Whiny Man with Misogynistic Blog Declares, to Crickets, He Is Boycotting American Women

page: 8
9
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Peace is indeed a great idea...and indeed find the right woman. However...if I work to pay for and maintain a house it is not her house. If she pays for an maintains the house it is her house. For you see there is a principle involved here..and it is called RISK. A man works and pays for a house..works to maintain it by a process of work and all of this involves RISK. This is a principle often overlooked and particularly by the Women in threads like this such that they can default through without debate on it.



There is a certain amount of 'risk', as you call it, in giving up a wage to become dependent upon the 'good will' of another. By taking time out from a career, an individual risks lowering their earning potential, especially if all that that person is engaged in is domestic work. If we say that my labour is currently worth £9.00 per hour, and I devote three hours of my day, cleaning your house, doing your laundry, buying and preparing food, etc, seven days a week. Now that is £189 of labour that you are receiving from me, per week, in exchange for board and lodging. Now that must be a pretty fancy house for me to be required to earn that much keep, but it is a fair enough exchange, relatively speaking. But I would, of course, want 'extra' if I'm to be nice as well as doing all that...

...but I am still not seeing how you would be putting in anymore 'risk' than I would be...in fact I am risking much more the way I see it.


Kilgore Trout,

Interesting post you have made here about female RISK.

So with your angle on Female RISK taking...does this mean that the female of the West is sufficiently modernized that she will invest in enough RISK taking to support a man and children from her earnings, pay for a home and all the trimmings, doctors bills, vacations, insurance payments, car payments, maintenance for both cars and home ... et al...etc etc. Thus she maintains her all important "WAGE Earning potential" while the male lowers his and thus explores his "Options." You know ..his sensitive side??

Do women in the West believe in this much equality...even at the cost of their lives and physical countenance...as well as spiritual countenance?? To they believe in RISK sufficient to reverse the roles and assume more RISK of this type? Are they willing to let the male assume less risk while they assume more?

Or are they lamenting that they cannot have it both ways???

Or is life only about them?? And their needs/requirements??

When you say you would want "Extra" ...you mean extra risk taking to be nice?? If so ..in exchange for what??

Once again..I do not hear the sophisticated women of this world speaking of the male risk taking...;only how much risk these women put on the line in sacrafice....ie...the best years of their lives. This becomes very predictable in these types of posts. Male risk taking can be ignored..even taken for granted in lieu of how much the female puts on the line. I know this by how much it is ignored in threads like these.

In this world..male risk taking can be ignored..not spoken about by default. Only the female puts so much on the line.

Do western sophisticated women of intelligence believe in this much equality or do they believe in politics?? Social/sexual/politics?? For social/sexual/politics..you can substitute the word...division..instead of unity.

You seem to be confirming the point I have been speaking about in several posts and threads.

Lucky for you and other women that most men out here cannot think outside the box..but only the standard issue default social settings. They..the males... need to be dumbed down much more. What a dumb bunch of males out here.

Thanks,
Orangetom




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
So with your angle on Female RISK taking...does this mean that the female of the West is sufficiently modernized that she will invest in enough RISK taking to support a man and children from her earnings, pay for a home and all the trimmings, doctors bills, vacations, insurance payments, car payments, maintenance for both cars and home ... et al...etc etc. Thus she maintains her all important "WAGE Earning potential" while the male lowers his and thus explores his "Options." You know ..his sensitive side??


Well, I don't know about generally, but personally, yes. Though I don't know what you mean about 'sensitive side.' I eventually got tired of supporting my former partner while he 'explored' his options in fact, I had always been the 'bread winner' and paid for all outgoings, including the car, which I couldn't drive...as well as doing the shopping, cleaning, cooking, painting and decorating, shopping, laundry...child rearing...you get the picture. When I wanted time to explore my options, he was though, totally unwilling to do the same. I really wanted to be a full-time Mum, just until my son went to school, and I asked him to take over the bread winning for a couple of years so I could do that. He said yes, I handed in my notice at work....and he did nothing...he would say later, that I wasn't worth it. But there you go. It cost me £14,000, probably more with interest, to take out two years from work and be the Mum I wanted to be. Plus the £10,000 in credit card debt that he ran up during the time it took me to 'wake up' to my own gross stupidity. My son is testament to the fact that it was worrth every single penny though, so I try not to grumble to much and instead count my blessings.

I was being somewhat sarcastic in my response....you said that you should be put first if you are paying the bills, I say, that depends on how much time and labour the other person puts in, and how much that is valued. If you want a maid, then pay for a maid, if you want someone to 'love' you, or be 'nice' to you, then I would presume that you would at least try to love or be nice to them in return. What I mean is, I could move into your house, or you into mine, and as a wage earner I could just pay half the outgoings, or vice versa but you instead want me to leave my job and clean up after you...can't you clean up after yourself? Do you see what I mean? I do not need to be someones house keeper, I already have a job, and skills, but if I loved you, then I might want to look after you, if you valued me for doing so...but no not just because I'm a woman....perhaps I would prefer having you keep the house and look after me...and maybe you would too.

I do not see any real difference, when you get involved in a relationship there are risks for both parties. It is a good idea to protect yourself financially, I was young and in love but am still more than happy, and willing, to share what little money I have. Having faith in people is what life is all about, and really when it comes down to it, it's only money...experience is infinitely more valuable.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Kilgore Trout,

Thanks for your narrative. It sounds to me like you had a man more feminine than you. Not a RISK Taker.

I am not sure but I believe you are in the UK. I am hearing tales and stories that this is become rather common there and this very template is attempting to be introduced here in the USA with the attendant result that the men will become feminine and sensitive..not risk takers.

When women have children it is natural that they would want to stay home with their children...at least to me it is...or at least in their formative years. I can understand this. Some women after doing this for a few years have a fear of returning back to the labor force. I can understand this too.


I was being somewhat sarcastic in my response....you said that you should be put first if you are paying the bills, I say, that depends on how much time and labour the other person puts in, and how much that is valued.


Yes, I understood that you were being sarcastic. I do not often use sarcasm. I am pretty much a straight up sort of fellow.

I will explain something for which I did not in my previous post. When I say being put first...I mean ..Peace..not Piece. I also mean that I am not something to get around to after all the changing appetites of the children are taken care of.

I am not saying to put the children last. I am not saying this. I am however saying that I am also not last..when expected to bring home first fruits for the woman and children's discretion and consumption. Understand now?
This is where many of the men with whom I have conversation are telling me and they don't understand how or when it happened. Hence many of them find more peace away from home and on the job than at the home for which they work and take RISKS to keep and maintain. Their women seem mostly oblivious to this. They think it is normal and even expected.

I can get women to come over and take off their clothes...several of them. It is not a rare or extinct commodity...so that is not a skill which is going to impress me no matter who is the woman. This is why Peace is far more valuable and difficult to get than Peace. And Peace also requires much more commitment than does Piece. I have been around sufficient to know this about the nature of peoples.

I do not have much use for feminine males. Non Risk takers. To me they are like many women...High Maintenance. You are telling me you had a high maintenance man. Sorry to hear that.

I am a shipbuilder by trade.. a machinist ..with a specialty in nuclear fueling. We install and remove fuel from nuclear reactors. I know what RISK is for my monies and home. I have little use for someone who does not have respect or consideration as to the RISKS I take in earning my monies. Understand now??
I do not change my thinking pattern because I leave work and eat a comfortable meal. Nor do I have a desire to become feminized because I know what I have to do tomorrow..or next week. This is not a thought process which goes through the minds of most of the females I know.
There are a few who comprehend this and they are rare pearls when you find them. Most of them also know and understand about Peace verses Piece. I can appreciate this in them too. However..most of them are not RISK takers and have no desire to enter such an environment. I can understand this.
This for me is the dividing line with me..male and female both. For I know many males who are very accomplished at using a telephone keypad or computer keyboard...remote controller..but not at risk taking or the thinking which accompanies this. To me these men or males are very feminine. and tend towards high maintenance.

I am not better than others for knowing this. I do however know that I am very different and make no apologies for this.


If you want a maid, then pay for a maid, if you want someone to 'love' you, or be 'nice' to you, then I would presume that you would at least try to love or be nice to them in return. What I mean is, I could move into your house, or you into mine, and as a wage earner I could just pay half the outgoings, or vice versa but you instead want me to leave my job and clean up after you...can't you clean up after yourself? Do you see what I mean?


First off ...I am not looking for a maid. I have been doing for myself for many many years. I can cook, clean and also make repairs. I don't need a woman to do this for me or as many of the women like to quote..I don't take up with a woman for lunch. A woman doing these things for me is not my definition of "nice.' I can do these things for myself and do. I don't have a problem with a woman working. I am not sure where you get that impression but that does not fit me.
I am very grateful to my parents for teaching me many basic home skills long before I went out into the world Taking care of my two younger brother and sister...also taught me certain skills. My parents taught all of us certain skills..even sewing/darning socks et al. I don't come to a woman for this. You see???
I can get women to come over and take off their clothes...not rare nor valuable commodities in my marketplace.

Peace means the home where I hang my hat is a place to which I want to come..not the local bar or pub...etc.
It is a place of comfort and Peace..not chaos from every outside drama trying to enter. The bills are taken care of and their are money surpluses..not deficits. This too is part of Peace. Food in the larder...not emptiness.
Is this to much to ask of he women or children for whom I would RISK and bring home first fruits??
How many women do you know who would comprehend this in the fast food lane of life now days.
I know most of the men or males I know are way to stupid to figure it out. Most of them know something is often not right but they lack the acumen to think it though. They have to much artificial thinking and beliefs going on in their brain cavities. They are empty shells to me. Yes they can do their jobs but outside of that ...not much.

If you are in the UK...I have an idea what is going on in many of the inner cities and the train wreck it is making of a whole generation of British youth. I believe this same template is planned for here in the USA. Same education system..same social programs ..same train wreck coming. It will be sad.

Hope you have better fortune in picking your next man..not a high maintenance one.

Gotta run now..things to get done before I must shove off.
Thanks for your post,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


You and I have a different value system, instilled through our personal experience, nurture/nature, the such like, but apart from that, we want pretty much the same things at the end of the working day. I see no disagreement there. The rest I believe is semantics, what you call feminine-traits, I would simply give a less gender emphasised one, dependent or parasitic suits me better, as a definition of traits. I, for obvious reasons, take exception to femininity being considered, and for the same reason, child, as a negative thing in of itself. Some children are far more responsible, intelligent and articulate than alot of adults, and a helluva a lot less self-centred too. Same goes for women and men, certainly in my neck of the woods anyway. So gender and age neutral is my preference, if at all possible...

So yes, I would agree with you, we do in the UK have an increasing problem with dependency. I would say that a significant proportion of young adults are unable to take care of themselves totally independently, and remain dependent upon their adult carers much longer than my parent's generation did. Parents are failing to raise individuals capable of functioning in society, but that is the ideal environment if you are engaging in war, so the government is in no hurry to alleviate the situation. Easy, fertile girls are what turn dumb boys into cannon fodder.

It doesn't really matter to me what choices other people make, the concern lies in their ability to recognise and take those choices. Too many worship at the font of consumerism and merely 'want'. Some will always take the easy options while others will prefer a challenge. We each live with the consequences of our actions, and there are an awful lot of very disappointed women out there who can only validate themselves through their kids, husbands, houses or possessions, no actual accomplishments that they have earnt off their own backs, and therefore desperately pushing to get more and more validation out of those things, or shopping to fill the void. And many more men and women who resent having to work when others take it easy, and for whom the state has to provide. Which, if you look back, is just about the situation you find before the collapse of any civilisation...

But that'd be worse in the US, since the US is the centre, the decadent Rome...if that particular cancer is nipped in the bud the rest of us might be in with a chance of recovery.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Strange that nobody speaks up about the misandry in American but if some random dude with issues speaks his men MOST women feel the need to bash the guy.

We men try to understand why women are frustrated with men. It's annoying hopw fast women are to flame some guy without understanding his history. Goes to show you that women really don't care for us.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Kilgore Trout,

I use the term feminine in the context of ...in this world and of this world...defining ones self by the things they consume..not what they know. I say this because so many of us know so little.
In this context it means ...in this world and of the things of this world.......feminine.

What you have going on in the UK and attempting to go on here is the positioning of the female over the male..in every aspect of things. This to the point where a man or male cannot defend a males position or risk taking. Willingness to take risks for his woman or family. To define everything and anything by the worlds standards..by consumption rates..not by what someone knows...physically as well as spiritually.

In this manner the males are being feminized. They like many women ..think that their emotions are what is right and correct. They can do a point spread and quote sports statistics but not think a thing through..even about RISK. They are become robots....drama queens. I don't have much use for alot of this type of male.

They are often high maintenance. Most women I know are not interested in this maintence cost from a man or male.

The problem the women of this world are going to run across is that they cannot maintain the trappings of this world to keep up their standard of living they have come to expect and believe themselves entitled.
The other problem is that the men or males of this world are going to find themselves in the same boat as they too become feminized.




So yes, I would agree with you, we do in the UK have an increasing problem with dependency. I would say that a significant proportion of young adults are unable to take care of themselves totally independently, and remain dependent upon their adult carers much longer than my parent's generation did. Parents are failing to raise individuals capable of functioning in society, but that is the ideal environment if you are engaging in war, so the government is in no hurry to alleviate the situation. Easy, fertile girls are what turn dumb boys into cannon fodder.


Dependency is the result of this feminizing. Politics itself is very feminine..in this world and of this world.

Easy fertile feminine governments also turn dumb boys into cannon fodder. This is why the government is in no hurry to alleviate the situation..they are dependent on the status quo.
Feminine peoples can be easily lead to vote for more of this nonsense.


But that'd be worse in the US, since the US is the centre, the decadent Rome...if that particular cancer is nipped in the bud the rest of us might be in with a chance of recovery.


This country, like the UK, has become dependent on consumerism..without the people themselves knowing it is going on and they are being lead by this very consumerism.
Both countries are slated to fail and fall before the consumer grip is allowed to be let go.of its host.



Envious,


Strange that nobody speaks up about the misandry in American but if some random dude with issues speaks his men MOST women feel the need to bash the guy.

We men try to understand why women are frustrated with men. It's annoying hopw fast women are to flame some guy without understanding his history. Goes to show you that women really don't care for us.


Most of the women on these boards are not interested in hearing about male problems..but mostly how to consume more and define themselves by their consumption levels...and with males or others taking the risk for this.

The other problem here is that the men or males are dumber than a box of rocks and can easily be lead around by their private parts using combinations of sex, sports, and alcohol or combinations of all three.

The males/men here are hard pressed to define or defend a male/mans position though they may have valid points. Their thinking and abilities are so limited and provincial.

As I often say with and about the average male...give him a little sports, sex, and alcohol and brain wave activity flat lines in him. He is now good for another Hundred thousand miles. And most of the women out here know this about them. They are predictable..both the men and women.

Not difficult to control a man or male under these auspices. I don't necessarily blame the women for flaming a dumb and ignorant male for some of the things posted on many of these boards.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Okay, so what you mean when you say ‘feminised’ you mean ‘materialistic’? I can work with that if you are unable to see beyond gender.

Consumerism is a fairly new religion in the UK, we never had true Protestantism, as in the merger of beliefs that came about through the interaction of Roman Catholicism and Judaism, which is the real driving force of modern throw-away consumerism or perhaps more significantly, we didn’t really get influenced by that idolatry because of our defensive reactionism against Rome. The US, in it’s innocence was far less immune and we, as a people, through close contact came to ‘envy’ the US’s wealth and prosperity and there are, if you look precursors to that.

So, firstly, we had in Britain two successive world wars, which effectively wiped out two successive generations of men, and left the women to raise the children. In addition to this, due to the only men that were ‘available’ in the UK at that time were US servicemen (“Young, dumb and full of come” or “Over-sexed, over-paid and over-here”) many women of breeding age saw the US model as aspirational. Our industry at that time was already in decline and in the US the norm was well-paid manual work that enabled a ‘stay-at-home’ wife, it seemed a life of ease in comparison to the UK where a women was expected to contribute to the family economy. Those that returned from the wars to the UK found women who had been spoiled, trading sex for commodities, in some cases enjoying independence for the first time from earning an income outside of the home and not understanding the incredible hardships and terrible experiences that those men had suffered. It created a sexual division. The best women it was considered had gone to the Yanks, and those that were left had probably dropped their drawers for all and sundry. Distrust, lack of understanding, added to which, these men wanted, and had been promised jobs, the women were sent back to the scullery, and understandably were dissatisfied. Additionally, measures were put into place that further limited the opportunities for women to work around the home, a married woman at that time was expected to give up outside work when she married, but it was the norm for those women to ‘take in’ work. The women in my family have always carried seamstress skills, so they would, for example, take in sewing, make frocks for middle-class women, the such like. This became impossible after WW2. So those men of the working classes were expected to work to support the entire family, and most died soon after retirement due to that strain. The women went on well into their eighties on the otherhand. But either way, you have at least two generations, up until mine, where the sole responsibility of child care and raising fell to the women. This is not natural and not particularly healthy for the child, especially when that woman has no other outlet. As I am sure you can imagine, a woman that is talented, or intelligent, or just curious about life, is going to become frustrated within such confines, and put all her hopes and energies into the children. Not necessarily a bad thing, but throw in a little bitterness with that, and well, you end up with the Kray Twins.

Women are not automatically ‘good’ mothers. They have to either be set a good example, or conversely a very bad one that they rebel against, but either way, one single individual should never be the sole influence upon a child, and most certainly that child should not be the vindication of an otherwise wasted life, as is so often the case. In addition to this, children grow up and leave home, and often as not, especially given a pushy mother who wants a clone of herself to prove her worth, will rebel. What has that women then to show for her ‘life’ but her home and possessions? Add to all that children who have observed their mother’s beholden-ness to the father. She is dependent upon him for her ‘value’, if he doesn’t appreciate her work and attentions, she has no other worth in such a social framework. She may use manipulation, sexual or otherwise, to get the things she needs. My mother for example, because my Dad did not think that sanitary wear was a household expense and would not give her money to buy those things that she needed every month, would baby-sit for other mothers in exchange for those products. Other women would perhaps use sex, or general sweetening to meet those needs. Children will emulate this behaviour to get what they want too. I’ll leave the rest to your imagination, but as much, in this instance, depends upon the morality of both parents as to how the children will turn out…but in terms of ‘femininisation’ or ‘materialism’, this is a primary drive, sons and daughters who are taught to ‘ingratiate’ or ‘please’ for reward, rather than earn it, will pursue that through life if it works for them and they are not shown alternative means.

Take that back now to before the great wars, to my great-grandmother, Sarah-Jane Rose. She was indentured at 12 to one of the local estates where she worked in the big house, initially as a scullery maid, but eventually working her way up to Lady’s maid. My great-grandfather, Arthur Haynes, was one of the gardeners, again he was indentured at 12, working his way up to being in charge of the orchard. He and Sarah-Jane married when he was 31, she 29, basically when they had saved up enough to set up home together. Till then, there was no hanky-panky, partly because it was forbidden, but also because they couldn’t afford the consequences. When they decided to marry, they asked their employers permission and they were released from service. Married people were not allowed to work together, or at all,and most even had to notify a senior member of staff if they were even courting, failure to do so would end in dismissal without good references. Before contraception this was how the lower classes were prevented from over breeding, and this was during (relative peace time too).

Arthur and Sarah-Jane had three surviving children, including my grandfather Albert became a gas-fitter, a new and somewhat dangerous trade in those days, and because of his valued, and rare expertise, he travelled throughout the colonies installing all the workings to supply gas to homes. When he married my grandmother, he bought the house. My grandmother, who had never worked, apart from modelling, went from being dependent on her father, to being dependent upon my grand-dad. He was too young for the first war, and a little too old for the second, but also as essential services he was not allowed to volunteer. It was his job to be the first in to a bombed house (this was Birmingham, an industrial centre, mainly munitions production during the war, so heavily hit) in order to switch off the gas. My grandmother on the other hand was enjoying the first real independence of her life, drafted in to work in a munitions factory. Following the war, forced back into the home, subsequently having nothing but two children and four walls to occupy herself soon fell for the charms of the man from the Pru, my eventually to be ‘Uncle’ Frank, who added a little spice to her life, and as is often the case, a bit of conversation. My grand-dad worked himself into an early grave miserable from supporting a whole family, rather than being able to share that burden with his partner, who herself was bored, unchallenged, dependent, and therefore quite understandably self-obsessed, or home obsessed in compensation.

And naturally, in such a situation children, confined as they are within the nuclear family to the care and attention of only one person, usually the mother, emulate that behaviour to gain similar reward. Children from such a dynamic may love their mother, but may struggle to describe a relationship based on respect, and similarly, their father they may respect, but only because he has provided for them, not because of love or even admiration for his ‘sacrifice’. Therefore you have adults who do not understand ‘team work’ and co-operation, but only sub-servience and dominance.

Now, to say the UK is infecting the US with this is naïve, it is a much wider and deeper social issue, primarily driven by whatever it is that is the aspirational model and that aspirational model is always set and directed from somewhere above and the media play an integral part in helping to target the ‘desires’ of the cannon fodder producers. The nuclear family, the isolation of some women and the elevation of others, and most importantly the isolation of the genders from each other, is all very much part of a design and it is important that one understands their role in it, especially if one wishes to ‘wake up’ and break free of the herd, or at the very least, allow their off-spring to do so. You should read some of the research into Albert Kinsey for example, the funding that he received and the way his ‘research’ was promoted to encourage hyper-sexualisation in the US and later spreading that influence into the UK.

In the UK, I am judged on my merits, hard work and accomplishments, these are rights that have been fought for in conflict with the state, not on my reproductive capability, or my ability to be ‘pert’ or ‘cute’, similarly men are adjudged the same. That is equality. I have to earn the respect that I am afforded, nothing has been given to me, or rather I have never taken anything, just because I can or am ‘pretty’. Those tests and pitfalls still exist within my society as they have always done, but I can nolonger be forced into servitude or dependence, because most importantly, I am equal in law. I would be far less concerned about the state of the world if indeed there was even the slightest chance of the ERA being passed in the US, and it coming into line with the UK and Europe. Until then, the US remains cancerous to us all, due to it's failure to progress to recognise all it's citizens as equal combined with it's insistence on telling others hypocritically what to do and how to do it.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Kilgore Trout,

I recognize an individuals gender just as do most peoples. What I recognize more is whether an individual can define themselves by more than that for which they consume. This is become a rarity today, male and female.


Consumerism is a fairly new religion in the UK, we never had true Protestantism, as in the merger of beliefs that came about through the interaction of Roman Catholicism and Judaism, which is the real driving force of modern throw-away consumerism or perhaps more significantly, we didn’t really get influenced by that idolatry because of our defensive reactionism against Rome.


I don't know that I would agree with this statement as there is alot of defensiveness/reaction ism here against Rome as well.
What I note about England is that on any given Sunday or even during the week there would be more peoples down at the pub than in church. Or even today with rising prices you would still not find that many in Church.
It is happening here as well..but not the Pub thing. People are just doing their drinking more at home than at a Pub.
Also with the train wreck that both World Wars have left to the English economy it took your country longer to get back on the Consumerism path than here. Our infrastructure and cities were not as devastated by our governments and enemies alike during the war.


The US, in it’s innocence was far less immune and we, as a people, through close contact came to ‘envy’ the US’s wealth and prosperity and there are, if you look precursors to that.


It is not just the UK peoples who did this...the peoples from other countries did the same and wanted to come here to the land of more and plenty.
The problems with this kind of thinking I find is that so many Americans tend to think this is normal...the way we live...they have never been to other nations to see how these peoples live their daily lives.
Americans have no idea that the rest of the world does not have big refrigerators into which they can put their foods and left overs foods. That peoples in many nations must shop daily and by this their foods are far more fresh than much of what we here in the states eat.
I remember as a youngster living outside of Paris...seeing the french going with their wine bottles to get refilled at the wine store or same with mineral water. To get their daily french bread or meats....vegatables..et al. People had these little net bags they carried with them.
You see .we take our refrigerators and cheap electricity for granted and think it is the same everywhere in the world. We know so little about our own country much less how others live outside the USA.
This gap in knowledge is going to catch up with Americans big time in 2012/2013 when all these high taxes come into effect on everything we consume. We will then have become just like Europe and the UK. This is by design..not by accident.

As to women doing their work....this is true in many nations and was true here in the States as well. My mother worked very hard raising the four of us as do many men today..and even harder than do many feminized men of today. She was not a shrinking violet so to speak. My mother did not have all the labor saving devices as do so women of today who also do so much complaining about conditions. They are all..."Victims " today. Most of them haven't a clue and so too with most of the men.

I agree ...women are not automatically "Good Mothers" and this is more and more being born out in the news as it cannot be hidden as easily as in times past. I find that women detect this in other women much faster than do the men. It is like a female radar, seeing through the night, and operating on a different frequency than male radar. Men are also more apt to give a woman more slack than would another woman in this arena. And I don't think most men are even aware of this difference. To much sports, cheerleaders,and alcohol blocking their thinking apparatus.

I remember taking a woman to the store and her closely examining the woman and children in front of us at the cashier line and noting quickly how dirty this woman's diaper changing bag was. She quickly passed judgement on this woman for not keeping the children's diaper bag clean and in inspection order. Here statement to me was that there was no excuse for this. The felt that this woman did not have to use an olde washboard but knew how to work a cell phone keyboard astutely. I had to laugh at the abruptness of her judgement. Me ..I never would have noticed such an thing until she demonstrated to me as to for what to observe. LOL LOL..talk about a finely tuned radar. I never would have thought of this kind of thing. She remembered women when she was coming up who were pretty poor but kept their children and their things clean. I now note this kind of thing as well now that she has educated me.

Now this Kilgore Trout....is to me very very ignorant on the part of women and men too.


In addition to this, children grow up and leave home, and often as not, especially given a pushy mother who wants a clone of herself to prove her worth, will rebel.


As a man I don't feel the need to prove my worth to anyone..particularly when I know what RISK is in life. I am very intimately familiar with RISK for my monies. I am not interested in any woman's insecurities in this arena. AT ALL. I am interested in a woman secure enough in herself to bring me Peace..not just Piece.

What the woman's movements have sold to most women is more insecurity ..not more security. And the women/women's movements are trying to foist this template off on the men or males through their substitute wallet.....government.


What has that women then to show for her ‘life’ but her home and possessions?


This is to me a very shallow..shallow demeaning definition of a woman. It is rampant consumerism. A woman to me is a woman internal first ..not external first. This is where to me so many women have gotten it backwards and then using/misusing this phony template try to put this off on the men to make it happen..and failing that ..turn to government as a substitute male or wallet...for votes of course. It will not help them in the long run....because government itself is very feminine..and government itself, as the whore it is, does not brook competition from males or females. They are very selfish in this regard. Government itself will use/misuse women and men both to keep and maintain power and control. This is a definition of whoredom..on the part of government and if the women are following this template they become whores as well.

The other side of the problem to me is that the men have become so dirt stupid they haven't a clue as to what is happening around them. Everyone and anyone is running the homes they take RISKS for but them. And I mean everyone, anyone, and anything but they themselves. But they can do a point spread for their favorite teams. What a bunch of dummies.


Add to all that children who have observed their mother’s beholden-ness to the father. She is dependent upon him for her ‘value’, if he doesn’t appreciate her work and attentions, she has no other worth in such a social framework.


Let us think about this template you are describing in the quote above here. So today's smart, savvy, educated woman is going to reverse this role and take care of the man and children...and have him dependent on him for his value along with all the commitments needed to accomplish this. You know....cars, maintenance, home, maintenance, insurance,vacations, doctors, dentists, schools, vacations...etc etc etc..and all the payments and RISKS which go along with this "Responsibility."

Or is today's , educated, savvy, intelligent woman going to dump the male and live off the system that has been set up for her "options" while the man continues to pay and pay and pay..while getting none of the benefits of a woman?? And I am not talking about sex here.
How is this working out in the UK between males and females?? Man as a wallet to government as a wallet..for votes of course.


She may use manipulation, sexual or otherwise, to get the things she needs. My mother for example, because my Dad did not think that sanitary wear was a household expense and would not give her money to buy those things that she needed every month, would baby-sit for other mothers in exchange for those products. Other women would perhaps use sex, or general sweetening to meet those needs. Children will emulate this behaviour to get what they want too.


You are describing here that women are very much like children to get what they want as long as there is not to much RISK involved. This is not grown up. ...or maturity...nor savvy..nor intelligent. But to me much of it is to avoid certain RISKS in life..not solve problems per se..but to get someone else to take the RISKS and call it grown up, mature, savvy et al.
I dont have alot of use for a woman who's main lifetime skill set is her sex and sexuality. I may take or accept this from her .but not for real goods and services. She is not offereing me something I cannot get somewhere else or something rare or valuable. I also know that I am giving sex as well..it is a two way thing..not just a one way thing. For you see Kilgore Trout....I can do more than just sex....understand now?? My skills and knowledge are worth much more than mere sex. Most men will settle for sex but not reallize they have been verily cheated by their own ignorance...and they are very very ignorant.

I have often asked myself why the toy aisles look in a certain manner very much like the soap detergent aisles in the grocery stores. All the bright colours screaming out at you..."Take me...no take me instead..take me!! Buy me!!" It is the same kind of mental appeal. Childish and emotional. The advertisers know what they are doing when they try to appeal. They know how to seduce and deceive...just like a feminine politician.


but may struggle to describe a relationship based on respect, and similarly, their father they may respect, but only because he has provided for them, not because of love or even admiration for his ‘sacrifice’. Therefore you have adults who do not understand ‘team work’ and co-operation, but only sub-servience and dominance.


Disagree here and particularly today. What many children of today learn is that the father is not necessary. They too can work the system to get what they want and can also take it to the next step ...that they deserve it ...more than others and also deserve it without RISKS. This is not respect..it is entitlement thinking.

This is what we are breeding and producing and what is coming rapidly here from European thinking. Entitlement thinking. Living off the government ..male and female both..by entitlement.
I see many children today thinking they are entitled to their first car and Mom makes sure that someone else RISKS to get it for them without work, and without RISK. Father takes second, third, or further place down the road in priorities while everyone else comes in first.

What government is learning and taking advantage of is that the female in economically affluent economies is the determiner of how the monies are spent..not necessarily that she takes RISKS for the monies but that it is she who determines the bulk of the spending and particularly on big ticket items. Therefore politically and economically it is the woman who must be sold..not the man. The man is only a vestigial organ...not needed except to take the RISKS out of life for the woman and children. The children too learn that the man or male is a vestigial oragn ..not necessary and mostly in the way...until real RISKS need to be taken...just like a woman.
The woman can be sold by appealing to her sex, sexuality and through the children... not through the male.
She can be made to sell the very soul of the male for her vote. Even the soul of the nation.
This is why controlled tabloid journalism appeal is so important in a feminized nation.

The important vote at election time is the women's vote ..not the males or mans vote.
Most males are totally oblivious to this template and are slated and scheduled to remain so.

All of this is part and parcel of Entitlement thinking from the UK and the Continent and which is ruining their economies unto bankruptcy. They want to bring this system here to the USA because we are not quite as bankrupt as are other nations but heading there fast.

There are further and deeper reasons for this but I am watching the time constraints here.
I will continue this later when time allows. Sorry for having to cut this short.

I will catch up with you later Kilgore Trout but must make haste for now.

Thanks for your lengthy post,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Kilgore Trout,

Continuing on...


Now, to say the UK is infecting the US with this is naïve, it is a much wider and deeper social issue, primarily driven by whatever it is that is the aspirational model and that aspirational model is always set and directed from somewhere above and the media play an integral part in helping to target the ‘desires’ of the cannon fodder producers.


This template is very dominant in the UK and the Continent with some variations for different nations..but it is not native to the USA. It is however attempting to be put over on us under the guise of Higher learning and abilities. I don't happen to think so.
With our current crop of leaders they are actually ignorant enough to declare openly to the people that " They dream of a nation which is "Fair." You have to go to public school to get this stupid as people do not naturally become this stupid and ignorant on their own merits or demerits. If all you are going to be is "Fair." then why struggle and work so hard when part of your "Fairness" is going to be received by someone else..no matter how hard you work.
The political winds of today and here are for "Wealth Redistribution" and calling this "Fair." To those of us who can still think past a public school education of non standards...wealth redistribution is not "Risk Redistribution." But one would have to break out of a public school thinking non standard to realize this. Be able to think further than ones Entitlement thinking....or emotions.
When I take RISKS to get something repaired for a woman or a woman and her kids...she is not interested in "Fair" or even the RISKS to get it done..she is just interested in it getting done for her and the children ...without risks ...without thinking about the nature of a thing...or what RISKS I had to go through to learn and carry out the process. Fair to her never enters the picture. I know this ..I have seen it over and over.
Nonetheless the model for this society comes from the UK and the Continent. It is not native to this country.


The nuclear family, the isolation of some women and the elevation of others, and most importantly the isolation of the genders from each other, is all very much part of a design and it is important that one understands their role in it, especially if one wishes to ‘wake up’ and break free of the herd, or at the very least, allow their off-spring to do so. You should read some of the research into Albert Kinsey for example, the funding that he received and the way his ‘research’ was promoted to encourage hyper-sexualisation in the US and later spreading that influence into the UK.


This is an attempt to make things "Fair" for anyone and everyone but the RISK takers. Herd mentality is necessary to pull this off on a people. The offspring are scheduled to be brought deeply into the heard and prevent individual thinking by emotional control of every aspect of their lives. A thinking peoples are a disciplined people. Education used to be considered Discipline. You no longer hear that today. Education used to be teaching one how to think...not how to emote. Facts and information's are merely grist to help in stoking the thinking apparatus. Emotions and Emotional instant gratification does not do this. Same with Tabloid techniques.
Kilgore Trout....I don't have much use for or respect for Albert Kinsey. I state this simply because people are pretty much unawares of how sex and sexuality have been used or misused to sell everyone and anyone on a heavy diet of constantly changing values and thinking. Most of it emotional instant gratification.
I do not approve of peoples who define themselves by their sex or sexuality. I think this is a very poor definition of a human. I am not speaking against sex and sexuality here. I am merely saying that people are so much more than sex and sexuality. Do not lose sight of this for the media, public education, and politics would like us to lose sight of this in order to steer us to the next changing wind as needed by them.
This is the main problem to me with the Homosexual groups...they have only this one fingerprint for public recognition and I think it is a very sorry non standard that they are trying to foist off politically on the public and hoping that no one understands what I just told you ...that people are more than their sex and sexuality.
This is also my problem with many of the women's groups...sex and sexuality is about all they have while trying to declare to the world that it is not. They want to hoist up their sex and sexuality as a badge of honor while putting down the sex and sexuality of men. This is not "Fair." Not that I believe in Fair but I am aware of the issue and double standard. It means to me that they are of "Confusion" and not clear thinking.
People are more than sex and sexuality and the overuse of sex and sexuality becomes boring when you can see it coming ..again and again. Like feminine politics..you can see it coming again.
Sex and sexuality are being used and misused to sell the very soul of a nation and people for lucre. I don't approve of this from anyone.


In the UK, I am judged on my merits, hard work and accomplishments, these are rights that have been fought for in conflict with the state, not on my reproductive capability, or my ability to be ‘pert’ or ‘cute’, similarly men are adjudged the same. That is equality. I have to earn the respect that I am afforded, nothing has been given to me, or rather I have never taken anything, just because I can or am ‘pretty’. Those tests and pitfalls still exist within my society as they have always done, but I can nolonger be forced into servitude or dependence, because most importantly, I am equal in law. I would be far less concerned about the state of the world if indeed there was even the slightest chance of the ERA being passed in the US, and it coming into line with the UK and Europe. Until then, the US remains cancerous to us all, due to it's failure to progress to recognise all it's citizens as equal combined with it's insistence on telling others hypocritically what to do and how to do it.

I don't agree with this simply because I know what is RISK and what RISK entails. I also know the whorish nature of a government who after fighting this trend...has now found that it can be used/misused for votes. And government will sell the very souls of anyone and everyone to get votes and keep power...including turning the world upside down. Fairness and Equality are going to be found at the poverty level by the time government gets finished with their version of Equality. This is easily predictable when one studies the history of nations and economies..going back to Ancient Rome.


I am equal in law


Wow!! Kilgore Trout...you use the law in this manner to force something which will never be in reality...but give the appearance of equal and now call that equal...the new non standard. Equal in law is not equal..but the "appearance" of equal. Do you think that this is a default setting that no one out here will recognize..just as our leader was ignorant enough to state before millions ..that he dreamed of a nation that was "Fair?"

Show you how this works Kilgore Trout...

Do you know how commitment works?? Male / Female relationships and commitment?? How many males out here would even understand and know the difference in how a woman thinks or is capable of thinking..about commitment. Would he understand the "Appearance of Commitment" verses real commitment. Most women would understand and comprehend it much faster than would most men. Understand now?? Equal at law is not equal. It just looks/appears equal. It never takes into account RISK. It just warehouses people under the colour of law. It hides and conceals the absence of equal. This is occult..hidden..concealed and has its origins in religion/politics.

I am often given to state that politics is an occult religion and for reasons like these. Who understands more of occult/concealed subtlety naturally and instinctively....males or females???
I can do the same thing with the definitions of legal and lawful. Legal being the "Form/appearance" of law..and Lawful being the "Substance " of law..what the law was intended to do or accomplish. From Blacks Law Dictionary.
This about legal and lawful..is occult in its nature and practice in the court systems. Never defined and made clear to those it intends to rule. And feminism, like politics., depends heavily on occult nature in things it intends to dominate.
As to servitude and dependence...this is what is happening in the UK and to a whole generation of train wrecks and scheduled to come here to America en mass after following the same templates as the UK and the continent. But it will be called "Equal."


I would be far less concerned about the state of the world if indeed there was even the slightest chance of the ERA being passed in the US, and it coming into line with the UK and Europe.


You are confirming here for me what I am stating in that this template is from the UK and Europe/The Continent. Among those in the know here..this ERA business is called "Equal Liability to Labor." To labor for a government which is hell bent on spending the substance of future generations as well as the present one. The correct name for this is "Whoredom." Selling the very souls of the present as well as future generations and taking away the very substance for which people labor. Defaulting the substance of a people over to a wasteful and whorish government for political lucre.

Whoredom is a Biblical term and does not mean strictly whoredom in a sexual sense though this is included in it. Whordom implies selling the souls of a people or individuals to a false template. Or in the often used Biblical implication...going after false gods. But this too will never be taught in public schools financed by government non standards.....and not taught for good reasons...they do not like this type of Light...or understanding.


Until then, the US remains cancerous to us all, due to it's failure to progress to recognise all it's citizens as equal combined with it's insistence on telling others hypocritically what to do and how to do it.


I can see why you would think this. I say this simply because we are talking about two different lights here. You are talking about light and I am talking about Light.

My Thanks for your considerations and long posts,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


I apologise for my jumbled and repetitive prior response, I was tired and I ran out of time to compensate for that. You missed the point I was trying to make, and I can fully understand why, my fault entirely. This time I am going to very briefly overview for clarity.

Sarah-Jane and Arthur has shared experience. They came from the same place, worked in the same environment. Got to know each other, in fact by today's standards, although at 12 then they were considered independent adults, they grew up together. They shared the same values. As a result they were very happy together, though my great-gradmother was left a widow because due to the system they lived under Sarah-Jane was not allowed to work once she was married outside of the home.

My grand-dad, Albert, was able through his father's hard work and commitment, able to stay on at school until 14. And through changes in the law, he was apprenticed and not indentured, and therefore was able to choose his employer, his lifestyle himself. He worked in an all-male environment, and only met women at 'social events', because through his work he achieved a level of affluence that his parents never had, and could take on a dependent wife he married before getting to know her properly (marry in haste, repent at leisure), and subsequently they were very unhappy together. They did not share the same value system. My grandfather had seen life, knew independence, my grandmother left her father's home and moved into my grandfather's home. Until my Uncle Frank died, she had never lived without a man taking care of 'things' for her and she was always well provided for, but she wasn't very nice because she was perpetually frustrated with her life but did not possess the tools to break free. The law for one was not on her side, neither were the social norms and values. And neither was her mother, who herself was a bitter old cow by all accounts who took out all her frustration on her daughter, as subsequently did my grandmother on hers. I am very glad not to have had a daughter, I hope in that way at least to break the cycle


Now, you would not gasp at my coldness at being mindful of my equality in law if you yourself were more aware of the path that led to where you are now. Men first fought for their right to be equal in law to their masters, it took longer for us women, but we fought for your rights alongside you, consistently, with loyalty. And I am ever aware of those giants on whose shoulders I stand, and in terms of my rights to be considered equal, I thanks most humbly those sisters in the US who really and truly sacrificed themselves so that I could be 'free' to protect and provide for myself, and to take recourse in the courts when I need to. Sojourner Truth and Susan B Anthony to name but two. They threw enough # so that even if the women in the US have given up the fight, those of us in Europe did not fail to hear them and we once again found our spirit and took up the mantle.

Knowing thyself, means not just knowing who and where you are right now, but truly understanding the path that others took to bring you there.

PS, also, do not be misled by a certain person who cannot even spell 'traveller', when I refer to Roman Catholicism, I specifically mean the belief system, not the Roman Empire. They are two entirely different entities. If you do not understand that, you will never understand your's or my history, for it is shared whether you are of European or British descent, or anywhere else. Reading books about history is not knowing history. You need to contextualise, and the ignorance that the average American has of history, combined with the inderent need to blame the 'system' for that shortcoming is one of the many infections that is affecting us globally. And also note, that if I have a problem with my governments treatment of me, I can take them to the court of International Human Rights too. Do you know how happy John Lilburne would be with all that? For him, his wife and the children he never got to see grow up, I will never let that be taken away from me.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 



Knowing thyself, means not just knowing who and where you are right now, but truly understanding the path that others took to bring you there.


I agree with this statement ...including the difference in history..in 'Divine Right of Kings or absolute power and Independence..sovereignty of the individual


Now, you would not gasp at my coldness at being mindful of my equality in law if you yourself were more aware of the path that led to where you are now. Men first fought for their right to be equal in law to their masters, it took longer for us women, but we fought for your rights alongside you, consistently, with loyalty. And I am ever aware of those giants on whose shoulders I stand, and in terms of my rights to be considered equal, I thanks most humbly those sisters in the US who really and truly sacrificed themselves so that I could be 'free' to protect and provide for myself, and to take recourse in the courts when I need to. Sojourner Truth and Susan B Anthony to name but two. They threw enough # so that even if the women in the US have given up the fight, those of us in Europe did not fail to hear them and we once again found our spirit and took up the mantle.


Equality at law..to me means that the woman or female will find herself as disposable and expendable as the male has found himself throughout history. I do not detect the women or the women's movement asking for this kind of equality. I find most of them with the "Shop till you Drop" mentality and attitude of "Entitlement."

The sad truth of things today is that I also find this among the males out here..they haven't a clue and have accepted cheap substitutes for being male..just as have the females. They both define themselves by what they can consume..not by what they know or can learn.

I know this because when I go into any store or down any road in this nation..there are stores mostly directed to women and their spending. They are not directed to the ones who take the RISKS to keep and maintain this social/economic structure. In any given store out here there is a ratio of about 7 to 1 in goods and services primarily directed to female spending and consuming. This is not a definition of a "Victimized" Class of peoples.

Women in this nation have a huge market share directed to them and included in this market share are a huge block of personal pampering items...once again not a definition of a victimized class of peoples.

The standard mantra here is the constant drum beat that women do not make as much monies as do men. I find this to be total hog wash. It doesn't make good nonsense unless to ignorance born of emotional appeal..ie...politics.
Someone is spending someone else's monies earned at RISK to be able to afford store fronts loaded with a 7 to 1 ratio of goods directed to females...including personal pampering items.
Here the cosmetic and scent/jewelry counters are right in front of certain entrances and exits...they come first..to appeal to the women. Just as do the tabloids and candies/sweets..to get Mom's monies/or Dads...at the checkout stand. If not that than to appeal to the children in order to get to Moms wallet ...to get to Dad's wallet since she usually has discretionary control over this spending...not the Male.

This is what has become of the "Woman's" Struggle Kilgore Trout...not the struggle of our grandmothers or great grandmothers time..but rampant runaway consumerism..to the point where now women define themselves so often and flagrantly by what they consume.. not by what they know.

Now..to be fair...not all women follow this template..and those women who do not are greatly admired by me.
But most, like today's men, have no clue as to how this stuff got there to the store shelves..but think this is normal and even entitled. They have little to no regard as to the RISKS taken by others to get this stuff to the store shelves nor much less the RISKS taken by the men to put the monies in their hands to have such discretionary spending.

Any male who can see further than sports and their "oil shortage" can see this for themselves. But it will never be taught for the occult/hidden religious dogma and practice that it is...politics.

I also know that today's savvy, independent, wise. feeling woman has no desire to support a man from her career earnings while he does what women have traditionally done and they assume traditional Male RISKS. This will never happen. It would take to much commitment. NO woman wants to commit within such an framework...but only through female social beliefs and expectations.
These women of today and as a whole are not interested in that much Equality ..no matter what the women who came before them did.
I also know this about the difference in male female social beliefs and expectations..because almost none of the married women I know are taking out insurance policies and paying for them out of their career earnings to take care of the male and children if they die first. They do not believe in this much equality as well.
There is a huge gulf in social beliefs and expectations of equality and equality at law. They are not on the same levels. Either in form or function or practice. They are in fact..quite occult in all categories and are slated to remain that way to keep the power in the hands of politicians. Someone is going to have to be more disposable and expendable in this system...who do you think it will be???

Remember about RISK/RISKS.

This is going to be borne out when economic collapse and austerity measures are forced upon us by the banking systems running our respective governments.




when I refer to Roman Catholicism, I specifically mean the belief system, not the Roman Empire. They are two entirely different entities.


These two are not to me different entities. They are one and the same in that they are merely a continuum of the same principles and practice. This is what I call the "Priest Kings" system. In Western history this is called sometimes "Divine Right of Kings."

The Roman system came down to the Emperors as God man..or God with us.. a God we could see. It was just a system of absolute power...a variation of the Ancient Egyptian system of the Pharaoh's.

Henry VIII Maintained this very system except that the Pope was now in London and not in Rome. It was the same hats..the same services, the same dogma but the absolute power was now in London...or perhaps more appropriately in Westminster. A continuation of the absolute power system. All governments under different guises try to return back to absolute power. They do not try to limit their power but extend it.

While I am thinking about it ...it was Oliver Cromwell and the round heads ..the English Civil War which in England put and end to Divine Right of Kings or absolute power in the throne of England. Someone is privily trying to sneak it back in under a socialistic guise and at public expense.

It was Oliver Cromwell and what he did which set the precedent for our Leaders turning on King George and leading to our Revolution from England. This is hardly taught in American history next to the significance of it.
Very important to Americans...but not taught to us for good reason. Someone here wants to return this people back to absolute power...back to the UK and Continental template.

This is why your nation is going down the train wreck tracks because your government under a different template is seeking absolute power over everyone and everything in your nation. Our government too is attempting to follow this template as well..the UK/Continental template under the guise of being benevolent leaders. Make no mistake ..it is a quest for absolute power..the same as Rome both under the Caesars and then under the Popes..nothing changed here. The history just looks different unless you can learn to dissect it for what it is.
To do this governments will eventually take everything away from their peoples including in the end..their very souls.

Knowing about the Occult religion at work in politics and history helps too.

They are not different systems. This is what I meant when I said...you look for light and I look for Light.

Gotta run again...Friday and schedules to meet ...time constraints again..

Catch up with you later
Thanks for your post,
Orangetom

edit on 1-7-2011 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 



Knowing thyself, means not just knowing who and where you are right now, but truly understanding the path that others took to bring you there.


I agree with this statement ...including the difference in history..in 'Divine Right of Kings or absolute power and Independence..sovereignty of the individual


No that is not what I meant, but nevermind.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Equality at law..to me means that the woman or female will find herself as disposable and expendable as the male has found himself throughout history. I do not detect the women or the women's movement asking for this kind of equality. I find most of them with the "Shop till you Drop" mentality and attitude of "Entitlement."


You limit your response to yourself and your experience. Widen your perception, the world does not revolve around you.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
The sad truth of things today is that I also find this among the males out here..they haven't a clue and have accepted cheap substitutes for being male..just as have the females. They both define themselves by what they can consume..not by what they know or can learn.


Why do you spend so much time thinking about what others are doing, and how they define themselves? What do you do to change those perceptions? Other than criticise their relationships with women that is.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
I know this because when I go into any store or down any road in this nation..there are stores mostly directed to women and their spending. They are not directed to the ones who take the RISKS to keep and maintain this social/economic structure. In any given store out here there is a ratio of about 7 to 1 in goods and services primarily directed to female spending and consuming. This is not a definition of a "Victimized" Class of peoples.


See above response...do you not spend and consume? What is the point of all those RISKS for all those MONIES, do you stuff your mattress with it?


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Women in this nation have a huge market share directed to them and included in this market share are a huge block of personal pampering items...once again not a definition of a victimized class of peoples.


Do you feel that you should be considered a victim? Are you jealous of these women and their RISK-free monies?


Originally posted by orangetom1999
The standard mantra here is the constant drum beat that women do not make as much monies as do men. I find this to be total hog wash. It doesn't make good nonsense unless to ignorance born of emotional appeal..ie...politics.
Someone is spending someone else's monies earned at RISK to be able to afford store fronts loaded with a 7 to 1 ratio of goods directed to females...including personal pampering items.
Here the cosmetic and scent/jewelry counters are right in front of certain entrances and exits...they come first..to appeal to the women. Just as do the tabloids and candies/sweets..to get Mom's monies/or Dads...at the checkout stand. If not that than to appeal to the children in order to get to Moms wallet ...to get to Dad's wallet since she usually has discretionary control over this spending...not the Male.


If you don't like all the consumeristic expression, oppose it, stop taking RISKS for MONIES and then you won't have to go to those stores and witness this debacle. Or shop online.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
This is what has become of the "Woman's" Struggle Kilgore Trout...not the struggle of our grandmothers or great grandmothers time..but rampant runaway consumerism..to the point where now women define themselves so often and flagrantly by what they consume.. not by what they know.


Their choice.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Now..to be fair...not all women follow this template..and those women who do not are greatly admired by me.
But most, like today's men, have no clue as to how this stuff got there to the store shelves..but think this is normal and even entitled. They have little to no regard as to the RISKS taken by others to get this stuff to the store shelves nor much less the RISKS taken by the men to put the monies in their hands to have such discretionary spending.


People who take risks for something as mundane and selfish as money bore me beyond compare, but I accept that it is your choice.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Any male who can see further than sports and their "oil shortage" can see this for themselves. But it will never be taught for the occult/hidden religious dogma and practice that it is...politics.


Nor will those who are totally conditioned by the system that can buy people's lives and make them feel above everyone else.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
I also know that today's savvy, independent, wise. feeling woman has no desire to support a man from her career earnings while he does what women have traditionally done and they assume traditional Male RISKS. This will never happen. It would take to much commitment. NO woman wants to commit within such an framework...but only through female social beliefs and expectations.
These women of today and as a whole are not interested in that much Equality ..no matter what the women who came before them did.
I also know this about the difference in male female social beliefs and expectations..because almost none of the married women I know are taking out insurance policies and paying for them out of their career earnings to take care of the male and children if they die first. They do not believe in this much equality as well.
There is a huge gulf in social beliefs and expectations of equality and equality at law. They are not on the same levels. Either in form or function or practice. They are in fact..quite occult in all categories and are slated to remain that way to keep the power in the hands of politicians. Someone is going to have to be more disposable and expendable in this system...who do you think it will be???


Do you have anything original to say on this matter or are you going to keep repeating the same tired old argument over and over again?


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Remember about RISK/RISKS.


*YAWN* I'm really sorry about my lack of patience but, you know it's been a hard week at work. I don't get paid nearly as much as you do, not because I'm a woman but because I won't work for a for-profit organisation. It's a risk I take, security wise, but I am helping to improve the continuity of supply and developing more effective treatments for Malaria, so you know, it has it's satisfactions. Evens things out.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
This is going to be borne out when economic collapse and austerity measures are forced upon us by the banking systems running our respective governments.


I am all for economic collapse and austerity measures.



Originally posted by orangetom1999
These two are not to me different entities. They are one and the same in that they are merely a continuum of the same principles and practice. This is what I call the "Priest Kings" system. In Western history this is called sometimes "Divine Right of Kings."

The Roman system came down to the Emperors as God man..or God with us.. a God we could see. It was just a system of absolute power...a variation of the Ancient Egyptian system of the Pharaoh's.

Henry VIII Maintained this very system except that the Pope was now in London and not in Rome. It was the same hats..the same services, the same dogma but the absolute power was now in London...or perhaps more appropriately in Westminster. A continuation of the absolute power system. All governments under different guises try to return back to absolute power. They do not try to limit their power but extend it.


Context?

Who devised the strategy to institute the Apostolic Succession of the English Church? What were their motives and how were they able to convince Henry that is would solve all his problems? And at what costs? What was occuring in the wider world that necessitated such machinations? In the short term it may seem like a poor decision, or a selfish one on Henry's part, but look at the long game.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
While I am thinking about it ...it was Oliver Cromwell and the round heads ..the English Civil War which in England put and end to Divine Right of Kings or absolute power in the throne of England. Someone is privily trying to sneak it back in under a socialistic guise and at public expense.


Are you familiar with the Magna Carta and the events that precipitated it's creation? And those rights that it provided a foundation for? From each little acorn an oak tree grows.

Cromwell sold the people out to the Capitalists. He was by no means a Socialists. See; The Levellers and the Diggers.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
It was Oliver Cromwell and what he did which set the precedent for our Leaders turning on King George and leading to our Revolution from England. This is hardly taught in American history next to the significance of it.
Very important to Americans...but not taught to us for good reason. Someone here wants to return this people back to absolute power...back to the UK and Continental template.


Yes, because your country was founded for trade exploitation and eventually the trade barons start to resent having to send money back to somewhere they nolonger consider home or to take orders from them. George said that settlers should not go beyond the Appallachians, they saw riches to exploit in them thar hills and ignored that. The rest, as they say, is history.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
This is why your nation is going down the train wreck tracks because your government under a different template is seeking absolute power over everyone and everything in your nation. Our government too is attempting to follow this template as well..the UK/Continental template under the guise of being benevolent leaders. Make no mistake ..it is a quest for absolute power..the same as Rome both under the Caesars and then under the Popes..nothing changed here. The history just looks different unless you can learn to dissect it for what it is.
To do this governments will eventually take everything away from their peoples including in the end..their very souls.


I don't really know what your argument is here, my rulers, are that, my rulers. They are not the people. The people always prevail, the rulers come and go.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Knowing about the Occult religion at work in politics and history helps too.


Yes it does. Totally.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
They are not different systems. This is what I meant when I said...you look for light and I look for Light.


If you say so.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Gotta run again...Friday and schedules to meet ...time constraints again..


I shan't be responding to any more of your posts...for one reason alone you are able to point the finger at others but what about you...why are you so fixated with your supposed RISKS and MONIES? Don't you feel valued? What is it with that? To give a little literary context...



Clarice Starling: You see a lot, Doctor. But are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself? What about it? Why don't you - why don't you look at yourself and write down what you see? Or maybe you're afraid to.


www.imdb.com...

So, Orangetom, what made you this way? Tell me about your father and mother...where do you come from?
edit on 1-7-2011 by KilgoreTrout because: Infectious italics...I can't be bothered to find out the problem, they stay, but under sufferance...




posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I've dated a guy like this before, and it went terrible. He just basically wanted a girlfriend/wife that would be his mother! It's really sad. Men like that I believe grow up really sheltered by their mothers, then expect a spouse that would sacrifice the stars for them in a heartbeat.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 



No that is not what I meant, but nevermind.


Roman Catholicism is a system of absolute control..and excessive ritual of the type in which the the Pharisees were engaged. It is in essence Hellenic Pharisee ism...verses Judiac Phariseeism. A quest for Absolute Power. What the RCC did under Constantine was make the State into a Church when they figured out that Christianity was going to be their greatest problem. It is no different on the inside in its quest for Absolute power than were the Caesars or divine right kings. It controlled male and female both and does so today.
It has however..come into conflict with other religions seeking their form of Absolute Power. For example the Anglican Church...and many of the Protestant Churches.

The manner in which this is done by Rome is hidden even from the members and even much of the priesthood.


You limit your response to yourself and your experience. Widen your perception, the world does not revolve around you.


Yes I do indeed. I do not quote something I saw in a movie or on television to make my points. I choose not to live second hand or vicariously by this medium. I do not consider a movie and television template to be a good foundation for making decisions and judgements. No RISK involved but one can consider ones self to be an expert and experienced because we have seen this in a movie and television.

I have taught this template to several of the guys and some of the women with whom I work. Most of them don't get it ..they are so heavily involved in the emotional Television/ movie drug habit..they no longer know the difference or even care.

Some of them, however few, have actually caught on and have told me that they now recognize this template in others....that they cannot relate an idea or concept outside of some movie or television program they have watched...that they live second hand lives..have second hand emotions, second hand thoughts, They are often not even their own emotions and thoughts but someone else's and they don't even seem to know the difference.
They recognize that some of us are on a string and know it not. Some are trying to recognize and identify the strings and sever them.


Why do you spend so much time thinking about what others are doing, and how they define themselves? What do you do to change those perceptions? Other than criticise their relationships with women that is.


I am an observer of this world and the things of this world. As to what I do to change those perceptions..I just told you one of the things I do. I drop a seed into their mind to awaken them to things they are not naturally inclined about which to think and recognize in the world about them. I was quite surprised to learn from some of the seed dropped..that some of these peoples now recognize this television/movie/ pubic education template around them..in everything. Even in our leaders. And this current American leader in particular..no real life experiences ..just speeches. No record or real RISK taking.

It is from template recognition like this that I have come to realize and understand that the standards and requirements for President of the United States are not a high as most of us think. They are actually quite low. Same with Senator, Congressman, Supreme Court Justice ...et al. Political connections seem to be more important and becoming quite transparent as to this status. This is in sharp contrast as to what is supposed to be a "represenative government." What thinking people begin to ask is representing whom or what?? You see!!??

Oh..I wouldn't take it so personal Kilgore Trout..what upsets so many of the males is when I tell them that I don't watch sports..no use for it outside of a good fishing program. I don't watch sports nor purchase the products surrounding this sports format.
There seems to be a sort of default setting that to be a man or male that you must needs be on the sports bandwagon. I don't happen to think so No thanks..not for me. I have little use for sports, alcohol, cheerleader mindsets. When the guys start talking about the Heroes/demigods of sports I leave. Not for me.
This too is living second hand/vicarious to me. It is not just the women who are deeply involved in this.


See above response...do you not spend and consume? What is the point of all those RISKS for all those MONIES, do you stuff your mattress with it?


LOL LOL...apparently you are getting frustrated here. I do indeed consume. I do not, however, define myself by the things that I consume...but how I think and do. ..or conversely do not do. There is a problem with this? Should I join the world template and define myself by my sexuality/sexual orientation, the goods I consume or plan to consume? Not by what I know, think, or are capable of doing...ie...RISK Taking??


Do you feel that you should be considered a victim? Are you jealous of these women and their RISK-free monies?


I am glad you asked this question. I am looking for a free makeover out of this...and also a spot on Dr Phil!!
I'm being facetious of course.

No, I am just addressing something which attemtps to cure an inequality which is not there. It is false a hoax...ie..politics. Selling the souls of others in order to default through unquestioned and unchallanged.

For example..this here...



If you don't like all the consumeristic expression, oppose it, stop taking RISKS for MONIES and then you won't have to go to those stores and witness this debacle. Or shop online.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
This is what has become of the "Woman's" Struggle Kilgore Trout...not the struggle of our grandmothers or great grandmothers time..but rampant runaway consumerism..to the point where now women define themselves so often and flagrantly by what they consume.. not by what they know.

Their choice.

People who take risks for something as mundane and selfish as money bore me beyond compare, but I accept that it is your choice.

Nor will those who are totally conditioned by the system that can buy people's lives and make them feel above everyone else.

Do you have anything original to say on this matter or are you going to keep repeating the same tired old argument over and over again?

*YAWN* I'm really sorry about my lack of patience but, you know it's been a hard week at work. I don't get paid nearly as much as you do, not because I'm a woman but because I won't work for a for-profit organisation. It's a risk I take, security wise, but I am helping to improve the continuity of supply and developing more effective treatments for Malaria, so you know, it has it's satisfactions. Evens things out.


In none of these quotes I make of your statements, are you debating or questioning the point or points of which I make that this is accurate of much of what is going on out here. That what I am stating is false. This is a very interesting and telling omission on your part.

I do not tell others how to spend their monies. I am not a government that I should or would regulate peoples as such.

I will however...leave my grocery basket at the check out stand and just walk out when the service is bad or the cashiers very stupid and ignorant. I have done this several times. My time is a valuable commodity in this world. I dont have to think and act in lock step with everyone else.

The last time I did this the cashier told me that this is the express line...20 items of less. I told her that since this is the express line...she can get someone to express these items back to the bins. This is managements fault for not having sufficient lines open. I dont have to put up with that as well..but can cut myself out "Options" and not be thus bound to nonsense. All you have to do is to teach yourself to think differently. I try not to be constrained in the manner as are most peoples..this begins with thinking. Not group think per se.

You see Kilgore Trout..I also have in my pocket right now ..a set of lock picks/shims. I have taught myself to not only make them..but use them as well. I am not bound as are other people when I lock my keys in my truck or lock myself out of my house. It is just a matter of looking at the world and thinking ..then acting outside of what constraints most peoples put upon themselves. It also takes knowing about RISK.

As to hard day/weeks at work..I too have them...no matter how I think or don't think. No problem.


I am all for economic collapse and austerity measures.


I am not for economic collapse and austerity measures. Many peoples have worked their whole lives for a goal and are about to have this taken from them by government mismanagement.

However..this is coming weather we are ready for it or not.

I am in contact with certain peoples in the UK and I am aware that it is coming more rapidly there than here.
Your government is squandering your livelihoods and production abilities faster than ours here..but it will all end up in the same train wreck stop by the time they get done selling all of our souls.
Your government is seeking more control over your peoples and more rapidly than we here. But our government is attempting to follow this same template as "Enlightened" even "Civilized." In the end ..it will be neither.

I am also aware of what has happened in Argentina with the austerity measures forced on them by the IMF Banks.



Context?

Who devised the strategy to institute the Apostolic Succession of the English Church? What were their motives and how were they able to convince Henry that is would solve all his problems? And at what costs? What was occuring in the wider world that necessitated such machinations? In the short term it may seem like a poor decision, or a selfish one on Henry's part, but look at the long game.


Henry set in motion a series of events which would change the western world forever. I don't think this was his intent but it happened. It was his daughter..Elizabeth who would set the trend which would later be taken up by Oliver Cromwell. For you see...Elizabeth was mostly a party girl. As long as she had her horses to ride and her lovers...she was not interested in that much governing or ruling. As a result the English peoples had a measure of liberty. When Elizabeth died she was sorely missed.

It was James 1st who with his publishing of the King James Bible...who caused, with this Bible, certain peoples to realize that the King was only an administrator of just English Laws. The King was not "Divine Right and did not have absolute power. This particularly among devout stiff necked Puritans...one of whom was Oliver Cromwell.
When later ..Charles 1st broke the Magna Carta and attempted to levy his own tax in violation of said Magna Carta....the ground was set for Civil War. This could not have happened in a Catholic Country.
For you see..the Magna Carta states that only parliament can levy a tax.


Cromwell sold the people out to the Capitalists. He was by no means a Socialists. See; The Levellers and the Diggers.


Cromwell was indeed a type of Capitalist...in that he believed that people should be industrious. He was not a socialist except in the Church/religious sense. You are correct in this.
There is nothing wrong in peoples being industrious and reaping the benefits of such individual industry.


Yes, because your country was founded for trade exploitation and eventually the trade barons start to resent having to send money back to somewhere they nolonger consider home or to take orders from them. George said that settlers should not go beyond the Appallachians, they saw riches to exploit in them thar hills and ignored that. The rest, as they say, is history.


It was Cromwell who set the precedent for this Revolution here in America. When the king had broken the law..could a people turn on their king. Did history have such an example of a people turning on their king. Cromwell had settled that question. You see..up until America...taxes collected in the colonies were to be used for the administration of those colonies. George had gotten involved like Charles in another continental war and needed capital. Hence he taxed the colonies and took the monies home to England. The Colonists found this repugnant to their taste and to English precedent and law.

And this history is carefully hidden from Americans..particularly about the precedent set by Oliver Cromwell and the Pruitans in the American Revolution. We are never on our own to be able to think outside the box or make such an historical connection. Much less..to act on it..or hold our government accountable. This is to me why history is such an poorly taught subject today ...some of us might make the connections and think or act out of lock step.


I don't really know what your argument is here, my rulers, are that, my rulers. They are not the people. The people always prevail, the rulers come and go.


You miss the point entirely Kilgore Trout. The people may prevail..but at what cost?? Ordo Ob Chao..order from chaos is the motto of several occult groups out here.

Government has been known to cause alot of chaos amongst their peoples before the peoples finally act.

Not only that ..if a revolution takes place or a civil war..what are the chances of getting a government better than the one replaced..particularly among gnostic, educated, intelligent men.

What happened after the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Cultural Revolution in China? The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? What happened after all the various African nations which were given their "Self Determination?"

How many peoples have been killed, murdered, and slaughtered across this globe since the time of the "Enlightenment??"

More have been slaughtered and at a faster rate than in prior history since the French revolution..times of Wise Men...Gnostic Intelligences running things than in the years before.

What you have going on out here Kilgore Trout..is the same template amongst various gnostic systems with science helping to achieve the results and decimationg millions and millions. It is the same Pharoah, RCC, Gnostic system of olde. Nothing changed.

But that is not how your history books read about it.


I shan't be responding to any more of your posts...for one reason alone you are able to point the finger at others but what about you...why are you so fixated with your supposed RISKS and MONIES? Don't you feel valued? What is it with that? To give a little literary context...


Peoples willing to take RISKS with their time and monies is the system which has produced the greatest plenty this world has ever known...and ever will know. This plenty has been exported to other nations to make a difference in their lives.
Most nations have had resources but not the knowledge and political systems which would allow these resources to be used to the benefit of their peoples. Most nations had and still have a variation of Feudalism under various guises...a few living off the work and labor/'Risks of others. This is textbook particularly of the olde Soviet system. It may have looked different on the surface but make no mistake ..it was Feudal.
No other system have been devised among men which can better make use of the productive capacities of men outside of capitalism. This should be obvious to many by the economic track record of this current American Administration. What is happening in Europe and the Continent is another.

As to this Kilgore Trout....


Clarice Starling: You see a lot, Doctor. But are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself? What about it? Why don't you - why don't you look at yourself and write down what you see? Or maybe you're afraid to.


www.imdb.com...

So, Orangetom, what made you this way? Tell me about your father and mother...where do you come from?



This is not worthy of your skills to use/misuse a television or movie show to make a point here. Do you not have real life experiences of your own on which to draw?? You confirm once again the point I was telling up further in this post about a movie/television education.

Thanks,
Orangetom
edit on 3-7-2011 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scribbles
I've dated a guy like this before, and it went terrible. He just basically wanted a girlfriend/wife that would be his mother! It's really sad. Men like that I believe grow up really sheltered by their mothers, then expect a spouse that would sacrifice the stars for them in a heartbeat.


As I have told Kilgore Trout and others...Peace is the valuable commodity a woman brings to a man..

Not Piece.

Most of the men I am running across in noticable numbers today ..their mothers have been the dominant influence in their lives. They are very feminine in this regard. More feminine in their own way than many women of today. And women are not looking as a career to underwrite a man's or males expenses in this regard. That would be to much commitment.

Conversely today...very few women know about Peace.. vereses Piece. They do not have the skills or acumen to bring a man Peace..but only Piece.

Not a good formula for lasting relationships. Both genders today often define themselves by thier consumption levels rather than real life skills. It bodes very poorly for both and especially for the children of such unions.

You have alot of women out here raising children to be good consumers..but not much outside of that.
To define themselves by what they can consume..not by what they know or thinking for themselves.
They are mostly reacting to a stimulus which is not their own...and what is worse ..they dont even seem to know this is happening to them.

A woman who knows how to bring a man Peace in his life..can put a man on a drug for which he never wants to get off it.

But how many women of today even know this?? Much less how many men even know it..in lieu of sports and oil shortage thinking??

See the problem out here??

Orangetom
edit on 3-7-2011 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Yeah....uh soo.....getting back to the root of this thread.

American Women suck. It's true. I won't get into it unless anyone really cares and I'm sure they don't.

I will say it again, and I'm sure this point was missed by many of you.

American Women SUCK. Not WOMEN SUCK. Just AMERICAN WOMEN.

American media and society is built to turn good innocent unsuspecting Women into shallow, morally vacant, materialistic Sex in the City "hook up" artists.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I never watch "Sex in the City." I tried watching it for about 15 minutes and then hit the remote. I found these women to be very shallow and as you stated..materialistic. They are Drama Queens. If this is what sells to alot of Americans and particularly American women ..you may have a valid point.

It is rare the American Woman who does not revel in such shallowness. Same for the voyeuristic talk show formats...ie..lie detector test/DNA tests. To revel in someone else's miseries...is to me ..sick. Same with all the Judge formats on television.

I have enough problems of my own. I don't need to become a voyeur in someone else's problems. It also illustrates alot of idle time on someones hands.

Another program I find disgusting is this ..Real Women form some county or some city program. Same thing..I watched it for a few minutes and hit the remote.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join