Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Feminism wins; Freedom loses.


Economic freedom, political freedom, and the freedom to raise one's children as one wishes, is on its last legs.

What makes me say that, you ask?

Exhibit One: Vox Day's Kidnapped by Government:

... not since the Waco massacre have I been so completely appalled by an American government action. The recent kidnapping of 416 children from their Fundamentalist LDS parents by Texas Child Protective Service agents is a unconscionable abnegation of not only the United States and Texas constitutions, but a rejection of the very meaning of what it is to be an American. For as P.J. O'Rourke rightly declares: "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please."

Contrary to what a disturbing percentage of the voting population appears to believe, "protecting the children" is not a legitimate function of government. The concept appears nowhere in any constitution, and the very idea that the most lethal institution in human history, an institution that has killed more children than any other, can even be used to protect children is inherently oxymoronic. The state does not own the children whose families happen to reside within its boundaries and it does not possess the right to dictate what is and what is not a proper way for a family to raise its children...

While I wholeheartedly agree with Vox's sentiment, I must inform him, and all of you, that the right of parents to raise their children free of government interference has already been repealed for one class of citizens:


Every business day, wherever a court of "justice" operates in this country, the Natural Rights of Men to be with their children are stripped away from them. Many of these men have committed no crime, submitted to a trial by jury, nor have they asked for their children to be ripped away from them.

However, the legal system, from the lowest family court to the Supreme Court of the United States has decreed that Men have no rights to their children.

And, my other prediction has come to pass.

Thanks to the wholesale adoption of Platonist/Marxist/Socialist/Feminist policies, children are beginning to be "liberated" from their mothers, on the most unsubstantiated of accusations.

As most of you know, I am a strong supporter of Polygamy.

So long as consenting, legal age adults choose to form these relationships, there is no LEGAL reason that these relationships should be outlawed. There is nothing in the Constitution barring polygamy, but there is much that protects the rights of the People to freely form contracts and practice their religious beliefs peaceably. No harm, no crime. It's that simple.

Indeed, many of these abuses (the real ones that do occur) would be more easily prevented if the practice of Polygyny wasn't driven underground thanks to unconstitutional laws. If you treat people like criminals, then don't be too surprised when some people act like them. Be it weed smoking, prostitution, or in this case, polygamous marriage, prohibition is a silly policy that a) doesn't work and b) tramples the rights of otherwise law abiding people.

Even if you should disagree with me on the issue of Polygamy, I hope that it is becoming more and more obvious that something is very wrong with our government. It ran roughshod over those people's rights, on weak allegations of "Child Abuse" and "Rape."

Where is the probable cause? Where are the jury trials? How are the rights of the parents being upheld and protected? Why are the children being separated from their loving parents, when the vast majority have nothing to do whatever with these allegations of abuse?

What people need to understand is that if the government can "liberate" 400+ children in such a blatantly unconstitutional fashion... just imagine how its going to be when they come for you. Picture how you will be treated when its your turn to end up in family court or the child protection services database.

And, as I've said a million-billion times, feminism, and the men and women who have aided and abetted it, created the atmosphere for these abuses to occur.

Speaking of abuses, get ready for a real spanking when the economic shit hits the fan. And once again, our economic problems are the direct result of totalitarian policymaking at the highest levels of government and society.

Exhibit Two: Edwin Vieira Jr writes in his essay, Silver and gold guarantee freedom:

... The Constitution of the United States adopted a monetary system consisting of silver and gold coin, in which the standard is the "dollar," containing 371 1/4 grains (troy) of fine silver, with the values of gold coins to be measured in "dollars" according to the free market's rate of exchange between silver and gold. Neither the general government nor any state is authorized to emit paper currency.

These restrictions prevent rogue public officials from turning public debts into currency, as a means for redistributing wealth from society to political elitists and their clients in special-interest groups.

Furthermore, although the Constitution does not mention banks, either public or private, its only correct construction requires separation of bank and state -- extirpation of all inherently fraudulent fractional-reserve banking schemes -- and rigorous regulation of all other fractional-reserve arrangements that might operate fraudulently. (See Edwin Vieira Jr., "Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution," second revised edition, 2002.)

But since the early 1800s rogue politicians and bankers have steadily subverted the Constitution by forging an increasingly tight relationship between bank and state. Through the grant of one abusive special privilege after another, politicians have immunized fractional-reserve banking against the just economic and legal consequences of its own inevitable failures, so that public officials and bankers could turn both public and private debts into currency -- thus separating the supply and the purchasing power of currency from the economic discipline of the free market, and rendering those matters largely political in nature...

As an example of this point, under an asset backed currency (Gold, Silver, Oil, etc), pork programs such as VAWA would have undergone much, much more scrutiny before passage. Is it conceivable that the people would submit to higher taxes in order to pay for this feminist puff piece?


But the beauty of a fiat currency such as ours is that the Congress can spend untold amounts of money, all without raising taxes or other moves that would attract the attention of a watchful public.

Mr. Vieira continues:

... Even dumbed-down Americans will not long suffer conditions of depression akin to those of the 1930s, let alone South American levels of inflation as well. Desperate people will ask questions and assign blame. Perhaps not just a few will abandon debt currency altogether and substitute silver and gold as their media of exchange. They and others will conclude that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional -- and therefore that its operations are arguably a complex of criminal offenses. (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242.)

Many will realize that the establishment's scheme for replacing Federal Reserve Notes with a supra-national currency is a political crime on a more stupendous scale yet, because it depends upon destroying both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Then an aroused people will take political action against the institutions and individuals responsible for foisting the funny-money scheme on their country.

On the other side, the establishment will not be idle. It will do anything and everything possible to maintain its position. Obviously the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence will be expendable, because the establishment has been trying to whittle away the former on a piece-by-piece basis over the years, and intends to do away with the latter at one fell swoop in the near future. So this country, as an independent nation, will be expendable too. And if this country, why not the freedom and prosperity of common Americans as well?

Will ordinary Americans -- at least 80 to 90 million of whom are armed -- meekly put up with a program aimed at their own country's assisted suicide? Why should they, when they have nothing to lose economically or politically? If they refuse to knuckle under, the establishment's only recourse will be to attempt to lock down the whole country under a para-militarized police state, perhaps with the assistance of "peacekeepers" from Canada and Mexico (for the employment of whom negotiations are apparently already in progress)...

Understand, dear readers, that Economic, Political, Familial, and other forms of freedom (or tyranny) are interconnected. Socialism isn't just an economic system. It is a political and ideological way of seeing the world. Ditto with Feminism, Fascism, and other such -isms.

The minute we turned away from protecting the rights of all human beings, and began to insist that the government supply all of our wants, needs, and desires, is the minute that we laid the groundwork for tyranny.

We have been a bad, spoiled, selfish, and cold society. The love of money and power has blinded many. The "something-for-nothing" and "look-out-of-number-one" mentality is just about ready to bear fruit.

And feminists, I really don't know what ya'll are gonna do...

You've alienated men for so long, a great many aren't trying to do anything for you besides getting Dem Panties. Do you really think these same men, whose children you've stole, lives you've ruined, reputations you've destroyed, futures you've corrupted, are all of a sudden going to come to your aid when the real tyranny begins?

Are they going to volunteer to do what they gotta do in order to feed, clothe and shelter you and your rug-rats by multiple daddies?

Think "Katrina." That is what the future holds for many of you, unless you begin to acknowledge that feminism is a truly fucked up philosophy and begin to make nice-nice. Apologize to the men in your life for the spoiled princess role you've played for so many years. Stand by your man for positive political change. Chill out with tha "Superwoman" charade, and support him. Stand together and fight for your freedom!

Because, unless we as a people straighten up and fly right, we are looking at some damn tough times ahead.

You must recognize, Dear Reader, that government has a very limited role in family life, economic life, and family life. Failure to understand this will lead to our ruin.

So, what are ya'll staring at me for??

Time's a wastin'! Do what you gotta do.


yy said...

no butter in japan?


Anonymous said...

Since the "marriage strike" has not produced any results, now is time to go to the next step: the reproduction strike.

Fathers have no rights. Fathers are useless. The function of being a father has become a crime.

So why not stop reproducing altogether?


byrdeye said...

So, gay marriage, single moms and cuckolded dads provide cool, progressive homes for kids...but not consensual polygamy?

I haven't looked much into this, but something feels wrong about kids being forcefully removed from homes where they are not exactly being abused... Uh, why exactly is consensual polygamy absolutely wrong, again?

booyah said...

Ah - the truth comes out. The raid was set-up by a Black Obama delegate as racial payback for fear of Black crime.

The raid on a polygamist community in Texas that led to the mass seizure of 460 children, was prompted by prank phone calls from an Colorado State Barack Obama Delegate. Her motivation appears to be completely racial and not out of concern for anyone’s well being. The suspect appears to have been motivated by a believe that the religious order taught their children to be “frightened of black people,” not polygamy.

Togakure said...


Togakure said...

Nevermind. Wow.

"The suspect appears to have been motivated by a believe that the religious order taught their children to be “frightened of black people,” not polygamy."

While I can't support anyone who advocates racism (seeing as how I am a black man myself), the fact remains that free people have God given rights.

I might not want to associate with people who are alleged racists, but, the fact remains that this whole case was a blatant abuse of government power, and a feminist/child abuse hysteria that is infecting every corner of our nation's culture.

Hopefully she will spend some time behind bars (if convicted), but in our Matriarchal society, that seems doubtful.

Elusive Wapiti said...

I didn't know that Rozita Swinton was an Obama delegate. Interesting...*rubs chin with thumb and forefinger*

Toku san, you kinda-sorta touched on the inevitable consequence of feminism's Marxist attack on the family and specifically the man in the family. Eventually, feminists' deeds will boomerang back on them given enough time.

Once government was granted the unlimited power to separate children from their fathers for no reason whatsoever, the precendent was set. Parental rights to their children becomes solely at the prerogative of a government agent. There is nothing substantive that stands in the way of government taking anyone's children away at any time. At some point in time, I can easily foresee how G-men will come for feminists' children, and there will be nothing to stop them. Certainly not the men, who will have no stake in whether the children stay in the family or not. These shenanigans with the FLDS only serve as fair warning pour encourager les autres: Step out of line, and we'll snatch your children.

But the destruction of the famiy and subsumption of children under the dominion of the State has been the plan from the beginning.

Bring popcorn. It'll be entertaining.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Oh, and I don't particularly care about polygyny either. It's certainly not counter-scriptural. I also find it hard to differentiate the FLDS' brand of polygyny with the serial polyandry that women practice in mainstream society today.

And as for 13 year olds being married off to adult men, I find it hard to get fired up about that too, since teenage women being married off at a young age was still fashionable until 100 or so years ago.

Togakure said...


Nice thoughts. Good to see we are thinking along the same lines.

Although, while I agree that teenage girls have been married off at young ages forever, it's my personal opinion that 16 is the optimal age for a girl to consider sexual activity and marriage.

13 and such is too young for them, both mentally and physically.

If, after a fair trial with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, someone happens to be convicted for having underage intercourse with a minor, then they should have the book thrown at them. We have laws against adults having sex with minors, and I think this is a good thing.

After all, 13 year old girls are still children.

Now, if we lived in a society where parents (especially the father) could give permission in certain cases, with the girl's consent, to marry at 16, that's one thing.

But, since we don't live in that kind of culture, and the laws say that once a girl is 18, she is old enough (and legally responsible, in theory if not in practice), to make her own decisions, then if she chooses, after her 18th birthday, to enter into a plural marriage, more power to her.

Anonymous said...


I'm pissed about what happened in NY. Cops go free?

Not good!

booyah said...

I agree, while we may not like various personal beliefs or biases - is that justification for the Feds to step in and forcefully dismantle your home? People have the right to believe what they want in their own personal lives.

I just love how the feminist anti-family agenda nor Rozita's race card-driven false report/Obama connection angles have not been reported by the mainstream news though.

Besides, I'm not sure too many Black folk were banging on the gates of the community to join, anyways, lol.

booyah said...

^ "and" not "nor"

Togakure said...

"while we may not like various personal beliefs or biases - is that justification for the Feds to step in and forcefully dismantle your home? People have the right to believe what they want in their own personal lives."

Agreed. The qualifier for me is that those who have no choice (i.e. minors) should be protected from certain activities (forced marriage, underage rape, etc).

My argument has always been that if polygamous marriage wasn't illegal, then the social pressure that would normally minimize incidents of child abuse would act to greatly decrease these incidents (if and when they happen).

My concern is that the rights of the parents (and the children) were totally trampled here. Before children are separated from parents for any reason, we need to have JURY TRIALS and convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

Constitutional protections need to be respected every step of the way, and the courts should be "biased" in favor of liberty.

In other words, the government should be attempting to protect the innocent, reuniting families as quickly as possible, and punish the guilty, instead of seizing and losing everybody's children just because some bitch decided to make a phone call!

This is (race based issues aside) a perfect example of government racing to fuck up many lives based upon one woman's unsubstantiated claim of "abuse".

What a sad nation we have become.

booyah said...

^ Totally agreed.

But that is precisely how all these increasing Draconian, feminist-authored laws can be used to justify police-state despotism.

No trials, no jury - just throw up an unproven charge based on a false report and wala - "justice" is served.