Site hosted by Build your free website today!



[The Howard Stern television show: Young 19 year old girl on the show to show how she likes one of the associate producers of that show. Girl now moves to Howard to demonstrate how she can suck his finger with her shirt top off and wearing only a bra:]

Howard Stern: [After experiencing a few seconds of this

Girl deeply sucking his forefinger.] "...You’re a slut."

19 Year Old Girl: [Momentarily Stopping] "No I’m not. I—I’m just very attracted to you."

Howard Stern: "Ah! So, you’re a blind slut."

"A Roman divorced from his wife, being highly blamed by his friends who demanded, "Was she not chaste? Was she not fair? Was she not fruitful? Holding out his shoe, [he] asked them whether it was not new and well made. [They profusely agreed it was.] "Yet," added he, "none of you can tell where it pinches me."

[Lives Aemilius Paulus, sec. 5, Plutarch, A.D. 46-120.]



This is at the heart of the present problem within this nation. The Feminist have been told by government that they must give it a crisis in which it can thereby invoke special military powers upon all American Homes and Families, and most importantly: these newly invented criminal class of Fathers, who the government needs to harvest in which to support their empires. The Feminists have gotten this message loud and clear, and in virtually every report, ‘commission,’ or study which is used by government there is embedded within them Feminist Lies and Disinformation. These lies and distortions are there for a reason, and it took even me a while to understand what they were, but; I’ve gotten to the point to where now I read a feminist supplied or even government statistic and I can immediately pick out how they are weighting it, or skewing either the question or information. There are few facts and figures I have found which are unscathed from intentional bias imbedded into them.

Today, the gender police seek to invade male-female relationships at every stage. Marital conflict is redefined as "abuse," which pamphlets warn, may consist merely of "making you feel bad about yourself." A clumsy advance or an off-color joke becomes "sexual harassment," which in some states children are being taught to recognize as early as elementary school.

....A charge often made against "dissident feminists" like myself is that we acknowledge past problems only to say that equality has now been achieved and the women’s movement has outlived itself. Unfortunately, those who make this accusation usually build their case for continued feminist activism on claims that, as I intend to show in this book, do not stand up to scrutiny. Girl are not silenced or ignored in the classroom. Medicine has not neglected women’s health. Abuse by men is not the leading cause of injury to American women; the courts do not treat violence toward women more leniently than violence toward men. Gender disparities in pay and job status are not merely a consequence of sex discrimination. The eighties were not a "backlash decade" but a time of steady progress for women and, generally, of strong support for women’s advancement. The climate in our society is not one of "cultural misogyny," as feminist writer Katha Pollitt asserts, but is for more saturated with negative attitudes towards men.

[CEASEFIRE! Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, by Cathy Young, © 1999, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc., 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020; ISBN 0-684-83442-1, pp. 9-10.]

These imbedded biases are there in order to misdirect, or worse yet; to commit outright fraud against the American public by either misinforming them as to a particular subject, or; worse yet—lying to them outright. Unfortunately, the public doesn’t even know what is hitting them, except that they know something is terribly wrong, they just can’t understand that it is the source which is the criminal and not, in the final analysis the Father, who in virtually every case, winds up to be the bogeyman in all these studies...

Bad ‘research’... Another famous researcher came up with the famous "73/42 Theory." This said that there was a 115% disparity between men’s and women’s standard of living after divorce (women decreased 73% and men increased 42%). As usual, in order to lie so brazenly, the first thing to do is to play ‘the definition game’ on the phrase: ‘standard of living.’ In this case it was defined with reference to a brand new ‘income/needs ratio theory’ which shifted the total cost fo divorce to fathers. The purpose of the theory was to produce numbers insuring a post-divorce SQL equal to pre-divorce.

The data supporting the above was not made available for scrutiny for over ten years (until funding was cut off) at which time it was seen that the:

Data was incorrectly keyed in the computer

Data in over half of the 228 person sample was missing

The ‘Standard of Living’ term was incorrectly used....

...never make it though the media bias The media of course loved to tell the 73/42 tale, ignoring the common-sense absurdity that fathers could have a higher standard of living after losing half of their marital property. (Anyone who suggesting that this shows a lack of journalistic professionalism towards males, fatherhood, and the truth, are dismissed as "biased.") The real power of these [Social Services] ‘theories’ (‘studies,’ ‘research’, or ‘statistics’) of course, is in their ability to shape the way society thinks and acts...

[Where Have All the Good Fathers Gone? Child Support and Custody, by Douglas O’Brien, ©1997, Skid 18 Press, P.O. Box 60630, Fairbanks, AK 99706, ISBN 0-9637496-2-5; p. 117.]

The cliche that divorced men make out like bandits, leaving women and children in the dust, owes much to Lenore Weitzman’s 1985 book, The Divorce Revolution (based on a study of 228 men and women divorced in Los Angeles in 1977). Reading the book ten years later, I was struck by its crude juxtaposition of saintly wives and selfish, greedy husbands whom Weitzman wouldn’t even credit with paternal feelings: she claimed that no father in her study wanted to see his children more often and 70 percent would prefer to see less of them, a finding so at odds with other research as to defy creditability. Nevertheless, with her sound-bit conclusion that the standard of living drops 73 percent for women after divorce and rises 42 percent for men, Weitzman became one of America’s most quoted.

Some scholars questioned these numbers from the start. In 1996, when Richard Peterson of the Social Science Research Council in New York reanalyzed Weitzman’s data and found a huge error in her computations, and Weitzman admitted the mistake (blaming a computer foul-up), the media finally noticed. The revised data yielded a 10 percent increase for men and a 27 percent decline for women in Weitzman’s sample. But two years before the "73-42" percentage was laid to rest, a largely unnoticed study pointed to an income reduction for both spouses in the 1980s: 30 percent for women, 10 percent for men.

....As with many other issues, the discussion of child support is awash with dubious statistics: for instance, that fathers underpay $34 billion a year. This is based on estimates of what would be owed if all single mothers had a support award and every nonresident father earned the median salary. Yet in 1990, 42 percent of single mothers had no award, often because they didn’t seek one. Usually these are never-married mothers, whose boyfriends are mostly poor, often incarcerated, and sometimes dead.

[CEASEFIRE! Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, by Cathy Young, © 1999, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc., 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020; ISBN 0-684-83442-1, pp. 205-206.]


These ‘skewed truths’ are being used by present Government administrations to Justify the military arm of the Krell Welfare Machine. These facts and figures the Feminist place forwards ‘prove’ their eternal assertions of ‘abuse’ and ‘crisis’ exists so a larger state-of-emergency exists in which to inflame the Sir Gallahad Complex of people within government, to get them to ‘act’ upon this supposed crisis within our children, the women, and the home. Of course, there is only one perpetrator and that is the male. What is odd is, that if you strip the ‘qualifiers’ or modifier’s off the Feminist vernacular, you wind up with such small figures or aggregately minor incidences as to turn the whole Feminist issue on its ear. Most certainly this is a quantitative issue, and this is exactly what the Feminist desire. They say that facts figures and figures lie, well, they are exactly right—because of this, many people are confused and thereby, they default on the side of safety, as there are few people either willing to challenge the Feminists or are there ones to consider the full impacts of the policies they fund and pursue when they go down this slippery slope of funding and maintaining Feminist causes.

Hitherto, feminist have excoriated our society for the horrors of rape to which women are subjected, often greatly exaggerating the probability of rape’s occurrence within the average women’s lifetime and even redefining rape to include seduction.

[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. 190.]

Ask such Feminists presenting these crisis’s ‘when’ or ‘how’ this imagined "crisis" will be solved from this public funding, and you will get blank stares, for the Feminists and psychologists, Police, Counselors, and Child Welfare Social Service and a plethora of other opportunistic services embedded throughout the Krell Welfare Machine are never there to solve these crisis’s, they are there to solve these "crisis’s" by eternally managing them, at exponentially rising rates of public subsidy. Ask me when the Fathers Rights community could solve this "crisis" with no public funding and I give you a timeframe of about five to ten years maximum. It may take up to 20 years to re-inculcate our people to relearn self-reliance and the principles and disciplines of Patriarchy, but effectively the present Krell Welfare Machine would be effectively turned off, and all the attendant social pathology within approximately five years. Start bringing up such realities, and the whole Feminist and "Save the Children" superstructure goes white with fear. What we are speaking of here is re-instituting a freedom so profound and widespread as to make the World War II postwar economic boom, pale in comparison. Most certainly, these immediate impacts of re-implementing Patriarchy would very quickly drop both Welfare rates and social pathology rates being committed by a majority of teens. This figure alone is staggering, and most likely accounts for approximately 50 percent of Welfare’s funding. So many people within government do not want to hear the truth, because it is government empires we are speaking of here, and re-establishing Fatherhood is not good for the business of government, for Fathers factually do no bring in money, nor ask for money from the State. Fatherhood does not need a subsidy, in fact; Fatherhood best flourishes when left completely alone—and this is the key not only to its success throughout civilization and is why Western Civilization chose it, it is also the reason why Fathers are so important to families in the first place. Drop a mother with small child in a forest, and you have a crisis. Do the same thing and add a father and soon you have a small farm, and a sovereign family living off of the environment.

Is this a Patriarchal conspiracy? Is this gender based discrimination? is just the way things are. Again, we are re-discovering the obvious, for what we are speaking to here is about the Nuclear Two Parent Family. This type of Family, if left to itself is the greatest producer of wealth and social stability. This is the system of Families in which Western Civilization intentionally supported and selected as the most viable system for its societies. Conversely, this is the exact system the modern Feminist hate, and are pro-actively destroying and replacing with ‘something else’—which could range from anything from blended families to Radical Gay and Lesbian lifestyle household’s....

Are these forms of ‘Families’ producing the same weighted intellect and performance as the Nuclear Two Parent household? Of course not. These forms of families need so much public funding and public support that this nation is involved within a sustained financial crisis in which to keep such families afloat. The final product emanating from such families, is hardly desirable. Yet, government willingly keeps producing them. We must pose the question: "Why?"

Feminists contend that men are abusers. Well, this may be true—but to what extent? We fully know and understand that because of testosterone production that men are more aggressive and more physical; yet, conversely we fully recognize their benevolence which has been clearly demonstrated throughout history, especially towards their own families, and more particularly towards their own children. Yet, the Feminist have created Superstructures by creating a villain out of the mist. They have not only invented a bogeyman—they have kept this bogeyman alive, imprisoned and force-fed on the order of a half-century! They continually drag his emaciated and withering body out from the locked closet, display him in front of some august government committee and say: "See? Here he is, the mighty abuser!" and then through the miracle of that one word ‘abuse,’ the whole system is refunded yet again, from this pale and withered body stored generationally in the Feminist closet. This one word, ‘abuse’ has built and now sustains empires that have wasted more money and lives than every single war ever, combined.

One glaring example of the Feminist capability to lie and distort comes from a book named "Domestic Violence" by Karin L. Swisher. In this book it has a section entitled "Women as ‘ho’s’ ":

"Specifically, I mean an atmosphere in which young men are "taught" by their fathers, if they have one, and older brothers to refer to women as "ho’s" ("whores") who need abuse; where physical violence is a common means of ending verbal disputes; and where women are mistrusted and detested."

[Domestic Violence, by Karen L. Swisher book editor, Greenhaven Press, Inc. PO Box 289009, San Diego, CA 92198-9009, ISBN 1-56510-380-7, p. 38.]

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth here, because in fact, as most ‘Single Mother Household’s’ and District Attorney’s keep screaming at society that the reality is that the father is not there in the first place, to inculcate this base behavior. In fact, this behavior Ms. Swisher and others pretend upon the father is in fact a fraud! It is in reality, the beast of their own making, which they cannot control. Such as Maria, and Peco and others documented throughout this book whom come directly from Ms. Clinton’s "Village" and who have devolved into the Tribal state, with tattoo’s, secret signs, colors, and even their own language. This sub-class of persons who are the generationally poor, the new permanent amoral underclass locked within crime are treating and labeling women as ‘ho’s’ because that is the main product produced within Ms. Clinton’s new tribal state. To blame this on fathers whom are not even in this "Village" is ludicrous—yet, this is an example of the feminist mindset. Indeed, it goes beyond this, and the proof shows itself in the language itself; "You go girl..." "It’s the bomb," "He’s got it goin’ on." And other such euphemisms have become a new dialect which is leaking up from the underclass’s and which now becomes part of the national mainstream lingo of which ‘ho’ is but one. Indeed, ‘ho’ came along with the establishment of Radical feminism and Welfare, which in fact, hit the Black communities first, and the most hardest.

Feminists have recreated a double-speak within language which controls not only society, but also men. I was dating a rather astoundingly beautiful young women who I had fallen head-over-heel’s for. We were just dating, but; very soon—I quickly recognized something was extremely amiss. I remember one particular discussion, about nothing really; just a benign normal conversation to where I commented to the effect: "Yeah, she’s a good girl." In reference to one of our mutual friends being a very nice person. This was met; mind you; I was dumbstruck—with literal screaming—that this person was not a girl but a woman. A woman!!! This has created a system of empowerment for feminists (which this young girl just happened to turn out to be), in which they can control, even demean men for their own ulterior motives. They use ‘speech’ and Politically Correct terms to keep men, and society in check. Those whom do not use the correct phrenology, are soon out of the loop, even attacked. Many loose jobs now just for innocuous terms which can be misconstrued by using this technique for political purposes. It is odd, that feminists who bemoan that we are not a tolerant society to either them, gays, homosexuals and other alternate lifestyles, are conversely; extremely intolerant of anyone whom does not share their views or political mindset. Even the most ardent facts become skewed through the lying feminist lens—until someone does very rudimentary scrutiny of these lies.

Overall, fathers’ groups point out, mothers are granted custody 90 percent of the time. Feminist retort that when men ask for custody, they have the edge. "Contrary to public belief, 70 percent of al litigated custody trials rule in favor of the fathers," shouts the jacket of the 1996 book Divorced From Justice: The Abuse of Women and Children by Lawyers and Judges by Karen Winner. The "NOW Action Alert of "Fathers’ Rights’" adopted at NOW’s 1996 national conference also asserts that "many judges and attorneys are still biased against women and fathers are granted custody 70% of the time when they seek it."

This widely cited figure first appeared in Mothers on Trial: Phyllis Chesler reported that 70 percent of "custodially challenged" mothers in her sample lost.

While even sympathetic reviewers noted the sloppiness of Chesler’s use of statistics and her penchant for hyperbole (such as likening custody hearings to medieval witch trials), her "findings" was often presented as fact. There were other sources. According to sociologist Lenore Weitzman, author of the acclaimed book The Divorce Revolution, two-thirds of fathers asking for custody in the late 1970s in California succeeded. The Massachusetts Gender Bias Study reported that fathers who sought custody won sole or joint legal/primary physical custody 70 percent of the time.

Even if true, this could mean that fathers seek custody only when they know they have a chance because there’s something wrong with the mother. Indeed, explaining why few noncustodial mothers pay child support, the Gender Bias Study says that "women who lose custody often do so because of mental, physical, or emotional handicaps," which impair their earning capacity. That aside, the high success rate of men in custody battles is another contender for the Phony Statistics Hall of Fame.

[CEASEFIRE! Why Women and Men Must Join Forces of Achieve True Equality, by Cathy Young, © 1999, The Free Press, A Division of Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020; ISBN 0-0684-83442-1, pp. 199-200.]

These feminists create these problems by using such techniques such as outright lying, then; when they have accomplished their goals of ‘sexual liberation,’ ‘sexual freedom,’ and ‘the right to control our own bodies,’ by overt, perverted sexual acts, they then turn around and take great umbrage that those in their own tribe would dare label them with the truth!. Indeed, reading the above passage about "ho’s," this author dares make the comment "Moral leadership—from within—is what is most needed to combat this environment." [Ibid. P. 38] Yet in reality, the facts are that men who try to impose such moral leadership are quickly labeled as ‘abusers’—even in court, where if a man dares bring out morality, he is quickly admonished that morality means nothing. He can’t use morality as a legal issue for he cannot even use morality in his own home! That he is to only shut-up about morality and abide by the courts amoral decisions, of which of course is that the Father must act moral and pay child support!! Any such father forcefully laying down such morality as proper and civil speech within the home or court is most certainly, quickly driven out as an abuser, as a man who cannot be reasonably worked with. Thereby, the modern feminist revel in their new found freedom of sexual immorality, of lesbianism, and other gay and alternative lifestyles which immolate this nation into sexual anarchy. Then; when the children from this underclass observe the reality of this, and start to call a spade a spade and define such women as whores—or "ho’s"--those women in such communities, finding such sexual freedom and anarchy in having several sexual partners, and propagating several different children each with different last names--well, then its the man’s fault once again! Again, this is a paradox presented to the male community: "don’t call us whore’s when we act on our sexual political agenda which turns us into whores."

This logic of course, is insane. Yet, this outrageous stupidity has funded countless programs, it has fully established a prevalent Matrilineal dominant class within the Black and other Welfare driven communities, and it has lent itself to also subverting the male and disenfranchised him from his own home, labeled of course, as the "abuser." This non-logic has accrued literally trillions of dollars for the feminists, and most importantly, it has left these societies devoid of any morality whatsoever.

"The great difficulty was not to devise the Constitution to the Federal Government, but to find out a method of enforcing its laws. Governments have in general but two means of overcoming the opposition of the people they govern, viz., the physical force which is at their own disposal, and the moral force which they derive from the decisions of the courts of justice."

[Democracy in America, by Alexis De Tocqueville, ©1946, Oxford University Press, New York, Inc., pp. 79-80.]

Of course we can see here, that all Judges who have pursued this illegal modern feminist doctrine have clearly been following an oxymoronic endeavor. Yet not one of them will change in the light of these self-evident truths, which proves nothing more than an indictment against this whole corrupt system. This of course means that the courts are no longer using morality within American courts—they are only using their sole remaining power which stems out from the barrel of a gun. The final analysis of this means—that we now live in a country were only guns and force of arms equals law.

The biggest lie in the feminist arsenal is the abuse charge, which has been played over and over for nearly 50 years now, yet; government and the media fall for the ploy every single time, although; in the mainstream community the first signs of wear or just indelibly sinking in. "There are over 700,000 false reports of child abuse in America each year, mostly divorce related," (This figure comes from Dr. Douglas Besharov, former director of the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect.) Of course estimates range that anywhere from 90% to 77% of these charges are untrue. Indeed, these facts are repeated in FBI DNA statistics which discount about 33% of all sexual assault charges. Of course, this totally discounts men such as Carlos, who are dirt poor and who are placed into prison without evidence, like a great many more of men presently sitting in prison who are completely innocent—are there because these criminal courts along with Feminists, DA’s and lawyers, coerced them there. With a total jail population of XXXX we are at minimum speaking on the order of thousands of men imprisoned thusly. So much for letting ten guilty people go to save one innocent person.

We can see this from the mass of explosive figures emanating from this one subject:

"The "Child Maltreatment 1994: Reports from the States to the National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect" shows that 1,012,000 children in 48 states were victims of substantiated child abuse and neglect in 1994, and increase of 27 percent since 1990."


What is more important than this figure, continues on this same web page:

"Missing from this statement is the number of "unsubstantiated reports of child abuse" which is more significant than the number of "substantiated reports. There were 2,124,540 unsubstantiated reports last year, and increase of 720% from 1976...the damage done to one family unity from just ONE false accusation is reparable and unmeasurable. The damage done by 2,1124,540 is monumental.


Further down this same web page we come to the real reason for this exponential explosion of abuse reports.

"It is estimated that 170 different funding sources come into play when a report of child abuse if filed, and that the average cost to taxpayers (not including legal fees by parents, loss of work, emotional stability, and other expenses to the parents) is $157,000 per case. If this applies to each of the 3,219,000 reports filed last year, this is a staggering $505.4 Billion per year."


To accrue these huge monies, the Krell Welfare Machine must be turned on, and the thousands of various sub-machines within the main Krell Machine all work together towards funding this, and of course to do this, there must be a victim: the Father (or the male in this instance). This machine feeds itself through civil cannibalism.

The media, for the most part, uncritically repeat the "advocacy statistic" that false complaints account for no more than 1 or 2 percent of rape reports, the same as for other crimes. Actually, FBI statistics show that about 8 percent of rape reports are "unfounded"—dismissed at the earliest stage of investigation, without charges being filed. The feminist party line is that many, if not most, of these are valid complaints, nixed because they lack sufficient proof or because the authorities distrust acquaintance rape claims. But dismissals due to insufficient evidence usually occur further down the pipeline, and the "unfounded" category. Generally a complaint is unfounded only when the alleged victim recants, or when her story is not just unsupported but contradicted by evidence.

Measuring false allegations is all the more difficult since policies on unfounded criminal complaints differ from one jurisdiction to another, resulting in very different numbers. A Washington Post investigation showed that in seven counties in Virginia and Maryland, almost one in four rape reports in 1990-1991 were unfounded; when contacted by the newspaper, many "victims" admitted that they lied. More shocking figures come from a study by now-retired Purdue University sociologist Eugene Kanin, who reviewed the police records of an Indiana town and found that 45 of 109 reports of rape filed from 178 to 1987—41 percent—were false by the complainant’s own admission.

[CEASEFIRE! Why Women and Men Must Join Forces of Achieve True Equality, by Cathy Young, © 1999, The Free Press, A Division of Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020; ISBN 0-0684-83442-1, p. 150.]

So, unfortunately, the Feminist have developed a machine that needs lies to bolster their statistic’s as energy in which to operate, so they more than willingly supply the machine with as much statistic’s as it needs. The media of course, with full knowledge that the feminist have lied time and time again—keep on publishing these politically motivated lies. Note the way in which they accomplish their continued high profiling of their own lies:

"As [Mary] Koss reported in Judiciary Committee hearings in 1990, "Among college women who had an experience that met legal requirements for rape, only a quarter labeled their experience as rape. Another quarter thought their experience was some kind of crime, but not rape. The remaining half did not think their experience qualified as any type of crime."

A somewhat different account of how these same students labeled their experience was reported in 1988 by Koss and others.

    1. 11 percent of the students said they "don’t feel victimized,"
    2. 49 percent labeled the experience "miscommunication."
    3. 14 percent labeled it, ‘crime’ but not rape,’ and
    4. 27 percent said it was "rape."

The fact that 42 percent of students classified as victims by Koss had sex again with the men who supposedly raped them was not mentioned in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee. In 1988 she originally reported: "Surprisingly, 42 percent of the women indicated that they had sex again with the offender on a later occasion, but it is not known if this was forced or voluntary; most relationships (87 percent) did eventually break up subsequent to the victimization."

[Sexual Violence, Opposing Viewpoints, by Tamara L. Roleff, Book Editor, ©1997, Greenhaven Press, P.O. Box 289009, San Diego, CA 92198-9009, ISBN 1-565510-560-5; pp. 59-60.]

What is most sad that as what is displayed above, gets even worse when feminist ‘studies’ and ‘research’ such as Ms. Koss analysis is truly analyzed. Neil Gilbert who documented these abuses by Ms. Koss brings out most glaring discrepancies when feminist ‘qualifiers’ become injected into the data response survey samples. He noted that when a question asked "Have you ever had a man attempt sexual intercourse (get on top of you, attempt to insert his penis) when you didn’t want to by giving you alcohol or drugs?" The immorality issues of the woman aside notwithstanding, for a woman stupid enough to imbibe in such immoral acts pales in comparison to what Ms. Koss "empirical" analysis came up with a revisal of her own figures such that when such ‘ambiguous’ questions were challenge, and thereby removed from her own survey, "Koss acknowledged that the drug and alcohol questions were ambiguous. When these questions are removed, according to Koss’ revised estimates, the prevalence rate of rape and attempted rape declines by one-third." [Ibid., p. 62.] But unfortunately, this skewed Feminist intent inherent gets worse, as when one begins to look at the overall picture of why these lies and disinformation propagate.

"The most startling disparity is between the Ms. study’s finding on the annual incidence of rape and attempted rape and the number of these offenses actually reported to the authorities on college campuses. Using her survey questions, Koss found that 166 women in 1,000 were victims of rape and attempted rape in just one year on campuses across the country (each victimized an average of 1.5 times). In sharp contrast, the 1993 FBI figures show that in 1992 at about 500 major colleges and universities with an overall population of 5 million students, only 408 cases of rape and attempted rape were reported to the police, less than one incident of rape and attempted rape pre campus. This number yields about an annual rate of .16 in 1,000 for female students, which is 1,000 times smaller than Koss’s finding. Although it is generally agreed that many rape victims do not report their ordeal, no one to my knowledge publicly claims that the problem is 1,000 times greater than the cases reported to the police—a rate at which almost every woman in the country would be raped at least once a year."

[Sexual Violence, Opposing Viewpoints, by Tamara L. Roleff, Book Editor, ©1997, Greenhaven Press, P.O. Box 289009, San Diego, CA 92198-9009, ISBN 1-565510-560-5; pp. 62-63.]

I of course ran into this exact same problem on the California State University at Chico campus where I worked during most of the eighties until the mid-nineties. I read in a local paper some fantastic figures being widely advertised about women being raped across the Chico State campus itself! (which was a very small campus). I felt bad, and was outraged. More than this, I’d never even heard of a single rape occurring on campus up to this time! And I worked there!!! Of course, my job duties as a computer consultant drew me into the Campus Police department, and there, I voiced my concerns and shock and outrage. As I was speaking to one of my officer friends there, I told him of my concerns, and I said to him, "Listen, I’d be willing to establish a volunteer patrol to walk the university at night to combat this problem." When I said that he grinned wide at me, and told me that the figures in the paper were a lie. "They are there just to get money for the Feminist Studies programs here on campus." he matter of factly told me. I couldn’t believe it! I again, was first shocked, then chagrined—kind of angry at myself on being duped so. Even then, I didn’t totally believe him. I was confused like most people are when they read these things. Yet, these same mythologies over the years finally hunted even me down, so I understand the genius and the malevolent design behind these feminist claims. I learned this long before any of my observations about Feminism and its death-hold on our nations campuses, but now, unfortunately I know better because the lies as Mr. Gilbert notes above, are at epidemic proportions. So are most of the "facts and figures" spewing forth under this current Feminist regime that has infested our society. How many of these figures being propagated throughout the feminist mantra of ‘abuse’ are absolutely false and being spewed only to garnish public money and mainstream media support? We can only guess, however, the figure is significant.

To be a part of this blanket warmth...., students are willing to lie. My first year at Princeton, one student was caught fabricating a rape story. Mindy had spoken at Take Back the Night for each of her four years at Princeton, and she had printed her story in the Daily Princetonian. What’s interesting is that her account didn’t really stand out; she sounded like everyone else at the speak-out. Her story could have been the blueprint. Whatever else anyone can say about her, Mindy could really talk the talk.

Her story went like this: she left the eating clubs after one boy "started hitting on me in a way that made me feel particularly comfortable." He followed her home and "dragged" her back to his room. The entire campus, as she described it, was indifferent: "Although I screamed the entire time, no one called for help, no one even looked out the window to see if the person screaming was in danger." He "carried" her to his room "and, while he shouted the most degrading obscenities imaginable, raped me." He told her that "his father buys him cheap girls like me to use up and throw away." And then he banged her head against the metal bedpost until she was unconscious. She then explained that he was forced to leave campus for a year and now he was back. "Because I see this person every day," she claimed, "my rape remains a constant daily reality for me." Now, she said, she was on the road to recovery, and "there are some nights when I sleep soundly and there are even some mornings when I look in the mirror and I like what I see. I may be a victim, but now I’m also a survivor."

Unlike most participants in the speak-outs, Mindy put her story in print. Once it spilled over from the feverish midnight outpouring of the march into black-and-white newsprint, the facts could be checked. The problem was that she claimed she had reported a rape, and she hadn’t. She claimed an administrator had told her "to let bygones be bygones," and he hadn’t. She told people that a certain male undergraduate was the rapist, and he complained to the administration.

....In May of her senior year, 1991, Mindy came clean. Responding to administrative pressure, she printed an apology for her false accusation in the Daily Princeton. She wrote of the person she accused, "I have never met this individual or spoken to him...I urge students who are knowledgeable of this situation to cease blaming this person for my attack." Mindy seemed to explain her motivation for inventing the story as political: "I made my statements in the Daily Princeton and at the Take Back the Night March in order to raise awareness for the plight of the campus rape victims." So these were fiction in the service of political truth.

....The accusation is a serious one, and the boy Mindy accused was in a terrible position in the community until she set the record straight. Accusations of rape stick, and in the twisted justice of the grapevine no one is considered innocent until proven guilty."

[Sexual Violence, Opposing Viewpoints, by Tamara L. Roleff, Book Editor, ©1997, Greenhaven Press, P.O. Box 289009, San Diego, CA 92198-9009, ISBN 1-565510-560-5; pp. 62-63.]


But again, remember what was said about totalitarian and fascist regimes earlier in this book, that they propagate such lies in order to sustain their control over a society, where ‘the impossible becomes plausible’ which is exactly what the feminist are presently engaged in, so they can keep their Krell Welfare Machine alive. Such women as Hillary, Mindy and others could care less about law, about justice, about simple truth.

Yet, even noting the intellectual disparities of Ms. Koss, Mindy and other Feminists diatribe, who are the ones sitting before the government ‘fact finding’ tribunals? The feminists of course! All those who do not entreat the present Politically Correct mindset, are not asked to join in such issues, more importantly, those within government who do not adhere to such sophistry, are quickly thrown out. This is a staggering reality in our culture, it is malevolent, and unfortunately, more and more prevalent.

"Having survived the bean count, chairman Casellas presided over an agency that is weighing such lofty question as whether infertility, obesity, and nicotine addiction qualify for protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act. But even more pressing is a command from liberals on Capitol Hill that Casellas purge from the agency anyone who deviates from the new political correctness. In an October 6, 1994 letter, Senator Paul Simon reminded Casellas about [the agreement you made to me during your confirmation hearing. I had asked that as the new Chairman, you send to me a letter within six months regarding those in the agency who do not believe in the mission of the EEOC...[who] should be transferred to the Pentagon or someplace else." ]

The purge victims turn out to be white males, they may find their problems only beginning... Dorn's message was none too subtle, "as a white male, I can kiss my future goodbye." complained one GS-14 Defense Department employee to the Washington Post. "I am keeping Dorn's memo handy [in case] for some unexpected reason I do apply for advancement. It should serve as excellent prima facie evidence of discrimination due to race."

[The Affirmative Action FRAUD, Can We Restore the American Civil Rights Vision?, by Clint Bolick, @1996 by the Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; ISBN 1-882577-28-0; p. 101]

Many people within our own government are forced to cow-tow to this new Anti-American socialist order in which the Clinton’s and many more like them are presently engaged in. Again, this is but another component of a totalitarian regime. If you will not lie for it, or use law as a political weapon, then; you are out. But again, there is a mind behind the intellect of the machine, the logic which drives it is illogic...and from this illogic...anything is possible. Consider how large such disparities grow and look at the amassed resultant false facts and figures how they double in orders of magnitude by a stroke of a pen:

"Susan Faludi complains that ex-husbands are so selfish they don’t even want to support their ex-wives. Her argument is the same as [Janet] Reno’s.

The real source of divorced women’s woes can be found not in the fine print of divorce legislation but in the behavior of ex-husbands and judges. Between 1978 and 1985, the average amount of child supports that divorced men pad fell nearly 25 percent . Divorced men are more likely to meet their car payments than their child support obligations—even though, for two-thirds of them, the amount owned their children is less than their auto loan bill.

As of 1985, only half of the 8.8 million single mothers who were supposed to be receiving child support payments from their ex-husbands actually received any money at all, and only half of that half were actually the full amount. In 1988, the federal Officer of Child Support Enforcement, was collecting only $5 Billion of the $25 billion a year fathers owed in child support.

Ms. Faludi’s figures are faked, but apart from the fakery, why should an ex-husband pay anything to an ex-wife? What services does she perform for him that entitle her to share his income? The support money he is alleged to owe her serves only the bad purpose of financing the destruction of his family.

Donna Shalala makes her contribution to the promotion of matriarchy by doubling Ms. Faludi’s spurious figure of $25 billion to $50 billion, ten times the true amount. (Lying is OK for a good cause.) According to Stuart Miller, cited on page 91, Senior Legislative analyst for the American Fathers Coalition in Washington, "there was about 10.9 billion in court-ordered child support owed by all Americans, and of that, a little more than $5 billion was paid. That leaves $4.9 billion in unpaid child support for 1992—far short of the $50 billion Ms. Shalala hopes to raise. The wildly different estimates are significant: they show how muddled the existing system is, how little anybody knows about what’s going on or how little concern there is for the truth and how much concern for saying whatever will promote the feminist program.

[The Case For Father Custody, by Dr. Daniel Amneus, ©1998, Primrose Press, 2131 S. Primrose Ave., Alhambra, CA 91803, p. 214.]

One might ask given the massive inconsistencies whether these people in the present Feminist movement’s or Politically Correct government sectors, whether they have publicly or professionally readjusted their own mistakes. Indeed, in looking at the disparity of $25 to $50 Billion dollar estimates...with a plus or minus factor of $25 Billion, clearly—someone’s got to be wrong. But who cares? These feminist spewing these lies are not going to prison, only innocent men are. Yet, President Clinton, Ms. Hillary Rodham will still propagate these false figures, they will be widely be disbursed by an eager mainstream media whom are there to groom these people and such things as correcting the accuracy of these lies is way, way, way down on their professional food chain of ‘things to do.’

What we do indeed know, and what I have personally witnessed is that out of the greatest majority owed by "Deadbeat Dads" the greatest majority comes from those harbored within prisons. The other miniscule amount, is owed by fathers who are just either physically or otherwise unable to pay. This perverse leakage or erroneous facts and figures wind up being propagated by the commissions themselves who rely heavily on such feminist propaganda. The infamous "Little Hoover Commission" which was established by then Governor Pete Wilson to study the statewide ‘crisis.’

"Fewer than one in eight children who are entitled to financial help from an absent parent actually get that aid." So began a news release by the Associated Press (Sacramento) on May 14th. This sensational falsehood was attributed to the Little Hoover Commission’s new report "Enforcing Child Support." Since I knew that the quoted figure was an untruth, I called the Little Hoover Commission (916) 445-2121 for a copy of their report.

Sure enough, the false claim, exactly as quoted in the newspapers, appears on the second page of Little Hoover’s covering letter to Governor Wilson and the California Legislators. The falsehood is repeated again on page iv of the report: "When all cases are taken into account, one in eight families who are entitled to support receive it." By the time we get to page xi, the fiction is booted another notch: "The proportion of families who are entitled to child support compared to those who are receiving child support is less than one in nine." NINE? None of these false assertions are backed by any references.

The Little Hoover report itself quotes figures that give the lie to its 1-in-8 claim. On page 10, we are told that "three quarters of custodial mothers entitled to child support either lack child support orders or do not receive full payments under such orders." But, that still leaves 1 out of 4 custodial mothers getting full child support, not just one in 8 or nine."

[W.J. Holly, Ph.D. (209) 668-1498 Web]


Again, we see displayed a pathological tendency for government combined with feminists to outright distort the facts. What we are speaking of here is outright lying. Again, this would be bad enough, for a report having Governmental impact over such a large portion of people, but the lies embedded throughout this "report" continue!

On page 11, Little Hoover misquotes the U.S. Census Bureau, "Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1991" (Current Population Reports Series P60-187, August 1995)(see their endnote 9). And, they fail to mention other data from the Census report that gives the lie to their one-in-eight figure: 56% of all custodial mothers had child support awards in Spring 1992. Moreover, 76% of the moms due child support payments in 1991 did receive payment (52% getting the full amount due, and another 24% at least partial payment.)

[W.J. Holly, Ph.D. (209) 668-1498 Web]

Now again, this is a government who is making such glaring mistakes in their foundational documents they are using and quoting in which to destroy and disenfranchise men, yet; they tell us as they fail miserably at such simple tasks as telling we the American the simple truth, which they appear incapable of, that they are going to micromanage our lives, run the family—and most importantly—they are to ‘redesign humanity’ in Hillary’s image! Indeed! Using these same mistakes? I think not. Yet men, and Fathers who are paying Child Support and other financial supplements are paying for these decrepit studies and commissions who are mostly headed by Feminists such as Ms. Clinton. Those "angry white males" who may have attempted to either carefully check or review such figures or worse yet; who may have tried to bring out the actual truth—are long gone.

When it comes to child welfare, the claims of social scientists must be viewed with extreme skepticism.

Most researchers, who are biased in favor of homosexuals, ignore their own data. Dr. Paul Cameron, Ph.D., of the Family Research Institute has surveyed the admittedly scant findings of his profession on children raised in households with at least one homosexual.

In these studies, between 8% and 33% of adult respondents said they considered themselves homosexual or bisexual, far above the national norm of 2% of the adult male population.

How surprising is this? IN almost every area, parental behavior has a profound, at times predominant, impact on children. The children of smokers frequently become smokers. Kids from abusive homes often become abusers. Children from broken homes are more likely to divorce. Only in the case of homosexuality are we asked to believe that what happens in the home is irrelevant to emotional development.

[The Family, Opposing Viewpoints, Mary E. Williams, Book Editor, ©1998, Greenhaven Press, Inc., P.O. Box 289009, San Diego, CA 92198-9009, ISBN 1-56510-669-5; p. 52.]

No longer are feminist ‘just’ content with turning over our Judiciary, they are sectioning off huge portions of humanity, through the validation and instrumentation of government to control every portion of it. This Brave New Feminist World is not a world which any of us would recognize, perhaps excepting the survivors of Auschwitz or Russian Stalinism who also saw and suffered a similar fate as their institutions of truth and freedom died as they became subverted from within. And again, exactly as in the case with Shalala and Faludi noted above, these figures ‘just’ aren’t small or tiny mistakes, they are errors on an order of magnitude which shock our conscience and mandate questions as to ask: "What is really going on here?"

"Gershenzon also spread it around that the average Child Support per family in California is only $380 a year, using the same methods of distortion. But, the fact of the matter is that the average yearly collection for cases with collections even in the California Child Support Enforcement caseload was $3004 per year (or $250 a month).

On the basis of its sensational statistical lies, the Little Hoover Commission calls for increasingly brutal measures against custodial fathers who owe child support—making nonpayment a felony, creating a National New Hire Registry, taking away business & drivers licenses, and so on. (They do not suggest making it a felony for AFDC Moms not to be supporting their kids or even themselves...only fathers.) Little Hoovers main concern seems to be to substitute Child Support for AFDC support. But, even on the national level, CSE programs spend a dollar for every AFDC dollar they collect, not very cost efficient. The Census report cited says that even if all current child support due were paid, it would only reduce the number of custodial parent household below poverty level from 24% to 21%. Little Hoover itself says, "even if the private child support system works perfectly, ...60% of the poverty gap and more than half the welfare caseload would remain. "So, why step up the brutality? {Speaking of brutality, Little Hoover (p. 36 under "Leadership: Missed opportunities, The Court of Public Opinion") even endorses hate crimes against fathers: "So that when a guy is sitting in a bar bragging that he doesn’t have to pay child support, his buddies will beat him up." No joke. This report has no credibility.]

[W.J. Holly, Ph.D. (209) 668-1498 Web]

"The Average annual child support payment received by mothers in 1991 was $3,011, representing 17% of their incomes.

[Few Parents Pay Support, US Says," San Francisco Chronicle, 13, May 1995.]


Again, we are faced with a government that is the resultant feminist product of GIGO. You put Garbage Into such commissions, you get Garbage Out from government by its laws. This is one reason why our present courts are so patently screwed up and no longer obey their own foundational laws anymore. This is why government has become the real criminal. and the real wife abuser, and child abuser, and abandoner within this nation. It has become a stoic fact that we do not need more Draconian laws against Fatherhood, we need less laws against ourselves and more massive laws and protections against our own government! Who not only facilitate this putrid science, put are making incomprehensible and un-American laws at a rate never seen before in any nations history.

Are people "happy" in the traditional family? "Unhappy" with these [radical feminist] changes? Most people are happier with their personal lives today than they were fifty years ago: women especially have more choices and freedom than they did in the past. A "golden age" of family bliss exists more in people’s imaginations than in their experience.

[The Hite Report On the Family, by Shere Hite, ©1994, Grove Press, 841 Broadway, New York, NY 10003; ISBN 0-8021-3451-3; p. 345.]

Of course this is a blatant lie. With the social pressures of divorce, crime rates, suicide, with murders rising several fold from those ‘pastoral’ days of 1950—which we should never look back to—there is no way we are a happier nation. Indeed, we are so happy, the feminist pretend to tell us, that they are screaming of family violence at epidemic proportions. We have several standing armies shooting unarmed citizens upon our nations streets; where no American can travel our own streets in safety, to either being attacked by a criminal from the Welfare class which Ms. Hite entreats, or by being attacked by the criminal organized crime syndicate of government which has exploded beyond all recognition and proportions to its enumerated authority. With Fathers suffering through both divorce and radically redesigned feminist family life; where AIDS and other social diseases directly linked to the irresponsibility which the feminist have set upon this nation as a plague against our society; I directly challenge any such ‘happiness’ of which these feminists might pretend. Indeed, if anything—our nation is at war with itself—and it is devolving right in front of our own eyes. Clearly this survey Ms. Hite refers to did not address either the Fathers or Children who are being destroyed by this present system in numbers few sociologists can comprehend now-a-days.

Crime studies show that if the family does not perform well, no amount of government intervention can make up for it, says Lucy Sullivan.

Crime figures covering this century show that in the past 30 years respect for people's personal well-being and property has plummeted.

We get a picture of a police force so overtaken by the rapidity of the rise in the crime rate, it has entirely lost its preventative function where serious crimes are concerned.

The re-emergence of private police as a growth industry, in the form of security guards, is a telling sign of the loss of this important civic amenity....


We need to consider raising police numbers to ratios, in relation to crimes, comparable with those a century ago.

An updated version of loitering and vagrancy provisions is also needed if truly preventative strategies are to be achieved. Creation of "alcohol free zones" in trouble spots is one move already in operation.

An increase in crime rates, of 400-800 per cent in a mere three decades, is almost bound to be the effect of a conjunction of several circumstances.....

Sexual permissiveness, rather than poor socialization, was probably the major factor in the rise of ex-nuptial and teenage births between 1963 and 1973, thereby setting in train the social circumstances for later poor socialization....

Efforts at explanation of fluctuations in crime rates have been stalled for a long time on economic causes. This focus must be judged to be almost entirely non-productive, at least as far as long-term trends are concerned.

The remarkable correlation’s between crime rates and family breakdown (divorce, ex-nuptial birth, single parent families), disengagement of women from supervision of their children (female employment) and maturity of parenting are not proved causes, but may be.

Does ex-nuptial birth cause crime or vice-versa? Does divorce cause crime, or vice-versa? Does female employment cause crime, or vice-versa?

In each case, it is unlikely to the point of absurdity that crime is the reverse cause.

But one cannot fail to be impressed that the family factors found to be strongly associated with crime rates - falling and rising across a century - have this in common.

Sexual permissiveness has found expression as both promiscuous and precocious sexual behavior, and these in turn have been given social approval in the liberalization of divorce and in the de-stigmatization of and financial support for, both divorce and ex-nuptial birth.

It may be that to reject "Victorian" virtues and morality wholesale is to take on again the whole range of 19th century ills which their implementation so successfully eliminated.

We should take a public health approach to psychological health for the prevention of crime.

It seems likely that psychological health - at least prevention of crime - may similarly be more sweepingly improved by discouraging divorce, young motherhood, ex-nuptial birth, and perhaps excessive maternal employment. The lesson of recent years has been that if the family does not perform well, no amount of government intervention and activity of the "caring" professions can make up for it.

[Broken Families and Crime: Cause and Effect, by Dr Lucy Sullivan, News Weekly 29 November 1999, p14 .]

We see these Feminist Lies and Disinformation in continuing in virtually all their systems and interactions with either Government, or the Public. In riding the NYC Subway trains, I see Feminist Posters addressing "abuse," however; all over the background of this poster we see the classic Feminist ideology. First, they use the statistical references of abuse—which most of those figures come from women abusing men and children within their own homes! Then, in the background we see the words "He screams at her. He beats her. Tells her the house isn’t clean. He tells her she’s stupid, etc." Again, this is using the dissonance of dissimilar paradoxes, of using one set of figures to create a crisis, then; turning right around and sublimating another set of facts (or even myths as this case shows) which are in direct contravention of the message being displayed. If in fact these Feminists were trying to be fair and were trying truthfully to inform the public of any such crisis, then; the background material would in fact have about 30% of the references against the male, and then would have the remaining 70% making derogatory yet factual statements against the female, who statistically, is the real abuser within the home. For this is what in fact the approximate scientific data really shows. Yet, what we see here, as we do in virtually all the Feminist statistics, is the ability to bait and switch ploy in advertising. This of course if false, it is not really informing the public of what they should know to make proper determinations, it is in fact pure and simply only war propaganda against the American male.

"Since the 1960s feminist have been assuring us that divorce and illegitimacy didn’t mean "the family" was breaking down—it was merely undergoing development, adapting to social changes such as feminism."

[The Case for Father Custody, by Dr. Daniel Amneus, ©1998, Primrose Press, Alhambra, CA., p. 35.]


Of course we can now recognize this is a lie. In fact, the feminist not only want to destroy Fatherhood, but also the family as ‘the’ defined social structure within the American nation. In fact, we can see what they are designing by some of the literature which openly discusses this ‘new design.’

Out magazine, for instance, published an article in 1993 containing advice for "queer moms" who need to "get out of the house and into somebody’s pants." The writer, Susie Bright, whose latest book is Susie Bright’s Sexual Reality: A Virtual Sex World Reader, mentions that it is extremely important to have lots of baby-sitters because "we are more often than not relying on an extended family of ‘aunts,’ ‘godmothers,’ and friends who are often the very people we’d like to spend an evening with."

The need for baby-sitters raises a problem, however.

But teenage baby-sitters are often squeamish about sex, not to mention homosexuality. Who knows what sort of parents they have, and how much they confide in them? The grim side of a gay mom’s social life is that underneath her swinging-single exterior, she is always worried that someone will try to take her kid away. The law is not on our side. No matter what contracts we’ve signed with donors, friendly fathers, or sperm banks, the whole area of child custody and gay parenting is up for grabs.

This sounds horrible, of course. Yet when the author of the article tells a prospective baby-sitter what she must be willing to put up with, we get a rare glimpse at the world that children of homosexuals are raised to take for granted:

I take the out-of-the-closet or out-of-my-house approach. I told my first teenage baby-sitter that I was queer, that I wrote about sex for a living, and that my house was full of erotic art. I said, "If your parents would disapprove of your working here, or if it’s not your cup of tea, then this baby-sitting is not for you."

So the cat’s out of the bag. Bright considers it repressive that some people think it is wrong and should be illegal to raise children in the presence of pornography. What wonderful "family values."

[The Family, Opposing Viewpoints, Mary E. Williams, Book Editor, ©1998, Greenhaven Press, Inc., P.O. Box 289009, San Diego, CA 92198-9009; ISBN 1-56510-668-7, p. 55.]

I believe this was its intent from the First Wave of feminism in 1776 when Abigail Smith Adams wrote:

"I long to hear that you have declared an independency—and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.

That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of friend. Why then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the Lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity. Men of the Sense in all Ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the vassals of your Sex.

....I can not say that I think you very generous to the Ladies, for whilst you are proclaiming peace and good will to Men, Emancipating all Nations, you insist upon retaining an absolute power over Wives. But you must remember that Arbitrary power is like most other things which are very hard, very liable to be broken—and notwithstanding all your wise Laws and Maxims we have it in our power not only to free ourselves but to subdue our Masters, and without violence throw both your natural and legal authority at our feet."

[The Women’s Rights Movement, Opposing Viewpoints, by Brenda Stalcup, Book Editor, Greenhaven Press, Inc., PO Box 289009, San Diego, California, 92198-9009; pp. 27-29.]

Of course one might immediately wonder if Ms. Adams husband: John Adams who just happened to be our second President of the United States, was considered an abuser. I have a supposition he was not, and just as in today’s Feminist propaganda machine, I do believe that this was a ploy to force ‘equality’ on this society, which the Founders, who had a broader vision of this nation, did not fall for. This "Despotism of the Petticoat" as John Adams labeled it, did not have the desired effect of which our present Representatives are like Pavlovian dogs, held slave to today.

Does this mean that our Founding Fathers were abusive and tyrannical men in their own homes? I think not, for their vision in this country, controverts such assessment. Also, in being such iconoclasts the meter of history would have displayed a different countenance upon them.

Mr. Adam eloquently presents the ultimate dichotomy of the Feminist betrayal when he responds "Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey?" [The Women’s Rights Movement, Opposing Viewpoints, by Brenda Stalcup, Book Editor, Greenhaven Press, Inc., PO Box 289009, San Diego, California, 92198-9009; p. 32.] This clearly indicated that the Founders understood like John Winthrop understood that this nation would not be a nation of tyranny, of mob mentality, but rather, one of American ideals and vision—of law--immutable to the temporal sway and mutiny of the mobs--of which Patriarchy was one of the foundational and principal ideals which this nation was formed under. Mr. Adams was not dissuaded by his wife’s shallow attempts to blackmail him by promising to foment rebellion if her demands were not met. We should take note of John Adams courage, and more importantly, his vision.

Above and beyond this, as again from the time of Cicero, Fatherhood was not the raging animal in which feminist betrayed. Being Father of a country or a home fully understood that there were not only responsibilities, but benevolence ingrained in that august institution.

..."In about 1640 a third type of family began to develop, characterized in its later days by a new warmth, a new emotional stability, and a new individualism; the nuclear family consisting of only parents and children. With equality neat timing, there was a sharp drop in the bastardy rate that seemed to confirm the emotional solidarity of the new tightly-knit family unit. ..."In about 1640 a third type of family began to develop, characterized in its later days by a new warmth, a new emotional stability, and a new individualism; the nuclear family consisting of only parents and children. With equality neat timing, there was a sharp drop in the bastardy rate that seemed to confirm the emotional solidarity of the new tightly-knit family unit."

[SEX IN HISTORY, by Reay Tannahill, @1980, 1992, Scarborough House Publishers; ISBN 0-8128-8540-6; p. 333.]

Again, this is not to state that there was no abuse transpiring within the home, but rather that such abuse was again, in the Patriarchal institution, insignificantly way on one end of the Bell Curve and not as much of a crisis as Feminists would have us believe. Again, Patriarchy was an institution that had power vested to it, but; which rarely used or abused that power. On the other hand, early feminist doctrines were an offense not only to the institution of Patriarchy, but to the American nation as well:

"National Woman Suffrage Association was an irresistible arena, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony and their respectable cohorts stood by her, pale but resolute, even when she campaigned no only for woman suffrage but for free love at its freest and a kind of highly personal anarchism that offended every tenet of the American Way of Life--and made a mockery of the entire feminine morality thesis."

[SEX IN HISTORY, by Reay Tannahill, @1980, 1992, Scarborough House/ Publishers; ISBN 0-8128-8540-6; p. 397.]

Again, this was a not too publicized paradox within the Feminist movement, of which fulminated various factions within the feminist movement. Like most civil right activists who we noted earlier, really didn’t believe in the true ideals and precepts of American government, there were some within the feminist movement whom affirmed that they did.

"In the 1970s the concept of "republican motherhood" provided the rationale for women's political activities. It also initiated a debate on women's education and led to the first female academies. The term recalled Thomas Paine's ideal of the republican as an independent, mature person dedicated to the good of society. It reflected women's newfound patriotism, which developed during the American Revolution. Republican mothers had a dual responsibility : to educate sons to be good citizens and to promote the communal good. Throughout the nineteenth century, women used the rhetoric of republican motherhood to justify their political activities, saying they could not be good mothers unless they could vote to keep wrong doers out of public office.

[Women's Progress in America, by Elizabeth Frost-Knappman, @1994 ABC-CLIO, Inc., 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911, Santa Barbera, CA 93116-1911, ISBN 0-87436-667-4; pp. 258-259.]

Of course, who are we to believe in our present circumstances? There can be no argument that this "Republican Motherhood" agenda has been completely dropped by the Feminists as a whole and presently they are implementing an Anti-American doctrine that comes from the direct extrapolation of Marxist Socialist/Communistic theory.

Unfortunately, we are to believe our own reality, which is that government and radical feminist have willfully combined against Patriarchy in which to inflict mortal wounds upon a nation of men who can’t fully understand the magnitude of what is happening to them. They feel as if it is something that they did. They understand whatever is happening is unjust, and that ‘in all fairness’ they should compromise somehow and ‘work within the system,’ as corrupt as it is, to get along as best as they can. Nothing could be further from the truth. If most Fathers could step away from their own particular problems with the present system, they would be able to see a completely misconstrued and ill-designed principals at law which is cogently working against them. There is a ‘big-picture’ to all of this destruction, and ‘just going along’ to protect yourself and remaining ‘invisible’ to the government, just doesn’t cut it anymore. It is time we imbued a sense of engineered principles to the Fathers Rights movement in which to give it cohesiveness and direction. If we Fathers don’t have the courage to stand against such tyranny, who will? Without this determined engineering, we cannot defend ourselves as a national organization in which to combat the well-funded super-combine of Feminist, Government, the State and Federal Legislatures, along with our courts which have all combined in which to harvest us.

What is so odd is that if you ask most Fathers or American’s if they agree with the same principles and foundational precepts of which John Winthrop and John Adams espoused almost 400 years ago—most of them would agree totally with those concepts. If you then presented them with the new feminist agenda, as confirmed by Karl Marx, and Frederick Engels in the Communist Manifesto, or documented throughout the contemporary radical feminist regimes, they would violently disagree with such Anti-American, socialist concepts...Yet, blindly without making any connection about the importance of their own actions in regards to the big picture, they would blindly submit and pay their Child Support or Alimony which of course builds the feminist empire which they know is killing them, other fathers, hurting their children, and dragging down society.

From this short sighted mind-set, the American male is purchasing through submission to Child Support and his transfer of wealth, and he is developing an arrogant, insolent female underclass, which is unmanageable and which will be a further drain against the solid institutions of which this nation built. This arrogant class of female has become a nothing but a social indicator clearly demarcating the failures of our society:

"It showed me how any country's moral strength, or its moral weakness, is quickly measurable by the street attire and attitude of its women....Witness the woman, both young and old, in America--where scarcely any moral values are left" (Autobiography, 349). The Eves of the West are contrasted to the Madonna’s of the East--with the major difference being that men in he East know how to control their women, while white men in the West not only fail to control their women but have set a bad example for Black men who are consequently losing the ability to control theirs."

[Malcolm X, In Our Own Image, Joe Wood, Editor, @1992, St. Martin's Press, Inc., 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, ISBN 0-312-06609-0, p. 48.]

We have to pose the question as to why other cultures have made this connection and why we have denied them, and forgotten these well learned rules and discipline’s of advanced civilization. Both men and women have a function within an advanced civilized society. Feminism is destroying such discipline and direction, and it is not any type of ‘new’ redesign as Ms. Clinton would have us believe, it is a throw-back to the stasis of proto-man, to the "lowest and rudest" tribal condition which existed a quarter million years ago.

To impress this aberrant social revolution onto an advanced culture such as ours, the feminists have had to go beyond the "Terror of the Petticoat" directly into abstract terrorism, lies, and disinformation. They have waged an underground cultural terrorist movement against all our institutions, and have subverted them from within. They have not done this through the "law of the highest reason." On the contrary, they have, like Adolph Hitler, used not small lies, but the big lie in which to overthrow the sensibility of the masses of which they depend upon so much for their radical Anti-American platform.

"In a speech in Baniff, Canada, Andrea Dworkin exhorted her audience to "stop men who beat women," "Get them jailed or get them killed...when the law fails us, we cannot fail each other." The exhortation to break the law if it cannot be tailored to the radical feminist program shows the length to which the activists are willing to travel to implement their vision of a redistribution of power...they seek to have one set of laws for women and another for men. What is alarming is that, all to often, the courts are helping in this endeavor."

[Sexual Violence, Opposing Viewpoints Series, Greenhaven Press, Inc, San Diego, CA., ©1997; ISBN 1-56510-560-5; p. 139.]

Again, this marriage between the Courts, Legislatures and Radical Feminist is axiomatic. Something has clearly subverted them, and is now using the institutions which should be supporting America and Institutions such as the Family and Patriarchy, and it now is proactively attacking and outright destroying them for a ‘new’ purpose of which Ms. Clinton only hints at.

"Variations on these competing visions of the role of government and the rights of individuals exist all along the political spectrum. Most of us hold a point of view that exists somewhere between the extremes, even if we do not consciously articulate it that way. We may grumble about paying taxes, but we generally support programs like veterans’ benefits, Social Security, and Medicare, along with public education, environmental protection, and some sort of social safety net for the poor, especially children. We are wary of both government interference with private initiative or personal belief and the excessive influence of special interests on the political system. Most of us would describe ourselves as "middle of the road"—liberal in some areas, conservative in others, moderate in most, neither exclusively pro- nor anti-government. We respect the unique power of government to meet certain social needs and acknowledge the need to limit its powers."

[It Takes a Village, and Other Lessons Children Teach Us, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, ©1996, Simon & Schuster, Rockerfeller Center, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, ISBN 0-684-81843-4; pp. 307-308.]

Again, this is a blatant feminist lie propagated by Ms. Clinton as she is the last person as an extreme Feminist liberal-socialist who would "limit the powers" of government. This is double-speak, in its most highest form, and as Ms. Clinton in total alignment with the Radical Feminists, will inform you of one thing, exactly while they are planning to implement the exact opposite.

This ruse to use the national media to say one thing while behind closed doors in publicly funded executive sessions they are implementing another with facts and figures which are nothing more than perverse science, is has not only become a recognized tactic of the radical feminists, it is the required norm within Washington. When feminist throw about such figures, there always is some qualifying statement, fact or figure, or ‘meta-analysis’ in which to skew the facts. For example:

"Women receive less than one-tenth of the world income, but do two-thirds of the world’s work. Although earning less than men, they work longer hours—2 to 5 hours more in developed countries, 5 to 6 hours more in Latin America and the Caribbean, and as much as 12 to 13 hours more in Africa and Asia. When housework and child care are taken into account. Women average have a 60 to 70 hour week.

[Women in Movement, Feminism and Social Action, by Sheila Rowbotham, ©1992, Routledge, 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001; ISBN 0-415-90652-0; p. 8.]

Again, these are massively skewed figures, which do not even attempt to bring out the reality of working relationships between men and women. In fact, the ‘world’ standard of income does not correlate when taking into consideration that men are the providers and work mostly outside the home. Ms. Rowbotham who cited this figure, has not taken into account that home labor is not the same as working outside the home for income. She as with all feminists want to marry the two, pretending that such '‘work" (what average citizens understand as ‘personal responsibility’) really amounts to women accruing up to $40,000 a year or higher for their home labor. They have quantified personal home responsibilities into the free market and have tried to place exorbitant dollar figures to these personal endeavors as to gain public support and give Legislatures a reason to destroy Fatherhood. Ask these people to show the concomitant "personal household chores" men contribute to, and again; these figures rapidly begin to change.

Not only that, but adding in such "meta-analysis" information as to a "world" figure for working women, you will find many other social factors which skew the figures in favor of women, such as war, famine, Third World Tribalism, etc.

The derogatory impacts of both government’s and Radical Feminism have had devastating effects against men in this nation, and around the earth. From the Feminist aggressions against men, implemented by our errant government—the missing male has been a planned conflagration. His disappearance is now an exemplary fact of the Anti-Male War which is raging within this nation. As the war rages, things do not get better, especially for children, who each year—appear to be doing worse and worse. Their crisis and social pathologies strangely, appear to be growing logarithmically. And of course, because of this, the Feminist scream that we must attack and hold the male even more responsible for the crisis, which mainly stems from them being driven out of the home by government and the Feminists in the first place!

[The Masculine Mystique, The Politics of Masculinity, by Andrew Kimball, ©1995, Ballantine Books, New York, ISBN 0-345-38658-2 pp. 4-12.]

Contrary to what Feminist and the Media inform the public of, the state of Men in this nation has been diminishing over the last 70 years and it is getting worse. In about 1920 the mortality rates of men and women were just about equalizing. From that point on however; because of this ever rising war against men, the male has lost considerable ground as far as his chances of living beyond that of his female counterpart. Now women are expected to outlive men by at least seven years, and that number is widening.

"For openers, more than half of the delinquent fathers are dead, or in prison, or disabled, or seriously ill, or unemployed. Of the delinquent dads who do have jobs. 52 percent earn less than $6,200 a year (not enough to support one person).

[Fathers' Rights, Hard-Hitting & Fair Advice for Every Father Involved in a Custody Dispute, by Jeffery M. Leving, c1997; BasicBooks, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-5299, ISBN 0-465-02443-2; p. 48.]

In the labor market, the massive shift of wealth has displaced and unemployed millions of men and fathers, all to the benefit of the Females who have pushed men out of the labor market, especially the white collar markets which now females, because of the considerable education grants given to them through Welfare and other means, have higher degrees than men. This massive shift in wealth has strained men, thereby adding to the stress factors which reduce their marketability and their job choices. Still however; the Feminists lie and claim that men are dominating the workforce, which they are not.

Of course the greatest and meanest lie which feminist still propagate against men is that they are nothing but abusers. Again, this is a giant leap from the time of Cicero up to about 100 years ago, when civilization as a whole viewed Fatherhood as a venerable institution, one of sacrifice, love and dedication. Presently, because of the efforts of the Feminists, government and the Mainstream Media; Fatherhood is a vilified institution, hated, and always under attack. Because of this, there is going to have to be a massive national re-educational campaign to disseminate the correct fact and figures in regards to this issue, which; in total; is a very small problem, even today. For instance presently Dentist, Doctors, Teachers and Police are all trained to ‘turn in’ any suspected incidences of child abuse or spousal abuse, and from this new mindset, many have. Of course in doing so, many of these people have either wittingly, or unwittingly placed innocent Fathers into prison. However; this has injected many incidences of physical trauma other than ‘abuse’ into the abuse controversy. From this, we know and understand that a great many of these ‘new’ inputs into the ‘abuse’ equation which were never there before. So, the Feminists have successfully artificially inflated the figures through this means of skewing the data sample of true abuse incidences. From this, we know from the false abuse charges and from criminal cases such as Carlos, that there are a certain segment of this population who are totally innocent, yet; who get caught into the legal trap of the courts, lawyers and feminism, and worse yet; of ‘quotas’ which must be maintained at all costs. So therefore, many incidences of abuse are artificially inflated and more importantly, many ‘programs’ such as counseling and psychological services obtain the added benefit by and from these inflated programs used to capture innocent people into their ranks, which would otherwise never be reported, and were not previously.

Also gay and lesbian abuse statistic’s are now leaking into the mainstream figures, again inflating the overall impact, and when Feminist declare so many ‘couples,’ suffer abuse, indeed, which ‘couples’ are they referring to?!? Presently, only estimates are yet available, but they show that Gay and Lesbian abuse statistics are currently about equal with heterosexual couples. But it is irrefutable, that modern Feminist do not want proper facts or statistics brought out about abuse, or about the problem of Female abuse within the home and family which is as frequent or more frequent than male abuse figures.

"The last national misinformation campaign about domestic violence was the great Super Bowl hoax of 1993. Advocacy groups claimed that watching football triggered male violence and that Super Bowl Sunday was the worst day of the year for wife-beating in the United States. That fiction was exposed, but the alleged football connection to domestic violence has been revived, with former all-star running back O.J. Simpson offered as proof that competitive sports inflame male brutality. No responsible editor would tolerate claims that the Simpson case proved that all black people are violent or that mixed marriages don’t work. But the assumption that Simpson beat his wife because he is male and an athlete is accepted without question.

To complicate matters, radical women’s groups actively oppose the spreading of more accurate information about gender equity in family violence. Take the case of Dr. Suzanne Steinmetz, director of the Family Research Institute at Indiana University-Purdue University and Indianapolis. When her article, "The Battered Husband Syndrome," appeared in the journal Victimology in 1978, she was harassed by phone, there were threats to harm her children, her colleagues were lobbied to prevent her from getting tenure and bomb threats were sent to a branch of the American Civil Liberties Union that had invited her to give a talk. Other researchers in the field report similar experiences, and male researches are commonly accused of being batterers themselves."

[Domestic Violence, An Opposing Viewpoints Series, Karen L. Swisher, Ed., ©1996 by Greenhaven Press, Inc., PO Box 289009, San Diego, CA 92198-9009; ISBN 1-56510-381-5; p. 78.]

This known Feminist procedure to lie and terrorize others disseminating the truth to the public is a well documented pathology within that community. Like the Feminists who arrogantly informed the Georgetown Girls to lie "if it promotes our social agenda," the media and others have been consistently used by the Radical Feminists, as they have not suffered one iota of retribution for knowingly lying and misinforming the public. It is even rarer occurrence when the Mainstream Media when presented with these perverted disinformationologies to challenge the feminists as to the basis of their facts and figures. As in the Super Bowl case in 1993, it wasn’t until one single reporter throughout the whole nation—who happened to work at the Washington Post in Washington D.C., challenged the feminists to back up their claim. The feminists couldn’t back up their lies. Yet, the media, still even today are being led by the lies and disinformation this nationally recognized, publicly funded hate group continually propagates. One reporter can bring down the whole feminist regime, yet; the panoply of other national reporters and news editors, still dare not do these simple tasks, which is of course ingrained within their history and within their job descriptions. It is amazing that the media does not challenge this Feminist pathology.

Yet there is a plan to these lies.

"The "gender-motivated violence" civil rights provision of the VAWA can lead to serious intrusion of civil liberties. One commentator noted that it would "invite publicity-oriented trials in which the desire is not so much to win as to call attention to the supposed injustice of American society....[This] is exactly what the radical feminists want."

[Feminist Jurisprudence, Equal Rights or Neo-Paternalism? By Michael Weiss and Cathy Young, Cato Policy Analysis No. 256, p. 16.]

It is very odd for a movement that, as it’s NOW’s 1966 "Statement of Purpose" actually states that they "Believe [in] the power of American Law" and that they must "exercise their political rights and responsibilities as American citizens." Yet, their factual performance on this matter is to lie, and to tear down Law and replace it with Anti-Law Feminist Jurisprudence, and to abrogate proper "American" citizens responsibilities of fair play, truth and justice, to accomplish their Social agenda, by any means necessary. It is amazing that their outright lying, which has blatantly occurred for over three-decades now, is still marketed by the Mainstream Media, who still calls out the same old Matriarch’s and parades them before the American public as ‘experts’ instead of their real moniker which should be Feminist Liar. If any other group had lied with the consistency and virility of the American Feminist movement, they’d never be in or on the Mainstream Media again.

Conversely, when the Fathers Rights community tries to approach these same institutions, we are shut out, and people such as Rodney from CBS insolently declare that we (the Fathers Rights community) "are not news." Yet somehow the American nation is stunned when those like Monica Lewinsky and the President openly admit to their lying. "Yes, I’ve been a liar all my life...everyone lies." [ABC Nightline with Ted Koppel, quote from Barbara Walters after her Monica Lewinsky interview, March 3, 1999, 11:30pm] Apparently the message is clear, those who are willing to lie as a way of life, are the ones on the fast track and are thereby become by such right as ‘experts’ and social leaders within the ‘new’ Clinton American regime.

What some consider to be their moral responsibility to lie throughout the American experience, we quaint ‘old’ Patriarch’s who still believe in truth, American Law, and the American way—are to be pushed aside to make room for Hillary’s brave new redesigned American society. We are just "old" anachronisms to be laughed at and discounted. Strangely, telling the truth has become a very unpopular thing to do. From this new Feminist discipline, we can only hope that our marriages and family life are as successful as Ms. Clinton’s. She wants us to ‘move ahead’ into redefining humanity through feminism, a throwback of human culture to over a quarter of a million years ago.

"But how about the myths found in so many societies about a time when women ruled the world? Alas, they are just that—myths. Joan Bamberger, an Anthropologist who studied such myths among South American Indians points out that they portray the period of Matriarchy as one of injustice, immorality, and the abuse of power, which was only brought to an end when men seized the sacred flutes or whatever else served as both the symbol and the instrument of control. Men thus established their rule over women and, incidentally, over the rituals surrounding the sacred instruments, from which women are strictly barred. These myths are clearly not history. Instead, they are a rationalization and justification of the present male-dominated order. The peoples who tell these stories teach that women are potentially dangerous and immoral and that stable and just order in this world depends on their being kept under the control of men."

[Millenium—Tribal Wisdom and the Modern World, by David Maybury-Lewis, ©1992, Viking Press, 375 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014, ISBN 0-670-83935-8; p. 130.]


I find it strikingly odd, that civilized nations all across the globe at disparate time periods, separated by both time, technology and distance, have similarly come to this same conclusion to attack Matriarchy. Again, it may be the final manifest destiny of this nation to rediscover the obvious, that we must regulate our females.

There are so many lies in which the Feminist have propagated in order to achieve their social agenda, that it would be physically difficult to catalogue them all within one chapter. Indeed, some ambitious newsperson or author might take up this sword and could find enough material to write a large investigative work in just this one endeavor and most likely that book would be a best-seller. However, the largest lie in which the feminist have propagated, has not been against the Father, or about abuse statistic’s, but worse, it has been against the American two-parent nuclear family. Feminist hate the institution of the family. This is one reason why they are so determined to redesign it. Of course some feminist liars will attempt to obfuscate their real intent, as shown above; they will state that the family is "merely undergoing development, adapting to social changes such as feminism." What is most odd about this affirmation is, why change the family at all?

More consequently, Love Family ideology is winning over younger Americans. Teenagers have seized upon the idea that a family is a love feeling with the same enthusiasm that they have latched on to other culturally significant ideas. Across the socioeconomic spectrum, from inner-city teenagers to middle-class college students, young women say that they will have a child "on their own" if the right man does not come along. According to the same Family Research Council survey, 70 Percent of young adult Americans, ages eighteen to thirty-four, believe that a women has the right to bear a child outside of marriage, compared with only 29 percent of Americans ages fifty-five or older.

Juvenile literature and especially fiction for adolescent girls enthusiastically endorse the notion that a family is a "love feeling." A growing number of magazine stories and popular novels for teenage girls center on the quest of finding your true "love family" rather than the more traditional adolescent task of enduring your biological or adoptive family..."I didn’t have a father at home, and it’s not a requirement...all a child has to have is somebody to love them." {One character says.]

[The Divorce Culture, by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, ©1996, A Borzoi Book, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., Publishers, New York, ISBN 0-679-43230-2; p. 150.]

Thus, we see an imprinting of the Feminist culture to just throw away or dispose of the traditional, nuclear two-parent family. If we look at the simple facts and figures surrounding the family, we see that even today, in this society where this institution is under incredible social pressure from the Feminists and government to fail—that it is still surviving, and still the singularly best place for children, wives, and husbands! Across the board, this is unmistakably the best environment for the health, development, protection and welfare of all those within the home. If you look at any social indicator of crime, health, economics, education, sexual well-being, productivity, love, morality, psychology, and happiness, clearly; it is the home were the best of the best of these figures remain. When we have such absolute idiots such as Ms. Clinton, proposing to change this institution, for the fallow gains of an untried dreaded social experiment, closely aligned to the dangerous Socialist hate-group of Feminists and other agenda driven special interest groups and Elite regimes, we must wonder. When Ms. Clinton makes the comment:

"We cannot move forward by looking to the past for easy solutions. Even if a gold age had existed, we could not simply graft it onto today’s busier, more impersonal and complicated world. Instead, our challenge is to arrive at a consensus of values and a common vision of what we can do today, individually and collectively, to build strong families and communities. Creating that consensus in a democracy depends on seriously considering other points of view, resisting the lure of extremist rhetoric, and balancing individual rights and freedoms with personal responsibility and mutual obligations."

[It Takes a Village, and Other Lessons Children Teach Us, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, ©1996, Simon & Schuster, Rockerfeller Center, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, ISBN 0-684-81843-4; pp. 14-15.]

Talk about extremist! This is pure communist rhetoric which comes directly from the doctrines of Marx and Engels! Yet, here we have an extreme feminist radical, who cannot run her own home, yet, who is trying to program America to this new dogmatic regime. It must be noted, that her quote above is such a danger to all free loving American’s as which should set off an alarm to each and everyone reading this. Please note that presently, many fathers who have been destroyed, have done so through this program of what Ms. Clinton calls "balancing individual rights and freedoms with personal responsibility and mutual obligations." Trust me, when this new design is implemented, it will be forced down our throats with the same vengeance such as taxes and "Child Support" of which millions of present fathers are suffering through and being imprisoned by presently. Your obligations to this "Village" are as of yet undefined, and they will like taxes and "Child Support" start out low, and very modest; then they will become all-consuming: and a complete terror to you at the end. Everyone will be ‘responsible’ for such ‘personal responsibilities’ and ‘mutual obligations’ if the citizens of this nation already didn’t have enough of these!

Again, Ms. Clinton’s and the Radical Feminists and others, hopes of a redefined family will wreck even more havoc upon this society than we have now. She is almost shrill in her dictum for us not to look back into history, to the past; to where we might find true safety and comfort within the family. "To many, this brave new world seems dehumanizing and inhospitable. It is not surprising, then, that there is a yearning for the "good old days" as a refuge from the problems of the present." [Village, p. 13.] Factually, such a return would have exploded this nations wealth an indeterminate amount. It would have kept social pathologies to a bare minimum. The plagues of divorce and illegitimacy never and I mean never would have hit this country to the extent they have, and for all practical purposes, this nation would most certainly, not have had a staggering public debt. The other list of benefits could be extrapolated for pages, yet, keeping in conservative estimates—we would have had lower health costs, we would have been allot freer with massively low "American" prison incarceration rates. Education still would have been very high in regards to world standards, and; this nation would have been quite further ahead, and much more richer. These are just general estimates, however; even the most intellectually challenged person can see that this nation would have been considerably better without the advent of Radical Feminism within our boarders.

People long for the 1950s because intrinsically they ‘know’ when something is right. Ms. Clinton needs to prevent any realistic evaluation of returning to Patriarchy due to the fact that as a Feminist and socialist, she cannot realize her socialist vision of this world with Patriarchy and Families who are succeeding in this nation. This is the reason why this government is pumping huge amounts of money into such programs as Surrogate Fathers and Mentoring right now—for they recognize the fact that Feminism has failed, but; if they can buy a replacement for the Father and one for the Nuclear two-parent household, then they will try everything, and spend anything in which to find any replacement for the simple reality of the father. If given enough time, and obscenely more amounts of money—they could in fact, succeed in finding that replacement.

This of course will have to be considered and weighted by the American public, and it will not be a hard choice. Will they accept the almost certain tyranny of "balancing individual rights and freedoms with personal responsibility and mutual obligations." as Ms. Clinton beseeches us to accept? Or will they simply support Fatherhood at all costs and then, from that simplicity, with no money, with no government programs, (actually the collapse of such programs), just allow such Families to flourish as they have over the past five or six milleniums?!?

Again, the feminist do not want Americans to be informed, nor do they even want them answering this paradigm for themselves—as our ‘leaders’ Ms. Clinton is fully intent on answering these questions for us, in our name...again...with a vengeance.

If we study the Patriarchal institution in contrast, we can see that the many benefits clearly outweigh the detriments posed by the institution.

"According to the Federal Reserve Board’s 1985 "Survey of Consumer Financing, "Two percent of U.S. Families owned the following:

[The Ache for Home, by Monica McGodlrige, The Family Therapy Networker, July94. P. 89.]

These ‘two percent’ families are directly structured off of the Patriarchal model. Again, these types of families are comparatively different from the feminist mantra that these homes are terrible institutions. In fact, the underlying premise of all Feminist doctrine is, that Single Female Headed Household’s can do exactly as well as the two-parent family if and when you adjust them economically. "IF" you adjust them economically, and place children in Murphy Brown-like household’s, an upwardly mobile, career minded forceful women; then you produce children exactly like two-parent nuclear households. Of course this is a lie. For in fact, if you go into the prisons, and into Child Youth Authority’s around this nation and reach in and pull out one of its customers, approximately 75 percent of the time, you will pull out an individual from a Single Female Headed Household.

Is this to say that all Single Female Headed Household’s produce these children and adults? Of course not. But it most definitely is relational at the source of pathology, where the relationship between crime and Single Female Headed Household’s is irrefutable. If 99.9% of all Single Female Headed Household’s produced wonderful children it still would not erase the fact that 75% to 85% of the people who are criminals inhabiting our prisons, only come from their domain. Factually, irrefutably, indomitably, criminals come from Murphy Brown families—no matter what her income.

The most recent important study of family structure was done in 1988 by the Department of Health and Human Services. It surveyed the family arrangements of more than 60,000 children living in households all over the country. Interviews were conducted in order to identify any childhood problems in health, schoolwork, and personal conduct. These results were tabulated according to the age, sex , and ethnicity of the child and the income and marital status of the parents.

The results were striking. At every income level save the very highest (over $50,000 per year), for both sexes and for whites, blacks, and Hispanics alike, children living with a never-married or a divorced mother were substantially worse off than those living in two-parent families. Compared to children living with both biological parents, children in single-parent families were twice as likely to have been expelled or suspended from school, to display emotional or behavioral problems, and to have problems with their peers; they were also much more likely to engage in antisocial behavior. These differences were about as wide in households earning over $35,000 a year as they were in those making less than $10,000.

[The Family, Opposing Viewpoints, Mary E. Williams, Book Editor, ©1998, Greenhaven Press, Inc., P.O. Box 289009, San Diego, CA 92198-9009; ISBN 1-56510-668-7; p. 39.]

This is one reason why Hillary does not want American’s looking behind the Oz curtain to uncover the 1950s, because when we do, we see low prison rates, low social pathologies, low crime, with opposing high employment, massive wealth, and large individual savings. We uncover a national set of school children whose main problems were chewing gum in class, tardiness, talking back to the teacher—and the criminal offense of smoking. These are but "myths" to her ilk, and should be discounted. We should discount the fact that the schools of this period, smoking and chewing gum were the most egregious of problems that Teachers had to deal with. Now because of Murphy Brown, teachers have much more to worry about. Like their own lives and their own daily personal safety.


Teachers attacked by students.

A Brooklyn intermediate school is so out of control that six instructors have been assaulted by students since the fall—and kids roaming hallways pulling fire alarms, smoking marijuana and disrupting classes, teachers say.

One injured teacher resigned this week. But even as officials defended Intermediate School 117 in Clinton Hill, Parent Association President Theodore White said he wants to transfer his son.

"They have lost control," White said of school administrators. "I don’t think they have a clear perspective as to what needs to be done."

IS 117 staff members charged that Principal Frances Horne has been unable to control the school.

"Its a dangerous school. Students have charged toward me. A student hit me," said social studies teacher Jeffrey Levy, 29, who has been on disability leave with rib injuries since Feb. 10, when a boy shoved a chair into his chest.

"I am scared to go back," said Levy, who left the school by ambulance.

"A lot of times I couldn’t teach because the discipline was so bad," said special education teacher Lenora Mosby, 24, who started in September.

Mosby quit Tuesday, three months after a student shoved her into a desk and shook her, injuring her back and arms..."There are no consequences for their actions."

..."There’s no respect," said Chris Chauncey, 14, an eight-grader. "But some of the teachers don’t respect us either—they curse at us. I’ve seen some kids who want to hit their teachers."

[IS 117 Offers Lesson in Fear. By Nancie L. Katz, The Daily News, Thursday, March 04, 1999. P. 4.]

This of course is the house that Hillary built, and through her affirmation that "The Village" (meaning you), will have to "balance [your] individual rights and freedoms with personal responsibility and mutual obligations," by obligating Trillions of taxpayer dollars to replace the Father, who would be doing this job but is prohibited. Indeed, Hillary may complete her task of replacing males ["the redesign of humanity"] if given enough money, if she can make each and every school into an armed encampment, place video cameras and monitors into every class, every corridor, every school bus; if she can hire untold amounts of security guards, Police, psychologists, counselors; and if she can guard the children from every street corner to every street corner—yes—she may then be able to obtain gain parity with those terrible Paternal schoolhouses of the 1950s, which she tells us ever so fondly and ever so efficiently, that we shouldn’t be looking back to. Add to this the untold amounts of money that it will take to get our educational system back on scholastic par with those same standards of those terrible 1950’s...and you can add even more Trillions to the costs which Hillary anxiously wants to "obligate" you to.

Again, society can pay these astronomical costs and burden them and future generations into even more abject bondage at the hands of their Masters, the Elite regime and Feminists who profit from this insanity, or; they could pay nothing, and just allow the Father to rule within the home. From this, we could spend virtually nothing and return to those terrible pastoral 1950s. Of course it would mean ‘a few’ beatings...and some woman and families ‘might’ or ‘would’ suffer some abuse, but these numbers would be negligible. However, at the costs of those few, which were and are insignificant numbers—society could once again return to normalcy which made it free, and which made it great. They could allow the home to once again function as it should, make sex work for society, and thereby create a product that once that product got back to the schools, teachers such as Miss Mosby above, wouldn’t fear, and might be actually be able to teach such students once again.

What the American society will have to contemplate, is if this Feminist glass is half-empty, or the Patriarchal glass, is half full. If this society again chooses to protect the weakest link in the family, "the Father," and to allow him again to rule in the home, the benefits would be irrefutable. Unlike the pedantic and tired abuse charges which have been successfully marketed for over a half-century, if society abstractly analyzed this issue in a Patriarchal light, they would find not abuse, but rather, a nation of disciplined, thriving and loved, two-parent household’s.. This will; of course, as taxpayers reduce the innumerable burdens the present Feminist system has unfairly placed upon our American society. "IF" this nation can make this connection and can withstand the discipline of not listening to Feminist screaming ‘abuse’ and conversely follow the maxim of law that "A father that does not rule too harshly, must be obeyed;" if we can re-establish this form of abstract reasoning once again, then; both Feminism and Welfare will abjectly collapse. From this, the true wealth of this nation which has been so irresponsibly been allowed to flow into this never-ending feminist lie, will be returned to the people: the producers of this nation who earned it. From their own individual determinations, they will be the reinvestment of this nation, once again. This nation will flourish because of this courage to again tolerate freedom. We will once again, become a nation of massive savings, instead of one of incredible debt.

And that is the real reason why government does not want you running your home, because you might actually be successful running it without socialist ‘outside help’. And that is the real reason why Feminist lies and disinformation, will continue to garner large media dissemination, because like Hillary Clinton; they don’t want you looking back to the pastoral days of Patriarchy, nor do they want you figuring all of the facts and figures out for yourself—they will inform you of the realities you should know—and from this; you will reach only the conclusions they have already mapped out for you...which will help them not you...redesign humanity.

Chapter 17