Monday, April 30, 2007

Domestic Violence laws should be abolished because...

They are the perfect vehicle by which the American people will lose their God given and Constitutional liberties.

Case in point:

Rinaldo Del Gallo, III

April 25, 2007 at 10:22 pm · Filed under Vox Populi, Mating, Marriage & Divorce

Wednesday, April 25, 2007


New York has finally completely lost it. In addition to handing out restraining orders like lollipops, now there are bills filed to make such individuals wear electronic monitoring devices. We are not talking about sex offenders or anybody convicted of a crime and out on parole. We are talking about your nickel and dime restraining order case where a criminal conviction was not possible. Welcome George Orwell’s “Big Brother” of the novel 1984. Goodbye privacy. This is the acme of personal invasion and personal degradation. It is one thing to require a man to wear an electronic monitoring device that has been convicted of attempted murder and is out on bail. It is another to force a man to wear one when there was an argument after he caught his wife cheating on him—a common scenario where a restraining order issues.

One company that makes the devices, Omnilink Systems, couldn’t be giddier. They sent out a press release regarding their hope that the bill becomes law. People who have actually been convicted of actual serious acts of domestic violence are usually already imprisoned. Restraining orders are often given out after heated arguments when the woman claims she was afraid. States the press release, “We applaud State Assemblyman Ortiz and the State of New York for working aggressively to pass Bill A5424 for the public safety of New Yorkers.” Don’t forget Omnilink to also send him a nice, fat check. There website is Congratulations Omnilink, and welcome to the Domestic Violence Industry. Join the dozens of mental health professionals, probation officers, judges, clerks, and court house personal that would have to go out and get real jobs if getting a restraining order wasn’t as simple and easy as ordering a Big Mac. Celltrack is another company trying to get rich at the expense of fathers.

One Arizona law firm, Baker Law Associates, has on their website, “However, some communities are aggressively prosecuting domestic violence crimes, in which case jail time, house arrest, and electronic monitoring are routinely sought, even in first offenses and cases with only minor injuries. Subsequent offenses are almost always charged as more serious offenses, carrying more serious penalties. The main goal of a firm experienced in domestic violence cases is to get the charges dropped or reduced to a lesser offense and keep you out of jail. The prosecution may seek to introduce evidence of prior domestic violence incidents, whether or not they resulted in convictions. Many state legislatures have created exceptions to the rules of evidence, making evidence of prior uncharged incidents of domestic violence admissible, even though evidence of other crimes are not. If you have had prior charges brought against you, you must contact your defense attorney as soon as you believe that other charges may be brought.”

Notes George Courtney of the Fathers’ Rights Association of New York, “This needs to be widely publicized and defeated at all costs. It is tantamount to Nazi law.” In restraining order cases, there need be no witnesses, there need be no evidence corroborating the claim, and in many instances restraining orders issue when there was not violence or the threat of violence. Often, the person that is issued a restraining order didn’t initiative the violence, or in cases when there was no violence, did not initiate the argument...
Thanks again to the guys at Men's News Daily for bringing this to my attention.

You see, BULLSHIT like this is EXACTLY why all domestic violence laws must be:

1) Repealed immediately with extreme prejudice or...

2) Reformed to conform to Constitutional protections and procedures.

I have argued previously that laws like these are dangerous to a free society, and are ripe to be exploited by the deranged and the powermad.

Insane proposals such as these confirm my fears.

Just Noticeable Difference.

Make sure you read the full article, and by all means, SPREAD THE WORD.

Just because government and business have these spy technologies in their toolkits, doesn't mean that we the people have to accept it.

This needs to be defeated, NOW. Otherwise, the injustice and the totalitarianism of our Matriarchal government will worsen.

Keep an eye out on your state legislatures... a bill like this might be coming to a statehouse near you.


From Melanie

Dear Readers,

Those who haven't read any of Melanie Phillips work should take a few moments and peruse her site.

Writing from the UK, she offers hard hitting; and very relevant commentary on the evils of feminism, political correctness, and other topics.

The following comes from her piece entitled Feral Britain:

April 23, 2007
Feral Britain

Daily Mail, 23 Aril 2007

For many years, those of us who have been writing about the potentially catastrophic effects of epidemic family breakdown have been warning that its impact won’t be limited to damaged individuals or a rising crime rate.

If it is on a large enough scale, it is also likely to cause the destruction of civilised values and even the most basic human instincts.

One can’t help but think in these terms when reading about last week’s appalling court case which heard how a mother, Zara Care, from Plymouth goaded her two toddlers into fighting each other like dogs — and filmed their ordeal on a camcorder in front of her mother and two sisters, who in turn were egging on the children to ever greater violence.

On the film, the women were heard laughing as the two-year-old boy and his three-year-old sister were encouraged to hit and punch each other. The boy was seen crying and trying to hide after being punched in the face by his sister, but was told by one of the women ‘not to be a wimp or a faggot’ and to hit the girl back. At one point, someone threw a hairbrush at him to encourage him to hit her; at another, he was given a rolled-up magazine with the spine on the outside for more impact.

Such behaviour towards very young children by their own mother, not to mention their aunts and grandmother, would strike any normal person as wholly unnatural. Far from showing love and care to these children, they displayed cruelty and sadism as they turned them into instruments for their own vicarious aggression, taking pleasure in their distress.

Some of us found it difficult even to read such a sickening account of the tormenting of two toddlers. Their mother actually filmed it.

A healthy society would show its revulsion at such behaviour by jailing these women. Instead, they were each given a 12-month suspended sentence and ordered to do 100 hours of community work. Yet on the same day, another court sent a man to jail for staging a real dog fight in his house. Is the welfare of a child assumed by the English courts to be of less importance than the welfare of a pit bull terrier?

In letting these women walk free, the court displayed once again the feebleminded sentimentality with which so many judges tend to regard the state of motherhood in particular and women in general.

Judge Francis Gilbert — who described the women as ‘cruel and callous’ — nevertheless said the two aunts had children of their own to look after, and that Zara’s biggest punishment was that her children had been taken out of her care. Such remarks suggested this judge just didn’t grasp the significance of what had taken place.

If women can be so ‘cruel and callous’ to a tiny nephew and niece, how can anyone assume they will look after their own children properly? If a mother is so devoid of appropriate feelings of love and care for her children, how can one think that taking them away from her constitutes any real punishment?...
How indeed.


Good news... from the United Nations??

Unbelievable as it may be...

The United Nations has actually stood up for the rights of men!

As most MRAs know, the UN is an organization founded by Communists and their sympathizers.

And through UN initiatives such as CEDAW, this corrupt body has been working against the interests of men (not to mention American gun owners) for many a year.

While any good news is appreciated, MRAs must not allow this tiny concession to lull us into a false sense of security.

Thanks to Glenn Sacks and Men's News Daily for getting the word out.

I’m surprised and pleased to see the United Nations actually call attention to the terrible problem of false accusations in custody and the ponderous, anemic way family courts adjudicate such disputes. In this case a father was accused by his estranged wife of abusing his children, and police investigated for nearly two years before deciding not to prosecute. The father was still denied access to his children and the higher courts forbade his appeal.

Human rights lawyer Tony Ellis took this accused father’s case to the UN’s Human Rights Committee, and won. Ellis is a hero, and we need more attorneys like him. See the full story below:

Father denied justice by NZ courts, says UN
April 19, 2007

The United Nations has slammed the New Zealand legal system for denying justice to a man accused of abusing his children.

The Government now has three months to explain itself to the international body and offer a solution to the man.

Human rights lawyer Tony Ellis took the man’s case to the UN’s Human Rights Committee saying his client’s right to a fair trial had been ignored by the Family and then the Appeal Courts.

The man, who cannot be named due to the ongoing custody dispute, was accused in 2001 by his estranged wife of abusing his two daughters and then, later, abusing his son.

Police investigated for nearly two years, but decided not to prosecute.

The father was denied access to his daughters and the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal the decision.

The man is still fighting for access to see his son in the Family Court.

The committee found the lengthy proceedings violated the father’s rights to a quick and fair trial in respect of his daughters and son...

Be sure to read the entire piece.


Sunday, April 29, 2007

The Gokusen Parody Part 2 (2-7) Eng Sub

Gokusen is the name of a hugely popular TV comedy in Japan from a few years back. One of Kumogakure's personal favs!

As the title says, the English subtitles aren't the exact translations from the Japanese, but they ARE funny as hell, and worthy to post on this here blog.


A Combination of Kunqu opera and Kabuki - 昆劇和歌舞伎合演 《遊園驚夢》片段





(A little culture today on Kumogakure school! I'm a huge fan of traditional Kabuki plays. It's a little unusual, but check it out will ya??


Plato's Republic, works cited.

Plato (2003). The Republic, 375 B.C.E. (2nd ed.).
(D. Lee, Trans.). London, England: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1955).

Plato’s Republic and Feminism by Julia Annas
Philosophy © 1976 Royal Institute of Philosophy
Published by Cambridge University Press
Vol. 51, No. 197 (Jul., 1976), pp. 307-321

Plato’s Feminism by Harry Lesser
Philosophy © 1979 Royal Institute of Philosophy
Published by Cambridge University Press
Vol. 54, No. 207 (Jan., 1979), pp. 113-117

Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: Toward Feminist Jurisprudence by Catharine A MacKinnon
Signs © 1982 The University of Chicago Press
Vol. 7, No. 3, Feminist Theory (Spring, 1982), pp. 515-544

The Logical and the Real in Political Theory: Plato, Aristotle, and Marx by Charles N. R. McCoy
The American Political Science Review > Vol. 48, No. 4 (Dec., 1954), pp. 1058-1066

The Ethics of Communism
John Laird
Journal of Philosophical Studies > Vol. 3, No. 10 (Apr., 1928), pp. 198-212

Would Plato Have Approved of the National-Socialist State?
R. F. Alfred Hoernlé
Philosophy > Vol. 13, No. 50 (Apr., 1938), pp. 166-182

Gender and Justice in Plato by Steven Forde
The American Political Science Review > Vol. 91, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 657-670

Note: The impact of Plato on feminist theory cannot be overstated. Some will claim that feminists in no way, shape, or form, endorse Plato, nor subscribe to his totalitarian vision.

The intense scrutiny of his works by both feminists and leftists (who in reality, are one in the same) speaks volumes.

The following are additional titles that serious students can read on their own. I will not be including these works into my writings for the sake of brevity - Kumogakure.

Bar On, Bat-Ami, ed. Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings of Plato and Aristotle. SUNY Press, 1994.

Bluestone, Natalie Harris. Women and the Ideal Society: Plato's Republic and Modern Myths of Gender. Univ. of massachusetts Press, 1987.

Buchan, Morag. Women in Plato's Political Theory. Routledge, 1998.

Cavarero, Adriana. In Spite of Plato: A Feminist Rewriting of Ancient Philosophy. 1995.

Freeland, Cynthia A., ed. Feminist Interpretations of Aristotle. Penn State Univ. Press, 1998.

Scruton, Roger, ed. Xanthippic Dialogues. St. Augustine's Press, 1998.

Tuana, Nancy, ed. Feminist Interpretations of Plato. Penn State Univ. Press, 1994.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Comments about Media Radar: Part II

Welcome back!

Our Anonymous friend wrote some pretty scathing examples of mis-steps in the Media Radar.Org report Without Restraint: The Use and Abuse of Domestic Restraining Orders.

I would like to take a few moments to respond to some of our friend's points, as they are worth addressing.

I have to agree with our friend that any organization that attempts to lobby the public for or against an issue has an incumbent responsibility to make sure the information presented is accurate, transparent, and does not hide critical facts from its target audience.

It is my opinion that the case against feminism and cultural marxism is strong enough that we, as Men's Rights advocates, can argue clearly and convincingly, without resorting to dishonesty as feminists are prone to do.

With that said, it is my opinion that this report in particular, errors and misquoting aside, still accomplishes its main goal:

That domestic violence laws, and the guiding philosophies behind them, are dangerous to democracy and civil rights as defined by classical American law and custom.

I want to take a moment, before I begin, to thank our mystery critic.

Criticism is not to be feared. Rather, it helps us to make our arguments sharp like steel, and as pure as the driven snow.

In addition, the comments I will be addressing bring up an important point:

Fact-checking is an important discipline, and something that I personally will be doing more often from here on out. I recognize that I don't know everything, I am not 100% right all the time, and that I learn something new about the nature of things everyday, without fail.

Your overall point, friend is noted.

One more thing.

I care not if the "media" decideds to report on blogs such as mine. I say that the mainstream media isn't ready for the raw truth of what we have to say as Men's Rights Activists.

Furthermore, the media is an accomplice of the Matriarchal regime, and I expect more gyno-centric reporting as time passes. Keep in mind that the majority of journalism school graduates are women.

The mainstream will either avoid our blogs like the plague, or vilify us beyond recognition. Either way, men will be enlightened, and feminists can't do anything overtly to stop us.

The media "can't handle the truth!!"

Alrighty them! Let's get to it.

Citation 9 refers to "The Sacramento Superior Court's website
instructs TRO applicants as follows:

'Please present the completed domestic violence forms to the Family Law
Filing Window in Room 100 of the William R. Ridgeway Family Relations
Courthouse. The clerk will conduct a mini-interview with you to clarify your
request and to ensure that you filled out the forms correctly.'"

Other than citing absurd mundane instructions this ignores the rest of
the context which goes on to state, "If your request is granted, a
hearing will be set for you and the other party. It is your
responsibility to have other person personally served. Proof of
service for the other person must be presented and filed with court
prior to or at the time of the Domestic Violence Restraining Order
hearing." Though this is still a simple proceedure it is vastly
different from what the author implies from this source.
Agreed. A major boo-boo on Radar's part to cite California.

However, other states aren't so generous.

Indiana, for example, requires:

Restraining Orders...

...Where can you file?

Application is made in the form of an affidavit, in the Superior Court or Circuit Court, at the Jasper County Courthouse. The courthouse is located on the square in Rensselaer, at the intersection of (US231) Washington Street, and (SR114) Cullen Street. You can call these offices Monday through Friday 8AM-4PM, for further details regarding filing fees.

Superior (219) 866-4971, Circuit (219) 866-4941.

The County Police Department can not issue restraining Orders. We only enforce them.

Who can file?

Any person over 18 years of age, is permitted to file the affidavit on behalf of his family or him/herself.

When do I qualify?

In very general terms; When you have received threats from a person(s) to cause you bodily harm or death, or threats to do damage to your property, or when you have actually been harmed physically, or your property has been damaged, and it is likely to occur again.

If you have questions regarding your specific circumstances, call the courts and inquire as to whether you qualify for the order, or refer your questions to an attorney. We do not decide who can file an affidavit.

What happens after I file?

The Judge will hear your case. He will decide if your affidavit and application should be granted. If an order of protection is granted, it becomes effectively immediately. The courts will forward a copy of the order to the Law Enforcement agency where the protected person lives, and to the location where the restrained party resides. A copy of the order will be served on the respondent, as soon as the courts provide that copy to the law enforcement agency. After service on the person, that person will appear in court to testify before the judge. This hearing determines whether the order becomes a permanent order.If the restrained party violates this order, call the Police Department where you live and report the facts which lead you to believe the order has been violated.
Apparently, Indiana hands out their orders without requiring personal service, as opposed to California.

While I agree that the use of California is a poor choice in this case, there are plenty of other jurisdictions where getting a TRO is quite easy to do.

Citation 11 refers to an exact quote and cites both a document and a
website but does not specify a page number out of the 33 page long
document on which one may find the quote. A Google search for the
quote produces it, but the citation should read with the page number
on which to find the quote, if the electronic source is used there
would obviously be no page number to reference.

Citation 13 from the Heleniak "Star Chamber" source also lacks a page
number with which to find the quote, and "ibid" is not used when other
citations stand between the referenced previous citation. Ibid should
be replaced with the page number of the quote.
Very technical sir! While this does count as an error, it does not undermine the basis for this paper.

Take it easy will ya?? ^ ^;

Citation 14 quotes what appears to be a journalistic account, but
indeed the source is from editorial commentary. With ample ability to
cite journalistic accounts this is brash dishonesty. A simple Google
search of his name produces several articles.
Since when it is a crime to include commentary?

Which state along with the information in the commentary cited that,
"LEWIS BARBER had three drunk driving convictions on file at the
Alexandria Courthouse. In 1998, the court ordered a habitual offender
evaluation in which the court-appointed addictions counselor
determined that Barber had an "anger problem," and that drinking
caused him to have "two different personalities." Another counselor
examined Barber and determined that he "may be suffering from 'dry
drunk' syndrome — his body language presented a depressed individual."

Also "Lewis does not know," she wrote in an affidavit to support the
protective order. "Our son will not be there Sat. morning when I tell
him. There are weapons in the house and I know Lewis will start
drinking heavily. Lewis is a very quiet man and very unpredictable."

Nobody can know all the facts but both sides would be nice if you
respect your audience enough to be truthful.
Agreed that all the facts in this case cannot be known. But it would appear that my man Lewis presents a danger to a reasonable person, and more than likely, a restraining order would be justified.

Overall, this would not be the best example of "restraining orders gone wild."

Citation 15 refers to the factual claim that "The analysis found that 34%
of requests from men were deferred or turned down, compared to only
10% of requests
from women."

The author also claims to extrapolate this data as if
the bias is "borne out by research." It is unclear in the claim what
"get a restraining order" means but to be fair even at the lowest bar
of the ex-parte the bar chart clearly shows that 23% of requests from
men were deferred with 5% of the women's claims being deferred. If
the measure is a permanent order the lower chart clearly shows 19%
denied for men vs. 2% for women.
The report you speak of, A Measure of Court Response to Requests for Protection, is an interesting read.

We find on page 172 of the report that:

An Abuse Prevention Order (M.G.L. c. 209A)
is a Massachusetts’ civil court order designed to protect
victims of domestic violence. Although a civil order, its
violation is a criminal offense, punishable by 2.5 years in
prison. The research found male and female defendants
in these cases known to the court were almost equally
abusive. The second part, presented here, measures the
court’s response to these same allegations. By measuring
how the court responds to similar male and female
allegations, gender differences in that response is determined.

Examination of living and parenting status is also

conducted and compared to the effect of gender on court
response to see if living status, parenting status, or gender
has the greatest effect.

Massachusetts’ domestic violence victims can first
request protection from abuse at an Ex Parte Hearing
before a district court judge. The defendant is usually
not present during this hearing and therefore does not
have the opportunity to defend him or herself.

Relating back to your objection to citation number #9; this would be yet another state that issues restraining orders quite easily.

The Measure of Court Response report, on page 174 tells us:

Table II. Court Response at Ex Parte Hearing by Gender

Male plaintiff
Response (N = 44)
Deny: 11
Defer: 23
Grant: 66

Female plaintiff
(%) (N=238) (%)p
Deny: 5
Defer: 5 .0003
Grant: 91 .00006

Note. df = 1; p: probability according to Fisher’s Exact Test (two-tail),
ns: not significant.

The numbers tell us some interesting things here.

The sample sizes, 44 for men and 238 for women, affirms that women overwhelmingly file for restraining orders more than men do, even though men and women abuse at the same rates.

Based on these numbers, once again we find that women file (238/44=5.4) for these orders five times more than men do. Why?

Secondly, we find that women are granted their orders 91% of the time! Why?

Is there not a problem here? Is there not a good reason for Media Radar to go through the trouble of putting this report together, or do they just "hate women?"

These numbers alone justify the investigation that Media Radar chose to undertake in this case.

The report summarizes, on page 178 that:

The present study hypothesized that courts are not
immune from social norms and that despite gender neutral
language of (M.G.L. c. 209A), would exhibit differing
tendencies when responding to male vs. female requests
for protection. The present study finds that in this one
court setting, male victims of domestic violence were not
afforded the same protections as their female counterparts.
This inequality in court response occurred even though
male and female plaintiffs were similarly victimized by
their opposite gender defendants.
I should also note that the numbers that Radar reports are the numbers of the deferred and the denied cases added together, per sex. I can find no fault with Radar on this citation; indeed, it would have been better if Radar had included the additional information that I have referenced today. It would certainly make the Without Restraint report more damning.

I would assume that Radar is trying to educate the public, not to convince statistical nerds such as ourselves.

Citation 22 refers to this statement, "Allegations of abuse and
restraining orders are often used as "part of the gamesmanship of
divorce.'" This is a clear example of intentional deception or given
the benefit of the doubt, lazy research.

The actual claim is supported by the title of an article from which
the quote comes from. "Orders of protection are designed to prevent
domestic violence, but they can also become part of the gamesmanship
of divorce." You will note that your author has used the word
"often" while the source says "can." There is abolutely no
demographic of statistical information in the quote or source to
support "often" as used by the author. More than likely it is "often"
as this is a vague term, but find something by which to substantiate
Oh no friend. You should know that the "gamesmanship" is quite real.

I give you Baskerville:

Restraining orders are routinely issued during divorce proceedings, usually without any evidence of wrongdoing. “Restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply,” and “the facts have become irrelevant,” according to Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association. “In virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had.”[77] Bypassing due process protections is so routine that New Jersey judge Richard Russell told his colleagues during a training seminar, “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street.... We don’t have to worry about the rights.”[78]

Some argue that judges must balance the rights of accused men with the need of women for protection.[80] Yet elsewhere the criminal justice system operates on the principle that people are punished for crimes they commit, not for what someone says they might commit. A defendant charged with the most heinous violent crime “has all his or her rights preserved and carefully guarded when before a court,” says Massachusetts attorney Gregory Hession. In domestic abuse cases, by contrast, “a defendant may lose all those things, with no due process at all. ... The abuse law throws out all of those protections.”[81] According to the New Jersey family court, to allow accused abusers the due process protections afforded other criminal defendants “perpetuates the cycle of power and control whereby the [alleged?] perpetrator remains the one with the power and the [alleged?] victim remains powerless.” Omitting the word “alleged” is standard in federal and state statutes and media reports, and “the mere allegation of domestic abuse...may shift the burden of proof to the defendant.”[82] David Heleniak identifies six separate denials of due process in the New Jersey statute, which he terms “a due process fiasco.”[83]

Some insist that protective orders are issued on the principle of “better safe than sorry.”[84] Yet it is not clear precisely how protective orders can prevent violence, since violent assault is already illegal. One father was “enjoined and restrained from committing any domestic violence” upon his wife.[85] But is he not already thus restrained, along with the rest of us? Clearly the orders are issued not to prevent violence, but to remove fathers and enforce divorce.

It is also likely that forcing parents to stay away from their children provokes precisely the violence it ostensibly aims to prevent. “Few lives, if any, have been saved, but much harm, and possibly loss of lives, has come from the issuance of restraining orders and the arrests and conflicts ensuing therefrom,” writes retired Judge Milton Raphaelson of Dudley, Massachusetts, District Court. “This is not only my opinion; it is the opinion of many who remain quiet due to the political climate. Innocent men and their children are deprived of each other...”[86]

It seems to me that Radar is holding up quite well under your scrutiny.

My view is that these abominations of justice (domestic violence laws) need to be reformed substantially. If they cannot be reformed adequately to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the victim, and to conform to the guarantees given by the U.S. Constitution, they need to be terminated with extreme prejudice altogether.

For the sake of brevity, I will respond to one last point you raised, as I feel it is an important one.

Citation 37 refers to, "Dorothy Wright, a New Jersey attorney and
former board member of a women's shelter, has estimated that 40%–50%
of all restraining orders are requested purely as a legal maneuver."
This estimation is not even claimed to be on any verifiable basis
other than her "belief." For someone dealing so heavily with the
issue of evidence and not simply guilt by a simple claim it is
dishonest to place this in a report. Find some real statistics that
are verifiable. Further the article cited at least gives the claims
from the opposition but those are ignored in the interest distortion.

Hopefully, these are all honest mistakes. For an organization with
accuracy in its name though it should be of the utmost importance to
be, indeed, accurate.

I wouldn't discount professional testimony so quickly if I were you friend.

I'm going to tell you something about me that many of my fellow MRAs probably don't know. The reason why I am so anti-feminism and anti "domestic violence" law is because I am an insider.

I am a government officer for the largest law enforcement agency in my STATE. My agency has the most police officers, the largest budget, and of course, the most crime.

I include judges, lawyers, and local politicians as my acquaintances and colleagues.

And on top of this, I read a great many police reports in my official capacity. I know that domestic violence is an equal opportunity offense, and that when the media creates the impression that only men commit domestic violence, that they are lying.

I know
what the trends are, and I know the politics that drive our domestic violence regime. I know about all the block grants, and the federal funding. I've read quite a few sales pitches from private companies rushing to sell us domestic violence training manuals, books, aids, and other useless nonsense.

I know that the domestic violence lobby is well funded, and very influential.

I've heard about the training manuals in use at our police training classes, and I know that none of the information I have presented today, or in past posts, makes the cut.

High ranking officers that I have spoken with privately about these issues acknowledge that there is a major problem with the way the system works, but no one dares challenge it openly.

And most tragically, it is the officers who risk their lives upholding the law, that are harmed by these laws the most. Divorced multiple times, with multiple child support orders, with multiple court appearances, and multiple restraining orders, these fine men have bleak futures to look forward to, more often than not.

I hope you get my drift.

Professional experience, counts. Please don't forget it, and for goodness sake, don't belittle it. You know a lot less than what you think you do. Believe it.

To conclude:

I wholeheartedly agree that accuracy is essential in this debate. And it cannot be denied that Radar made some crucial errors in this particular report.

However, I still hold that the Without Restraint piece is sufficient to inform the general public that there is indeed a serious problem with the way Domestic Violence laws are enforced in this country.

With that said, I will heed your advice, and fact-check, as much as possible, any reports I cite in the future. Being thorough never hurts.

This will be the end of this series of posts, as I need to research and, fact-check, my theories relating to Plato. I hope you will stick around. It should be interesting reading!

Thanks for stopping by.


Monday, April 23, 2007


Now, this kind of violence is totally unacceptable... maybe!

I don't think I'll need a restraining order for this one...

Ghetto Beat Down

Yep... women are helpless victims alright...

Chick fights compilation set to Mudvayne - Dig

Yeah... so you don't think chicks be fightin huh??

Check it.

Gurls be acting bad in 2007.

Methinks I should rush out and get my restraining order today!!

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Someone no like Media Radar!

An Anonymous friend wrote the following criticism of my Beloved Media

I have requested that our Anonymous friend tell me who he is, but so far, my mystery reader has declined to give me some sort of identification.

A pity, although I have my suspicions of who this could be.

Mr. Guess, did you write this???

In any event, I will go through the piece and add my humble comments. I will also email this post to Media Radar, and hopefully they will respond as well.

It should be noted that a little criticism never hurts. It keeps us honest, and it makes sure that our arguments remain pure.

Feminists lie all the time; there is no reason for MRAs to resort to distortion in our arguments.

Feminists themselves give us plenty of ammunition every time they open their mouths!

Let's look at the comment shall we??

Anonymous said...

Citing Media Radar's "reports" as good evidence is not the best idea. Here is a fun exercise with only one "report" they have.
The report in question, Without Restraint... does have some technical flaws.

There are some misquotes, and some rounding errors.

Happily, our friend is making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

This report, that my friend has brilliantly fact-checked, holds up under scrutiny. The main questions, in my mind are:

Are restraining orders being issued in an unbalanced manner?

Is there enough evidence presented so that a reasonable Joe Blow off the street could read it and know that there's something amiss here?

Does Radar show convincingly that restraining orders are a most unwelcome addition to American law and custom?

I maintain that it does on all counts. Even if the inquiring mind were to go through every citation, the evidence in its totality does show that there is an inherent bias in the distribution of restraining orders.

You should know that, as a Classical Liberal, I am opposed to such instruments because they violate the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of our Constitution, as well as the basic principle of Probable Cause, in most cases.

At all times, the Constitution of the United States is the benchmark to which I hold law and statute.

At times like this, I feel the need to quote the following:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. — Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The reason why I am against so called "Domestic Violence" laws is that they undermine the right of a Man to be the "King of his castle". They undermine the ability of the average American to say honestly, "It's a free country."

(C'mon... when's the last time you heard someone say that expression and actually mean it??)

Laws like these, as Media Radar has successfully pointed out again and again, undermine our entire system of American Jurisprudence.

In addition, these rules give enormous power to the vindictive and the petty, and are ripe for being misused and abused.

Interestingly enough, our current "family law" regime isn't even American at all. It is a Soviet Cultural Marxist import.

Check it:


Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current “family law” system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and America’s “welfare state,” was born in the Soviet Union. Still more shocking would be the revelation that when the Soviet Union discovered its system was a disastrous failure, it instituted serious reforms in the early 1940’s to try to restore the family and the country. The Soviets made these changes when fatherlessness (which included children from divorced fathers) reached around 7 million children and their social welfare structure (day cares, kindergartens, state children’s facilities, etc.) was overburdened. Yet in America, some studies suggest that we are approaching 11 or 12 million such children. All the while, the social and financial costs of welfare and fatherlessness are just now gaining more widespread attention. America’s fatherlessness crisis is primarily by judicial making with the cooperation of the legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who profit from family destruction which rips America apart.

Unfortunately, the Soviet reforms came too late and never brought about the extent of social reconstruction that would have allowed recovery from its self-inflicted social destruction. It was unable to stave off its widely celebrated collapse when the Berlin wall came down. Even though the Soviets tried in vain to restore the social values they had worked so hard to eradicate, America only pays “lip service” to much-needed massive social reform. Serious social reform has been largely absent from political debate. On the other hand, the systematic deconstruction of all of the social values that had made our nation great is being pursued passionately as one of our nation's primary socio-political goals.

“Family law” is one of the key tools of the “counter-hegemony” which is used to advance the social welfare state through the promotion of the social structural collapse of America. The early Soviet system focused on personal happiness and self-centered fulfillment with its roots in class warfare. When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940’s. Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America.[vii] America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components...

While there are errors in the report in question, Media Radar overall does a fine job of challenging biases and unjust laws on a level that no other organization has managed to do thus far.

So when you attack this fine group, and attempt to plant seeds of doubt about their veracity, and attempt to drive a wedge between them and MRA ground troops such as myself, that's like asking a Samurai to go into battle without his sword, or requesting the desert solider to fight insurgents without his body armor.

Not gonna happen.

Kumogakure School is NOT in the business of limiting ourselves in our guerrilla campaign against feminism. I will use Media Radar, and any other source for that matter, to achieve the goal, which is the complete and total annihilation of feminism, period.

So sorry, but I wrote the book on psychological warfare! You won't sow dissension so easily my dear friend.

Our guest wrote:

In "The Use and Abuse of Restraining Orders"
Citation 2 refers to the claim of "about 85%" while the source notes
"At present, 15 to 20 percent of restraining orders are issued against
women." Not too far off but not accurate either.
Agreed. A range of 80-85% would have been better.

However, the fact remains that Men are far and away the targets of restraining order madness. This speaks volumes about the eagerness of women to request such orders.

It is also striking when we consider that women beat, batter, and abuse on equal levels with men.

It would be sensible, in an equitable environment, for the spread between male/female R.O. issuance rates to be closer together, say, 60% to 40%.

In reality, if we use the rates of 85% to 15%, then we find that (.85/.15= 5.66) women are requesting (or obtaining) orders almost six times more than men are.

Restraining orders ARE being used to target men at disproportional levels, and this fact is indisputable.

Citation 3 refers to " In three-quarters of those cases, the woman had
also summoned the police." In fact the source notes "69.7%¶ of women
who received police assistance for IPV also obtained a restraining
order against an IP." I understand rounding the 33.8% figure to 34%
but to change 69.7% to 3/4 is not correct, nor is it prefaced with
"about" as in the first case. "About" should only appear when the
true figure is not known or there is marginal rounding.
Agreed here. 69.7% should be 69.7%.

Citation 5 refers to "in Oregon, merely claiming a "fear" of violence
is considered grounds for issuance of the order." In fact this is not
what even the source says, it states, "put you in fear of serious
bodily injury." Fear of violence, rather than serious bodily injury,
is a much lower bar to achieve and there is no way this was not taken
out of context intentionally.
With all due respect, how do you know that there is a lower bar to achieve? It is undeniable that at all levels of the criminal justice system, a woman that claims abuse gains a considerable measure of credibility.

My Tyranny of Tolerance posts detailed how the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, the Highest Court in the land, stripped men of their God given, Blessed be He, rights to their family and their children, because women were being "abused."

A woman was recently convicted of Manslaughter, instead of Murder, because of her testimony that she was "abused."

The citation that you speak of also says:

You can get a restraining order if your attacker has physically abused you or attempted to physically abuse you; put you in fear of serious bodily injury; or made you have sexual relations against your wishes by using force or threats of force.
How can the woman prove that she has received threats? How can a government body safeguard a man's civil rights against a claim that he has attempted to physically abuse someone?

The way this Oregon law is written, and how it works in practice... I am quite sure that these are indeed two different things.

You should ask yourself some key questions friend.

What provision, in this law, protects an innocent party from another person seeking vengeance?

Will this law enable the innocent to be protected?

Better that a hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent person be imprisoned (or have his reputation and/or sovereignty violated) in my book.

Statutes like these are weapons of the unscrupulous. Which is why THEY MUST BE REPEALED.

On this point, your argument is hollow.

Citation 7 refers to "A New Jersey woman repeatedly voiced her
disapproval of her estranged husband's new-found romantic interest,
which resulted in the imposition of a restraining order on her.

When she later called the new girlfriend a "slut,"
that was ruled to be a violation of the restraining order. She was
sentenced to 6 months probation and community service."

In fact your own footnote shows that the "unfortunate" case of this woman's victimization was "reversed." Burying obviously relevant information in a footnote is universally held to be dishonest.

I agree with you here. I would have written something of the effect... "which was later reversed," or something along those lines.

However, once again, we have to use common sense here.

Firstly, why did the defendant have to go all the way to the New Jersey Court Appellant Division in order to have such a senseless ruling reversed?

According to DivorceNet:

Alternatively, there is legal authority holding that reconciliation does not void a restraining order. Illustrative is the case of State v. L.C., 283 N.J. Super. 441 (App. Div. 1995). Here, the parties reconciled without formally dismissing the temporary restraining order. The plaintiff was forbidden from having any contact with the plaintiff.

The couple was not living together and the temporary restraining order was issued after the defendant had words with the plaintiff’s mother. After the issuance of the temporary restraining order, the plaintiff and the defendant moved back in with each other, had multiple acts of sexual intercourse, and even went to Jamaica together.

Despite the parties’ reconciliation, the restraining order was still formally in place. The court ultimately held that the reconciliation between the parties did not void the restraining order so as to serve as a defense to a charge of contempt for violating same.
Why, good sir, does a person need to spend thousands of dollars, not to mention waste their precious time, in order to have a conviction reversed for violating a restraining order in this instance?

Something that was issued for, frankly speaking, a retarded reason to begin with?

Why is it that Cultural Marxists and Feminists have chosen to institute a regime that serves not only to violate the civil rights of men, but also destroys trust between men and women?

Pissed at your husband? Get a restraining order.

Girlfriend is mad? Gotta make sure I put a restraining order on her, before she gets one on me!!

Oh Shoot!! Mary's got a restraining order! Run!!!!

I'll say something else friend.

My Japanese brother told me once that:

"A woman's mind changes like the autumn sky."

Women are, for the most part, impressionable, emotional creatures. Such is the way that God, Blessed be He, made them.

So why is it that our law system is so inflexible, and does not take into consideration the fact that people argue? And that people (especially women) tend to fly of the handle and do stupid stuff that they really don't mean to do?

That not every quarrel or disagreement ends up in serious, injurious domestic violence?

Why does it encourage such frivolous action, and then totally disavow all attempts at normal human reconciliation?

When lovers fight, everyone wants to be taken back. To be forgiven, within the boundaries of decency and common sense. However, our current restraining order regime, as Radar eloquently demonstrates, makes such an undertaking damn near impossible.

I hold that seriously injuring or causing traumatically emotional pain and suffering is all the way wrong. And those guilty of serious offenses such as Battery, Assault, Murder and the like should be punished accordingly.

However, our current system is inflexible, grasping, and cruel, in my view. There is no compassion, and there is no forgiveness.

Only conflict, misery, and pain.

In summary, while I would have handled the wording on this section a bit differently, the fact remains that restraining orders ARE being abused, and are ripe for abuse, by the private parties, and the government.

Media Radar is 1000% correct on this point.

Citation 8 refers to "goes on to exclude any "act of self-defense"
from its definition. Thus, if one party made a remark that caused any
sort of mental harm, the second party could presumably retaliate with
legal immunity." The definition does exclude "acts of self-defense"
but in no way does this provide "immunity" to the other party. Even
disregarding that no immunity is implied here, the obvious alternative
would create a legal barrier for people defending themselves,
something the author ignores.

While this point would best be answered by an attorney practicing law in Michigan, I would respectfully disagree with your analysis.

Any law that denies the ancient right of Self Defense, is already suspect in my view.

If we read the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Our Constitution recognizes the fact that we, as a people, are entitled to keep and bear arms for defense of self and nation.

And that means individuals, per Parker v. District of Columbia.

We should also consider that, according to

On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.

The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it has missed an obvious point. If the government won't protect you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. The court's ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself...

... What were the arguments that won and lost in the Supreme Court?

Winners: local officials fell back upon a rich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

Later court decisions have concurred.

So it would appear that, in this country, Self Defense is not only a basic right, but indeed, a duty. Therefore, any law or statute that does not recognize this basic right, should be repealed on its face.

Allow me, for a moment, to express the reality of laws such as these, from a male point of view. For dramatic effect, I will be speaking in the language of Ebonics:

If my bitch was talkin shit, and I told her to shut the fuck up, then she would smack me upside the head, or throw some heavy shit at me, and there ain't shit I can do about it. If I do bodyslam her on my freakin' couch or somethin for actin' crazy, that bitch will call the Boys (the police) and my punk azz is going to jail off top!

Anon, I don't know what planet you live on, but around my way, a woman is indeed allowed to visit violence upon a man with a certain measure of impunity. "Disrespectin'" her can get you in a world of hurt. And women are quick to exercise this "privilege".

Please visit the Excellent site for an extensive list of articles that show women behaving badly, and being lightly punished by the criminal justice system for their offenses.

I believe that a man has the right to defend himself from anyone capable of doing him serious bodily harm. That means, man, or woman. Having a pair of Tigol' Bitties will not save you from a righteous ass kicking when you are clearly in the wrong. Force should be met with equal force.

I grew up in a rough neighborhood, where females carried razor blades, knives, and in some cases, pistols. I know chicks that can deliver a right hook better than any prizefighter.

I know that women run in gangs and are quick to fuck someone up for "G.P." (for the hell of it). My policy has always been that anyone, male or female, who wanted to fight me like a man, and could "fuck up my anatomy with assault and battery", gets beat down like a man.

Don't get mad... just keeping it real!

The right to reasonable, proportional Self Defense is no respecter of persons.

With all that being said, I would be hesitant to use the word "legal immunity." But I do understand what Radar is trying to get across here; that laws such as these that do not recognize the fundamental right of Self Defense create a dangerous situation for the innocent party by leaving them helpless in the face of a determined and violent aggressor, and are ripe for abuse.

All in all, this section of the report is consistent with the theme that there are huge problems with domestic violence laws in general, and restraining orders in particular.


For the sake of readability, I will stop here.

But fear not, we will continue on with tha comments.

I must say that while there are valid issues that are brought up here, the errors in no way diminish, invalidate, nor debunk the points that Radar highlights in this report.

To all of my opponents:

You should know that I am a Guerrilla fighter. To paraphrase, a fool and his weapons are soon parted...

... and Kumogakure ain't no fool.

More to come.

Friday, April 20, 2007

The Tyranny of Tolerance: End.

Greetings Dear Readers!

Let's cut to the chase!

Women, lies, and Planned Parenthood.

The Planned Parenthood vs. Casey Decision that we've been studying notes that:

“Other studies fill in the rest of this troubling picture. Physical violence is only the most visible form of abuse. Psychological abuse, particularly forced social and economic isolation of women, is also common. L. Walker, The Battered [505 U.S. 833, 892] Woman Syndrome 27-28 (1984). Many victims of domestic violence remain with their abusers, perhaps because they perceive no superior alternative. Herbert, Silver, & Ellard, Coping with an Abusive Relationship: I. How and Why do Women Stay?, 53 J. Marriage & the Family 311 (1991). Many abused women who find temporary refuge in shelters return to their husbands, in large part because they have no other source of income. Aguirre, Why Do They Return? Abused Wives in Shelters, 30 J.Nat.Assn. of Social Workers 350, 352 (1985). Returning to one's abuser can be dangerous. Recent Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics disclose that 8.8 percent of all homicide victims in the United States are killed by their spouses. Mercy & Saltzman, Fatal Violence Among Spouses in the United States, 1976-85, 79 Am.J. Public Health 595 (1989). Thirty percent of female homicide victims are killed by their male partners. Domestic Violence: Terrorism in the Home, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Children, Family, Drugs and Alcoholism of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1990).”


So we needed to destroy the Rights of Men, and children, in order to sequester the poor abused women of America?

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(Uncle Sam's Harem)

To jumpstart Uncle Sam's Harem?

The Supreme Court seemed to think so.

However, in real life, as in dreams, not all is as it seems.

If we look at this insightful piece from

Former Shelter Director Reveals Why She Left

Abuse shelters surround themselves in a shroud of secrecy. On March 10, 2007 RADAR staff interviewed a former abuse shelter director to learn what goes on behind closed doors. The woman requested anonymity because she was fearful of the consequences of disclosing her identity:

I worked at an abuse shelter located in the mid-Atlantic area for over 10 years. I first worked as a counselor and was eventually promoted to the position of shelter director. Our shelter had 8 rooms, with a capacity of up to 30 women and children.

Our shelter received funding from a variety of private and government sources at the federal, state, and local levels. A large share of our budget came from the state Child and Protective Services program to pay for abused children and mothers who resided at our facility.

Our shelter provided a broad range of services, including shelter residency for up to 2 months, 3 meals a day, counseling, advocacy, and transportation to arrange for local services. When necessary, we connected our residents with nearby welfare, immigration, and pro bono legal services. And we provided transitional services for former residents. Counseling was based on Lenore Walker's battered woman syndrome and the Duluth model's power and control wheel.

The shelter did not provide services to male victims of domestic violence, even when the men had suffered physical abuse similar to what women had experienced. Instead the men were referred to a local police station to request a restraining order…

… Most persons think of women in an abuse shelter as victims of severe physical abuse, bloodied and broken. In our shelter, however, only about one in 10 women had experienced any kind of physical injury. A similarly small number had been threatened with any physical harm, although they may have been involved in a previous incident of physical abuse.

So the great majority of women were there because they claimed to have been subjected to verbal or psychological abuse. We did not verify the claims of new residents - if the woman answered the questions correctly, we basically believed what she said. There is no question that some women, many of whom were on welfare, were gaming the system to benefit from the many services our shelter provided.

When I first started working at the shelter, the staff was held accountable to professional standards and services were regularly audited. We shared a feeling of altruism, of helping needy victims. But over the years, I saw a big change.

The shelter became more ideologically oriented. We began to sponsor workshops and training on lesbian issues. Shelter residents who were pregnant were advised of the difficulties of raising a child alone, and were encouraged to get an abortion.

In order to service illegal immigrants, we stopped requesting any form of personal identification. But then you began to wonder who you are really dealing with.

Around the same time, the number of staff increased and employee benefits expanded. I once calculated that the average staff member was away from work 60 days out of the year - 5 weeks on vacation, plus holidays and sick days. After a while it became impossible to have a cohesive staff.

In the end, we would refer the women to other programs, and they would refer clients to us. It became a self-serving numbers game.

The staff became less accountable in their work and began to see their job more as an entitlement. The shelter lost its grass roots appeal and began to feel like an employment center. There was little professionalism or accountability.
That's when I resigned my position as shelter director.”

Hmm. Sounds like there is an epidemic of “violence” alright… enough for the Supreme Court to twist and pervert the Law beyond all recognition?

Hell yah Bud, an' don't you forget it!

But one story does not a trend make. I am sure that our Court knew what it was doing right??

So, in the spirit of tolerance and fairness, let's hear from one of the Founding Mothers of the Battered Women’s shelter movement (who started the women's shelter phenomenon long before this case was decided) :

How feminists tried to destroy the family

Erin Pizzey, founder of the battered wives' refuge, on how militant feminists - with the collusion of Labour's leading women - hijacked her cause and used it to try to demonise all men…

…By the early Seventies, a new movement for women - demanding equality and rights - began to make headlines in the daily newspapers. Among the jargon, I read the words "solidarity" and "support". I passionately believed that women would no longer find themselves isolated from each other, and in the future could unite to change our society for the better.

Within a few days I had the address of a local group in Chiswick, and I was on my way to join the Women's Liberation Movement. I was asked to pay £3 and ten shillings as a joining fee, told to call other women "sisters" and that our meetings were to be called "collectives".

My fascination with this new movement lasted only a few months. At the huge "collectives", I heard shrill women preaching hatred of the family. They said the family was not a safe place for women and children. I was horrified at their virulence and violent tendencies. I stood on the same platforms trying to reason with the leading lights of this new organisation…

… Every day after dropping my children at school, I went to our little house, which we called the Women's Aid. Soon women from all over Chiswick were coming to ask for help. At last we had somewhere women could meet each other and bring their children. My long, lonely days were over.

But then something happened that made me understand that our role was going to be more than just a forum where women could exchange ideas. One day, a lady came in to see us. She took off her jersey, and we saw that she was bruised and swollen across her breasts and back. Her husband had taken a chair leg to her. She looked at me and said: "No one will help me."

For a moment I was somersaulted back in time. I was six years old, standing in front of a teacher at school. My legs were striped and bleeding from a whipping I had received from an ironing cord. "My mother did this to me last night," I said. "No wonder," replied the teacher. "'You're a dreadful child."

No one would help me then and nobody would ever imagine that my beautiful, rich mother - who was married to a diplomat - could be a violent abuser…

… Meanwhile, our little house was packed with women fleeing their violent partners - sometimes as many as 56 mothers and children in four rooms. All had terrible stories, but I recognised almost immediately that not all the women were innocent. Some were as violent as the men, and violent towards their children.

The social workers involved with these women told me I was wasting my time because the women would only return to their partners.

I was determined to try to break the chain of violence. But as the local newspaper picked up the story of our house, I grew worried about a very different threat.
I knew that the radical feminist movement was running out of national support because more sensible women had shunned their anti-male, anti-family agenda. Not only were they looking for a cause, they also wanted money.

In 1974, the women living in my refuge organised a meeting in our local church hall to encourage other groups to open refuges across the country.

We were astonished and frightened that many of the radical lesbian and feminist activists that I had seen in the collectives attended. They began to vote themselves into a national movement across the country

After a stormy argument, I left the hall with my abused mothers - and what I had most feared happened.

In a matter of months, the feminist movement hijacked the domestic violence movement, not just in Britain, but internationally...

… Our grant was given to them and they had a legitimate reason to hate and blame all men. They came out with sweeping statements which were as biased as they were ignorant. "All women are innocent victims of men's violence," they declared.

They opened most of the refuges in the country and banned men from working in them or sitting on their governing committees...

...Yet the feminist refuges continued to create training programmes that described only male violence against women. Slowly, the police and other organisations were brainwashed into ignoring the research that was proving men could also be victims.

Despite attacks in the Press from feminist journalists and threatening anonymous telephone calls, I continued to argue that violence was a learned pattern of behaviour from early childhood…

I believe that the feminist movement envisaged a new Utopia that depended upon destroying family life. In the new century, so their credo ran, the family unit will consist of only women and their children. Fathers are dispensable. And all that was yoked - unforgivably - to the debate about domestic violence.

To my mind, it has never been a gender issue - those exposed to violence in early childhood often grow up to repeat what they have learned, regardless of whether they are girls or boys.

I look back with sadness to my young self and my vision that there could be places where people - men, women and children who have suffered physical and sexual abuse - could find help, and if they were violent could be given a second chance to learn to live peacefully.

I believe that vision was hijacked by vengeful women who have ghetto-ised the refuge movement and used it to persecute men. Surely the time has come to challenge this evil ideology and insist that men take their rightful place in the refuge movement…
Hmm... so even from the beginning, we have anti-male elements involved with battered women's shelter organizations.

Could it be that there is a connection between the corrupt shelters of today, and the blatantly sexist shelters of yesteryear?

Maybe... but you still don't believe me. You still think that the gender apartheid imposed from on high by the Court was justified.

Then check out this extensive collection of articles graciously provided by the Splendid Equal Justice Foundation.

You see, the problem with feminism is that it causes women to believe that their shit don't stank.

Well ladies and gents, I'm here to tell you that all aspects of feminism, including "Battered Women's Shelters" , REEK to High Heaven.

And if one moron with a PC and Google can find all this goodness, you know damn well that Supreme Court law clerks could have found what was really going on in nothing flat.

Even a quick trip to the local library can net the serious researcher tomes and tomes of useless feminasty hat.. er "philosophy."

A reasonable person has to wonder... did SCOTUS decided to discount all evidence of feminist culpability whilst they were deliberating to disbar men from families for all eternity?

Most likely. Kumogakure School doesn't believe in coincidence.

More importanly, Mama didn't raise no fool.

Dear Readers, the totality of this Tyranny of Tolerance series should help you bring things into focus.

In light of the evidence, the motive of the Court becomes crystal clear.

The Philosopher Kings in Black Robes were undoubtedly ratcheting up the JND level of the unsuspecting American populace.

Children lose, Leftists win.

Furthermore, if we take the logic of this decision a step farther...


If men, who previously had rock-solid rights to their offspring since the dawn of recorded history, can be so easily dismissed on account of biased and discriminatory data, then women can also be summarily dismissed if the Court ever decides to turn its frightening power against THEM.

And of course, if... or should I say, when, that day comes, who will come to their aid?

Divorced Dads?

Eternal Bachelors?

Members of the Kumogakure School?

I wouldn't hold your breath darlings.

Just as women have mostly sat on the sidelines while Men were legally castrated, most men will sit idly by as women weep and wail for their confiscated little ones.

Ain't Karma a bitch??

All that would be needed, under the logic of this ruling, is to cite the readily available data that I have provided in previous Tyranny of Tolerance posts, that show that the newly created class of unmarried/single parent women have the potential to be a clear and present danger to their children.

As a matter of fact, we will be exploring real life examples of government encroachment upon the rights of mothers in my next series.

This isn't a joke. This shit is real.

Moving on.

Judge Dierker summarizes:

“the Casey majority determined that husbands had no marital rights, because some husbands mistreat their wives. And apparently, women are too weak to adhere to an abortion decision if their husbands vigorously oppose it. So presto! Husband-fathers have no reproductive rights. The abortion decision is that of the woman alone, even if she is part of an apparently intact, functioning family. Only she has the “right to choose” to carry to term the child jointly conceived in a relationship that once was the most sacred contract known to the law (Tyranny of Tolerance, p. 59).”
The author continues:

“If we’ve destroyed the evil patriarchal model of the family, what’s next? The cornerstone of the family itself: marriage (p. 59).”
See how this game works? Baby steps along the road to Hell.

Dierker writes:
"Suddenly, the Supreme Court moved from protecting marriage and family as sacred rights to inventing the right of “reproductive freedom.” By the Court’s ruling, contraception became a constitutional right for married people. Then the crusade began for unmarried people… In Anglo-American legal history, no court has ever had to define marriage or order the executive or legislature to make provision in the law for the institution. The institution existed prior to, and independently of, the common law and American constitutional law. It existed (and exists) because men and women exist and have basic natural instincts and functions in the matter of procreation. It existed (and exists) because reason (to say nothing of religion and natural law) compels recognition of a union of a man and a woman as the cornerstone of the family. For centuries, the law recognized the special place occupied by marriage and family, and many legal rights and liabilities are founded on the normal, universal concept of marriage and family (p. 60).”

Enter the Philosopher Kings.

In the good Judge's work, there is a section entitled, “Government of Philosopher Kings.”

We are moving quickly to our vision of the feminist endgame.

His Honor notes that:

“The ongoing judicial assault on traditional marriage and family revels the liberals’ (Cultural Marxists and global elitists) contempt for everything but their own power. That contempt was perfectly expressed in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s penultimate remarks in Lawrence v. Texas:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty, in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Well, if the Founding Fathers did not know what liberty was, they certainly knew what liberty was not. It was not licentiousness. Nor was it “tolerance.” And it certainly was not judicial autocracy, masquerading as enforcement of the Constitution, which was designed to preserve and protect liberty.

In other words, it was not slavery to the whims of five judges who fancy themselves philosopher kings---or queens. Justice Kennedy’s remarks expose the attitude of the illiberal liberals for all to see: The language of the Constitution, the intent of the founding framers and ratifiers, the traditions and usages of our people over unbroken generations—all are irrelevant.

Every generation of judges is entitled to rewrite the Constitution to suit themselves, as long as those judges is entitled to rewrite the Constitution to suit themselves, as long as those judges include five Supreme Court justices. In effect, then, we have no Constitution. Nor do we have a democracy, for the people cannot work their will through the ballot box on any issue that liberal judges decide to write into “their” Constitution. They tyranny of tolerance is complete. The tyranny of tolerance, not the Constitution, is the supreme law of the land. Ozzie and Harriet may not be dead, but the radical liberals (Marxists) are certainly very close to killing them (p. 68).”

Yep, Ozzie and Harriet are pretty much terminal.

There's not much to add to our author's powerful words, so I will stop here.




Alrighty then!

Next time, we begin our series on Plato's The Republic, and see for ourselves what kind of world our Leftist friends seek to bring about.

Don't miss it!

Kumo 9000.