User blogs

Niceguy thinks all SADs are enlightened. Now some niceguy moderators and admin claim to be anti-feminist which is a joke.

The modern men's movement is comprised of two groups: one group being the atheists, rectal sodomites, criminals, dirtbags, black supremacists, jewish supremacists, misogynists and zionists.

The other men's movement group (of which this website was one of the first and remains the most strict) is comprised of non-vulgar, non-criminal, heterosexual, cultured men and ladies who believe in God.

If you like homosexual and bi-sexual males, rectal sodomites, atheists, black supremacists, jewish supremacists, drug addicts, criminals and zionist louts then head on over to niceguy's forum.

Stargazer became a mgtow dweeb after he was booted from our forum. His friend is a treacherous scatological zionist that goes by the handle ovature. These sadistic losers are as two-faced and phony as can be. They act all friendly at first just to get personal information from people they want to set-up. They proved to be completely untrustworthy and treacherous. They will spend years trying to get any sort of embarrassing information from people and then try and blackmail them with it. They are con artists with no true friends. Treachery and treason is what these loser's game is. They were kicked off of this forum but are happy campers over at niceguy's forum. When they act nice it's just a scam. The more you hear them speak the more sadistic and delusional you realize they are. If you befriend these people you get burned. They use half truths all the time. They are petty feminists with abusive personalities. The most compulsive feminist members at niceguy/mgtow are SADs. That is why they need to get people's personal information. Their intention is to get personal information from you to blackmail you down the road. It's laughable that they claim to be anti-feminists. They recruit losers to do their dirty work by faking friendships and then getting personal information about their marks.

Talk about a SAD/PAM forum no wonder stargazer and ovature are having a great time there. Treacherous dorks always end up at those type of sites. Here is what the mgtow/niceguy admin said to one AWS supporter that tried to defend our website: "If AWS is mentioned in any one of your next 25 posts I will ban you. Ever since you joined you have done nothing but talk about that bitch." That member was banned by the SAD loving mods immediately upon outing a SAD mancoat member. The ban was to make sure other AWS supporters do not defend our website.

We have been anti-zionist for the entire time we have been on the Internet. Paradesic was not the first to get banned after being lambasted for defending AWS. called them out years ago and they were right. These so called mgtow "men" are even worse then the lowest feminists out there.

Some pretend to support a cause but in reality they only support criminal activity, extortion and blackmail. They make violent posts and then try and pin the posts on other people. They think spoofing email addresses takes talent. Ha, a first grader can spoof an email address. They think treacherousness is thinking in three dimensions. Guess what stargazer...I made up stuff on the phone to catch you feeding information to your boyfriend ovature and to verify your kobe connection. In different times you and your $#@ buddies would be in prison for treason. Perhaps I am the ghost in your living room eh feminist and scatology lover stargazer? By the way dweeb, dogs do not have souls and your human soul is already under satan's control.

Stargazer is violent in speech but always tries to get others to do his dirty work. His whole life is a lie. Him and his two-faced snake friends use fake names or the names of their "marks" to set-up the people they want to abuse. They will pick a person and stalk and harass that person for years on end. They are slime. They actively recruit SADs on mgtow sites. They all fight like feminists do. When stargazer got onto this forum he tried to crash the it but failed miserably.

> Subject: one last time

Oh, and what should I do the the all those SQL data back ups? I can pitch them for you over at your favorite server? Im sure your pal mancoat would love them.---stargazer

Fact is stargazer was feeding info to scatological/zionist ovature for six months before stargazer got the boot from here. Stargazer said his intention all along was to destroy this forum through treachery on the SAD infested mgtow forums.

Pooks Mill Says:

Time to move beyond MGTOW

There is something very wrong with MGTOW. Instead of talking about 'men going their own way', we see...

-Anti-Americanism (or other rants against one's mother country)
-Declarations of Chicken Little economic/social/cultural collapse.
-Religious screeds against a particular religion or against all religions.
-Conspiracy theories.
-Evangelizing the 'Deck-Stacked-Against-Us-Have-No-Hope' view of society (which is unproductive)
-Evangelizing that one ought to live like a Mexican...
-...or another country...
-Forums become a 'Yes!' echo chamber. There is no discussion, just rants filled with yes-men.

These 'elements' are well known but ignored because of the 'good things' that do come out. We should just shrug off these things and compromise with them. Well, there is one problem.

When food and poison compromise, which is the victor? It is the poison. Eating it may be sustaining... for the short term... but your body fills up with these poison toxins. You begin to lose your ambition, your passion, and generally become filled with bitterness.

I have wondered how this is occurring. It is not uncommon. Many 'movements' somehow get filled with negative filled people with anger issues and other wackos. But not all movements. So how did MGTOW become a container for this garbage?

The answer is that MGTOW is founded on a negative itself: avoidance of woman. This has caused blanket rants against women. "But many of these rants are accurate, Pook!" So what? A farmer can rant all day about the unfairness of frost, but that will not get him anywhere. There is no cosmic justice out there. The world is what it is and its better to live in it that in a hyper-reality.

Perhaps this will hit more to the point. How many years has MGTOW existed? And what has changed since then? Really, nothing has changed at all.

But I have to wonder why no one in MGTOW can keep to the subject. Pick any random thread and you will find someone start going off the reservation of a speech against a religion or another unasked for soapbox sermon on some oddball subject. Often, many will randomly insert his "brilliant" assertion that civilization will collapse in ten years.

MGTOW is based on the belief that men have made mistakes (which should be spared making mistakes). These mistakes can include marriage, being nice guy, being worshipful to women, and so on. All these mistakes have a common theme: egotism. When the man got married, he was so sure he was doing the right thing and the naysayers were all jealous villains.

Since so many join MGTOW based on being wrong in the past, why does everyone act like they are right all the time? It is amazing! The egotism never died. It just shifted into new forms. This would explain why someone can't keep to the subject of MGTOW and instead must start bashing a religion, bashing a country, or bashing something else. One can be right on something and be wrong on other things. But MGTOW do not see that. They act like they have suddenly become right on everything (so they become vocal on it).

If we were wrong in the past, and it damaged our lives (such as getting married to a fiend), why do we strut around as if we have such 'wisdom'? If we were so wrong once, we could be wrong again. Yet, this reservation is nowhere to be found in MGTOW. Every man has his own pet theories. The dogs slip their leash and begin to ravage the good content.

To be honest, I don't see many happy MGTOW. There are no celebrations about being 'free' but complaining about... something. Trust me; celebrations and good cheer are far more effective and contagious than "being right all the time".

In normal society, people do not like being around someone 'right all the time'. Even if they are right, they are downright annoying. People prefer light-hearted, good cheered fun. When I think of MGTOW, 'good cheer' is the last to come to mind. MGTOW isn't about being alive as it is about escaping pain.

For as much as we mock feminists for being negative, for getting with women to talk bad about men, it is becoming more and more clear that MGTOW is becoming more like the mirror image. Behavior by behavior, a MGTOW male acts very similar to a feminist in lifestyle and habit. You begin to live alone, have meetings with guys to 'talk bad about women' (to ease existential pains), and write bad essays.

I think it is becoming clear that marriage and children is a natural longing in not just women but men as well. Nature did not intend gender avoidance. I believe generally everyone is repelled by the negative pessimistic tone found on MGTOW. However, people return consistently for a dose of the poison to ease the existential pain (caused by the natural longing of wife and children which is found in every culture and time). Once convinced by the rantings that women are more painful than pleasurable, the male goes off semi-satisfied. But, alas, the natural longing creeps up again causing the male to return.

why, it must be requited. I hear how I am censured:
they say I will bear myself proudly, if I perceive
the love come from her; they say too that she will
rather die than give any sign of affection. I did
never think to marry: I must not seem proud: happy
are they that hear their detractions and can put
them to mending. They say the lady is fair; 'tis a
truth, I can bear them witness; and virtuous; 'tis
so, I cannot reprove it; and wise, but for loving
me; by my troth, it is no addition to her wit, nor
no great argument of her folly, for I will be
horribly in love with her. I may chance have some
odd quirks and remnants of wit broken on me,
because I have railed so long against marriage: but
doth not the appetite alter? a man loves the meat
in his youth that he cannot endure in his age.
Shall quips and sentences and these paper bullets of
the brain awe a man from the career of his humour?
No, the world must be peopled. When I said I would
die a bachelor, I did not think I should live till I
were married.

-"Much Ado About Nothing", Shakespeare

    Back to top

#2 Ghost Nation

    8,537 posts

Posted 03 Apr 2008
Most who have attacked this website are sociopaths.

Profile of the Sociopath

This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.

* Glibness and Superficial Charm

* Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

* Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

* Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

* Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

* Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

* Incapacity for Love

* Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

* Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

* Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

* Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

* Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

* Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

* Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

* Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Other Related Qualities:

1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)

NOTE: In the 1830's this disorder was called "moral insanity." By 1900 it was changed to "psychopathic personality." More recently it has been termed "antisocial personality disorder" in the DSM-III and DSM-IV. Some critics have complained that, in the attempt to rely only on 'objective' criteria, the DSM has broadened the concept to include too many individuals. The APD category includes people who commit illegal, immoral or self-serving acts for a variety of reasons and are not necessarily psychopaths.

DSM-IV Definition

Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths.

Diagnostic Criteria (DSM-IV)

1. Since the age of fifteen there has been a disregard for and violation of the right's of others, those right's considered normal by the local culture, as indicated by at least three of the following:
A. Repeated acts that could lead to arrest.
B. Conning for pleasure or profit, repeated lying, or the use of aliases.
C. Failure to plan ahead or being impulsive.
D. Repeated assaults on others.
E. Reckless when it comes to their or others safety.
F. Poor work behavior or failure to honor financial obligations.
G. Rationalizing the pain they inflict on others.

2. At least eighteen years in age.

3. Evidence of a Conduct Disorder, with its onset before the age of fifteen.

4. Symptoms not due to another mental disorder.

Antisocial Personality Disorder Overview (Written by Derek Wood, RN, BSN, PhD Candidate)

Antisocial Personality Disorder results in what is commonly known as a Sociopath. The criteria for this disorder require an ongoing disregard for the rights of others, since the age of 15 years. Some examples of this disregard are reckless disregard for the safety of themselves or others, failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, deceitfulness such as repeated lying or deceit for personal profit or pleasure, and lack of remorse for actions that hurt other people in any way. Additionally, they must have evidenced a Conduct Disorder before the age of 15 years, and must be at least 18 years old to receive this diagnosis.

People with this disorder appear to be charming at times, and make relationships, but to them, these are relationships in name only. They are ended whenever necessary or when it suits them, and the relationships are without depth or meaning, including marriages. They seem to have an innate ability to find the weakness in people, and are ready to use these weaknesses to their own ends through deceit, manipulation, or intimidation, and gain pleasure from doing so.

They appear to be incapable of any true emotions, from love to shame to guilt. They are quick to anger, but just as quick to let it go, without holding grudges. No matter what emotion they state they have, it has no bearing on their future actions or attitudes.

They rarely are able to have jobs that last for any length of time, as they become easily bored, instead needing constant change. They live for the moment, forgetting the past, and not planning the future, not thinking ahead what consequences their actions will have. They want immediate rewards and gratification. There currently is no form of psychotherapy that works with those with antisocial personality disorder, as those with this disorder have no desire to change themselves, which is a prerequisite. No medication is available either. The only treatment is the prevention of the disorder in the early stages, when a child first begins to show the symptoms of conduct disorder.


Psychopath. We hear the word and images of Bernardo, Manson and Dahmer pop into our heads; no doubt Ted Bundy too. But they're the bottom of the barrel -- most of the two million psychopaths in North America aren't murderers. They're our friends, lovers and co-workers. They're outgoing and persuasive, dazzling you with charm and flattery. Often you aren't even aware they've taken you for a ride -- until it's too late.

Psychopaths exhibit a Jekyll and Hyde personality. "They play a part so they can get what they want," says Dr. Sheila Willson, a Toronto psychologist who has helped victims of psychopaths. The guy who showers a woman with excessive attention is much more capable of getting her to lend him money, and to put up with him when he strays. The new employee who gains her co-workers' trust has more access to their chequebooks. And so on. Psychopaths have no conscience and their only goal is self-gratification. Many of us have been their victims -- at work, through friendships or relationships -- and not one of us can say, "a psychopath could never fool me."

Think you can spot one? Think again. In general, psychopaths aren't the product of broken homes or the casualties of a materialistic society. Rather they come from all walks of life and there is little evidence that their upbringing affects them. Elements of a psychopath's personality first become evident at a very early age, due to biological or genetic factors. Explains Michael Seto, a psychologist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental health in Toronto, by the time that a person hits their late teens, the disorder is almost certainly permanent. Although many clinicians use the terms psychopath and sociopath interchangeably, writes psychopath expert Robert Hare on his book 'Without Conscience', a sociopath's criminal behavior is shaped by social forces and is the result of a dysfunctional environment.

Psychopaths have only a shallow range of emotions and lack guilt, says Hare. They often see themselves as victims, and lack remorse or the ability to empathize with others. "Psychopaths play on the fact that most of us are trusting and forgiving people," adds Seto. The warning signs are always there; it's just difficult to see them because once we trust someone, the friendship becomes a blinder.

Even lovers get taken for a ride by psychopaths. For a psychopath, a romantic relationship is just another opportunity to find a trusting partner who will buy into the lies. It's primarily why a psychopath rarely stays in a relationship for the long term, and often is involved with three or four partners at once, says Willson. To a psychopath, everything about a relationship is a game. Willson refers to the movie 'Sliding Doors' to illustrate her point. In the film, the main character comes home early after just having been fired from her job. Only moments ago, her boyfriend has let another woman out the front door. But in a matter of minutes he is the attentive and concerned boyfriend, taking her out to dinner and devoting the entire night to comforting her. All the while he's planning to leave the next day on a trip with the other woman.

The boyfriend displays typical psychopathic characteristics because he falsely displays deep emotion toward the relationship, says Willson. In reality, he's less concerned with his girlfriend's depression than with making sure she's clueless about the other woman's existence. In the romance department, psychopaths have an ability to gain your affection quickly, disarming you with words, intriguing you with grandiose plans. If they cheat you'll forgive them, and one day when they've gone too far, they'll leave you with a broken heart (and an empty wallet). By then they'll have a new player for their game.

The problem with their game is that we don't often play by their rules. Where we might occasionally tell a white lie, a psychopath's lying is compulsive. Most of us experience some degree of guilt about lying, preventing us from exhibiting such behavior on a regular basis. "Psychopaths don't discriminate who it is they lie to or cheat," says Seto. "There's no distinction between friend, family and sucker."

No one wants to be the sucker, so how do we prevent ourselves from becoming close friends or getting into a relationship with a psychopath? It's really almost impossible, say Seto and Willson. Unfortunately, laments Seto, one way is to become more suspicious and less trusting of others. Our tendency is to forgive when we catch a loved one in a lie. "Psychopaths play on this fact," he says. "However, I'm certainly not advocating a world where if someone lies once or twice, you never speak to them again." What you can do is look at how often someone lies and how they react when caught. Psychopaths will lie over and over again, and where other people would sincerely apologize, a psychopath may apologize but won't stop.

Psychopaths also tend to switch jobs as frequently as they switch partners, mainly because they don't have the qualities to maintain a job for the long haul. Their performance is generally erratic, with chronic absences, misuse of company resources and failed commitments. Often they aren't even qualified for the job and use fake credentials to get it. Seto talks of a patient who would get marketing jobs based on his image; he was a presentable and charming man who layered his conversations with educational and occupational references. But it became evident that the man hadn't a clue what he was talking about, and was unable to hold down a job.

How do you make sure you don't get fooled when you're hiring someone to baby-sit your child or for any other job? Hire based on reputation and not image, says Willson. Check references thoroughly. Psychopaths tend to give vague and inconsistent replies. Of course the best way to solve this problem would be to cure psychopaths of their 'illness.' But there's no recipe for treating them, say psychiatrists. Today's traditional methods of psychotherapy (psychoanalysis, group and one-on-one therapy) and drug treatments have failed. Therapy is more likely to work when an individual admits there's a problem and wants to change. The common problem with psychopaths, says Sets, "Is they don't see a problem with their behavior."

Psychopaths don't seek therapy willingly, says Seto. Rather, they're pushed into it by a desperate relative or by a court order. To a psychopath, a therapist is just one more person who must be conned, and the psychopath plays the part right until the therapist is convinced of his or her 'rehabilitation.'

Even though we can't treat psychopaths effectively with therapy, it doesn't mean we can't protect ourselves, writes Hare. Willson agrees, citing the most important factor in keeping psychopaths at bay is to know your vulnerabilities. We need to "realize our own potential and maximize our strengths" so that our insecurities don't overcome us. Because, she says, a psychopath is a chameleon who becomes "an image of what you haven't done for yourself." Over time, she says, "their appearance of perfection will begin to crack," but by that time you will have been emotionally and perhaps financially scathed. There comes a time when you realize there's no point in searching for answers; the only thing is to move on.

Taken in part from MW -- By Caroline Konrad -- September 1999


These people are mentally ill and extremely dangerous! The following precautions will help to protect you from the destructive acts of which they are capable.

First, to recognize them, keep the following guidelines in mind.

(1) They are habitual liars. They seem incapable of either knowing or telling the truth about anything.

(2) They are egotistical to the point of narcissism. They really believe they are set apart from the rest of humanity by some special grace.

(3) They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else's fault.

(4) They are remorselessly vindictive when thwarted or exposed.

(5) Genuine religious, moral, or other values play no part in their lives. They have no empathy for others and are capable of violence. Under older psychological terminology, they fall into the category of psychopath or sociopath, but unlike the typical psychopath, their behavior is masked by a superficial social facade.

    Back to top

#3 Ghost Nation

    8,537 posts

Posted 15 Jan 2009
Blogger Robin Steele said...

Sure. I made up that boring story. And why? Because I am so eager to gain your approval. Because I value your opinion of me. Because I really want to be accepted on the MRI playground. Please take me in. I'm tired of having to be responsible for my own life. I want to bask in the warmth of victimhood, of knowing I'll never be challenged to take action, of knowing that as long as I tolerate hate, and whining, and group ignorance, I'll never be challenged at all. Please take me in! I want to live on the MRI playground... where all you have to do is play your stereo loud in your dorm room, like Luke, to be praised as a fierce men's activist. I want to live on the MRI playground... where anyone with a different viewpoint (like the outrageous notion of equal rights for of all) is immediately branded as a "mangina" and "feminist fagot." I want to use cool made up names like Feminazi and Mangina, and get a neato WWF-like name like Masculist Man, or Timberwolf, or Luke Skywalker (is Hand Solo taken, or are you all using that?). But most of all, I want to a Men's Rights Inactivist leader like Masculist Man, who can boast 14 years of inactivism without a single accomplishment, like Bob "Dude, where's my ads?" Allen and MikeeUSA, who've been banned from service after service for being &^%($#, and for all of you, who are free from the responsibility and expectations that come with honest, rational thought. Please take me in. This sanity gets tiring.

Bingo! The fact is all the attacks for the last year against this website and me personally have come from the mgyow crowd. Many attackers of Robin Steele actually thought I was Robin for a number of months. For almost a year I have been called a female and I have come to find out the person they were referring to is Robin at Robin received severe physical threats that were intended for AWS. The same people that attacked a patriot named Stephen DeVoy are using nigeles and bola over at the mancoat forum. Stargazer and ovature are ensuring this.

Top Lies About Robin Steele (And the Liars Who Tell Them)

The normal pattern of my detractors is this:

1) Distort or outright lie about my (Robin Steele's) viewpoint.
2) Spread the lies and distortions on MRA blogs and forums to get others stirred up
3) Continuously attack the false or distorted viewpoints and denounce the imaginary "Feminazi Robin Steele."

Eventually, the lies backfire because the smarter MRAs, the ones who truly are interested in truth and change, eventually read what I actually say and are surprised. They might not agree with me, but they realize that they've been misled and that the real Robin Steele is much different than the Straw Woman Feminazi Robin Steele that's bandied about.

Julie from antimisandry, Exposing Feminism, Captain MRA, and others realized that they had been lied to once they read my posts directly. I've decided to put together a sort of directory of the lies and who's telling them, just to help shorten the learning curve.

Here are just a few quickies among many more out there:

THE LIAR: khankrumthebulgar posted on
THE LIE: "Robin Steele if that is her/his real name. Posted on Bob's Truth blog that I endorsed the Rape of my own daughter." and "Ms. Steele accused me of approving the molestation and Rape of my Own Daughter...." on antimisandry ""a Fake posting by Robin Steele on her blog that she made and attributed to me. That I approved of the Rape of my Daughter." and several other places.
THE TRUTH: This is a lie. Someone posted an Anonymous comment on bob's site parodying K. He attributes it to me for no other reason that he says so. I clarified it wasn't me and disavowed its content on my site. K chooses to make this false accusation across the Internet to discredit me. He never even asked Bob to remove the offending comment.
THE LIE: "I have notified the offending parties that they have slandered me... Ms. Steele claims to be a Lawyer. When I am finished with this Bitch she may be living in a Van down by the River... I will file a Bar Association complaint against Ms. Steele if she is fact a Lawyer."
THE TRUTH: Khrankybugger did not file a slander suit, did not file a Bar Association complaint and I am not living in a van down by the river. Poor man does not realize one can't slander a fictional character.

THE LIAR: khankrumthebulgar on
THE LIE: "...her calling a "Hate Site", makes her a Rabid Gender Feminist Per Se."
THE TRUTH: I never called a hate site.

THE LIAR: Bob Allen, posted here.
THE LIE: "There is a blog called Exposing Feminism, (EP)... EF is run by the same feminists who pose as Robin Steele."
THE TRUTH: False. I've never met nor know the identity of anyone at Exposing Feminism.

THE LIAR: Yohan on antimisandry
THE LIE: "She takes it as a fact, that an 8.y.o. boy is a rapist despite nothing is proven yet..."
THE TRUTH: I never said he was guilty, just charged. See for yourself at the post.
THE LIE: "A person, who calls ONLY MRAs to be liars, while feminists obviously always speak out the truth..."
THE TRUTH: Yohan freely invents this stuff. I've never said feminists always tell the truth, or discussed the subject as far as I know.
LIE: "[The link to ginmar] is the ONLY link to another website on her blog."
TRUTH: Clearly a lie. In fact, there are many links are to men's sites.

THE LIAR: Feminist Scum on antimisandry
THE LIE: "She's just one #$%#$% bitch, probably a lesbian femcunt who hates men, who is easily ignored..."
THE TRUTH: #$%#$%? Maybe. Bitch? Certainly. Lesbian femcunt? Hetero femcunt. Hates men? Far from it. Easily ignored? Not likely.

THE LIAR: Luke Skywalker
THE LIE: "Her goal is to defeat the MRM, whom she refers to as "cretins". "
THE TRUTH: My goal is to save the MRM by persuading them to jettison the deadweight cretins who prevent "movement" from occuring.

THE LIAR: Feminist Scum on antimisandry
THE LIE: "What a total horse #$%^&@."
THE TRUTH: I assure you that I have never #$%#@# a horse. A burro is not a horse.

THE LIAR: Frostboy from Antimisandry Evidentally, Frostyboy decided to contact Robin Steele to infiltrate the secret Feminazi "Sisterhood." He sent a link to his fake feminist site called notafemcuntbut... then bragged on Antimisandry "She appears to believe that my spoof feminist blog is genuine..." and "There will be some advantages: 1. I should be able to find out in advance about plots to shut down MRA sites, and thus warn site owners. 2. When I am eventually exposed as an MRA, it will be highly embarrassing for the feminist community, especially considering how ridiculous my notafemcuntbut blog is."
THE LIE: "Robin Steele is either: A. *&&^%$$%% B. Unobservant C. *&&^%$$%% and unobservant..."
THE TRUTH: One of us is. You be the judge.
EPILOGUE: After seeing this post, Frostyboy claims: "Robin Steele's latest post confirms my suspicions that all along, she was aware that my half-hearted attempt to enter the "sisterhood" was a prank." FYI, Frostyboy, "Big Event" was your reaction to getting pwn'd.

THE LIARS: KellyMac, Bola, John Dias on Antimisandry re: a blogger widget question that asked: "Do MRAs advocate violence against women?"
THE LIE: KM: "She's rigged that poll, anyway, to show the no's just barely sneaking past the yes's." Bola: "She can manipulate the outcome as much as she likes... It's a shaming tactic after all..." JD: " a professional webmaster I urge you to IGNORE THIS POLL. She can record your IP address, while changing your responses..."
THE TRUTH: I actually set up the blogger widget question to give MRAs a chance to distance themselves from pro-violence nutjobs like bob and MikeeUSA. Despite the expertise of John Dias "professional webmaster," you can't record IP addresses - or edit poll results - on blogspot.

THE LIAR: paul parmenter on antimisandry
THE LIE: "...she is waging some kind of war against the men's movement, and apparently thinks she and her sistas in arms can win it. The fact is that she has about the same chance as trying to stop a tsunami by sticking a pin into it."
THE TRUTH: I'm not waging war against the MRM, I have no "sistas in arms," and don't laugh: the tsunami pin trick worked for me once.

THE LIAR: Luke Skywalker
THE LIE: "That bitch is a female supremacist and she knows it... she also used to have posts praising Lorena Bobbitt for castrating her husband. "
THE TRUTH: I believe in balance & harmony between genders, like Yin & Yang. Equality, but not "sameness." I'm clearly not a supremacist*. Luke knows I never had a post praising Lorena Bobbitt. I had a post denouncing violence being used as treated as humor. I removed the post because Luke complained about and was misrepresenting it elsewhere. As soon as I deleted it, he started complaining about its removal, and used the opportunity to lie about what it had said.

* I AM a fan of Diana Ross, though.

THE LIAR: Christianj
THE LIE: "It's a known fact that women have no concept of GOD or anything that he does... Women are only EVER interested in themselves..."
THE TRUTH: While this isn't specifically directed at Robin Steele, it represents the ridiculous statements that MRAs tolerate from each other. The Lord has stated that every one of God's children - men and women - possess the ability to know him if they open their hearts and accept Christ. Christianj believes his opinion supercedes our Savior's. Are there no Christians in the MRM? Would they rather tolerate blasphemy than speak out on behalf of the Lord?

Add Nigeles to the list, as well as ovature, stargazer/sjtr many other mods at mgtow/niceguy forum. Gee the same people that attack me on niceguy/mgtow forum are the same that attack Robin. Why is that? That is because they thought AWS was Robin just like stargazer thought I was Stephen DeVoy. There were physical threats against Robin on her blog when they first thought I was Robin. Those threats are still there.

Eventually, the lies backfire because the smarter MRAs, the ones who truly are interested in truth and change, eventually read what I actually say and are surprised. They might not agree with me, but they realize that they've been misled and that the real Robin Steele is much different than the Straw Woman Feminazi Robin Steele that's bandied about. ---Robin Steele

ghost Apr 19 '13 · Comments: 2 · Tags: mgtow,2933,327969,00.html

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

American Airlines - "9/11 Didn't Happen"by Six Degrees of AaronSat Aug 25, 2007 at 06:38:35 AM

PDTWikiScanner discovered that American Airlines changed their Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 never flew on 9/11.Original entry was: Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).New entry is: Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767). Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics ( do not list either flight that day.

A 9/11 first responder has shed new light on how he heard a countdown before the demolition of Building 7, how he was told to "shut up" by superiors when he tried to report secondary explosions and why "vicious security" measures were enacted to prevent people from accessing certain areas of ground zero.Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.In a video interview with Alex Jones, McPadden describes the moments before the collapse of WTC 7."When we saw the firemen pick up their equipment and start bustling back and forth they were getting ready to do something, we started asking questions," said McPadden.Despite numerous attempts to glean information from Red Cross officials, McPadden and other first responders were told nothing while one official, shortly after talking to firemen, held his hand over his radio and told them to "just sit tight" and "calm down" before admitting "they're thinking about bringing the building down."McPadden and his colleagues were miffed as to what the official meant by this statement, initially thinking the building next to them was possibly being brought down."He took his hand off for the last three seconds of it - and you hear three, two, one," said McPadden, adding that the official then gave a heartfelt look and told the first responders, "just run for your life."McPadden got the impression that the Red Cross official had been ordered not to give the first responders a warning that the building was coming down."And you heard - boom, boom, boom," said McPadden, describing the sound of bombs tearing down the building.McPadden explained that the reason Democracy Now host Amy Goodman and others were captured on video (watch above) running from the scene and reaching stationary onlookers as the building started to collapse is that they were able to hear the full countdown on the radio further own the street.Later in the interview, McPadden reveals how he witnessed up close steel beams from the twin towers that had been symmetrically cut at perfect angles as is shown in this image - a clear sign that explosives were used. McPadden said that officials were acting very suspiciously and subsequently prevented people from getting near the beams.He also highlighted the fact that "vicious security" was quickly set up around certain areas of ground zero and that people were barred from accessing certain areas for no reason and also had their cameras confiscated.When McPadden attempted to report that secondary explosions were heard by numerous people, he was harshly ordered to "shut up" and "don't repeat it" by superiors.He also talked to numerous firefighters who acknowledged that they also heard secondary explosions, but said that "Obviously somewhere in their command structure, they were told to shut up."

I Can't Hear You

It has now been shown that a handful of people were responsible for willfully ignoring the evidence that Iraq lacked weapons of mass destruction. See, for, example this article. Indeed, Iraq was not the first time the U.S. has ignored or faked intelligence in order to justify war.The facts are also clear that it was also obvious to U.S. intelligence that 9/11 was going to happen on or around the date it happened.So how many people would it have taken to ignore the intelligence that hijackers were going to attack? How hard would it have been for a handful of top-level administration officials to stick their fingers in their ears, say "nah nah nah" (like kids do when they don't want to hear what you're saying), and let it happen?Its Happened BeforeAs confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO, with the help of U.S. and foreign special forces, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed the communists, in order to rally people's support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."In the early 1950s, agents of an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers). Israel's Defense Minister was brought down by the scandal, along with the entire Israeli government. See also this confirmation.But not in the U.S., right? Well, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See this ABC news report, the official documents, and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings (click link entitled "Joint Chiefs Guilty-Northwoods").

Paul Lectures Bernanke: U.S. Moving Towards Fascism

Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, April 3, 2008

The Federal Reserve’s insistence on rewarding its own failures by granting itself new powers was harshly rebuked by Congressman Ron Paul during yesterday’s Joint Economic Committee meeting, as Paul all but accused Ben Bernanke of contributing economically to a broader move towards fascism in America.

"There’s a political philosophy that advocates merging together the interests of business and government at the same time with a loss of civil liberties of the people and I’m afraid we’re moving in that direction," said the Congressman, citing warrantless searches, lack of medical, Internet and financial privacy as well as the loss of habeas corpus since 9/11.

"I see….the proposal by the Treasury as a massive move to a lot closer association of business and government," said Paul, adding that a military-industrial complex, a medical-industrial complex and a media-industrial complex were already in place.

Paul was referring to the Treasury Department’s recent proposal to give the Fed, "Broad new authority to oversee financial market stability, in effect allowing it to send SWAT teams into any corner of the industry or any institution that might pose a risk to the overall system," as the New York Times reported.

"We should be regulating the government - when you think of the authority you as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve can do, it really goes unaudited and very little oversight," said Paul, adding that the creation of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets meant that "we had really given up on the Republic, freedom, the marketplace and sound money".

"It looks like this is a massive increase in the combination of government and big business," said the Congressman.

Media Continues Losing Credibility On 9/11 Issue

Lee Rogers
Rogue Government
Aprill 11, 2008

The corporate controlled media is losing more and more credibility each and every day attempting to defend the official story of the 9/11 attacks. Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura who has been promoting his new book “Don’t Start The Revolution Without Me” on various media outlets has gone public asking serious questions about the official 9/11 story. Ventura has raised several questions about the attacks including how three buildings all fell at free fall speed in one day due to fire. This is despite the fact that no other steel framed building in the history of modern engineering has ever collapsed this way under those circumstances. In addition, the NY Sun is reporting that Richard Falk an official on the UN Human Rights Council is calling for an investigation into the neo-conservatives role in the 9/11 attacks. As the official story continues to collapse, the corporate controlled media is losing an increasing amount of credibility on this issue.

During an interview with Jesse Ventura on the Hannity and Colmes show, Sean Hannity lied to the viewing audience saying that no engineers have gone public with different views on the collapse of the three buildings. This is despite the fact that there is a group called the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth who question the official story of how the buildings fell. The group currently has 309 members all of which are employed in either the architecture or engineering fields. Hannity desperately tried to claim that hot fires brought down those buildings when it is physically impossible for jet fuels to burn hot enough in order to cause a steel framed building to collapse at free fall speed. There has never been a case where a steel framed skyscraper has collapsed at free fall speed due to fire damage. The 9/11 Commission wants us to believe that this happened three times in one day which is absolute bull.

On top of that, CHQR radio host Rob Breakenridge posted an article attempting to counter the points that Ventura makes in questioning the official 9/11 story.

From Breakenridge’s article:

Ventura obviously thinks this sounds very clever, but there’s one point on which he’s factually incorrect: it was more than three buildings. The twin towers (1WTC & 2WTC) obviously collapsed, as did 7WTC - the three buildings Ventura cites. What he neglects to mention is that 3WTC (Marriott Hotel) and St. Nick’s Cathedral also collapsed that day.

First off, the Marriott Hotel did not collapse like WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7. The Marriott Hotel was actually cut in half and the infrastructure still stood following the collapse of the Twin Towers. This would make sense because this building was located in between the Twin Towers.

The St. Nick’s Cathedral was a four-story building and cannot be compared to the collapse of a 47-story building like WTC-7. WTC-7 was a large building and almost half the size of WTC-1 and WTC-2. Paul Joseph Watson from Prison Planet sums up Breakenridge’s absurd comparison nicely.

The humble church building is like an ant compared to the colossal south tower, of course it would have been crushed when the south tower collapsed. How on earth can Breakenridge draw a parallel between this tiny building and a gigantic skyscraper that was nearly half as tall as the twin towers?

What Breakenridge fails to mention is that WTC-7 which collapsed at free fall speed in approximately 6.5 seconds around 5:20 PM EST in the afternoon was located much farther away then the Marriott Hotel. The Marriott Hotel despite being severely damaged from the collapse of the Twin Towers still stood. So how does it make any sense that WTC-7 collapsed at free fall speed due to residual damage from the Twin Towers? WTC-7 had minor fire damage and basic common sense and logic dictates that it could not have fallen in the fashion it did unless explosive devices were used.

He even cites the NIST report as proof that WTC-7 couldn’t have collapsed with the use of explosives. What’s interesting about this conclusion is that the NIST report doesn’t even mention the collapse of WTC-7. He also cites other widely debunked reports that endorse theories in violation of basic laws of physics. The entire article is a joke and not based in reality.

Between this and Richard Falk going public and calling for an investigation into neo-conservative involvement in the 9/11 attacks, it is clear that the corporate controlled media is being completely discredited on the subject of the 9/11 attacks. All they can do now is lie and deceive in the hopes that people won’t look into the fraud of the official story for themselves. It is no wonder that Hannity’s web site is barely getting more traffic than alternative news sites like Blacklistednews.Com and Roguegovernment.Com. Hannity is a professional con-artist who gets paid to mislead the American people into accepting the false left-right political paradigm. This is despite the fact that he is a radio and TV host that gets broadcast on major national networks. This must be embarrassing for Hannity, but maybe if he told the truth about 9/11 and quit being an apologist for the treason and criminality of the current establishment power structure his web site traffic would go back up.

The lies of the 9/11 attacks will be exposed and with it so will the corporate controlled media’s deception on this and many other significant issues. The people who are covering up the truth about these attacks have just as much blood on their hands as the people who implemented the attacks. It has given the excuse for the Nazis in Washington DC to implement their plans for perpetual war and a draconian militarized police state here in the United States. The truth about 9/11 will hopefully help the people of the world defeat the Fourth Reich’s plans for a New World Order.

The Zionist Money Behind 9-11
Christopher Bollyn – May 13, 2008

One of the most peculiar things about investigating 9-11 is that a whole slew of Zionist criminals, a group of people which is evidently involved in the terror attacks in one way or another, is completely ignored by the controlled media.

The accepted history of 9-11, based as it is on the controlled media's interpretation of events, completely ignores the evidence that Israelis and high-level Zionists in the United States played key roles in the terror attacks.

As George W. Bush travels to Israel to meet with the nuclear and real terrorists Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert, I feel compelled to point out a few of the most obvious and basic connections between the Zionist criminal network I call the "Elders of Zion" and the terror attacks of 9-11.

Neocons Admit that "War On Terror" Is a Hoax

Key war on terror architect Douglas Feith has now confirmed Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Wesley Clark in admitting that the so-called War on Terror is a hoax.

In fact, starting right after 9/11 -- at the latest -- the goal has always been to create "regime change" and instability in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon so as to protect Israel. And the goal was never really to destroy ######.

As reported in a new article in Asia Times:

Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith's recently published account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith's account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country's top military leaders.

Feith's book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing "new regimes" in a series of states...


General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia [and Lebanon].


When this writer asked Feith . . . which of the six regimes on the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, "All of them."


The Defense Department guidance document made it clear that US military aims in regard to those states would go well beyond any ties to terrorism. The document said the Defense Department would also seek to isolate and weaken those states and to "disrupt, damage or destroy" their military capacities - not necessarily limited to weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Where does Israel come in?

Well, the Asia Times article continues:

Rumsfeld's paper was given to the White House only two weeks after Bush had approved a US military operation in Afghanistan directed against bin Laden and the Taliban regime. Despite that decision, Rumsfeld's proposal called explicitly for postponing indefinitely US airstrikes and the use of ground forces in support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order to try to catch bin Laden.

Instead, the Rumsfeld paper argued that the US should target states that had supported anti-Israel forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

After the bombing of two US embassies in East Africa [in 1988] by al-Qaeda operatives, State Department counter-terrorism official Michael Sheehan proposed supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in Afghanistan against bin Laden's sponsor, the Taliban regime. However, senior US military leaders "refused to consider it", according to a 2004 account by Richard H Shultz, Junior, a military specialist at Tufts University.

A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes characterized more than once by colleagues as a "small price to pay for being a superpower".

And if "terrorist strikes" were a "small price to pay for being a superpower"- and that is the reason that the U.S. government refused to disrupt the alleged planners of the 9/11 attacks - doesn't that add weight to the claim that the U.S. government intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur? In other words, doesn't this statement by a senior officer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tend to prove that 9/11 was intentionally allowed to occur as the "New Pearl Harbor" which would allow America to act like "a superpower" and re-make the Middle East in its own (and Israel's) image?

This is not an unreasonable question, especially given that Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and most of the other key architects of the "war on terror" were part of the Project for a New American Century and its plea for a "New Pearl Harbor" to justify expansion of American militarism and regime change in the Middle East.

And remember that many of the key members of PNAC and architects of the "war on terror" had previously created the "Clean Break" strategy for Israel, which called for a policy of war and regime change against Israel's enemies.

The war on terror was never intended to be about fighting terrorism. As even Newsweek has now admitted, the war on terror is a hoax.

Regarding WTC steel:

So many problems with this story. How was the steel treated before the LA foundry got it? The steel itself would have been considered toxic based on any standard on the planet? Did it go to another foundry for “processing” before it reached LA? How was this toxic steel of human remains, jet fuel, airplane parts, thermite, asbestos, Depleted Uranium, melted plastic, and untold thousands of other toxins dealt with and by whom before it got to this other plant? If it wasn’t treated first then what precautions were taken or used to insure the health of the foundry workers in LA? (There has never been a single piece of evidence that suggested any port in the world that was to receive WTC steel overseas took ANY precaution of any kind before they received this violently toxic steel. What that means is that thousands of workers would have died from the exposure just like we are seeing with ground zero responders today.)

I see on this post that many “believe” that the steel went to foundries and other Countries like China, India, or Korea. The steel NEVER left the US. Immediately after 9-11 the steel was taken to a foundry one hour outside NYC that had just been bought by CDI Controlled Demolition Inc, the very company paid $35 Billion dollars by the US government to clean-up and destroy all the evidence on 9-11. The very same company that wrote the NIST report saying there was no demolitions on 9-11. The very same company that had a cleanup plan prepared, written, and introduced to the Bush regime within 10 days of 911 ( the Patriot Act took 20 days!). This was the very same company paid billions to clean-up, destroy, and protect all the detonations on the OKCity bombing material in 1995. Same company ordered to clean up and destroy WTC bombing in 1993. Same company that destroyed the recent bridge collapse material in Minneapolis one year ago. Same company whose owner and original founder was stationed in Pearl Harbor in 1941….also NO human has ever been allowed to test the undersides of the ships from Pearl Harbor just like OKCity and the WTC’s 1, 2, and 7 materials.

What’s my point? If we can understand millions of lies told by this Bush regime…..everything we have ever been told MUST be considered a lie immediately. We were told by the Bush regime that the material was taken and sold overseas, never to be investigated or examined. That is a lie and was an actual crime considering that WTC was a crime scene. Every serial killer added up in US history does not surpass the death toll of 9-11. Think about that when you “never forget”.

Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, September 11, 2008

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann perhaps went further than ever before last night in his special comment about the 9/11 anniversary, slamming the Bush administration for their “criminal neglect” in allowing the attacks to occur and identifying the continued exploitation of 9/11 “sociological pornography” as the only reason that Bush hasn’t been impeached.

Olbermann said that the anniversary of the September 11 attacks had been turned into a brand name - “9/11™” and that such propaganda has “sustained a President that long ago should have been dismissed or impeached.”

Olbermann continued, identifying 9/11 has the only thing that has kept “(Bush) and his gang of financial and constitutional crooks in office,” while they escaped blame for the “malfeasance and criminal neglect that allowed the attacks to occur.”

Olbermann then scorned Rudy Giuliani, keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention, for taking no counter-terror measures in-between the first and second attacks on the World Trade Center and indeed moving his counter-terror bunker, which was housed inside WTC 7, into the World Trade Center complex.

The anchor of Countdown then returned to the disgrace of the Republicans airing graphic video of people jumping from the towers and planes slamming into the building during the second night of the convention as a “tribute” to 9/11 victims.

“The television networks were told that the convention would pause early in the evening, when children could still be watching, for a 9/11 tribute and they were encouraged to broadcast that tribute. What we got was not a tribute for the dead of 9/11 or even a tribute to the responders….the Republicans instead gave us sociological pornography,a virtual snuff film.”

Noting that TV networks had agreed to stop showing the most graphic images of 9/11 years ago, Olbermann said, “Yet the Republicans, at their convention, having virtually seized control of the cable news operations, showed the worst of it…the actual collapse of the smoking towers, a fleeting image of what might have been a victim leaping to his death from a thousand feet up, and something new….ground level perfectly framed images of the fireball created when the second plane hit the second tower, it was terrifying, after all the object was to terrify - not to commemorate,” said Olbermann.

The host then poured scorn on attempts to conflate 9/11 with the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis “to stoke the flames of paranoia about another middle eastern nation.”

Olbermann concluded by slamming John McCain for advertising the fact that he knew how to capture Bin Laden, but only offering to share his plan if he won the election.

“By holding out on your secret plan to catch Bin Laden, by searing those images into our collective wounded American psyche at your nomination last week, terrorists are not what you John McCain fight - terrorists are what you John McCain use,” stated Olbermann.

Watch Olbermann’s special comment below.

That is how cable news should be. Free to tell it like it is. I put Keith in the hero category and label him a patriot now. The democrats are just as bad but Keith just put his entire career on the line to tell the truth. keith has done a great service with this commentary. Thank you for telling it like it is Keith. I don't have a TV but if I did I would watch you speak on it. Tell that to your bosses Keith. You just gained a lot of Independent viewers. That is real news commentary. That is what being a patriot is about. Awesome.

ghost Apr 19 '13 · Comments: 1 · Tags: israel's grand deception
Author: The Futurist and friends.

Why does it seem that American society is in decline, that fairness and decorum are receding, that socialism and tyranny are becoming malignant despite the majority of the public being averse to such philosophies, yet the true root cause seems elusive? What if everything from unsustainable health care and social security costs, to stagnant home prices and wage stagnation, to crumbling infrastructure and metastasizing socialism, to the utter decimation of major US cities like Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, could all be traced to a common origin that is extremely pervasive yet is all but absent from the national dialog, indeed from the dialog of the entire Western world?

Today, on the first day of the new decade of '201x' years, I am going to tell you why that is. I am hereby triggering the national dialog on what the foremost challenge for the United States will be in this decade, which is the ultimate root cause of most of the other problems we appear to be struggling with. What you are about to read is the equivalent of someone in 1997 describing the expected forces governing the War on Terror from 2001-2009 in profound detail.

This is a very long article, the longest ever written on The Futurist, at about 22 printed pages. As it is a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife, it is not meant to be read in one shot but rather digested slowly over an extended period, with all supporting links read as well. As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.

Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.


The Cultural Thesis

The Masculinity Vacuum in Entertainment : Take a look at the collage of entertainers below, which will be relevant if you are older than 30. All of them were prominent in the 1980s, some spilling over on either side of that decade. They are all certainly very different from one another. But they have one thing in common - that there are far fewer comparable personas produced by Hollywood today.


As diverse and imperfect as these characters were, they were all examples of masculinity. They represented different archetypes, from the father to the leader to the ladies man to the rugged outdoorsman to the protector. They were all more similar than dissimilar, as they all were role-models for young boys of the time, often the same young boys. Celebrities as disparate as Bill Cosby and Mr. T had majority overlap in their fan bases, as did characters as contrasting as Jean-Luc Picard and The Macho Man Randy Savage.

At this point, you might be feeling a deep inner emptiness lamenting a bygone age, as the paucity of proudly, inspiringly masculine characters in modern entertainment becomes clear. Before the 1980s, there were different masculine characters, but today, they are conspicuously absent. Men are shown either as thuggish degenerates, or as effete androgynes. Sure, there were remakes of Star Trek and The A-Team, and series finales of Rocky and Indiana Jones. But where are the new characters? Why is the vacuum being filled solely with nostalgia?

Modern entertainment typically shows businessmen as villains, and husbands as bumbling dimwits that are always under the command of the all-powerful wife, who is never wrong. Oprah Winfrey's platform always grants a sympathetic portrayal to a wronged woman, but never to men who have suffered great injustices. Absurdly false feminist myths such as a belief that women are underpaid relative to men for the same output of work, or that adultery and domestic violence are actions committed exclusively by men, are embedded even within the dialog of sitcoms and legal dramas.

This trains women to disrespect men, wives to think poorly of their husbands, and girls to devalue the importance of their fathers, which leads to the normalization of single motherhood (obviously with taxpayer subsidies), despite the reality that most single mothers are not victims, but merely women who rode a carousel of men with reckless abandon. This, in turn, leads to fatherless young men growing up being told that natural male behavior is wrong, and feminization is normal. It also leads to women being deceived outright about the realities of the sexual market, where media attempts to normalize single motherhood and attempted 'cougarhood' are glorified, rather than portrayed as the undesirable conditions that they are.

The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.

Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.

As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural. What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning. A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman. This absurd double standard has invisible but major costs to society.

To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, and thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?

The Four Sirens : Four unrelated forces simultaneously combined to entirely distort the balance of civilization built on the biological realities of men and women. Others have presented versions of the Four Sirens concept in the past, but I am choosing a slightly different definition of the Four Sirens :

1) Easy contraception (condoms, pills, and abortions): In the past, extremely few women ever had more than one or two sexual partners in their lives, as being an unwed mother led to poverty and social ostracization. Contraception made it possible for females to conduct campaigns to act on their urges of hypergamy.

2) 'No fault' divorce, asset division, and alimony : In the past, a woman who wanted to leave her husband needed to prove misconduct on his part. Now, the law has changed to such a degree that a woman can leave her husband for no stated reason, yet is still entitled to payments from him for years to come. This enables women to transfer the costs of their behavior onto men and children.

3) Female economic freedom : Despite 'feminists' claiming that this is the fruit of their hard work, inventions like the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, and oven were the primary drivers behind liberating women from household chores and freeing them up to enter the workforce. These inventions compressed the chores that took a full day into just an hour or less. There was never any male opposition to women entering the workforce, as more labor lowered labor costs while also creating new consumers. However, one of the main reasons that women married - financial support - was no longer a necessity.

Female entry into the workforce is generally a positive development for society, and I would be the first to praise this, if it were solely on the basis of merit (as old-school feminists had genuinely intended). Unfortunately, too much of this is now due to corrupt political lobbying to forcibly transfer resources from men to women.

4) Pro-female social engineering : Above and beyond the pro-woman divorce laws, further state interventions include the subsidization of single motherhood, laws that criminalize violence against women (but offer no protection to men who are the victims of violence by women, which happens just as often), and 'sexual harassment' laws with definitions so nebulous that women have the power to accuse men of anything without the man having any rights of his own.

These four forces in tandem handed an unprecedented level of power to women. The technology gave them freedom to pursue careers and the freedom to be promiscuous. Feminist laws have done a remarkable job in shielding women from the consequences of their own actions. Women now have as close to a hypergamous utopia as has ever existed, where they can pursue alpha males while extracting subsidization without reciprocity from beta males. Despite all the new freedoms available to women that freed them from their traditional responsibilities, men were still expected to adhere to their traditional responsibilities.

Marriage 2.0 : From the West to the Middle East to Asia, marriage is considered a mandatory bedrock of any functioning society. If marriage is such a crucial ingredient of societal health, then the West is barreling ahead on a suicidal path.

We earlier discussed why marriage was created, but equally important were the factors that sustained the institution and kept it true to its objectives. The reasons that marriage 'worked' not too long ago were :

1) People married at the age of 20, and usually died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children. The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban feminist norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10 or more prior sexual relationships, who then promptly emerges from her trim chrysalis in an event that can best be described as a fatocalypse.

2) It was entirely normal for 10-20% of young men to die or be crippled on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents. Hence, there were always significantly more women than able-bodied men in the 20-40 age group, ensuring that not all women could marry. Widows were common and visible, and vulnerable to poverty and crime. For these reasons, women who were married to able-bodied men knew how fortunate they were relative to other women who had to resort to tedious jobs just to survive, and treated their marriage with corresponding respect.

3) Prior to the invention of contraception, female promiscuity carried the huge risk of pregnancy, and the resultant poverty and low social status. It was virtually impossible for any women to have more than 2-3 sexual partners in her lifetime without being a prostitute, itself an occupation of the lowest social status.

4) Divorce carried both social stigma and financial losses for a woman. Her prospects for remarriage were slim. Religious institutions, extended clans, and broader societal forces were pressures to keep a woman committed to her marriage, and the notion of leaving simply out of boredom was out of the question.

Today, however, all of these factors have been removed. This is partly the result of good forces (economic progress and technology invented by beta men), but partly due to artificial schemes that are extremely damaging to society.

For one thing, the wedding itself has gone from a solemn event attended only by close family and friends, to an extravaganza of conspicuous consumption for the enjoyment of women but financed by the hapless man. The wedding ring itself used to be a family heirloom passed down over generations, but now, the bride thumbs through a catalog that shows her rings that the man is expected to spend two months of his salary to buy. This presumption that somehow the woman is to be indulged for entering marriage is a complete reversal of centuries-old traditions grounded in biological realities (and evidence of how American men have become weak pushovers). In India, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride's father to pay for the wedding, or for the bride's family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom's family. The reason for this was so that the groom's family effectively had a 'security bond' against irresponsible behavior on the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Indian equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response). For those wondering why Indian culture has such restrictions on women and not men, restrictions on men were tried in some communities, and those communities quickly vanished and were forgotten. There is no avoiding the reality that marriage has to be made attractive to men for the surrounding civilization to survive. Abuse and blackmail of women certainly occurred in some instances, but on balance, these customs existed through centuries of observing the realities of human behavior. Indian civilization has survived for over 5000 years and every challenge imaginable through enforcement of these customs, and, until recently, the Christian world also had comparable mechanisms to steer individual behavior away from destructive manifestations. However, if the wedding has mutated into a carnival of bridezilla narcissism, the mechanics of divorce are far more disastrous.

So why are 90% of divorces initiated by women (she files 70% of the time, and the other 20% of the time, she forces the man to file, due to abuse or adultery on the part of the woman)? Women have always been hypergamous, and most were married to beta men that they felt no attraction towards, so what has changed to cause an increase in divorce rates?

Divorce lawyers, like any other professional group, will seek conditions that are good for business. What makes attorneys different from, say, engineers or salespeople, is that a) they know precisely how to lobby for changes to the legal system, bypassing voters and the US constitution, that guarantees more revenue for them, and B) what benefits them is directly harmful to the fabric of society in general, and to children in particular. When they collude with rage-filled 'feminists' who would gladly send innocent men to concentration camps if they could, the outcome is catastrophic.

The concept of 'no fault' divorce by itself may not be unfair. The concepts of asset division and alimony may also be fair in the event of serious wrongdoing by the husband. However, the combination of no-fault divorce plus asset division/alimony is incredibly unfair and prone to abuse. The notion that she can choose to leave the marriage, yet he is nonetheless required to pay her for years after that even if he did not want to destroy the union, is an injustice that should not occur in any advanced democracy. Indeed, the man has to pay even if the woman has an extramarital affair, possibly even being ordered to pay her psychiatric fees. Bogus claims by 'feminists' that women suffer under divorce are designed to obscure the fact that she is the one who filed for divorce. Defenders of alimony insist that a woman seeking a divorce should not see a drop in living standards, but it is somehow acceptable for the husband to see a drop even if he did not want a divorce. I would go further and declare that any belief that women deserve alimony on a no-fault basis in this day age is utterly contradictory to the belief that women are equals of men. How can women both deserve alimony while also claiming equality? In rare cases, high-earning women have had to pay alimony to ex-husbands, but that is only 4% of the time, vs. the man paying 96% of the time. But it gets worse; much worse, in fact.

Even if the woman chooses to leave on account of 'boredom', she is still given default custody of the children, which exposes the total hypocrisy of feminist claims that men and women should be treated equally. Furthermore, the man is required to pay 'child support' which is assessed at levels much higher than the direct costs of child care, with the woman facing no burden to prove the funds were spent on the child, and cannot be specified by any pre-nuptial agreement. The rationale is that 'the child should not see a drop in living standards due to divorce', but since the mother has custody of the child, this is a stealthy way in which feminists have ensured financial maintenence of the mother as well. So the man loses his children and most of his income even if he did not want divorce. But even that is not the worst-case scenario.

The Bradley Amendment, devised by Senator Bill Bradley in 1986, ruthlessly pursues men for the already high 'child support' percentages, and seizes their passports and imprisons them without due process for falling behind in payments, even if on account of job loss during a recession. Under a bogus 'deadbeat dads' media campaign, feminists were able to obscure the fact that women were the ones ending their marriages and with them the benefit that children receive from a two-parent upbringing, and further demanding unusually high spousal maintenence, much of which does not even go to the child, from a dutiful ex-husband who did not want a divorce, under penalty of imprisonment. So the legal process uses children as pawns through which to extract an expanded alimony stream for the mother. Talk about a multi-layer compounding of evil. The phony tactic of insisting that 'it is for the children' is used to shut down all questions about the use of children as pawns in the extortion process, while avoiding scrutiny of the fact that the parent who is choosing divorce is clearly placing the long-term well-being of the children at a very low priority.

So as it stands today, there are large numbers of middle-class men who were upstanding citizens, who were subjected to divorce against their will, had their children taken from them, pay alimony masked as child support that is so high that many of them have to live out of their cars or with their relatives, and after job loss from economic conditions, are imprisoned simply for running out of money. If 10-30% of American men are under conditions where 70% or more of their income is taken from them under threat of prison, these men have no incentive to start new businesses or invent new technologies or processes. Having 10-30% of men disincentivized this way cannot be good for the economy, and is definitely a contributor to current economic malaise, not to mention a 21st-century version of slavery. Sometimes, the children are not even biologically his.

This one-page site has more links about the brutal tyranny that a man can be subjected to once he enters the legal contract of marriage, and even more so after he has children. What was once the bedrock of society, and a solemn tradition that benefited both men and women equally, has quietly mutated under the evil tinkering of feminists, divorce lawyers, and leftists, into a shockingly unequal arrangement, where the man is officially a second-class citizen who is subjected to a myriad of sadistic risks. As a result, the word 'marriage' should not even be used, given the totality of changes that have made the arrangement all but unrecognizable compared to its intended ideals. Suicide rates of men undergoing divorce run as high as 20%, and all of us know a man who either committed suicide, or admits seriously considering it during the dehumanization he faced even though he wanted to preserve the union. Needless to say, this is a violation of the US Constitution on many levels, and is incompatible with the values of any supposedly advanced democracy that prides itself on freedom and liberty. There is effectively a tyrannical leftist shadow state operating within US borders but entirely outside the US constitution, which can subject a man to horrors more worthy of North Korea than the US, even if he did not want out of the marriage, did not want to be separated from his children, and did not want to lose job. Any unsuspecting man can be sucked into this shadow state.

Marriage is no longer a gateway to female 'companionship', as we shall discuss later. For this reason, as a Futurist, I cannot recommend 'marriage', as the grotesque parody that it has become today, to any young man living in the US, UK, Canada, or Australia. There are just too many things outside of his control that can catastrophically ruin his finances, emotions, and quality of life. At a minimum, he should conduct research by speaking to a few divorced men about the laws and mistreatment they were subjected to, and attend a few divorce court hearings at the local courthouse. After gaining this information, if he still wants to take the risk, he should only marry if he can meet the following three conditions, none of which can substitute either of the other two :

1) The woman earns the same as, or more than, he does.

2) He has a properly done pre-nuptial arrangement with lawyers on each side (even though a pre-nup will not affect the worst aspect of divorce law - 'child support' as a cloak for stealth alimony and possible imprisonment).

3) He is deeply competent in the Venusian Arts, and can manage his relationship with his wife effortlessly. More on this later.

There are still substantial risks, but at least they are somewhat reduced under these conditions. If marriage is a very important goal for a young man, he should seriously consider expatriation to a developing country, where he ironically may have a higher living standard than in the US after adjusting for divorce risk.

Everyone from women to sadistic social conservatives to a young man's own parents will pressure and shame him into marriage, and condemn the request for a pre-nup, without having any interest in even learning about the horrendously unequal and carefully concealed laws he would be subjected to in the event that his wife divorces him through no reasons he can discern. But some men are figuring this out, and are avoiding marriage. By many accounts, 20% of men have decided to avoid marriage. So what happens to a society that makes it unattractive for just 20% of men to marry?

Women are far more interested in marriage than men. Simple logic of supply and demand tells us that the institution of monogamous marriage requires at least 80% male participation in order to be viable. When male participation drops below 80%, all women are in serious trouble, since there are now 100 women competing for every 80 men, compounded with the reality that women age out of the sexual market much quicker than men. This creates great stress among the single female population. In the past, the steady hand of a young woman's mother and grandmother knew that her beauty was temporary, and that the most seductive man was not the best husband, and they made sure that the girl was married off to a boy with long-term durability. Now that this guidance has been removed from the lives of young women, thanks to 'feminism', these women are proving to be poor pilots of their mating lives who pursue alpha males until the age of 34-36 when her desirability drops precipitously and not even beta males she used to reject are interested in her. This stunning drop in her desirability to men is known as the Wile E. Coyote moment, and women of yesteryear had many safety nets that protected them from this fate. The 'feminist' media's attempt to normalize 'cougarhood' is evidence of gasping desperation, which will never become mainstream due to sheer biological realities.

The Venusian Arts : The Four SIrens and the legal changes feminists have instituted to obstruct beta men have created a climate where men have invented techniques and strategies to adapt to the more challenging marketplace, only to exceed their aspirations. This is a disruptive technology in its own right. All of us know a man who is neither handsome nor wealthy, but seems to have amazing success with women. He seems to have natural instincts regarding women that to the layperson may be indistinguishable from magic. So how does he do it?

Mars is the God of War, while Venus is the Goddess of Love. Study of combat is thus known as the Martial Arts, while the study of attraction, seduction, and romance is known as the Venusian Arts, as coined by Mystery, a pioneer in the field. Detractors with a vested interest in the present status quo are eager to misrepresent what the Venusian Arts are, but as a definition :

The traits that make a man attractive to women are learnable skills, that improve with practice. Once a man learns these skills, he is indistinguishable from a man who had natural talents in this area. Whether a man then chooses to use these skills to secure one solid relationship or multiple brief ones, is entirely up to him.

The subject is too vast for any description over here to do it full justice, but in a nutshell, the Internet age enabled communities of men to share the various bits of knowledge they had field tested and refined (e.g. one man being an expert at meeting women during the daytime, another being an expert at step-by-step sexual escalation, yet another being a master of creating lasting love, etc.). The collective knowledge grew and evolved, and an entire industry to teach the various schools of 'Game' emerged. Men who comprehended the concepts (a minority) and those who could undertake the total reconstitution of their personalities and avalanche of rejections as part of the learning curve (a still smaller minority) stood to reap tremendous benefits from becoming more attractive than the vast majority of men. While the 'pick-up artist' (PUA) implementation is the most media-covered, the principles are equally valuable for men in monogamous long-term relationships (LTRs).

Among the most valuable learnings from the body of knowledge is the contrarian revelation that what women say a man should do is often quite the antithesis of what would actually bring him success. For example, being a needy, supplicative, eager-to-please man is precisely the opposite behavior that a man should employ, where being dominant, teasing, amused, yet assertive is the optimal persona. An equally valuable lesson is to realize when not to take a woman's words at face value. Many statements from her are 'tests' to see if the man can remain congruent in his 'alpha' personality, where the woman is actually hoping the man does not eagerly comply to her wishes. Similarly, the 'feminist' Pavlovian reaction to call any questioner a 'misogynist' should also not be taken as though a rational adult assigned the label after fair consideration. Such shaming language is only meant to deflect scrutiny from the woman uttering it, and should be given no more importance than a 10-year-old throwing a tantrum to avoid responsibility or accountability. Far too many men actually take these slurs seriously, to the detriment of male rights and dignity.

Success in internalizing the core fundamentals of the Venusian Arts requires an outside-the-box thinker solidly in the very top of Maslow's Hierarchy, and in my experience, 80% of men and 99.9% of women are simply incapable of comprehending why the skills of the Venusian Arts are valuable and effective. Many women, and even a few pathetic men, condemn the Venusian Arts, without even gaining a minimal comprehension for what it truly is, and how it benefits both men and women. Most of what they think they know about the Venusian Arts involves strawmen, a lack of basic research, and their sheer insecurity.

For anyone seeking advice on the Venusian Arts, there is one rule you must never break. I believe it is of paramount importance that the knowledge be used ethically, and with the objective of creating mutually satisfying relationships with women. It is not moral to mistreat women, even if they have done the same to countless men. We, as men, have to take the high road even if women are not, and this is my firm belief. Nice guys can finish first if they have Game.

'Feminism' as Unrestrained Misandry and Projection : The golden rule of human interactions is to judge a person, or a group, by their actions rather than their words. Feminists once had noble goals of securing voting rights, achieving educational parity, and opening employment channels for women. But once these goals were met and even exceeded, the activists did not want to lose relevance. Now, they tirelessly and ruthlessly lobby for changes in legislation that is blatantly discriminatory against men (not to mention unconstitutional and downright cruel). Not satisfied with that, they continue to lobby for social programs designed to devalue the roles of husbands and fathers, replacing them with taxpayer-funded handouts.

Despite my acute ability to detect and deconstruct leftists, I was unprepared for the level of unhinged lunacy that 'feminism' had sunk to, which revealed itself in late 2008 when Sarah Palin emerged onto the national scene. Here was a woman who actually achieved all the aspirations that feminists claim to value : a highly successful career as a Governor and VP candidate, a large number of children, a loving marriage to a supportive yet ruggedly masculine husband, and an attractive appearance despite being in her 40s. If anything, she should be hailed as a superb role model of a woman from modest origins who has managed to 'have it all'. Yet, the feminist reaction to her was quite the opposite, as she attracted far more hate from lefto-feminists than the woman-stoning Taliban, or child-raping Roman Polanski ever could. What is a parody so outlandish that even The Onion may not write it is actually true. In one shot, 'feminism' was revealed as being not just different from its stated goals, but perhaps the most extreme pillar of leftism in existence today. This is because it is far less challenged than any other subsect of leftism.

As it is profitable to claim victimhood in this age, a good indicator is whether any condemnation by the supposedly oppressed of their oppressor could be similarly uttered if the positions were reversed. We know that what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said about whites could not be said by a white pastor about blacks, and we see even more of a double standard regarding what women and men can say about each other in America today. This reveals one of the darkest depths of the human mind - when a group is utterly convinced that they are the 'victims' of another group, they can rationalize any level of evil against their perceived oppressors.

Go to any major 'feminist' website, such as or, and ask polite questions about the fairness of divorce laws, or the injustice of innocent men being jailed on false accusations of rape without due process. You will quickly be called a 'misogynist' and banned from commenting. The same is not true for any major men's site, where even heated arguments and blatant misandry are tolerated in the spirit of free speech and human dignity. When is the last time a doctrinaire 'feminist' actually had the courage to debate a non-leftist woman like Tammy Bruce, Laura Ingraham, or Michelle Malkin on television?

Ever-tightening groupthink that enforces an ever-escalating narrative of victimhood ensures that projection becomes the normal mode of misandrist thought. The word 'misogynist' has expanded to such an extreme that it is the Pavlovian response to anything a 'feminist' feels bad about, but cannot articulate in an adult-like manner. This reveals the projected gender bigotry of the 'feminist' in question, which in her case is misandry. For example, an older man dating women 10 years younger than him is also referred to as a 'misogynist' by the older bitterati. Not an ageist, mind you, but a misogynist. A man who refuses to find obese women attractive is also a 'misogynist', as are gay men who do not spend money on women.

Contrary to their endless charges of 'misogyny' (a word that many 'feminists' still manage to misspell), in reality, most men instinctively treat women with chivalry and enshrine them on exalted pedestals. Despite this reality, the unchecked accusations on the part of misandrists is thus creating ill will towards women among men who initially harbored no such feelings. The male resentment labeled as 'misogyny' thus becomes a reaction to many years of unopposed misandry heaped on him first. Kick a friendly dog enough times, and you get a nasty dog.

There are laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), that blatantly declares that violence against women is far worse than violence against men. VAWA is very different from ordinary assault laws, because under VAWA, a man can be removed from his home at gunpoint if the woman makes a single phonecall. No due process is permitted, and the man's Constitutional rights are jettisoned. At the same time, half of all domestic violence is by the woman against the man. Tiger Woods' wife beat him with a blunt weapon and scratched his face, only to be applauded by 'feminists' in a 'you go girl' manner by a large section of 'feminists'. Projection can normalize barbarism.

Rape legislation has also bypassed the US Constitution, leaving a man guilty until he proves himself innocent, while the accusing woman faces no penalty for falsely sending a man to prison for 15 years, where he himsef will get raped. The Duke Lacrosse case was a prominent example of such abuse, but hundreds of others occur in America each year. The laws have been changed so that a victim has 1 month to 'decide' if she has been raped, and such flexibility predicatably leads to instances of a woman reporting rape just so that she does not have to tell her husband that she cheated on him (until it becomes profitable to divorce him). 40% of all rape accusations are false, but 'feminists' would rather jail scores of innocent men than let one guilty man get away, which is the exact opposite of what US Constitutional jurisprudence requires.

But, unimaginably, it gets even worse. Polls of men have shown that there is one thing men fear even more than being raped themselves, and that is being cuckolded. Men see cuckolding as the ultimate violation and betrayal, yet there is an entire movement among 'feminists' to enshrine a woman's right to commit adultery and use the resources of her husband to dupe him into thinking the child is his. These misandrists even want to outlaw the right of a man to test the paternity of a child.

So, to review, if a woman has second thoughts about a tryst a few days later, she can, without penalty, ruin a man financially and send him to prison for 15 years. 'Feminists' consider this acceptable. At the same time, even though men consider being cuckolded a worse fate than being raped, 'feminists' want to make this easier for a woman to do, by preventing paternity testing. They already have rigged laws so that the man, upon 'no fault' divorce, has to pay alimony, to a woman who cuckolded him.

This is pure evil, ranking right up there with the evil of Nazi Germany, Al-Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein. Modern misandry masking itself as 'feminism' is, without equal, the most hypocritical ideology in the world today. But every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Feminism as Genuine Misogyny : The greatest real misogyny, of course, has been unwittingly done by the 'feminists' themselves. By encouraging false rape claims, they devalue the credibility of all claims, and genuine victims will suffer. By incentivizing the dehumanization of their ex-husbands and the use of children as pawns, they set bad examples of children, and cause children to resent their mothers when they mature. By making baseless accusations of 'misogyny' without sufficient cause, they cause resentment among formerly friendly men where there previously was none. By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation.

One glaring example of misandry backfiring is in the destruction of marriage and corresponding push of the 'Sex in the City/cougar' fantasy. Monogamous marriage not only masked the gap between 'alpha' and 'beta' men, but also masked the gap between attractiveness of women before and after their Wile E. Coyote moment. By seducing women with the myth that a promiscuous single life after the age of 35 is a worthy goal, many women in their late 30s are left to find that they command far less male attention than women just a decade younger than them. 'Feminism' sold them a moral code entirely unsuited to their physical and mental realities, causing great sadness to these women.

ghost Apr 19 '13 · Comments: 1 · Tags: the misandry bubble
Origins of the Federal Reserve
by Murray N. Rothbard

The Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, was part and parcel of the wave of Progressive legislation on local, state, and federal levels of government that began about 1900. Progressivism was a bipartisan movement that, in the course of the first two decades of the 20th century, transformed the American economy and society from one of roughly laissez-faire to one of centralized statism.

Until the 1960s, historians had established the myth that Progressivism was a virtual uprising of workers and farmers who, guided by a new generation of altruistic experts and intellectuals, surmounted fierce big business opposition in order to curb, regulate, and control what had been a system of accelerating monopoly in the late 19th century. A generation of research and scholarship, however, has now exploded that myth for all parts of the American polity, and it has become all too clear that the truth is the reverse of this well-worn fable.

In contrast, what actually happened was that business became increasingly competitive during the late 19th century, and that various big-business interests, led by the powerful financial house of J. P. Morgan and Company, tried desperately to establish successful cartels on the free market. The first wave of such cartels was in the first large-scale business – railroads. In every case, the attempt to increase profits – by cutting sales with a quota system – and thereby to raise prices or rates, collapsed quickly from internal competition within the cartel and from external competition by new competitors eager to undercut the cartel.

During the 1890s, in the new field of large-scale industrial corporations, big-business interests tried to establish high prices and reduced production via mergers, and again, in every case, the merger collapsed from the winds of new competition. In both sets of cartel attempts, J. P. Morgan and Company had taken the lead, and in both sets of cases, the market, hampered though it was by high protective-tariff walls, managed to nullify these attempts at voluntary cartelization.

It then became clear to these big-business interests that the only way to establish a cartelized economy, an economy that would ensure their continued economic dominance and high profits, would be to use the powers of government to establish and maintain cartels by coercion; in other words, to transform the economy from roughly laissez-faire to centralized, coordinated statism. But how could the American people, steeped in a long tradition of fierce opposition to government-imposed monopoly, go along with this program? How could the public’s consent to the New Order be engineered?

Fortunately for the cartelists, a solution to this vexing problem lay at hand. Monopoly could be put over in the name of opposition to monopoly! In that way, using the rhetoric beloved by Americans, the form of the political economy could be maintained, while the content could be totally reversed.

Monopoly had always been defined, in the popular parlance and among economists, as “grants of exclusive privilege” by the government. It was now simply redefined as “big business” or business competitive practices, such as price-cutting, so that regulatory commissions, from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to state insurance commissions, were lobbied for and staffed with big-business men from the regulated industry, all done in the name of curbing “big-business monopoly” on the free market.

In that way, the regulatory commissions could subsidize, restrict, and cartelize in the name of “opposing monopoly,” as well as promoting the general welfare and national security. Once again, it was railroad monopoly that paved the way.

For this intellectual shell game, the cartelists needed the support of the nation’s intellectuals, the class of professional opinion molders in society. The Morgans needed a smokescreen of ideology, setting forth the rationale and the apologetics for the New Order. Again, fortunately for them, the intellectuals were ready and eager for the new alliance.

The enormous growth of intellectuals, academics, social scientists, technocrats, engineers, social workers, physicians, and occupational “guilds” of all types in the late 19th century led most of these groups to organize for a far greater share of the pie than they could possibly achieve on the free market. These intellectuals needed the State to license, restrict, and cartelize their occupations, so as to raise the incomes for the fortunate people already in these fields.

In return for their serving as apologists for the new statism, the State was prepared to offer not only cartelized occupations, but also ever-increasing and cushier jobs in the bureaucracy to plan and propagandize for the newly statized society. And the intellectuals were ready for it, having learned in graduate schools in Germany the glories of statism and organicist socialism, of a harmonious “middle way” between dog-eat-dog laissez-faire on the one hand and proletarian Marxism on the other. Big government, staffed by intellectuals and technocrats, steered by big business, and aided by unions organizing a subservient labor force, would impose a cooperative commonwealth for the alleged benefit of all.

Unhappiness with the National-Banking System

The previous big push for statism in America had occurred during the Civil War, when the virtual one-party Congress after secession of the South emboldened the Republicans to enact their cherished statist program under cover of the war. The alliance of big business and big government with the Republican party drove through an income tax, heavy excise taxes on such sinful products as tobacco and alcohol, high protective tariffs, and huge land grants and other subsidies to transcontinental railroads.

The overbuilding of railroads led directly to Morgan’s failed attempts at railroad pools, and finally to the creation, promoted by Morgan and Morgan-controlled railroads, of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. The result of that was the long secular decline of the railroads, beginning before 1900. The income tax was annulled by Supreme Court action, but was reinstated during the Progressive period.

The most interventionist of the Civil War actions was in the vital field of money and banking. The approach toward hard money and free banking that had been achieved during the 1840s and 1850s was swept away by two pernicious inflationist measures of the wartime Republican administration. One was fiat money greenbacks, which depreciated by half by the middle of the Civil War. These were finally replaced by the gold standard after urgent pressure by hard-money Democrats, but not until 1879, 14 full years after the end of the war.

A second, and more lasting, intervention was the National Banking Acts of 1863, 1864, and 1865, which destroyed the issue of bank notes by state-chartered (or “state”) banks by a prohibitory tax, and then monopolized the issue of bank notes in the hands of a few large, federally chartered “national banks,” mainly centered on Wall Street. In a typical cartelization, national banks were compelled by law to accept each other’s notes and demand deposits at par, negating the process by which the free market had previously been discounting the notes and deposits of shaky and inflationary banks.

In this way, the Wall Street–federal government establishment was able to control the banking system, and inflate the supply of notes and deposits in a coordinated manner.

But there were still problems. The national-banking system provided only a halfway house between free banking and government central banking, and by the end of the 19th century, the Wall Street banks were becoming increasingly unhappy with the status quo.

The centralization was only limited, and, above all, there was no governmental central bank to coordinate inflation, and to act as a lender of last resort, bailing out banks in trouble. As soon as bank credit generated booms, then they got into trouble; bank-created booms turned into recessions, with banks forced to contract their loans and assets and to deflate in order to save themselves.

Not only that, but after the initial shock of the National Banking Acts, state banks had grown rapidly by pyramiding their loans and demand deposits on top of national-bank notes. These state banks, free of the high legal-capital requirements that kept entry restricted in national banking, flourished during the 1880s and 1890s and provided stiff competition for the national banks themselves.

Furthermore, St. Louis and Chicago, after the 1880s, provided increasingly severe competition to Wall Street. Thus, St. Louis and Chicago bank deposits, which had been only 16 percent of the St. Louis, Chicago, and New York City total in 1880, rose to 33 percent of that total by 1912. All in all, bank clearings outside of New York City, which were 24 percent of the national total in 1882, had risen to 43 percent by 1913.

The complaints of the big banks were summed up in one word: “inelasticity.” The national-banking system, they charged, did not provide for the proper “elasticity” of the money supply; that is, the banks were not able to expand money and credit as much as they wished, particularly in times of recession. In short, the national-banking system did not provide sufficient room for inflationary expansions of credit by the nation’s banks.[1]

By the turn of the century, the political economy of the United States was dominated by two generally clashing financial aggregations: the previously dominant Morgan group, which began in investment banking and then expanded into commercial banking, railroads, and mergers of manufacturing firms; and the Rockefeller forces, which began in oil refining and then moved into commercial banking, finally forming an alliance with the Kuhn, Loeb Company in investment banking and the Harriman interests in railroads.[2]

Although these two financial blocs usually clashed with each other, they were as one on the need for a central bank. Even though the eventual major role in forming and dominating the Federal Reserve System was taken by the Morgans, the Rockefeller and Kuhn, Loeb forces were equally enthusiastic in pushing, and collaborating on, what they all considered to be an essential monetary reform.

The Beginnings of the “Reform” Movement: The Indianapolis Monetary Convention

The presidential election of 1896 was a great national referendum on the gold standard. The Democratic party had been captured, at its 1896 convention, by the populist, ultrainflationist antigold forces, headed by William Jennings Bryan. The older Democrats, who had been fiercely devoted to hard money and the gold standard, either stayed home on election day or voted, for the first time in their lives, for the hated Republicans.

The Republicans had long been the party of prohibition and of greenback inflation and opposition to gold. But since the early 1890s, the Rockefeller forces, dominant in their home state of Ohio and nationally in the Republican party, had decided to quietly ditch prohibition as a political embarrassment and as a grave deterrent to obtaining votes from the increasingly powerful bloc of German-American voters.

In the summer of 1896, anticipating the defeat of the gold forces at the Democratic convention, the Morgans, previously dominant in the Democratic party, approached the McKinley–Mark Hanna–Rockefeller forces through their rising young satrap, Congressman Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts. Lodge offered the Rockefeller forces a deal: the Morgans would support McKinley for president, and neither sit home nor back a third, Gold Democrat party, provided that McKinley pledged himself to a gold standard. The deal was struck, and many previously hard-money Democrats shifted to the Republicans.

The nature of the American political-party system was now drastically changed: what was previously a tightly fought struggle between hard-money, free-trade, laissez-faire Democrats on the one hand, and inflationist, protectionist, statist Republicans on the other, with the Democrats slowly but surely gaining ascendancy by the early 1890s, was now a party system dominated by the Republicans until the depression election of 1932.

The Morgans were strongly opposed to Bryanism, which was not only populist and inflationist, but also anti–Wall Street bank; the Bryanites, much like populists of the present day, preferred Congressional, greenback inflationism to the more subtle, and more privileged, big bank–controlled variety. The Morgans, in contrast, favored a gold standard.

But, once gold was secured by the McKinley victory of 1896, they wanted to press on to use the gold standard as a hard-money camouflage behind which they could change the system into one less nakedly inflationist than populism but far more effectively controlled by the big-banker elites. In the long run, a controlled Morgan-Rockefeller gold standard was far more pernicious to the cause of genuine hard-money than a candid free-silver or greenback Bryanism.

As soon as McKinley was safely elected, the Morgan-Rockefeller forces began to organize a “reform” movement to cure the “inelasticity” of money in the existing gold standard and to move slowly toward the establishment of a central bank. To do so, they decided to use the techniques they had successfully employed in establishing a pro–gold standard movement during 1895 and 1896.

The crucial point was to avoid the public suspicion of Wall Street and banker control by acquiring the patina of a broad-based grassroots movement. The movement, therefore, was deliberately focused in the Middle West, the heartland of America, and organizations developed that included not only bankers, but also businessmen, economists, and other academics, who supplied respectability, persuasiveness, and technical expertise to the reform cause.

Accordingly, the reform drive began just after the 1896 elections in authentic Midwest country. Hugh Henry Hanna, president of the Atlas Engine Works of Indianapolis, who had learned organizing tactics during the year with the pro–gold standard Union for Sound Money, sent a memorandum, in November, to the Indianapolis Board of Trade, urging a grassroots, Midwestern state like Indiana to take the lead in currency reform.[3]

In response, the reformers moved fast. Answering the call of the Indianapolis Board of Trade, delegates from boards of trade from 12 Midwestern cities met in Indianapolis on December 1, 1896. The conference called for a large monetary convention of businessmen, which accordingly met in Indianapolis on January 12, 1897. Representatives from 26 states and the District of Columbia were present. The monetary reform movement was now officially underway.

The influential Yale Review commended the convention for averting the danger of arousing popular hostility to bankers. It reported that “the conference was a gathering of businessmen in general rather than bankers in particular” (quoted in Livingston 1986, p. 105).

The conventioneers may have been businessmen, but they were certainly not very grassrootsy. Presiding at the Indianapolis Monetary Convention of 1897 was C. Stuart Patterson, dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School and a member of the finance committee of the powerful, Morgan-oriented Pennsylvania Railroad. The day after the convention opened, Hugh Hanna was named chairman of an executive committee, which he would appoint. The committee was empowered to act for the convention after it adjourned.

The executive committee consisted of the following influential corporate and financial leaders:

* John J. Mitchell of Chicago, president of the Illinois Trust and Savings Bank, and a director of the Chicago and Alton Railroad; the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne, and Chicago Railroad; and the Pullman Company, was named treasurer of the executive committee.
* H. H. Kohlsaat, editor and publisher of the Chicago Times Herald and the Chicago Ocean Herald, trustee of the Chicago Art Institute, and a friend and advisor of Rockefeller’s main man in politics, President William McKinley.
* Charles Custis Harrison, provost of the University of Pennsylvania, who had made a fortune as a sugar refiner in partnership with the powerful Havemeyer (“Sugar Trust”) interests.
* Alexander E. Orr, a New York City banker in the Morgan ambit, who was a director of the Morgan-run Erie and Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific railroads, the National Bank of Commerce, and the influential publishing house of Harper Brothers. Orr was also a partner in the country’s largest grain-merchandising firm and a director of several life-insurance companies.
* Edwin O. Stanard, St. Louis grain merchant, former governor of Missouri, and former vice president of the National Board of Trade and Transportation.
* E. B. Stahlman, owner of the Nashville Banner, commissioner of the cartelist Southern Railway and Steamship Association, and former vice president of the Louisville, New Albany, and Chicago Railroad.
* A. E. Willson, influential attorney from Louisville and future governor of Kentucky.

But the two most interesting and powerful executive committee members of the Monetary Convention were Henry C. Payne and George Foster Peabody. Henry Payne was a Republican party leader from Milwaukee, and president of the Morgan-dominated Wisconsin Telephone Company, long associated with the railroad-oriented Spooner-Sawyer Republican machine in Wisconsin politics. Payne was also heavily involved in Milwaukee utility and banking interests, in particular as a long-time director of the North American Company, a large public utility–holding company headed by New York City financier Charles W. Wetmore.

So close was North American Company to the Morgan interests that its board included two top Morgan financiers. One was Edmund C. Converse, president of Morgan-run Liberty National Bank of New York City, and soon to be founding president of Morgan’s Bankers’ Trust Company. The other was Robert Bacon, a partner in J. P. Morgan and Company, and one of Theodore Roosevelt’s closest friends, whom Roosevelt would later make assistant secretary of state.

Furthermore, when Theodore Roosevelt became president as the result of the assassination of William McKinley, he replaced Rockefeller’s top political operative, Mark Hanna of Ohio, with Henry C. Payne as Postmaster General of the United States. Payne, a leading Morgan lieutenant, was reportedly appointed to what was then the major political post in the Cabinet specifically to break Hanna’s hold over the national Republican party. It seems clear that replacing Hanna with Payne was part of the savage assault that Theodore Roosevelt would soon launch against Standard Oil as part of the open warfare about to break out between the Rockefeller–Harriman–Kuhn, Loeb, and the Morgan camps (Burch 1981, p. 189, n. 55).

Even more powerful in the Morgan ambit was the secretary of the Indianapolis Monetary Convention’s executive committee, George Foster Peabody. The entire Peabody family of Boston Brahmins had long been personally and financially closely associated with the Morgans. A member of the Peabody clan had even served as best man at J. P. Morgan’s wedding in 1865.

George Peabody had long ago established an international banking firm of which J. P. Morgan’s father, Junius, had been one of the senior partners. George Foster Peabody was an eminent New York investment banker with extensive holdings in Mexico. He helped reorganize General Electric for the Morgans, and was later offered the job of secretary of the treasury during the Wilson administration. He would function throughout that administration as a “statesman without portfolio” (ibid., pp. 231, 233; Ware 1951, pp. 161–67).

Let the masses be hoodwinked into regarding the Indianapolis Monetary Convention as a spontaneous, grassroots outpouring of small Midwestern businessmen. To the cognoscenti, any organization featuring Henry Payne, Alexander Orr, and especially George Foster Peabody meant but one thing: J. P. Morgan.

The Indianapolis Monetary Convention quickly resolved to urge President McKinley to (1) continue the gold standard and (2) create a new system of “elastic” bank credit. To that end, the convention urged the president to appoint a new Monetary Commission to prepare legislation for a new, revised monetary system. McKinley was very much in favor of the proposal, signaling Rockefeller agreement, and on July 24 he sent a message to Congress urging the creation of a special monetary commission. The bill for a national monetary commission passed the House of Representatives but died in the Senate (Kolko 1983, pp. 147–48).

Disappointed but intrepid, the executive committee, failing a presidentially appointed commission, decided in August 1897 to go ahead and select its own. The leading role in appointing this commission was played by George Foster Peabody, who served as liaison between the Indianapolis members and the New York financial community. To select the commission members, Peabody arranged for the executive committee to meet in the Saratoga Springs summer home of his investment-banking partner, Spencer Trask. By September, the executive committee had selected the members of the Indianapolis Monetary Commission.

The members of the new Indianapolis Monetary Commission were as follows (Livingston 1986, pp. 106–07):


The chairman was former senator George F. Edmunds, Republican of Vermont, attorney, and former director of several railroads.

C. Stuart Patterson was dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and a top official of the Morgan-controlled Pennsylvania Railroad.

Charles S. Fairchild, a leading New York banker, president of the New York Security and Trust Company, was a former partner in the Boston Brahmin investment banking firm of Lee, Higginson, and Company, and executive and director of two major railroads. Fairchild, a leader in New York state politics, had been secretary of the treasury in the first Cleveland Administration. In addition, Fairchild’s father, Sidney T. Fairchild, had been a leading attorney for the Morgan-controlled New York Central Railroad.

Stuyvesant Fish, scion of two long-time aristocratic New York families, was a partner of the Morgan-dominated New York investment bank of Morton, Bliss, and Company, and then president of Illinois Central Railroad and a trustee of Mutual Life. Fish’s father had been a senator, governor, and secretary of state.

Louis A. Garnett was a leading San Francisco businessman.

Thomas G. Bush of Alabama was a director of the Mobile and Birmingham Railroad.

J. W. Fries was a leading cotton manufacturer of North Carolina.

William B. Dean, merchant from St. Paul, Minnesota, and a director of the St. Paul–based, transcontinental Great Northern Railroad, owned by James J. Hill, ally with Morgan in the titanic struggle over the Northern Pacific Railroad with Harriman, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb.

George Leighton of St. Louis was an attorney for the Missouri Pacific Railroad.

Robert S. Taylor was an Indiana patent attorney for the Morgan-controlled General Electric Company.

The single most important working member of the commission was James Laurence Laughlin, head professor of political economy at the new Rockefeller-founded University of Chicago, and editor of its prestigious Journal of Political Economy. It was Laughlin who supervised the operations of the Commission’s staff and the writing of the reports. Indeed, the two staff assistants to the Commission who wrote reports were both students of Laughlin at Chicago: former student L. Carroll Root, and his then-current graduate student Henry Parker Willis.

The impressive sum of $50,000 was raised throughout the nation’s banking and corporate community to finance the work of the Indianapolis Monetary Commission. New York City’s large quota was raised by Morgan bankers Peabody and Orr, and heavy contributions to fill the quota came promptly from mining magnate William E. Dodge, cotton and coffee trader Henry Hentz, a director of the Mechanics National Bank, and J. P. Morgan himself.

With the money in hand, the executive committee rented office space in Washington, DC in mid-September and set the staff to sending out and collating the replies to a detailed monetary questionnaire, sent to several hundred selected experts. The Monetary Commission sat from late September into December 1897, sifting through the replies to the questionnaire collated by Root and Willis. The purpose of the questionnaire was to mobilize a broad base of support for the Commission’s recommendations, which they could claim represented hundreds of expert views.

Second, the questionnaire served as an important public-relations device, making the Commission and its work highly visible to the public, to the business community throughout the country, and to members of Congress. Furthermore, through this device, the Commission could be seen as speaking for the business community throughout the country.

To this end, the original idea was to publish the Monetary Commission’s preliminary report, adopted in mid-December, as well as the questionnaire replies in a companion volume. Plans for the questionnaire volume fell through, although it was later published as part of a series of publications on political economy and public law by the University of Pennsylvania (Livingston 1986, pp. 107–08).

Undaunted by the slight setback, the executive committee developed new methods of molding public opinion using the questionnaire replies as an organizing tool. In November, Hugh Hanna hired as his Washington assistant financial journalist Charles A. Conant, whose task was to propagandize and organize public opinion for the recommendations of the Commission.

The campaign to beat the drums for the forthcoming Commission report was launched when Conant published an article in the December 1 issue of Sound Currency magazine, taking an advanced line on the Commission report, and bolstering the conclusions not only with his own knowledge of monetary and banking history, but also with frequent statements from the as-yet-unpublished replies to the staff questionnaire.

Over the next several months, Conant worked closely with Jules Guthridge, the general secretary of the Commission; they first induced newspapers throughout the country to print abstracts of the questionnaire replies. As Guthridge wrote some Commission members, he thereby stimulated “public curiosity” about the forthcoming report, and he boasted that by “careful manipulation” he was able to get the preliminary report “printed in whole or in part – principally in part – in nearly 7,500 newspapers, large and small.”

In the meantime, Guthridge and Conant orchestrated letters of support from prominent men across the country. When the preliminary report was published on January 3, 1898, Guthridge and Conant made these letters available to the daily newspapers. Quickly, the two built up a distribution system to spread the gospel of the report, organizing nearly 100,000 correspondents “dedicated to the enactment of the commission’s plan for banking and currency reform” (Livingston 1986, pp. 109–10).

The prime and immediate emphasis of the preliminary report of the Monetary Commission was to complete the promise of the McKinley victory by codifying and enacting what was already in place de facto: a single gold standard, with silver reduced to the status of subsidiary token currency. Completing the victory over Bryanism and free silver, however, was just a mopping-up operation; more important in the long run was the call raised by the report for banking reform to allow greater elasticity.

Bank credit could then be increased in recessions and whenever seasonal pressure for redemption by agricultural country banks forced the large central reserve banks to contract their loans. The actual measures called for by the Commission were of marginal importance. More important was that the question of banking reform had been raised at all.

Since the public had been aroused by the preliminary report, the executive committee decided to organize the second and final meeting of the Indianapolis Monetary Convention, which duly met at Indianapolis on January 25, 1898. The second convention was a far grander affair than the first, bringing together 496 delegates from 31 states.

Furthermore, the gathering was a cross-section of America’s top corporate leaders. While the state of Indiana naturally had the largest delegation, of 85 representatives of boards of trade and chambers of commerce, New York sent 74, including many from the city’s Board of Trade and Transportation, Merchant’s Association, and Chamber of Commerce.

Such corporate leaders as Cleveland iron manufacturer Alfred A. Pope, president of the National Malleable Castings Company, attended; as did Virgil P. Cline, legal counsel to Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company of Ohio; and C.A. Pillsbury, of Minneapolis–St. Paul, organizer of the world’s largest flour mills. From Chicago came such business notables as Marshall Field and Albert A. Sprague, a director of the Chicago Telephone Company, subsidiary of the Morgan-controlled telephone monopoly, American Telephone and Telegraph Company.

Not to be overlooked is delegate Franklin MacVeagh, a wholesale grocer from Chicago, an uncle of a senior partner in the Wall Street law firm of Bangs, Stetson, Tracy, and MacVeagh, counsel to J. P. Morgan and Company. MacVeagh, who was later to become secretary of the treasury in the Taft administration, was wholly in the Morgan ambit. His father-in-law, Henry F. Eames, was the founder of the Commercial National Bank of Chicago, and his brother Wayne was soon to become a trustee of the Morgan-dominated Mutual Life Insurance Company.

The purpose of the second convention, as former Secretary of the Treasury Charles S. Fairchild candidly explained in his address to the gathering, was to mobilize the nation’s leading businessmen into a mighty and influential reform movement. As he put it, “if men of business give serious attention and study to these subjects, they will substantially agree upon legislation, and thus agreeing, their influence will be prevailing.” He concluded that “My word to you is, pull all together.”

Presiding officer of the convention, Iowa’s Governor Leslie M. Shaw, was however, a bit disingenuous when he told the gathering, “You represent today not the banks, for there are few bankers on this floor. You represent the business industries and the financial interests of the country.” There were plenty of bankers there, too (Livingston 1986, pp. 113–15).

Shaw himself, later to be secretary of the treasury under Theodore Roosevelt, was a small-town banker in Iowa, and president of the Bank of Denison throughout his term as governor. More important in Shaw’s outlook and career was the fact that he was a long-time close friend and loyal supporter of the Des Moines Regency, the Iowa Republican machine headed by the powerful Senator William Boyd Allison.

Allison, who was to obtain the Treasury post for his friend, was in turn tied closely to Charles E. Perkins, a close Morgan ally, president of the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad, and kinsman of the powerful Forbes financial group of Boston, long tied in with the Morgan interests (Rothbard 1984, pp. 95–96).

Also serving as delegates to the second convention were several eminent economists, each of whom, however, came not as academic observers but as representatives of elements of the business community. Professor Jeremiah W. Jenks of Cornell, a proponent of trust cartelization by government and soon to become a friend and advisor of Theodore Roosevelt as governor, came as delegate from the Ithaca Business Men’s Association.

Frank W. Taussig of Harvard University represented the Cambridge Merchants’ Association. Yale’s Arthur Twining Hadley, soon to be the president of Yale, represented the New Haven Chamber of Commerce, and Frank M. Taylor of the University of Michigan came as representative of the Ann Arbor Business Men’s Association.

Each of these men held powerful posts in the organized economics profession, Jenks, Taussig, and Taylor serving on the currency committee of the American Economic Association. Hadley, a leading railroad economist, also served on the board of directors of Morgan’s New York, New Haven, and Hartford; and Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroads.[4]

Both Taussig and Taylor were monetary theorists who, while committed to a gold standard, urged reform that would make the money supply more elastic. Taussig called for an expansion of national bank notes, which would inflate in response to the “needs of business.” As Taussig (quoted in Dorfman 1949, p. xxxvii; Parrini and Sklar 1983, p. 269) put it, the currency would then “grow without trammels as the needs of the community spontaneously call for increase.”

Taylor, too, as one historian puts it, wanted the gold standard to be modified by “a conscious control of the movement of money” by government “in order to maintain the stability of the credit system.” Taylor justified governmental suspensions of specie payment to “protect the gold reserve” (Dorfman 1949, pp. 392–93).

On January 26, the convention delegates duly endorsed the preliminary report with virtual unanimity, after which Professor J. Laurence Laughlin was assigned the task of drawing up a more elaborate final report, which was published and distributed a few months later. Laughlin’s – and the convention’s – final report not only came out in favor of a broadened asset base for a greatly increased amount of national-bank notes, but also called explicitly for a central bank that would enjoy a monopoly of the issue of bank notes.[5]

Meanwhile, the convention delegates took the gospel of banking reform to the length and breadth of the corporate and financial communities. In April 1898, for example, A. Barton Hepburn, president of the Chase National Bank of New York (at that time a flagship commercial bank for the Morgan interests), and a man who would play a large role in the drive to establish a central bank, invited Monetary Commissioner Robert S. Taylor to address the New York State Bankers’ Association on the currency question, since “bankers, like other people, need instruction upon this subject.” All the monetary commissioners, especially Taylor, were active during the first half of 1898 in exhorting groups of businessmen throughout the nation for monetary reform.

Meanwhile, in Washington, the lobbying team of Hanna and Conant were extremely active. A bill embodying the suggestions of the Monetary Commission was introduced by Indiana Congressman Jesse Overstreet in January, and was reported out by the House Banking and Currency Committee in May. In the meantime, Conant met almost continuously with the banking committee members. At each stage of the legislative process, Hanna sent circular letters to the convention delegates and to the public, urging a letter-writing campaign in support of the bill.

In this agitation, McKinley’s Secretary of the Treasury Lyman J. Gage worked closely with Hanna and his staff. Gage sponsored similar bills, and several bills along the same lines were introduced in the House in 1898 and 1899. Gage, a friend of several of the monetary commissioners, was one of the top leaders of the Rockefeller interests in the banking field. His appointment as secretary of the treasury had been gained for him by Ohio’s Mark Hanna, political mastermind and financial backer of President McKinley, and old friend, high-school classmate, and business associate of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.

Before his appointment to the Cabinet, Gage was president of the powerful First National Bank of Chicago, one of the major commercial banks in the Rockefeller ambit. During his term in office, Gage tried to operate the Treasury as a central bank, pumping in money during recessions by purchasing government bonds on the open market, and depositing large funds with pet commercial banks. In 1900, Gage called vainly for the establishment of regional central banks.

Finally, in his last annual report as secretary of the treasury in 1901, Lyman Gage let the cat completely out of the bag, calling outright for a government central bank. Without such a central bank, he declared in alarm, “individual banks stand isolated and apart, separated units, with no tie of mutuality between them.” Unless a central bank establishes such ties, Gage warned, the Panic of 1893 would be repeated (Livingston 1986, p. 153). When he left office early the next year, Lyman Gage took up his post as president of the Rockefeller-controlled US Trust Company in New York City (Rothbard 1984, pp. 94–95).

The Gold Standard Act of 1900 and After

Any reform legislation had to wait until after the elections of 1898, for the gold forces were not yet in control of Congress. In the autumn, the executive committee of the Indianapolis Monetary Convention mobilized its forces, calling on no less than 97,000 correspondents throughout the country, through whom it had distributed the preliminary report. The executive committee urged its constituency to elect a gold-standard Congress; when the gold forces routed the silverites in November, the results of the election were hailed by Hanna as eminently satisfactory.

The decks were now cleared for the McKinley administration to submit its bill, and the Congress that met in December 1899 quickly passed the measure; Congress then passed the conference report of the Gold Standard Act in March 1900.

The currency reformers had gotten their way. It is well known that the Gold Standard Act provided for a single gold standard, with no retention of silver money except as tokens. Less well known are the clauses that began the march toward a more “elastic” currency. As Lyman Gage had suggested in 1897, national banks, previously confined to large cities, were now made possible with a small amount of capital in small towns and rural areas.

And it was made far easier for national banks to issue notes. The object of these clauses, as one historian put it, was to satisfy an “increased demand for money at crop-moving time, and to meet popular cries for ‘more money’ by encouraging the organization of national banks in comparatively undeveloped regions” (Livingston 1986, p. 123).

The reformers exulted over the passage of the Gold Standard Act, but took the line that this was only the first step on the much-needed path to fundamental banking reform. Thus, Professor Frank W. Taussig of Harvard praised the act, and greeted the emergence of a new social and ideological alignment, caused by “strong pressure from the business community” through the Indianapolis Monetary Convention. He particularly welcomed the fact that the Gold Standard Act “treats the national banks not as grasping and dangerous corporations but as useful institutions deserving the fostering care of the legislature.”

But such tender legislative care was not enough; fundamental banking reform was needed. For, Taussig declared, “the changes in banking legislation are not such as to make possible any considerable expansion of the national system or to enable it to render the community the full service of which it is capable.” In short, the changes allowed for more and greater expansion of bank credit and the supply of money. Therefore, Taussig (1990, p. 415) concluded, “It is well-nigh certain that eventually Congress will have to consider once more the further remodeling of the national bank system.”

In fact, the Gold Standard Act of 1900 was only the opening gun of the banking reform movement. Three friends and financial journalists, two from Chicago, were to play a large role in the development of that movement. Massachusetts-born Charles A. Conant (1861–1915), a leading historian of banking, wrote his A History of Modern Banks of Issue in 1896, while still a Washington correspondent for the New York Journal of Commerce and an editor of Bankers Magazine. After his stint of public relations work and lobbying for the Indianapolis Convention, Conant moved to New York in 1902 to become treasurer of the Morgan-oriented Morton Trust Company.

The two Chicagoans, both friends of Lyman Gage, were, along with Gage, in the Rockefeller ambit: Frank A. Vanderlip was picked by Gage as his assistant secretary of the treasury, and when Gage left office, Vanderlip came to New York as a top executive at the flagship commercial bank of the Rockefeller interests, the National City Bank of New York.

Meanwhile, Vanderlip’s close friend and former mentor at the Chicago Tribune, Joseph French Johnson, had also moved east to become professor of finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. But no sooner had the Gold Standard Act been passed when Joseph Johnson sounded the trumpet by calling for more-fundamental reform.

Professor Johnson stated flatly that the existing bank note system was weak in not “responding to the needs of the money market,” i.e., not supplying a sufficient amount of money. Since the national banking system was incapable of supplying those needs, Johnson opined, there was no reason to continue it. Johnson deplored the US banking system as the worst in the world, and pointed to the glorious central banking system as existed in Britain and France.[6]

But no such centralized banking system yet existed in the United States: “In the United States, however, there is no single business institution, and no group of large institutions, in which self-interest, responsibility, and power naturally unite and conspire for the protection of the monetary system against twists and strains.”

In short, there was far too much freedom and decentralization in the system. In consequence, our massive deposit credit system “trembles whenever the foundations are disturbed,” i.e., whenever the chickens of inflationary credit expansion came home to roost in demands for cash or gold. The result of the inelasticity of money, and of the impossibility of interbank cooperation, Johnson opined, was that we were in danger of losing gold abroad just at the time when gold was needed to sustain confidence in the nation’s banking system (Johnson 1900, pp. 497f).

After 1900, the banking community was split on the question of reform, the small and rural bankers preferring the status quo. But the large bankers were headed by A. Barton Hepburn of Morgan’s Chase National Bank, who drew up a bill as head of a commission of the American Bankers Association, and presented it in late 1901 to Representative Charles N. Fowler of New Jersey, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, who had introduced one of the bills that had led to the Gold Standard Act. The Hepburn proposal was reported out of committee in April 1902 as the Fowler Bill (Kolko 1983, pp. 149–50).

ghost Apr 19 '13 · Comments: 1 · Tags: origins of the federal reserve


перекладати - переводить