Site hosted by Build your free website today!


"The world seems to be progressing, while at the same time; it is moving backwards."

[Casual observation by unnamed Cab driver quoted on the Television show Debates- Debates CH25 NYC, Saturday, February, 6th, 1999]


We should start this chapter by reminding the reader that much of the duress of Feminism and what has been wrought against the American male, takes place before divorce or separation. Simply put: that when a male associates himself with a woman, the constant drain of Feminism starts to immediately drain the family from the outset. This is a new social pressure which families have not had to deal with before, like a foreign virus, it is constantly wearing upon, or at any point it can instantly destroy the relationship.

This manifests itself from the beginning; by not allowing both the partners assert their own gender attributes. This unseen social pressure, immediately manifests itself as a constant bias of one of the partners against the other. If men try and ‘assume’ their own well-defined rolls as the provider, main disciplinarian, and protector within the home—there are leagues of Feminists who will scream that he is subjecting the woman to an eternal slavery of drudgery. Conversely, if he doesn’t assume these roles, he may be abusing her. If the woman, however, tries to assert her domestic role as the female, of caring for the house, her man, and her children; she is chastised as not fulfilling some greater destiny, and by her domestication—she is ‘somehow’ oppressing all women! Listen to what has become classical feminist dogma in regards to marriage and the home:

"I had a sexist husband who thought he was helping me if he did any chores around the house. But I came to realize that I, too, was sexist, for I felt grateful to him for "helping" me.

[Marriage and Family, 1995-1996, Kathleen R. Gilbert, Editor, ©1995, The Duskin Publishing Group, Inc., Sluice Dock, Guilford, Connecticut, 06437, ISBN 1-56134-363-3; p. 32.]

This insane outside pressure upon the American family is the untenable application of foreign dogma upon a once stable institution. Both men and women whom entered into such an association, were protected from such influences by the stability of the marriage through the empowerment of the Father as the unquestioned leader within the home. Now, this new feminist ‘social theory’ is blindly set upon the American home—thereby pressuring it to fail--and many succumb to such failure not even knowing or comprehending the impact of its dissonance. Now, we find a complete role reversal within the American culture, while having no idea of the long-term effects of such actions:

Not long ago I attended a child's birthday party and saw an extraordinary sight: While the mothers sat upstairs in the living room, drinking and complaining about their jobs, the fathers were downstairs, jiggling babies on their shoulders, cutting cake, and running the games. Occasionally, a father would emerge to hand off a wailing baby or emptied bottle. Otherwise the party was a perfectly reversed scene from the 1950s, when the fathers would have been the ones upstairs drinking and perhaps watching a football game, if they were there at all.

...This little scene was similar to another I witnessed one winter's afternoon at an indoor children's playground. Although it was a weekday, the place was packed with fathers, dressed in the New Dad uniform of the 1990s: a flannel or cotton shirt, open at the collar, jeans or chinos, and running shoes. They bore their little charges along with great patience, their lilting voices unnaturally high and overly pacifying: "Honey, do you want some Teddy Grahams, sweetie? No? How do we say it? No, thank you. That's a good girl! Now let's... sweetie, sweetie, hold on, I know you're thirsty let's have a juice box. How do we ask for it? Yes, please. That's great, honey!! Now, do you want to go pee-pee? Pee-pee with Daddy?!"

...I know we're supposed to regard this new kind of Dad - and Dad involvement in general - as one of the great modern improvements, like Tetra paks, cellular phones, and the Internet. But whenever I see men like this, I can't help being reminded of the Amazon husbands in Greek mythology, who stayed at home weaving and cooking while their warrior wives went to battle. No doubt these modern men are married to women who are out slaying the corporate world, and bully for them. But they belie the progressive view that we can somehow merge our roles as parents without sacrificing some of the valuable, let alone attractive, qualities of each sex.

...You can see the uneasiness with the man's role, too, on display in the larger problems of fatherlessness and paternal abandonment. Outside the middle class, in which men are willing to be New Dads, there are often no dads at all. Many of today's social ills strongly connect to the absence of fathers in the home, whether it's a teenager's propensity to commit crimes, abuse drugs, get pregnant, drop out of school, or even commit suicide.

Yet it's difficult to speak frankly about the problem of fatherlessness without facing the fact that we have denigrated the importance of fathers as fathers. Indeed, men are often told that they have no special role outside of being surrogate mothers - changing 50% of the diapers and doing 50% of the housekeeping. What men are not being told is that their presence as men is vital. The mother intuitively knows her unique importance to her children - and when she forgets, they let her know. But who is Dad? Why is he important? Today it's hard to say....

[Boys Should Be Boys, And so should middle-aged men, Danielle Crittenden, National Post, March 27, 1999.]

The idea; that ‘perhaps’ male and females are different for a reason: is a sacrilege to Feminist is an outright attack on their radical belief systems. Thereby; instead of finding comfort and a cohesive alliance within the disparate gender attributes between male and females, Feminism imposes a new theory that they are in reality, one and the same, and that each separate gender should assume the same ‘equal’ role’s within the home and family. This of course belies a mind-set that approaches that of a cult organization: the man must willingly emasculate himself within his natural job categories within the home, and the female must endanger her natural attributes and subordinate them to the male role. Clearly, this is insanity, and unfortunately; because of government and media—the majority of couples are ‘attempting’ this idiotic gender juxtaposition—to the consternation of both the family and the internal social relationship within the home. Simply put; a man and a woman should assume their proper, natural roles as a man and a woman in the home and family.

Saying this simplistic truism is absolute heresy as far as the Feminists are concerned. No!!! They will decry. "Men must share in the domestic domain of the family, and women must find themselves outside the home and family!"

This insanity has imposed an outside social pressure to hit the home, and the home and family have not been the same since. Both Couple failures and Family destruction over this outside Feminist social pressure, has waged havoc upon the American home and family. Worse than this, the final product to society, business and industry—has been a fallow one and not the proposed revolution that feminists once envisioned.

To illustrate this I bring up an incident in a past happier time.

My buddies and I decided that we were going to rent a Motorhome and drive it up to the Red Bluff boat drags in 1992. This was a tremendous affair, and there were thousands of people there attending in one great party, behind the dramatic backdrop of racing power drag-boats who dominated this spectacle. Well, to put this mildly, the group I hang with is extremely gregarious group and where ever we wind up, we usually take control of the spectacle at hand, and party like no other group I’ve seen or been in contact with. We have been thrown out of towns like Carson Nevada, then; invited back in the same day by the same people damning us to leave. Red Bluff was no different.

When we got there on Thursday night, there was already a line of motorhomes all neatly parked to the right of the road that stretched for miles. Literally: miles. We took our place way back in line, then; began our conquest of hedonism. We instantly took out all our toys outside and started playing with them. While hundreds of motorhomes held their people quietly inside each motorhome, we began assaulting our fun in our normal fashion. We had volleyball, baseball and a host of other games and toys set up and were partying pretty hard. Meanwhile, the girls who had come with us, were dutifully cooking dinner inside the motorhome while we (Both boys and girls) played outside. There was no sexism here...just fun. Everyone just ‘assumed’ their responsibilities...and that was that.

Soon, we noticed hundreds of people were slowly gathering around our play-games. Like little kids they wanted in. So, we let all these people join in our games and the fun began in earnest. We played like this for approximately an hour and a half, having hard competition and a lot of fun; along with a continual flow of the Kegs we had brought with us—everyone was having a ball. Suddenly, out of nowhere, the girls from within our motorhome called us: "Dinners Ready!"

"Awwww...." went about one-hundred people.

We apologized and dutifully went in like little kids to eat. The girls had prepared a wonderful meal for us and we ate again; until we noticed person after person still milling-about aimlessly outside. All our toys were still outside, but instead of playing with them, they patiently waited for us to finish dinner. We were enjoying a satiating meal, until one-at-a-time, by their own childish petulance...about every fifteen minutes a person would poke his head high enough above the window for us to see only their nose and eyes and they would pleadingly say: "Can you guys come out to play?!??"

"No—no—we’re still eating," we’d politely replied back several times.

Soon we finished though and went outside and rejoined the now burgeoning crowds who knew where the fun meter was. We played outside until it was way too dark, then invited everyone inside (those who could fit) to party inside our motorhome.

We had a group of about 30 people, then; maybe 20 that stayed with us until about 4AM in the morning, where, by the end of our party—we were letting everyone "gator" (dancing wildly) on our 2x3 foot table one after the other (it was mandatory, everyone had to do it), all night long with one song blaring over-and-over the whole time: Aretha Franklin’s "RESPECT."

Morning came. I awoke with surprisingly no discombobulation—although a funny taste in my mouth did persist--and woke to a urgent pounding on the outside walls of the motorhome.

"Hey!" about 15 people screamed at us. "The motorhome line is moving!!!" they said urgently. "Wake up! You got to move along with us!!"

I looked around and saw, from what used to be a neat and ordered environment—the warn torn city of Lebanon. Bodies were randomly placed over a battlefield strewn with dead bodies, beer-cup’s, and the assorted flotsam of trash, clothes, arms, legs, all strewn about, the casualties of what attended the skirmish the night before...Oh...the humanity.

"Come-on!!!" they yelled urgently outside. "You’re being left behind!!!" as motorhomes now past us on our left.

We searched frantically for out keys—but the attending conflagration the night before made any search impossible by the mess strewn all over the floor. The dead as well as the living among us were pushed over in their sound sleep in which to frantically locate these keys. Somehow we got caught up in the urgency...but then realized...hey! There’s no need to hurry. Most of our crew were just meeting a bright new morning, waking up off the floor, blinking and sucking the film off their teeth from the night before. A few "who are you?" could be heard sleepily coming from throughout the cabin...

We then shrugged and told the people outside we couldn’t find our keys and "sorry" you’ll just have to leave us behind..." However, they were undeterred. There was massive disappointment until one guy said: "You’re not getting away from US!!!" and frantically began pushing our motorhome to catch up with their column ahead. Soon others joined him. We could see this was the only game in town so, assuming our rightful roles as the party elite, we searched for and finally found our keys and rejoined the cadre of motor homes that were screaming for us to join them.

I relate this story to the reader because it has a point, a message to which relates to the gender differences between men and women. Our place was a complete disaster. It was getting high use and traffic, and we were in a battleshort party conditions of partying until everyone lost at least 40% of their brain stem function.. After that, THEN we’d clean everything spotless. Like we always did many times before.

Well, when we woke up—this one girl—who’ll we’ll name "Marcy", just couldn’t stand it. She was a petite and very beautiful woman, and politely said: "This motorhome is a mess." Those who still had higher functioning cognitive abilities agreed.

But we didn’t do anything about it. All those within the motorhome stopped for a second, looked at her in earnest—then we continued whatever trivial functionality’s we were formally doing. We could all hear Marcy regularly tell us every hour on the hour: "This motorhome is a mess. We have to clean it."

After the first few times we’d stop, listen to what she said—then just continue on with our daily affairs consisting mostly with having a good time.. By Saturday, we weren’t even hearing her anymore. Soon her pleaded cries were ending with: "...and I’m not going to clean this!" But her assertions fell on deaf ears.

Finally, by noon that same Saturday, she silently began cleaning up the whole motorhome by herself. No one berated her or chastised her...we could see that this poor woman was fighting a losing battle of over a quarter of a million years of raging gene implantation. She had to clean. It was her domestic nesting side, that was an intrinsic part of her, she couldn’t help it. Her feminist indoctrination was telling that the clean-up should be ‘equal’ and a sexless role...that everyone ‘should’ participate...but a quarter of a million years of gene evolution were telling her something different. After a robust cleaning session (which never-ended the whole weekend...she just cleaned and cleaned and cleaned) we no longer heard her say another word about it. In fact, she was happy about finally being able to clean.

Now we men (and some woman also) were not ‘abusing’ Marcy by not helping her clean. This wasn’t some sexist battle that would eventually wind up in some faceless court with a battery of counselors and psychologists reading a panorama of psychotherapy postulates as to why we wouldn’t help her, that we were ‘discriminating’ against her. No! The time of the moment told our cogent side that in getting away from the drudges of daily life (cleaning being one of them) and having good food and good drink along with pleasant people and mindless fun at hand, that putting Windex on a motorhome window was way, way down on the "food chain" of things to do.

We didn’t hate her for cleaning or complaining that the motorhome was messy. Everyone just was living the moment—and in all truth—if she didn’t clean one thing, that would have been okay. No one would have had an accident, the same exact weekend would have transpired. We all noted Marcy’s intent to want to clean the motorhome. We all saw that she wanted us to all do it. But we all knew that there were better things to do, and we found a little humor (well deserved) in watching her female nesting side win out over her desire to have everyone ‘equally’ share in the household duties. In the final analysis, she was just a woman who had to clean. It was in her nature.

Now this same concept applies within this discussion. Feminist argue that men must pick up and clean the house, even if it is against their innate nature or training. Women must not clean the house and force their men (just like Marcy) to enjoin in something that they might want to do, even though a quarter of a million years of gender genetics is screaming at them to clean the goddamn house!!

This of course creates a dissonance, and social stress within the natural workings of the home...which again...manifests itself in arguments that may have not have occurred if this stupidity was not waged within the American home and family. How many families have been destroyed by this? How many women (or men) have picked up weapons and killed their partners over this issue? We don’t know, because no-one is really tabulating these figures on such innocuous things. However, it is safe to say, that this is a low level, needless stress within the home and ‘just perhaps’ we should leave the home free enough for the people within it to assume their own god given talents and apply them to their own proper roles!

Our belief is also confirmed by several finding of a recently concluded long-term study of married couples: (1) husbands "who do more household tasks are less satisfied with the way the tasks are distributed," and this division of tasks "is associated with declines in their love for their wives"; (2) the "more fathers in dual-earner marriages are involved in child care, the more negativity in the marriage," and those fathers "who report more negative interaction tend to be less satisfied with the division of child care tasks and also tend to be less in love with their wives"; and (3) the extent to which husbands who are the sole breadwinners are involved in child care is unrelated to the amount of negativity toward their wives, and "the more single-earner fathers are in love with their wives, the more (rather than less) involved they are in child care and leisure activities alone with their children."

That mothers provide daily care for their children is in the interest of those men who would resist the feminist effort to refashion into mother-substitutes, a role for which men are usually well-suited. It is in the interest of those children who would have both a father and a mother, each filling different roles, and who would be spared the day care and surrogate mothering that can be a source of misery and are likely to be inferior to care at home from a competent and contented mother. And it is in the interest of those women who could find a motherhood that is unencumbered by marketplace commitments to be an incomparable joy.

[Domestic Tranquility, A Brief Against Feminism, by F. Carolyn Graglia, ©1998, Spence Publishing Company, 501 Elm Street, Suite 450, Dallas, TX 75202, ISBN 0-9653208-6-3; p. 25-26.]

Above and beyond this is the fallacy, that woman don’t want to do these domestic chores, or to be wives and homemakers. I’m not saying that I’m such an anachronistic Patriarch that I want to return to a time where women were chained to a bucket and mop—no. I am pointing out that the nesting side of woman, gravitates to such duties and, that that is not such a bad thing after all... In fact, I was listening to a television show while I was writing this book, (I usually keep it on for background noise), and I could hear a woman say I believe it was on the Oprah show, that she enjoyed doing the dishes. That doing them, in the soapy suds, doing the repetitive movements calmed her down, and gave her time to think. Now...ask me if doing the dishes would calm me down. Ask the whole male population of the United States, or the world for that matter—and most certainly, to the greatest degree, the men will not come to the same conclusion in which this woman freely admitted on national TV. Now the question remains; would most woman make the same observation this woman did? Perhaps they would, because I contend, it is in their nature. Not only that, an ever growing amount of women, are beginning to ‘rediscover’ the home, family values, and their contentment within their assuming that role. We must poignantly look to the bedrock of feminism to qualify the success of removing women from their proper function, and allowing them to embrace the joys and freedoms of manhood:

That Time [magazine] would have women trot forward on life’s journey constrained by the blinders of feminist ideology is evident from its failure to question any feminist notion, no matter how silly, or to explore solutions incompatible with the ideology’s script. One of the silliest notions Time left unexamined was that young women want "good careers, good marriages and tow or three kids, and they don’t want the children to be raised by strangers." The supposed realism of this expectation lay in the new woman’s attitude that "I don’t want to work 70 hours a week, but I want to be vice president, and you have to change." But even if thirty hours were cut from that seventy-hour work week, her children would still be raised by surrogates, and the norm would continue to be the feminist version of child-rearing that Time itself described unflatteringly as "less a preoccupation than an improvisation."

The illusion that a woman can achieve career success without sacrificing the daily personal care of her children—and expect among the very wealthy, most of her leisure as well—went unquestioned by Time. It did not, however, the dissatisfaction expressed by Eastern European and Russian women who had experienced as a matter of government policy the same liberation from home and children that our feminists have undertaken to bestow upon Western women. In what Time described as "a curious reversal of Western feminism’s emphasis on careers for women," the new female leaders of Eastern Europe would like "to reverse the communist diktat that all women have to work." Women have "dreamed," said the Polish Minister of Culture and Arts, "of reaching the point where we have the choice to stay home" that communism had taken away. But blinded by its feminist bias, Time could only find it "curious" that women would choose to stay at home; apparently beyond the pale of respectability was any argument that it would serve Western women’s interest to retain the choice that contemporary feminism—filling in the West the role of communism in the East—has sought to deny them

[Domestic Tranquility, A Brief Against Feminism, by F. Carolyn Graglia, ©1998, Spence Publishing Company, 501 Elm Street, Suite 450, Dallas, TX 75202, ISBN 0-9653208-6-3; p. 10-11.]

I can safely say that within the Patriarch community the idea of gender diversity is an important issue to this matter, and the treatise of lazziese fair should rule within the home. Leave the home alone. Make it an American construct once again, not communist model as the Feminist intently want it to devolve into. Let the men, be men, and let the women be women...and nature will run its course. Presently, in the Feminist mindset, every woman that ‘succumbs’ to their genetic disposition is an enemy to all women! This is an incredible psychological barrier and weight to the inner workings of the home and family. Indeed, you see this displayed by men actually going out and buying false breasts so that they might ‘emulate’ motherhood. What intrinsic psychological stresses and pathologies is this placing on the home, and more importantly, our children?!?

Isn’t the model of the two parent family, with male and female gender differences have some value to young forming minds that might need that imprint to properly grow and become a normal valued citizen?? Doesn’t the fact that I’m a man have value and worth in as much as not cleaning the house, and not taking care of the kids, just as valuable as my contribution of fixing the car, or painting the house, or moving the furniture? Even going to a bar, and watching and playing sports may have this intrinsic weight.

Yes, I believe everyone recognizes that women can move furniture. But they don’t do it as good as most men. I also recognize that men can breastfeed, (with artificial or even hormonal help), but they can’t do it was good as women...

This reality of assuming ones own station in life was well recognized not only by our Founding Fathers, but the ancients as well. It was also recognized to have a relationship between individuals, their freedom and their government.

Confucius and Confucianism

Social Reform—Misgovernment and the attendant political disunion, tyranny, welfare, poverty and plague were the main causes of people’s plight. The King was just a puppet in the hands of the Lords, who, having inherited their position, were not interested in good government.

To cure these ills, Confucius devised a profound social and political reform. First of all, "Let the Prince be Prince, the Minster Minister, the Father the Father, and the son, son" each bearing his responsibility (L. 12:11) Though he despised the King and his theocratic title "Son of Heaven," Confucius could not advocate their elimination without jeopardizing his own mission. Hence, he would reduce the King to a status of a figurehead: "To practice noninterference and have the state well administered—Shun was such a one. What did he do? Nothing, but mind his own business and manage his royal household."" (L. 15:4)

Confucius championed a unified country under a central government whose executive power would be invested in the ministers appointed by the King on the basis of honesty and ability. Indeed, "He who governs by virtue [moral and intellectual power] is like the north star that is fixed while all the lesser stars turn around it." (L.2:1)

[Confucius and Confucianism, New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV Com to Dys; ©1967, by the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 80-84921; p. 161.]

These were self-evident truths, and just like today where we have Hillary and her Socialist elite embedded throughout government on their requisite feminist religious avocation rather than ability; we now have a clerical government class, which are most certainly not interested in good government. They are only interested in keeping their own power base, and securing their ‘daily bread.’ Most certainly, the function as noted by Confucius, that those within a society assume their proper roles—by ability—was a powerful concept even back then. No longer do we as a society believe in these concepts, as the Feminist are intolerant towards such self-evident truths.

Clearly, the feminist would have a whole American society deny these basic human facts in order to impose a social agenda with social experimentation whose real effects upon society nobody really knows nor have they quantified. What if all the mass murderers in this society were breast fed by their fathers instead of their mothers and thereby that imprint initiated a series of other thought processes that created monsters? Can we disprove this?

We know this, that most mass murderers come from fatherless household’ this issue I present here not only has merit, it has importance. Feminist want to deny this importance of the ying and yang between the disparate and different functions between the male and female within each home. Nobody, and I mean nobody within the realm of these experts (that I know of) has negatively asserted or refuted the Feminist premise of gender equality within the home.

I feel as such that such equality within the home is wrong. It is inefficient only by the fact that it takes the best gender suited for the job out of his or her natural job function, but also in the fact that stepping outside these duties may imprint some unseen disaster that cannot be quantifiably proven. Maybe, just in contravention to Feminist doctrine and dogma; there is a structure between male and female and just maybe by the law of nature men are supposed to rule over women and just maybe women are suppose to be subordinate to men and maintain the home by doing chores. Just ‘maybe’ Marcy was right in the final analysis by ‘just cleaning the goddamn motorhome’ while we partied. I don’t know—for I, like the taxicab driver quoted above and everyone else, know and recognize that something is terribly, terribly wrong within the home; and it stems directly from Feminism.

This nature of the male and female is best exemplified not only by what many have seen by countless other ‘Marcy’s’ nesting needs, but also in the realm of the apes.

Jane Goodall who has done extensive work in observing the behavior of the Apes in Africa had noted an event that speaks to this issue. She had been studying a close knit loving family of these Apes and had come to love the great "Silverback" the prevelent alpha of the pack who was the leader of that group.

She then went one day to begin her studies, and to her horror, the pack was missing. When she later found them they were in distress, and XXX was missing. They later found him, dead, killed by poachers.

Her analysis of the scene showed that XXX had cogently let the pack run forwards into safety, while he knowingly turned and sacrificed himself and faced the poachers to where they brutally murdered him and decapitated him. This was a cogent act done by the male, and not the females within that group. It was a great tragedy, even I feel some discomfort in writing about it here, but it does exemplify the fact, that unlike a mindless social theory, there are intrinsic gender differences between the male and female, and both the male and female will act out those differences, even to the death.

Such realities infuriate the Feminists; because their doctrine defies nature. Their doctrine says that a woman can go out and be a soldier, and just as good a soldier as a man—when by nature—we all know this to be false. What Pandora’s Boxes the Feminist have unwittingly opened by playing this game of ‘equality’ upon the American society; when the exact opposite is true, we are just beginning to realize and have yet to receive the full accounting of their damaged made upon this society. "Things’ aren’t right." And we can quantify the reasons why as they relate to the true differences between male and female.

This sophistry, has allowed women into the panorama of the American experience, while, at the same time, burdening the male with atrophy. In taking a woman and ‘making’ her a carpenter—you have stopped a male from becoming one. By making a woman a soldier, you have helped the enemy who doesn’t have the associated position filled by a woman. By making a woman the man within the family, you have removed the father from his rightful role. This effect has burdened society, it has raged havoc upon the men, and the Feminist know it. More importantly, the government knows this as well, and is directly profiting from the resulting anarchy.

This effect has caused many underclass women to declare outright "I don’t need a man!" Of course they don’t because they embrace feminism, which in turn places her ghetto tribal society "into that of slaves and animals." Most particularly, animals: as all this woman really needs is a sperm donor, which she most certainly finds because that is what the Black male for the most part in these societies, has been relegated to. The American society has seen illegitimate births explode because of these perversions in establishing sophistries which drive civilized mankind into a state of animal herds. Yet, men are chastised and preventing from fighting these perversions when they dare attempt to assume their normal function as a man. If a man tries to control his woman or his home, such as in the Black model of the ghetto, then; he is arrested for doing so. He is forced out. Suddenly, the courts get involved. All the government will allow him to do is to talk, and not to have any real control or authority within his own home, especially his money card. If he denies the woman that, then he is imprisoned.

This has factually created a state of anarchy and resultant slaves within this society. Government could care less about allowing men to have their children follow the condition of that father, that of freemen. Government’s main enemy is the freeman, for it is the freeman that controls and owns his property, it is he who keeps it and distributes it to his family. To create a freeman, you must create a sentient sovereign individual, which in turn breeds a nation of freemen—and between a nation of men and slaves, all despotic, and power hungry government’s will choose the herd of the slave masses every time. Because such slaves can be easily controlled, they can become slaves to the state, and they can accrue more wealth to such governments than those who have the intelligence of self-determination to stand on their own independently by themselves.

Because herd and slaves are harvested for their labor and for profit, and not to institute freedom.


In the social sciences, the facts are incontrovertible that married life, the union of a man and woman in a state of matrimony is the best condition for both them, and their children.

Men and women who live outside the state of marriage have higher rates of disease and death. With just men alone, the combined effects of Feminism along with the social pressure of a malevolent government has in fact, taken a huge toll directly against men’s health:

Men die younger than women on average. The life expectancy of men born in the United States in 1975 is 68.7 years, compared to 76.5 years for women—a difference of 7.8 years. The difference between men’s and women’s life expectancies had increased over the century. In 1900, they were 46.3 and 48.3 years respectively, and differed only by 2 years. (Harrison 1976).

[They Myth of Masculinity, by Joseph H. Pleck, ©1981, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, ISBN 0-262-16081-1; p. 150.]

Here are more statistics from Andrew Kimball, in his book: The Masculine Mystique, The Politics of Masculinity.

[The Masculine Mystique, The Politics of Masculinity, by Andrew Kimball, ©1995, Ballantine Books, New York, ISBN 0-345-38658-2; pp.4-11.]

However, those men who have been forced from their own homes, and disenfranchised and attacked and ruined by the state, are exponentially at higher risk. Cancer, heart attacks, and other stress-related deaths across the board go off scale exponentially when this injustice is burdened on them. These men, have merit for a class-action suit to be filed against all counties and states and federal government’s whom have collectively burdened these men into disease. Again, because the male has become inconsequential within the Welfare state, no studies have been done on men whom have been unjustly attacked by these issues. However, studies must be done, for talks are already being commenced in regards to bringing a class-action lawsuit against the government in regards to this issue.

What we are speaking of here is about anywhere from 35-40 million men being possibly eligible for a class of men who have been damaged by this system in the cost range of anywhere from $25,000 to $500,000 each or higher as, both health and legal costs spiral upwards. This is a probable settlement cost of $20,000,000,000,000 dollars. More money than there is in each and every government liable, to be placed against those government’s because of the ravages of war that they have needlessly waged against men; all in order to pursue an Anti-American Feminist program within our own nation.

Now, as we know, the courts will never allow this justice. As we intimately know these corrupt regimes, there job is to protect government at the cost of everything; to them, justice, responsibility, and accountability are ‘old laws’ and ‘old concepts’ that will be dismissed in routine order. However; unfortunately, they are facing a potential of 40 million men, and their message and highlight of this issue upon the American consciousness will bring this nation to a conflagration of issues that may destroy the Judiciary as we know it, for the terms and conditions of this silent war which has unjustly persecuted Fathers is going to become a pre-eminent issue for this society to face. It is going to make the shame and outrage of past health issues like Environmental contamination and Agent Orange look like a small Public Relation snafu’s in comparison. This class action suit brought against the government due to its unlawful imposition of foreign and private law of Feminism and Socialism will be a watershed within the next ten years.

But there is even a larger indictment against those who have propagated this needless war against men, in regards to men’s health issues.

In 1967, two researchers named Holmes and Rahe’s did a study on stress analysis and quantified certain stressor’s within our life, and developed what they labeled as the Life Change Index. They published these findings in The Journal of Psychosomatic Research, in 1967, Volume II.

What they did was to simply extract certain events within our lives, like moving for instance, then test a sample of people to quantify the actual stress involved in moving, and build a chart to where you could start adding up these Life Stressor’s in your life. This Life Change Index could be then taken by anyone and used to indicate how what relationship their stress had against their health.

Well, in 1998 when we were down in Anaheim California protesting against the "Fathers Rights Summit" held by the California Department of Health and Human services—I attended one conference which directly dealt with this perverse fraud and how it relates to men’s health, in which one of the speakers actually addressed this Life Change Index, and how it related to Fathers and Child Support issues, and most strikingly; what it did to Fathers when they were placed into Jail. The results of his analysis using Holmes and Rahe’s Life Change Index; was staggering.

Here is the Index, so you too can add up the effects of this government war against men:


Put a tick against the events you have experienced during the last 12 months, then turn to page 198 to check your list against the scores for each item. Write your score in the box for each item and then add up the scores. Write your total score. [Note: I have entered the individual weights in each box by each category. RLCII]

Death of Partner 100

Child leaves home 29

Divorce 73

Trouble with in-laws 29

Separation from Partner 65

Outstanding personal achievement 28

Jail sentence 63

Wife begins or stops work 26

Death of a close family member 63

Child begins or ends school 26

Injury or Illness to yourself 53

Change in living conditions 25

Marriage, (Your own) 50

Change of Personal habits 24

Given the sack at work (Lost Job) 47

Trouble with Boss or Employer 23

Reconciliation with partner 45

Changing in working hours/conditions 20

Retirement 45

Change in residence 20

Ill health in member or family 44

Child changes school 20

Pregnancy, your own 40

Change in recreation 19

Sexual problems/difficulties 39

Change in church activities 19

Addition of new family member 39

Change in social activities 18

Change in financial state 38

Take on a small mortgage or loan 17

Death of a friend 37

Change in sleeping habits 16

Changes to a different type of work 36

Change in number of family get-togethers 15

More arguments with partner 35

Changes in eating habits 15

Take on a large mortgage 31

Holiday 13

Mortgage or loan foreclosed 30

Christmas (coming soon) 12

Change in responsibilities at work 29

Minor violations with the law 11



Your risk of illness during the next two years if you score 300 or more is 80%. For a score of 150-299 it is 50%; for a score of 100-149 it is 30%. Less than 100 indicates no change in risk.

Well, this gentleman who was speaking, showed us this list and stated that men who were incarcerated due to child support ‘civil’ violations got a score of over 400! When of course I added this up, my total came to 680. I think most men adding their Life Change Index are in fact coming up with similar scores. What this means is, as the speaker at this conference highlighted—was that such scores tended to lead to debilitating health—even death!

Of course when the speakers finished and started taking questions, I was the first one who raised my hand. I pointedly asked that gentlemen and all within the room, "How can you people justify your existence by destroying fathers and incarcerating them for a debt, when you are fully aware of these facts and figures that you are both civilly and physically killing them, or at minimum, permanently ruining their health? How can you do this when you know this is intentional killing for profit, for the most part, poor men—by placing them into prison for no crime?!?

"How does that help anyone?" I said finishing.

This gentleman, who was most certainly was paid well to speak at this tremendously well-funded trade-show, was visibly embarrassed. "I can’t answer that question." He flatly informed me trying to drop this bomb as quick as possible. I could sense that everyone in the room was momentarily devestatingly ashamed. But it didn’t last. Because they were a part of the Krell Machine and really didn’t care. They’d all continue working in their slave-trade industries, pulling down considerable salaries, eternally burdening the taxpayers to: "Save the Children." Every single one of these people resides safely within the Fourth Box, safely away from all impact and consequences of their tyranny, unlike those of us who live in the First Box, and are forced to suffer such as the impacts of the "Life Changes" test above. (See "Fourth Box" discussion in Chapter Six).

These perverse facts and figures which display the actual injustice being burdened only against men to sustain this needless Welfare war against them, is paralleled by facts and statistic’s which sent men into the same conditional state that now this war does.

[The Masculine Mystique, The Politics of Masculinity, by Andrew Kimball, ©1995, Ballantine Books, New York, ISBN 0-345-38658-2; p. 10.]

Of course that war was at least understood as war. Presently, Fathers are involved in a larger conflagration, and they are suffering the exact post-shock trauma which Vietnam Veterans suffered through. Yet, they are unable to connect the two, that the effects of this war are presently debilitating their health, and concurrently that it due to outright war made against them which is causing it. The real tragedy is that if you take these staggering statistic’s above and apply them to the present state of fatherhood, you won’t get similar statistics—you’ll get statistic’s on aggregate orders higher than you would for men during the Vietnam war. This marks the point of what the feminist have criminally done against Fatherhood, is again, beyond a treason—what we are addressing here are crimes that align themselves to crimes against humanity itself. Clearly, men have become an ‘indicator species’ as to the alienation of their own society:

Suicide, the famous study by Emile Durkheim, published in 1897, revealed the fact that people do not commit suicide simply because of mental health problems: suicide also has social causes. Society to which people have a strong sense of belonging show the lowest rates of suicide; as the norms governing social order disintegrate, suicide rates increase.

[Absent Fathers, Lost Sons, The Search for Masculine Identity, by Guy Corneau, ©1991, Shambhala Publications, Inc., Horticultural Hall, 300 Massachusetts Avenue, Boston, MA 02115; ISBN 0-87773-603-0, p. 84.]



The palladium of external stresses and outright persecution being placed against men by modern Feminism has embodied itself within a new aberrance within the male gender itself. Because of the intense pressure by feminists, government and media against men assuming their proper roles as men and fathers—we have now observed a rising skew of identity within the male gender itself. It is a complete displacement of the male which is being forced by unseen feminist social pressure, to devolve into something else.

Men are no longer becoming men. The incidence of sex change operations and transvestitism has exploded. Ranging from the benign homosexual excursions to full operative transsexuals. Cross-dressing and other aberrations most exemplified by Dennis Rodman and ‘shock-jock’ radio talk-show host Howard Stern..

When a man sleeps with a modern women, he actually get into bed with all her lovers. That’s why there are so many homosexuals today, because modern man is sleeping spiritually with countless other men. He constantly wants to excel in sex because he knows that his partner is comparing him to the others. This is also the cause of impotence, from which so many suffer. They’ve transformed sex into a marketplace with competitors. Today’s man must convince himself that he is the greatest lover and that Casanova was a schoolboy in comparison. He tries to convince the female, too, but she knows better.

--Issac Bashevis Singer

[Domestic Tranquility, A Brief Against Feminism, by F. Carolyn Graglia, ©1998, Spence Publishing Company, 501 Elm Street, Suite 450, Dallas, TX 75202, ISBN 0-9653208-6-3; p. 204.]

This follows the corollary of identity, just as government does not want freemen so they can more easily control society, Radical Feminists do not want men so they can more easily control the family. A recursion of this corollary is that men are becoming less and less men. For factually, neither the present Government nor the Radical Feminists really want men in their monopolized systems. They want something more compliant, more controllable which will not inhibit their social experiment (and especially their profits). Unfortunately, they are getting their wish.

This is a willful project imposed by both feminists and government in which to control males within the American population. No longer are such aberrance’s of transsexualism and perversion subject to social condemnation or persecution. No. In the modern Radical Feminist society, such perversions are openly advertised and tolerated so that the destruction of the male can be complete. The mainstream media in order to capitalize on this sensationalism openly markets and distributes such perversion against the male icon. Indeed, government imbibes in these same conferences by introducing this perversion into the mindset and programs of the institutional learning systems or school settings, teaching such things as lesbianism, gay and homosexual life choices, and imposition of "tolerance" in accordance with the doctrines of Radical Feminism. This perverted mindset, then causes or at least greatly contributes to the impending causes of perversion that then leak over into the home, family and most certainly; the male.

The resultant anarchy from the disappropriate models between these two doctrines, one based in perversion and sexual freedom, and the other based on American precepts of the Judeo Christian moral ethic, wage wars and anarchy and other pathologies within the mind of the American public and most certainly the male. This leakage of government endorsed tolerance towards those basic precepts of perversion and excess which foundationally are discordant with the American Christian model of social order create conflagration within the mindset of individual American’s. They create paradox.

Thereby, a growing number of American’s lose in trying to analyze this intellectual paradox that is presented to them, and thereby devolve to the inspiration of the easiest model to assimilate with is the one of the lowest common denominator. This of course, entails many of them who do not have the intellectual acumen to abstractly analyze these perversions, to devolve into the excesses and allowances of lowest common order: the natural state. They go the path of least resistance, and thereby devolve to the natural order or state which is Matriarchal order—the lowest common denominator of mankind—the most base, which allows these perversions of the lowest order of animals and slaves to proliferate. The society is thereby indoctrinated to these perversions by the admission or tolerance of such perversions by the guardian of the civilized community: the government. This is eminently paradoxical, because government as the guardian of the civilization; is supposed to not allow these things.

This is why we see the leakage of Matriarchy within those who have devolved within its ranks. We see those who instead of abstractly reasoning and restraining themselves from such perversion or immorality, upon such qualifying veneration and outright legal protection of Government, Feminists through the embodiment of the State, they allow themselves to lose their resistance to resist the perversion, and thereby they succumb to its immoralities, verifying its natural order of what Adam Smith called: a base and disgusting condition of civilization". It takes discipline, and the higher-order of abstract reasoning inculcation’s imbued to the keepers of morality to recognize that to have an advanced civilization or an ordered society, that anarchy cannot reign—that there is a price to pay for each of our individual actions against the whole of society. Many who have devolved to this lower state of consciousness, verify their perversions and immorality by recognizing that the predilection is innate yet it is a discontinuity within the American civilized society, and thereby prohibited. Those like a man named Sissy, have devolved to the lower order and because of this establish elaborate legal or social theories and circular theology which again reaffirm their ‘right’ to such a ‘natural’ lifestyle, all without the final incursion to the real impacts of their morality. They intentionally skip over the pragmatic long term impacts on the whole of civilization..

This is why we see the sexual confusion raging within both males and females of our species. The pressure of opening the Pandora’s Box of admission to immorality, has allowed those people the veneration of the feminist and government supplied social pressure which grants privileges of this society into the continued devolution: to that of slaves and animals. The male however; it the most important part which catalogues the depth of this perversion as he is an indicator species within society that adumbrates the health of not only the family, but the society (civilization) as a whole.

Unfortunately, this leakage has now created men like a man named Sissy. He is devolving to the innate messages society is giving him.

Here is a man who in a mid-western conservative town, ‘snapped’ one day, and just started wearing women’s’ clothes. This same exact problem occurred with a minister in England, who suddenly, in defiance of the morality within his own church started doing the same thing. They are not gay, they just wear women’s clothes and have no idea why.

Why such men at such times?

The reason is because of the disparate morality messages that the American society is communicating to men are causing these men to ‘devolve’ into a lower ordered state of sexual identity, sexual regression and sexual confusion. Devolving into these states is easier than maintaining sexual discipline for these people. This is now being seen throughout he United States and Westernized World where feminism is having huge impacts upon unsuspecting people within it who have no idea what is happening to them. They can’t even begin to articulate it, and thereby; they blame it on genetics, or some other tribally secured maladies..

The man named "Sissy" and men like him cannot articulate why they are doing this. All they can really say is: "that it feels right". These men are willing to risk themselves and their families in order to devolve into the lower order. In fact, they cannot help themselves. I suspect they thing they are being free, or they are filling a genetic requirement or message that their brain is supposedly seeking. They are wrong.

This devolved state of Sissy I believe, is due to the psychological miscegenation and social pressure that has been presented to his subconscious by the implementation of Radical Feminism in this nation. Radical Feminism has inculcated a belief that all men are bad, that all men are abusers, that they hate men, and that men are not needed. This has found expression within the society by actions and support of the present government. The government through their propaganda arm of the media widely disperse this mindset upon the society. These new feminist ideals with are in direct discordance with American civilization and religious and moral thought, causes the social pressure which becomes an unsolvable paradox within the average mind. The imbedded message and inculcation of such truism’s along with the realization that society, because of government’s outright refusal to enforce morality, allow the augmentation of the Feminist primal mindset to evolve. This augmentation is an affirmation, and with the affirmation comes a realization of no negative reinforcement by and through society by government such aberrant behavior. Essentially, everyone is being told that they are ‘free’ and under feminism, this means no responsibility. Once this process sets in the paradox becomes circular until the primal release of the lower ordered mind rises from the paradox. Thereby such men as Sissy, devolve, because their minds cannot solve the paradox between the two disparate sets of Radical Feminist Doctrine within an ordered moral state or civilization. In this paradigm, the ordered moral state will lose virtually every time, because it is the mindset of the highest most difficult abstract thought processes. Whereas the Radical Feminist Doctrine emulates the ‘free’ tribal state. This condition does not take any thought processes, it only takes a wish, or an enticement.

This abstract thought process is difficult, as Marshall McCluhan intimated, it is looking to our future through a windshield using the rearview mirror. This type of analytical reasoning ability uses a higher coefficient of difficulty in reasoning. Those who do not use, refuse to use, or ignore this process, cannot ‘get it’ why men don’t wear woman’s clothes; thereby they will devolve into the less ordered state of aberrance which we now see manifesting itself within the males of our population. The underlying paradox between Feminists imposition of Matriarchy upon the more higher order Patriarchal American system is tearing it down male by male.

Therefore, those males who have succumbed to the devolution of the natural state now are displaying these immoral (or anti-Patriarchal) qualities. This is why we have men like Sissy, (and we will have more and more like him in the future), this is why we see rape, destruction of the both male and female within our society, because the Patriarchal order is being torn down through the privilege of government and the feminist allowing the perversions to exist openly in direct defiance to the male Patriarchal model. These perversions of course, are in turn benefiting government in which those resultant pathologies are creating industries within the Krell Welfare Machine it has established to allow these aberrations and immoralities to exist in the first place. Thereby, men; without the direction and civility with which Patriarchy imbues them with, and conforms them to the terms of their morality—are lost as a species. As we see from the ghetto Welfare Class subculture, the males are in reality, ‘not needed’—and have no definable role that they inherit by default under Patriarchy. Thereby, with no definable role; they drift into the lower order as Matriarchy has no commission for them except as sperm donors and as attendant slaves to the hive, allowing the greatest part of their wealth to be transferred to the Matriarchal Krell Welfare Machine.

Therefore, with no definable role under the Matriarchal system, males become part of societies problem and pathologies; as their sexual energies are redirected into more base devolution’s. This is why Sissy is Sissy, because his place as a father is under attack. For example, he is told that now he must be a housewife, that he must give up his job to Affirmative action which will hire someone else lower or less qualified from him. In replacing males with those lower than his capability, this has a huge social impact on the male psyche. He has been taught by the Patriarchal society to groom himself, to become the best at what he does, and the Matriarchal condition over-rules his investment and replaces him with something lesser than himself. This drags men’s psyche down as being less than the lesser for the incongruence within the Matriarchal paradox presented him says that someone better will get his job than him, yet, with someone lesser getting his job—it means lesser is better than he. Therefore, he is lesser than the less that seized his position through Affirmative action.

This paradox weights heavily upon men’s subconscious. As being replaced by the better selection of the lesser qualified person in reality, makes him less than the lesser person in his mind. This is again a displacement.

Again these Feminist paradox’s are spread across the American experience in order to destroy Patriarchy. The ideals of morality, fair play, justice, formal institutions and hierarchies throughout are culture are being subverted silently by these illogical paradoxes. "The lesser" is replacing "the better." When men rise up to challenge them in court, they are treated harshly, actually inhumanly with abject injustices. So the institutions which provide this American society with stability in which man helped to build, have turned against him. Both Institutional America and Societal America have turned against him, thereby further exacerbating his aberrance. The paradox of paradoxes within the Feminist system however; is that this new system is being oppressed upon him, all for the ‘best interests’ and in the name of freedom of society. When men look at the insanity this devolution has caused in establishing an absolute police-state within the freer Patriarchal domain he created, again; it is replacing the best with a lesser circular argument...and he watches society devolve as it is replaced with the inferior devolving Matriarchal archetype which is done in societies ‘best interests’ which is dragging it down further to the tribal state of mankind’s lowest-common-denominator...Matriarchy.

The average mind doesn’t comprehend this. It snaps like Sissy did, and just assumes the lowest devolution possible. We could label this "The Hell With It" syndrome. There is safety from paradox in the anarchy of the natural free feminist state, without any of the burdens of morality that a civilized state would impose upon the Citizen. In that civilized state under Patriarchy, there is freedom, but; with a concurrent responsibility attached to it.

These two disparate social models of Feminism and Patriarchy, and their covalent systems of Government, of Socialism and Americanism, impress the convergent paradoxes upon the society and are the cause of social pathologies which cascade into greater and greater pathologies within the society. This cascade creates the failure within one model of Governance to the benefit of the other. The higher form cascades into the lower form and the lower form is imprinting the paradox upon the higher evolved state which causes further cascades. This circular cascade of devolution, assures the Feminists and those who understand what is really transpiring (within the system of the Krell Welfare State), of protection and continued growth of their future industries, which grow in accordance with the breakdown of the civilized state.

This continues until the society reaches the lowest form: the pure tribal state or ultimate freedom. With a massive technological and wealthy state such as America, this takes some time to devolve. But pretty soon, people recognize that "we seem to be progressing while at the same going backwards."

At any time however; this cascade devolution can be stopped, and reversed by and through the affirmation of Patriarchy, or the formed imprint of responsibility and morality within the society, the positive abstracts and discipline’s once again take over, and society flourishes.

Like the anonymous cab driver noted above, "As the world seems to be progressing, it is moving backwards at the same time." This is the weight of the inexorable devolution pulling at civilized society. This cab driver, as well as many citizens, clearly recognize that ‘something’ isn’t quite right. They know and can feel the immortal pull from the paradox’s that are presented to the normal persons mind. The incongruence of what Feminism is applying by an errant government run by special interests and elite regimes, has diffracted society to where "the law of reason" has been replaced by the law of ‘anarchy’ labeled under a thousand different monikers: "Equality", "Welfare", "Best Interests" and a host of special code words in which those who are inside the inner sanctum of the Krell Welfare Machine superstructure, fully understand and act upon..

Also failure cascades...also Law of thermodynamics 2nd law.


This is perhaps the hardest chapter to write.

I have suffered personally through this tragedy which was planned against me and other fathers and men, by those whose arrogance and power supercedes their office. As both a Father and a Patriot to my country, from the outset of this disaster within my life, I have met and listened to hundreds if not thousands of fathers who have been humbled, and shamed by this egregious disaster which was planned to ruin them from the start. How anyone could design a law, which intrudes and rips apart the family then; applies not just civil death upon the father, but wages an unholy war against the father, superceding all other laws and penalties of this country and all other nations of the earth? Then they actually make a case, that they are protecting the children when this war, this conflagration has destroyed, and left so many people and especially children in the wake of this destruction?!? How do people go along with this?

Hillary and her elite cabal did it because they are using the interior wealth of the home as a natural resource, which they have laid claim to under the doctrine of Parens Patriæ, and by pretended laws and mythological abuse figures, they have knowingly annihilated generations of men. These are men, for the greatest part, simply poor, who are now ‘invented’ into criminals by very broad and sweeping applications of the law which are patently illegal under our form of government..

These supposed criminals never existed before the advent of Radical Feminism and Welfare. Other nations which do not have Welfare, do not have these staggering statistic’s nor have the created bogeymen out of fatherhood—and imprisoned and civilly killed a huge segment of their population to satisfy Radical Feminism.

I have watched and spoken to fathers who have been desolated to extents of suicide, and self-destruction. I have seen fathers wane away and physically become debilitated and cancerous by the psychological, civil and social pressures and oppression placed on them, as they see their past ex-wives and girlfriends flourish from their criminal acts and court systems which are no more than organized crime syndicates established to allow their crimes to give everyone within it profits and a careers. I have seen fathers, good people, who have never been criminals in their lives try and get up and speak, and break down in front of people. I have seen their lives kicked from the innermost portion of their chests. I’ve seen and experienced myself, these criminals who harbor and gain protection from within this system, laugh; as they arrogantly violate laws—openly—in direct and arrogant view of the public to solidify both their power and abilities above mere mortal men.

I have seen sick fathers, bedridden; be forced from their bed and imprisoned. I have seen a dozen or more Fathers do hunger-strikes at great cost to their lives and their health and safety to protest this foundational injustice; and I have seen the media mostly turn away in silence. I have seen others with shame in their eyes, impose these injustices upon us; then walk with their heads in shame as they leave the court room. Even more insidious, I have seen people within the system, hiss with delight when men go to prison, or get destroyed from this perverted machine. I have watched while police, with a dead countenance behind their eyes, just blindly follow their masters and invoke injustice and crime all under the name of the law, and under full color of authority, when; they knew it was not.

I have seen the insane look from people within the system, actually salivate upon a "Deadbeat Dads" trial. I have met fathers in jail, some, the most common of laborers who cannot even spell the phenomenal amounts of money they owe. I have seen the ‘justice’ system not file court papers or affirmative defenses—in direct violation of their job orders and oath of office, thereby closing all doors to redress or justice for fathers. I have seen the media pro-actively take part in arrest procedures, to "help" police knock on doors, to give ‘false’ news interviews in order to lure poor fathers out from their homes so that awaiting police can arrest them, all for the delight of the 11 o’clock news. I have seen District Attorney’s like Mike Ramsey, do massive arrests on Fathers day, then arrogantly say we are a ‘nation of laws and not of men,’ when factually, he is the biggest criminal of them all.

I have asked these fathers, what how they got into this insanity, or what ‘contract’ makes them liable to this slavery—and to a single man, not one has been able to answer that question. Nor can I.

I can only catalogue the lies and disinformation from the other side of this insanity. I see this willing propagation of lies like President Clinton, giving out false and misleading information, so that their fascist ends justify the socialist means of their criminality, of course all in "the best interests of the child."

This has created a paradox for Fathers, where all their natural acts in the past have not placed them into jail, however; now—their greatest and most basic and powerful act a person can do; to procreate—somehow makes them criminal and establishes government industries. Now, it proactively hunts for their criminality, imbuing special "super-rights" never authorized anywhere within law, to the female; to police; social workers, government; Judges and the courts themselves--while absolutely destroying and denying even the most basic rights of Fathers...Just to be Fathers.

In 13 years, in every every single telephone call and communication I have sent to the Courts, Media, Government President, Legislatures both State and Federal, to the Senate, the Judicial Council and a host of other people, I have only been met with abject silence. They will not answer me and very simple questions. In these communiqués, I have always demanded my child. "Give me my son, get out of my life." Somehow, they don’t understand the obvious.

From the theft I originally suffered that began this nightmare, through my two hunger-strikes, to my journey underground—I have belligerently resisted an overwhelming, out-of-control power. Not one single human in this power construct has asked me, my son’s only father one simple question: "Can you handle the care and upbringing of your own child without our intrusion?!?" Or even, simply: "What do you want?" Yet I have attempted to demand and communicate this in every court and in every forum in which government offers to me as ‘redress’.

All this system has done is to steamroll over me from the first instance this started. It has imposed a fraudulent system against me, planned by unseen regimes, and implemented through our court systems and our State Legislatures. This system which inhaled me, and ruined me and invented me into a criminal (where none every existed before) is destroying legions of fathers, generationally. These ‘supposed’ evil men who only abuse, like myself, who were never in trouble before, who dutifully paid taxes, who got jobs, who played softball, created art, volunteered and went to war to defend this nation—inspired both men and children by their capabilities and goodness: suddenly, by a stroke of the pen—they have become dead. Beyond dead: Civilly Dead. Murdered. Actually—an Imperialist Annihilation. Our sin?

We had children. We demanded them. We stood by them and didn’t run. We stand in front of a Leviathan too huge for human comprehension and have categorically stated: "This is my son, I will own him, care for him over the will of the State." The system in its madness for power and to impose Feminism for unseen ulterior purposes, without a hesitation—waged an unjust, unlawful war against a specific gender and destroyed not only me—but millions of fathers. All in the name of the best interests of the child.

Now men sob because the wound is too critical, too unjust. I see men who no longer pay taxes, who refuse to work. Who no longer have companies in the United States. I see men who fought wars honorably, with distinction, past leaders and rising stars, sit sullenly with gaping wounds from their chest. I see them in poor health, some with cancer who are the growing list of dead and missing from this needless war. I see men leaving this country—gladly, rather than try and fight a useless cause, and an overwhelming enemy.

I have witnessed men flee in terror, move completely out of the country. Not only them, but their companies. These men, are no longer men. They have been disenfranchised by a malevolent nation willing to aid in this sophistry. They have pragmatically added up their losses, and look elsewhere for freedom other than their own country. In reply, the government has instead, become even more and more belligerent, even more insolent, even more draconian if that is at all possible. I mean, what’s left? What more can they criminalize this?!? Now, State and Federal Lawmakers are passing even more draconian laws against an already decimated male/father populace who cannot fight this beast, who cannot obtain any redress, who only file meekly into court to be warehoused into prisons so that counties and states can be paid Federal monies for warehousing them. We now have a crisis, that is bigger than this nation. One only has to turn to our contemporary media and the scientific journals to understand, that something has gone quite amiss. Scientific Periodicals and research papers have been asking an immutable, embarrassing question for the past five years: "Where are the fathers?!?!" There have been no answers; just a furtive silence.

"I once met a man named Jules who had convinced his friend and even himself that his seven-year-old son was dead because, he said, "It was the only way I could deal with the pain of not knowing him." P.20

"Steve is a former law enforcement officer. I know him now as a big sunny man, gifted as a musician and generous as a friend. I know him to be kind, honest, and gentle—no a man who would leave his children. And yet, like me [author Mark Bryan] he did." P. 23

"Carla is a college-educated single mom of thirty-two. Her son, Nicky, is two and a half years old and does not know his father. His father has chosen not to know him." P. 42

"David, a graying, barrel-chested mountain man, was divorcing after twenty-five years of marriage, having raised two sons and a daughter who was still in high school." P.49-51.

"John is a computer operator who was recently divorced..."After a great deal of arguing, I moved out. Our divorce followed swiftly after that—too swiftly....I did not know how adrift I would feel without my home and my daughter." Pp. 51—52.

"Janine is a nineteen-year-old from Pittsburgh. She is gifted artistically, but her promising professional trajectory is shadowed by her haunted past. When she was six years old, her father left the family and slipped into a deepening alcoholism." P. 59

"Estrangement, of course, is not always the man’s fault.

Terry lost his child under very different circumstances. He did not run away; his wife did. While Terry was out of town on a business trip, his wife took their son and left." P. 154

"Gabriel left his wife and two-year-old daughter, Angie, under the worst possible conditions: he ran off with another woman....His wife did not want to see him. What she wanted was a quiet divorce, child support, and good riddance." P. 133

"Martin was the angriest man I ever worked with. He was forty-five years old and the father of four teenage boys when he left his wife in a rage after she confronted him about his drinking....Martin had cut off all contact with his wife and kids, claiming that he was going to stay away from his children as long as they were in communication with there mother." P. 134

"Matthew is a successful thirty-eight-year-old sales manager at a large department store. Five years ago his wife left him because of his drinking." P. 136

"Melinda, a divorced physical therapist, has a fifteen-year-old son, Stephen, whose father has not been in his life since Stephen was three. She says Stephen always wanted his father desperately." P. 141

"Kathy is the young mother of a four-year-old daughter, Peggy, who has not seen her father for several years. Recently, Kathy and Peggy were in an auto accident—a drunk driver swerved in front of them on a street in their small town. Though no one was badly injured in the collision, Peggy was very frightened. As they were waiting for a ride, Peggy started screaming, "Daddy! Daddy!!" Kathy’s distress over the accident was doubled by her distress over Peggy’s pain." P. 142.

"Bill, a Native American from Arizona who has long black hair and tattoos, looks anything but the devout Christian and Native American Spiritual leader that he is....Four years ago he was married and, for whatever million reasons a marriage doesn’t last, his didn’t either. It broke Bill’s heart when his ex and his daughter moved to California.

His wife and her family made it hard for Bill to visit his child..." p. 145

"Adam a construction worker, learned that he had been routinely characterized to his son as "your father the hippie who never held a real job." P. 152

"When Tony and his daughter, Bethel, were reunited, Tony promised all sorts of things in his excitement at meeting her again...Then Tony’s new marriage fell apart, and his financial situation became even more precarious. Unable to keep his promises, Tony let his focus shift from his reunion time with Bethel to his problems finding a new job." P. 155

"Donald was separated from his father when he was just a toddler. His parents went through a very nasty divorce, and his mother’s family closed ranks to practically drive his father out of town on a rail." P. 156

"Kevin was eager to be reunited with his son, Kenny, after a ten-year absence..." p. 173

"Barry lived in the city, and his daughter, Annie, lived in the suburbs with his ex-wife. For the first few years after his divorce, Barry lost touch with his daughter, drifting into alcoholism and despair." P. 204.

"Janet, the mother of an eleven-year-old boy, said that every Sunday night when her son returned from his weekend with his father he would go to bed and cry. "I miss Dad," he would say. "Why can’t I stay with him?" Janet reassured him that in just five days he and his father would be together again..." p. 205

[The Prodigal FATHER, by Mark Bryan, ©1997, Three Rivers Press, a Division of Crown Publishers Inc., 201 East 50th Street, New York, NY 10022., ISBN 0-609-80203-8; pages listed after each quote.]


In just relating the documented experiences throughout just one book, we can see that the widely held belief that Fathers ‘run away’ and abandon their children; is just an outright lie. It is beyond myth. What we are factually documenting, and what other such books and research shows, are that fathers are willfully pushed or removed from the home by both government, women and the courts. Factually, it has been open season on fatherhood for the past 30 years. Out of the compendium of these cases cited above, we can see that for the most part, most of the separations are from unknown reasons. Some are from alcohol abuse (strange how modern marriage cannot work through that minor problem). The mythical, raging, abusive father factually does not exist. For the incredibly greatest part fathers are just removed by women who want to dissolve the marriage or find a different, more ‘free’ living arraignments. Of all the men I have met who were Fathers, to a man, each one was pushed out by the court system which immediately civilly killed him or like me, enjoined and allowed the theft of their children to be accomplished by the mother and then civilly killed them.. Then hunted them for their cash.

To do this however, government needs to pretend laws. So again, for the greatest part women lie and make up a mythology of ‘abuse’, which is expanded and even marketed by Feminists and the Government, all to keep their empires fully employed and constantly growing. (Some don’t even lie—they just have the courts kill the marriage.)

So presently, we have a new resurgence from Social Scientists and others, to figure out what exactly happened to fathers, and why they have been missing for ten, and twenty years from their children’s lives.

What I have personally witnessed is the fact that the father is removed by two causes.

First is the woman, who creates an abusive environment for her husband. Like those wives above who invent or exacerbate problems within the home, like alcoholism. I have had a friend personally come up to me and relate that his wife was leveling this charge that ‘he’ was an alcoholic. He, like I, went out usually Thursday, Friday, or Saturday nights. Maybe once or twice a week, but most certainly, not all three nights. Most probably only once a week. I drank cokes, sometimes I might have 3 beers...but NEVER came close to being even remotely drunk. He was the same way. Neither one of us has even come close to being accused of being a drunk by anyone within the community—yet; here his wife was leveling the charges. So we can only conclude, that such charges are being leveled at men by wives for other reasons.

Dear O.J.

When I was married my husband and I had a very similar relationship. I said a lot of the same things to the police as Nicole did. But what I didn’t confess, and I believe it is the same in your situation, is that I was as much to blame for the disturbance. Calling the police was more my way of gaining control.

Always in My Thoughts,

Tracie Bechke

Cleveland, Ohio

[I Want to Tell You, My Responses to You Letters, Your Messages, Your Questions; by O.J. Simpson, ©1995 by Orenthal Productions Inc., Little, Brown & Company, Boston, New York; ISBN 0-316-34100-2; p. 86.]

We can see that my friend was having the first seeds of ‘abuse’ incriminations being planted by his wife, for future consideration by a later to be announced government agency. How does a man protect himself? He can’t. Especially if the wife is attempting to use this system against him and ‘build’ a case. And both the Government and the Feminists know this, and expectantly wait to market this planned seed of anarchy which will at some point sprout up and involve this baseless charge. As displayed above in the O.J. Simpson cite, when push come to shove, the female mind will always gravitate to the largest bully she can produce in order to ‘gain control’ within the home.

The state grooms and carefully markets this control issue. It provides telephone numbers, massive advertising programs, feminist indoctrination in our schools, and a host of other avenues that ‘provide’ the woman with instant access to the Krell machine to destroy the male. Once that is done—again, the state becomes the ultimate parent and husband within all homes. There are now ‘emergency response teams’ at-the-ready; just waiting for this women’s eventual call. The nano-second a woman enjoins in this activity, the male no longer has ultimate authority within the home. More importantly, upon this intrusion, it most certainly cripples and debilitates every decision a man makes within his own home as each and every one he makes "may" or "may not" be second guessed, and scrutinized by a foreign, outside, alien authority. Once this is done, the male can no longer effectively rule nor discipline his own household. Now "experts" rule in the home, and as we can see by over a quarter century of this state sponsored intrusion...anarchy reigns.

How many marriages have been destroyed by this senselessness? We can only guess, but the smallest figure would be in the millions. How many innocent men have been placed into prison due to this power struggle? Again, we do not know the true numbers—but unfortunately, they too must be in the millions.

Government, as well as most women know, are ready, willing and able to support any accusations which can be leveled against any Father. Alcohol abuse, is an ‘easy kill’ for most prosecutors. Every man is ‘guilty’ of it. Just going out into any bar, has become possibly a crime that rises to the level that would let any judge destroy the marriage. There are regiments of social workers ready to sign the ‘abuse’ box from such ‘alcohol abuse.’ Unfortunately, there are more than just one box of abuse—and the mere accusation is all that is needed presently.

If you posed this exact same scenario 50 years ago as a valid government function, people would have been shocked, for they would have recognized that such administration of law was too despotic, to open for abuse, too tyrannical, to ripe for corruption. Now...its the common procedure. Where marriages once weathered the disasters of famine, war, disease and pestilence, and a host of other natural disasters—few marriages today can survive the mere acrimonious allegations of abuse.

By such sophistries and outright lies, government has established huge business for itself, to where now American children are more subject to divorce than any other malady in society—including disease, war, pestilence, famine or nuclear disaster. Government, allowing women instant gratification of divorce from the Krell Welfare Machine are American’s children’s greatest danger. Presently, ‘abuse’ is only being used as a social tool in which to allow women to either gain control the home outright, or to eradicate the male altogether and let the woman enslave him, and thereby ‘cash out’ the marriage to receive subsidies in which to obtain "freedom."

There are no government programs established to save children from this divorce rate which has exploded exponentially, and which is propagated mainly by women, who love it, and who are greatly subsidized by it. Using the figures in Chapter X, we can see that divorce is killing and wounding more children than all accidents and natural disasters listed above. Reestablishing Patriarchy, on a conservative estimate, could save over 200,000 children’s lives. Yet, feminist and the government do not care about this staggering figure, because they understand these are just consumption figure’s for their Krell Welfare Machine, they are the lubrication that gives it substance. These deaths are Hillary’s "daily bread", and she could care less about them, because—like the Nazi’s of WWII--its just business.

Yet, fathers also are annihilated by this perversion. Unlike my situation to where I came home to an empty home where my son was forcibly stolen out of his and my own home—most fathers are forced out, run out, or thrown out of their own homes. None of the women in the Mr. Bryan above was noted to say: "When I got home, Gus was just gone—and he never showed up again. He just abandoned us." (*sob*)

No, the stories above, demonstrate the fact of Patriarchy, that man is the weakest link within the home. He leaves when either the woman or social forces throw him out. Government fully knows and understands he is the weakest link, and instead of helping the male stay with his family and with the children like all civilized societies do, the state has proactively reversed its Western Civilization heritage in protecting families and children from losing the male, and it has thus capitalized on the destruction of both the home and the male in which to obtain government empires. No longer do we see the principles of Fanning v. Fanning being applied.

Martin’s case noted above, is the most radical case of this, but clearly shows that his wife’s continued harassment and confrontation destroyed the marriage and drove him out of the home. Would wives or feminists consider being submissive upon the reality that such acts in supporting and deferring to their husbands would save the home and more importantly, the marriage?!??? Not under the present government supported Feminist model. Because under this present mindset, the marriage is worthless, and it is feminists task to destroy it to allow the female ultimate freedom to ‘control her own sexuality’ which; will destroy the home, and devolve society—and thereby the ‘Village’ model will be embraced through the creation of a modern tribal society.

Christopher Robin, owner of the Purple Heart hose in Hollywood California is one such man. He never left his child, but because his wife is politically connected and fully understands that the state will help her destroy him—she has used the system to its limit in which to destroy him and to try and make him homeless. He too, like many fathers has not seen his child in over 900 days. This is a powerful, accomplished, proud man, with a sense of history and heritage. He fiercely wants his child, yet; all the California courts can do with him is to continually harass him and force him to pay more child support. Or to just throw him in jail. Presently, they are demanding that he sell his only home to make back payments to fulfill his ‘obligation’. But the larger issue here is: "How did his wife know and understand that the state would do these actions? Is there a class in which only women take to access the Krell Welfare Machine?

They have no care or consideration that he will be homeless upon him being forced to sell his only home. To satisfy the Roman lust to watch yet another father fall upon his own sword is part of the empire that has embraced these radical enclaves of Feminist thought, and outright treason within the District Attorneys offices and our nations courts. Mr. Robin has to provide for his own destruction; or—he goes to jail again, and again, and again. This is American progress which has left 40% of this nations children without a father, and scientific journals and periodicals frantically asking the question: "Where are the Fathers?!??" More importantly, it has filled the courts which now gloat and profit from the insane profits and increases within their singular industry.

This war has grown into such a magnitude that presently it has become big business for daytime television shows to ‘reunite’ the father with their children, who now have grown into full adulthood who are psychologically starving for their own fathers to fill an unknown void within their lives. Most of these fathers cannot even articulate the reasons why they left, but; they are most certainly blamed for the breakup...and they are virtually the only ones being blamed for the family breakup when the facts are that over 75% of the women are causing the divorces... Many of these shows, like Montel Williams and Oprah, (reinforcing the complete and unremittant feminization of the Black community, which will most certainly keep that community in a condition of poverty, and slavery), have fathers publicly ‘apologize’ for their supposed transgressions. This again, is part of the Roman circus, of the carnage engrained in the persecution of the American male, who must acquiesce to the blood thirst of the national television audience and artificially implanted Feminist mindset and thereby on many of these shows the male must profess his sins—which were intentionally programmed against him through the advent of modern feminism—to disenfranchise him from his own home, to usurp his authority, then; to harvest him for as much money that can be extorted from him in which to subsidize the government and the woman who did this to him in the first place! The idea that these shows should in contrast be venerating, and honoring these men; showing the exigent difficulties in which they suffered through, the outright war which consumed them and their children, and perhaps even to start recognizing and blaming the government, the woman and Feminist for creating an environment which led to the fathers separation, then; we would see a concomitant drastic drop in the divorce rate—and thereby save more children and stop these sad testimonials which only further demonstrate Feminists ability to destroy and blame the Father for responding to an un-winnable situation!

Instead, fathers has to publicly apologize for this untenable construct which has been placed only against him, which has destroyed him and millions of unsuspecting fathers. This has placed inhuman pressures upon him within his own home as well as throughout society. Yet the day-time television shows plow on, doing more shows in the exact same manner. Forcing those fathers to admit they were wrong, from a system that was designed to destroy him from the outset.

"It was early evening," [Tom] recalls. "I had not seen my daughter in three months and our first visit was coming to a close. She was seven at the time. I dropped her off at her girl-friend’s house where she was going to spend the night.

I could feel the pain and tears building in my chest long before we got to her friend’s house. I dropped her off and was barely able to mange any words with the girl’s mother.

I drove halfway down the block, pulled over, and wept from a place inside of me that I didn’t even know existed. It was as if firemen were using white hot Jaws of Life to rip open my chest and kill me."

[The Prodigal FATHER, by Mark Bryan, ©1997, Three Rivers Press, a Division of Crown Publishers Inc., 201 East 50th Street, New York, NY 10022., ISBN 0-609-80203-8; p. 202-203.]

This crying ‘from a place inside’ where most men don’t even know exists, proves that they are suffering battle fatigue. Just like in any war they are both psychologically, and physically decimated by this war. Many cases as such, prove that men are suffering battle fatigue, upon an undeclared war that most don’t even realize is waged against them.

"All of a sudden in the middle of his dry description his tears started to flow. "I missed knowing my dad. My mom told me how I should feel about my father. I saw him through her eyes, and I never got to see him with my own. And now he’s dead and it’s too late. I miss him so much. He used to let me work with him sometimes, and the things he helped me build and the only things I remember completing as a teenager. I can’t seem to complete anything now."

[At my Fathers Wedding, Reclaiming Our True Masculinity, by John Lee, ©1991, Bantam Boos, New York; ISBN 0-553-07730-9, pp. 35-36.]

The fact is, that this perverted system needs as many "Deadbeat Dads" and runaway "abandoning" fathers as possible. The government needs this war. It needs fathers ‘missing in action’ from their children’s lives. It’s whole system is rigged by Administrative Procedures to ‘write the record’ in "The light most favorable to government" that the fathers are the abusers and beaters and the malicious abandoners (when the facts show the exact opposite) that the District Attorney’s can achieve their quota’s. This is why, upon a whim, any father can abandon their child, and staggering statistics created out of thin air. Many Fathers such as Christopher Robin as well as myself, haven’t seen their kids in years—although they want to terribly. How can this be? Why not just drive over and see the child? In every-single courtroom I’ve demanded immediate and full custody of my child—how did I turn up to be a Deadbeat Dad? Am I supposed to obey and fund a criminal system which acts in the exact opposite way that I demand...when especially...there is legal precedent and outright laws supporting and defending my position?!??

This question shows the intent in the ignorance of this whole Feminist system. How can this system dethrone the father in his own home, then; invent him into a criminal; burden him with unbelievable pressures and laws; then force him to subsidize his own destruction; steal his freedom then civilly murder him; then; ask him to come back—when the system forced him from the home in the first place; then ask him to meet his child in which he has to apologize?

Experts, such as Mr. Mark Bryan (who are deeply embedded within the faults of this system) have zero comprehension of the problem. They offer many recommendations, but pragmatically zero solutions. Indeed; if fathers follow their solutions—most assuredly—this plague upon civilization will quietly grow even larger, become even more malevolent, and in 3, 5, 10, 50 years, our children will also be devoured by this insanity. This system isn’t ‘just wrong’—it is the inverse of what America is. It is diseased. It is overtly Anti-American...anti-law. Most of these people such as Mr. Bryan, who live on the periphery of this system, and accrue very secure living off its continued destruction (he is a counselor who counsels and mentors Fathers). These people should take a short review of history and look at such institutions of slavery and socialism to see what effects those failed systems had on societies. When we speak of the common law as the "Law of the Highest Reason" and then look at the disasters in which Mr. Bryan’s book, and hundreds others now proliferating massive numbers in which to ‘help save’ Fatherhood—where has there been any semblance of intellectual reason within the present system?!? Where’s the ‘highest logic’ in regards to this issue? The courts? I think not!

To find out what disaster’s lie in wait for future generations from this present system, these experts should multiply this present destruction ten fold, then apply it to the present generation of men, who are suffering through this continuing illegality and outright nightmare.. Such people who ask these questions are much too close to the trees to see their own forest. Such experts are not ‘experts,’ rather; they are employees.

To illustrate this point, lets analyze the exact injustices one single father suffers through upon implementation of this feminist system:

This is but a partial list of what transpires upon implementation of this system against fathers. The best that can happen to a father is to immediately bow to this Leviathan and pay as much and as regular as possible. From this, he will lose about 30% or more of his life’s earnings over his lifetime. His children will really see less than 5% of that.

If the Father will not go along with this fraud, then; the DA will use powers never authorized in this nation to destroy the father. The DA will then try and seize all his property, everything in which to ruin the father and to keep him in line. He will do this for these reasons.

    1. To prohibit any insurrection or rebellion against this unjust system. To maintain crippling fear over men and most especially Fathers. With this fear in place, the system can last centuries and control populations.
    2. To stop fathers from having any opportunity to defend themselves. If Fathers have money, they can defend themselves. The last thing the DA wants is justice. He is unlawfully empowered to steal from the father, to destroy the father, that is his mission. Any defense by the father cuts into profits. He must stop all fathers from ‘burdening’ the courts at all costs.
    3. To maintain and iron grip on the family. If the Father controls the family this whole system collapses. If the Father is destroyed by his removal from the family, then the State becomes the parent. "He who controls the children of America, rules the world."

It is no wonder that men are crying. That is the least they should be doing. The nations of the world should watch very closely the tyranny and injustice of Modern Feminism. I believe Feminism is being used as the weapon of choice to subjugate nations of the world for "something else.". For societies will not accept it outright, especially foreign societies. However; their elite regimes will, and from those silent corridors of power, Feminism will leak into the laws, directly challenging the authority of the father, (and of the society), slowly usurping his authority, and replacing "the better" laws, with "the lesser" until such nations will suffer just as American fathers do presently.

From this new Feminist Legislative authority, a people will lose control over their government. Like the United States has right now, which is not Republican in form; these regimes will rule with the arrogance in direct defiance of their own laws and own people. Just as the Clinton’s presently do in this nation.

From this, even the most devoutly religious, or prosperous nation will not be able to withstand this attack from within by the Elite Regime of their nations, who will happily impose these Draconian injustices upon their own peoples in which to overturn the natural law and order of Patriarchy. Anarchy will reign, and soon you will see the same exact pathologies in those nations that America presently suffers through. Feminism, is a foreign government, in which all nations must collectively get together and kill. It is a virulent virus, and it must be stopped from spreading at all costs.

Many Fathers become emotional because of what has happened to them. They should not feel shame, for they have suffered through a needless war, a war of attrition against the American home waged during a time of profound peace... This war has been directly waging for the past 30 years in full conflagration, and most fathers are suffering from battle fatigue and they don’t even know it. This is what the father above was describing when he said "I wept from a place inside of me that I didn’t even know existed."

Christopher Robin cries any time he attempts to describe to others what he has suffered through at large public gatherings, even in front of the media...

This from a quiet man whose inner strength is irrefutable.

Scott Forest, who stated outright in the movie "Father Figure," a watershed Fathers Rights film documentary by filmmaker Nick Szabo, that he ‘used to pay $150,000 in taxes and now pays nothing.’ Unfortunately, now Scott has cancer...a direct wound from infliction of this war. The children who cry out for their fathers, who blink in wonderment at the loneliness from the quiet strength, discipline and security missing from within their life, are for all practical purposes: war orphans, and their missing fathers are no more than the MIA’s who did not return from the constant infliction of this war.


These words were actually spoken in the United States. An even more bereft observation is that they were uttered by a President, under his authority as a separate branch of government. His flags as defined under USCA Title 4 fly within these fascist courts which are directly responsible for destroying fathers, and that branch, as well as the other two have abandoned fathers to a system which wages unrestrained war against them. A "kinder and gentler nation??!??" Not in this country. The current "President" now boldly declares "We will find you," which exactly demonstrates how kind this nation has become. This comment hails back to the days of Nazi Germany—"Where are your papers?" and to our darkest days of slavery. The new National Employment Registry which American’s citizens ‘think’ is just to seize "Deadbeat Dads" will in turn, be used for more malevolent purposes, against the whole public. Like every other well-intentioned Social Program, soon it too, will overstep its bounds and will soon become a willing tool in the aid of tyranny.

I am not an emotional man. I have undergone a rather remarkable life, and have even under the most derogatory circumstances, been level-headed—and a consummate performer under harsh or even battle conditions. Yet, I have had the uncomfortable task of holding men in my arms that I wasn’t particularly close to because they have broken-down and wept over this issue. Doing such, is not only a humiliating and humbling experience for me, but it also documents the trial of blood which follows this fascist system which somehow has broken to the point of ruining and destroying fathers.

One has to wonder...why fathers? There is a fallow attempt by many of those within the Fathers Rights community, to hold women up to the same abuses of law that men are presently held to. They want them to start filling the jails for committing the same ‘inventions’ of crime. This is a visceral action held by many within the Fathers Rights community, and it is a false doctrine. We must recognize such retributions in their real light. They are only visceral and shallow attempts to make them suffer the way we have. They do not understand, just like the present Feminists don’t understand that our courts cannot be used for political expediency—at least not if we are to have a viable American nation. We must have one law for all, a law which we can, and future generations can understand and easily follow. Something that again imbues the principles of Republican form. What we must do, is to re-forge those laws which are of the highest reason, once again. We must factually weed out, and destroy the complete conflagration of our present law that nobody understands, and go back to the common law. Once that is done, then; everyone will be able to understand the law, and that understanding will provide a stability within this society which is presently lost to us.

America is ‘supposed’ to be a system of law and governance. Clearly the abuses against fathers are not only against the public interest, as the Supreme Court noted in U.S. v. Belmont (1937), that they are intrinsically against public policy, they are an overt declaration of war.. Fathers are not committing crimes within the home for the greatest part, again, we are ‘invented’ into criminals to fill quotas or to appease the Feminist doctrine that men cannot rule and shall not rule within the home.

Why would Fathers want to subject any American’s to the same injustice and illegalities in which we have unjustly suffered? Why would a Fathers Rights group want to put a woman into jail when he himself takes issue with his own innocence, thereby unjustly being forced into jail? Many American’s have forgotten, because of the social pressures of war that are now waged against us, that regardless—America is not supposed to be a nation of jails. We are not supposed to be number one in prison incarcerations on earth. We are ‘supposed’ to be a free nation, dead last in prison populations.

Well, of course we all know why men are screaming for retribution. It is again, the first visceral attempt to ‘get back’ at women (many whom we should be joining forces with, and not turning away, because they are in fact ‘brothers in arms’ for having gone through the same illegal processes we have), and labeling them all under the same Feminist enemy flag as ‘criminals’ is not right. This is also an attempt to make our enemies suffer the same ‘laws’ and ‘injustices we do...and thereby send the message: "How do you like it?" That may be fine in the short term, but it does not get rid of the foundational injustice which now permeates our whole society.

Some feel that this will make the other side circumspect—and ‘suddenly’ recognize the wrongs they have done. No...factually it won’t. Hillary and those who run this Krell Welfare Machine are lost to the Morbius Imprinting. This system is intentional, is has been planned with more expertise and more logistical intent that it took to place man on the moon. Those within it are blind as we have said before, to anything than what those who pay them want them to enforce. What we are speaking of here is a treason, so high, so deep as to threaten the national policy and formative foundations in which this nation was originally established for. Pushing that empirical supposition aside, we have to again; stop ourselves from such visceral reasoning, and ask abstract questions upon this issue.

One good question is that ‘under’ this supposed ‘fair’ court systems—how can fathers be treated so brutally for doing these ‘crimes’ stemming from within their own home—when women are not treated in the same manner? If in fact these courts were ‘fair’, shouldn’t we really see a 50/50 distribution rate of men and women getting children within our court systems? Shouldn’t we see the same incarceration rates for the exact same crimes? Shouldn’t we see the same release rates in similar time periods?? Shouldn’t we also see ‘Deadbeat Moms?’

We don’t, because this system is so corrupt. Unjust criminal courts and prisons appear to be for men, and men only. In that regard we do not have Feminists challenging this Affirmative Action within our courts and prisons. Upon this inequality, they are strangely quiet. In fact, there is a movement underway in the Feminist legal community to rage about the injustice of these present court systems and to actually lie and pretend that they are being treated unjustly. Nothing could be further from the truth. If this were even remotely true, then; you’d see exactly the same number, well—in fact you would see more women on these nationally advertised "Deadbeat Dad" lists---due to the fact that in accordance with SB-96-16, three times the amount of women default on child support then men. Other statistics go as high as five times child support default rates. So, understanding this, there ‘should’ be three to five times more pictures of women than you do men in these "Deadbeat Dad" wanted posters, if everything was statistically, on the up-and-up. It is not. The whole system is corrupt, from top to bottom and is costing taxpayers—Trillions.

That issue notwithstanding, in reality—we should be attaching no money to this issue, for that is the real corruption which is making this whole thing devolve into a constant state of war.

A more profound observation comes from the recognition of the amazing specter and breadth of these ultimate police powers used against men by courts and government. As noted earlier, not only courts and police instantly become the Fathers’ enemy the instant he is ‘transformed’ into a criminal, but so do an amazing array of tertiary Government Administrations and Departments...ranging from the Department of Motor Vehicles to the Department of State which grants passports and every state and federal administration inbetween. Instantaneously, men are outright attacked by every agency of government; county, state and federal combined. He cannot get a job or a bank account or own any property without having it seized.

He cannot run from this supposed ‘special debt’ or ‘special obligation’ which is a sealed obligation (which he has no idea of or comprehension of; for all fathers I have met with or spoken to do not even know this ‘obligation’ or ‘special obligation’ even exists—for they can’t produce it) which he cannot run from, flee from, or move to foreign countries to ever escape... He cannot discharge it when he is poor through bankruptcies.

Now under those broad powers never before seen in any other crime, this includes even if you are Charles Manson and mass murdered 3, 10, or 60,000 people; this includes even if you are Charles Keating, and defraud thousands of people out of Billions of dollars; or if even you are mass bomber, you still retain the right to own property, to discharge debts—to declare bankruptcy—but not if you are a father and you have supposedly committed a crime within your own home.

Of course the insanity of this logic is unnerving, however; it is even more sobering given in the light of the true, broad spectrum of powers that are allowed for this ‘supposed’ crime: why even make this crime at all?!????

If in fact, and it is a fact, that by these superhuman broad powers contained within the state, never seen before in any society upon the face of the earth—in which the government ‘as the ultimate and absolute sovereign authority’ retained in the state, under the doctrine of Parens Patriæ—if the true law is that under this ultimate, pure, omniscient power to capture and claim everything, through banks, through seizures or any other possible means by the breadth and empire of government; up to and beyond that person’s own death: then why really make it a crime at all?

If the state claims these ultimate powers, and it is in fact enforcing them; then isn’t it a fact that just being in America and being this ultimate slave where everywhere we work, every monetary transaction we make which is now directly monitored by the government, and since everything we own or need to do only comes by license granted to the slave by the state—then in the final analysis--doesn’t the legal equation only come to a matter of time where the government can seize these assets? Under the circumspect omniscient authority of a ‘supposed’ "kinder, and gentler nation;" shouldn’t the government just seize what it wants during the life of the Father (slave), even upon his death, to abscond with his that the debt or ‘special obligation’ be discharged in a ‘kinder and gentler’ way??? Why arrest, and imprison the father? Why the duress placed against the father by the embodiment of the state? Why drive him from and disenfranchise him from his own home and children? Why burden our prisons? Or through imprisonment, make it impossible to get a job? Why make fathers cry? More importantly, if this financial obligation indeed has to be accrued in such draconian manner; then why not include both parents in the payment? Why just the father when he ‘supposedly’ has 50/50 joint custody?

There are only two possible answers to this primeval legal question:

    1. It was a mistake.
    2. The state is claiming fascist power and control over the home and father, thereby forcing him into submission.

I am convinced, that item number one does not need any discussion, given the light that so many people, so many lawyers, so many Judges and ‘supposed’ third-party experts have designed this system to act in this draconian manner. Out of the thousands of people involved in this design, the probability is that at least one of them fully understood that what they were doing was a complete misdirection of American law. In redundancy alone, there can be no mistake in regards to the design and implementation of this feminist program of this perverse system which sequesters Fatherhood, and summarily destroys it. There is no mistake of its design. The elite’s whom made these laws, and policies and procedures had cogent knowledge that they were violating Constitutional law.

But for one thing, nobody supposed that the king even with the consent of the English prelates and barons could alter the common law of the catholic church....Theology can be brought in to explain or to conceal any difficulty that there may be in the conception of a king, who though subject to no man, is subject to the law;--God is subject to law, and has even made himself subject to the law for man. The practical question is whether there is any mode in which the law can be enforced against the king. That no ordinary process of his courts will touch him is admitted...But there is no established orderly method whereby this can be accomplished, and the right to restrain an erring king, a king who should be God’s vicar, but behaves as the devil’s vicar, is rather a right of revolution, a right to defy a faithless lord and to make war upon him, than a right that can be enforced in form of law....

Again, we may see that Bracton had not our modern notions of ‘authority.’ He has told us how he set himself to peruse the ancient judgements of the just because his ignorant and uneducated contemporaries were misrepresenting the law; he appealed from them to the great men of the past...

[The History of English Law, Before the Time of Edward the I, by Sir Frederick Pollock, ©1968, The Cambridge University Press, Bentley House, 200 Euston Road, London, N.W. 1, American Branch: 32 East 57th Street, New York, NY 10022; pp. 182-183.]


There is a clear mistake of law, and gross error of law within the new redesign for humanity now propagated by our courts under the Anti-law of Feminist Jurisprudence and Family law.. Under these broad sweeping powers the United States has declared upon even the most minute aspect of our lives, its ability to seize property has become more than legendary—it now supercedes all lawful processes of law. The American citizenry is truly in terror of its own governments. With this ability, the fact really is that the State doesn’t have to criminalize this issue, it only does because the feminists, and other special interest groups, including themselves want systems to control and harvest the father. This can be the only reason for this present tyranny, and that is to destroy both fathers and families. These facts and figures have been fully acknowledged for at least 30 years now, and still—they continue with this present unlawful and illegal legal systems.

All government’s state and federal government’s have ingrained within every one of their Constitutional compacts that "all men have the right to acquire, enjoy, protect, and defend property." That we have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The monolithic claim by the government is that Fathers no longer enjoy these rights, due to a ‘special’ and ‘sealed’ contract which no father is aware of nor can produce. Thereby, through that nudum pactum (or naked promise to which consideration is given to each side) the Father gets the comprehensive list of tyrannies listed above and the State obtains his own children, and the Fathers life with all his property to be disposed of at the will of the State. This is the supposed construct of this unconscionable contract which for the greatest part, only Fathers are defrauded into. As anyone can see this obliterates the organic promises and compacts stated above, to life, liberty and property. And upon this supposed ‘contract’ the state claims superhuman qualities, of seizure, imprisonment, and broad, uncontrolled state powers...only applied against men. (But as we can see, more and more women are getting caught up in this fraud).

Upon this house of cards, which no man, if he were ever presented with the real truth or contract of the state through fraud inducing him into such an unconscionable contract would ever enter into—then upon claim of such superhuman powers the Government, ‘simply forgets’ the path of least resistance, that; they could perhaps just claim the debt across the human life span. Instead, it uses extraordinary, extra-judicial procedures of an Anti-American Fascist state claiming ultimate powers through all agencies of the government against that individual father. Since the government is claiming by these sealed ‘special obligations’ which operate through the private law of the Feminist designed Family Law Act, that the State owns everything, and can do anything with the Father who has "No Constitutional Rights." Wouldn’t it just be simpler to gradually take away whatever he supposedly owes over his life span? I make this case in the light of Government claiming ultimate Fascist rights over everything, which appears to be their normal procedures now.

This is supposedly the argument of why we pay taxes...which again; this system operates by, thereby creating a double jeopardy issue in defense of the Father, yet; in which no court will ever entertain, because that paradox is negated by the terms in the forum of the ‘special obligation’ in which he has contracted away forever all his rights. Of course when one looks at the pubic policy of America, we can see the proof of my argument that these paradoxes cause a social pressure within the society that are circular and can never be solved:

"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."

Samuel Adams, 1772

This will never happen however. The state will never allow this new slave-class of people to escape their ultimate fate. This is why they provide no redress to fathers. This is due to the foundational construct of this system itself; and beyond that—it is sealed by its terrorist history. A history mind you, that intentionally makes men cry.

The facts are, that this system is a terrorist system, imposed by the organized crime syndicate of the state through and by the courts. This system is in fact, in which millions of Americans fought against and died in battle to combat it ever dominating this nation. It is not only in this nation; it is now the policy of the performance of choice for the elite regime within our own government. They want men to be broken and to cry because they want man and this society to become their slaves. They do not entreat freedom, they are repulsed from it. We have seen Judges and Lawyers sneer at such terms as ‘Republican Form’, and "common law rights". We have heard them proliferate doctrines such as "you have no Constitutional Rights" and other reprehensible acts and procedures.

We see Legislatures in a veritable feeding frenzy to make laws against Fathers even more draconian than before. There are more laws against the father, (the whole Anti-Father Family Law Act is in fact against the father, and has been challenged in the courts, but dismissed for obtuse procedural issues) than any other species in the United States. The breath and scope of most of these laws are anti-American, non-Constitutional, and Unconstitutional in their scope, of practice, policies and procedures. Then Feminist, Politicians and the Mainstream media regale against "Angry White Males" patronizing them and speaking to them in derogatory manner and in light fashion.

This system instead of choosing the ‘kinder and gentler’ alternatives to self-governance, under the tutelage of Feminism and radical Feminist Jurisprudence, have followed the exact model of Civilization under Dr. Eugene Weber’s study that Matriarchy was a tribal state, in a constant state of war. Their performance in creating this needless war against men, categorically reaffirms Dr. Weber’s erudite research on mankind and civilization. We are in fact, in a state of war. Men are crying. Men are dying by and because of this needless conflagration.

These policies of creating war in a time of peace are not only public policy, nor just national policy, but they are special policies which have not only no basis in government or law, but they breed contempt against our laws. They contain the genius of reinventing slavery, against a gender whose participation in the American experience is the formation which makes this nation free. This is why the black male was so brutalized in the antebellum south. Governments and power constructs have no real concerns about the females, and our prisons are written testimony to this fact. This war which has reinvented slavery is being imposed and implemented against men, to control men; for an ulterior purpose as yet undefined, but most certainly contains the undermining of the male authority so that government can assume that role of being the main influence over a peoples.


We have demonstrated here that there is a cascaded failure within government’s and courts in regards to this issue. The logic which propagates this perversion cannot be defended in any intelligent light. This is not to say that they cannot, and will not be defended; but they will only be so by and through obfuscation and a perverse interpretation of the laws and especially of logic and reason.

The state turns to the father to provide for his children because under the common law, that is his mandate. He is to provide for the love, care, maintenance and his education. This clearly was a part of the law, and was a solemn responsibility of every father who had a child. Yet, there was a reason for this, and it enjoined a concomitant legal theory which mandated as such due to the fact that the father not only had to pay for the maintenance and care of his home, but; (and this is a huge but) he also accrued, enjoyed, and expected the benefits of that home. He had the responsibilities, because he enjoyed the rights!

This of course was a quid pro quo arrangement that was easily justified separately, in both law and equity. If you enjoy a benefit, you therefore accrue the burden. Presently, fathers accrue super burdens and they enjoy absolutely no enforceable rights! Just under this construct of law, no father should pay either child support or alimony. Again, this demonstrates that Government was keenly aware that it took two parents to develop a home, and they protected them accordingly. It understood that in order to have the man stay for an extended period within the home, he would have to enjoy certain rights, privileges, or benefits; which once earned, would make the home flourish and would more importantly, bind the man to the home through thick and thin.

They also must have understood Briffault’s Law, as they knew that as men were groomed for the institution of marriage, that women; in order to protect themselves and secure a happy existence within the institution of marriage, that they would have to bind themselves to the best prospect possible in marriage. There job, once they had secured such a person; was to bind with him, become as one; then working as one team—build and develop a stable and profitable family. This was called coveture, which again, is starting to come again in vogue as the Feminist model is being discarded in favor of traditional marriage once again.

This aside, it is the male’s case we are concerned with here. Simply put, it is the fact that the man had these responsibilities because he enjoyed these rights. More importantly, he not only had the responsibilities of providing for his wife and child, he was also responsible for their actions and any debts they might accrue. This, as we can see, was even a larger burden than we imagine today. But in retrospect, we can see that this responsibility has been lost to this society as childhood crime and petty theft have exploded because the Fathers influence is presently missing from within the home and family. So, essentially, Western Society said this to the Father, it said, "You take care and be responsible for this and that, and we will let you enjoy your home and family."

Today’s Feminist society and especially our court systems, have taken away the Fathers basic rights to control his own family, to rule within his own home, the system of coveture which bound his wife to him and made them one, to own and enjoy his own children, to benefit from their labor, to protect his own property and life savings within his own home, and to have a system to where his own wife serves him so that he can establish a good home in the first place.

Yet, this Feminist system demands that he pay and be responsible for everything in which he tries to create, but because of the omniscient social pressure of feminism, is most apt to be destroyed. From this, he is disenfranchised and enslaved.

In this system, there is no consideration for the male. It is either gone altogether, or in the kindest light, been crippled beyond recognition. Yet—he is supposed to be burdened with greater responsibilities than ever were dreamed of in the past! Now, he is supposed to fund his own destruction, even when he recognizes that this perverse system is stealing from him and insolently and unlawfully enslaving him. The woman obtains all the considerations: her new found ‘freedom’s’, the children, and various financial subsidies, sometimes for life!

Yet, upon receiving these substantial considerations, which under law "he who accrues the benefit, assumes the responsibility," she is responsible for nothing! She is the one living and spending time with the children. She is the one enjoying their company and the benefits and joy of their association. The male is pushed out, disenfranchise, and then coerced into paying for his own destruction.

These willful acts perpetrated against men, to forcibly take his children from him by such putrid legal design’s and from this allow both the woman and the state to benefit by their unclean acts is totally against the principle of American law, and against the spirit and intent of this nation.

"A State too extensive in itself, or by virtue of its dependencies, ultimately falls into decay; it free government is transformed into a tyranny; it disregards the principles which it should preserve, and finally degenerates into despotism. The distinguishing characteristic of small Republics is stability: the character of large Republics is mutability.

[Letters from Jamaica, by Simon Bolivar 1783-1830, [Summer 1815]]

Again, remember what Lord Coke, the First Continental Congress and John Adams said: that the common law is the law of the highest reason, and that we as a nation adopt this law, not as "the common law," but rather, this nation embraced it as the law of the highest logic. Yet, in looking at the present construct of how courts deny men their common law rights which used to bind them to their families, and their families to them—and which by this act, made the man financially and emotionally responsible for these benefits. Now, where is the ‘law of the highest reason’ in allowing him to be denied all the benefits of his children, and total disenfranchisement from his home, and then; forcing him to pay for the resultant chaos.

The only answer the courts and feminist have is: "The Best Interests of the Child." But this is a interpretation that is left logically wanting, given the present circumstances and facts and figures in regards to this whole issue. "The Best Interests of the Child" has exploded divorce, put men in needless jeopardy, placed children into abject harms way, made the institution of marriage a mockery, established a mindset that "sexual freedom" is okay even without responsibility, and has established generations of a useless underclass which is devolving this society. This catalog of failures; is but a short list of the real disaster in which the courts abrogation of its own law, has waged upon this nation. If you mention Lord Coke, Blackstone or Bacon to a Law professor, his eyes will light up with reverent acknowledgement. You bring up these same names to a Family Court Judge and his eyes will cloud with shame, and they will feign ignorance. They will inform you to ‘shut up’ as they scream at you that "You have no Constitutional Rights."

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who posses it. And this I know, my lords, that where the laws end, tyranny begins.

[Case of Wilkes Speech, by William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, Jan. 9th 1770.]

These ‘laws’ are a new mindset in the American experience. They effectively end the true laws of the United States of America. They have no true allegiance or heritage in American jurisprudence. Those who impose them, do so as enemy of we the people, and their errant Misprison of Felony has putatively ruined generations of children, and has burdened this society beyond comprehension. It has devolved war upon an unsuspecting American public and fathers who never saw this enemy from within. Many average American’s still don’t understand this is a law, because the media, as the propaganda arm of the government; has obfuscated its issues so well. Although American’s are well aware ‘something’s’ wrong—they don’t realize that Fatherlessness is a major part, and the most important part, of what is causing the casual observation so eloquently made above: "The world seems to be progressing, while at the same time; it is moving backwards."

This is the sad and disgusting testament of their "Best Interests of the Child" mindset.