Questions from a member on IM

[PeterAndrewNolan]

Gents,
An IM came to me on this site asking me the following questions.

Mr Nolan, I have a few questions to ask before I register at your "Crimes Against Fathers" website.

* You seem to consider that upon marriage the wife actually becomes the husbands property. Is that correct?

* I have been told that you consider it a husbands right to actually kill his wife and kids. Is that true?

* You seem to believe that if a woman wants to leave a marriage that she cannot do so without the husband's permission. Is this true?

* Why do you think a husband of a failed marriage shouldn't pay child support?

Thank You

What I would like to do with this is to address the overall issues and then the individual questions.

The overall issue is that the vast majority of men have been dumbed down to the level barely above rocks. These questions are “you seem to considerâ€￾ and “I have been toldâ€￾. This is despite I have released a BOOK on the topic of what is being proposed. Here is the copy of that book. Given the book is in writing and I was merely the “typistâ€￾ for the book there can be no question as to what the proposal for the future of the English speaking world is. And men here should be in no doubt that what the book is is the proposal for the future of mankind, those who go forward.

http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com/ ... fault.aspx

A man can not make anything any clearer than to put it in writing. I have also released a 1 hour 45 minute video of the book. There can be no question what I have said and have not said. What I have said is in writing and on video. I have very few conversations that are not in a persistent media.

So I recommend men read what I have written and NOT listen to OTHER PEOPLES comments about what they SAY I have written. There are endless numbers of women and manginas who mis-interpret or mis-repesent what I have said.

Now..to the questions.

* You seem to consider that upon marriage the wife actually becomes the husbands property. Is that correct?

The book makes it VERY clear what is proposed. The woman has a CHOICE as to her lawful status. No man gets this CHOICE. Men are to be considered “all men are equal before the lawâ€￾. However, women are to be offered the CHOICE to be equal before the law or to be chattel property of a man. Here are the two affidavits that are TEMPLATES for the woman to complete.

http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com/ ... fault.aspx

http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com/ ... fault.aspx

Now. Given that the book CLEARLY states that women are to be given a CHOICE as to whether to be equal before the law or chattel property it can in no way be said that I “seem to consider that upon marriage the wife becomes chattel propertyâ€￾.

The only thing that can be said is that “I am clearly stating that the woman decide her lawful statusâ€￾. Period. No one else can decide a womans lawful status other than the woman. On attaining the age of majority, usually considered 18 but it does vary in different cultures, she is a sovereign. As a sovereign she gets to decide her lawful status. It is called “equalityâ€￾. It is a new concept that women are not going to like at all.


* I have been told that you consider it a husbands right to actually kill his wife and kids. Is that true?

No that is NOT true. If the woman chooses to be chattel property and if on her marriage agreement she requires her husband to be willing to sacrifice HIS life for the benefit of the “wife and childrenâ€￾ THEN what is she going to put on the table? Is she going to demand that the man put on the table HIS LIFE without her putting on the table HER LIFE?

The book makes it CLEAR that the marriage agreement is written by the MAN and the WOMAN so that they both define what they are putting on the table. Here is an example.

http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com/ ... fault.aspx

So…with respect to the wife. If the wife DEMANDS that the man must offer the OBLIGATION to, say, go to war to protect her and the children, then SURELY the woman must ALSO put on the table that if the man deems that it is necessary to take her life then he has the right to do so. For a woman to DEMAND that a man put his life on the able for HER BENEFIT and to deny putting HER LIFE on the table is hypocrisy. Now. If the woman is not willing to put HER LIFE on the table then the man is well advised to say that he is not willing to put HIS LIFE on the table.

Lawful equality. Get used to it.

When it comes to children? There is an old Bill Cosby joke to his children “I brought you in to this world and I can take you out of itâ€￾. Did Bill Cosby promote murder of children? Of course not.

Just by the way? Hundreds of MILLIONS of people do now support murder of children. It is called abortion just in case you have not heard of it. Ask any woman. She will very likely tell you it is her RIGHT to kill her unborn child. Try it out. See how many women you can find who promote child murder. There has been a real holocaust called abortion. 2 BILLION and counting to date. I, personally, changed my view on abortion in the instant I saw the heartbeat of my first unborn child. I had swallowed the lie about “unborn babies are not really people and so can be abortedâ€￾. Sorry. When you see your childs heartbeat? You realise that this is a living being and killing it is wrong. Simply wrong. So, no, I do not promote or support child murder.

Now. There is the question of raising children who are able to contribute to their social group…or, at worst, not destroy their social group.

My position as a former FATHER is that it is the FATHERS obligation to raise his children to the best of his ability. I have not much time for FATHERS who refuse to make their best efforts. A CHILD, by definition, is NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. So I take the position that the FATHER can discipline HIS CHILD as he sees fit. He can not KILL his child unilaterally…and in that I include ABORTION now. If the child is not planned and not wanted I would argue it is the FATHERS OBLIGATION to ensure the child is placed with a adoptive family and to ensure that the child is well taken care of during its life.

We have seen that women can not be trusted to do this.

My position on that is that when a female child has attained the age of majority, usually around 18, the women have the CHOICE to make themselves chattel property of a man which REMOVES THE FATHERS RESPONSIBILITY.

For the children who are NOT chattel property of a man the FATHER has the OBLIGATION to ensure that his children are law abiding people until HIS DEATH.

Now. There is the case that a man raises a child who goes on to, AS AN ADULT, commit a crime. In some very rare cases the child commits some form of atrocity such as murdering numerous people. It does happen.

It is my position that the FATHER has the LAWFUL OBLIGATION to ENSURE that if a child of his commits a crime that HE makes sure remedy made. He has the AUTHORITY to do that unilaterally because the is THE FATHER. If his child DEFIES HIM then he can call on HIS COMMUNITY to hold a common law court proceeding and ensure that justice is done.

Now. If the child does something like MURDER MANY PEOPLE the community standard might be the death penalty. In this case the father has the AUTHORITY to act UNILATERALLY and kill his ADULT CHILD FOR THE ATROCITY. The father MAY CHOOSE to take the case through a common law court proceeding and agree to the JURY decision.

But it is my position that, AT NO TIME, does a father have the right to ALLOW HIS CHILD TO BE A CRIMINAL. It is my position that when a child is a criminal then if the father is alive the father has the OBLIGATION to ensure justice is done. After all. He brought the child into the world. It is HIS PROBLEM to make sure that the child does not become a criminal.

That might sound a bit harsh on fathers. But ask the question a different way. If a child becomes a criminal who is responsible? The child? Often times not. Often times the child is so poorly raised they have little chance. Someone must be held responsible for the actions of the child. And the only person that makes sense to do so is the father. We know the mothers will allow their daughters to commit crimes with impunity.

Now. Should FATHERS of criminals who fail to ensure the child is brought to justice be in some way sanctioned? My position on that is yes. If you are the FATHER of a child and you do not REQUIRE your child be brought to justice the father should be liable to “aiding and abetting a known criminalâ€￾ in my opinion.


* You seem to believe that if a woman wants to leave a marriage that she cannot do so without the husband's permission. Is this true?

No. This is not true. I have clearly stated that a woman and a man can, if they choose, create a marriage agreement that defines the terms of termination of the marriage.

http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com/ ... fault.aspx

Now. If the dispute can not be resolved with “counsellingâ€￾ the book proposes an arbitration panel. The arbitration panel is 6 men and 6 women who have raised a child to the age of majority and have been married (not necessarily to each other) for no less than 20 years. The members are to be paid for their service. The proposed fee is one ounce of silver per hour of service.

The Arbitration is to settle the dispute in the best interests of the children based on a majority vote. You can read about the arbitration panel here.

http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com/ ... fault.aspx

Now. If the woman has signed an affidavit that she wants the benefits of being chattel property to her husband then she can not even SIGN A MARRIAGE AGREEMENT let alone break it unilaterally.

Women who wish lawful equality can have it. Women who wish the BENEFITS of being chattel property also must accept that they and putting themselves into the care of their BENEFACTOR.

Quite frankly. The VAST MAJORITY OF MEN will love their wife with all their heart and soul and will ALWAYS act in the best interest of the wife and children. UP TO AND INCLUDING VOLUNTARY DEATH. The idea that men who are willing to DIE for their wife and children somehow “abuseâ€￾ them in the family is somewhat ludicrous. The VAST amount of “abuseâ€￾ of wives and children that you hear about are men working their best to raise their family as is in the best interests of the family.

Are SOME MEN bad fathers? Yes. SOME MEN ARE. But the VAST MAJORITY are much better than what they are given credit for. I am sick of all the FATHER HATRED I see. It is about time fathers were given the respect they have earned.


* Why do you think a husband of a failed marriage shouldn't pay child support?

I have NEVER said “husband of a failed marriage shouldn't pay child supportâ€￾. Not even close. So clearly I do not think that.

Firstly. There is no such thing as a “failed marriageâ€￾. There are destroyed marriages, there are broken marriage vows, but to say a marriage has “failedâ€￾ gives breath to the lie no one was responsible. And someone is ALWAYS responsible for a destroyed marriage. 90% of the time it is the woman who is responsible for the destroyed marriage. So please do not use the lie of “failed marriageâ€￾. Allocated responsibility where it is due.

For example. In my case my wife was a liar, an idler, a child abuser and she stole from the family finances. Since she refused to transfer all financial decisions to me and all signing authority to me we had to divorce or we would BOTH end up in poverty in old age. Now only SHE will end up in poverty in old age. I will be well off.

People say “your marriage failedâ€￾. Bullshit. Our marriage was destroyed unilaterally by Jennifer and she admits this.

Now. What I HAVE SAID is

“If your right to be the husband and father that you choose to be is VIOLATED then demand remedy immediately. If remedy is not IMMEDIATELY made then walk away, refuse to pay one cent, disown your former children, and kill anyone who attempts to enslave you with the crimes of extortion such as alimony and child support.â€￾

Note. IF YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.

And why should a man not pay alimony and child support?

BECAUSE HIS RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AND NOT REMEDIED. Duh?

Until we move to the Marriage Agreement, something that ALL MEN IN THE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD CAN MOVE TO TODAY, then men must stand up for themselves when their RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED.

if a man will not stand up for HIMSELF when HIS rights are violated why should anyone else if the man is not willing to PAY that someone else? Feel free to answer that among yourselves here.

So that is my answer to these questions. I felt it was worth publishing to the group since at least one man was so interested.

[PeterAndrewNolan]

These questions were from harvey. I answered them before I checked his posts.

Mr Nolan, I have a few questions to ask before I register at your "Crimes Against Fathers" website.

* You seem to consider that upon marriage the wife actually becomes the husbands property. Is that correct?

* I have been told that you consider it a husbands right to actually kill his wife and kids. Is that true?

* You seem to believe that if a woman wants to leave a marriage that she cannot do so without the husband's permission. Is this true?

* Why do you think a husband of a failed marriage shouldn't pay child support?

Thank You