Note to Readers:

Summary of Ecology of Peace Problem Solving: The problems of poverty, unemployment, war, crime, violence, food shortages, food price increases, inflation, police brutality, political instability, loss of civil rights, vanishing species, garbage and pollution, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, racism, sexism, Nazism, Islamism, feminism, Zionism etc; are the ecological overshoot consequences of humans living in accordance to a Masonic War is Peace international law social contract that provides humans the ‘right to breed and consume’ with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits.

Ecology of Peace factual reality: 1. Earth is not flat; 2. Resources are finite; 3. When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in resource conflict; 4. If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, and/or nations want to reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; they should cooperate to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract that restricts all the worlds citizens to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; to sustainably protect and conserve natural resources.

EoP v WiP NWO negotiations are documented at MILED Clerk Notice.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Violence is Golden in King Arthurs Hall of Viking Manliness...




Violence is Golden

15 March 2011 | Jack Donovan | Arthurs Hall of Viking Manliness


Note: Comments posted below the article are copies of comment originally posted to the Lara Zhivago and Jack Donovan Facebook pages. Mr. Donovan proceeded to delete the comments. Screenshots of all comments, including those subsequently deleted by Mr. Donovan: [01][02][03][04][05][06][07][08][09][10][11][12][13]



A lot of people like to think they are “non-violent.” Generally, people claim to “abhor” the use of violence, and violence is viewed negatively by most folks. Many fail to differentiate between just and unjust violence. Some especially vain, self-righteous types like to think they have risen above the nasty, violent cultures of their ancestors. They say that “violence isn’t the answer.” They say that “violence doesn’t solve anything.”

They’re wrong. Every one of them relies on violence, every single day.

On election day, people from all walks of life line up to cast their ballots, and by doing so, they hope to influence who gets to wield the axe of authority. Those who want to end violence — as if that were possible or even desirable — often seek to disarm their fellow citizens. This does not actually end violence. It merely gives the state mob a monopoly on violence. This makes you “safer,” so long as you don’t piss off the boss.

All governments — left, right or other — are by their very nature coercive. They have to be.


Order demands violence.

A rule not ultimately backed by the threat of violence is merely a suggestion. States rely on laws enforced by men ready to do violence against lawbreakers. Every tax, every code and every licensing requirement demands an escalating progression of penalties that, in the end, must result in the forcible seizure of property or imprisonment by armed men prepared to do violence in the event of resistance or non–compliance. Every time a soccer mom stands up and demands harsher penalties for drunk driving, or selling cigarettes to minors, or owning a pit bull, or not recycling, she is petitioning the state to use force to impose her will. She is no longer asking nicely. The viability of every family law, gun law, zoning law, traffic law, immigration law, import law, export law and financial regulation depends on both the willingness and wherewithal of the group to exact order by force.

When an environmentalist demands that we “save the whales,” he or she is in effect making the argument that saving the whales is so important that it is worth doing harm to humans who harm whales. The peaceful environmentalist is petitioning the leviathan to authorize the use of violence in the interest of protecting leviathans. If state leaders were to agree and express that it was, indeed, important to “save the whales,” but then decline to penalize those who bring harm to whales, or decline to enforce those penalties under threat of violent police or military action, the expressed sentiment would be a meaningless gesture. Those who wanted to bring harm to whales would feel free to do so, as it is said, with impunity — without punishment.

Without action, words are just words. Without violence, laws are just words.

Violence isn’t the only answer, but it is the final answer.

One can make moral arguments and ethical arguments and appeals to reason, emotion, aesthetics, and compassion. People are certainly moved by these arguments, and when sufficiently persuaded –providing of course that they are not excessively inconvenienced — people often choose to moderate or change their behaviors.

However, the willful submission of many inevitably creates a vulnerability waiting to be exploited by any one person who shrugs off social and ethical norms. If every man lays down his arms and refuses to pick them up, the first man to pick them up can do whatever he wants. Peace can only be maintained without violence so long as everyone sticks to the bargain, and to maintain peace every single person in every successive generation — even after war is long forgotten — must continue to agree to remain peaceful. Forever and ever. No delinquent or upstart may ever ask, “Or Else What?,” because in a truly non-violent society, the best available answer is “Or else we won’t think you’re a very nice person and we’re not going to share with you.” Our troublemaker is free to reply, “I don’t care. I’ll take what I want.”

Violence is the final answer to the question, “Or else what?”

Violence is the gold standard, the reserve that guarantees order. In actuality, it is better than a gold standard, because violence has universal value. Violence transcends the quirks of philosophy, religion, technology and culture. People say that music is a universal language, but a punch in the face hurts the same no matter what language you speak or what kind of music you prefer. If you are trapped in a room with me and I grab a pipe and gesture to strike you with it, no matter who you are, your monkey brain will immediately understand “or else what.” And thereby, a certain order is achieved.

The practical understanding of violence is as basic to human life and human order as is the idea that fire is hot. You can use it, but you must respect it. You can act against it, and you can sometimes control it, but you can’t just wish it away. Like wildfire, sometimes it is overwhelming and you won’t know it is coming until it is too late. Sometimes it is bigger than you. Ask the Cherokee, the Inca, the Romanovs, the Jews, the Confederates, the barbarians and the Romans. They all know “Or else what.”

The basic acknowledgement that order demands violence is not a revelation, but to some it may seem like one. The very notion may make some people apoplectic, and some will furiously attempt to dispute it with all sorts of convoluted and hypothetical arguments, because it doesn’t sound very “nice.” But something doesn’t need to be “nice” in order for it to be true. Reality doesn’t bend over to accommodate fantasy or sentimentality.

Our complex society relies on proxy violence to the extent that many average people in the private sector can wander through life without really having to understand or think deeply about violence, because we are removed from it. We can afford to perceive it as a distant, abstract problem to be solved through high-minded strategy and social programming. When violence comes knocking, we simply make a call, and the police come to “stop” the violence. Few civilians really take the time to think that what we are essentially doing is paying an armed band protection money to come and do orderly violence on our behalf. When those who would do violence to us are taken peacefully, most of us don’t really make the connection, we don’t even assert to ourselves that the reason a perpetrator allows himself to be arrested is because of the gun the officer’s hip or the implicit understanding that he will eventually be hunted down by more officers who have the authority to kill him if his is deemed a threat. That is, if he is deemed a threat to order.

There are something like two and a half million people incarcerated in the United States. Over ninety percent of them are men. Most of them did not turn themselves in. Most of them don’t try to escape at night because there is someone in a guard tower ready to shoot them. Many are “non-violent” offenders. Soccer moms, accountants, celebrity activists and free range vegans all send in their tax dollars, and by proxy spend billions and billions to feed an armed government that maintains order through violence.

It is when our ordered violence gives way to disordered violence, as in the aftermath of a natural disaster, that we are forced to see how much we rely on those who maintain order through violence. People loot because they can, and kill because they think they’ll get away with it. Dealing with violence and finding violent men who will protect you from other violent men suddenly becomes a real and pressing concern.

A pal once told me a story about an incident recounted by a family friend who was a cop, and I think it gets the point across. A few teenagers were at the mall hanging out, outside a bookstore. They were goofing around and talking with some cops who were hanging around. The cop was a relatively big guy, not someone who you would want to mess around with. One of the kids told the cop that he didn’t see why society needed police.

The cop leaned over and said to the spindly kid, “do you have any doubt in your mind about whether or not I could break your arms and take that book away from you if I felt like it?”

The teenager, obviously shaken by the brutality of the statement, said, “No.”

“That’s why you need cops, kid.”

George Orwell wrote in his “Notes on Nationalism” that, for the pacifist, the truth that, “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf,” is obvious but impossible to accept. Much unreason flows from the inability to accept our passive reliance on violence for protection. Escapist fantasies of the John Lennon “Imagine” variety corrupt our ability to see the world as it is, and be honest with ourselves about the naturalness of violence to the human animal. There is no evidence to support the idea that man is an inherently peaceful creature. There is substantial evidence to support the notion that violence has always been a part of human life. Every day, archeologists unearth another primitive skull with damage from weapons or blunt force trauma. The very first legal codes were shockingly grisly. If we feel less threatened today, if we feel as though we live in a non–violent society, it is only because we have ceded so much power over our daily lives to the state. Some call this reason, but we might just as well call it laziness. A dangerous laziness, it would seem, given how little most people say they trust politicians.

Violence doesn’t come from movies or video games or music. Violence comes from people. It’s about time people woke up from their 1960s haze and started being honest about violence again. People are violent, and that’s OK. You can’t legislate it away or talk your way around it. Based on the available evidence, there’s no reason to believe that world peace will ever be achieved, or that violence can ever be “stopped.”

It’s time to quit worrying and learn to love the battle axe. History teaches us that if we don’t, someone else will.

Originally published on Arthur’s Hall of Viking Manliness (now offline), Nov 11, 2010.

More Info on Jack Donovan:
Tom Sunic interviews Jack Donovan, an author and commentator who covers issues involving the decline of manhood and honor in the modern West. Topics include: * Literary influences that shaped Jack’s current views; Wilde and Mishima :: * Androphilia; criticism of “gay culture”; paleomasculinity :: * The double standard in treatment of traditional groups and radical groups: gays, feminists, and minority groups :: * The family unit and feminism; Leftist-manufactured “phobias” :: * The origin of homosexuality: genetic or environmental determinism; the possibility of changing one’s orientation; sexuality as a “normative” standard


» » » » [Violence is Golden, via Counter Currents] :: [Tom Sunic]


The Story of Your Enslavement: We can only be kept in the cages we do not see. (13:10)


53 comments:

Gary Showalter said...

Nothing brings about respect like a healthy dose of fear.

Lara Zhivago said...

I disagree Gary. I don't consider that 'healthy' respect. Its fake respect, for the 'respect' is purely out of fear, and if the fear factor is removed, the respect disapears.

Real respect is not about fear. I respect my buddy who has threatened to kill me, and who has killed over 200 people, cause that is his job; but I don't respect him cause he threatened me, or can kill me. In fact when he threatened to do so, I told him to his face, to go right ahead and shut the fuck up about threats! My reason for respecting him has nothing to do with his ability to kill me, but with his commitment to being an honest man, and honourable man.

There are many millions of white and black kaffirs in Africa, who are capable of the same level of violence my assassin buddy is capable of; and who may be able to generate fear in me, by violence. My respect would not be honest respect for them, and in fact I'd probably rather die than give them one ounce of respect.

There is a big difference between just violence and unjust violence, between a mob of savages and an army of knights. The latter are capable of earning respect based upon reason and honour, their values. They use violence only against mobs and savages; to anyone with the capability of sincere listening and reason, who values honour and integrity, they don't need violence. They are honourable men!

Jack Donovan said...

The nobility of violence often depends on what side you are on. You're romanticizing and moralizing. A lot. I like the idea of an army of knights, too, and prefer judiciously dispensed violence.

The simple reality of "respect" is that for men "respect" is related to male group status and the attainment of male group status has very often been related to courage, strength, assertiveness and the ability to use violence when necessary.

Lara Zhivago said...

I know different men who have different meanings for 'respect' are you saying they are wrong, and your definition for respect is the only one that males have?

Where did I romanticize and moralize? A lot.

Respect is an abstract concept, and hence there are many different individual and cultural meanings and definitions. I was referring to what I consider respect. I dont disagree that others have a different defintion for respect. Some people consider arsekissing respect. I don't ; but I don't deny that is their definition. In fact their definition would be 100% opposite to mine. Which is fine, when people are clear about what they mean when they use abstract terms, and hence are clear they don't mean the same thing, but is problematic when people use abstract terms, and imagine they have the same meaning, but don't verify, and later get confused when their behaviour for the term is different.

So if you can be more clear about what you mean by moralizing and romanticizing, thats great.

In my culture we have very little moralism, because one of the foundational premises of our culture is brutal honest communicaton to resolve disagreements and to avoid moralizing as a form of conflict resolution. So I am curious what feedback you can provide about my alleged moralism.

Lara Zhivago said...

According to your definition how would I respect you; or how do you know when someone is 'respecting' you?

By kissing your ass?

By being brutally honest?

Or what does 'respect' look like to you; when someone provides you with 'respect', in accordance to your definition?

Jack Donovan said...

Only female readers show up on my page and want me to explain everything to their satisfaction. Men know what I am talking about.

Андрей Емйлович Аврахамовна said...

If I may;
Lara, when I read your opening comment in the context of "romanticizing" I'm reminded of Noah Webster's definition of "romance" in his 1828 dictionary: http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,romance
As far as "moralizing"; the titular differentiating between "healthy" and "fake" respect, between "just" and "unjust" violence, and respecting someone for their moral of "honesty" and the abstraction of "honour" is all moralizing.

Lara Zhivago said...

Mr. Donovan:

Is there something I said you did not understand. Do you have a problem explaining yourself? If so, my apologies, I thought you had more honour and integrity than that.

Are you incapable of explaining my questions; or what is the problem that you are incapable of clarifying?

Are you going to answer my questions, or are you going to avoid answering my questions, and hide behind some "Men know what I am talking about" gutless intellectual cowardice?

Lara Zhivago said...

Андрей Емйлович Аврахамовна:

Moralizing is an abstract word, just like honour, and all ideologies, including feminism, racism, etc.

They all have different meanings for the individual who uses them. I am a member of the Radical Honesty culture, we prefer clear language. When someone uses vague terminology and we are not sure what THEIR definition is; WE ASK THEM.

I am not sure what Jacks definition is; SO I ASKED HIM. If he has honour (according to my definition) he would be happy to answer, and to explain and to enter into discussion for better understanding of each other.

======================

Abstract and Concrete Terms

Abstract terms refer to ideas or concepts; they have no physical referents.

[Stop right here and reread that definition. Many readers will find it both vague and boring. Even if you find it interesting, it may be hard to pin down the meaning. To make the meaning of this abstract language clearer, we need some examples.]

Examples of abstract terms include love, success, freedom, good, moral, democracy, and any -ism (chauvinism, Communism, feminism, racism, sexism). These terms are fairly common and familiar, and because we recognize them we may imagine that we understand them—but we really can't, because the meanings won't stay still.

Take love as an example. You've heard and used that word since you were three or four years old. Does it mean to you now what it meant to you when you were five? when you were ten? when you were fourteen (!)? I'm sure you'll share my certainty that the word changes meaning when we marry, when we divorce, when we have children, when we look back at lost parents or spouses or children. The word stays the same, but the meaning keeps changing.

If I say, "love is good," you'll probably assume that you understand, and be inclined to agree with me. You may change your mind, though, if you realize I mean that "prostitution should be legalized" [heck, love is good!].

How about freedom? The word is familiar enough, but when I say, "I want freedom," what am I talking about? divorce? self-employment? summer vacation? paid-off debts? my own car? looser pants? The meaning of freedom won't stay still. Look back at the other examples I gave you, and you'll see the same sorts of problems.

Does this mean we shouldn't use abstract terms? No—we need abstract terms. We need to talk about ideas and concepts, and we need terms that represent them. But we must understand how imprecise their meanings are, how easily they can be differently understood, and how tiring and boring long chains of abstract terms can be. Abstract terms are useful and necessary when we want to name ideas (as we do in thesis statements and some paragraph topic sentences), but they're not likely to make points clear or interesting by themselves.

Concrete terms refer to objects or events that are available to the senses. [This is directly opposite to abstract terms, which name things that are not available to the senses.] Examples of concrete terms include spoon, table, velvet eye patch, nose ring, sinus mask, green, hot, walking. Because these terms refer to objects or events we can see or hear or feel or taste or smell, their meanings are pretty stable. If you ask me what I mean by the word spoon, I can pick up a spoon and show it to you. [I can't pick up a freedom and show it to you, or point to a small democracy crawling along a window sill. I can measure sand and oxygen by weight and volume, but I can't collect a pound of responsibility or a liter of moral outrage.]

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/composition/abstract.htm

Lara Zhivago said...

Jack:

I ask again:

According to your definition how would I respect you; or how do you know when someone is 'respecting' you?

By kissing your ass?

By being brutally honest?

Or what does 'respect' look like to you; when someone provides you with 'respect', in accordance to your definition?

Lara Zhivago said...

My ideology is HONOUR and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY; Whats Yours?

My ideology is HONOUR and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY: Whats your ideology: backstabbing lying two-faced coward; pretending to be a 'communist' or 'capitalist' or 'environmentalist' or 'socialist' or 'nationalist'????? All of those 'ideologies' are nothing but tools: Use the appropriate tool (ha...

http://www.facebook.com/notes/lara-zhivago/my-ideology-is-honour-and-personal-responsibility-whats-yours/10150441013619507

Lara Zhivago said...

Андрей Емйлович Аврахамовна:

You may!! ;-) Please feel free to be brutally honest; I love brutal honesty.

I read your Noah Webster's definition of 'romance'. So are you saying that you don't know many honest people? Are you saying that the event with my CIA assassin friend never happened? that it was a fantasy?

What about other events with other Military Men? My USMC friend??? He also threatened to kill me, while we were making love. I suggested he go ahead. He brought out his hunting knife.

Are you saying that both my CIA Asssasin friend (Ranger), and my USMC friend's threats of death did not occur?

Perhaps cause you don't have any assassin or Special Forces friends, so these experiences are out of your comfort zone, they are things you read about, but have no experience of, and hence you consider them to be 'not true' or 'fantasy'.

They would be your illusion or 'romanticism', but they are not mine. They really happened and are part of my experience.

*******************

>>>As far as "moralizing"; the titular differentiating between "healthy" and "fake" respect, between "just" and "unjust" violence, and respecting someone for their moral of "honesty" and the abstraction of "honour" is all moralizing.<<<<

So the above description of yours, would also be moralizing, since it is making a judgement about what is moralizing and what isn't moralizing and that moralizing should not be done???

I never accuse anyone of 'moralizing' anymore than I ever accuse anyone of 'racism'.

If someone says: I hate kaffirs or niggers; most people say: 'stop being a racist'... I say: Why do you hate kaffirs, or niggers? What did they or one of htem do to you?

So the term moralizing is not something I 'think' whenever anyone says anything that may be considered by you or another to be 'moral' or 'immoral'.

I have two friends: a man and woman that have an agreement to beat the shit out of each other, when they argue. Other friends of mine think this is 'immoral'. I don't. when they get angry, the beat the shit out of each other; then make up.

I have another friend, whose boyfriend likes her to eat his shit. He puts it on a plate, and likes to watch her eat it. At first she thought it was 'immoral' and refused; and then she changed her mind, and did it. I have another friend who had sex with a horse.

I am not about to eat anyone's shit, not even the man I love, for whom I have offerred to give my life. I'll take a bullet for him, but I don't think I'd eat his shit. Thank god he has never asked me to.

If he did, I could go on a rant about it is 'immoral'; or I could simply say: I dont want to, and am not going to.

I could accuse my friend and her boyfriend for being immoral by their shit eating behaviours; but I don't think it is immoral for two people to make a fully informed consensual agreement.

So, perhaps it may help me to understand what you consider to be 'MORAL' and 'IMMORAL'?

Lara Zhivago said...

“Silence is argument carried out by other [gutless cowardly] means.”
-- Ernesto 'Che' Guevara

Lara Zhivago said...

Comment to: The Spearhead: Fourt Wave Feminism:
***********************************


Interesting. I am a feminist; whose definition of feminism, and actions in according to her definition of feminism do not fit any of the descriptions of behaviour of Mr. Donovan’s feminists; to the contrary.

Unfortunately — unlike anti-feminist Mr. Eivind Berge — Mr. Jack Donovan is too petrified to hold an honest conversation with a feminist whom does not fit his definition of feminism, nor does he wish to admit that not all feminists share the same goals; and that there are feminists who are critical of other feminists.

So, until he acts with more honour and integrity, would it be fair for me to read what he writes to be nothing but vitriolic drivel?

The brief conversation I had with Mr. Donovan (which he then deleted, goodness knows why: protecting his PR image? Unable to be real and be himself?) is available in the comment section at: Violence is Golden in King Arthus Hall of Viking Manliness; on Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored.

Anonymous said...

I know different men who have different meanings for 'respect' are you saying they are wrong, and your definition for respect is the only one that males have?

Individual differences don't change what is common and what you bring up regarding "different meanings for respecrt" is a straw-man. Men generally are sexually attracted to women despite the fact that there is a population of homosexual men. In the same way, men generally view respect as "related to male group status and the attainment of male group status has very often been related to courage, strength, assertiveness and the ability to use violence when necessary." Just because there are men who don't see it this way doesn't mean that it is not generally true.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Anon (7:14)

My point was that there are men who have different definitions for respect.

If we take the norm for everything, then we should ignore minority Galileo's, Martin Luthers, and every single individual who stood initially as a minority of one with a new idea, a new perspective.

The Milgram studies tests showed that 92% of any given group, blacks, whites, men, women, christians, muslims are basically nothing more than brainwashed robotoid sheeple; they seldom do any critical thinking, and if or when they do exercise their abilities to actually do some critical thinking and draw a new unique conclusion; they lack the emotional, psychological and spiritual courage to act on their insight.

I am a member of the 8%, those with the capability of critical thinking, the courage to do research and test my conclusions; and finally to act on the conclusions and tests results.

You are welcome to stick around with the 92% and believe that just cause they are the norm, nobody else thinks differently; and so you can just believe that your 92% is the only perspective worthy of your enquiry!

RMM said...

December 11, 2011 at 13:40
@Lara

“So, until he acts with more honour and integrity, would it be fair for me to read what he writes to be nothing but vitriolic drivel?”

You can do whatever the hell you want, really. Why should we care?

Lara Zhivago said...

@JohnX

I know a brutally honest nice guy – with a beer belly – who happens to attract women to him due to his simple brutal honesty. He doesn’t play bullshit manipulative games, doesn’t lie about wanting to spend forever with them; just is brutally honest: he is attracted to them, and would like to know if they are interested in sex. If not initially, he is not offended, he says: let me know if you change your mind. He’s slept with over 500 women, many of them considered by other men to be ‘status fucks’.

Do you think his brutal honesty and avoidance of mindfuck passive aggressive manipulative bullshit works; cause women know where they stand, and can make a fully informed decision; and subsequently enjoy the sex, without strings, and being totally spontaneous?

Why are you all on such a pity party, when you could simply choose to be more honest, more forthright and get more sex, based on fully informed consensual agreements, that benefits you and the woman?

Lara Zhivago said...

@RMM

“So, until he acts with more honour and integrity, would it be fair for me to read what he writes to be nothing but vitriolic drivel?”

>>You can do whatever the hell you want, really. Why should we care?<<

Who is 'we'?

I am not in the habit of telling anyone that they 'should' do anything. I support people to do whatever they want, to live in accordance to the values they preach; whatever their values are.

I was under the impression that Mr. Donovan's values and principles on the matter was that he is sincerely and seriously (honourably) concerned about the feminist – anti-feminist problem; that he would like to resolve it. Perhaps find new perspective to it; he has an open mind, and is looking for new information.

It appears I may have been in error. If so my apologies. I shall not bother Mr. Donovan with my beliefs that he was honourably and sincerely concerned about the 'feminist' problem he feels a victim of. Having worked with people addicted to being victims; I am aware that many enjoy victimhood, enjoy feeling sorry for themselves, enjoy whining about how sorry and pitiful their lives are because of some alleged victimizers. I thought he was different; but I must have made a mistake!

Anyway, no worries, my apologies. If he enjoys his victimhood, thats fine!

Aharon said...

December 11, 2011 at 14:04

“… is too petrified to hold an honest conversation with a feminist whom does not fit his definition of feminism…”

There goes another boring feminist using the old shamming tactic attempt to control a man. We’ve heard it many times before that so and so named man is scared of this, petrified of that, terrified of blah blah blah. Boring. While it is true that there are more type, school of thought err emotional behavior, or definition of feminism it is also true that feminists are generally incapable of having an honest conversation on most issues. The reason is that their religious ideologies are based on a distortion of the facts, hysteria, an attitude that any ends justify the means to achieving their feminist supremacist utopia, an ignorance of men/women/human nature, irrational reasoning, and well you get the idea.

Lara, please use a napkin to wipe up your drivel. It’s gross.

poester99 said...

December 11, 2011 at 14:10

"Why are you all on such a pity party, "

hmm… relationship advice from a feminist…
Yep.. Sounds legit..

Aharon said...

December 11, 2011 at 14:16

“Who is ‘we’?”
— We Lara are the men of the Men’s Movement and more specifically the MRA at this site. Obviously, as a feminazi, you are not used to men sticking up for another man especially when another crazy female is barking away.

“Anyway, no worries, my apologies. If he enjoys his victimhood, thats fine!”
— There you go again with your attempts to shame, humiliate, and manipulate a man to doing what you want. Your public posting here fools no one. It is obvious you are trying to play the victim here so you can now stop trying to top from the bottom.

Wipe up your drivel and run along.

Aharon said...

December 11, 2011 at 14:25

“Why are you all on such a pity party, when you could simply choose to be more honest, more forthright and get more sex, based on fully informed consensual agreements, that benefits you and the woman?”

OMG, another crackpot feminist. That post was hysterical. These feminists and their stories. You guys notice how Lara keeps mentioning others needing to be honest and have an honest conversation? I can smell the feminist bs coming from my computer screen when I read her posts.

Hey men, I’m outa here to go for a long walk. Later.

Mr. Freeze said...

December 11, 2011 at 14:28

Lara said:

“Interesting. I am a feminist; whose definition of feminism, and actions in according to her definition of feminism do not fit any of the descriptions of behaviour of Mr. Donovan’s feminists; to the contrary.”

Maybe that’s because Feminists seem to be unwilling or unable to honestly examine their motives and methods in a way which might question the logic that All Women Are Innocent.

Their self-absorbed, image-obssessed double-standards and blatantly opportunistic hypocrisies, coupled with their willful cognitive dissonance and over-inflated self-esteem, have rendered them incapable of any sort of honest introspection.

Though granted, Feminists don’t hold a monopoly on such assholism …

But they sure as hell have perfected it.

JFP said...

December 11, 2011 at 14:41

“Why are you all on such a pity party, when you could simply choose to be more honest, more forthright and get more sex, based on fully informed consensual agreements, that benefits you and the woman?”

Until such time as it benefits the woman to lie about making a fully informed consensual agreement with said beer belly bro. Coyote ugly for women is not scrambling home and during the walk of shame swear to never drink again. Its a walk of shame that days/weeks later ends up at the police station claiming “rape” to avoid the fact that they just might be a slut who slept with a ugly/low status guy.

Lara Zhivago said...

December 11, 2011 at 14:52

Hmmmm…..

So:

Dunning and Kruger is alive and well in the Men’s Movement, on Spearhead

Jack Donovan only pretends he is interested in sincere conversations, but its just a bunch of bullshit.

You are not allowed to expose the reality that a man says one thing and does the opposite, and when he sticks his tail between his legs and runs away from an honest conversation.

Exposing a white man behaving like a gutless coward; is to be a ‘feminazi’; but no white man will be upset if you expose a white woman, black man or woman, or any other ethnic man or woman from being a gutless coward!

Just white men from the ‘mens movement’!

NEVER EVER EXPOSE A MAN FROM THE MENS MOVEMENT, TALKING BULLSHIT CRAP ABOUT ‘MANLINESS’ AND COURAGE AND HONOUR, AS BEING A GUTLESS COWARD!!

Hmm, interesting little rule you got there!

Jack Donovan said...

December 11, 2011 at 15:05

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Highwasp said...

December 11, 2011 at 15:08

Lara

“Why are you all on such a pity party, when you could simply choose to be more honest, more forthright and get more sex, based on fully informed consensual agreements, that benefits you and the woman?”

Uh let me think on this for a second – oh yeah how about said beer belly having no procreative rights if she gets pregnant? consider 18 years living with the option of funding her decision or living in a cage… yeah that makes me want to propose sex up front – oh wait then there’s the risk for accusations of sexual harassment, back to the cage – not to mention rape or false rape charges if she decides he didn’t meet her requirements…

Lara Zhivago said...

December 11, 2011 at 15:22

@Jack

Nice cliche Jack!

When my assassin buddy stuck his fist two inches from my face, and said: ‘I will fucking kill you if you tell anyone the shit I just told you.’ I said: ‘Go ahead motherfucker!’

So: all that ‘honour’ and ”manliness’ and ‘conducting myself as a man in the world’ and all this on and on and on… and you cannot pull your tail from between your legs to say:

‘Thanks, but no thanks; I am not interested in a conversation; I just pretend to be all that honour and manliness shit; but its all a fucking charade! Gets me a big following though of pity party white victim males; which is a massive boost for my ego.’

Not even: FUCK OFF BITCH, I DON’T SPEAK TO ANY WOMEN, CAUSE I HATE ALL WOMEN?

Ever heard of Information Operations 101 Jack. Its the military equivalent of HONOURABLE COMMUNICATIONS?

When you engage someone openly with “white” information operations, i.e. IO where your identity is clear and explicit, you imply that they are roughly your equal. By speaking to or of them directly, you point up that they are important enough to demand your attention and your reply.
– Field Manual No. FM 3-0, Headquarters Department of the Army, June 2001: Chapter 11: Information Superiority

I have no problem if you are not interested in a conversation. None at all. SAYS SO FOR FUCKS SAKES!

I have a problem with any man or woman (white, black, green or pink) who use the word honour and integrity, and ‘manliness’ and is just a bunch of gutless cowards; who cannot even find the words: THANKS, BUT NO THANKS in their so-called ‘honour’ vocabulary!!

RMM said...

December 11, 2011 at 15:26
@Lara

We were having a conversation. And by “we”, since apparently you need clarification, I mean everyone who was posting before you arrived.

We’re interested in honest conversation. We just not interested in talking with you, as it’d be a waste of time.

Got it yet?

Lara Zhivago said...

December 11, 2011 at 15:28

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

@ Highwasp

Ask the man yourself if you don’t believe me. His name is Brad Blanton, and he is fucking awesome! Serious! He changed my life, and he will change yours! Your life will never be the same again! No more pity party, just adventure, new friends, honest women, and much more!

Here he is running for Office:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx-OVdTkwvA

Here is an article in Esquire that he wrote about honest male and female relationships:

* The Most Honest Conversation in the World
http://www.esquire.com/features/conversation0707

* I Think You’re Fat
http://www.esquire.com/features/honesty0707

Lara Zhivago said...

December 11, 2011 at 15:35

@RMM

>> We were having a conversation. And by “we”, since apparently you need clarification, I mean everyone who was posting before you arrived. We’re interested in honest conversation. We just not interested in talking with you, as it’d be a waste of time. Got it yet? <<

Got it. RMM.

I appreciate your honesty.

No worries. Let me know if you change your mind.

Thanks again. Take care.

Jack Donovan said...

December 11, 2011 at 15:47

Lara is hilarious.

Muk said...

December 11, 2011 at 16:16

She sounds like a nutjob to me…

poester99 said...

December 11, 2011 at 16:25

Lara Zhivago December 11, 2011 at 15:22
@Jack
Nice cliche Jack! ..


Now correct me if I’m wrong, but I think she likes you…

Lara Zhivago said...

December 11, 2011 at 16:40

@Muk

I am way beyond a nutjob!! Been at nutjob101, got the tshirt; spent time in maximum security mental ward; just like my buddy Randle McMurphy; got myself a silent Chief Bromden; except my Chief is a Blue Eyed Cherokee Ranker (aka Terrorist); who got Nurse Ratched to promote me to Nutjob Ph.D! Aiming to become the planets Nutjob Czar!

You? Another goddamn fucker aiming working your butt off in some slave corporations in the name of mass production and mass consumption, who thinks the aim of your life is a good job, nice house, and 2.2 kids; whose passion is to be rewarded with the white man’s legal equivalent of looting: a steady job, secure income, easy credit, free access to all the local emporiums and a home of your own to pile the merchandise in!

And so what if there is no magic in your life, no wonder, no amazement, no playfulness, no peace of mind, no sense of unity with the universe, no giggling joy, no burning passion, no deep understanding, no overwhelming NutJob love?

Heeaaah!

Your Certifiable Semper Fidelis Nutjob Feminazi Ph.D

Venom Froggy said...

December 11, 2011 at 17:26
@Lara Zhivago:
QUOTE:

@JohnX

I know a brutally honest nice guy – with a beer belly – who happens to attract women to him due to his simple brutal honesty. He doesn’t play bullshit manipulative games, doesn’t lie about wanting to spend forever with them; just is brutally honest: he is attracted to them, and would like to know if they are interested in sex. If not initially, he is not offended, he says: let me know if you change your mind. He’s slept with over 500 women, many of them considered by other men to be ‘status fucks’.

Do you think his brutal honesty and avoidance of mindfuck passive aggressive manipulative bullshit works; cause women know where they stand, and can make a fully informed decision; and subsequently enjoy the sex, without strings, and being totally spontaneous?

Why are you all on such a pity party, when you could simply choose to be more honest, more forthright and get more sex, based on fully informed consensual agreements, that benefits you and the woman?

UNQUOTE

Well, Lara, the reason why most of us don’t engage in the brutal honesty you women claim to desire is because you ladies are full of shit.

Most of you claim to want us men to be honest with you, but when we are, you want GAME. Only a small minority of men are able to get away with the audacity this fat fellow was able to display.

Also, there’s the little fact that women absolutely hate male virgins and/or any male who doesn’t deliver in the sack.

If he fails or if he turns out to be a fake bad boy, that woman will have NO REMORSE turning him over to the cops for “raping” her.

But do you ladies care? No.

So what good are you and what good is your touching little story about this fat fuck at the bar who happens to be the EXCEPTION instead of the RULE? None.

Pops said...

December 11, 2011 at 17:42

“I know a brutally honest nice guy – with a beer belly – who happens to attract women to him due to his simple brutal honesty.”

You allegedly know such a guy. Of course, if such brutal honesty actually worked, men would utilize it widespread. But it is common for femists to argue points by citing alleged personal experiences and treat such alleged experiences as proof even if actual professional research says otherwise.

They then label references to professional research to counter their alleged personal experiences as “gaslighting”. But I seriously doubt that you know such a guy and you yourself, in an attempt to prove a point, are not being honest.

Muk said...

December 11, 2011 at 17:45

@lara:
Lmao! I love it!!
You get a great green thumb up from me with that response

Rmaxd said...

December 11, 2011 at 18:19

@ Lara Another feminist tests the waters on a mra site, before sending her hordes of eunuch’d single moms …

Oh yea, Lara your gender studies were wrong … theres no such a thing as lesbianism, its just mutual masturbation, just like marxism & feminism …
women cant even get masturbation right, they need cancer causing bpa filled plastic toys & braindamaged women posing as homosexuals …

Lesbianism = entitled chick too brainwashed by feminism to satisfy a real penis …

Feminism = Retarded lesbian worshipper, the gender politic version of creationism … gets owned by every known field of science daily … & then some

Radfem = White women who hate white nationalists & mangina’s equally … we thank radfems for being too retarded to co-opt white nationalists & other pussy worshipping cops & judges … actually we thank them for being too stupid to co-opt any allies …

4th wave feminism = Women stupidly Enabled social engineers to screw over our education system, & usher in strip searching TSA agents & a brutal police state filled with pussy worshipping cops & judges

Thanks for outdoing Orwell’s brave new world, hordes of muslims & spear throwing africans will eventually wipe single moms as they destroy our communities

Fortunately for us the vast majority of whites are still farmers, & retain the agarian cultures of our ancestors

It is they along with men everywhere who will stand against the hordes of social engineers & their manginas

& rebuild our societies

Ok so the french revolution was an artificially engineered event, but the conditions behinds its success are the same today, the sheer brutality of the unjust

Lara hope you enjoyed your gender realist lesson … now go beg for some seed … ask your brain damaged homosexuals for directions

buggeroff11 said...

December 11, 2011 at 19:23

Lara Zzzzzzz ……omg you lost us at ‘I am a feminist’ If you were anything like you say you are, the LAST thing you would be is a feminist! you would be ‘a woman’ with zero need to be propped up with falsehoods & nowhere near that male hate and hypocrisy that IS feminism.

andybob said...

December 11, 2011 at 19:41

I know a brutally honest nice guy…just is brutally honest…his brutal honesty… – Lara Zhivago

If only Ms Zhivago were aware how easily feminists like her condemn themselves. I have no doubt that the thug-hungry females of her aquaintance have lined up to spread for this brutally brutal brute

Of course, no-one at The Spearhead would ever doubt that it is because he is a really nice guy.

Lara Zhivago said...

December 11, 2011 at 23:19

@Andybob

The comment I posted with the links where you could meet the really nice guy, to determine for yourself if he is a really nice guy (posted: Dec 11, 2011 at 15:28); is being censored from readers like you, by The Spearhead Comment Moderator.

Lara Zhivago said...

December 11, 2011 at 23:46

@Venom Froggy

I don’t speak for ‘most of women’ only myself. I can tell you I have met many men who are arseholes. Just cause most of them are arseholes does not mean I judge every new man I meet, based upon the other arseholes. Every man I meet is given the opportunity to prove that he is an individual. Many have done so. I know some absolutely amazing men; men I would take a bullet for, and men that I have placed myself in a position to take a bullet for them. They are exceptions. They are big blue carat diamonds of honesty and honour, amongst a sea of zirchonia bullshit gutless coward liars and pretenders.

If you want to judge every single woman you meet, cause most women are moron imbeciles. That is your choice.

I don’t know what you mean when you use the word ‘GAME’. The quality that I value most in a man is honour. If it wasn’t I would not have bothered to enter into a conversation with Jack Donovan, nor bothered to find out whether his herdlike mob of savages are capable of being knights of honour and holding him accountable to practice what he preaches, or to simply be another warlord of lies and two faced gutless hypocrisy.

I spent a year in a prison cell, cause I tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth 24/7, including to magistrates who are corrupt. I tell them to their face, in court on the record: You are a corrupt motherfucker and here is my evidence. So, I am willing to be held responsible for my actions, and I live standing on my feet like an honourable human who practices what I preach, not crawling around on my like a gutless coward slave to mobocary.

I once dated a man who was a virgin when I met him. Didn’t bother me in the least, to the contrary; I considered it an honour, to teach him what I knew, and to appreciate the values that led him to be a virgin when we met.

Sounds like you are making some seriously awful choices in women.

>>If he fails or if he turns out to be a fake bad boy, that woman will have NO REMORSE turning him over to the cops for “raping” her.<<

I don't disagree there are women such as that; I have spoken up against them and told them what I think of them: lying two faced scumbag sluts and whores pieces of filth. But you would know that, if you did not suffer from Dunning and Kruger.

Its easy to spot them though; if you know what to look for; but it looks like you are addicted to being abused by them, cause you are not remotely interested in ending your pity party poor me victimhood addiction to bitches with no honour!

Clearly you suffer from Dunning and Kruger, and never read the dialogue I had with Jack Donovan that he deleted!

I know a woman who was making love to a Marine. He asked her if he could kill her. She said sure. He brought out his hunting knife and proceeded to make love to her with his hunting knife! She would give her life for him tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day.

How many women you met, you can pull out your hunting knife, during sex, draw their blood, and inform them you are going to kill them with it….. and they will happily take a bullet for you tomorrow?

I ain't got a problem if you addicted to being a poor me victimhood puppy to zirchonia bitches with no honour! If you enjoy your addiction — go right ahead!

I know men of honour, and I ain't come across one on this Spearhead page! I am not surprised — at all — that none of you poor me victimhood pity party addicts intimately know a woman of honour! Not surprised at all!

Lara Zhivago said...

December 12, 2011 at 00:15

@Rmaxd

Not sure what you don’t understand. Appears you think there is only one kind of feminist.

I lived my life, not just preaching by in practice closer to the land and the Amish way of life, than 99% of US and canadian farmers.

Maybe you hear the word feminist, and you are like a bull that has seen a red flag, and you go on automatic zombie mode, because you believe — like your propaganda masters want you to believe — there is only one form of femimism?

So tell me, why are you so ignorant of – shall I call it Amish feminism?

A while back some generals at the Pentagon wanted to know what my thoughts were on, shall I call it Amish feminism. Here were some of my thoughts:

“FATHERHOOD TEST: I AM NOT A GODDAMN FUCKING BROODSOW:

If a man wants me to be the mother of his child, he must be committed to fatherhood for such child FOREVER: TILL DEATH US DO PART. He is welcome to change his mind at any time about it in the future. If so, he is to confront me and the child/ren to our faces, share his reasons (no matter how furious, he can scream insults or obscenities, and if we have such an agreement he can slap me through the face, once if I am being goddamn hard of hearing, and he thinks I need a temporary wake up sensory lobotomy on the issue), listen to mine (same agreement about slapping through the face, if so agreed). If we have vented all our anger, and sincerely cannot resolve the matter; me and the child/ren will forgive him, before he humanely executes us out of his life, in a firing squad. Then he can be free to find himself a new wife, without us being a burden to him.”

Amish Feminism!!

Jack Donovan said...

December 12, 2011 at 01:07

This is actually getting good.

This is a special kind of crazy.

I guess 5th wave feminism is all about paramilitary Amish sadomasochism.

Feminism 5: A film collaboration by Bruce La Bruce and Takashi Miike

Migu said...

December 12, 2011 at 01:47

Lara may be sock puppet for a troll named frieda.

She was at the NiceGuy’s a few weeks ago

Same style and grandiose stories.

Lara Zhivago said...

December 12, 2011 at 02:17

@Migu

Never met frieda, ain’t got a friggin clue who or what ‘NiceGuys’ is. Only nice guys I know are the USMC and Special Forces Nice Guys I know intimately.

Don’t believe me: ask my husband:

His twitter handle: Timothy4316

Hunting Knife Marine Corps Sniper Sgt is: Jon Michael Dye.

Special Forces CIA Assasin: Sgt. Michael Martin

Magistrate whom I called a corrupt white Kaffir in court proceedings who sent me to prison for a year: Magistrate ADS Meyer.

Just cause you guys are a bunch of gutless cowards who tell fancy stories about ‘honour’ and ‘integrity’ and such shit; don’t mean I am one!

Anyone who doesn’t believe any story I told is true; I shall happily provide you names and any contact details I have for you to verify every single story independently.

andybob said...

December 12, 2011 at 02:36

Every now and then, a feminist descends upon us. She often declares that her aim is honest and fair debate – but somewhere along the line, she reveals that her opinion of us was formed long before she arrived. It is usually our ‘failure’ to gasp in awe at the wisdom emanating from her Golden Vagina that ends the charade.

Ms Lara Zhivago has been delivered by an MRA god to remind us never to underestimate the gaping maw of feminist narcissism and depravity. We urge newbies not to step too close. It takes a bit of experience to deal with borderline princesses – especially when they begin ranting about the Pentagon (and its dependence on her expertise in regard to Amish zombies and broodsows).

A few points:
a) The sky is blue, water is wet, and our guest feminist issues foot-stomping demands that she alone sets the parameters of the discussion.

b) The attempts to convince us that eridite, rapier-witted Mr Jack Donovan, published author and long-time Spearhead contributer, would back away from debating a mentally fragile hysteric for any reason other than it’s sheer pointlessness.

c) No woman spends a year in prison for failing to give evidence unless she is refusing to testify against her crack-dealing pimp thug-daddy (and only then if she tried to knife the judge). So, I think we can safely dismiss the ‘testimonial’ about her ‘honour’.

d) It is achingly typical for a feminist to denigrate the concept of men’s rights by making some irrelevant and utterly obtuse reference – such as Prince Charming with the beergut.

e) Note how easily Ms Zhivago makes dark allusions to being poorly used by Mr Donovan in some murky, unspecified way. Beast.

f) The obscure reference to the hunting knife foreplay is where I knew for certain that Ms Zhivago is another sad creature that feminism has undhinged. The Pentagon enquiries clinched it.

If only Ms Zhivago and her ilk knew just how much the good men and women of The Spearhead really do long for an honest and logical debate with a feminist. Sadly, we are subjected to nothing more than the peurile rants from cretins like Ms Zhivago who offer nothing more than illogical feminist hatred, entitlement and lies. That is something we already knew.

As I wrote earlier, feminists comdemn themselves so skilfully that it is sometimes difficult to understand how they manage to maintain so much sway over our world. Another excellent article Mr Donovan. You anger feminists so much that some of them come undone. Now that is genuine talent.

Transhuman said...

December 12, 2011 at 04:04

The few, not all, of Lara’s posts seem to be desperate self-justification. I wonder why she is concerned that men might speak amongst themselves about matters that concern men, and not take a feminist’s opinion as being truthful or terribly relevant.

I skimmed over her copious use of attempted shaming language, I really think she has no idea how she appears in print. The “knights of honour” made me chuckle though. No Lara, there will not be any white knights coming to your rescue. They belong to an era when women had responsibilities and took them seriously and, in turn, men would make sacrifices for them. Educated men of the 21st century know better.

Lara Zhivago said...

andybob,

a) The sky is blue, water is wet, and our guest feminist issues foot-stomping demands that she alone sets the parameters of the discussion.

I don't recall ever setting parameters for discussion. Your interpretation of foot stomping is yours; you are welcome to it, but no foot stomping occurred on this end.

b) The attempts to convince us that eridite, rapier-witted Mr Jack Donovan, published author and long-time Spearhead contributer, would back away from debating a mentally fragile hysteric for any reason other than it’s sheer pointlessness.

The evidence is published at my blog; and has been deleted from Mr. Donovans page. Comment that included links to other evidence was also censored on this page. None of Mr. Donovans mob of savages had any objections.

c) No woman spends a year in prison for failing to give evidence unless she is refusing to testify against her crack-dealing pimp thug-daddy (and only then if she tried to knife the judge). So, I think we can safely dismiss the ‘testimonial’ about her ‘honour’.

I never said I failed to give evidence. I provided the court with my evidence as to the corruption of the prosecutor. I was convicted of contempt in facie curiae, for telling the Magistrate the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He and the prosecutor prefer their asses kissed.

d) It is achingly typical for a feminist to denigrate the concept of men’s rights by making some irrelevant and utterly obtuse reference – such as Prince Charming with the beergut.

I totally support men's rights, and have done so in writing. I totally don't support women who accuse any man of rape falsely; I have suggested such women get their tongues cut out. I think it is as despicable and disgusting, as a man who rapes a woman. I have been extremely critical of Slutwalk, and supported the Toronto police publicly in telling Slutwalk what a bunch of despicable sluts and liars I thought they were. I have been very critical of women and men, who play mindfuck games with men/women, isntead of being honest about what they want, and entering into fully inforemd consensual agreements with each other.

e) Note how easily Ms Zhivago makes dark allusions to being poorly used by Mr Donovan in some murky, unspecified way. Beast.

As I said, the evidence is on my blog. I am not responsible for Mr. Donovan deleting it from his page, or for you not investigating the matter thoroughly.

f) The obscure reference to the hunting knife foreplay is where I knew for certain that Ms Zhivago is another sad creature that feminism has undhinged. The Pentagon enquiries clinched it.

My apologies if your sex life is boring, or if you find hunting knife foreplay to be immoral, and only done by people who are unhinged. As for the Pentagon: perhaps you may wish to investigate the matter before drawing conclusions.

Lara Zhivago said...

andybob,

If only Ms Zhivago and her ilk knew just how much the good men and women of The Spearhead really do long for an honest and logical debate with a feminist. Sadly, we are subjected to nothing more than the peurile rants from cretins like Ms Zhivago who offer nothing more than illogical feminist hatred, entitlement and lies. That is something we already knew.

It appears you only have interest in an honest and logical debate with a certain type of feminist, which you have not yet identified. A feminist must be a particular type of feminist, to be considered worthy of an honest and logical conversation. You refuse to make any enquiries into any information provided you, and this refusal to investigate any issue, you consider to be 'logical and honest'. Any story told you about an experience you make no effort whatsoever to verify as true, you simply assume and accuse the teller they are telling lies, without any investigation. This conduct you consider 'logical and honest.''

As I wrote earlier, feminists comdemn themselves so skilfully that it is sometimes difficult to understand how they manage to maintain so much sway over our world.

I have provided you with names for my experiences; I have offered to provide you with further information to verify any statement I made to you. You refused, and your refusal you call 'logical and honest'.

I am happy to hear any evidence as to how I have condemned myself (apart from demonstrating my ability to make fun of myself (16:40); also not appreciated by anyone except Muk (17:45)).

I very much appreciate honest and sincere feedback; and where evidence is provided with such feedback that proves me to be in error; to amend any working hypothesis I hold on any issue. I am only an Amish feminist as a result of the information available to me and my life experiences (I agree my experiences having been a lover to predominantly military men is perhaps totally out of the experience of many mra readers, that does not mean they are not true though). I spent 14 years sailing and travelling around the world on sail boats; got a skippers licence, lived in dozens of countries; even dated a French soldier from Djibouti who fought for and with Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets.

There are no women in the world with my experiences. Do you know any women who dated both members of Al'Qaeda, and USMC and Special Forces; who is a member of a culture that has no dischord between men and women; as a result of their social contract of radical honesty?

Lara Zhivago said...

@andybob

No Lara, there will not be any white knights coming to your rescue.

I am not the one wallowing in a poor me victim pity party about being oppressed by Nurse Ratched Ph.D feminists!

Heeeahhh!! Let me go find myself a goddamn Marine with a Hunting Knife; these mra fuckers are boring me to tears!

Adios Amigos,

Your Certifiable Semper Fidelis Nutjob Feminazi Czarina Isabella Arnold!

FLEUR-DE-LIS HUMINT :: F(x) Population Growth x F(x) Declining Resources = F(x) Resource Wars

KaffirLilyRiddle: F(x)population x F(x)consumption = END:CIV
Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (13:10)
Unified Quest is the Army Chief of Staff's future study plan designed to examine issues critical to current and future force development... - as the world population grows, increased global competition for affordable finite resources, notably energy and rare earth materials, could fuel regional conflict. - water is the new oil. scarcity will confront regions at an accelerated pace in this decade.
US Army: Population vs. Resource Scarcity Study Plan
Human Farming Management: Fake Left v. Right (02:09)
ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Office of Dep. Asst. of the Army Environment, Safety and Occupational Health: Richard Murphy, Asst for Sustainability, 24 October 2006
2006: US Army Strategy for Environment
CIA & Pentagon: Overpopulation & Resource Wars [01] [02]
Peak NNR: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston
Peak Non-Renewable Resources = END:CIV Scarcity Future
Race 2 Save Planet :: END:CIV Resist of Die (01:42) [Full]

:: Fair Use Notice ::

FAIR USE NOTICE: The Norway v. Breivik blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to provide information for research and educational purposes, and advance understanding for the EcoFeminist vs. Breivik: Beyond Left and Right Wing: From an ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant’ Argument. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyright owners who object to the fair use of their copyright news reports, may submit their objections to Norway v. Breivik Blog at: [EcoFeminist]