Sunday, March 30, 2008

Marc Rudov

I just got through listening to the Marc Rudov show and it is definitely a breath of fresh air compared to the feminist crap that we are inudated with day in and day out. On his show he has callers that are very grateful that he is there. One of the callers was Roy Den Hollander and even though he mentioned VAWA he didn't give an update so I guess very little has happened so far in the case. Roy has indeed suffered the slings and arrows from those who describe themselves as "open minded" and "tolerant" by using the term "gay" to shame you into doing what they want even though they state they are for gay rights. (that is very weird because how can you advocate something you look down on?) Another caller was a man who found out that the definition of classical liberal does not fit these liberals today and another who felt isolated in his beliefs due to political correctness and was very relieved to find that he wasn't. Marc is only on Thursdays but I hope he gets more hours to broadcast our point of view for a change.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Young women persecute old men

Nicholas Kristoff (I got the photo from some gay rights organization)

Gary Bauer

Jim Peterson

93 Year Old American Men Teased, Arrested & Persecuted by 23 Year Old American Women

March 26, 2008 at 11:49 am · Filed under Vox Populi

When the Spitzer scandal was in the news, I noted how Spitzer had been the puppet of anti-sex feminists and was possibly “acting out” in resistance to his subordinate position to them. Then I noted that it was dangerous for America when politicians have to pay so much money for sex and I asked why politicians could no longer get sex for free (answer: because both the right wing and left wing politicians surround themselves with feminists).

(It's like I always said,feminism has two wings and this confirms it.)

But while such serious analysis of the Spitzer scandal was published on blogs, the unserious rag New York Times went into overdrive trying to spin the anti-male-sex-drive feminist agenda. In a one-sided article begging the federal government to regulate prostitutioninside state lines, the feminist eunuch puppet Nicholas Kristoff mimics the way Spitzer himself used to talk when he says that Spitzer's whore was apparently privileged unlike the proverbial teenage runaways who are victims of black inner-city pimps. Because Kristoff never directly mentions that the pimping of runaways is apparently a black inner city phenomenon, one would be led to believe that white teenagers are readily available for sex to sex-starved middle class males across the United States.

Kristoff mentions that there is now some sort of law moving through Congress (it apparently passed the House with the typical vote of 405 idiots vs Ron Paul) that would federally regulate prostitution (now misleadingly described as sex trafficking). Eunuch Gary Bauer of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) apparently wants the Christian evangelist “movement” to work hand in hand with the NOW to make sure the feds have more power than ever via this law, the name of which Kristoff and/or the New York Times editors failed to mention in his article.

(More proof that the church is a whore of the matriarchy and anti-male. This also shows why I'm a big Ron Paul fan.)

Why would Kristoff and the New York Times leave the name of the proposed law out of the above article?

Could it be that they are trying, as they have sucessfully done in the past with VAWA and IMBRA, to help get something ram-rodded through Congress without debate over its Constitutionality?

Mention is made in Kristoff's article of how Sweden should be the model for the USA in that Sweden has a federal law where it is legal for a woman to be a prostitute but it is ILLEGAL for a man to want to be her customer. In Sweden, gorgeous young female policewomen carry out sting operations where they try to ruin the lives of older more successful males; the patriarchy.

In saying that the US should be as feminist as Sweden and have a federal law criminalizing being a john…is Kristoff trying to make some kind of joke? Apparently not. He is seriously auditioning to sing in the Castrati Choir which is where Spitzer sang when he was governor of New York.

(That is all the church has been throughout the ages and that it is full of castrati and the dominatrixes that abuse them)

Believe me, Swedish men do not consider their anti-male law fair and men in neighboring countries have made sure their politicians are warned not to vote for something similar in their parliaments. Last year, Finland and Estonia outlawed sex trafficking but defined it as having sex with a prostitute against her will or if she was mentally retarded. The Finnish feminists were furious that the law was changed at the last second to define sex trafficking as being against the will of the prostitute.

Would it be that the US Congress dared to even define sex trafficking.

Except for Sweden, Saudi Arabia and the USA, there is plenty of freedom for men in this world to buy time with a woman at least to try to talk her out of being a prostitute. I know plenty of men who have paid a prostitute for the chance to try to talk her out of being one. Some ugly men have to pay for sex and I don’t blame them on that either. Prostitution is a big business in American strip clubs where, in regions like the south and northwest, American coeds decide which guys are allowed to be their customers. Wherever it is clamped down upon in the US, the oldest profession just pops right back up again in the next county. It cannot be stopped.

Federal anti-male laws that criminalize men for being weak, curious or for wanting to talk with a woman are just not acceptable from a country that thinks it deserves to remain a world power.

This leads us to the focus of this article: In Florida, two 93 year old males were recently arrested because beautiful young female plain-clothes policewomen had indicated they were available to them and they were lonely and took the bait.

The journalists, who reported on these 93 year old men, never mentioned if the men had served their country in World War Two or Korea, fighting against fascism and socialism. The journalists never mentioned that, for 6000 years, prostitution might have been made illegal or legal, but never were men arrested for just being would-be customers. This is typical of the US media…they pretend that their progressive views are more natural than the views of 6000 years worth of various civilizations including superpowers like the Assyrians, Babylonians, Parthians, Goths, Persians and Greeks.

The US media don't even bother comparing their latest legislative accomplishments with the history of matriarchal Celtic societies.

If a woman-run society like the USA wants to criminalize prostitution, then arrest the prostitutes and the pimps, but leave out sting operations where men are entrapped. Entrapment is defined as where a reasonable temptation is presented.

Men can tell if a woman has prostituted herself dozens or hundreds of times. This makes her very undesirable. Conversely, men can tell if a woman is an amateur who has never prostituted herself and this would cause fascination at the very least if she seems to be acting like she is a prostitute. This is the effect that a gorgeous young policewoman would have if she acted as a decoy. She would be presenting a level of quality that does not really exist in the real sex business. Heck, if men knew a woman was a cop, she would be that much more attractive for flirting with them.

(I don't know of any men who are turned on by some amazon bull dyke look alike unless these "men" like the idea of being cuffed and things shoved up thier asses or like being dominated by women.)

Keep in mind that most prostitutes are ugly and/or lower class and/or underprivileged non-whites. It is for this reason that most middle class white American males would never consider touching a prostitute. We are scared of disease first and foremost. Even on the Turkish Riviera, where US and British feminists pretend exists a burgeoning sex slave market, the Ukrainian prostitutes are all chain smokers who are extraordinarily undesirable (and are thus probably not there involuntarily).

(No,most guys don't because of some stigma put there by women and the church,putting it down,much like Jim is doing. What Jim forgets is that most men like a return on their investment and a kiss on the cheek or a handshake after buying her dinner and drinks just isn't going to cut it.)

Imagine, however, a middle-aged man out on a date with a clean-smelling middle-class American college coed who surprisingly and amateurishly tells him after dinner that going further will cost him $200 and she's never done this before…I can guarantee that 95% of the men in that scenario would consider the proposition. Marc Rudov wouldn't have gotten his start criticizing men for buying their girlfriends and wives, if it were not true that most men are, in fact, willing to pay for sex. Prostitution, in theory, would be as natural as breathing. Humans just want it to be done discretely.

(No,western society wants to stamp it out. The fact that it is discreet is because the matriarchy may not know of that particular location for prostitution but if it does it will move against it.)

Stopping the entrapment of males by attractive young sex police should be a top 10 priority for the Men's Rights Movement.


Whereas the courts have successfully argued that those men caught on To Catch a Predator could not claim that sex with a minor under 16 was a reasonable temptation, it would be horrifying to see the Supreme Court claim that a 93 year old man should not consider it a temptation for a buxom 23 year old woman to offer to let him touch her for $20 (I assume a 93 year old man could not do much other than that).

(The courts are part of the cop's hustle on this and they make money off it too. If not in court costs and fines then attorney fees. This is the only reason poltically correct courts do this,they don't give a fuck about justice because if they did they would punish female offenders just as harshly as male offenders)

If a gorgeous American policewoman told me that I could touch her for $20, and I did so and got arrested, I would have to dedicate my life to getting those arrested who created those laws and the officer arrested and charged with entrapment. Other countries and their media should consider shaming American men into finally standing up for themselves.

(Sadly that is how most American men are motivated to standing up for themselves. They don't do it because to let a bully get away with her abuse only invites further abuse and they don't do it to make the society they live in a better place either. If this type of "man" were around when Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union were still going strong we would be living under their systems right now.)

After living in so many other countries with more freedom, I would be so shocked and outraged at even having my name smudged for doing something as natural as breathing with someone else and then watching a government get involved in the relationship. It simply must not be a crime to be a male and be willing to pay for a date or for any kind of social interaction, which is what men do all the time anyway. The female police officers who arrested what are possibly World War Two veterans should have been the ones who were arrested in the Florida sting operation. Where are the names of these offending police officers in those reports?

We have a right to know their names.

(Damn straight)


Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Judge gone wild

'Girls Gone Wild' Founder Accuses Judge

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

PANAMA CITY, Fla. - "Girls Gone Wild" founder Joe Francis accused a federal judge Tuesday of targeting him for retribution, saying he is behind a new lawsuit that accuses Francis of filming underage girls in sexually provocative acts.

Francis said U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak and Smoak's former law partner, Ross McCloy,are targeting him because his company met with a consulting firm about taking steps to impeach Smoak and have him removed from office.

McCloy is representing the four women who sued Francis last week. They allege they were 17,16, 15 and 13 when his company solicited them to participate in sexually provocative videos in 2003 and earlier. They want unspecified monetary damages.

Smoak presided over an earlier, similar lawsuit against Francis that McCloy also filed.

Francis said the judge should have removed himself because of his relationship with McCloy. The lawsuit was later settled after Smoak jailed Francis for making threats during a deposition.

"We asked three times for the judge to recuse himself in front of his ex-law partner and he refused," Francis told The Associated Press. "This is America and we are not going to let that happen again. We are not going to let them put me in jail for a civil suit."

He called the latest lawsuit "Shakedown Part 2."

McCloy had no comment about Francis' allegations. Smoak did not immediately return a phone call placed to his office. "Girls Gone Wild" is a series of videos showing young women exposing themselves, often at events like Mardi Gras and spring break. Francis has sold millions.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be

published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Spitzer Sex Scandal

I haven't really commented on this issue until now considering I have mixed feelings and thoughts on this. On one hand Spitzer did get stung by the matriarchy but on the other he is a Hillary supporter. As a prosecutor,Spitzer sent a lot of people to jail,including those prostitutionally related. There is with this something that is pertinent to every story we read about in papers or see on TV and that is man-as-villain,woman-as-victim. While Spitzer was roasted over the coals,the prostitute in this case was described as coming from a "broken home" and now they are alleging "abuse" as well but this was mentioned just recently and she has cut a deal with prosecutors to testify against the escort agency and I'm sure against Spitzer. Women today get a real sweet deal,if they can get money from the agency they will.whether by working or working the feds to get rid of the agency when it no longer profits her. It is Elliot Spitzer's love for Hillary that I have a problem with and for that reason I haven't commented til now but it is proof that the matriarchy will eat its own.

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Sexist Spanish taxes

Mariano Rajoy Brey

Against gender based taxation: Abolishing equality before the law is wrong and dangerous
Gilles Saint‑Paul
9 February 2008

The conservative Spanish Partido Popular has proposed gender-based taxation in line with recent research and several Vox columns by Alberto Alesina and Andrea Ichino. Here one of Europe’s most eminent labour economists makes the counter argument.

A few centuries back, Europe was under a feudal system. A self-appointed caste of aristocrats was supported - thanks to the labour of the laymen. The system was based on the latter having fewer civil rights than the former; they had to pay high (mostly in kind) taxes, so that the nobility did not have to work for a living. Predictably, at some point such a system was deemed unfair. The people of the Enlightenment abolished the privileges of the nobility and wrote constitutions stating that all citizens were equal before the law.

In recent papers and Vox columns, Alberto Alesina, Andrea Ichino, and co-authors propose to overturn these constitutions and to restore some fiscal privileges based on a birth characteristic: sex.1 That is, they propose that women pay less taxes than men, everything else equal.

This proposal has long been associated with a fringe of radical feminism, so it surprises me to see it coming out of mainstream economics and the academic establishment. In fact, it is becoming so mainstream that Spain’s allegedly conservative Partido Popular has a tax break for female workers in its platform for the next election. Given that the ruling Socialist Party is unlikely to oppose such a “progressive” measure, the Spaniards will have gender-biased taxation whether they like it or not. This will probably remind them of the good old days of Franco.

So why is it that mainstream politicians and academics alike are now endorsing the fringe radical feminist political agenda? Let us start with the economics.

The economic argument

A central argument is based on the so-called “Ramsey taxation principle”, which states that a good whose demand (or supply) is more elastic – i.e. responsive to prices – than another one should be taxed at a lower rate. The reason is that the more responsive the equilibrium quantity of the good is to prices, the more the tax distorts the allocation of resources. Alesina et al. then elaborate on this by applying it to people and argue that (as is shown by econometric studies) women’s labour supply is more elastic to wages than that of men. So if we were to increase taxes for men and reduce taxes for women, the increase in female labour supply would be larger than the fall in male labour supply and GDP would go up. Now, this is not a totally convincing argument because increasing GDP is not a goal in itself. The Soviet concentration camps increased GDP but that does not mean we should have them.2 But instead of looking at GDP you can prove that some utilitarian social welfare measure (i.e. some abstract quantity which supposedly adds welfare across individuals with different identities and preferences) goes up if we allow for “gender-based” taxation. That is, according to this criterion we increase the welfare of women by more than we reduce the welfare of men.

Now, it turns out that if I am maximising any welfare criterion, I can always do better by discriminating than by not discriminating. This is because non-discrimination is a special case of discrimination, where all groups are treated equally. If different groups have different economic behaviour, then to maximise my welfare function I need to discriminate as much as possible, and I will treat each group differently. So we should have different taxes depending on sex, age, race, marital status, city of residence, state of health, and so on.3

At the “optimum”, some of these taxes would sound “right” to those with a “progressive” mind—like the one favouring women proposed by Alesina et al. Others would sound horribly wrong to these same people; in fact the very gender-tax proposal could be implemented as a reduction in transfers to women at the bottom of the distribution of income, since their greater labour supply elasticity implies these transfers are more distortionary than for men.

In other words, we do not learn much by cherry-picking the policy experiment that we analyse in a model to fit a pre-determined political agenda. And if “society” (up to now) wrote down constitutions saying citizens are equal before the law, while our utilitarian social welfare functions say that some should be more equal than others, it is unlikely that these welfare functions represent the social preferences implicit in those constitutions.

Winners and losers

While some dubious measure of aggregate welfare would go up, gender-biased taxation would clearly create losers. The welfare of single men would fall, as would that of married couples where the man has substantially more skills than the woman. It is not possible to make everybody better-off by means of a transfer from gainers to losers. For example, a single man who faces a higher marginal tax rate on his labour income would have to be compensated by a higher lump-sum transfer equal, at the margin, to the increase in the taxes he pays. But it makes no economic sense to increase somebody’s taxes in a distortionary way and compensate them with a transfer. In other words, the compensatory scheme would have to be financed by higher distortionary taxes on women which would eliminate all their gains.

Gender-neutral alternative

It remains true that there is a case for taxing marginal hours at the household level at a lower rate than infra-marginal ones. But this can be achieved by a gender-neutral reduction in the tax rate on the secondary earner’s hours (which could well also apply to the primary earner’s marginal hours such as overtime). And since such a scheme can make the household better-off by supplying more hours without reducing the total taxes they pay to the government, one can actually leave the household free to choose between that and a more traditional tax schedule.

Such a gender-neutral scheme would be all the more appealing, relative to the gender-discrimination gender-based tax proposed, since the view that men’s labour supply is less elastic than women’s is quickly becoming obsolete. It is associated with a traditional household where women are secondary earners. Only a minority of people are in such a situation. In many countries, for example the US or the UK, more than 50% of adults are single. Furthermore, women earn more than men in a large minority of married couples (30% in Canada). The rapid deterioration of men’s educational achievements relative to women suggests that this figure is going to increase. And, if men do provide lower effort in the university system (perhaps because they are less likely than in the past to have to provide for a family), this suggests that their behaviour can indeed be quite elastic.

Furthermore, Alesina et al. simply assume that the labour supply response to their proposed tax will be identical to what would be obtained if the same change in income was due to some exogenous change in wages. I think that despite being disguised as a tax break for women with no mention of the fact that men will have to pay more taxes to finance it, the Alesina et al. proposal will nevertheless be perceived as unfair by many men who will retreat from the labour market.

For example, there is much talk in France of the so-called “suburbs” and of the riots which regularly happen in these neighbourhoods. Many “progressive” analysts contend that the “youth” who perpetrate those riots do so because they are disenfranchised and have no prospects in the French labour market. Indeed, the youth unemployment rate in such areas is as high as 40%. Another obvious fact is that most of the rioters are male, and it is also well known that women from the same ethnic backgrounds are better integrated in French society and have far better educational achievements. Furthermore, a lot of the unskilled jobs that will be created in the future and that the “youth” could get are overwhelmingly feminised, in areas such as health care for the elderly and child care. Do we believe we will improve the “suburbs” if we tell the male “youths” that should they exit illicit activities and enter the formal labour market, they will have to pay more taxes than their sisters?

Abolishing equality before the law is wrong and dangerous

All these are practical objections which suggest that the supposed gains from gender-biased taxation may turn out to be much smaller than the authors think. But my opinion is that such a proposal is both wrong and dangerous not because of these practical shortcomings but because it is about abolishing equality before the law. The authors do not seem to realise that they are contributing to the decay of our democratic institutions.

The Spanish proposal

Mr. Rajoy, the candidate of the Spanish Partido Popular, did not mention the Ramsey taxation principle. Instead, he said that “our” goal was to achieve “equality” between men and women; ergo, women should pay lower taxes than men until “equality” is achieved. When that goal is reached, the gender-biased tax is supposed to be removed.

By “equality”, Mr. Rajoy cannot possibly mean equality in rights, since he precisely proposes to abolish that. Instead, he is pursuing equality of “outcome”, but even such a phrasing is fraudulent, since a man would be poorer than a woman with the same skills doing the same job at the same firm; because of the tax, women would in fact be paid more than men for equal work. So Mr. Rajoy and other members of the elite who are proposing gender-biased taxes are not interested in equality of outcomes but rather in equality of statistics. They want to equalise the average wage and the average rate of labour market participation between men and women regardless of what people want.

Let us pretend for a minute that politicians are sincerely interested in such a goal. The question is: “How much of our civil rights are they willing to abolish to reach these Stalin-style planning objectives?” Anti-discrimination laws constraining the hiring and pay policies of private firms already exist. Now we are being told that this is not enough and that taxes should discriminate by gender. Given that there always is some statistic which differs between two groups, there will always be some reason for the government to undermine constitutional rights under the pretence of fixing such imbalances.

But it would be very naïve to believe that if ever “equality” is achieved, the discriminatory policies would go away. Who would seriously think that the tax break for women proposed by the PP would be abolished the day they work as much and are on average paid the same as men? The statistics that are supposed to be equalised are carefully picked in accordance with the political agenda of organised interest; instead of the “equalising” policy being removed when the official objective is attained, the focus shifts on some other statistic that justifies maintaining it or introducing new similar ones. A telling example is how the debate on the achievement of women in US universities started focusing exclusively on their under-representation in the hard sciences when they became a majority in virtually all other fields. And we still have not heard proponents of “equality of outcomes” advocating policies that discriminate in favour of men in areas where women are doing better such as education or life expectancy.

Equality before the law as safeguard of liberal democracy

So, what game is being played here? “Equality before the law” was written in constitutions by the people of the Enlightenment not only because they genuinely believed in it, but as a safeguard to prevent democracy from degenerating into tyranny. Absent of individual rights, a majority can impose arbitrary harm to a minority. The constitution defines the rights that the individual has that cannot be overturned by majority rule. Now, given that men and women have many stakes in common, a men vs. women split could seem unlikely. But the decline of marriage and the fall in fertility have reduced these common interests; and the rise of “political correctness” has led us to a situation where men are the only minority that can be played against for electoral gains. So I believe we are in fact entering a dirty – and most dangerous – round of divisive identity politics.


Women use government services more than men but pay less taxes. That sounds fucked up. Wait until men refuse to work then we'll see what happens then. This proves my point that feminism has two wings: a left liberal one and a right conservative one and this jackass is trying to pander to them.

Monday, March 3, 2008


Here are some quotes I found very interesting about women,from racism to idiocy:

Gloria Steinem, a (Hillary) Clinton supporter, weighed in with an essay in the New York Times in which she claimed that, in public and private spheres alike, women have a tougher time than African American men.

"Gender," wrote Steinem, "is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. . . . Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot and generally have ascended to positions of power . . . before any women."


I don't ever recall hearing stories about women being lynched and I don't recall women being lynched for associating with black men either.

Even "Saturday Night Live" got into the act when guest host Tina Fey expressed her outrage that feminists have deserted Clinton.

"We have our first serious female presidential candidate in Hillary Clinton," said Fey. "And yet women have come so far as feminists that they don't feel obligated to vote for a candidate just because she is a woman. Women today feel perfectly free to make whatever choice Oprah tells them to."


This proves women are idiotic fembots.

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Good news;VAWA is challenged by attorney

Jim Peterson
Finally It Happens: New York City Lawyer Challenges VAWA in Federal Court
February 21, 2008 at 3:22 pm · Filed under Vox Populi

Federal lawsuit charges parts of the Violence against Women Act are unconstitutional.

Attorney Roy Den Hollander filed on February 14th, a suit in the U.S. Southern District Court of N.Y. attacking sections of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and other U.S. statutes for violating the Constitutional rights of American men who marry alien females.

The defendants are the United States of America, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Executive Office of Immigration Review, No. 08 CV 01521. Roy Den Hollander is the sole plaintiff. Hollander has also sued in a New York State court to have Ladies Nights declared discriminatory in New York City nightclubs and bars.

The VAWA infringes American mens rights to freedom of speech, freedom of choice in marital relationships, right of access to deportation proceedings, procedural due process, and equal protection under the law in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The unconstitutional statutes, enacted at the behest of the feminist lobby, create a fast track to permanent U.S. residency and citizenship for alien wives or ex-wives of American husbands whenever the alien female alleges abuse. Once she mentions the magic words -battery- or -extreme cruelty-, the Government institutes secret, -Star Chamber- immigration proceedings to determine whether the citizen husband is responsible, and, if yes, grants the alien female permanent U.S. residency. The American husband or ex-husband receives no notice of the proceedings, has no opportunity to defend his name, and the Government’s findings of abuse are based almost exclusively on what the alien female says. The feminist lobby created the statutes in order to deter American men from looking overseas for wives. If a marriage to a foreign wife does not workout, the alien female can falsely and opportunistically accuse her American husband of -battery- or -extreme cruelty- and he will have no opportunity to prove his innocence. The husband is barred from the proceedings that are conducted behind closed doors and any evidence that the Government might receive from him is discarded. So not only is the husband presumed guilty, but he is not even allowed to prove differently.

Hollander says -the feminists did not create these statutes out of bleeding hearts for alien wives but to intimidate American men into shopping at home for wives. He notes that, if an American wife accuses her husband of abuse, he at least gets his day in court and the abuse has to fit specific legal definitions. But under the VAWA, a husband can be found guilty of -battery- and -extreme cruelty- for anything from an -offensive- remark to felony assault.

While the VAWA would not send an American man to jail or fine him…not yet anyway, his rights are violated with impunity and his reputation destroyed. Both his alien wife or ex-wife and certain feminist groups can release what happened in the secret proceedings, and in New York State, the husband will have no recourse to a defamation, false light or prima facie tort cause of action no matter how false or harmful the accusations against him. Hollander says that even terrorists have more rights than American men accused of abuse by their alien wives.


Give them hell,Roy.