How to attract women how to attract men

-Lots of women want to imitate the sexual habits of men but this doesn't work for several reasons:
-women get more attached
-women can feel used for having sex "too soon"
-women can be "raped" by men but vice versa is nearly impossible, or at least unheard of in the western world
-Men who drink too much alcohol and wake up naked next to a chick, who they don't remember consenting to for sex, will never alleged they were raped or taken advantage of

-Men do not get very attached to women, they do get attached to the first 2-3 sexual partners they have but after that they pretty much have an indifference.  Besides, most men never land their ideal dream women, so their level of attachment is moderate at best. That is, most women just want a confident man with decent looks, whereas all men want the bombshell, they may know they won't land one, but their money can land them one.

-Men will never feel used for having sex too soon, if a woman bangs a guy in the first 4 seconds of meeting him, he'd only miss not fucking her more times since that kind of fucking is rather rare for the average man, but otherwise he'd give a ratass if he ever saw her again.  This is not true for women.  Just look at Bristol Palin's comment how Levi "stole" her virginity during consensual sex, because she feels she was too "innocent". Ya, right.  You will never hear a man come up with that kind of bullshit

-I can't recall a single case of a woman raping a man in any english speaking country beyond statutory rape, and I am a news junkie.

-Women who drink too much alcohol often passout and then claim they were raped.  Its really a smourgesboard, because no one knows if they gave a drunken consent and forgot or if they were really raped.  If a man drank too much and was raped by chick who was at not fat or not ugly, he'd probably ask for more.

-For a man game is essentially being able to have Hot Bitch tens in his bed every night, ideally a new 10 every night or at least every weekend, and occassionally calling but one of the finer 10s every now and then when he doesn't feel like going out.
-For a female, game would be finding a funny and confident, hot man or cute guy who can get any girl he wants but sucker him into a relationship, trick him into intimacy, give him sex early in the encounter so that you can lure him into a relationship and then when he thinks he is getting regular sex from you and you have cut him off from all his other girls so that you are the only vagina he is fucking, cut him off from the last cunt.  And then order him around and make him work hard to give you whatever you want only occasionally bowing into giving him sex, to just string him along long enough until marriage and so on or until you find the next sucker.

-Neither a man nor a girl can successfully do the others game.  In fact a woman trying to fulfill man's game is just as silly as a guy trying to fulfill woman's game.  I mean for any man reading, you can understand why it would be unfulfilling to attempt to get a girl in a relationship just for the purpose of not having sex.  Likewise, women who attempt to have sex with lots of men all the time will never be as happy as their male counterparts.  THey can still enjoy sex, but save for a few girls like pornstars who just fuck for the money, and girls who were sexually or otherwise abused, no women would be happy banging a different man every night.  While the idea of it seems like it might, the reality is women could not enjoy it nor handle it like a man could.  If that were the case, then I suspect there entire dating industry (how to guides for women, pua sites for men, dating sites for both) would collapse because then everyone would  just be screweing like chimps and bonobos and there'd be no need for advice.

Gmos cause disease, queen elizabeth dictator

Queen Elizabeth is a dictator, iron fisted unelected  and an autocrat who uses her thugs to crack down on student protestors and lock them up in prison.  Queen Elizabeth wields all the power which is why less than 5% of people watch her, yet she is on every tv channel whenever she blows a fart or has a wedding.  She portrays the idea that she is a nothing with no power, however she is the sovereign of the UK and the british empire.

Even the army is called Her Royal Majesty's Navy/army etc.  She has no passport, and has diplomatic immunity, and is above the law in practice.  She only publicly portrays the idea that she doesn't run things, but this is not the case.

The Queen can dismiss ministers (equivalent of US secretaries unilaterally) including the prime minister (equivalent to US President)

The Monarch can dismiss parliament if they pass a law she dislikes, she can unilaterally appoint a prime minister.  The Queen has the equivalent of executive orders, similar to that of the president of the US, called Royal Prerogative and she meets weekly with the prime minister and she controls the secret service of the UK.

Here are additional powers of the queen under royal prerogative:
-The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements.
-It is the prerogative of the monarch to summon and prorogue Parliament.(she could chose not to ever summon commons or the equivalent of the US house of representatives and basically it would end democracy and governor through royal prerogatives.  Or she could also prorogue = end a session of parliament indefinetly)
-She can stop any law, by just refusing to sign it as all laws require her signature.
-The common law holds that the Sovereign "can do no wrong"; the monarch cannot be prosecuted for criminal offences. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 allows civil lawsuits against the Crown in its public capacity (that is, lawsuits against the government), but not lawsuits against the monarch personally.  (the queen could shoot you dead tomorrow and is immune from prosecution)

Further the Queen is the world's largest land holder and has over a trillion dollars from the Crown Estate Treasury which in just 2007 alone produced 200 billion pounds in revenue or about 330 billion in income.  This doesn't account for the dozens of duchy estates that is under he control and power as well.

If you look at any of the above and it was any country from outside the "west" everyone would agree corrupt dictator.  Only because she controls the media is this little old nice queen idea in the head of people who watch too much tv. Yeah sure she helps some kid in Africa, but the media doesn't tell you about the kids who she murders and are found murdered on her property as reported by huffingtonpost.com, foxnews, csmonitor.com.  The Queen was indicted by the Mohawk nation for murdering and raping children, but your media controlled by her will not report that, and that is why she won't step foot in Mohawk terrirtory.

Now you are not going to see the Queen with an Iron Fist on TV, bcause that is overt, she doesn't need to be an overt dictator, its not necessary because there are so many people who already believe she is not.  You think people in North Korea think King Jong Un, or Kim Jong IL were dictators, nope, they think they are just, fair, rulers and have little influence except ceremonial, except of course when they tell them.  That is 1-d thinking.

Still think Queens powers are symbolic despite all the statutes that show otherwise.  Explain this :
http://www.presstv.com/detail/244545.html?honnan=Nemzeti_Hirhalo

"Chris Bambery, from the revolutionary Scottish International Socialist Group, told Press TV that the Queen rarely uses her “immense power” over “the armed forces, the judiciary, the police, the secret services [and] all instruments of government.”

However, he said those powers are “there in case of emergency” as precedence shows including her veto of the Australian Labour Prime Minister in 1975 through her Governor-General Sir John Kerr.

“Well, I'll give you an example, not from Britain, but the Queen has directly dismissed an elected prime minister in Australia in 197[5] a Labor prime minister was dismissed by the Queen's agent the Governor General,” Bambery said in his interview with Press TV. "

That is the Queen dismissed the leader of Australia.  That is like saying the Queen has no power in America except on paper and she were to fire the president in 1975.

"According to Bambery, the incident underlined the fact that the Queen’s massive powers do not remain symbolic when she is not satisfied with the situation.

“And I think you have to say that she has those powers and in extreme situation like if a radical government was elected in this country, committed to taking over the wealth of the country I think you would see her employing those powers. And the military and secret service and so on would say they were acting because they are not responsible to parliament they are responsible to the queen,” Bambery said.

In otherwords, if the government does something she doesn't like she will use her army, secret service, etcetera to put them in their place.  So given that why would any politician attempt to have a spat with her when they know they would lose.  They can be fired by her.  In otherwords they are here employee.

“These are powers, which should be under the democratic control of the people; they should not be in the hands of one woman,” he added."

Queen = not democratic = dictator.  She's no different except she doesn't pound her chest, she is a so called velvet glove dictator.

Well I would point to the above to find what is wrong.  You really need read more than the last sentence of the article.  She is not democratic, not elected, she is a despot dictator, who controls the armies that should be under democratic control.  You would not against the army would you?  I know I wouldn't I'd do what she said, because I don't like being shot.

Now I am not saying Assad is good, but they are the same, they both rule from the barrel of a gun.  They are both dictators, and at least Assad is more valid because he had elections, even if it is  a sham election at least someone voted for him.  No one votes for the Queen and she fires prime ministers in OZ and closed parliament in Canada.

Anyhow, if I took a brainwashed view of Assad as the average Westerner takes of the Queen, it'd be impossible for you to prove any wrong doing of his, not because you couldn't show me dead women found at his palace, or him being indicted for murders and rapes or him dismissing prime ministers in lebanon (or australia ;) but because I'd choose not to believe it.  So if you decide to approach the subject with a closed mind that she cannot be a dictator just because I don't see her rolling money and on TV everyday or acting like Sasha Baren Cohen, then I can't help you.  If the Queen is just a figurehead with no powers, why not remove all her powers.

Not every government is against Assad, really just a handful of Western countries (US, Uk  France and basically the puppet states they control).  Ironically Iraq has not come out against them, Africa is not against them, Asia, South America, Central America, Mexico, India, China, Russia, East Europe.  The relaity is that often the Americans, Brits, and Francos try to portray themself as the entire world.  If those 3 agree on bombing Libya, then the world agrees on bombing Libya. if they say bomb syria, then the world is for boming Syria, even if Russia and China and all of africa and asia disagree.  The reality is that most countries have nothing to gain nor lose, and most countries are slightly pro Assad, but have nothing to gain by publicly supporting him and angering America, France and Britain.

I guess my point on Assad came across in a way I did not intend.  Lets just pretend Assad is a murderer and killed 3 people.  Well Queen Elizabeth and the Western leaders are like mass murdering rapists who've murdered 500 people each and torture their victims and eat their skeletons.  You are right, none of them are good.  My point is latter group is worse, way worse by far but even a murderer of 3 people is a scum bag too.

"I have yet to hear of an instance in the United States where the president ordered a massacre of ordinary American citizens. If the president was doing this on a regular basis, he would not be in power for long. Nixon couldn't even deny that he knew about the Watergate break-ins without losing the presidency. Elections in the West are a sham. Maybe so but if the leader loses the election he is out. No questions. He is out"

So for Assad to be popular people need to be in the streets professing their love of Assad.  Just like everyday I turn on my tv, I saw people throwing parties and professing en masse their love for George Bush and Obama.  In reality I see more anti Bush and anti Obama protest since they took office.  Besides the bought out media dismisses any pro assad rally as people being paid to support him like they claimed for the thousands who came and fought for Gaddafi and supported in the streets by the hundreds of thousands.

If you want to get into the technical and say you want a piece of paper document that says kill all people in this region/area with the president's name signed on it you will not find it, and the president's almost always deny any culpability in any compromising act anyways (and the fact that if such a document did exist it'd be obviously labelled classified which would make mere possession and distribution of it a criminal offence and a felony)  So even if I had it and flew to your house by helicopter, knocked on your door and placed it in your hand, and handed it to you, you could go to jail for it and so could I.  Politicians lie about every little thing, you think they are going to tell you truth on people who they murder and massacre?
Anyways, there is the ruby ridge massacre, there is the branch davidian massacre where the US government burned down a compound and murdered over a dozen innocent children.  There is the my lai massacre in vietnam, numerous massacres of innocent people.  And the countless and endless massacres against native americans from pioneer days right up until the end of the 1900s.
 
The reality is when dealing with a large organization there is a thing called plausible deniability.  There are so many people in the organization it become virtually impossible to pin a crime on any one beyond a reasonable doubt.  Even in the case of Hitler, not a single document exist where he specifically orders for the killing of jews in concentration camps.  And many holocaust deniers use this nugget of truth to attempt to say a ha no holocaust never happened.  But that is misleading.  It is also the reason why or part of the reason why when a very large organization does a crime they get off with fines when they should be in jail.

On the issue of GMOS, its not even disputed, when they start putting human genes in fish.  Let me take a step back here.  When I look back in my statement, I see there may have been a vagueness you misinterpreted.  I must remind myself that you have no knowledge of this topic, and it is probably overwhelming, and seems like bullshit to you.  In all honesty, seemed like bullshit to me when I first heard it, until I researched it myself.  That is why I said "look into", because I know your natural reaction as a person who watches main stream media who tells you that flouride is not poisioning you, that you will assume gmos are not bad either.  Not every single disease, but the majority of the ones we see a major increase in like infertility, cancers, alzhemiers, dementia, high blood pressure, autism, downs, etcetera.  Just google, gmos cause cancer.

In fact just google Monsanto Whistle blower, gmos cause disease
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20061119&articleId=3912

It is not my opinion, it comes from numerous scholary articles from professors and scientist way smarter than I am, there is even film on monsanto gmos, and gmos are sprayed with chemicals as well, its not just mixing genes.  and gmos damage human dna as well
"A new study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology proves once again that there really is no safe level of exposure to Monsanto's Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide formula for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). According to the new findings, Roundup, which is applied by the tens of thousands of tons a year all around the world, is still toxic to human DNA even when diluted to a mere 0.02 percent of the dilution amount at which it is currently applied to GM food crops.

Numerous studies have already identified the fact that Roundup causes DNA damage, not to mention endocrine disruption and cancer. But this new study, which originates out of the Medical University of Vienna, is one of the first to illustrate Roundup's toxicity at such drastically diluted levels, which is a direct contradiction of the agri-giant's talking points about the supposed safety of Roundup."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035050_Roundup_Monsanto_DNA.html#ixzz21HNvGOuP

You can even google for just scholarly articles, and have hundreds of published peer reviewed articles documenting the increase in diseases gmos cause.  If you choose not to believe then so be it, but then I will at least know for certain that you are not simply uninformed skeptic (which is not necessarily a bad things to ask questions and ask for proof) but simply someone who just doesn't want to accept the truth because it might compel you to do something and your probably lazy so you don't want to take any action so its easier to just deny and demand evidence and then find ways to say why that evidence is not good enough for you.

Why Russia should stop America in Syria.

Little girly man Medevyev, let the Americans walk all over him in Libya, now that a man with a nut sack is in the Kremlin and its time Russia stand up to the American bankster cartel and say no in Syria.  Russians need to understand that America will destroy all of Russia's allies in the region one by one and setup puppet governments and military bases as they are secretly plotting to attack Russia and China as well.  Not because the Russians have done anything against the Americans but simply because the people who control America are a sect of Eugenicist elites.  America is run by a 2 party dictatorship with false elections where to get nominated by a party you have to be related to King Edward III, every single US president has been related including Obama.  English-American, or Americans of English descent make up no more than 13% of america, yet every single president traces their ancestry to 1 single English King, including Romney who is also related to Obama and Bush.  What are the odds in a country of 300 million people that in the last 3 elections all the major party candidates are related.  That is Kerry and Bush, Obama and McCain, and Obama and Romney or Obomney.  Now this might sound crazy, and when I first heard it, I thought it was crazy as well, of course it sounds crazy because the people running America are a set of not insane, but crazy as in not right minded.  I will expand on this later.

This sounds crazy because the people running America are crazy. They are a group of people who will not allow anyone who cannot trace their lineage to British Royalty (which is Romanian aka Transylvanian in origin -which is why Prince Charles now has castles in Romania and visits there frequently and admits that he is of Transylvania descent)

Now imagine if you had unlimited money.  You would do things that you would not normally do, you would think of grand projects and scale and schemes, and some of them would probably be very stupid.  Just like 90% of families who win the lotterry end up broke by pissing away all their money on silly things, the elite globalist eugenicist are no different.

No the globalist Eugenicist are best typified by Hitler.  Basically there was one set of globalist in Europe and they had a major schemism. Hitler and the facist (although they called themselves socialist) including Mussolini and the Japanese planned to implement world government quickly, take over, kill all untermenschen with impure blood lines and dominate the world under a single global government called the 3rd reich.  The other side is the Socialist (USA, UK, China and Russia).

People talk about the collapse of the soviet union, and sometimes the Socialist globalist elites fight amongst themselves, but the gist of the matter is that the Socialist plan to collapse the world slowly into a world government whereas the Fascist wanted to do it quick.

The globalist Eugenicist run the banks, own the federal reserves which are privately owned banks in Western bloc countries that issue currency in unlimited quantities to its owners off the books.  Now they use the banks and the drug running to finance their activities but they ultimately want a global government where they wipe out all but about 100 million people from the face of the earth.  They plan to create fully automated automatons machines that require no humans.  For example, now you have drones instead of a guy in a plane, now you have most factories in America, having machines building cars where people use to do it, and just  a human to maintain the machine.  Well they want full automation, they want to have a machine that maintains the machine and so on, until no humans are required, and eventually people will be rendered redundant by all machines, and they create a large welfare class on which they will then cut you off and you riot in the streets when you can't buy food, which is why they want a police state too.  So they can kill and shoot you in the streets no questions asked, it is why they want to take away your guns and sign UN small arms treatise.

The globalist Eugenicist are a group of people who invented eugenics, Hitler copied these Eugenicist when creating Nazi German, not vice versa.

So to get back on point, if Russia does not stand up on Syria, the American eugenics leaders are going to murder more people in Syria in the range of 100-500k like in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But they will also build nuclear weapons bases in Syria to launch weapons into Russia and China.  We are in  WW3, the allied Eugenicist (US, UK, FRANCE) and its arab allies (QATAR, SAUDIS).  America is slowly conquering all the arab states and setting up puppet governments.  Hitler would invade them all quickly.  But recall the Socialist prefer slow set up of world government.  They are not going to kill people in masse fema camps yet, they are going to slow kill you with slow kill vaccines, slow kill gmo, slow kill diseases, that are designed to activate when you retire as your hormone levels drop.  How else do you explain that in the time of George Washington people who lived passed 18, and did not get any major disease, basically lived longer than people today.  People didn't get cancer, alzeiheimer, dementia, heart conditions, strokes, heart attacks and all kinds of other illnesses that were rather rare.  In fact of the first 5 US presidents the average life expectancy or age was well over 85, and they smoke and drunk alcohol and had stressful lives as they all fought in a reovlutionary war and they all drunk like Russians as back then that was the only available source of clean water was in alcohol because it was distilled.

Ancestral tree

Spaniards not white and Portuguese not white

Have a look at these videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeacA53r5SU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLiWjKPcAAs

Spaniards are often blacker than arabs and berbers and even many blacks.  There is no way they are 91% white.  Only the elites are whites and they have different origins than.  i WOULD NOT consider brown people of any region to be white.  Sure the Celts were in Spain but they seemed to be replaced by browns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vmAQAGRz2k&feature=related

When you break down spain’s history it just presents moor problems.

1.       King Taharka of Nubia’s invasion in Spain in 690 BC, documented

2.       Carthagian occupation of Spain in the BC

3.       Rome retakes Spain by hiring Numidian (African) warriors (several times because of punic wars)

4.       Phoenicians conquering Spain

5.       Moorish invasion and occupation of Spain for 700 years

6.       Even if the original indigenous people of Spain are white, despite findings like grimaldi man (black man found in Spain dating back 20k years) which suggest otherwise.  All the invasions by Africans and arabs would mean heavy admixture

7.       Spainish as a whole bare little resemblance to the Celts, the Celts in North Europe do not even recognize Spain as a Celtic nation.

8.       Many white skin spainards have non-white (Asiatic or African) features as in dark black thick hair, brown skin, flat or round nose, slanted eyes.  If Spaniards are truly just tanned skinned whites, why is it that people from Rome and central Italy maintain white skin.  No one is going to argue that people outside of southern Italy (which has bonified African and Arabic descendents) are not white for the mere fact that minus southern Italians who are of different ancestry most Italians look white.  Most Spaniards do not look white, in fact Spain is more like a brown country with a ruling white skinned class.  No different than any country in latin America or the Arab world.

9.       The Spanish royalty has confirmed African ancestry in it.  Queen Charlotte of England who is often drawn with African features had her ancestry traced back by Genelogist who traced her ancestry to Madragana MOOR Afonso a colored mistress to Afonso the 3^rd of Portugal and to Margarita de Castro y Souza of Spain. This is highly relevant because Portugual was PART OF SPAIN until 1179. Madragana was born in 1230.  That is very early in these countries histories, they already had non-whites in their leadership and as elites in society.  This poses a big problem for the white Spaniard idea.  Duarte Nunes de Leão, a Portuguese royal chronicler of the 16th century, stated that Madragana was a Moor.


Check out this link for more info
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/royalfamily.html

American woman are over entitled

No matter what they will never find a man who satisfies them, and even when they do they will find something wrong with him and reasons to abuse and mistreat them.  American woman are only attracted to men with border line psychotic behaviour, a good and decent normal man, simply cannot attract women, she will always find a way to go back to trash.

"Deadbeat dad" flees to Philippines leaving four kids without support

According to a recent Toronto Star Article, Hans Mills, or the now infamous so called "dead beat dad" is a man with heart of black coals, who abandoned his four little children to go bang pinoy whores in a big ole whore house down in the Philippines leaving his poor four kids without any support.  Further leaving his wife also without any support.  Obviously the story was written by a bias misandronist (man hater brain washed feminist), so lemme break this story for you down piece by piece.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1220096--deadbeat-dad-flees-to-philippines-leaving-four-kids-without-support

To make the long story short.  The man made somewhere above 100k per year, they owned a home worth $1.2 million, with $600k in equity (if the home was sold, this is how much the seller would get in hand before deductions for various expenses like realtor fees, lawyer fees, etcetera.  Further the house had a rental unit on the property that would earn $2000 a month for the family.

Of his 4 kids, 1is a heroin junkie but a legal adult (over 18 in Ontario), the other suffers from depressions (Which almost many Western women will suffer at some point and is a very murky disease because it is unclear from the article if this is a clinical depression or just the kid who is 17 feels depressed.  Mind you 17 is pretty damn close to being an adult.  So what you have really are 2 minors.   A 14 y/o with down syndrome and 10 y/o - who had cancer but appears to be in remission.  Originally, they seemed to have a private deal worked out that seemed a bit in favour of the women, but nonetheless fair as in maybe 53-47.  not a total loss for either party.  The man sold his 300k share to his wife in the $1.2 million house for near half price 175k.  This means if she sold the house she would realize a net gain of 425k, instead of the 300k that she should be entitled to assuming equal splitting of assets.  At this point still slanted to the women, but not grossly unfair.  Since she would get the kids, one could reasonably argue that she should have a larger equity due to that or some argument to that extent.

Well it turns out Ms. Mills, didn't want to work, and 425k in equity and a $2000 stream of rental income and  $2000  a month in child support wasn't enough.  she wanted more, more, more, more.  Essentially the man had given up his share of equity in the house and rental income inexchange for not having to pay alimony.  Seems fair enough, was stated in the contract.  Well turns out the wife claims she never read nor understood the contract and that it meant she'd give up alimony claim.

Well they end up in court and the genius judge decides that he will grant the wife a temporary order for spousal support in the amount of $2k a month, in addition to the 2k a month he already pays in child support.
Further Hans had to pay retroactive payments dating back to the original divorce back in 2005 up until 2012. I am a finance major.  And quick mental math (yes I can do exponents and interest in my head) and with compounding, the 2k per month, over the 7 years it was an order to pay about 317k just on back support.  Then there would be court cost that he was ordered to pay.  Meaning about 50k, for each side.

At that rate, from the new temp order he was already 417k in the hole thanks to the new order from the judge.  And that doesn't count the new 4k per months in payments he must make.

Now using finance I could estimate that he earns between 100k on the low end but closer to 130k on the high end, because back when he bought his house roughly 15 years ago, he'd probably with liar loans have about that income.  It could be as high as 200k, but more realistically 100-130k.

Now none of these payments are tax deductible.  So Even if he earns 150k.  He'd be 417k in debt, he'd have to pay 4k a month in child and alimony, and that doesn't even factor in how much the government would demand he repay the 417k.  It'd basically be a 2nd mortgage and come out to around another 2k per month.  Meaning Hans Mills, who is 53 would have to pay 2k a month just to cover back payments even when he is in his mid 70s.That is he'd likely work to the day he died if he did not want to go to jail.  And that's the other kicker.  If he falls behind too much on his child support or alimony who goes to jail.  Even if he earns 12.5k a month or 150k a year lets look at how that breaks down.

Neither child support of alimony is a tax deduction in Canada or Ontario.
With an average tax rate of about 33%, he'd only take home 99k AFTER income taxes. And he'd lose another 4% of his income to things like EI, it'd be like 93k.

Now deduct 4k in payments + 2k in back payments thanks to the temp order, and you have him paying 6k a month.  So he is paying out 72k per month.

93k-72k = 21k

Now Hans Mills is 53, he lives in the GTA, if he moves out of the gta, he will default on his loans because these kinds of salaries are basically non existent except for in trades for people in Alberta and you cannot just walk in as a 53 y/o into Fort Mac and have 150k rolled out infront of you.

So Hans Mills following the court system would basically bankrupt him.  He;d be able to have no car, so basically be difficult or impossible to work as a consultant as travel is required for his job.  Making less than 2k a month, he won't be able to afford insurance, in GTA never mind a car or gas or repairs.  He'd be lucky to find rent for $1100 a month in Toronto.  and even in the worst of ghetto in Toronto a house/apartment doesn't rent for below that unless it is government subsidized.  O  you make 150k, good luck getting into government housing.  So it'd be a miracle if he were not homeless never mind just being poor and living in the ghetto.  Canada is not like America, even our "ghetto" workers and neighbourhoods have economic mobility.  That is higher min wages mean higher rents, there are no such things as 10k houses in major cities the size of Detroit or Miami in Canada just because they a crime ridden.  Nowhere in Canada is that crime ridden.

Now here is the real kicker, once the obvious fact that to not be homeless, to work, and to eat are taken into account, Mr. Hans Mills, would end up in a position where he is either forced to evade taxes, or forced to not pay child support, either which will continually land him in prison in Canada.  So essentially he is a refugee of Canada's misandrognist justice system.  Some might say fuck him, let him be homeless so his wife can live in a $1.2 million home, and his heroin head junkie son can get his money.  I think dad's should support their kids, but is that really justice, that a dad sleep on the street so that a mother who refuses to work or sell her $1.2 million house can live in an enormous house and collect 6k a month from him in addition to another 2k a month from the government for disability. Maybe she should downgrade her expectations.

So Hans Mills, is he truly a deadbeat.  Well if being a deadbeat means not wanting to work into your 70s and likely your death, to enrich a lazy wife, with no future or prospect in life, no chance of owning a car, home, no chance of moving beyond the deepest of ghetto, likely would end up in prison and jail for much of his life, and old dudes don't do well in prison.  Then I guess he is a deadbeat 10 fold.  But in reality, he isn't a deadbeat, he only opposes paying the outrageous amounts the courts awarded to his wife that would guarantee ruin him.

Then there is the whole issue of the wife greed, she knew that he intended to leave Canada, if such a thing occured, so much so she called up the government and told them to freeze Hans Mills passport and stop him from leaving the country (a violation of his constitutional right to freely leave and enter the country-section 6 of the Canadian Constitution aka mobility rights ).

Hans is not a winner in this case, there is no real winner except the ex-wife- perhaps- and his kids when they reach adulthood, they will understand why he did what he did, for the simple reason that odds are 1 in 4 of them will probably at somepoint have a divorce or experience turbulent relationship.

However this deal with broader issues of bias Canadian courts, and all Canadian men should have a 2nd citizenship, preferably from a country that neither extradites its own citizens nor

Brazilian Girls... sigh

Brazil, once known as a land of hot and exotic women is slowly becoming amercanized.  And by that I mean increasingly, you no longer just see an old man with a big gut in a speedo, but you see a fat chick with a big gut in a speedo, thinking she is all that.

Sorry Brazil, you are no longer number 1 in the Western Hemisphere, yes there may be a thin hot girl under all that fat, but that's what they all say.

Colombia is now numero uno, Ironically, and this is for men who likes Milfs, Colombian milfs seem to be the hottest of any kind of milfs out there.

Marco Jaric and Adrianna Lima

 Marko Jaric and Adiranna Lima, O hell no

Jaric is not as good looking or rich. In fact I'd bet Lima is probably richer than him. Jaric is not only a terrible basketball player, but when you put his name in google the first search option that comes up is marko jaric ugly! I can;t figure out why she'd go for that guy, clearly there are NBA players with more $ and bigger ding dongs or more fame
http://www.datingish.com/750046560/love-...ctiveness/


I am by no means alone on this one. the only thing I figure is she has a low self esteem and wanted to make sure she married a guy who'd never cheat on her and would kiss her butt (kinda like mariah carey and mr. nick carey - but even nick is not so ugly). This would be like flava flav marrying Angelina Jolie or Prince marrying that girl from Precious.

This supports my theory of very hot rich females wanting beta men with lots of $$$

In fact Marko Jaric is so ugly the first thing that comes up when you type his name in google is ugly... go on type it in

Norwegian girls

I can't speak of everywhere just the places I been.
The easiest women statistically are Norwegian girls, and I had no problem lizard slaying their. I found swedes more attractive though, and they are a bit more aggressive in flirting than Norwegian girls. Norwegians girls expect you to do the approach more than a french or italian girl who if they are into you will try to start a conversation where a norwegian girl would just stare you down. Ukranian girls are also easy. Been to britain but never tried to pick up girls there because I never saw anything I like but it didn't seem worst than toronto. Some seem a bit rude, but some polish girls were a bit flirty with me. Where else... irish girls seemed to be very friendly, and they are easy to bed. Finnish girls are also easy and mexican girls can't get enough. Philipinos and greeks also easy. Actually come to think of it, after living in Toronto for over 20 years, just about any type of girl seems easy. American girls are more outgoing and not stuck into the toronto clique system.

I must disclose I'm a good looking black guy, as in nice facial features, in fact I get told I look like I belong on a magazine or a tv or something, so my experiences with women may be above average (which is ironic because when it comes to toronto thats not the case, its probably below average outside of school). I have yet to hit up any liz liz from girls outside of school or outside of the country. that is if I did travel outside Canada and if I did not take those psychology courses in university/high school (and minus sex in elementary school) that had like 90% girls, then I'd probably still be a virgin. IE. If I moved here as a 20 y/o I dont think I'd get any girls. when it comes to toronto, it is very hard to be a man, below average women get hot dogs thrown at them all the time because of how few non fat/ugly/frumpy women their are. What is really like a 3-4 probably has a line of men waiting to date her at any given time, and you;d be hard pressed to find anything above a 4.5-5 out of 10 in toronto. Breast implants are rare and those carrie prejean or denise richards or beyonce type girls are basically non-existant in canada as far as I've seen.

I can't say there is a hardest country in europe to pull in, because compared to toronto where you are assumed to be an axe killer/serial rapist(because of historical reasons I document below), where men outnumber women by 15-20%, where women are given free access to clubs just because of how few of them go to clubs compared to men and men are routinely screened out for bs. If I had to pick one, I'd pick britain, just because I never got any physical ve jay jay there.

I'd recommend for any decent looking black guy to go to sweden so he can also experience what it is like to drown in Vj jay, complete hotties drool over black men there it is quite comical, I now know what it is like to be a white man in asia or latin america LOL.

As to why toronto women have such negative opinions of men. It comes down to the fact that toronto people are largely immigrants from ww1 and ww2 and other 20th century wars (Germans, Poles, Italians, Ukranians, Russians, Chinese, Koreans, etc.) Many of the women during this time were raped and even the ones who were not raped have the fear of men raping them engrained into their mind. (think rape of nanjing or how russian army allegedly raped 100,000 women in the day they conquered berlin). Long story short the girls/women of today have parents and grandparents who were most likely raped and therefore are distrustful of men. The best proof of this is the most open sexually women are the irish canadian white women who did not have this experience (ie toronto has been 90% irish 10 years after it was founded or so). some have speculated toronto women are cold because of some puritan roots(english). This is a misnomer, because the Irish according to historians made up 90% of the population by the 1850s (toronto founded in 1830s). further Before toronto even existed as a formal city it was called york at which point american loyalist outnumbered british canadians by 10 to 1 (much like americans in texas when it was in mexico). And it ended in a similar fashion except the british won (see upper canada rebellion) because america did not want a full war at that time.

Also Toronto women are highly feminazi, and have a princess complex. Yes all women have this, and understand american women have this too but it is nothing like the ones from toronto. Not every single toronto women has this, but if she is not, she probably has a dozen male friends all lining up to date her even if she is not attractive at all (I've seen it). to have a gf here it requires a certain level of self degradation and willing to deal with BS that I care not for anymore. The only women worth going for here is one who usually comes to you or will make it very easy for you to pick her up(ie she is obviously checking you out). and in my experience those have generally been east/south european immigrant girls anyways. You don't want to date those british english Canadian girls they will make you do all the work in the relationship even if you are successful.

Anyways, thats my rant.

Why Russia is not corrupt

Commonly the Western Media labels Russia as corrupt, because countries like Russia send corrupt businessmen to jail for engaging in fraud.  However, countries in the first world tend to let big time fraudsters walk free, while arresting the guy who did a $15 fraud and giving him the tough on crime sentence of 15 years of hard prison.  Then truth is the entire Western economies are based off fraud, which is why whenever  these frauds are common knowledge you get a collapse.  Whether it is the mortgage bubble or the high tech bubble or the derivatives bubble, all of these speculative bubbles which drive "growth" really are just sophisticated frauds created by the mega banks in the West to give the illusion of growth.  When you take out all the bubbles and frauds the west has nothing left.  When Russia sentences the business crooks to jail, they are labelled as corrupt banana republics with lack of fair trails. But when Western con artist banks defraud people, no  one decries the corrupt prosecutors and corrupt governments who refuse to prosecute them.

Why Iranians are not white.

I have served in the military and I have been to Afghanistan.  While numerous Afghans have traits like red hair or even freckles, they are the minority, and Afghanistan is at the cross roads of central Asia conquered by numerous countries and races.  Hence nothing about that is unusual but they are not white and neither are most Persians.

1. Afghanistan is not in Europe, nor are they on a whole of European descent or even near majority of European descent.  In short, Afghans would not pass the obvious visual test for being a European Caucasian.  While being from outside of Europe doesn't ensure one is not white (ie. whites in South Africa are whites as are whites who have european ancestry in other parts of the world.)  Even Afghans who possess common European traits like blue eyes or red hair are visibly very different looking.  No one is going to mistake Hammid Karzai for being anglo saxon.

2.  50% of Afghanistan or about 14 million Afghans are Persians.  Persians are basically elite Afghans (Pashtos - who are also present in Pakistan) who came to Iran to be in the centre of the middle east and have access to the Persian gulf. Iran is about 35% Persian and almost all Iranians in the West are Persians and not Azeris who are the majority and also non whites.  No one would mistake nor consider neither Pakis nor Afghanis to be whites in fact almost all Pakis considered themselves part of the brown race like Indians and Bangladesh.  So it is unclear why once they cross over into Iran they'd become white.

3. Iran is a fundamentally central asian country surrounded by Central Asians nations.  The closest to white people in all of Iran are Azeris.  Google Ayatollah Kohmeni, the grand ayatollah of Iran, and you will see why it is simply not possible than any of these people are white.  Iraq, Turkey, Afghans, Pakis, Turkmenistan, Azerbajans, none considered to be white.  No European person would consider even for a second a turk anything less than a muslim, and definetly not white (unlike white muslims in former yugoslavia).

War in Iran, how it could unfold

The Iranians are easily the most clever of all the Islamic countries. Time after time the Iranians politically out manuever their US political counterparts. The US may be highly surprised by any attempt to attack Iran. Iran is not Libya or Iraq. Iran is larger than Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria combined. Iran has material support from Russia and China and is allies with Iraq (both shiite Islam), Syria, Lebanon Afghanistan (50% of Afghanistan is Persian, the second largest ethnicity in Iran). Basically a U.S. invasion of Iran would be WW3. Even without Russia or China (who both have secretive interest in the US LOSING - TO DETHROWN us as world power and prevent US from getting missile bases next door). Ie. Russians have incentive for US to lose Iran for the same reason they put nukes in Cuba, nukes in Turkey bother them as would nukes in Iran. And both are Iranian allies.

Iran has 110,000 rockets by Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon aimed at Israel. You saw how it crippled Israel in their last war with Lebanon, all their technology was not enough to stop a few well hidden people shooting a few hundred unguided rockets. Now throw in the conventional weapons of Iraq and Syria who all have incentives to see Israel lose, and who knows how them muslim brotherhoods in Libya and Egypt will react to Israel slaughter thousands of muslims. Iran has conventional guided weapons to destroy Israel, but all the other countries could do the hard work for them. Any attempted invasion of Iran or strikes by Israel would basically force it to declare war on Iraq. 

Iran has a population the size of roughly imperial Japan with far larger and more treacherous terrain. Iran is basically a giant mountain, whose capital sits with its back to Russia (eliminating any easy attack on the capital. In fact Iran was basically founded by Afghan Pashtun elites who moved westward to gain access to the Persian gulf and be able to better protect their capital from invasions. In WW2, US lost 100k people and had 250k wounded by end of battle of the pacific. Further Iran possess a missile stockpile that simply did not exist at the time of WW2. It is basically possible to wipe out an entire naval fleet or military base with a single missile. My professor taught me in military college that battles of the bulge and conventional warfare was essentially dead, ever since the 1970's where a single tank shell or missile can blow up mid air and fragment in to a million piece each faster than the speed of sound. That is a single missile can destroy a ship and its anti missile weapons are useless to defend against a million quarter inch projectiles.

Any talk of nuking Iran, who shares a border with Russia, and several US allies is just fantasy. Not that the US could not physically do it, but sending soldiers into a country that was just nuked would be suicide for the soldiers. Not to mention nukes behave in unpredictable ways and the fallout tends to spread by the wind. Meaning the fallout could blow into neighbouring Russia, China, Pakistan, India (all nuclear powers) or blow onto US bases or allies in neighbouring Turkey, Qatar, Dubai, etc.

Then there is the Pakistan factor. Pakistan could close of its route to US troops and basically US soldiers could find themselves quickly stranded in the continent of Asia, surrounded by mountains with no easy escape routes and several massive armies closing in on them. And its not a could, more like will, as Pakistan has vowed to defend Iran in the event of a US invasion.

Even if the US wins, it will be a hollow victory, there will be a minimum 300k us troops killed, Israel will be destroyed, and oil prices will be through the roof, and China will be the winner as all the debt from the war will put America on its knees, and China will take the opportunity to freeze credit to America to give it the kiss of death and make China the strongest economy in the world.


The horrible truth will be for America, we gain nothing from invading Iran, they lose nothing from an invasion. Because once we leave they just hate America again and build nukes anyways and Israel really will be wiped off the map, and of course they will demand more money from us, meaning hire taxes for Americans to rebuild foreigners.

Iran actually has a highly advanced conventional army, with jet planes, advanced ships, anti air craft weaponry, radar. This isn't Afghanistan, its not Iraq, the army is going to fight. Not to mention a very large army and numerous powerful allies. The US could quickly find itself up the creek and paddle less. With all its bases closed down in Afghanistan, Pakistan and turkmenistan (russia biggest ally and a friendly to Iran and would likely close its bases to avoid being invaded by a much stronger Iran). In fact the US soldiers may just end up being slaughtered on their bases which may act like death traps rather than camps. US soldiers may be forced onto bases by militaries who do not want to see Iran bomb their country.

The war can be further complicated if young kim jong un takes the opportunity to invade south korea since US is bogged down in war with Iran. US has never even invaded a country with nuclear power, in general US invades small banana republics like Panama or Grenada. Even the invasion of Cuba failed after it was discovered Castro might still have nuclear capabilities as it was unclear if it was Castro or the USSR in control of nukes in Cuba and millions of Americans could have died. Iran has missile capabilities that can reach well into the Indian ocean and blow out US ships before they even get close enough to to shoot at Iran. 

In the end I think America would win, but most likely a draft would be required, and US would be crippled economically by the war and it'd drag on for at least a year in the best case scenario. Not to mention the thousands of guerillas fighters who'd make Iraq look like Greenwhich, CT. You people thinking we can just parking lot Iran are on fantasy island


The fact that I show the truth about what a war with Iran would look like and how it would be a disaster for America, and how the Chinese and Russians and globalist would be laughing to the bank while Americans spends its money on weapons and sends its kids to go die in another worthless achieve nothing war is a joke. All you warmongers, what do you have to show for all your wars since ww2, nothing, all it does is make America #1, #1 at being the worst in everything, worst in education because they need dumb people to fight their stupid wars that mean nothing, #1 in stupidity and laziness, #1 in tv brainwashing, #1 in sitting on the counch playing video games, #1 in can't read and write your own damn language while people in the rest of the world learn 3-4. #1 in not being able to add. Iran will just be one more war where trillions of your tax dollars will be spent to kill overseas, while your roads are still congested, your bills go hire, you can't find no job, your gas goes up, tuition goes up, all prices go up and your income goes down. If our leaders were any good, they'd go bomb China or Europe because they are our competitors and maybe we'd at least be able to take their money and get a few jobs back in America.

Fast and Furious, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, the real story and your 2nd Amendment

Long story short the ATF a U.S. law enforcement agency has  sold  guns to Mexican drug lords in an effort, to take away your 2nd Amendment.

Now the globalist liberal media is coming to defend this and calling it a "conspiracy theory".  Well I guess millions of Americans are conspiracy theorist because they are out buying guns thinking that Obama is going to take away their guns.  Well no, it is not a conspiracy theory, it is fact.  You give me a reasonable explanation as to why the US government is selling machine guns that are used to murder policemen in America.  What possible reason could the US government have to sell guns to Mexican drug lords accept to destroy the 2nd Amendment.  Are we suppose to believe that the ATF who are experts in tracking down guns, in making sure guns do not walk (getting out of sight of the officers) just sold thousands of guns and forgot to track them.  No, even a 5 year old knows better.  That is the cover story for the true and deeper story.  That they would sell guns to Mexican gangs, those guns would be used to kill Americans, then they'd turn around and blame American legal gun owners for selling guns through trade shows to Mexican illegals.  And that we need to ban all guns because legally purchased guns are being sold to Mexican drug lords in masse.  That makes far more sense than anything coming out of the white house

Declaring War upon all Monkeys

My fellow man kind, it is clear to me there is a system of organized human attacks being done by cute chimpanzees

These monkeys have recently ate the face of Texas Graduate student in south africa.  By the powers vested in me by the world wide web, I am declaring war on the Killer Chimpanzees who are clearly plotting to take over man kind.  First they put one in the white house and now they are eating our faces off, whats next, enslavement of our entire race.  Its time we stand up against these killer chimps.  You could be next.

Anderson Cooper is gay!

Well its seems like the Silver Fox who got his but beat in Libya has finally outed himself from the closest.  No surprise there, all he ever did was cover stories of little gay bullied children meanwhile he would pick on a little 16 year old girl named Courtney Stodden or some shit like that.  seriously, like an 80 year old man using his television show to bully a 16 y/o chick, Anderson Pooper, you suck not because you are gay, but because you're a bias reporter and a douche bag.  You pretend to be an objective reporter when in fact you are as bias as hell.  One thing the Conservatives got right is that those liberals at CNN are all a bunch of bias queers.

World Cup

Spain wins world cup against Italy, beating the Italian 4-0 and I could not be happier, nothing was more annoying than all those Italian fans waving their annoying flags all around the neighbourhood.

Welcome to Hernanday's blogspot, here you can gain insight about everything Hernanday.  I discuss anything that is of interest to me, from pop culture, to nooclear physics, to politics.