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).”

Really?

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



(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 MediaRadar.org:

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...

We see that THE COURT HAS SET THE PRECEDENT FOR DISQUALIFYING THE TIES BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD.

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.

Please don't forget... MEN HAVE NO FAMILIAL RIGHTS. NONE, ZIP, ZERO.

Consequently... WITH NO RIGHTS, COMES NO RESPONSIBILITY.

Finally... WOMEN ARE LEFT HOLDING THE BAG, IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE. NO ONE IS FREE WHEN OTHERS ARE OPPRESSED, AND BY SACRIFICING THE RIGHTS OF MEN, THEIR OWN RIGHTS ARE MADE MORE FRAGILE.

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.