i am so sorry to hear that you got suckered. i want a family but with ny giving 350k apartments to the homeless we cant afford a child in my tiny apartment.

as i said, the whole thing was a eugenics thing and lesbian thing… and they HATED heterosexual women who would be with men… they literally wanted them not to have families, be barren.

these women were tricked to prune their family trees and fight for the legal prhibitions to keep men frmo saving them and us from themselves.

go to some of the more recent posts and you will see the damage that is done.

and this is done by organzied feminsim… a organization women never needed cause as so many here point out. no one was really against the points, they were against mass exodus and all at once change.

i love steak… but if i have to eat a pound of it in 5 mins and someone else is shoveling faster than i can eat… well, i would then hate what i loved too.

One of these days, women really ought to make up their minds about what it is exactly they want. Then they could do us all a big favour by stating, unequivocally, what they have decided it is they want. And then they could cover themselves with glory by sticking to what they say. In other words, it’s about time women – especially their self-appointed mouthpieces – started behaving like fully grown-up adults and citizens. Or is that asking too much? Apparently, it is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1190675/Youve-got-want-girls-Stop-whining-Has-feminism-women-unhappy-THIS-certainly-will.html

yeah.. a lot of liberating things here…

i dont see the average african american woman around me doing all that well. she did better in the past than she does now. now she is oddly named baby factory for a group of thug culture wannabees, and all kinds of stamp mold types like literature caracters.

heck most dont even know that the music they like is the poetry of a black national socialist by the name of H Rap Brown. who converted to islam by the way. check out who the shakurs were and the lineage.

so, no…

none of us have really done better than when we peaked in the 1950s… least of all the africans.

no one, especially me is talking about the bad laws that are violations of mans conscience and such. i am referring to the solutions that ended up destroying all they had.

before equalizing programs, blacks owned businesses. they had vibrant communities. there were doctors, and researchers… lawyers that served the communities.

after those new fixes. and the culture peddlers. and mostly blacks preying on blacks to get personal power and screwing the community because their power comes from a community in pain!!!

there wasnt much… once the people they voted for who were using them had their clutches, and once they thought others outside who were not black could never want to really help them. there was no way things were going to improve ever…

not because white man kept him there, but because other black men sold them out (as black tribes sold out others to slavers) and kept them there!!! and each time others wanted to fix the problems and thereby negate the power of these modern slave gaherers, things were spun and good was bad and bad was good, and there was no way again.

if things got better for them, they would not need saviors. if they didnt blindly trust race and religion, they wouldnt have hucksters keepign them as worms on a hook to create lifetime employment.

until many see that their socialism enables this misery power exchange over things that the state really has no power over, then this is how our future lives will be for all of us. because we have gotten to the point already where the more miserable we are the more power they have, which is an inversion to the more miserable we are, the more we should throw the bums out.

submissive nihilists become those who seek meaning in masochism.

the liberals are mental flagilists.

news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090602/sc_livescience/happinesshasnothingtodowithwealth

what crappy studies like thius marxist one do is completely separate what is not separable.

the idiots dont realize that extrinsics are means to intrinsic goals.

so no… money dont make you happy any more than a screwdriver does.

if you take the money thing, and you look at their intrinisic things that make you happier, you will find that having money insures that those goals are maximized

intrinsic (for example, meaningful relationships, health and personal growth).

if you are indigent, you dont have meaningful relationships as you do when you are richer. and the relationships of the wealthy are more meaningful because they are less about situations in common and more about uncommon experiences and ideas.

same with health… while money cant buy good health money can maintain your health at what optimum your body does allow. that is a personal trainer, health chef, and so forth can optimize your health to what your genetics allows.

and the opportunities for personal growth and such are much more vast when you have the money to persue them.

so this is how a false argument is created by creating a false division and a few other tricks.

the point being that the science was purposed to trick the underclasses into not competing and succeeding in merit as a means to happiness.

like the wealthy woman said

those who say money cant buy happiness havent got money.

Sadistic Cat Killer Strikes Again
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/sadistic-Cat-Killer-Strikes-Again.html

now tinkbell twisted the head off her cat and skinned it and made a purse out of it.

in this case, no one knows who is doing this. but when you read the article, they sure know its a man.

“He ‘s just going around mutilating these poor little animals, maybe that should happen to him,” “He’s a very sick person and this is how they start out, torturing animals and mutilating animals and then they move up to humans, so he needs to be caught because he really is sick.”

contrasted with

Katinka Simonse – artist name: Tinkerbell – has always tried to shock people. In 2007, she rescued 61 chicks from a factory farm and threatened to dump them all in a shredder unless her audience adopted them. She put a hundred hamsters in transparant plastic balls and had them run around a gallery during a 2008 exhibit. But her most notorious project to date was ‘My dearest cat Pinkeltje’ in 2004: Tinkerbell personally twisted her pet’s neck and skinned it with her own hands to make it into a purse.

ah… in the near future Mr Ng, and her will do a slow skinning of a human being to music as performance art…

so much better than swan lake, so much better than classical music, so much better than western canonic literature.

however, thats how far we have gone.

The women’s lib movement zenithed in the 70′s. The struggles of the previous generations had, for the most part, been realized. Up to that point women were able to derive satisfaction in their lives from focusing on, and achieving equality in increments.

Since then, the reality of liberation has set in. Women became responsible for their own liberated choices in life, and their own happiness. For most rational feminists, no longer could everything unpleasant in their lives be blamed on the patriarchy. (I know that there are still scab picking whiners that make up modern day feminism.)

The point is that women in the 70′s had just achieved so-called liberation and were feeling their power, and rightfully so.

Extend this theory now to black women, who were never really a big part of the women’s lib movement in the 70′s.

The black civil rights movement reached it’s zenith in the 60′s but blacks weren’t truly empowered at that time. Civil rights for blacks has been a slowly evolving phenomenon but has only recently, (with the election of Obama), reached the point of empowerment. Blacks, especially black women, have accepted personal responsibility for their lives, and they are feeling it, like their white sisters were in the 70′s.

The difference is that black women came from such a disadvantaged place that the reality of liberation for them, unlike the liberation of the mostly upper middle class white women in the 70′s, gives them lives that were undreamed of prior to the civil rights movement.

I say, right on.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/19561572/index.html

listen carefully as the news person is so used to demonizing men that in the start of the video, she reverses what happens and says a father kills the daughter.

“a father killed his daugher is in custody right now”, is what she says.

truth… daughter kills father for dinner roll

while such heinious acts happened in the past, they did not happen with clockwork regularity as if the population was showng some form of mental desease from having a life imposed on them while they are told otherwise.

by the way.. another game they play is that they lump stepfathers (the most likely to abuse), with fathers (the least likely to abuse, and the most protective of children from his mate)..

I am looking for the video that a news group did for a study in a nj park. they had a woman abusing a man and wanted to film what passerbys did. it took them several days of filiming before someone actually helped the man (a group of several women). but the video of the people passing by is telling.

here it is!!!

the point here is to show you how far its gone, how far its been normalized, and how the ONLY answer given the violent women and their left liberal way of debate and character assasination, is to bow out and let the culture disappear through eugenics through social engineering rather than overt force.

watch it… and see why the men are happier. its taken them 30 years to figure out they cant win, so now they dont play the game anywhere near the way they did in the past.

and there is no way to referse it unless you can think of how to change these womens attitudes to love and family things. with western peoples below 1.6 in birth, and augmented or hiding the rate by immigration… we have self exterminated through being convinced that these are the best cultural things to do.

please go to the link to see the video, its a real eye opener!!!!

abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2741047&page=1

Turning the Tables
How Do People React When There’s Abuse in Public, But the Gender Roles are Reversed? How Would You React?

It’s the kind of sweaty summer day when you might expect tempers to be short. Even so, though, the scene on a park bench in northern New Jersey strikes bystanders as a bit odd. A young woman with fiery red hair leans over her hapless boyfriend, screaming in his face.

On previous shows, “Primetime” has staged scenes of abuse in which the man is the aggressor, and the woman is the victim. And in these situations, passersby — men and women — often stepped up and intervened. So producers were curious. What would happen if the tables were turned, and the man was suddenly the victim? Would people be just as willing to come to his defense?

This staged scenario happens more often in real life than you may think. According to Colgate University psychology professor Carrie Keating, women abusing, even assaulting their male partners “is a big problem in this country.”

i have a nursing text book that shows that ALL abuse is male to everyone else, and none the otehr way!!!

i saw a girl this morning hit a man on a subway with the pointy part of an umbrella.

i have seen them cold cock men hitting them while passing knowing there isnt anything a decent man can do and not lose (they are begging for an altercation they can escalate)

i have been assaulted by womem kicking, elbowing, and hitting people to move them to get onto a train too crowded to hold them

its not normal at this rate or level…

and the guys have bailed… look on the train and the number of foreign marraiges has more than doubles in the past decade!!!

“There are some data that suggest that women actually hit more than men do,” says Keating. “Men create more damage, but women hit more than men do.”

Verbal and physical abuse of men by women might be an acknowledged problem, but will people try to stop it when “Primetime”‘s hidden cameras are rolling?

[edited for length by neo-neocon]

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/afl-cio-official-conceals-pro-castro-views/

A top official of the AFL-CIO is stonewalling questions about her participation in an illegal 1970 trip to Communist Cuba organized by Weather Underground terrorist Bernardine Dohrn.
Karen Nussbaum, the executive director of Working America, the community affiliate of the AFL-CIO, was asked about her visit to Cuba after speaking at a panel at a “progressive” public policy conference in Washington, D.C. on Monday. Nussbaum was apparently stunned by the fact that someone had uncovered an aspect of her background that has been carefully omitted from her official biography. She refused to answer and walked away. Obviously embarrassed, she also pretended that she didn’t hear the follow-up questions about her trip as a young radical to the communist-controlled island.
But according to one account of her trip, she declared that she “learned about revolution in Cuba” and praised Castro for providing “free health and educational care to every person in society…” She also declared, “I was part of the Black Panther Support Committee” and said she was a member of the “Draft resistance movement” opposing the Vietnam War.

Voices of Feminism Oral History Project
Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College
Northampton, MA
http://www.smith.edu/library/libs/ssc/vof/transcripts/Nussbaum.pdf

Nussbaum founded the organization, 9 to 5: The National Association of Women Office Workers, which led to Jane Fonda, also known as “Hanoi Jane” because of her support of the Communist Vietnamese, making the film “9 to 5.” [so I guess it turns out that hollyweird DOES produce propaganda to further communist goals, no?]