The Business of War

We are now moving into the 10th year of the ill-defined, no-end-in-sight "war on terror."

Never forget that War is a Racket....a very lucrative and profitable one at that as well.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

This is why we fight..

Here is an abbreviated run down of the top 10 corporations making out like bandits in the Iraq war...don't forget, all the numbers in red are basically paid for with U.S. tax dollars:

Halliburton: Halliburton’s KBR, Inc. division bilked government agencies to the tune of $17.2 billion in Iraq war-related revenue from 2003-2006 alone.

Veritas Capital Fund/DynCorp: At first blush, a private equity fund (and not, say, Exxon-Mobil) being the number 2 profiteer in the Iraq war might sound strange. However, the cleverly run fund has raked in $1.44 billion through its DynCorp subsidiary.

The Washington Group International: [6] has parlayed its expertise the repair, restore, and maintenance of high-output oil fields into $931 million in Iraq-related revenue from 2003-2006.

Environmental Chemical: The privately held Burlingame, California company has stockpiled $878 million by the end of fiscal 2006 for munitions disposal, calling upon its “decade of experience planning and conducting UXO removal, investigation, and certification activities.”

Aegis: UK company with a Pentagon contract to coordinate all of Iraq’s private security operations [10]. The Pentagon contract is good for $430 million.

International American Products: Running electrical wiring in hostile war zones is dicey business, but International American Products [12] has stuck their neck out and collected a cool $759 million in just 3 years for its efforts.

Erinys: In the space of just 16 months, Erinys successfully trained, equipped, and mobilized an all-Iraqi guard force of nearly 20,000 to protect the nation’s oil pipeline from terrorist attack or sabotage. They scored $136 million for its effort.

Fluor: Scored a monster $1.1 billion contract  in 2004 to build, service, and manage water/sewage systems in Iraq.

Perini: Controlled by financier Richard Blum, is one of the more controversial companies to have scored big-time Iraq war money. That’s because Blum’s wife, Senator Dianne Feinstein, appears to have used her seat on the Military Construction Appropriations sub-comittee to steer the $650 million environmental cleanup deal in his favor.

URS Corporation: Long known as one of the nation’s major defense contractors, San Francisco-based URS has collected $792 million in environmental cleanup fees in Iraq war zones. As with Perini, both Blum and Feinstein have come under intense scrutiny to answer questions about the apparent conflict of interest inherent in Feinstein helping to secure such an exorbitant government contract for her investment banker husband.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower was right.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

A Clarification on Game

A long time denizen of the comment sections of the MRA Blogosphere, Deansdale, finally decided to start his own blog. He's s been a regular commenter at many of the usual hangouts for us masculinist-minded folks - Roissy's Chauteau, Seasons of Tumult & Discord, The Spearhead et al...and has frequently commented here as well. His comments have always been well-thought out and insightful, so it's good to see him finally start wielding his keyboard for his own space on the internet. Welcome to the party, D! Hope you stick with it.

His first substantive post is a good one: My Clarification on Game and it's Sceptics

Game is a box of tools, with manuals on when and how to use them. Actually it can not “not work”. It can be misused in a number of ways but that’s the user’s fault. If you’re an apprentice in – let’s say – blacksmithing, and you know only how to operate the bellows, your success as a blacksmith will be very limited. If someone gives you a hammer and tells you how to use it then it’s up to you how you manage, but simply saying that the hammer “does not work” is foolish.

Great analogy...one for which I'd like to expand on a little: seems to me that a lot of the criticism of "GAME" comes from people who look at the majority of it's proponents - the PUA - and say that it's bad. To use Deansdale's analogy, a hammer can be used for more than just pounding nails, no?

Same thing with this tool we call "game."

Understanding what women find attractive has so many more applications than simply trying to seduce hotties into bed. See what happens when you "run game" on a waitress, or a bartender, or some other woman you interact with for which you have no romantic or sexual interest in. I'm talking about playful negging (cocky and funny), DHV's, comfort and rapport building, acting confidently and assertively, etc. while dealing with ANY women...including relatives.

Even women who are not interested in you in a sexual way will still eat it up, and you'll find that this "tool" of Game will serve as a social lubricant that can get you a freebie dessert from an amused waitress, or perhaps some banter with a receptionist might find her able to "slide you in" an overbooked schedule...or a female bartender might give you a drink "on the house." Furthermore, if you do this in front of a women you actually do want to seduce, you will also increase her own attraction for you as well, as it will validate to her that you are authentic, and not just putting up a front to get into her panties. As I've said before, understanding the concept of game is life changing, not just sex-life changing.

You see, just as a woman with a pretty face, a great rack and a plump ass finds such favors are regularly given her simply by men who find her physical appearance easy on the eyes...

...so too do women react to men who use the tools of "game" in a no-sexual-intentions sort of way.

As for the rest of his initial post, Deansdale lists various categories for the various skeptics and detractors of game that he's encountered in his time as a regular blog commenter.

1. The ones who are repulsed by the idea of it or say it’s “immoral”.
2. The ones who read a few sentences and decide it’s BS.
3. Those who say there’s no need for game.
4. Those who say game can’t be learned.
5. Those who say it’s “manipulation”.
6. Those who tried game and say it does not work.
7. Those who say that game is abuse, coercion, rape.

He's gives some pretty good details for each category...feel free to drop on by and give him some comments...after all, if you're a Masculinist-Blogosphere Blogger, he's been doing it for years now at your blog!

The Manginas at Amnesty International

Dr. Stephen Baskerville has been one of the preeminent men's rights activist actively working for years now. I've cited his works previously on this blog several times in the past.

He recently published a new article called Human Rights or Wrongs? calling out Amnesty International for caving in to Swedish Feminists demands that a movie regarding the unfairness of Swedish family courts in dealing with Father's be removed from the competition and dropped from Amnesty International's website completely.

Amnesty sponsored a film competition, but when some finalists produced a film that angered feminists, the film was pulled from Amnesty’s YouTube site. Amnesty denies that pressure from an Uppsala women’s shelter was responsible for suppressing the film, but the shelter itself is gloating about its political clout.

The film, created by four high school students and titled, The Right To Be a Father, is a powerful depiction of how children are taken from their fathers by Sweden’s feminist family courts. Separating children from their fathers is not only a bedrock principle of the war against "patriarchy," but also the bread-and-butter of the lucrative child custody industry, so it is not surprising that the sisterhood would come down hard on the heresy that feminists violate human rights.

The film was nominated for the final stage of the competition. Amnesty posted it on YouTube, and the creators were invited to the film gala in Gothenburg. "But our film was never shown at the festival, and the day after it also disappeared from Amnesty's YouTube channel," says Sara Sivesson, one of the creators. Further, the students claim they obtained an email from the Uppsala feminists bragging, "Thanks to the protests Amnesty did not show the film at the festival and they also dropped it from their website."

Here's the short, 8 minute documentary the Feminists where able to badger the mangina's at Amnesty International to remove from their competition -



Baskerville than expands his indictment of AI in highlighting the way in which they re-define "domestic violence" as a form of torture to allow authoritarian and totalitarian action by Governments.

In domestic violence cases there is seldom a trial, almost never a jury, and no one is ever acquitted. One study published in Criminology and Public Policy found that everyone arrested for domestic violence receives some punishment. Special "domestic violence courts" now exist for the express purpose of processing more convictions.

It is based on this presumption of guilt that Amnesty can claim that in the US "a woman is battered every 15 seconds." Amnesty provides no documentation for this preposterous figure, because none exists. We also learn that "Amnesty International considers domestic violence a form of torture," demonstrating an Orwellian willingness to redefine words and cheapening their own campaign against real torture.

Amnesty is quite clear that it is stretching the meaning of "human rights" into a backdoor penal instrument. "A human rights framework…enables Amnesty International to use international human rights standards and laws…to hold governments accountable if they fail to meet their obligations to protect women." In other words, far from limiting government reach and repression, Amnesty is working to expand them.

If you were/are a supporter that gives donations to Amnesty International, you may want to re-think you're support for this organization of mangina feminist lackeys.