Friday, November 30, 2007

Baskerville: Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children.

Courtesy of the guys at Men's News Daily:

Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.
Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children

November 14, 2007 at 11:36 am · Filed under Mating, Marriage & Divorce, Vox Populi

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

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

Spreading this message may also, in the long run, be the most effective method of saving marriage as an institution. For until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that “divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.” The central problem is the divorce laws.

It is well known that half of all marriages end in divorce. But widespread misconceptions lead many to believe it cannot happen to them. Many conscientious people think they will never be divorced because they do not believe in it. In fact, it is likely to happen to you whether you wish it or not.

First, you do not have to agree to the divorce or commit any legal transgression. Under “no-fault” divorce laws, your spouse can divorce you unilaterally without giving any reasons. The judge will then grant the divorce automatically without any questions.

But further, not only does your spouse incur no penalty for breaking faith; she can actually profit enormously. Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have, also without giving any reasons. First, she will almost certainly get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong. Then any unauthorized contact with your children is a crime. Yes, for seeing your own children you will be subject to arrest...

Read the rest at your leisure.

Marriage is simply not worth it, as Baskerville himself chronicles in his Masterwork Taken Into Custody.

State run, State licensed marriage is not required in a religious sense, nor is it wise in the context of freedom and the natural rights of Man.

Not to mention that a man has NO civil rights with respect to family life. NONE.

In essence, a man has NOTHING to gain from marriage.

Stay out of the line of fire, kick back, and wait. We will soon witness the end of the Matriarchy, and I for one can't wait for that day to come. The boycott of State run marriage, divorce, and child support industries will only hasten the arrival of that glorious day.

In the meanwhile...


Let's bring the whole Muthafucker down!


Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Atlantic.Com: As Goes the Family...

Greetings Earthlings!

While surfing the web, I found this gem about how Black folks aren't keeping up with the Joneses, and how the rest of America is (obviously) not too far behind:

Why are African-Americans more likely to be downwardly-mobile than non-blacks? Probably because of two inter-related factors: The weak cultural capital afforded by the black community's disastrous family structure, which in turn reinforces the black-white wealth gap that's a legacy of slavery and segregation.

Now consider that the first factor, the decline of marriage and the rise of illegitimacy, is increasingly visible in white and (especially) Hispanic America as well. This raises the possibility that what's true of African Americans today - that they have a hard time making it to prosperity and a harder time staying there - may be true of the rest of working-class America further down the road.
The United States as a whole has a higher same out-of-wedlock birth rate at present - around 37 percent as of 2005 - that black America had in the 1960s, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan first sounded the alarm about family dissolution in the African-American community. If that number inches higher, or even if it stays constant, it's going to be harder and harder for working-class Americans to compete in the global economy, and harder, as a result, for them avoid stagnation and downward mobility at home...

Beautifully written, and reflects my thoughts exactly.

I've said many times on this blog that marriage is the premier wealth generating institution on the Micro (individual) level, for a host of reasons that any Economist can relate to.

Specialization, Distribution of Labor, and Economies of Scale are all reasons why marriage matters; not to mention that the married family of a husband and wife (or wives, as Polygamy was and is the default form of marriage in Africa, although this is changing due to modern, Western influence) is the best and most efficient environment for cultivating the most important renewable resource, Human Capital.

A single parent who is struggling to make ends meet, and by extension, her children, simply can't compete with a two parent family in most cases [i][ii]. Children of single parents (in the black context, single mothers) start out life, in all but a few instances, with huge spiritual, economic, and sometimes physiological disadvantages.

I know this, because I am the child of a single mother.

And, as the author said, if we move to a single-mother-and-government-as-father social model, this country will not survive for very long as a World Leader in anything. As a matter of fact, our upcoming economic crisis will, in my view, bankrupt the United States of Socialism, and our weakening family structure will have much to do with it.

I think that without a transition period to get folks off the government rolls, a whole lot of people are going to get hurt, and I don't want to see that happen. The realist in me (as one that depended on Food Stamps to eat when I was a youngin') understands that sometimes in life, people need a limited, temporary amount of help.

And while I totally understand the Ron Paul position that private organizations can do a better job than the government can, I am not entirely sure that ALL welfare should be eliminated, at least, not eliminated under the circumstances that we may be reading about in the newspapers in the next two to three years.

And my people, my poor, long suffering people, are neither prepared or anticipating the financial nuclear winter that is about to engulf all of us. We are too weak and divided to really do much of anything to prepare ourselves.

Feminism and the laws and policies it has championed have criminalized and demonized Black men to the point of no return. As in Hurricane Katrina [a][b], the Black women and children will be, more than likely, on their own.

It's sad that I even have to say that, but it's the God honest truth.

It should be noted, however, that this situation didn't appear overnight. It takes a long period of time to train a man not to be concerned with or even respectful towards his (former) helpmeet.

As an exhibit, here are a few modern "sonnets" concerning the feminist courts of injustice:

(Eazy E)

(Three Six Mafia - Yes, I know what the 3 sixes are all about!)

(Bone Thugs: My all time favorite Rap group. MIDWEST BIYOTCH!!)

Be it doing time for failing to cough up enough child support, getting arrested for alleged domestic violence or failure to obey a restraining order, or "empowering" unscrupulous Black women with the sole prerogative to evict the father of her child should he not live up to her standards, it's come to the point where it simply makes no sense, morally or legally, for a Black man to try to "do the right thing."

It's pretty pointless, unless you find a damn good woman with some common sense, to become husband and father and provide the children with the spiritual and moral guidance that children so desperately need. Granted, men aren't perfect beings either, and sometimes, they do things that cause women to do what they have to do in order to leave the situation. I have no qualms with that. However, statistically and on the street, everyone knows that women do the majority of the relationship ending, because they know that both the law and the culture is 100% on their side.

When the bedroom becomes a battlefield, is it any wonder that the spiritual and moral progress of young Black folk becomes severely retarded? The fact is that angry young Black men, who are feared by the larger society, broke, unemployed and unemployable, with few options, assets, and even less sympathy, who are viewed as potential rapists, sexual deviants, and batters by their own women (and quite a few other folks, in their heart of hearts), and are strung along by blind men at both the top and the bottom of society who ain't hip to what's really going down their damn selves, WILL take their rage out on themselves and the rest of society.

Is it any wonder that so many drop out of mainstream society and hustle just to get buy? Get involved in criminal gangs and commit illegal acts? End up in jail due to the triple whammy of ignorance, bad decision making, and a justice system that perceives all men (especially black men) as the enemy?

In no way am I excusing violent criminal acts. All I am saying is that if we don't want these kinds of events to take place, then we need to understand the root causes of these serious social issues. Otherwise, a new generation of Hispanic, Asian, and White thugs will join their Black cousins in an unprecedented spree of murder and mayhem.

For those who know their history, the way that many Black men, sons of Ancient Ethiopia and Kemet, live today is nothing like the way they lived long ago. In fact, the Black man was highly respected in the Classical Period for his sense of Justice, and his loyalty to God.

According to Addis Tribune:

The Ancient Greeks

The first Europeans to employ the term Ethiopia were the ancient Greeks, who used the word to designate all dark-skinned people south of Egypt. The classical authors of Greece made many references to the country. Homer, in the 9th. century BC, wrote in the Odyssey of the Ethiopians as eschatoi andron, or the most remote of men. In Book I of the Iliad he makes Zeus, the king of the gods, leave heaven for twelve days, with all the other gods, to visit the "blameless Ethiopians", while the goddess Iris goes to their country to participate in sacrificial rites to the immortal gods. In the Odyssey the sea god Poseidon is likewise said to have "lingered delighted" at one of the feasts of the Ethiopians.

Almost half a millennium later, in the 5th. century BC, the Greek dramatist Aeschylus had Io, the wandering woman of Prometheus Bound, travel to "a far-off land". It was inhabited by "a nation of black men", who lived near "the fountain of the sun" and the "river Aethiops".

Later again, in the 1st. century BC, the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus observed that the Greek hero Hercules and the Greek god of wine Bacchus were both "awed by the piety of the Ethiopians.

"Loved by the gods"

Later once again, in the 7th. century AD, the Byzantine writer Stephanus Placidus reiterated that the Ethiopians were "loved by the gods because of their justice, and adds:

"Juniper frequently leaves heaven and feasts with them [the Ethiopians] because of their justice and the equity of their customs. For the Ethiopians are said to be the justest of men and for that reason the gods love their abode frequently to visit them".

Black men do not live as they do because we are genetically doomed to become natural born killers, rapists, dope dealers, and other such nonsense. It is because, for the most part, we are MOLDED and SHAPED, by various institutions and cultural norms, from the earliest of ages, to act this way. How can it be that you blindfold a man and expect him walk a straight line?

Make no mistake, I believe that racism is still very much with us. And, I also know that our present Urban Gangsta culture is leading some of us to the road of ruination. But most of all, in the year 2007, it is the DESTRUCTION of the Black family, which is solely the fault and responsibility of our modern system of Welfare State Femi-Platonism, that is MOST responsible for the sad state of affairs in the Black community.

Once the power of Organized, Political feminism is broken, then we as Black people can begin again. But until that day comes, expect Black America, and all America, for that matter, to descend into chaos and barbarity.

Kumo X.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Jay-Z: The Dolla Can't F&*K With Us!


Please get a load of the Video:

Note that he flashes the EURO, not the dollar. I think I told ya'll earlier that Jay seems to be connected with some very odd fellows. Is he trying to tell us something?

Some people at the Wall Street Journal Economics blog seem to think so.

The dollar, Ladies and Gents, has suffered a critical blow here. Because, when it comes to Economics, the value of fiat currency is like "a fable agreed upon."

Love him or hate him (and I like the man, and have most all of his albums), he has TREMENDOUS STREET CREDIBILITY. Hip Hop heads around the world are going to see this and put two and two together.

But, Jay-Z aside:

Did Ben Bernanke tell us something about what's going on in the market? That it would behoove investors to get out because the party's over?

Why, I do believe he did!

Was there advance warning from the Fed before the Crash of 1929?

Sure was. Read it for yourself.

Got your Gold and Silver? Are your investments in order?

They'd better be, because I believe this bird is going all the way down. It's just a matter of knowing how to read the Signs.

And by the way, Dear Reader, I do realize that this post has nothing to do with feminism; and furthermore, I haven't really discussed our favorite hate movement as of late.

There's a reason for that.

I am now of the opinion that Organized, Political, Government Funded feminism is a DEAD MAN WALKING.

Political feminism is finished. I figure that it has about three years to live before it gets left on the side of the road to die a much deserved death.


I'll argue that case later on. In the meantime: PLEASE CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL ADVISER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Thanks for reading, and smile!

Feminism will soon go the way of the Dodo, and we as Men's Rights Activists don't have to lift a finger, besides educating our fellow man.

Our financial markets, our overconfident feminist vultures, and our out of control government will take care of everything for us.

Sit tight, stay out of the line of fire, and get ready to enjoy the show!

Kumo out.



Mr. Jim Rogers breaks it down in this video as to why our dollar will soon join toilet tissue paper and last Sunday's newspaper as credible stores of value.

Don't sleep.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

14th Amendment Citizenship.

Dear Readers,

Please get a load of this video:

It goes over information that I have presented previously [1][2]. As I've said before, in order for us to reclaim our rights as Men, we need to know what our status is exactly.

For example, if Men were sovereign natural citizens, would it have been so easy for the Supreme Court to terminate our Family rights forever and ever?

Why is it so easy for our government to ignore the restrictions placed upon it by our Constitution?

Why is it that we have to obtain licenses and such just to get married?

These are things that we should be thinking about. We will never get the answers, and make the changes we need to make if we don't even know what kind of questions to ask.

Also, when you have time, please read this essay concerning National Emergency Powers. This particular passage talks about our courts of "justice."

Please read through it and tell me if this doesn't sound a lot like our divorce courts of today. Star Chamber anyone??

Do yourself a favor... DON'T GET MARRIED!

Kumo tha Dude.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Against Flood III


Today we continue with our examination of Mr. Michael Flood's extremely flawed and misleading essay, that holds that domestic violence is part and parcel of Patriarchy and Male domination. For those who are joining us for the first time, please make sure you read parts I and II.

Picking up where we left off:

Marriage is the safest and best living arrangement for men, women, and children, and studies prove that the rate of violence inside marriage is much lower than intimate violence in other types of relationships (See Against Flood II).

Common sense tells us this is so because for married couples, the members usually feel some sort of affection for one another. And besides, there is a steady weight of social responsibility and expectations associated with marriage that tends to moderate against overtly unruly behavior on the part of the spouses. Furthermore, the individuals inside the marriage itself, man, woman, and child, tend to keep one another in check, preventing abusive behavior.

Furthermore, in many societies, the married parties come to the table with clearcut roles, duties, and privileges, and these too serve to minimize conflict. This is why I advise you, gentle reader, to make sure that you thoroughly negotiate all aspects of your relationship (not marriage, as it is truly a death trap) beforehand.

For example, the Japanese husband is the official leader and head of his household. However, the Japanese wife holds considerable power at home, and also maintains the power of the purse. This is the cultural pattern, refined over centuries. While a few Japanese are more "Western" in their outlook, the vast majority of Japanese marriages conform to this pattern. Therefore, there is no need for discussion or conflict in most cases, as the husband and wife have clearly established roles. Every player knows their part to perfection. In most societies, marriage roles and duties evolved over very long periods of time, as our distant ancestors struggled for day to day survival. Thusly, "traditional" marriage patterns should not be dismissed lightly, as Men neither "live nor die in vain."

And clearly, our so called experts (more affectionately known as Smart Dumb Niggas around my way) have utterly failed to improve upon the progress made by our ancestors. If our feminist researchers and our sociologists had all the answers, Western Civilization wouldn't be teetering on the brink of cultural suicide [1][2], now would it?

In addition, although to discuss such things is quite taboo today, in some cultures, and even in this country, married couples (and others) have a system of rules in force, and in enforcing those rules, they sometimes resort to corporal punishment [a][b][c][d].

But Kumo, you cry, isn't this the same form of "violence" that feminists claim marriage is all about?

Yes and no.

In the Western context, such as in Domestic Discipline (DD) and BDSM, the parties negotiate beforehand and agree to use corporal punishment for the purpose of punishing offenses against the relationship. It should be noted that both men and women can play the Master or Mistress roles (although the concept of Male Headship is more predominate in DD), and great care is taken to avoid injury during the administration of said punishment. Those who are involved with these kind of relationships are quick to define what is or isn't abuse [e][f], and surprisingly, among people who move in these circles, women are actively involved in all levels [g][h]. In my readings on this subject, it seems that Men are more hesitant about participating in this lifestyle, due to ethical, moral, and legal reasons.

It should be noted, as our friends at Feministing show us, that the concept of institutionalized "beating" inspires mixed feelings.

In the Islamic context, this seems to be based on a more "traditional" concept. Clerics who speak about punishing the wife are quick to point out that it is an option of last resort, and that injury to the wife is to be avoided. This idea is similar to the traditional Western idea, that moderate punishment to preserve the stability of the marriage was tactfully acceptable, but bullying, cruelty, and serious injury were definitely not [i][j].

While this entire subject is very uncomfortable for some, the fact remains that small numbers of men and women do utilize corporal punishment to resolve internal disputes, and that some people seek out this sort of relationship, but end up in violent, detrimental, potentially life-threatening relationships instead, most likely because of societal norms that force the more "experienced" BDSM and DD players underground.

What grown, CONSENTING adults do in the privacy of their own homes is not my concern. Note that I said CONSENT. I do not believe that a man should take it upon himself to beat up his wife, just as I don't think a woman has the right to attack a man with impunity. However, if legal adults agree to engage in Domestic Discipline or BDSM, then that is their right and their business. I know people for whom such alternative lifestyles work out quite swimmingly, and they swear by the benefits of institutionalizing and regulating what is probably a deep seated need for order and stability, and yes, dominance and submission.

In my view, femininity and manliness are not fixed; but they are on a sliding scale. Some men will be more take charge, just as some women will wear the pants in their house, and all the laws in the world cannot and will not change innate human desires. And while the vast majority of people wouldn't dream of entering into formalized arrangements such as DD and BDSM, some people will choose to express themselves in this manner. So long as all parties have full disclosure, and no one is forced into these systems against their will, to each his own.

So what is the point to all this?

To construct a thesis that claims that only men are perpetrators of violence, while ignoring the fact that women beat, batter, and abuse on par with men, and while also ignoring the reality that some people choose to enter into consensual, corporal punishment based relationships, only muddies the waters as we as a society struggle to eliminate non-consensual, harmful, injurious, traumatic, and life-threatening violence from the realm of acceptable discourse, as it should be. The vast majority of human beings are moral creatures, and while most people respect order and discipline when it is just and correct, they rightfully despise tyranny, in all of its forms.

Furthermore, to use such an erroneous theory to trample the Natural rights of men and bar them forever from their own flesh and blood, is harmful to liberties, dangerous to family and society, and downright insulting. Our laws against men say that we are vicious animals that deserve not the least bit of human kindness; and that we have contributed nothing positive to civilization. I find this libel to be infuriating every time I come across it, especially when it is based on so flawed a philosophical base.

For those that really wish to eradicate intimate partner abuse, they should read books such as Erin Pizzey's Prone to Violence. A shocking and disturbing read, we find that certain people are physically addicted to pain and inhuman suffering.

In this case, we as a society need to move towards a model of protection of individual rights (for example, police functions towards investigating and arresting those who commit battery, assault, and other violent crimes, regardless of sex, with full respect for the Constitutional rights of the accused), and TREATMENT for people that addresses the root causes of their behaviors. Such treatment models should NOT depend on flawed feminist assumptions that all Men are violent abusers, and commit violence simply because they are upholding the Patriarchy.


1. The Development of the Patriarchal Definition of Domestic Violence

The “discovery” of domestic violence is credited to the battered women who came forward in the 1970s and began telling their stories in the new female focused community centers of England.101 Of course, violence against women was certainly not a new phenomenon.

It had not only been previously recognized, but also, on a sporadic and brief occasion, been delegitimized.102 However, it is the 1970s’ attention to the domestic violence suffered by women which marked the beginning of the current effort to eradicate domestic violence.

Consequently, it is this identification of domestic violence as a woman’s issue that shapes today’s understanding of domestic violence.

Because of this background, the definition of domestic violence has developed as the use of physical power by men against women not motivated simply by a desire to inflict physical pain or even emotional suffering but rather as part of a larger effort by men to gain and maintain control over women.

While such a definition may now be accepted without question, the characterization of the male as sole user of physical force and the female as sole recipient was revolutionary in several important respects.

103 Recognizing domestic violence as a social phenomenon, the male as batterer/female as victim perspective largely dispelled earlier understandings of domestic violence as an illness suffered by both the batterer and the victim.104 From this medical perspective, a batterer’s use of domestic violence had been explained as the product of illness.105 Likewise, a victim’s inability to leave a battering relationship was understood as a manifestation of her own masochistic or pathological nature.106

This understanding of Domestic Violence as illness, Ladies and Gentlemen, sounds a thousand times more realistic than the foolish premise, previously debunked in previous posts in this series, that DV is nothing more than a tool of Patriarchal Male Domination.

Now then, DD, BDSM, and other acronyms aside, marriage is the safest place for women.

So what did the feminists do? They destroyed it [k]!

According to Mr. Albert Mohler:

The story behind America's love affair with no-fault divorce is a sad and instructive tale. As Baskerville documents, no-fault divorce laws emerged in the United States during the 1970s and quickly spread across the nation. Even though only nine states had no-fault divorce laws in 1977, by 1995, every state had legalized no-fault divorce.

Behind all this is an ideological revolution driven by feminism and facilitated by this society's embrace of autonomous individualism. Baskerville argues that divorce "became the most devastating weapon in the arsenal of feminism, because it creates millions of gender battles on the most personal level." As far back as 1947, the National Association of Women Lawyers [NAWL] was pushing for what we now know as no-fault divorce. More recently, NAWL claims credit for the divorce revolution, describing it as "the greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken."

The feminists and NAWL were not working alone, of course. Baskerville explains that the American Bar Association "persuaded the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws [NCCUSL] to produce the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act."

(The fact that marriage and divorce are now "uniform," dear reader, is why NO MAN SHOULD EVER GET MARRIED IN THIS COUNTRY. You have all the legal protections that God gave a mollusk. Make your life a lot easier, and DON'T GET MARRIED!)

So then, now that feminists, and other "enlightened" folks have succeeded in destroying marriage, and now that violent people, and their victims, can no longer receive the effective and gender neutral clinical treatment they so desperately need, no one should be surprised that acts of violence against women occur most often during the divorce stage and/or its aftermath.

It is common knowledge that marriage is among the greatest immunizer against violence and social ills of all kinds, and it is also common knowledge that feminists conspired to destroy the institution.

Hence, the elimination of political feminism and its very flawed assumptions would go a long way towards solving the intimate partner violence problem in such a way as that Constitutional rights, as well as the family unit, do not get trampled in the process, as they are today.

More to come.

Kumo X

Feminism and the Order of the Illuminati.

Dear readers,

It's not a secret that I post regularly about our Mysterious Money Men, a group of shadowy individuals who have worked in concert for many generations towards the goal of a new Republic.

I have labored to prove, as much as any one man can do, that feminism is NOT a movement that spontaneously appeared out of nowhere, but that it IS a movement backed and financed by these Money Men for the purpose of restructuring society.

Some of you might think that I am quite mad to pursue this line of thinking; and sometimes, I might tend to agree with you!

However, the more I research, the more I learn about everyone's favorite hate group, and the people at the top of the PYRAMID who are giving marching orders to the troops on the ground, the more it all comes together.

Feminism is a symptom of a larger sickness. And, as it turns out, this LARGER CONSPIRACY of men has been with us from the earliest times, even from the beginning of our wondrous American Republic.

Please watch these trailers:

It would behoove you, Dear Reader, to obtain these films.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(Sir Francis Bacon)

And once you are done with that, please acquaint yourself with the Works of Francis Bacon; specifically, The New Atlantis.

Speaking of Atlantis, it should be noted that PLATO, our dear friend, was the man who gave the world the legend of the Lost Continent.

All in all, very relevant reading.

One more thing.

Allow me to post this item, taken from the Masonic Grand Lodge of British Columbia:

Adam Weishaupt was born February 6, 1748 at Ingolstadt and educated by the Jesuits.

His appointment as Professor of Natural and Canon Law at the University of Ingolstadt in 1775, a position previously held by one of the recently disbanded Jesuits,4 gave, it is said, great offence to the clergy. "Weishaupt, whose views were cosmopolitan, and who knew and condemned the bigotry and superstitions of the Priests, established an opposing party in the University...." 5 Weishaupt was not then a freemason; he was initiated into a Lodge of Strict Observance, Lodge Theodore of Good Council (Theodor zum guten Rath), at Munich in 1777.

Most information regarding the rituals and objectives of the order is derived from papers and correspondence found in a search of Xavier Zwack’s residence in Landshut on October 11, 1786, and a search of Baron Bassus’s castle of Sondersdorf in Bavaria in 1787. 6 These documents were published by the Bavarian government, under the title: Einige Originalschriften des Illuminaten Ordens, Munich, 1787. Perhaps the best English exposition on the Order is found in Chapter III of Vernon L. Stauffer’s New England and the Bavarian Illuminati, pp. 142-228...

...Neither Robison nor Barruel deny that the professed goal of the Order was to teach people to be happy by making them good — to do this by enlightening the mind and freeing it from the dominion of superstition and prejudice. But they refused to accept this at face value. Where Weishaupt and Knigge promoted a freedom from church domination over philosophy and science, Robison and Barruel saw a call for the destruction of the church. Where Weishaupt and Knigge wanted a release from the excesses of state oppression, Robison and Barruel saw the destruction of the state. Where Weishaupt and Knigge wanted to educate women and treat them as intellectual equals, Robison and Barruel saw the destruction of the natural and proper order of society.

The rituals were of a rationalistic and not occult nature. Status as a freemason was not required for initiation into the Order of Illuminati since the fourth, fifth and sixth degrees of Weishaupt and Baron Adolphe-François-Frederic Knigge’s system practically duplicated the three degrees of symbolic Freemasonry. Although Knigge claimed to have a system of ten degrees, the last two appear never to have been fully worked up.8

It should be said that women deserve to be educated equally, and they have natural, God given rights that are to be respected.

However... if one watches the full versions of the films linked above, they will quickly see how the philosophy of Plato dominates the thinking of all the Key Players from ancient, into modern times. And we all know what ideal state the Greek Philosopher had in mind.

In a word: Modern, political feminism is part and parcel of a larger movement to remake society in its own image; and this movement does not hesitate to use women and men as pawns, spread lies and deceit, and deny the basic right of all people to choose the way they want to live, in order to make their twisted dreams a nightmarish reality.

Kumo XVI.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Happy Turkey Day!

Greetings Dear Reader!

I would like to wish you and yours a very happy Thanksgiving. Please keep in mind all of the blessings you have received thus far, and refresh and renew your spirits for the struggles that are sure to come.

First up,

I wanted to share this audio piece concerning Dr. Ron Paul. My distant relatives, the Israelis, discuss the Paul campaign, and shred any silly allegations of Paul being an Anti-Semite into very small kibbles and bits.

Me Likes!

Next topic,

The decline of the dollar.

I recommended a few posts ago that you should be EXECUTING your financial survival plans.



1) As of yesterday, the S&P 500 has incurred a NET LOSS for 2007.

In other words, if you had tracked the S&P index, instead of going international, diversifying into Gold and Silver, shorting the U.S. dollar, or making some damn good domestic stock picks, you have lost EVERYTHING you earned this year.

2) Domestic investors who stayed only in U.S. assets may have actually lost money, EVEN IF THEY HAD POSITIVE RETURNS.

How can this be? you wonder.

According to Mr. Daughty of

"Suppose you put $500,000 into a money market account earning 4% a year back on November 7, 2002. Compounded daily, you'd have $610,694.69 as of yesterday."

Immediately I know that he and I travel in totally different circles, as all my hoodlum friends and me TOGETHER couldn't come up with $500,000 to put into some stinking money market fund. So I was getting ready to say "Bah!" and leave, when he says, "But wait! Over that same five years, the dollar has lost another 28% of its purchasing power. So, what one dollar bought in 2002, will only buy $0.72 worth of goods and services today."

At that, I start sensing something sinister and important here, but I know that I am too stupid to understand exactly what, so I will keep my mouth shut and my hand inching towards the pistol I have under my jacket, just in case. This "freezing like an armed deer in the headlights" tactic turned out to be very fortuitous, as he was somehow persuaded to go on to explain "So that $610,694.69 in savings that you accumulated and thought you protected so wisely in a money market fund? Well it will only purchase $439,700 worth of goods and services - 28% less than you thought!"

It's a frightening Twilight Zone moment when you realize that you started with $500,000 in buying power, and you ended up with, after waiting five long years, with only $439,700 in buying power! That's $60,300 LESS than what you started with!

And that is before you pay the capital gains/income taxes on the phantom "gains" on that additional $110, 694.69 in account value, turning your total real loss in buying power into a bigger, much bigger net loss! Hahahaha! Ugh.

That pretty much sums it up, Ladies and Gents.

The U.S. dollar, and the American economy, is going DOWN. It can't be helped at this point. There ain't Shit the Fed can do to stop it either.

What you MUST do, after consulting with your financial adviser, is to execute your wealth preservation strategy.

For example, you'll remember that I posted about gold ETFS (exchange traded funds) and ETFs that are shorting the U.S. Dollar.

Well friends, if you had bought shares in GLD and UDN, this is how you would be doing:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(The performance of GLD (Gold) and UDN (Dollar Short) as of 11-21-07).

As you can see, the Gold ETF is more volatile, while the Dollar Short ETF has so far produced respectable returns thus far. I anticipate that Gold will break out of it's downturn and resume it's upward climb next month, while the Dollar will consistently lose value, hence increasing my overall rate of return.

And, while my overall performance is negative, I am willing to wait for the price of Gold to take off once again. She's just taking a breather, as the fundamentals of the U.S. Economy are steadily worsening. A great deal of people will literally jump on the Golden bandwagon before the end.

In this game, Patience is a virtue, and dips in price are buying opportunities. Just remember though, talk to your financial adviser first before making any power-moves.

And finally,

In addition to financial products, you should also be acquiring hard assets, such as Gold and Silver, and it's really easy to do. Mr. Robert Kiyosaki gives his reasons as to why you want precious metals in your portfolio [A]. It's worth the read!

So how do you go about getting out of the Dollar and into something that is actually worth something??

It's really simple.

A) Pick up your phone book

B) Look up "Coin Shop" or "Coin Dealer"

C) Call and speak with the proprietor

D) Ask about his Gold/Silver inventory

E) Visit the shop and pick out the Gold/Silver ingots/coins that are in your price range. You can buy an ounce of Silver for a nice price. For example, I bought Silver on 11-20 for $15.05 per ounce, plus tax.

In addition, you can buy coins in multiple sizes and prices. But in general, to avoid overpaying for your metals purchases, try to buy the biggest amount of Gold/Silver that you can per transaction.

For example, it's better to buy one 100 ounce coin than to buy ten 10 ounce coins.

F) Make the buy, and sleep better at night knowing that you have converted your worthless fiat pieces of paper into something that has withstood the test of time.

G) Don't overdo it though. You will still need Cash to pay the bills, buy groceries, and so forth. Most professionals recommend that you have 10-20% of your assets in Metals. I would say that under the circumstances, you want to make sure you have enough Cash on hand to take care of your business and play around in the Financial Markets. Take the rest of your dough and get your Gold and Silver on!

(Special note: Once you obtain enough riches and plunder, I would recommend that you put your earnings to work for you. Please watch the videos below to learn more.)


Ya'll have a nice day.

Kumo out.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

On November 21st...

The new Declaration of Independence will go out in USA Today for all America to see.

I present to you, the full page Ron Paul advertisement!

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

See it in more detail HERE.

I would like to thank all of the die-hard Ron Paul supporters who put the Ad together, and especially the Lepard family for financing the most important political advertisement in my lifetime.

I realize that some of you reading this might be disenchanted with the political system. I can understand that... there are moments when apathy is justified. And sometimes being lukewarm and melancholy is the right thing to do.



My people have known real slavery and real oppression. My Ancestors, including the Buffalo Soldiers, fought and died for this country and what it could and should stand for, freedom.

I'll be DAMNED if I go out into the night without making some noise! And it's my great hope and dream, gentle reader, that you will jump off the cliff right with me. It's time to get off the internet and take our message to the streets!!

So with that being said...

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(The Civil Flag of the United States of America)

DEFEND your Civil Flag and your homeland!

BUY as many USA Todays as you can!

GIVE as many papers with the AD away as you possibly can!

to the site!!

SPREAD the word to as many people as possible!!

GET some fire in that belly, and let's strike a mighty blow against socialism, New World Orderism, feminism, warmongering, death by inflation, and, above all, rule by Tyrants.


Sunday, November 18, 2007


Please watch the following:

Please contact your Senators IMMEDIATELY, whip out your copy of the Constitution, and inform them that they have NO authority to pass a bill that infringes upon the rights of citizens. In theory anyway.

The bill in question is S. 1959. Please call your senators TODAY.


Kumo out.

The Straight Dope.

What's good?

Word on the street is that... the "War on Drugs" is based on lies and deceit!

What? You're shocked?? The Hell you say!

I know... I know. The Feds would NEVER lie to We the People would they?

Well, just in case you don't believe me, I'd like to present these JOINTS (pun intended) that go a long way in showing that our gubment has lied to us about a critical issue once again, and that a whole hell of a lot of otherwise cool individuals have paid the price for disobeying laws put into place based on hypocrasy and ignorance.

First up, Norml's Daily Audio Stash gives you the lowdown on how Bud came to be illegal.

Next up, this vid breaks it down with fact and figures.

Finally, a former narcotics detective tells his story.

Please look into these when you have time.

The sooner we end this "War," the safer and more secure (from a wayward government) we'll all be.

(Not to mention a lot hungrier, hornier, and happier.)


Kumo tha Dude.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Jordan Maxwell: Are you an American Citizen or a US citizen? Part II

Gentlemen and ladies,

I posed this question to you once before, and to be perfectly honest, I cannot even answer my own query with certainty. But all the evidence so far points to a very frightening conclusion:

That we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic, but a corporate Democracy (or worse yet, a Cryptocracy) where Mob Rule and Tyranny (instigated by feminists and other lobbies) is the order of the day.

Instead of natural, Constitutional rights, we have only Congressionally authorized Civil immunities and privileges. Hence, the Congress can pass most any law, even when they do not have the authority to do so. By these actions alone (not to mention Martial Law Presidential Orders such as NSPD 51), Congress is no longer acting according to the constitution, and by definition, we are no longer living UNDER the constitution.

But, as I said before, I could be wrong. Maybe I am, but the question still nags at me.

And so, in order to aid my dear readers (and myself) in finding the answers to this all-important topic, I present to you Maxwell, Occult researcher par excellence.

On this page he shows us two versions of the American flag: one of which I have never seen before:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(The Stars and Stripes, the Military version??)

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(What flag is this? Is this the Civil flag of the United States?)

I was of course, quite shocked to learn that for all of my short years, the Military standard of the United States has been the only flag I've ever known.

Being the truthseeker I am, I had to dig deeper.

According to

Prior to the 1950's, state republic flags were mostly flown, but when a USA flag was flown it was one of the following:

... 2. Civil Flag First Civil Flag of Peace --intended for peace time usage, denoting civil jurisdiction under the Constitution and common law, has vertical stripes, blue stars on white background--last flown before Civil War**

Maxwell himself relates the testimony of Nathaniel Hawthorn:

... From the loftiest point of its roof, during precisely three and a half hours of each forenoon, floats or droops, in breeze or calm, the banner of the republic; but with the thirteen stripes turned vertically, instead of horizontally, and thus indicating that a civil, and not a military, post of Uncle Sam's government is here established...

In addition, the site has more information to share on this matter.

Ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to visit all the sites linked in this post.

I don't have any final answers at this point; mostly due to my own ignorance. But it is abundantly clear that we are NOT living under a free Republic as we thought initially.

And the only way to change this, in my humble opinion, is to recognize the deception, become educated as to what our rights are as Natural Persons, and DEMAND that the government return to a Constitutional government By, Of, and For the people, that protects the rights and liberties of all people, no matter what the Race, Sex, or Religious creed.

To my gay friends out there:

What you do in your bedroom is your own business. I really don't mind what grown, consenting adults do in private. I will not deny or disparage your rights to associate with whom you choose, or contract (gay "marriage" or civil unions) with whom you want. Because now-a-days, I think that marriage should be a private matter, as it was in the days of old.

On the other hand, being gay gives you no special rights to demand that the rights of others to free speech and such be silenced simply because you don't like what other people have to say. The laws that remove the words "mother" and "father" from the lawbooks, and laws that threaten people with jail time if they speak out against homosexuality, need to stop. You have no right to do such a thing.

Don't get me wrong though:

As a black man, I can relate to how some gay folks feel about these issues. I don't like people who call black folks not nice names. However, equal rights means exactly that; EQUAL rights of all people, not SPECIAL rights for some. It may be a bitter pill, but these are the breaks in a free society.

This understanding is crucial to maintaining a free society, because, in my view, it was Racism and the fear of a free black populace that set events into motion that led to the rights of ALL citizens being DOWNGRADED from Natural rights to Civil rights.

If we do not secure the rights of all Natural, Lawfully native born and naturalized citizens, then we expose ourselves to societal weaknesses that groups such as the feminists and communists have so successfully exploited.

Please remember, feminism did not make its gains because it was an overpowering, widely accepted philosophy. They succeeded by subtle means, and misleading the populace into believing that they stood for liberty and equality, when they actually stand for child-murder, tyranny, and domination.

It's high time that we as a society sealed all of the cracks that our enemies can use against us. Racism was and is such a weakness, and man hatred, in our time, is another.

I cannot stress to you, Dear Reader, the importance of struggling to seal the monster of government BACK into the box of the Constitution where it belongs. For example, I have argued in my Against Flood series that women beat, batter, and abuse as much as men do. However, I am only writing these posts to dispel a common and much believed myth, and I am NOT advocating the expansion of government to somehow "protect" us from women's violence (although if private groups wish to provide assistance, using their own time and money, I have no beef with that).

It should be noted that legal professionals are already advocating such an expansion of government services.

Since men and women abuse roughly equally, then the government has all the ammunition [1][2] it needs to fulfil the Platonic/Marxist/Feminist goal of "liberating" ALL children from their natural parents, something that the State would HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS if we lived in a truly free, Constitutional Republic that constrained the powers of government.

I DO NOT want to see the rights of motherhood stripped from women. I believe such a move would be disastrous for all of us. My fear is that after a certain period of time, knowingly and unknowingly, government will seek to extend it's doctrines of Parens Patriae and In Loco Parentis and seize children on their own prerogative, all the while citing the same body of proofs and evidence that I will be presenting in my Against Flood series to justify the kidnapping of children from their families, single parent or otherwise.

Divide and Rule.

In closing then,

My Black's Law Dictionary and I have become fast friends, as I race to put two and two together and make absolutely sure that we are American citizens, as opposed to US citizens who are proxy shareholders in the Corporation of THE UNITED STATES.

If I can answer this question with certainty, then, at long last, we can identify, fight, and defeat the true enemies of freedom.

If it turns out that we are living under a form of government other than the Republican form of government promised to us by the Constitution, then we can make the necessary changes needed to secure our natural rights.

As an example, we could change the Fourteenth Amendment to read:

Section 1. All (natural) persons (regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation) born or naturalized in (their respective states) and the (u)nited (s)tates,(and whose parents are lawful, sovereign Citizens of their (s)tate and the united states and did not violate any immigration or naturalization laws of the united states), are Citizens of (their state) and of the (united states, with all the natural rights and constitutional protections entitled to them as Citizens of their state and the united states).

No (s)tate (or the united states,) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the (natural rights,) privileges or immunities of Citizens of (their state and the) (u)nited (s)tates; nor shall any state (or the united states) deprive any person of life, liberty, property, (or any other natural, constitutional right), without due process of law; nor deny to any (natural) person (regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation) within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

While I am not an attorney, I believe that small changes to the Fourteenth Amendment, as suggested above, would go a long way to resolving our overbearing government problems. In this way, both the States and the united states are equally bound and restrained by the Federal constitution.

But in any event, DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING. Make sure you do the research for yourself.

Kumo tha Dude.

Are rappers on the illuminati payroll???

Here's a little late night something for you to chew on:

Symbolism is all around us, and is quite real, as I've written previously. And the fact of the matter is that these guys are flashing secret signs like there's no tomorrow.

Oh, by the way:

Please take a look at this clip if you have time.

Just a little something to think about. In any event, I would recommend that you take some time, and learn how to read the signs, just like this gentlemen has.

Kumo of Kemet.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Against Flood II


This is part II in a series of posts that intends to refute an essay published by Mr. Michael Flood. His writing is in italics, unless otherwise indicated.

The claim that domestic violence is gender-equal received further support with the publication in Melbourne of a study which claimed to show that men and women assault each other at equal rates [Headey, 1999: 58]. This found that 5.7 percent of men and 3.7 percent of women had been physically assaulted by their partners in the last 12 months [ibid: 59]. This study again used the Conflict Tactics Scale, in which men and women are asked whether, in the last year, they or their spouse had ever done any of a series of violent acts: hit with a fist or an object, slapped, shaken, scratched, or kicked, their partner.

There are four problems with the claims about 'husband battering' made by men's rights advocates. Firstly, they only use these authors' work selectively, as the authors themselves disagree that women and men are equally the victims of domestic violence. Secondly, they ignore the serious methodological flaws in the Conflict Tactics Scale. Thirdly, they ignore or dismiss a mountain of other evidence which conflicts with their claims. Finally, their strategies in fact are harmful to men themselves, including to male victims of violence.

The assertion that the CTS is somehow methodologically flawed has already been debunked previously: but for the sake of argument, we will present more evidence and proofs over the duration of this series of posts.

Selective use

The authors of the American CTS studies stress that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men [Orman, 1998]. Husbands have higher rates of the most dangerous and injurious forms of violence, their violent acts are repeated more often, they are less likely to fear for their own safety, and women are financially and socially locked into marriage to a much greater extent than men.


Extensive research has shown that most violence happens to women who are NOT married or are going through a divorce [a][b][c].

Note the clever use of the word Husband instead of men. Is someone against marriage? Does someone want to demonize and distort husbands? Hasn't Mr. Flood made yet another factual error?

Decide for yourself.

With respect to women being injured, it makes sense that a woman engaged in combat with a man is more likely to be injured. They are, after all, the weaker sex.

While women are the weaker vessel, they are not stupid by any means. This is why, when women decide to attack a man, they are more likely to use weapons against their targets, such as knives and other sharpies [d], which would of course increase the likelyhood of the male victim suffering serious bodily injury or death.

Someone told me once that a 900 pound Gorilla gets...

Anything he wants!

So then, if women are living in such a state of fear of their men in general, why is it that women initiate intimate partner violence more often than men do??

From Psychiatry Online:

Joan Arehart-Treichel

In addressing intimate partner violence, the focus is usually on women who are physically battered by husbands or boyfriends. However, women sometimes hurt their partners as well.

Women are doing virtually everything these days that men are—working as doctors, lawyers, and rocket scientists; flying helicopters in combat; riding horses in the Kentucky Derby. And physically assaulting their spouses or partners.

In fact, when it comes to nonreciprocal violence between intimate partners, women are more often the perpetrators.

These findings on intimate partner violence come from a study conducted by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The lead investigator was Daniel Whitaker, Ph.D., a behavioral scientist and team leader at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (which is part of the CDC). Results were published in the May Journal of Public Health…

Furthermore, Whitaker discovered, of the 24 percent of relationships that had been violent, half had been reciprocal and half had not. Although more men than women (53 percent versus 49 percent) had experienced nonreciprocal violent relationships, more women than men (52 percent versus 47 percent) had taken part in ones involving reciprocal violence.

Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues, they admitted in their study report.

As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time). "This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious," Whitaker and his group stressed…

There you have it, Mr. Flood. The CDC has officially blown your thesis all to hell.

But wait! There's much more.

Flood continues:

In fact, Straus expresses his concern that "the statistics are likely to be misused by misogynists and apologists for male violence" [cited in Orman, 1998].

Methodological flaws

The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) has three key flaws as a way of measuring violence. Firstly, it leaves out important forms of violence, such as sexual assault, choking, suffocating, scratching, stalking, and marital murder.

Before we answer this charge, I would first like to post what the CTS approach actually measures, as stated in DISABUSING THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC ABUSE: HOW WOMEN BATTER MEN AND THE ROLE OF THE FEMINIST STATE (Credit goes to the guys at Don't Get for finding this helpful report):

Developed in 1971 to measure family violence, CTS breaks physical force and violence into eight categories ranging from (1) throwing things; (2) pushing, shoving or grabbing; (3) hitting or slapping; (4) kicking, biting or hitting with a fist; (5) hitting or trying to hit with something; (6) beating up; (7) threatening with a knife or gun; and finally, (8) using a knife or gun.12

All of these sound like serious acts of violence to me.

Speaking of women's acts of aggression, the report continues:

The comparable use of physical violence by spouses marks only the beginning of the similarities evidenced by these comprehensive first studies of intimate violence.

Arguably, husband abuse can be discounted in comparison to wife abuse if women are found to utilize physical violence against their spouses in a much more sparing fashion than men. However, the various surveys consistently reported that women not only use violence at rates similar to men, but that women match, and often exceed, husbands in the frequency with which they engage in violent behavior.20

Did anyone else hear that? Sounds like someone's neat little argument being smashed all into pieces.

Oh well... let's see what else this report has to say!

3. Severity

While the similarity of rates of physical violence by wives and husbands presented by the various surveys is revealing, such data is not sufficient to make an accurate comparison of the violent nature of wives and husbands. As the definition of “physical violence” used in the various CTS-based studies ranges from “throwing something” to “using a knife or gun,” wives arguably could compare to husbands in use and frequency of violent behavior, but not in the severity of the type of violence employed.

Some differences per type of violence utilized by each sex are certainly evident. Women were found to be twice as likely to throw something at their husbands.24 Wives were also more likely than husbands to kick, bite and punch.25 They were also more likely to hit, or try to hit, their spouses with something and more likely to
threaten their spouses with a knife or gun.26

Husbands, on the other hand, rated higher in the four categories of pushing, grabbing and shoving;27 slapping or hitting;28 beating up;29 and actually using a knife or gun.30 Yet, such per category differences did not evidence that men were unquestionably more prone to acts of severe domestic violence than women. Combining the data collected on the last five categories of physical violence to create a “Severe Violence Index,” wives were found to engage in more severe acts of violence than husbands. 31

Taking the frequency of severely violent behavior into account does not mitigate these findings. Wives show a pattern of severely violent behavior statistically comparable to husbands.32 Consistent with this “over-all similarity” found in the 1975 survey,33 other early reports also found that husbands and wives show “equal potential” for intimate violence and that they “initiate[d] similar acts of violence.”34

And finally:

(a) CTS Challenges

Beyond woozles and scare tactics, a more effective and facially neutral intellectual tactic used to silence the study of female violence has been an attack on the methodology. As an initial criticism, the CTS-based reports, by definition, allow only a focus on violence resulting from conflict situations. While acknowledging the value of CTS in other social studies, sociologists critique their use in the study of family.52

Because the scale’s focus upon “conflict” does not acknowledge the use of violence in a familial setting as a tactic of coercive control, such methodology fails to emphasize the use of violence by men to maintain power or the use of violence without provocation.

53 The CTS reporting methodology is also criticized for its limited focus upon the acts of violence, not the consequences, or more specifically, the severity of the injuries resulting from such acts.54 For example, the ordering of the violence with such acts as “trying to hit with something” regarded as more severe than “slapping” is deemed inappropriate given the potential of severe physical injury which can
result from a slap, while no injury could ever result from throwing something at someone but failing to strike.55

Criticism is also levied at separate groupings of various types of violence which are instead seen as overlapping.56 Recognizing such concerns, the Family Violence Research Laboratory addressed them in their initial studies.57

However, rather than rejecting the methodology and therefore any information it produced outright, the researchers noted that CTS was previously accepted as a methodology in family studies limited to wife abuse. They therefore rationalized that the research methodology remained valuable in a combined study of husband abuse and wife abuse.58 Moreover, despite being collected through CTS methodology, the research of the Family Violence Researchers yields similar results to numerous other studies of husband and wife abuse, including those which rely upon non-CTS methodology.59

And indeed, we shall look at other studies that do not use the CTS method, and yet give us the same outcome:


It also needs to be said that while Mr. Flood criticizes CTS for certain "omissions," the impact that such alleged omissions have on the overall outcome works both ways.

Anyone who’s known enough women (or had little sisters) knows that choking, suffocating, scratching, and the like are female favorites.

Since, according to the High Priestesses of Domestic Violence, there is NO excuse for Domestic Abuse of any kind, if CTS DID include these other measurements that Mr. Flood demands to be added (and, which has already been demonstrated previously and today, criticism of CTS methodology has been duly noted and taken into account,) the number of women who commit DV would be undoubtedly much higher than what researchers indicate now.

In addition, marital murder and sexual assault are not forms of domestic violence. They are felony criminal offenses, a different class of crime, and are usually recorded, tried, and punished in like fashion.

Apples and oranges my dear fellow.

Our author continues:

Most importantly, CTS studies exclude incidents of violence that occur after separation and divorce. Yet Australian data, e.g. from the Women's Safety Survey shows that women are as likely to experience violence by previous partners as by current partners [Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996: 8]. And that it is the time around and after separation which is most dangerous for women. International data shows similar patterns. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice reports that 75.9 percent of spouse-on-spouse assaults occurred after separation or divorce, with a male perpetrator 93.3 percent of the time [U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence April 1984, p. 4].

Our author has already made my primary argument for me. What a good fellow!

1) Marriage is the safest and best place for women, children, and men [e][f][g][h][i][j]

2) The feminist inspired family/divorce/child custody/child support/restraining order machine is a significant driver of partner violence.

If we eliminated all of the feminist laws we have passed since feminism came to power, and we adjudicated our divorce, child custody, and support cases according to the Constitution, the Common Law, and the Bill of Rights, and treated all parties to litigation with respect, equal protection for ALL parties, and justice; we would eliminate a great deal of the violence problem that feminism and its politics and policies have managed to create.

I have no argument with women bringing their needs and wants to the public square. I recognize that violence and discord happen in families. I also believe that if anyone, man or woman, has been assaulted or battered, stalked, raped, or violated in some way, then there are very good laws on the books that can be used to hold people accountable for their misdeeds.

However, I DO have a problem with lies, deceit, trickery and chicanery being codified into law. I also have issues with people being denied their full rights and protections that they are absolutely entitled to as free persons. Above all, I despise a tyrannical Matriarchal government that seeks to enslave me and my brothers simply because we are men.

It is clear that the overarching solution to our violence problem is NOT more feminism, but to discredit and discard feminism as an acceptable philosophy, now and forever.

For proofs on how feminist policies are driving force behind domestic violence, please see:

How the Government Creates Child Abuse

However, it does not take PDFs to reason why some men become violent upon separation and divorce.

If you throw two people in a very stressful situation, and deny one parent his (or her) natural, basic, moral, and constitutional rights over his (or her) own flesh and blood, blatantly and without remorse, AND without so much as any evidence of wrongdoing, without due process or equal protection under the laws, then yes, tempers will flare, and people will get hurt.

It's an uncomfortable truth, but I'm beyond the point of sugarcoating what needs to be said. When people are mistreated, and their babies are involved, and there is no just, moral, and legal way to rectify said injustice, then people are going to get pissed, and sometimes, resort to violence.

This is in no way an endorsement of criminal violence against anyone. However, with the way our family courts are set up, it's a miracle that most men endure the agony of the divorce court system, instead of lashing out at others, and it is a tragedy that so many divorced men commit domestic violence against themselves [k][l][m], simply because of a Matriarchal system of tyranny, created for the feminists and by the feminists, that crushes any dissent or will to fight back.

Try writing a paper on THAT Mr. Flood. You and your ilk utterly disgust me.

Very well!!

We've covered some more ground, but there is much more to talk about.

Kumo X.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Our Beloved Courts of Injustice

Check em out:

Courtesy of Family Court Reports:

Food for thought.

Kumo tha Dude.

Meet the CFR!

While I've written about the CFR previously [a][b], I wanted to present these videos for your review.

Understand that feminism is a symptom of a larger sickness. Or, perhaps I should say that feminism is an offshoot of marxism [aa][bb], a made to order movement bought and paid for by our mysterious Money Men, which includes the Rockefeller family.

David Rockefeller seems to be the most high profile member of this elite dynasty. In any event, his ties to the CFR and other clandestine organizations are well documented.

Readers will recall that the Rockefellers were key movers and shakers behind the proto-feminist Eugenics movement, in addition to taking part in the Syndicate that provided direct and indirect funding and support to ideologies such as Marxism and its handmaid, feminism.

We know who the Kingpins are. We know what they want to do [c][d].

So what are we going to do about it?

Kumo out.

Fight the North American Union... Again!

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words.

The North American Union is REAL. Watch the videos and spread the word!

Now, if you want to fight the North American Union, which is a bad thing for reasons explained here, please contact your Congressional Representatives; tell your friends and family, and please DONATE and VOTE for Representative Ron Paul.

Have a nice day!