Cutting the Baby in Half

"50-50 custody by default should be the norm."

The preceding quote was made by a commenter in response to Bill Price's article at The Spearhead yesterday, in which Price made the point that the current child support system is essentially a tax to encourage single mother hood.

Price is 100% correct! The State actively promotes single mother hood as the justification to grow the vast leviathan of bureaucratic Government to achieve the total enslavement of the citizenry. That IS the primary purpose for creating the system as it currently operates.

To paraphrase my comment in response to Bill's article:

Never forget about Part D, Title IV of the Social Security Act. The Federal Government gives matching funds for every dollar collected in the name of child support, to fund the scope and size of Bureaucratic machine. In other words, it’s official Federal Government policy to pay each State for breaking up families and collecting support obligations from Fathers. The more child support the State collects from Dad’s, the more funding they get from the Federal Government. There is a vast entity in the State Government Bureaucracy for which they are incentivized to collect as much child support as they can. The Federal Government uses our tax revenues to literally pay for the destruction of our families.

It's been four years since Stephen Baskerville wrote the column, How to Turn a Free People Into Slaves, but it's even more pertinent and relevant to heed his warning today:

Divorce sends many harmful messages to children and future citizens: that we can break vows we make to God and others; that family members may be discarded at will. But among the most destructive are about the role of government: that government is their de facto parent that may exercise unlimited power (including remove and criminalize their real parent) merely by claiming to act for their greater good. While feminists push divorce-on-demand as a “civil liberty,” in practice divorce has become our society’s most authoritarian institution.

Fighting for 50/50 custody default is NOT a desirable result to fight for. If this is what a Men's Rights Movement decides to fight for, good luck with that gentlemen. You are merely fighting for the right to dictate the terms of your enslavement.

What does a 50/50 default custody truly represent? A three way parenting model. The Ex-Husband, the Ex-Wife and THE STATE being the final arbiter and decision maker in child raising decisions.

In other words, we'll call it 50/50 default custody, but what it will be in practice is 25/25/50 custody. 25% for Mom, 25% for Dad, and 50% THE STATE.

As Baskerville pointed out:

Using instruments of public criminal justice to punish private hurts turns the family into government-occupied territory. The children experience family life not as a place of love, cooperation, compromise, trust, and forgiveness. Instead they receive a firsthand lesson in tyranny. Empowered by the state and functioning essentially as a government official, the custodial parent can issue orders to the non-custodial parent, undermine his authority with the children, dictate the terms of his access to them, talk to and about him contemptuously and condescendingly in the presence of the children as if he were himself a naughty child – all with the backing of state officials.

Eventually the children understand that the force keeping away one of their parents is the police, who are the guarantors of the custodial parent’s supremacy. Thus the message the children receive about both the family and the state is that they are dictatorships, ruled by an arbitrary power which can be marshaled against private enemies and even family members for personal grievances. If a loved one disagrees with us or hurts our feelings or is simply no longer desired, there is no need for forgiveness because a telephone call will have him removed, and the police will make sure he stays away. And if the police can be used to arrest Dad because he does something Mom doesn’t like, what will they do to me if I do something Mom doesn’t like?

This is the real purpose of the Divorce Court industry. Not to arbitrate fairness or equality when a marriage goes bad, but to advance the cause of authoritarian tyranny by the State into the most private sphere of We the Sheeple's lives.

To quote a true MAndrosphere pioneer, Rob Fedders (seems like Rob has once again taken a break and gone fishing,):

“Free men” don’t beg for a piece of the pie from “the master.”
Free men bake their own damn pies, and tell everyone else to “fuck off!”
If you think the government will solve your problems with shared parenting, you are begging for your piece."

This is why I believe there really is no "Men's Rights Movement." The minute we embrace an agreed upon leader and an agreed upon platform for political action, the movement will be co-opted, subverted and re-directed (just like the so-called Tea Party and Occupy movements) towards more empowerment of the State in ALL of our lives, men and women alike.

To quote Fedders again:

Look, this isn’t a fight between men and women so much as it is a fight against our freedom.
Women are simply the best way to start the machine to self-destruct.

We're well on our way to the self-destruction of the machine...the machine of a free people in a free society. It's long gone.

You want it back? There really is only one way to get back - default Father Custody for children born in wedlock:

The whole “point” of marriage used to be father-custody. Back before the days of romance, when marriage used to be an economic contract, marriage & wedlock birth was all about putting children into the possession of men. In the rare event of a divorce, the custody of the child was automatically given to the husband. If the child was young, the mother would sometimes care for it until around 6 or 7 years old, and then would be forced to turn over the child to the father for education and proper discipline.

The whole concept of wedlock birth is to create legitimate, father-custody children. When an “oops-pregnancy” would occur, the first question out of the woman’s mouth would be “will you give the child your name?” As in, will you make this child legitimate, and show it by giving him your name – and not a hyphenated pseudo name either!

Women don’t actually “need” marriage to have children. They can get boffed by any number of men through a variety of seductive techniques, of which I think we are all aware of. Men however, did “need” marriage to have children, and thus, children born within wedlock are to belong to the man, while children born out of wedlock are to belong to the woman.

That is the only political goal Men's Rights Activist should be working for...the reinstatement of marriage 1.0.


To those who've never heard of it, Dr. Amneus wrote a book about the topic. You can download it free as a .pdf file here: The Case for Father Custody.


Children born in Wedlock = HIS, along with all the responsibilities and costs of raising them.
Children born out of Wedlock = HERS, along with all the responsibilities and costs of raising them.

Anything other than that is just fighting for the right to have THE STATE rule that the baby should just be cut in half, and both the man and woman forced to pay for that "service."

The Manginas at Amnesty International

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

How to Turn A Free People Into Slaves

Many MRA bloggers have researched and written about the root cause of the gender wars started by the feminist movement were based on the deliberate, planned subversion of Western Culture by Communists.

When one looks at the current state of marriage and the Divorce industry, the proverbial proof is indeed in the pudding. The corrosive effects of the divorce industry on the entire mindset of a people is an insidious threat to a free society that has largely gone unrecognized by the mainstream.

Dr. Stephen Baskerville has written an excellent column entitled How to Turn A Free People Into Slaves, in which he plainly makes the case that the no-fault Divorce industry is a significant front in undermining a free society by empowering government authority to intrude into the most personal area of any individuals life; their family.

Divorce sends many harmful messages to children and future citizens: that we can break vows we make to God and others; that family members may be discarded at will. But among the most destructive are about the role of government: that government is their de facto parent that may exercise unlimited power (including remove and criminalize their real parent) merely by claiming to act for their greater good.

While feminists push divorce-on-demand as a “civil liberty,” in practice divorce has become our society’s most authoritarian institution.

I'm sure any man who has been through the system would certainly agree that the machinery of the family court and child support system is about as authoritarian as it gets.

And while most divorces that happen in the West directly affect Men for the most part, one of the most deleterious effects the system inflicts upon society as a whole is the instilling of a mindset in children of a divorcing family with regards to the role government plays in one's own private life.

Using instruments of public criminal justice to punish private hurts turns the family into government-occupied territory. The children experience family life not as a place of love, cooperation, compromise, trust, and forgiveness. Instead they receive a firsthand lesson in tyranny. Empowered by the state and functioning essentially as a government official, the custodial parent can issue orders to the non-custodial parent, undermine his authority with the children, dictate the terms of his access to them, talk to and about him contemptuously and condescendingly in the presence of the children as if he were himself a naughty child – all with the backing of state officials.

Eventually the children understand that the force keeping away one of their parents is the police, who are the guarantors of the custodial parent’s supremacy. Thus the message the children receive about both the family and the state is that they are dictatorships, ruled by an arbitrary power which can be marshaled against private enemies and even family members for personal grievances.

Oh but it gets even worse than that. The system also takes a woman who takes advantage of her position of power granted by the courts and law enforcement, and encourages the children to take an active part in reducing their father into a role of nothing more than a wage slave who's only involvement is the monthly child support check.

While many children are materially impoverished by family breakdown, in other cases the systematic bribery dispensed by the divorce industry extends to the children themselves, who may be rewarded for their cooperation with material opulence, forcibly extracted from their father and used to corrupt his children and give them too a stake in his plunder and exile.

The term "wage slave" is really a fitting one in describing a divorced father being crushed under the gears of the child support machine. But Baskerville makes an even better point that shows just how apropos it is to call it that:

It is not difficult to see that this is a highly unhealthy system to have in a free society. In fact, the logic is reminiscent of another system of domestic dictatorship that once tried unsuccessfully to co-exist with free civil government. Politically, the most powerful argument against slavery – and what eventually did more than any other to bring about the realization of how threatening it was to democratic freedom – was less its physical cruelty than its moral degeneracy: the tyrannical habits it encouraged in the slaveholder, the servile ones it fostered in the slave, and the moral degradation it engendered in both. Such dispositions were said to be incompatible with the kind of republican virtue required for free self-government.

Slavery was an institution that was antithetical to the tenets and ideals that founded America, and for the United States to continue to exist under them made a conflict with that institution inevitable. If only more people would wake up to the reality that the Institution of Divorce is in the same place today - as the very antithesis to a free people as a whole.

Divorce not only damages individual men, but society as a whole...for it plants the seeds of a mindset in each successive generation that increasingly accepts authoritarian rule of an ever-expanding and intrusive Government without question, and at the expense of the freedom and liberty of what was once a free and prosperous civilization.

The Politics of Marriage

I'm constantly amused whenever I get into debates, disagreements and arguments with people both in real life and on the internet, when it comes to politics.

To whit, there is plenty I have in common with "both" sides of the debate - and more for which I disagree.

Republicans, Democrats, the Bush Administration, McCain-Palin, Obama-Biden...too many people simply cannot comprehend the truth of American politics in 2008.

And the truth is this: Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin.

As I posted earlier about social engineering through the Dialectical Process, the so-called "two-party system" is the perfect means for which the power elite promote their agenda while the masses are distracted by the political theater of Democrat vs. Republican ~ Conservative vs. Liberal.

Case in point, the politics of marriage.

What is the primary problems facing the institution of marriage today?

Divorce, the welfare system and the family courts.

But what is all of the modern day political debate focused on?

Same sex marriage.

In this way, the truly devastating results of the decades-long war on marriage that has been carried out by BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS continues ever forward, while both sides for which the majority of Americans identify with continue the meaningless and insignificant battle over the issue of "Same-Sex Marriage."

While Bush and the Republicans pander to the right wing, religious evangelical conservative base with their "defense of marriage" by proposing the constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman...

...the liberal Democrats pander to their left-wing, feminist, secular and sexually libertine base to "fight for equal rights" for an "oppressed minority."

While both sides fight over this "IMPORTANT DEBATE ON THE STATE OF MARRIAGE" the REAL agenda continues to move ever onward.

And what is that agenda?

* The continued dissolution of the Patriarchal Modeled Family.

* The continued creation of single mother households dependent on either welfare or a child support system that is based on the enslavement, emasculation and parental alienation of hundreds of thousands of Fathers.

* The continued codification of laws like VAWA and IMBRA that blatantly violate men's constitutional rights and furthers the proliferation of unilateral divorces.

And what ties all this together? The very real goal of the social engineers responsible for creating this state of affairs: to empower the Government's scope and reach into the most personal of all places - the family.

As Stephen Baskerville writes in his News with Views column, How to Turn a Free People Into Slaves:

Divorce sends many harmful messages to children and future citizens: that we can break vows we make to God and others; that family members may be discarded at will. But among the most destructive are about the role of government: that government is their de facto parent that may exercise unlimited power (including remove and criminalize their real parent) merely by claiming to act for their greater good.

Take away dependence from a Father and transfer that onto the State...

Remember that it was one of the express goals of the Communist Manifesto to destroy the nuclear family.

So while Republicans and Democrats continue the charade of debating the "politics of marriage" in terms of Same Sex Marriage...the REAL THREAT TO MARRIAGE in the divorce industry designed for lawyers and government employees to profit from the demise of families continues to operate unabated, creating the next entire generation of children that readily accept the role of the government as the primary arbiter and control agent for every facet of their personal lives.

Finally, as we all know, many right-wing, conservative, religious folks that were contemplating staying home rather than vote for McCain, have all become energized and excited by his selection of Sarah Palin...

...folks, she is the PERFECT example of another "so-called" conservative "family values" Republican that actually has used the powers of the State and her position as Governor to commit the very same injustices perpetrated by unscrupulous divorcing wives and their lawyers in utilizing the legal system to destroy Fathers.

From Men's News Daily, 2008 Elections: Marriage-Absence, America’s Most Urgent Problem, Goes Ignored:

Unfortunately, Palin is not a pro-marriage social conservative. She is an alpha power-feminist who, in a divorce-related personal family vendetta, grossly abused her powers to influence a family law case and get her former brother-in-law fired from his job state trooper. We already have hundreds of alpha feminists tampering with marriage in Washington. We do not need one in the White House.

Party loyalists pretend this is a minor issue – which it most certainly is not. Tampering with court proceedings, litigants, witnesses, and evidence is a felony in most states.

Palin hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on her sister’s ex-husband because they were involved in a bitter custody dispute. Family law cases are classically won by hurling child abuse allegations and damaging the husband economically so he cannot afford to pursue the case. The PI came up with numerous allegations, including a serious child abuse allegation that Wooten used a taser on his child.

An internal police investigation found no wrongdoing on Wooten’s part, so the police commissioner refused to fire him. Upon election as Governor, Palin then pressured her newly-appointed Public Safety Director Walter Monegan to fire Wooten. Monegan refused, so Palin fired him.

The Chronology of the case suggests that Palin interfered heavily in the divorce case, injected very serious allegations against Wooten which were not found valid, with intent to influence the decision of the court.

False child abuse and domestic violence allegations are ruining marriage in America. Wooten was never tried or found guilty of child abuse or domestic violence. He was fired on allegations of improprieties.

Palin publicly pretends to be supportive of the father of her pregnant daughter, but quietly moved her daughter to another school to keep them apart. These are not behaviors consistent with one who believes in marriage or encouraging marital responsibility. Few teen girls get pregnant out of wedlock parents provide enough love, supervision, and guidance.

Tampering with family law court proceedings goes on every day in courts across the land. Horrendous feminist abuses of marriage will end only by firmly demanding that our elected representatives do not do it themselves. We should only support candidates who openly support “Responsible Marriage” reforms of federal laws.

Is Palin REALLY the "pro-marriage" anti-feminist many conservatives HOPE she is?

Somehow, I doubt it.

PUA vs. MGTOW

Before I get into anything else here, I want to make something perfectly clear here: while the topic of this post inherently will be critical of some aspects of the MGTOW movement, I need to say that given the current state of affairs, I absolutely understand that MGTOW is a perfectly reasonable and logical response to the dangers men expose themselves to by getting involved in relationships with the typical Westernized female. In this regards, I completely concur with Stephen Baskerville's advice: Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children

Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.

And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily the divorce court leads to a jail cell, mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.

Men Going Their Own Way is in fact simply putting this advice and turning it into a credo. I cannot criticize or fault any man in our current society from taking that path.

However, I must say that I've read plenty of MGTOW bloggers and posters on the various "don't get married" type message boards, and I do think that to some degree, there are a lot of people out there for which MGTOW is not really a conscious decision to avoid getting trapped in the current system...but really an excuse or justification for not being able to have any kind of romantic relationship success with females, period.

This is where I think some of you MGTOW acolytes may want to assess exactly why you are taking the path you are choosing.

As Pook once wrote,

I think it is becoming clear that marriage and children is a natural longing in not just women but men as well. Nature did not intend gender avoidance. I believe generally everyone is repelled by the negative pessimistic tone found on MGTOW. However, people return consistently for a dose of the poison to ease the existential pain (caused by the natural longing of wife and children which is found in every culture and time). Once convinced by the rantings that women are more painful than pleasurable, the male goes off semi-satisfied. But, alas, the natural longing creeps up again causing the male to return.

The biggest reason men I see MGTOW-types cite for avoiding marriage is the very real possibility of the typical American female cashing out once she captures her provider with children so she can have a steady income of alimony and child support.

This is unfortunately a very real possibility - but there is another aspect of this scenario that is usually not mentioned...unless you married a gold digger who's sole intent was to trick you into becoming her wage slave, there are plenty of instances where the man has played a significant role in the demise of his marriage and his subsequent injustices he suffers at the hands of the divorce industry.

We MRA often criticize feminists for avoiding responsibility and blaming everything on men...well, I have to say that in some cases, I see the mirror image in some MGTOW rants and diatribes.

This is why I'm writing this post...because the other side to the MGTOW coin is the PUA....or the Pick Up Artist.

PUA's are well aware of the current misandry and injustice of the system, and have decided that women are simply nothing more than to be used for sexual sport. However, in terms of why I've added a few PUA websites to my blogroll (Roissy in D.C., Roosh V, and The Reality Method,) is because they offer some very keen insights into male/female relational dynamics.

See, as those of you that have been reading my blog for awhile now already know, I was married long before I discovered the MRA blogosphere or became awakened to the realities that our society has become a feminized Matriarchy.

And I had a contentious marriage for a long time, because I thought that following the cultural cues that urge men to "get in touch with their feminine side" and "put her on a pedestal and worship her as a goddess" was the key to making her happy...completely unaware that it was actually a recipe for disaster.

Women raised in our culture don't even know that 95% of them suffer from the cognitive dissonance created by the feminist indoctrination of equality for which they've internalized and consciously adhere to clashing with their biological instincts for hypergamy - to value dominant traits in their prospective mates.

This is EXACTLY why so many MGTOW types are bitter that they're "nice guys" while the ladies they were attracted to and wanted to pursue all went out with the "bad boys" and thugs, and told them "Let's Just Be Friends."

This is how my marriage fell into trouble over the course of several years. I basically became a spineless "beta" that handed my wife my balls and she was very unhappy with me for it. She couldn't respect me and she was falling out of attraction with me. When a women you are married to or involved with no longer finds you attractive - because you do not display adequate traits of dominance - that's when your relationship begins to have 'problems' and she begins to nitpick and employ passive-aggressive conflicts that make your life a living hell...and usually ends up ending the relationship if it goes on for too long.

And the typical man's response when he knows the relationship is going wrong is to escalate the very behaviors that are turning off her attraction for you in the first place! Buy her gifts, take her on vacations, spoil her like a princess, beg her to stay with you...these are all traits that turn off her biological cues of attraction!

Of COURSE, this does not mean a selfish woman is justified in destroying her family by divorcing her husband, and turning into the ex-wife from hell...but I say to you, that a man that makes himself knowledgeable about the biological imperatives that drive women's attraction are far less likely to end up as another ex-husband chained into peonage, because you CAN learn how to keep your long term woman continually attracted to you.

This is why I say the PUA offer some very valuable insights. By reading and studying and than applying the "GAME" techniques the PUA advocate on my own wife, I found that my marriage transformed dramatically. In short, the "GAME" that they advocate men learn so they can score sex is nothing more than understanding what makes women attracted to men on a visceral, instinctual level, and how to interact with them to make them LUST you. You can use "game" to become a player and seek out casual sex...but you can also use it to make your long term relationship thrive. I speak from personal experience.

Because whether you're married, living with a woman, or just dating, once a woman falls out of LUST with you, she falls out of LOVE. Women won't or don't admit it to themselves, but this I tell you is TRUTH.

So if you are a man and you happen to be reading this, and you are in a relationship with a woman, I urge you to do some research on the PUA websites and you may look on your own relationship dynamics and see if perhaps understanding these things can help you succeed.

For me, the biggest help was the following: What is a Shit Test?

Once I understood just what is a shit test, this was the BIGGEST help to my relationship. Hope it can help you like it did for me.

PS - I've dropped a few comments under the name "Dave in Hawaii" over at Roissy's blog. There's been some interesting debates going on when Roissy's post It's Easy to Identify a Slut was linked to by Jezebel.com and the useful idiot feminuts invaded his comment section. Some entertaining reading!

The System THRIVES on Destroying Families

One of my favorite MRA columnists, Carey Roberts, has written a new piece that basically connects the dots between feminism, the government, and the destructive effects it has had on families and on society by extension.

Specifically, he addresses the horrendous situation that Child Support Programs in each State are firmly entrenched into a system where it thrives on destroying families, and keeping Father's away from their children so that it can continue to receive Federal funding...

From: "Newark Triple-Murder Reveals Need for Fathers,"

The wellspring of the problem can be traced to the advent of no-fault divorce, relaxed sexual mores that gave rise to out-of-wedlock births, and the legacy of Great Society programs that diminished father's roles.

And a recent report by political scientist Stephen Baskerville reveals powerful incentives have now become rooted in the system. [www.ipi.org/ipi/ipihome.nsf?OpenDatabase] These inducements stymie reform and place families at risk.

The problem starts at the top with the Office for Child Support Enforcement, the federal bureaucracy that awards grants to states that propel the gears of their child support enforcement machinery.

Remember we're talking about a squeezing-blood-out-of-a-turnip problem — few low-income dads have the skills or job opportunities to make their child support payments. So revoking their fishing licenses and throwing them in jail becomes an exercise in social do-gooding that is more symbol than substance.

If our child support collection effort was working, the revenues collected from obligated parents should exceed the program's expenses. But they don't. According to a 2003 report from the House Ways and Means Committee, taxpayers actually lost $2.7 billion in 2002.

The OCSE sweetens the deal by dangling juicy incentives that are tied to the level of child support dollars collected. For example in 2002, child support programs brought $640 million to California and $228 million to Ohio.

It's those incentives that have made the system so destructive to families.

If fathers are awarded 50% custody of their children, they owe little or nothing in child support. If no child support dollars are channeling through the system, then the federal money dries up. This creates an inducement for states to keep children away from their fathers as much as possible.

This is how the system is rigged...and it's overall effects on society are PLAIN for all to see.

City Journal commentator Steven Malanga reveals the social pathology that lies behind those murders: "An astonishing 60 percent of the city's kids are growing up without fathers ... Studies have also found that about 70 percent of the long-term prisoners in our jails, those who have committed the most violent crimes, grew up without fathers." [www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-08-09sm2.html]

Yet the madness of family destroying laws continue onward, sucking in more and more men and their innocent children every year into a soul-destroying system that continues to corrupt society.

When will the madness ever end?

And people wonder why I'm an outspoken Libertarian that opposes just about every facet of Government involvement in all the areas of life it does not belong.

Where is it written in the US Constitution that the Federal Government has ANY business being involved in child support?

Quotables

Some of my fav's after I discovered the MRA/MGTOW/PUA/Men's Rights/Father's Rights websites:


The age-old bargain was that women exchanged sex for whatever they wanted, and men exchanged whatever they had for sex. Part of the deal was that the woman would be reasonably agreeable. A career woman today, being independent, no longer has to be agreeable, and frequently isn’t. On the other hand, a man doesn’t have to commit himself to anything to get sex. So the man dates his secretary, and the career woman sits in her apartment with the cats. - Fred Reed from Fred On Everything

---

Question: What are permanently unmarried women, whose illegitimate children have been taken from them to be raised by the state, good for anyway?

Answer: Work, Pay Taxes, Go Home, Feed Cats, Repeat until death. - Rob Fedders from No Ma'am

---

Government and big corporations have created a society where men work and then hand over their money for women to spend. Traditionally men have always done this but recently the government has acted as a third party to control this process. The money is either removed from men's back pockets as tax and then redistributed to single mothers or done via the courts and the CSA following divorce. The outcome is the same: women end up controlling men's money. - Captain Zarmband

---

We don't need a legislature or judges to fall in love, have children, have a loving family, to build a home, or to be happy with the fruits of life. So why do we need legislatures or judges for marriage? - Da Pook from Pook's Mill

---

I remember back when a family consisted of a father and mother, and if you screwed up, your father beat your ass...it might be called child abuse now, but it at least kept kids in line. Now, government is these single moms' "husband" and these kids' "daddy", trying to discipline them through "progressive" disciplinary methods like juvenile detention centers - which is only preparing these bastard kids for a life in the government's prison system and wasting tons of taxpayers' money. Nothing like having a father to beat your kid's ass when he or she screws up - and much more cost effective to the taxpayers. An entrepreneurial individual might consider opening up a service that rents out "fathers" to beat these bastard kids' asses for these single moms - it would definitely save taxpayers' money and enforce discipline on the kids, while simultaneously making a profit. - Mirror of the Soul

---

If your car was as reliable as marriage, every time you got in it you would have a one in two chance of crashing. But let’s not beat around the bush here...let’s rephrase that...if your car “was as reliable as a woman…” -- because women file the vast majority of divorces. - Reality2008 from LoseLoseProspect

---

On Heather Mills divorce settlement from Paul McCartney:

The family courts in any sane society - that is, a proper Patriarchy - would have handed the daughter to her loving father and then just given Heather a shiny pound coin for the bus home and then told her to hop it. - Duncan Idaho from The Eternal Bachelor

---

One thing that modern western women don't seem to understand is this: most men in their mid-30s do not feel any deep instinctive desire to commit to a woman in her mid-30s. Whenever, in the history of the world, has there been any society in which the men longed to marry women in their mid-30s? - Darren from Cool Tools For Men

---

So in Europe between the World Wars, we had a generation growing up without fathers, a circumstance which consistently leads to delinquency, and a couple of dictators playing father figure to the masses who had been deprived of real fathers. And we all know where that led.

And now we have a large percentage of Americans and Europeans without fathers. And it seems that the Islamic world is willing to offer father figures, ones with a sinister agenda that is nonetheless at least not weak and feminine.

Whatever the future holds, I can't say I'm looking forward to it. - The Female Misogynist

---

Any self-respecting man of intelligence despises feminism, knows that the state is his enemy, and treats women by no other standard than his own personal honor and goodness, be this what it may. - Fidelbogen from The Counter-Feminist

---

Given that the pool of wealthy men who view career women as marriage material is shrinking while that of wealthy women is increasing, one wonders how many eggs must drop out of the hatch before career women shelve their elaborate delusions. Perhaps an increasing number will discover their inner dyke and/or alternatively stock up on Meow Mix…. - Davout

---

Each woman is a double agent until proven otherwise. I’m not of the view that they are helpless creatures who can’t help but take part in a giant sisterhood where the only bond is to be born with a set of female genitals. - Pete Patriarch

---

Unlike western women, asses are intelligent enough to understand the importance of the nuclear family, including a doting mom and a dominant dad ready to kick some ass if / when necessary. - Uzem & Luzem

---

If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable. - Roissy in D.C.

---

For the feminist movement to claim that they freed American women is a lie. You were permitted to become feminists by virtue of righteous men. Let the men of this nation become too indignant or unrighteous, and see how long your self-proclaimed liberation lasts. Why don’t you ask the women of Afghanistan what happened to their liberation, which existed prior to the national radicalization of angry men with weapons? - Nancy Levant, Author of The Cultural Devastation of American Women

---

The astounding fact is that, with the exception of convicted criminals, no group today has fewer rights than fathers. Even accused criminals have the right to due process of law, to know the charges against them, to face their accusers, to a lawyer, and to a trial. A father can be deprived of his children, his home, his savings, his livelihood, his privacy, and his freedom without any of these constitutional protections. And not only a divorced father or a unmarried father: Any father at any time can find himself in court and in jail. Once a man has a child he forfeits his most important constitutional rights. - Dr. Stephen Baskerville, Author of Taken Into Custody

---

If we are to deal meaningfully with crime, what we must do is reduce the number of female-headed families; what we must do is prevent the divorce courts from expelling half of society's fathers from their homes; what we must do is terminate a welfare system which displaces millions of men from the principal male role, that of family-provider. What we must do is make the father the head of the family. - Dr. Daniel Amneus, Author of The Garbage Generation

---

The Institute for Women's Policy Research finds that life has improved for American women, but "big inequities persist" (November 17). So that's why 80 per cent of suicides are males, 95 per cent of workplace mortality is of males, and men live an average of 7 years less than women. Oh, and 82 per cent of consumer spending is done by women. Kind of makes up for the so-called wage gap, doesn't it? - Lisa Scott from REAL Family Law

---

A man who wants a family can't have it without a woman. He would prefer a young, fertile one. She will have the energy to keep up with kids, and her body will recover quickly from pregnancy and childbirth. Men know that a woman's sex drive and looks decline. We'd like to start with one where the decline hasn't already gone on for a couple decades. - John Ross from Ross In Range

---

It's time we deconstructed anonymous sex. Somehow the females have got the upper hand. Much like the diamond cartel ,they have hoodwinked males into thinking that a commodity as commonplace and plentiful as pussy is rare and precious. It's not. In Andy Warhol's words, "Sex is the biggest nothing in the world." I'll never understand why a man would ever pay a woman for sexual gratification. Why shouldn't she pay him? Sex is just as necessary for her. What fools we men are. - Henry Makow from Save the Males

---

Marriage is a patriarchal institution. Hey guys, if you were designing a world to your specifications, would you design it something like marriage? Would you build a society in which you were with one woman for all of your life, even if she did cook and clean for you and raise your kids? Me, I'd design a society in which I stayed home, watched my kids grow up, and my wife could go work. I'd be allowed to have girlfriends on the side even though I was "married," and when war broke out we'd send all the ladies off to do battle while we stayed home and wrote letters. Anyone who thinks that men invented monogamous marriage or a lot of other things that pass for "patriarchy" is kidding themselves. - BusterB from The Men's Center

---

The Transportation Security Administration screens all carry-on and checked bags. Why? They are heavy and can be explosive. Because of rising fuel prices, American Airlines is now charging $15 for the first checked bag. Accordingly, every man must screen his woman’s baggage, because it can be heavy, expensive, and explosive — ask any divorce lawyer. - Marc Rudov, The NoNonsense Man

---

Thirty-odd years ago someone hauled patriarchy into the dock and charged it with a long list of crimes against womankind. The jury was rigged, the defendant was never given a chance to testify, and the verdict was foregone: Guilty as charged. The sentence? Put the loathsome patriarchs in the pokey and bring on the matriarchy. - Columnist Carey Roberts

---

If women genuinely wanted marriage and family, they would make a more sincere attempt at making themselves agreeable to men. They would be more appreciative of the husbands they had, and not be divorcing so readily. They would be treating men with respect and listening when men try to tell them their view of the world. They wouldn't be supporting laws that relegate men to powerless eunuchs in homes in which they have no legal stake. But instead, they're conceding nothing. If anything, the collective impression of women is that of a sex that becomes less respectful of men and less considerate of male aspirations or interests. - Rob Case from One Man's Kingdom

---

Regarding "boats or votes", as far as I'm concerned, it's a mutually exclusive, binary choice between one or the other. Women cannot, in fairness, demand preferential seats on the boats on one hand while still exercising preferential rights on the other. Sorry, sister, you gave up the "boats" when you accepted the "votes", and this Christian man feels no obligation to you other than to treat you like another man. A better looking, probably better smelling one, but a man nonetheless. You can jockey for your place in line for the lifeboats with me and all the other men. There's equality for you. - The Elusive Wapiti

---

Understand that Feminism is the symptom of a larger sickness; an illness that has infected the Western Psyche for generations. The struggles that we as Men have to fight today, have already been fought by our fathers long before. - Toku from Togakure School

---

After years of feminists stating they don't need us men, reigning judgment on us and acting like we are second class citizens at best, now that they are playing the victim card and bitching about us not wanting to be their valiant knights, they can permanently and implacably fuck off. - Sociopathic Revelation from Feminist Apocalypse

---

Sometimes I look at an attractive young woman who is determined to change the world and prove that women are truly equal to men in {every possible way} the eyes of the law, in social access, and in opportunity, and it makes me feel as if I'm standing on the edge of a very high precipice with a beautiful kitten in my hands. She's a brave little kitty, a courageous bundle of strength and independence, and her claws are sharp indeed. I cannot help but admire her as she bares her cute little fangs and meows her bold defiance of the uncaring world and all its unfairness and inequality.

Then I extend my arms out over the chasm, and I open my hands, and I cry: "Fly, little kitten, fly like the wind!" - Vox Day from Vox Popoli

---

And finally....last and certainly not least, a quote from an MRA legend...

UP YOURS, FEMCUNT! - Retired MRA blogger, Fred X

Of Mice and Mary Jane

There's an old saying I remember from the early days of teh Interwebz, when I used to participate in forums and discussion boards as an enthusiastic ideologue and supporter of the right wing, neo-conned, war-mongering platform: " Libertarians are just Democrats who love their guns or Republicans who love to smoke pot."

Growing up in Hawaii, this definition means a lot of people here are Libertarian and they don't even know it.

Despite being a Bush-voting, gun-toting, Rush-listening, FAUXNews-watching, Republi-conned warmonger that believed in 99% of the right wing platform, I still partook of the medicinal herb like the majority of my classmates, peers and acquaintances while growing up here. In my time, I've personally known police officers, Doctors, CEO's, Bankers, Pilots, Teachers, Engineers, Social Workers and every flavor of blue collared trade workers who all enjoyed the fruits of the forbidden plant. It was the one point for which I would have vehement disagreements with my right wing cohorts on teh interwebz.

These were the early beginnings of my unplugging from the matrix of our bi-factional ruling party charade aka "Democracy."

Indeed, while I was attending the University of Hawaii, one of my classes required researching a socio-political topic, writing a paper and then giving a 10 minute presentation to the class about what I had learned. The professor gave us a list of topics, and I selected "The History of Marijuana Prohibition in the US."

In hindsight, I now realize that selecting that topic was my very first "red-pill" moment.

The history of marijuana prohibition was my introduction to the truly fascist nature of USA Inc. It contained all of the elements of the corporatist collusion of Big Business, the Federal Government, Federal Law Enforcement and controlled media disseminating propaganda to effect cannabis prohibition for the benefit of a multitude of special interests.

It was all there...the DuPont corporation had just patented an expensive, paper making process out of wood pulp when the latest science publications of the day where predicting a revolution in paper making due to the recent development of inventions that made producing paper from hemp far more efficient and profitable than wood pulp. To protect their investments in their wood pulp process and millions of acres of timberland to produce their paper products, the DuPont interests enlisted the first "drug czar," Harry Anslinger to push for prohibition. Anslinger was related by marriage to the Father of "Yellow Journalism," William Randolph Hearst, they colluded to manufacture public consensus to effect prohibition of the hemp plant. In order to get rid of the competitive threat posed by industrial hemp, they went after marijuana and conflated the two similar plants to drive the threat of competition out of the market. Remember: Government Regulation + Industry = Cartel.

This triumvirate was the entity behind the production of sensationalistic, over-the-top propaganda  like Reefer Madness. W.R. Hearst had one of the widest circulations of national newspapers, and he regularly ran tabloid articles that became the forerunner to our modern day's equivalent of fear campaigns in our mass media that support the current "War on Terror" and the continuing trade off of liberty for our so-called security by the rulers of our society. But I digress.

Hearst ran headlines like "Marihuana Makes Fiends of Boys in 30 Days," and "Hasheesh Goads Users to Blood-Lust" and filled his papers with articles describing how epidemic of marijuana-crazed negroes were raping white women and playing voodoo-satanic jazz music while under the influence of the devil weed from Mexico. Indeed, such sensationalist propaganda was cited on the floor of congress during the debates on passing the various acts of legislation that resulted in prohibition.

One of the proponents for prohibition even basically admitted under congressional testimony that the effort was basically a move to make an end-run around the 10th amendment so that the Federal Government could control the sale of marijuana in the exact same way it had done so with machine guns. A lawyer for the Treasury Department (run by Andrew Mellon), Clinton Hester, stated the following:

“The Harrison Act has twice been sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States, and lawyers are no longer challenging its constitutionality. If an entirely new and different subject matter were to be inserted in its provisions, the act might be subject to further constitutional attacks.”

The Harrison Act of 1914 was the first Federal Government Act to control narcotic substances like heroin and cocaine. (Note that one year after the Federal Reserve Act and the first National Income Tax were instituted, the very next thing the Banksters who had taken over the US Federal Government accomplished was the establishment of Federal Bureaucracy to regulate narcotic manufacture and use.)

Those who opposed the original Marijuana Tax Act asked the proponents of prohibition why they didn't just lobby to have marijuana included in the Harrison Act.

Congressman Lewis of Maryland: “On what basis did the justices who dissented question the constitutionality of the Harrison Act? “

Treasury Dept. Attorney Hester: “The focal point of the attack was that the provision which limited the persons to whom narcotics could be sold clearly indicated that the primary purpose of the act was not to raise revenue, but to regulate matters which were reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment.”

In other words the proponents of Prohibition knew the weakness of the Constitutionality of prohibiting substances, and were afraid trying to add marijuana to the Harrison Act would re-open challenges to the Act's constitutionality that the Supreme Court of that era had recently ruled in favor of - goodbye 10th Amendment!.

Instead, they wanted to use the same successful approach to prohibitively tax marijuana the same way they used a tax scheme to make and end run around the 2nd Amendment to prohibit the sale of machine guns to the citizenry.

Hester testified:

"This bill would permit anyone to purchase marijuana as was done in the National Firearms Act in permitting anyone to buy a machine gun. But he would have to pay a tax of $100 per ounce of marijuana and make his purchase on an official order form. A person who wants to buy marijuana would have to go to the collector and get an order form in duplicate, and buy the $100 tax stamp and put it on the original order form there. He would take the original to the vendor, and keep the duplicate. If the purchaser wants to transfer it, the person who purchases the marijuana from him has to do the same thing and pay the $100 tax. That is the scheme that has been adopted to stop high-school children from getting marijuana.”

In many ways, Marijuana prohibition was the first major front of the Borg's implementation of corporatist assimilation of what was once a free market driven, Capitalist Republic into the current Fascist state of our current Brave New World Order. It was the model now employed by a wide variety of BIG industries and their incestuous relationship with Big Government's regulatory agencies to establish Big Business cartels that now span the entire planet.





So what does this all have to do with mice?

Here we are, 77 years after propaganda like Reefer Madness was produced to manufacture consensus and instill fear to accomplish the empowerment of the Federal Government and protect the financial interests of wood-pulp-paper corporations, and the powers behind prohibition are as entrenched in our Government-Corporate-Media triumvirate as ever, and still putting out yellow journalism-styled propaganda to support prohibition.

Just last month the following headlines appeared all over the mass media organs around the world:


Marijuana Use in Adolescents May Lead to Long-term Cognitive Impairment 

Adolescents, but not adults, who regularly use marijuana may permanently impair their brain function and cognition and may also be at an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, according to new preclinical research by the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Asaf Keller, a professor of anatomy and neurobiology at UM and lead study author, says that the topic of whether marijuana use in adolescents can cause long-term heath effects is controversial, but that the latest study provides further evidence that regular marijuana use in adolescents can be harmful.

Ok, got it. Regular marijuana use in adolescents can be harmful...then you read on and you find that the research was conducted on adolescents alright...adolescent mice.

"The study began by examining cortical oscillations in mice."

Just like any other study with supposed results, I got a number of questions to pose here. So....did the mice actually smoke marijuana? How much? What kind and quality? Did they use bongs or did they roll them up in joints? Did the specify whether they used indica or sativa strains? Did they smoke some Purple Kush or White Widow? If this study is supposed to be relevant to human adolescents use of marijuana, shouldn't they use it in the same manner typical pot smoking humans do in the interests of accuracy?

Let's look at what they actually did:

Humans were not involved in the study. Instead, Keller and his colleagues used adolescent mice that had never been exposed to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive compound in marijuana, subjecting the mice to low doses of the active compound for 20 days before reintroducing them to their sibling mice and allowing them to develop normally.

They "exposed" them to THC. Well that answers that, I guess. Whether or not we can extrapolate exposing an active compound to mice versus human adolescents smoking various strains of differing quality  of marijuana (and the hundreds of other components found in marijuana in addition to THC) is besides the point. That last sentence quoted already exposes a giant flaw in this studies methodology.

They removed adolescent mice from their siblings before administering a dosage of THC. What does that have to do with marijuana's supposed impairment of cognitive development in the brains of adolescent mice?

Have a look see here:


The impact of adolescent social isolation on dopamine D2 and cannabinoid CB1 receptors in the adult rat prefrontal cortex.

 "Adolescent experiences of social deprivation result in profound and enduring perturbations in adult behavior, including impaired sensorimotor gating."

Well....social deprivation in rats caused impairments in cognitive development. I suppose if we can extrapolate adolescent mice experiments to adolescent humans, we can certainly do the same in extrapolating studies from rats to mice, no?

Here's a question for the researchers: Where was the control group of 20 mice that were removed from their siblings and not exposed to THC? 

Oh, and since we're on the topic of extrapolating rodent studies to apply them to humans, what about this study?

Paternal Deprivation Alters Region- and Age-Specific Interneuron Expression Patterns in the Biparental Rodent (pdf)

A variety of studies revealed that growing up without a supportive and caring father increases the risk of mental dysfunctions, low educational performance, and criminal activity (Baskerville 2002; O’Neill 2002; Erhard and Janig 2003; Boyce et al. 2006). The importance of paternal care and the survival benefits for his offspring is also emerging from studies in a variety of rodents (Wynne-Edwards 1987;Cantoni and Brown 1997; Libhaber and Eilam 2002; Wright and Brown 2002; Vieira and Brown 2003; Bredy et al. 2004; Schradin and Pillay 2004; Bredy et al. 2007; Helmeke et al. 2009; Pinkernelle et al. 2009). 

It appears likely that the behavioral differences of father-deprived individuals result from altered brain circuits, which have been formed under semi-deprived (i.e., without father) family conditions.

Somehow I doubt we're gonna see a proliferation of headlines touting the problems of adolescents raised in social isolation or without their fathers as a cause of impaired cognitive development any time soon. We can't consider this, because so much of our current system is set up to profit from the removal of Father's from Western family life. It' can't be that.... It's teh devilWEED!

What's instructive about all this though, is that this is just another example of how studies are conducted IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE, and then misleading headlines and news reports are generated to accomplish whatever agenda the social engineers in control of our mass media want to effect. They use the same tactics to generate informational cascades amongst the populace to get us all to believe whatever they want us to, like: eating red meat is bad (no really, red meat is REALLY bad!), sun bathing without sunscreen at high noon is bad, that salt in our food is bad, that fluoride in our water is good, that saturated fat found in natural foods will clog our arteries, that eating fish will give us mercury poisoning, that soy is a health food, and that we all need to eat whole grains and fiber for our digestive health....

It's a good thing we live in a world for which our Government and media have been able to get we the sheeple to give up beliefs in mythological, primitive superstitions like religion! We've got science, and scientists to figure it all out for us! They would never deliberately mislead us with their scientific studies and science journalism reporting in the mass media to serve a malevolent and lucrative agenda....right?!?!??!