Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 
John, Ordinarily, I would say screw the consequences -- leave my name on it. Under the circumstances, I think for the time being anyway that it might be wise to have you remove my name/email address from my post. But I would LOVE to see it forwarded, if for no other reason to see and gauge everyone else's response to it. Take my name off and Go for it!! I'd like to share an idea for the above. As I slide kicking and screaming and fighting it each step of the way into old age, I have managed to come to a few inescapable conclusions about all this divorce and equality stuff. I have watched how 'equality' works both in the Navy and in our courts. And I have seen how our economy has slipped these past thirty or so years. Now, I think it might be time to fight fire with fire. For a couple of months now, I've engaged in my own little boycott. I need some feedback from one of the 'leveler' heads around here before thinking about enlisting anyone else in this obviously unPC action. To my view, there is little that can be said against turning this equality game around to our own advantage. The logic behind my boycott runs something like this: Until men are afforded equal rights in their homes and in dealings with their own families, why should they subsidize those who would also have their place in the workforce? Simply put and to the extent possible, I will henceforth refuse to deal with any woman in the work place. Whether that be Sears, McDonald's, or whatever. I will spend the limited funds left me by the court on whatever I must -- but I will no longer willingly give my money to the beneficiaries of the discriminatory policies now at work against men. I will ask to be waited on by a male clerk, a male waiter, a salesman. If one is not available, I will find out from the management why not. Only in those situations where the need outweighs the backslide will I hand my money to a woman. All of the ramifications of this are still pending. So far, the results from others have been mixed: some anger, some concern, some resentment. But I think there also has been some grudging agreement with my tactic by other men, especially so once I give a little explanation of my reasons. I don't believe all women belong back in the home, barefoot and pregnant. Rather, I believe that they must be shown that to enjoy the benefits society is bestowing on them nowadays, they must also recognize that there are some trade-offs. They need to learn that, now having been denied a tip or a sales commission, they have a personal stake in the problem, that there is a price to pay for milking men like cash cows, and that that price is going to get steeper if they refuse to assist us in some true equality. I figure they can scream 'sexist' as much as they want to. It's my money and I'll spend it where and on what I wish, and that includes to whom I give it. Okay, I've had my say. Do you think that I'm a bit 'touched' in the head, or is there a thread of realistic grounds for forcing some improvements in this society? Any reactions you might have would be appreciated. Thanks, >Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 09:47:00 PST >From: Wilson, Johnny >To: fathers >Subject: Re: War Room! (fwd) > > >I recommend that the author continue with this idea but to caveat it as satire. >It would only work if every man in the world did the same thing. Most are not >going to do so, especially if they do not perceive that they are affected by >the bias. Men are their own worst enemy, because we as a whole are too >independent by nature to band together in mass. We are like the many Indian >tribes. We are divided by the general public's inability to see the big picture and >their basic trust of "The System." > >Instead work to change the laws and the publics perception, the latter being >almost impossible. Work on changing laws. The system is going to enforce >the LAW. That is the reason that those in the business "industry" of law use >as an excuse "It's the LAW." It's not their fault, "It's the LAW" > >Respectfully-----Johnny Wilson >>wilsonj@lf.robins.af.mil [Response from 'anonymous'] The system is NOT going to enforce the LAW!! It hasn't for the last eighteen years, that I know about. Changing the LAWS and creating more of them for the system not to enforce leaves us exactly where we are right now -- childless and broke. Ask me about the LAWS that the system is supposed to be enforcing. Should we start with five state statutes and stuff like unLAWful termination of parental rights? Or should we just focus on the U.S. Constitution -- equal protection, due process, indentured servitude, unLAWful taking of property, and guilty until proven innocent? Nobody has broken down my door apologizing for any of these wrongs. That is precisely the reason for using such tactics as a boycott. No, not every man would honor a boycott of products or services tendered by women; nor should that be expected. The whole idea behind a boycott, seems to me, is to rattle the bars of our cages, make some noise that people cannot help but hear. I don't believe it would take all that many men to create the right 'noise level'. The American public has a good understanding of the basics of divorce: She gets the kids, she gets the house, she gets the furniture, and she gets child support -- and maybe alimony; He gets to pay for everything. The public also understands that, even outside of marriage, she has the right to decide to be a parent (or not) but he does not. The public also understands that it is paying for the Women's studies curriculums, the Women's Task Forces, the Women's Commissions, the Women's Bureau (Dept. of Labor), and the sexual discrimination laws and sexual harassment laws now that protect mainly: Women. What the public doesn't understand is how much they are paying for these Male exclusion policies and practices, i.e., the cost of Fatherlessness in America. The idea of hurting somebody financially, whether they are male or female, is repugnant to me, deep down. But it is more repugnant to see what is happening to a country that I defended for over twenty years. I would try anything else -- if it had a chance to work. On the other hand, I haven't had any weeping, apologetic judges trying to return my kids to me. Or the thirty or so thousand dollars in overpaid c.s. Or my self-respect. Or anything else the 'system' has stripped from me. For the fact of the matter, I haven't heard of too many guilt-ridden females insisting on paying for their own attorneys or fighting with the 'system' to return money they didn't need, or ... you fill in the blanks. So the question is, how long are we supposed to let this crap go on? I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!!! It's my money and I'll spend it any damn way I wish! It's time the American public got a little more educated. Ask yourself this question. Which way will cost the least to solve our fatherlessness problem? A few dollars here and there right now? Or to continue on our present course, simply doing what we are now -- basically, nothing? What IS being done isn't working. What is being done won't change judges' decisions. And what is being done won't make judges suddenly start enforcing LAWS that are already on the books! What is being done will not force any judge to suddenly start being fair. What are we going to tell our sons when they go through the same thing? Gee, Jimmy, I tried but they wouldn't listen? Not if I can help it! From donking@primenet.comThu Nov 23 04:38:38 1995 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 19:21:49 -0700 (MST) From: "Donald J. King" To: fathers Subject: Re: Boycott At 01:19 PM 11/13/95 -0500, you wrote: >On Sun, 12 Nov 1995, Donald J. King wrote regarding the suggestion to >boycott feminists: >> >> It's a good idea, except, I think it may be misdirected. If the same >> boycott were initiated with respect to court ordered support, the message >> would be clearer. >> >> There are three things I see that would result. One, is the further >> escalation of the gender wars, by the feminazi's, which, isn't all bad. >> Two, greater polarization of the fembots, and more of them, as a result of >> recuiting efforts made to induct those innocent females that have been >> burned by the boycott, which relates to item three. Three, a lot of bad >> feelings generated among innocent women, who might even be on our side. >> This would have to considered in this boycott. Those females that share our >> views of the feminuts shouldn't be alienated. >> >> Such a type of boycott would have to include some means of making a >> determination as to whether or not the females being boycotted, are closet >> fembots. I don't know how to do that. If you could devise method of making >> that determination, or alternatively, identifying entities that are fembot >> oriented, it might work. > >Feminism has damaged women worse than it has damaged men. And it has >damaged the relationship between them even worse. > >Women who are already anti-feminist, which seems to be a vast majority of >women, aren't likely to change their minds, and would probably >participate in the boycott. Thos on the fence could be pushed to our >side when they see that feminism is DEAD, no longer acceptable social >behavior, worthless, and counterproductive. > > You've got a point. My own wife expresses similar sentiments. As long as it was made known that the target of the boycott was/is the fembots, it could work. Bravo. From BoseMietze@aol.comMon Nov 13 02:41:49 1995 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 02:13:27 -0500 From: BoseMietze@aol.com > Granted, I must support my wife, but we MUST make a >stand and look political crrrectness in the face. To make the >whole thing short but sweet, we should give each other the >business and consider our milkings the tips the waitresses >would have gotten (and probably are getting), if a waitrewss >is our only choice. For those of you who know me, I must include >a disclaimer that I make these statements in my capacity as a >private citizen and not as a federal employee. > >Sincerely, > >Rich Rich: Wouldn't this work somehow as a double-edged sword?? I f the females aren't taken male customers, aren't support the rest of sales staff, then they would get fired. Then they would run to family court and ask for higher support! In general, you r boycott seems to be a good idea, but it'll bite you back in the *ss! You'll end up paying mre support that ever. I sugest you find a list of women owned businsess - probably published by the gove't and boycott those. OF court\se you have to tell us what those businesses are! Monica From WILSONJ@LF.ROBINS.AF.MILMon Nov 13 13:49:05 1995 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 12:50:00 PST From: "Wilson, Johnny" To: "Dingeldein, Dan" , >If you want to much up the works, you might want to investigate a book >called"The Lawyer Destroyer" firing paper bullets, by Bruce Sawyer: >Equal Justice Press >c/o Bruce Sawyer >P. O. Box 696 >Rochester N. H. 03867 I haven't read it, but would like to know if anyone has. Johnny Wilson < wilsonj@lf.robins.af.mil From: Dan Dingeldein Cc: danman@castle.drc.com, TRETT@aol.com To all, especially the war room! : I find this kind of thing to be along the same lines as being under the :control of a self-proclaimed (the judges) dictatorship. : History has shown how the courts are a favorite instrument for any kinds of dictatorships. Hitler didn't take by his own self all little decisions that implanted his regimes, he had a carefully organized judicial system to do so for him. Mussollinni was very attached to the use of constitutional charters to direct the interpretation of the laws in fucntion with the principles of fascism... : The time has come for a concerted effort to basically "revolt" against :the established system. Yes, and we've got to do it together! Let's make the ABA work toward justice a little, it is question od systemic approach.. :A frontal attack is doomed to fail but a calculated effort to "muck up the :works" is definately doable. Blitz campaigns against targeted legislators, :judges and selected media types is doable. Mass mailings (paper and :electronic) to educate and inform is doable. Indeed! : This idea of suing en-masse is a great idea but there aren't enough :guys in our position with the resources and where-withall to pull it of in an :effective manner. There I do not agree,we have the potential because there is probably a few millions guys in our situation over North America... We have to make it happen, resources will come along the way. Let's not wait for a messia to solve everything for us, he'll come when there'll be a real need for him, or we'll make it out of collective will! : What we need is a "Ross Perot" type who's got big bucks and is :willing to committ to solving this problem. In my opinion the family law :crisis is even more grave and dangerous than the budget crisis! : Dan D The feminist taking their power directly from the said deficit, don't these two problem go together? Shouldn't they, then be fought one in direct function of the other??? Jean From Mewason@aol.comThu Sep 7 17:59:47 1995 Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 14:40:35 -0400 From: Mewason@aol.com To: manifesto@christianparty.net Subject: Re: FATHERS' MANIFESTO - ACTION!!!! In a message dated 95-09-05 20:55:54 EDT, you write: >HOW WILL YOU ACT TODAY TO END FATHERLSSNESS???!!! I filed for divorce in July because my s2bx is a feminist and wants to be a lesbian. Hawaii is a liberal state with regards to homosexuality. It is also liberal with regards to shared custody. We have agreed to 50/50 custody. Both parents are awarded custody, with neither being primary custodian. My s2bx got a job after 10 years of being a stay at home (vacationing) mom. Child support in a 50/50 split is a lot less than if she had primary custody. Big Brother insists on child support (I do too, its for the kids). As her income begins to equal mine, there will be no support paid by either party. Because she has a job, and is a magna cum laude graduate from UMBC (with a minor in that fad known as women's studies), there is no alimony. Karen Decrow (former president of N.O.W.) summed it up best when she said, "There is nothing scientific, logical or rational to excluding the men, and forever holding the women and children, as if in swaddling clothes themselves, in eternal loving bondage. Most of us have acknowledged that women can do everything the men can do. It is now time to acknowledge that men can do everything women can do." > WHAT SHOULD 2,000 >SIGNATORIES DO COLLECTIVELY right now to end this pathology? Fight on. Forward the manifesto to every republican congressman/senator. Then send it to the democrats. Fax a copy daily to N.O.W. headquarters. Get loud, get mad, get even. We have to scream louder than the women. We need to get off our asses. Michael W.  

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party