to Spain, Portugal, and most of the countries in the peripheral European countries and throughout every single country that’s had similar issues.
I think the real culprits in charge were the idiots running the show(primarily Alan Greenspan and a few others). These people were primarily stupid, egotistical, men who were the central planners. The people who were running the show are basically charlatans who thought they knew about things with certainty that they had no clue about. They thought they had control of factors they had absolutely no control over. On top of this, they still backfill their horrendous logic(just look at the guys in charge and what they’re saying).
That kind of behavior I described above is exactly what’s wrong with >90% of men. They basically got caught up in a delusional groupthink where dissent wasn’t tolerated and free thought really wasn’t allowed. They never bothered to question what they thought and actually question their premises. It was the same issue that I had with Roosh’s China article(I know it seems like I’m bashing Roosh, but I actually have a good amount of respect for him); he never bothered to question his premise or look at the data.
So you’re completely discounting the effect that “empowered” women who control how most money is spent either directly or through their Beta husbands has had on the savings rate?
That’s just nonsense. People are retarded with money regardless of where they’re from or what they believe. Also, refer to my previous comments on betas–they are suckers and don’t deserve power. Why should they have any control if they’re never willing to take chances? Why should they have any sort of power if they’re not willing to stand up and fight for what they believe in?
Most men don’t deserve that control; they’re simply not worthy. There is no curiosity, courage, or adventurous spirit in most men. They just blindly follow the herd without ever bothering to question.
Casinobox,
“Try getting stuck in a group of 5 men where you’re the only one who stands out against them on any topic, whether it’s important or not. They’ll all isolate you and gravitate towards each other’s positions while becoming more extreme than any of them would have done so in a one-on-one interaction. ”
Well said..this is EXACTLY what happens.
Point in case. I have PROVEN ON VIDEO that I rescinded my consent to be governed properly on 2009-11-26 and PROVEN that David Dunkley committed the crime of impersonating a federal magistrate in a family court matter.
I got it on VIDEO because I knew these statements would be SO UNBELIEVABLE to men that nothing less than VIDEO PROOF would do.
What has happened for the last FOUR YEARS? Men have attacked me and hated on me and criticised me and NEVER TALKED ABOUT THE VIDEO! LOL!!
When dealing with MEN today? Not even VIDEO EVIDENCE is going to sway them to the truth. Even when men KNOW that their politicians and judiciary are criminals and see PROOF that the jurisdiction of the courts can be denied they will STILL attack the man who risked his life to show them how to live in freedom.
Nice to see one more man who really “gets it”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs9LkNWmIKw
Casinobox,
“Why should they have any sort of power if they’re not willing to stand up and fight for what they believe in?”
HOORAY!! Another man who is willing to say this. How about you take Uncle Elmer with you over to those bunch of cowards on the spearhead and tell them the same thing.
I banged in those cowards heads 1,000 times that legislation is not law, that the cops, lawyers, judges, and politicians were crooks and that the only remedy was to stand and fight.
I was over there for about 2.5 years telling them exactly that. I announced my victory in the court the day it happened on the spearhead on 2009-11-26…I think Uncle Elmer might have even been there by that time.
But look at them. A pathetic bunch of pussies who had a REAL MAN show them how it was done….and instead of follow my lead? As your above post said, they attacked me and tried to tell me they HAD to be subject to legislation because THE GUVMENT TOLD THEM SO…
Duh!?
Or maybe the Greenspans of the Fed are being instructed to mismanage affairs.
Maybe most people in the U.S., casino.
Also the prison industrial complex. A significant amount of decent men are being thrown in prison through false allegation e.g rape, assualt or drug possession e.g. I read about a guy getting a 20 year sentence for carrying a couple of grams of weed.
This system tears apart thousands of families, forcing many children to grow up without a father figure resulting in millions of children being at the mercy of TV, Media , questionable education system etc.
What corporations have been doing is co-coordinating with prisons to force the inmates to work for dismal remunerations(basically modern day slavery) When these men get out of prison, they turn out broken by the years of psychological/physical abuse from psychopathic guards/inmates. Leading them to either become full blown criminals in society or be ostracized/ marginalized. It becomes a vicious cycle that just grows and grows
I totally agree. Quarterly profits for companies like Wackenhut are based on how many people are in jail. So, their lobbyists have a vested interest in tossing people in jail for ridiculous reasons, including those that you mentioned.
How are drugs legalized (or at least decriminalized) in the Netherlands and Portugal without destroying society, yet, here, they lock people up all the time because they possess a plant the government doesn’t want them to have.
The prison-industrial complex is also the reason why this “free country” has more people locked up both in raw numbers and as a percentage of the population than any other country in the world.
And yet there are not 12 men in the US willing to sit on a jury for MBA Law Services and hold criminals accountable for their crimes.
You men just whine like little girls about these sorts of injustices. You don’t even have the guts to sit in a jury trial while not 70 years ago men stormed the beaches of normandy so that you might have a chance of a better life.
And then you men wonder why I hold so many of you in such contempt….really….you are so stupid you can’t even figure THAT out.
So you think the current prison/court system is effective in ‘correcting’ criminals?
Really. How could you even ask such a question. This is the problem with you men. You are so stupid.
“Thus is the problem with you men’
How about you answer the question.
“You are so stupid”
Is that all you can do? name call to get your point across?
Please use reason and/or logic otherwise I will not partake in responding to you
“Please use reason and/or logic otherwise I will not partake in responding to you”
You think I WANT to correspond with an idiot like you? What are you FIVE YEARS OLD? Duh?! You are one of the 99.7% of men in the west who are simply too stupid to be bothered with. Please go kill yourself in some mans rose garden and be fertiliser. THEN you might do something useful.
I have published my two books and produced hundreds of hours of video both by myself and replicated some of the most important and educational videos you will ever see. You can see them on my education channel or personal channel.
So.. NO…I do NOT want to correspond with you unless you go read what I have produced, watch what I have published, and after you have done that you PAY ME what you think all that was worth….and THEN you contact me and offer to pay me by the hour to talk to you.
Apart from that? You are welcome to remain stupid and ignorant. After all? You will be in the 99.7% majority. Should feel good…right?
http://www.youtube.com/user/MensBusinessAsocEduc
Troll alert
Idiot alert.
After all? I am the ONLY man who has video recorded a family court matter and put it on YT….that makes me not a troll….idiot.
Huh? Speaking of stupid…
Go psycho much?
Anyone who wants to completely abolish capitalism is naive, but it is time to start treating capitalism as a tool to organize the economy, rather than an end in itself.
“The Cancer Stage of Capitalism ”
This is how stupid men are in the US. Most of you think the US is a capitalist country. It is not. It is a communist country and has been since 1938 when the last nail of communism was put in place, corporate courts.
And when I call you men stupid for not even knowing what political system you are living in do you THANK ME for pointing out your stupidity and your mistake? No. You HATE ME and continue believing the lie.
The plan is to kill off most men in the US. And from what I can tell? That sounds like a very good plan because barely 0.01% of you has lifted a finger in your own self defence while I moved mountains trying to save your worthless, pointless, meaningless lives so that you might actually do something useful this side of your graves.
Just look how I was treated on the spearhead.
Uncle Elmer can fill you in if you do not already know.
While I understand the sentiment I have to disagree. Whenever anyone is upset about the current problems in the world at large I feel compelled to point out that if you live in the West- you are among the most prosperous, safest, and luxurious people to ever live. Even the least competent burger flipper at McDonalds lives better than ancient kings and emprerors. The whole sum of human knowledge literally fits in your pocket via a smart phone. Hundreds or books and thousands of songs. Air conditioning, readily available food and water, recreation, leisure, and relatively insulated from violence and disaster. You live a better, more comfortable life, than almost anyone who has ever lived. It is disengious to shrug that off as ‘no big deal’ in my opinion. I for one, am grateful for the capitalist system that enabled this – unfortunately, the law of unintended consequences is always in play… and feminism and leftism are some nasty consequences. Let us not however, throw the baby out with the bathwater as it were.
FINALLY! Someone drops a dose of reality.
Yes things are not perfect -far from it- but this is the best time to ever draw breath as a human being, let alone a man. Although I agree with 99% of the issues discussed in the manosphere; the reality is we men in the west are merely the the product of the successes of modern western civilization. Our grievances are the grievances of the privileged.
We are in effect: The Men’s Sufferage Brigade. The worse part; The vast majority of us [men as a whole] will do exactly jack squat to resolve the core problem – reclaim your authority and become masters of your domains. At home, in society and most importantly your relations with women.
In other parts of the West, they take advantage of the more useful developments in technology while leaving the healthy social system intact.
Contrast that with the ills of American overconsumerism and the American male has a right to complain.
Let’s try and avoid the tired cliches our opponents are based around. Wealth accumulation is not without its problems, but it also allowed all of the advances in society that we take for granted- including allowing you to type those very words.
As in most things, it’s a question of balance.
True but the fact is, there is no balance. How much more can we sacrifice for an affluent society? Wars that obliterate nations, Feminism that throws millions of men over the bridge, Racism that perpetuates violent crimes, Divorce that sends millions of law abiding, tax paying individuals to the cleaners. We need powerful socially conscience leaders to be a voice for us but unfortunately only the good die young.
MLK
John Lennon
JFK
“you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villian”
The good don’t even get into politics anymore. We don’t have leaders as much as we have managers these days.
The good don’t even get into politics anymore. We don’t have leaders as much as we have managers these days.
“In a 100 years, our descendants will mock our idiocy.”
I am getting in early…and you men do not like to be mocked…that’s for sure.
You want to live in freedom? Help me create the second economy.
http://www.a-man-zon.com
Interesting writeup on an era that doesn’t get discussed enough. Nicely done.
Shades of Cato, man.
That era has so much history that those who write our textbooks don’t want you to read about. Our history books are written from a progressive socialist narrative.
Not to be confused with modern progressives, although they can be both. These sycophants took our history, broke it into segments, and then chopped off anything that did not present history from the point of view of the selected victim, in relation to their oppressor.
Hence, anything before the Revolution is relegated to slavery, Colonial Suffrage against its heavy handed British masters, followed by nothing but the War of 1812, then more slavery (only blacks as there were never white slaves of course), then the Civil War (War of the States), and then Jim Crow, WW1, Jim Crow, “Swingin” 20’s, Jim Crow, Great Depression, WW2, Jim Crow, Civil Rights Movement, Feminism, Great Society, Vietnam, Protestors against the government, and the rebirth of puritanical 50’s.
Essentially, if you are familiar with any of that, they only teach history on those subjects on how one group of people, almost exclusively, were denigrated by another. The writers of this history of ours, Howard Zinn being the worst, should be tried as criminals.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/argosy-1.gif
Those whores are classier than most women in the US today who do not require money, time, or resources for the only thing they can offer.
It’s interesting to look at women across different cultures. There has long been a streak of misandry in Anglo culture, especially amongst Anglo women. Modern feminism is the full flowering of this undercurrent that’s been around for centuries. What it’s really about is persecuting, hating and excluding men at every opportunity. Men are merely beasts of burden and sexual playthings in this cultural paradigm.
The poor relations between the sexes in Anglo society goes back a long way, as this article shows, to Victorian times and even further back.
It takes a deeply troubled culture to produce conditions like we are living in today in which women find perverse delight in eliminating their own offspring via abortion. It’s even a point of pride to have the power to destroy your own offspring while still in the womb and force the Beta male taxpayers of society to pay for it, while at the same time this society will fine or imprison you for disturbing the eggs of certain birds of prey (the Bald Eagle.) I can think of no better contradiction in values than that.
We are moving into the downslope of a long arc of events that’s been a product of this cultural meme. Our society’s current status is an expression of this deeply flawed cultural template that’s now in the process of crashing into the earth. For all the wonderful gifts Anglo society has given to the world, its very structure is in a very precarious position because Anglo women now have what they’ve wanted for centuries – near total control over the male sex.
Actually it’s so much simpler. It’s the classic culmination of Ultra Success. For the last 150 years, man -in particular Western society- has made amazing quality of life advancements believed unfathomable in the past.
And an such we now have the individual discretion to concern ourselves with any and every whim our hearts and minds desire, to include major social and natural upheaval.
The foundations of what our society was built upon, is so far beneath our feet that we believe it doesn’t exist or was never important in the first place.
A nice look at a more innocent time. Who would have thought that the women’s suffragists of that era would start in motion the process that eventually led to the fat, tattooed and pierced freaks that pass as women today? I wonder what the “feminists” of that era (who by today’s standards seem almost reasonable) would say if they were transported to the America of today?
I, contrary to most men, believe that 90-95% of men should be controlled by women. Most men are suckers, period. As far as I’m concerned, I just look at the behavior of most men, I look at the way they think, and I have no problem with the fact that chicks manipulate the hell out of them. Quite frankly, they deserve it. Very few actually have the balls to take any sort of risks and stand up for what they think is right, so why should they, as men, deserve to be respected? Most men don’t take any risks, they don’t ever leave their comfort zone. Most men(at this point, I don’t know if I’d even call them men) have zero common sense and ability to think at all and it’s usually due to their own ignorance.
And do you think women are better….one word: idiot
When did I ever say that women are better? All I said is that most men shouldn’t be given power.
Implication…if men are worthless, and you say they deserve to be ruled by women, by implication you stated “women are better than men”
I never said men are worthless. I said most men are suckers. I don’t know how you can imply something that clearly wasn’t said. If someone isn’t willing to stand up and fight for what they think is right, why should they be given power?
Please don’t spin my words to say that women should rule the world because I’m not saying anything close to that. I just don’t want egotistical, herd-following, “men” to have any power. I don’t have respect for people like that.
Gentlemen,
as much as you might dislike what casinobox said? He is correct. Most men are only too happy to be wrapped around some womans little finger. And they deserve what they are getting.
Look how men have hated on me when I call on them to stand up for themselves.
Your statements seem interesting. I am ignorant of the laws but I would be interested to get behind any movement aimed at destroying the elites power over the world masses. How could I cooperate (if you intent is serious). I am currently in SA….and taking many courses just to stay afloat and competitive in the labor market.
We are not so much going to “destroy the elites power over the world masses” because most of the “masses” would kill us if we tried to do that. They WANT to be slaves and they will attack anyone who tries to set them free.
What we are doing is introducing a second economy so that those FEW men who do want to be free can move over in to the second economy and rescind their consent to be governed when they feel comfortable with that. I rescinded my consent to be governed in 2009. So far. So good in three different countries.
We are ALSO trying to set the precedents of putting national leaders on trial. The pope and queen elizabeth were both put on trial and found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to 25 years in prison. This is why the pope resigned.
The british police are now in a state of treason for not incarcerating the queen. So you can see we are in very delicate and difficult times. We have also raised 485 cases for MBA Law Services which includes all members of the Australian and Irish Parliaments so that we can put them on trial, find them guilty of their crimes, and remove them.
You can find the starting point on the Mens Business Association. My books are free to download but I would appreciate voluntary payment as I am being persecuted by three different guvments right now and have been for quite some time. In a little while my business will be back up and running outside guvment jurisdiction but things are tough right now. Taking on guvments is difficult work. So difficult very few have the courage to do so in their own name in the public.
http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com
Gentlemen,
As I have said many times over, and say again in this extended video.
The best of the best men will be viciously attacked BY OTHER MEN. I am a great example of this. I have been attacked BY OTHER MEN endlessly these last 5.5 years for saying nothing more than women MUST be held equal before the law or relegated to the chattel property of some man who would have her.
Meanwhile the least of contributions, even NEGATIVE contributions, by the likes of Karen Straughn (Girl Writes What) will be met with thunderous applause and support by MEN.
MEN are their own worst enemies. And it is high time we denounced those men to are sexist, discriminatory, bigots in that they overly praise useless women while attacking the best of men, the men who contribute the most.
Gentlemen.
It is up to each of you, as individuals, as to whether you will promote and support the efforts of the best of men like myself and denounce the men who unjustly praise useless women.
I recommend you men be fair and just in your praise and financial support and not base it on the sex of the recipient. That would be a new and novel concept.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqFOouXYmHc
I followed Peter’s ‘career’ on Spearhead. He talks a good story here. But, his great ideas mostly consist of claiming if you fill out certain papers, no court can try you, etc. He is like the jokers who claim if you fill out certain papers the USA IRS can’t make you pay taxes. They are in jail; or have been in jail; or soon will be in jail.
Note he says he is being persecuted by three nations. Sure sounds right to me.
And, on almost every thread he posts on anywhere, he calls 99.7 % of men cowards; fools; pussies, and every other name you can think of. Over and over and over. All because we do not raise him on our shoulders and rush him up and down as the Emperor..
His proposed trials have no more value than a buncha drunks in a bar calling court to order. Pure nonsense.
If he is not a coward why doesn’t he live in his native country?
>>I have been attacked BY OTHER MEN endlessly these last 5.5 years for
saying nothing more than women MUST be held equal before the law or
relegated to the chattel property of some man who would have her.
How wonderful it would be if that is all you said. The reason people attack you is because of the name-calling and insults, and cockamamie ideas you present. No one would notice if you only said women must be held equal before the law or be chattel property of some man. Those who don’t understand what I am saying, just read his postings on this page.