greg1199{at}yahoo.com wrote:

> Dustbin wrote:
>
>>Before proceeding with this post I should, in
>>fairness, make it clear that, while I have a
>>total f&^%ing bitch for an ex-wife I have no
>>children and, therefore, no child support. Nor
>>did we squabble over the division of the spoils
>>- there was hardly anything to squabble over.
>>This fact will make the following a little
>>hipocritical but there it goes.
>>
>>What I suggest is that men REFUSE to co-operate
>>with the courts at all. At the first sign of
>>trouble move what money there is out of the
>>country to somewhere the courts cannot get at
>>it. Refuse, absolutely to pay child support
>>etc., etc., etc.
>
>
> This can only be done if you stop working.  If you have a normal job,
> the government can intercept your money before it gets to you, much the
> same way they collect your taxes.  Still, I agree with you.  When a
> court tries to enslave a man, he should quit his job and do something
> that gets him enough cash to scrape by.  He should either flee the
> country or do his best to evade capture.

There is the possibility of entering the black
market. Unfortunately, the State will seek to
tighten up on the possibilities for that - it
might be used as a jusatification for
introducing ID cards - for example.

D.

> This would be civil disobedience, despite whatever nasty names women
> would give it.
>

Obviously, whatever name calling is served up by
females it has to be taken on the chin. After
all, they were called a few things in the
earlier days of feminism.

D.

>
>>This will lead to prison sentences for contempt
>>of court. But, with 160,000 divorces per year
>>and several million men being f&^ked over by the
>>CSA the prison system will not be able to cope.
>
>
> Moreover, the loss of all that workforce productivity would devastate
> the economy, and the loss of all that tax revenue would drain the
> government's reserves.
>

Yup! They get hit so many ways that it would
take a Treasury accountant to count them all;-)

D.

>
>>There are, in fact, places for about 35,000 men
>>in our prison system, which is grossly
>>over-crowded. The chaos that would result if
>>3,500,000 simply refused to go along with this
>>mayhem - would itself be mayhem.
>
>
> People have talked about violent uprisings, but we don't need anything
> that dramatic.  The most devastating thing we can possibly do is .....
> nothing.  If enough of us stop doing whatever it is we're doing, the
> economy collapses.

Violent uprising is really only the very last
resort. It generally plays into the hands of the
State.

Years ago I thought of going out with a gun and
mowing down a load of people just to MAKE the
damned legal system give me a hearing. But, that
doesn't work. The scumbags of the media would
drone on about another one that got away and
having more laws to lock up dangerous people. It
would never dawn on their miniscule minds to
think that the dangerous ones are running the
courtrooms.

Recently, when I was telling a friend about the
high percentage of men who end up committing
suicide he said that was the cowards way out and
perhaps I should just go out in a blaze of glory.

The reason that this is so dangerous in that
there is no way out - the man is completely
trapped. This is well known to the psy-ops
literature to be potentially devastating.

How can we organise something like what I have
proposed? There are already plenty of men who
are getting shfted; are being denied access to
their kids, etc., etc. These guys have nothing
left to lose.

D.


> It's like having five people who meet weekly for dinner at a fine
> restaurant.  One pays 60 percent of the bill, and the others each pay
> ten percent.  But the others decide that the rich man is morally
> obligated to pay more than 60 percent, so they verbally abuse him, and
> they demand more money.  Then he stops showing up, and they no longer
> can afford to eat at that restaurant.
>
> Message to women:  If you drive off they who do the work, then their
> work becomes _your_ work.
>
> [...]

Yup!

D.

>
>>If there are 3,500,000 men being shafted by the
>>CSA, this bill would amount to £3,500,000,000
>>per week! Or, put another way: £182,000,000,000
>>per year. Or put another way: approximately
>>45.5% of Gordon Brown's entire annual budget!
>
>
> And with men not working, they would have no way to pay the cost of
> putting so many men in prison.
>
> If men were to quit their jobs en masse, especially men whom the state
> has made indentured servants, the government would be able to salvage
> the situation, but to do this, they would have to make some sort of
> compromise with men, and they wouldn't do it until things got really
> bad.

You are quite right. HIStory shows that they
will not do anything until they are forced to.
The key is finding sa for of force that will be
effective while not being little more than
mindless violence.

Elsewhere I've suggested the possibility of a
one day strike by men to demonstrate the point.
This could be on a national scale or even across
the anglo-Saxon world (NZ, UK, US, Canada,
Australia).

The anti-capitalists used to be able to organise
via the net to have demos on a global scale -
why can't we.

D.

   They are so sexist that they would keep
sticking it to us without
> ever realizing that they need us.  Hence, we'd have another Great
> Depression, and only when masses of people were standing in soup lines
> would people realize that they must work with men, no matter what they
> think of us.

It would never get that bad. They could not let
it get so serious as a substantial collapse of
the economy as you describe. They would have
give in long before that.

D.

>
>>Finally, why is it that men are apparently
>>unable to make clear to the government what they
>>want and demanding it?
>>
>>Women get everything handed to them for hardly
>>any effort.
>
>
> It is unnatural for us to hold our hands out, but it is very natural
> for women to hold their hands out.  We instinctively want to be
> self-sufficient, so you won't find throngs of us holding picket signs,
> chanting, and demanding that the government give us this or that.
> Women naturally look to others.  They once looked to husbands, but then
> they became "liberated" and looked to the government instead,
> forgetting of course that most government funding comes from men.  If
> they can get money from men via the government, they can convince
> themselves that they aren't really depending on men.

It may be unnatural for us to hold our hands out
- with that I would agree; but please don't tell
me that we have not got off our arses and fought
for what we have. It is men who have fought for
rights all the way down the line from Magna
Carta to the Civil War and the unions fighting
for rights in the workplace.

It was men who fought the French Revolution; the
American Revolution; the Russian Revolution.
Their womenfolk were often there in total and
very practical support but it is the men who
fought first and foremost.

D.

>
>>Now we hear that the labour party is proposing
>>to give females who simply live with their
>>boyfriends the same rights as married females.
>>So, once again, men are getting screwed.
>
>
> That's how it is in some US states, sort of.  They call it "common law
> marriage."  If you live with a girl for a long enough time, you can
> become her de facto husband, and a lot of men get burned by this.  Men
> with live-in lovers have to guard against it.
> [...]
>


And I thought it was called PALLYMONEY.

D.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/16/05 8:57:24 AM ---