Please read p24-29:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21149332/Brainwashing-Manual-L-Ron-Hubbard

Especially p25 where it clarifies that hypnotism is misunderstood. This is sooo crucial! This manual has do to with mass control through violence…and the role of mental illness as a tool or precursor for violence. Remember that when a person is termed mentally ill…they loose their rights.

Except, like all feminists, you believe that only women should have “choice”, and the “equality” that comes from that “choice”. You believe in eliminating to the nth degree male choice while expanding to the nth degree female choice. You know there’s a conflict and you don’t care.-Masculinist

I am not a feminist. Choice comes from developing will.
Controlling the masses would not be possible if it weren’t for violence.
Violence has been proven to bend ANYONE’s will.(please do not respond with a comment on how I think only men are violent…far from it!)
My whole post was about how industrialized cultures remove much of this choice for both men and women through violence…and to get around the “built-in” choices, and fear of violence, requires WILL.

Quote on willpower:
“In order to disobey, one must have the courage to be alone, to err and to sin. But courage is not enough. The capacity for courage depends on a person’s state of development. Only if a person has emerged from mother’s lap and father’s commands, only if he has emerged as a fully developed individual and has thus acquired the capacity to think and feel for himself, only then can he have the courage to say “no” to power, to disobey.” – Erich Fromm (’On Disobedience and Other Essays’)
source: #TL10D: WILLPOWER AND PSYCHOSYNTHESIS
By fm1@amug.org“>Frederick Mann
© Copyright 2002 Terra Libra Holdings ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

excerpt note: under Introduction, quoted from text following the heading See also Obedience, Punishment, and Power.

“IMO, we need a movement of human beings”-Betsy

Funny how women throw out this sop when it suits them. To be aggressively pro-women is fine, but as soon as men start to recognize and defend THEIR interests, you’ll throw the “why can’t we all be equal human beings” bone.-Masculinist

I care enormously about men and men’s rights…I have a son.
Indiginous cultures(especially those based on seventh generation sustainability) honor the man and women. Nothing can exist on it’s own.
The mother does bring life, to honor women is to honor life.
Indiginous cultures like the Hopi and Iroquois also do not see the natural world as a resource. Fish and trees are not a resource they are part of our family.

How will we ever resolve our cultural issues with justice?
Especially when industrialized culture is run by our Economy(which is extremely corrupt and flawed)
Indiginous leaders and elders use common sense.

Take child custody for example…
The way child custody is determined in the U.S. …is through the courts. Each parent essentially tries to prove their individual competence while attacking the other parent’s competence. Even if the parents do not want to play this game…the court will determine who will PAY for the child’s needs. This perpetuates greed and ideas about mental illness and the need for control and violence.

Now contrast that with this excerpt…
~from Wikipedia under Iroquois

Women in society

When Americans and Canadians of European descent began to study Iroquois customs in the 18th and 19th centuries, they observed that women assumed a position in Iroquois society roughly equal in power to that of the men. Individual women could hold property including dwellings, horses and farmed land, and their property before marriage stayed in their possession without being mixed with that of their husband’s. The work of a woman’s hands was hers to do with as she saw fit. A husband lived in the longhouse of his wife’s family. A woman choosing to divorce a shiftless or otherwise unsatisfactory husband was able to ask him to leave the dwelling, taking any of his possessions with him. Women had responsibility for the children of the marriage, and children were educated by members of the mother’s family. The clans were matrilineal, that is, clan ties were traced through the mother’s line. If a couple separated, the woman kept the children. Violence against women by men was virtually unknown.[19]

The chief of a clan could be removed at any time by a council of the mothers of that clan, and the chief’s sister was responsible for nominating his successor.
~from Wikipedia under Iroquois

Violence against women by men was virtually unknown!
Today, Any women walking alone at night, who hears footsteps behind her…is afraid!

I do not deny that men may have a very different opinion about child custody rights…but remember we are contemplating into the seventh generation and the health of the entire culture.

“In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation… even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine.”
- Great Law of the Iroquois

This is where I am coming from. In each deliberation, I do not think only of myself, I do not think only of my gender or my generation, and seek I no separation from the natural renewing world.

It won’t.

Winning the discussion is not sufficient to bring about change.”

Correctamondo. An increase in radicalism among men, against the [systematized] aggressions of women/feminists, to defend their welfare and interests, is needed.

I don’t agree that women as a group are the problem.

Radical feminists do not represent the majority of women.

I don’t see the point of men forming the equivalent of a radical feminist movement. I want a men’s movement that is grounded, focused, and that reclaims words such as justice and equality.

But who defines so-called “equality”? Man-hating gynocentric feminist women.

Obviously you are going to end up with a conception of “equality” that is, in theory and practice, exclusionary, antagonistic, sectarian.

It is an unfortunate reality that sectarian groups such as the women’s movement define terminology such as “equality”, “rights”, “justice”. They will always do so in ways that suit them and them alone. They don’t care about contradictions.

Clearly, the “equality” mantra is simply a case of language-as-an-instrument-of-domination: something feminist women have long accused (projected) patriarchy as being culpable of.

Except, like all feminists, you believe that only women should have “choice”, and the “equality” that comes from that “choice”. You believe in eliminating to the nth degree male choice while expanding to the nth degree female choice. You know there’s a conflict and you don’t care.

“IMO, we need a movement of human beings”

Funny how women throw out this sop when it suits them. To be aggressively pro-women is fine, but as soon as men start to recognize and defend THEIR interests, you’ll throw the “why can’t we all be equal human beings” bone.

Suddenly women are interested in “just getting along”. Suddenly you are interested in “peace”, “finding a compromise”, “not seeing things as a zero-sum game”, after decades of (continuing) aggression against men. Right…

There’s no point in engaging in you people. Everything you say is self-serving lies.

Feminism/matriarchy must be smashed, simple as.

No, she’s incapable of such a perspective, like all feminist women.

Your welfare literally does not compute in her mindset.

And therein is the reason why men must take a more radical approach towards defending their interests against the aggressions of female politics (feminism).

Yeah, and it’s not going to change, pointing it out won’t make it change.

That’s why men must be more radical and take a leaf out of women’s (feminist) playbook - we must treat women as a group as a problem (which they are).

MRAs need to move on from this and rightly treated “women as a group as a problem” (which they are, feminism is their political weapon, feminism is but a symtom/tip of iceberg).

Making this critical leap will be the difference between the success of MRAism and its failure.

After all, what’s good for the goose…

Story of Stuff, Full Version; How Things Work, About Stuff (21:16)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8&feature=player_embedded#
(Peak of the U.S. industrial economy benefiting workers, in terms of happiness, was 1950)

LOVE