Matriarchy Kills.

Dear Readers,

I made the claim in a post entitled the Art of Discipline IV:

... If we ignore the well documented fact [4][5][6] that these various [Domestic Violence] statutes are written and enforced in such a way as to violate the Natural Rights of men, there is still the question of the unintended consequences of such legislation, and if this is a policy that the public truly wishes to live by...

And if this line of questioning is outrageous to some, what I am going to say next is going to really be shocking...

Matriarchy Kills.


You might have seen this very tragic article (from CBS):

Cops: Dad Killed Son Over Child Support

Man Accused Of Murdering Toddler To Avoid Paying; Earlier Claimed He Had Been Kidnapped

Comments 105

NEW ORLEANS, Jan. 3, 2009

(AP) A man who initially told police gunmen kidnapped his 2½-year-old son was arrested Saturday, accused of committing an "extremely hideous" murder because he was ordered to pay child support, Police Superintendent Warren Riley said.

Danny Platt confessed, told police where to find the child's body and has been booked on a charge of first-degree murder in the death of Ja' Shawn Powell, police said.

"He had said he would kill either his wife or his child before he paid child support," which he recently had been ordered to do, Riley said.

Riley said he did not know the amount of child support and would not describe how the boy was killed, saying the coroner would do that after the autopsy was complete. The coroner's spokesman did not immediately return a call.

"The mother is in a safe place," Riley said.

Although he had visiting rights, Platt, 22, of New Orleans, had never visited the boy until he picked him up Friday, Riley said...

A shocking, sad story to say the least.

It goes without saying that no situation or injustice can justify killing one's own flesh and blood, as this man is accused of doing. Even if all the power of the Matriarchy is upon one, the children are innocent and should be protected from the injustice of the Feminist machine as much as humanly possible.

Writer Jarvis DeBerry, adds more detail to this tragic tale:

... I read that Danny Platt claims he had "a whole bunch of reasons" for slitting the throat of his 2-year-old son Ja'Shawn Powell and allowing the toddler to bleed to death.

"I'm sorry about killing my baby," Platt reportedly said on his way to jail Saturday night where he was booked with first-degree murder. "I had a lot of pressure on me." Then, he made his preposterous claim that his reasons for killing his child were numerous.

But apparently Platt's reasons did not include the $4,000 in child support he owed the boy's mother, Daniella Powell. "No, sir," Platt answered when he was asked Saturday night if he killed the boy to avoid paying child support.

She was entitled to it, of course, but Powell says she wasn't deliberately seeking it from her child's father. She had applied for food stamps and for Medicaid for Ja'Shawn, and when she listed the father's information, the state government rightfully sought payment from him. The state was deducting about $100 from each of Platt's weekly paychecks. But we have Platt's word that the forced deduction was not what Ja'Shawn's murder was about.

Even if it wasn't about paying back child support in particular, it's clear that he was trying to get back at the baby's mother in general. There is nothing Ja'Shawn could have done to his father to make Platt kill him.

In fact, to hear Ja'Shawn's mother tell it, the boy adored his mostly absent daddy and, despite Platt's infrequent visits, considered the man his protector and his enforcer. "I'm going to tell my daddy on you," was Ja'Shawn's threat to cousins who had crossed him. Such a threat indicates the faith Ja'Shawn had in Platt, a faith betrayed when his father knifed him to death...

Many who are commenting on this case are dancing around the real issues. Tired mantras such as "use a condom if you don't want to pay child support," "a real man takes responsibility for his child," or, like Mr. DeBerry states repeatedly, a woman deserves, at all times and without merit, child support from a man are uttered over and over again until they lose all meaning and border upon the ridiculous.

The State, after all, is right to seize the fruits of a man's labor (and his loins, in most cases) in order to enforce feminist public policy. A woman is automatically entitled to child support; no matter what the circumstances.

Let's review what public policy is and why it is so important:

... as I stated in my previous post on The Law, the issue of whether men have constitutional rights that should be upheld even in the face of bigoted, misguided, and ill-informed opposition has long been settled.

Allow me to state my position once more: MEN IN THE FEMINIZED WEST HAVE NO NATURAL RIGHTS. PERIOD.

Men are allowed to have rights so long as they do not go against what the Mob declares they should have. Our Democratic system, on many occasions has stated this to be so.

Indeed, feminism and anti-male hatred is a matter of public policy, to be upheld at all times and in all circumstances.

So what is public policy?

>A principle that no person or government official can legally perform an act that tends to injure the public.

Public policy manifests the common sense and common conscience of the citizens as a whole that extends throughout the state and is applied to matters of public health, safety, and welfare. It is general, well-settled public opinion relating to the duties of citizens to their fellow citizens. It imports something that fluctuates with the changing economic needs, social customs, and moral aspirations of the people. Public policy enters into, and influences, the enactment, execution, and interpretation of legislation.

Notice how the ideal of public policy directly contrasts with the Republican idea that men are entitled to fundamental, inalienable, natural rights which cannot be set aside or violated in any cases whatever.

Understand that we live in the Mob Rule of Feminized Democracy, and not in a Constitutional Republic as many of us have been led to believe.

Now some may ask, is feminism a "third pillar" of American public policy?

I would say that it is. Firstly, one must consider how whenever feminist family values and claims of equal protection and due process come into conflict in American courts of law, feminism almost always trumps any and all of its challengers.

Even if feminist policies violate the most sacred and time honored concepts of right and justice, it doesn't matter. Feminism, By Thunder, must not be harmed! The privileges of women must be upheld, no matter how great the injustice!

And how does our "Justice" system enforce feminist public policy?


Let's turn to the unflappable Baskerville for his perspective on the multi-headed Hydra of the divorce, child support, and domestic violence Regime which has wrought terror to countless souls:

... Unilateral divorce (and the feminist inescapably involves government agents forcibly removing legally innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It inherently abrogates not only the inviolability of marriage but the very concept of private life.

By far the most serious consequences involve children, who have become the principal weapons of the divorce machinery. Invariably the first action of a divorce court, once a divorce is filed, is to separate the children from one of their parents, usually the father. Until this happens, no one in the machinery acquires any power or earnings. The first principle and first action of divorce court therefore: Remove the father.

This happens even if the father is innocent of any legal wrongdoing and is simply sitting in his own home minding his own business. The state seizes control of his children with no burden of proof to justify why. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) falls on the father to demonstrate why they should be returned.

Though obfuscated with legal jargon (losing “custody”), what this means is that a legally unimpeachable parent can suddenly be arrested for seeing his own children without government authorization. Following from this, he can be arrested for failure or inability to conform to a variety of additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him. He can be arrested for domestic violence or child abuse, even if no evidence is presented that he has committed any. He can be arrested for not paying child support, even if the amount exceeds his means (and which may amount to most of his salary). He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or a psychotherapist he has not hired.

The New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell.” Take the case of Marvin Singer, who was jailed without trial for not paying an attorney he never hired $100,000—only half of what the court claimed he “owes.” In Virginia, one father was ordered to pay two years’ worth of his salary to a lawyer he also did not hire for a divorce he did not request. Once arrested, the father is summarily jailed. There is no formal charge, no jury, and no trial.

Family court judges’ contempt for both fathers and constitutional rights was openly expressed by New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell: “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating,” he told his colleagues at a judges’ training seminar in 1994. “Throw him out on the street. . . . We don’t have to worry about the rights.”

Generated Hysteria

Why do we hear almost nothing about this? Aside from media that sympathize with the divorce revolution, the multi-billion-dollar divorce industry also commands a huge government-funded propaganda machine that has distorted our view of what is happening.

The growth of the divorce machinery during the 1970s and 1980s did not follow but preceded (in other words, it generated) a series of hysterias against parents—especially fathers—so hideous and inflammatory that no one, left or right, dared question them or defend those accused: child abuse and molestation, wife-beating, and nonpayment of “child support.” Each of these hysterias has been propagated largely by feminists, bar associations, and social work bureaucracies, whose federal funding is generously shared with state and local law-enforcement officials.

The parent on the receiving end of such accusations—even in the absence of any formal charge, evidence, or conviction—not only loses his children summarily and often permanently; he also finds himself abandoned by friends and family members, parishioners and pastors, co-workers and employers (and he may well lose his job)—all terrified to be associated with an accused “pedophile,” “batterer,” or “deadbeat dad.”

It is not clear that these nefarious figures are other than bogeymen created by divorce interests, well aware that not only the public generally but conservatives and family advocates in particular are a soft touch when it comes to anything concerning irresponsible behavior or sexual perversion.

Christians are especially vulnerable to credulity about such accusations, because they are disposed to see moral breakdown behind social ills. Moral breakdown certainly does lie behind the divorce epidemic (of which more shortly), but it is far deeper than anything addressed by cheap witch-hunts against government-designated malefactors.

It is also largely credulity and fear that leads Congress by overwhelming majorities to appropriate billions for anti-family programs in response to these hysterias. The massive federal funds devoted to domestic violence, child abuse, and child-support enforcement are little more than what Phyllis Schlafly calls “feminist pork,” taxpayer subsidies on family dissolution that also trample due process protections. Family law may technically be the purview of states, but it is driven by federal policies and funded by a Congress fearful of accusations that it is not doing enough against pedophiles, batterers, and deadbeats.

In fact, each of these figures is largely a hoax, a creation of feminist ideology disseminated at taxpayers’ expense and unchallenged by journalists, academics, civil libertarians, and family advocates who are either unaware of the reality or cowed into silence. Indeed, so diabolical are these hysterias that some family advocates simply accept them as additional evidence of the family crisis.

But while sensational examples can be found of anything, there is simply no evidence that the family and fatherhood crisis is caused primarily or even significantly by fathers abandoning their families, beating their wives, and molesting their children. Irrefutable evidence indicates that it is driven almost entirely by divorce courts forcibly separating parents from their children and using these false accusations as a rationalization...

And just so we can keep things in perspective, I would invite you to watch these videos to see what we do to men who disobey the Matriarchal State.

And guess what... you might be next.

Now it should be noted that I have written much about the destruction of the black American family. It is a dead institution; so ancient and forgotten that it has become the stuff of myth and legend. Tourists flock to museums where artifacts related to it are on ready display, drawing huge crowds...

Sorry, sorry. I'm getting a little carried away here. My sincerest apologies.

Anyway, the feminist Matriarchal regime has done a thorough job in grinding the Male led African-American family into the dust. And, thanks to a host of child support, domestic violence, vice and divorce laws, the chances are extremely high that a black man (or any man for that matter) who attempts to express his fundamental biological imperatives to mate, procreate, and marry will be severely punished for doing so.

Let us count the ways:

"Doing the Right Thing" and getting married + American woman in the Feminized West = Eventual trip to Divorce Court.

Avoiding marriage and the Divorce Courts + having children out of Wedlock in the Feminized West = Eventual trip to Child Support Court.

Failure to keep up with Child Support payments = Poverty and Imprisonment.

Living in close proximity with a woman in the Feminized West = High probability of ending up in Domestic Violence Court (for violations both real and imagined, mostly imagined).

Paying a woman for no-strings-attached sex = High probability of ending up in a criminal court. Poverty and Imprisonment soon follows.

Smoking a little Bud to cope with the stress brought on by marriage, being a father, or living with an American woman = Extremely high risk of Poverty and Imprisonment.

So it really doesn't matter how a black man chooses to relate to the opposite sex in the Matriarchal West... his probability of running afoul of feminist public policy is ridiculously high. And once he does, his honor, his livelihood, his children, and his liberty will most likely be confiscated by the Regime.

So what's the point of trying to form stable relationships and families? Why do the right thing when all of the institutions in society are set up to work against you? Why is society so hypocritical, urging young men to mate, marry, and procreate, and then punishing them when they do?

How is the average man supposed to deal with all of these contradictions? How can a man accept that society has basically set him up for failure?

What would you do if you found your entire world crashing around you? How would you cope if you all of a sudden found out that the entire world is against you? Accusing you of being a wicked, evil, frightening, or malevolent person? Discriminating against you simply because you had the terrible misfortune of being born a man?

What would you do?


WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

I'm not saying that anyone is in the right if they commit violent acts, like Mr. Danny Platt is accused of doing. Indeed, if Mr. Platt is guilty of murdering his son because he refused to pay child support, he will find that God will punish him greatly for violating the Universal Law in so heinous a way.

However.

We need more information here. Was he pushed to the edge? Did he act out of desperation? Is there more to this case than meets the eye? Did the mother of the child use the boy as leverage to dominate, humiliate, and control Mr. Platt as so many mothers are apt to do these days?

Did the overwhelming onslaught of the feminist Matriarchal Juggernaut get the best of him? Did overzealous Child Support Enforcement workers decide to loot Mr. Platt's pockets until nothing but lint was left in them?

Maybe we will never know all the answers to these questions. But it is obvious to me that we need to go deeper into this mystery.

Our Matriarchal feminist public policy has very serious, sometimes deadly consequences. Our feminist experiment has unleashed unintended outcomes that have cost our society dearly... financially, morally, spiritually, politically, and socially.

We need to start asking why shocking stories like these are coming to light more and more often. We should be asking ourselves the question:

What would make a man commit such a violent act against his own seed?

A critical and honest search for the answer to this question leads directly to feminist public policy; a harsh and hypocritical system which has stifled all dissent and suspended all attempts at rational examination.

Again and again, I submit that this public policy is hateful, biased, untrue, and useless. Society does not want what feminism has wrought; however most are too ignorant to see that the corruption comes from Fiat Financed feminist public policy. They have been brainwashed into defending a corrupt institution that creates the vast majority of their familial ills.

The herd doesn't see the predators nipping at their heels, until they feel the invisible and irresistible jaws of feminist public policy upon them.

And without any aid or comfort from their fellow sheep, they fall into the abyss.

We cannot excuse violent behavior, such as murder. We must arrest on probable cause, try according to Constitutional principles, and sentence those found guilty by a jury of their peers to the maximum penalty the law allows.

However. We must also examine the causes and motivations of violent acts. If we find, during the course of critical, honest, and open examination, that our institutions and culture create favorable conditions for criminal conduct of this nature, then we must act and purge the evil from our midst.

Failure to remove laws, policies, and institutions that contribute to tragedies such as these place all of society, and all of our children, at risk.

End Feminist Public Policy NOW.

Toku.

Perfect Storm: The Beginning of the End.

Gang,

I would like to begin this post with a press release issued by Mr. Roy Den Hollander, Attorney and Men's Right's Crusader:

"Men just don't count in the Federal District Court of New York.


In a December 3, 2008 decision, Federal Judge William Pauley III approved the U.S. Government's use of secret proceedings to find U.S. citizen husbands of alien wives guilty of battery. The proceedings are kept secret from only the husband, not the alien wives, various government officials or various Feminist groups.

In a slip-shod opinion that reflects Judge Pauley III's effort to give men's rights the bums rush out of his court, he ignored the law and invented facts because of the ever present bureaucratic zeal to curry favor with the Feminists.

The case challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA") that allow alien females to fraudulently gain U.S. citizenship by falsely accusing their U.S. husbands of battery. Under VAWA, the husband has no notice nor opportunity to refute the charges against him, the so-called evidence used for finding him guilty comes from his ex-wife, her immigration lawyer and feminist counselors. If by chance, the American man somehow gets evidence to the Government that shows his alien wife is lying, the evidence ends up in the garbage.

Judge Pauley III disdainfully brushed aside any concern for the rights of the husbands, which is common in the misandrist court of the Southern District of New York, to rule that such Nazi-like proceedings don't injure the husband. Think a minute—would you want the U.S. Government, listening only to your ex-wife, her lawyer and various feminists, to decide whether you committed felonies and misdemeanors against her. You know they are going to find you guilty because you're not there.

The Government then promises that no harm will come to you because all its findings will be kept secret, except from your ex-wife, her lawyer, various feminists, and local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Oh, and by the way, if any of the Government's decisions about you committing crimes leaks to the general public, there is not a damn thing you can do—legally. There are no lawsuits or administrative proceedings you can bring to correct the false record or keep it from being published. To judges like William Pauley III, such are not injuries because they are injuries to males not females.

But there's something more important than Judge Pauley III's spinning of the law to favor feminists—ask yourself, does this Government process seem fair to you. "The heart of the matter is that democracy implies respect for the elementary rights of men, however suspect or unworthy those men may be; a democratic government must therefore practice fairness; and fairness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 170 (Frankfurter J., concurring)(1951).

Where's Felix Frankfurter when justice needs him?

Please visit Mr. Hollander's website for more information and documents concerning his VAWA challenge.

This blogger has to give madd RESPECT to the good counselor for making the high profile effort to challenge this discriminatory legislation through the American feminist legal system. Thank you sir, for your efforts.






Feminism: the highest law of the land.






Unfortunately, as I stated in my previous post on The Law, the issue of whether men have constitutional rights that should be upheld even in the face of bigoted, misguided, and ill-informed opposition has long been settled.

Allow me to state my position once more: MEN IN THE FEMINIZED WEST HAVE NO NATURAL RIGHTS. PERIOD.

Men are allowed to have rights so long as they do not go against what the Mob declares they should have. Our Democratic system, on many occasions has stated this to be so.

Indeed, feminism and anti-male hatred is a matter of public policy, to be upheld at all times and in all circumstances.

So what is public policy?

>A principle that no person or government official can legally perform an act that tends to injure the public.

Public policy manifests the common sense and common conscience of the citizens as a whole that extends throughout the state and is applied to matters of public health, safety, and welfare. It is general, well-settled public opinion relating to the duties of citizens to their fellow citizens. It imports something that fluctuates with the changing economic needs, social customs, and moral aspirations of the people. Public policy enters into, and influences, the enactment, execution, and interpretation of legislation.

Notice how the ideal of public policy directly contrasts with the Republican idea that men are entitled to fundamental, inalienable, natural rights which cannot be set aside or violated in any cases whatever.

Understand that we live in the Mob Rule of Feminized Democracy, and not in a Constitutional Republic as many of us have been led to believe.

Now some may ask, is feminism a "third pillar" of American public policy?

I would say that it is. Firstly, one must consider how whenever feminist family values and claims of equal protection and due process come into conflict in American courts of law, feminism almost always trumps any and all of its challengers.

Even if feminist policies violate the most sacred and time honored concepts of right and justice, it doesn't matter. Feminism, By Thunder, must not be harmed! The privileges of women must be upheld, no matter how great the injustice!

Secondly, consider the volumes of books devoted to this very idea, that feminist jurisprudence must overpower all opposition in order to secure the "liberation" of women.

So then, lets face facts. Feminism, domestic violence, restraining orders, the wage gap, the glass ceiling... everything about feminism that is largely based on lies, damned lies, and bullshit, is the highest and most important public policy objective in the United States, and the modern Western World. Men are second class citizens in all the ways that truly matter. Also, recognize that the legal subjection of men has been going on for a very long time. Nothing new to see here folks!

And finally, the solutions to our problems will not come from the White House, the Supreme Court, the Media, or Congress. Nor will they come from the Republican or the Democratic parties. The government and the mainstream political establishment has abandoned us. The halls of justice are closed; the spirit of the law having fled from the American courts long ago.

We are on our own gentlemen. The sooner we accept this, the better off we will be.

Now with all that said, I must confess that, as I type these words, I feel more and more irrelevant.

Why?

Because events are in motion, right now at this very moment, that will insure the complete obliteration of our corrupt and hypocritical feminist/fascist/socialist/globalist/platonic regime.

The people, holders of true power, are getting ready to experience a rude awakening.

Public policy, which has been a great enemy of men, is getting ready to morph into our best friend and ally.





When the power of Political Feminism will be broken.







(Niccolo Machiavelli)





Machiavelli, in his The Discourses, number 58, The Masses are more Knowing and more Constant than is a Price, speaking about the power of the Roman masses, notes that:

"But when it was necessary to take action against some powerful person, it did so... in the case of others who sought to oppress it. Also, when it had to obey dictators or consuls in the public interest, it did so (p. 252)."

The writer concludes:

"When the populace has thrown off all restraint, it is not the mad things it does that are terrifying, nor is of present evils that one is afraid, but what may come of them... ...The brutalities of the masses are directed against those they suspect of conspiring against the public good (p. 257)."

What I take from these passages are that the masses have the power to move heaven and earth for their own benefit whenever they please. Did not the Founding Fathers say that all political power is inherent in the People?

What is going on today is a function of ignorance. The masses have allowed themselves to be dumbed down into the Sheeple that they are today. Intentionally and unintentionally, the people find themselves wholly ignorant of how wicked their cultural, legal, religious and economic institutions have become. Much of the blame can be laid directly at the feet of America's public school system. When one learns who was behind the creation of our modern government schools, and who benefits from their existence, one will find that the ignorance of our People is far from accidental.

And, in spite of all the injustice that has been carried out in their name, the great mass of people in this country have managed to carve out decent lives for themselves. In spite of massive government and banking interventions into their lives, as well as the unchecked growth of feminist courts of plunder, they are more or less the captains of their destiny. Life, up until this point, has been fairly good.

However, the illusion of prosperity, plenty, and power is about to be shattered. Peak Credit, and all of the luxuries that will soon be out of reach, has arrived. When the full ramifications of this event are felt by the masses, unpredictable social change will manifest, seemingly overnight.

Using the dismemberment of the rights of men as an example, change on this front will come only when the people decide that feminist public policy is not in their best interests. When this shift occurs, the power of Political Feminism will be broken. On that happy day, feminist lobbyists will receive cordial handshakes, warm smiles, and promises to act on feminist public policies, but nothing will come of it. Throughout all of the corridors of power, the doors will be slammed shut on feminists like the tombs of the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs closed shut upon their mummies, not to be opened again for thousands of years.

It will take a moment of mass revelation for this to occur, and before such a paradigm shift happens, an event of biblical proportions; a Category 11 hurricane will need to descend upon the populace. Only an excruciating amount of misery will serve as the catalyst... Western Man, at this point, is too far gone for him to fix the error of his ways before calamity strikes.

Speaking of the mysterious power of Habitforce, writer and success pioneer Napoleon Hill explains:

" ... one may control one's earthly destiny to an astounding degree, simply by exercising the privilege of shaping one's thoughts. But once these thoughts have been shaped into definite patterns, they are taken over by the law of Cosmic Habitforce and are made into permanent habits, and they remain as such unless and until they have been supplanted by different and stronger thought patterns.

Now we come to the consideration of one of the most profound of all truths: the fact that most people who obtain the higher brackets of success seldom do so until they have undergone some tragedy or emergency which reached deeply into their souls and reduced them to that circumstance of life called "failure."

The reason for this strange phenomenon is readily recognized by those who understand the law of Cosmic Habitforce, for it consists in the fact that these disasters and tragedies of life serve to break up established habits--habits which have led eventually to the inevitable results of failure-- and thus break the grip of Cosmic Habitforce and allow these failures to formulate new and better habits.

We see the same phenomenon in the results of warfare. When nations or large groups of people so relate themselves that their efforts do not harmonize with the Divine Plan of nature, they are forced to break up their habits, by warfare or some other equally disturbing circumstances, such as business depressions or epidemics of disease, so that a new start may be made which conforms more nearly to Nature's ultimate and overall scheme (The Master Key to Riches, p. 438)."

And, in our modern times, Mr. Hill's theory of Habitforce is about to be put to the ultimate test.




All Hail the coming Depression!




As Americans look around them, they cannot help but notice that their religious, social, economic, and political institutions are falling apart before their very eyes.


Once mighty manufacturers beg for their financial lives on national television.

Record numbers of Americans are unemployed, and living on government aid.

Tent cities are the new housing boom as millions of properties are entering foreclosure.

The Federal Reserve is inflating the money supply like there's no tomorrow, setting the stage for hyperinflation if they screw up... which they probably will.

The total cost of massive multi-trillion dollar bailouts outstrips every major American spending initiative except World War II.

Financial writer Ty Andros, in his latest piece entitled The Crack Up Boom, Part XIII notes:

... let’s examine a recent missive from James Bianco at Bianco Research in Chicago:

“Jim Bianco of Bianco Research crunched the inflation adjusted numbers. The bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined:

* Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
* Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
* Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
* S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
* Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
* The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
* Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
* Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
* NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion (data courtesy of Bianco Research)

That is $686 billion less than the cost of the credit crisis thus far.

The only single American event in history that even comes close to matching the cost of the credit crisis is World War II: Original Cost: $288 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $3.6 trillion

The $4.6165 trillion dollars committed so far is about a trillion dollars ($979 billion dollars) greater than the entire cost of World War II borne by the United States: $3.6 trillion, adjusted for inflation (original cost was $288 billion).”

Thank you, James.

So the cost of the current crisis is greater than all of the above, including World War II, and can be expected to at least DOUBLE from here. And of course Bianco uses the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT measures of inflation, not the true numbers like we find at www.shadowstats.com . Now here’s the BAD news:

THESE NUMBERS DO NOT INCLUDE THE REST OF THE G7 and they are in as much or more trouble than the United States. The reality of this has just BEGUN to be felt. It has happened so fast that the ALTERED REALITY we will endure is only in its infancy!!!

As Mr. Andros stated above, the economic crisis isn't limited to the United States. And international troubles will only reinforce America's financial tsunami. After all, wasn't a One World Order the goal of all this anyway??

My wife (who holds a bachelor's degree in political science) and I often have conversations about whether or not the European Union will survive. My position is that the EU is headed for splitsville, and that the driving reason will be the upcoming economic collapse that will decimate European institutions and force some nations to quit the Euro [1][2] in the long run.

In his article entitled, European Banks to be Hit by Collapsing Emerging Markets, Mr. Jack Crooks writes:

"The news that gets lost in the cacophony of reports about the U.S. economy is this: Two major crises now hammering emerging nations:

First, sinking exports. Over the last few years, the historic economic growth in emerging markets like Ukraine, South Korea, the Czech Republic, Poland, and others was driven almost entirely by demand for their exports from the U.S. and Europe.

Now, with the U.S. and Eurozone economies sliding, that demand has started to evaporate. And because these countries have little domestic demand to drive their economies, they've suddenly been thrown into a struggle for their very survival.

Second, plunging oil. As the economic crisis has slashed oil prices by nearly two-thirds, oil-producing emerging nations — Russia, Venezuela, Ecudor and others — are suddenly starving for cash to pay their bills.

Combined, these two events are now conspiring to set off a chain reaction that will bring the biggest creditors to these emerging markets — such as Europe and the UK — to their knees. When the history books are written, two key dates will be cited as moments when critical warnings were clearly telegraphed, duly recorded and promptly ignored until it was too late:

Key Date #1: Thursday, November 13. Seventeen days ago, the government of Ecuador failed to pay interest on bonds it had sold to investors. Citing plunging oil revenues, the government postponed its interest payments for a full month.

Key Date #2: Monday, December 15. Fifteen days from today, Ecuador must make those interest payments plus interest for the month of November. If it fails — if Ecuador defaults on its government bonds — it's could be first the domino in a chain reaction of government debt defaults that will sweep the globe...

... A few days ago, leaders from 21 nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and three other international organizations attended an emergency, two-day summit to address the catastrophe among emerging nations. Japan pledged $100 billion for emergency loans to the governments of South Korea, India, Indonesia and other economies and urged other potential donor nations to do the same.

Similar stories can be told about dozens of emerging economies throughout Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America: They're drowning in debt they built up during the good times … and now, with their exports vanishing before their very eyes, their economies are cratering.

Why should we care that these emergency economies are on the verge of collapse?

Because …

European Banks Loaned These Countries A Staggering $3.5 Trillion. When They Go Down, So Will Europe's Largest Banks!

Fortunately for us, U.S. banks loaned only $500 billion to these emerging markets and Japanese banks loaned them only $200 billion. But European banks loaned them a whopping $3.5 trillion — five times more than the U.S. and Japan combined.

Amazingly, European banks loaned these countries amounts so large they're the equivalent of a whopping 21% of their Eurozone's total GDP, according to Bank for International Settlements. And when you look at individual countries, the numbers are even larger:

In Sweden, banks loaned an amount equal to 25% of that country's GDP …

Swiss banks loaned the equivalent of 50% — fully HALF — of Switzerland's total GDP …

And Austrian banks loaned an amount equal to 85% that nation's GDP — with 80% going to the countries in Eastern Europe that are now suffering the greatest economic pain of all! ..."

Now add into the mix a Quadrillion dollars worth of derivatives, Credit Default Swaps, and other financial insanity hidden deep within the massive amounts of liabilities that banks and other economic players owe other institutions, and we could easily be on the verge of a worldwide financial meltdown that, quite frankly, scares the crap out of me!

All it takes is just one failed bank, or one bankrupt hedge fund, and economic Armageddon would be all but assured. And please keep in mind that, even if the Fed and other central banks decide to print trillions of dollars to save vulnerable institutions, it is the fundamental law of accounting that every debit entry have a corresponding credit entry. In other words, all of these trillions of dollars will eventually end up on somebody's balance sheet... most likely the taxpayers.

Which of course will lead to the endgame: A U.S. Bond Market/U.S. Dollar crisis. But that happens later.

Speaking of the U.S., we should also remember that the government bodies must responsible for upholding and enforcing feminist tyranny, i.e. State and Local governments, are also feeling the squeeze in a major way.

From Mish's post entited, Avalanche Of Fiscal Irresponsibility Hits California:

The California budget deficit is now $11 billion, on a path to $28 billion. Given that it's no longer possible to put this crisis off, Schwarzenegger declares fiscal emergency.

With time and money running out for California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a fiscal emergency today and called legislators into a new special session that won't end until they agree on a way to trim the state's $11.2 billion budget deficit.

"Without immediate action, our state is headed for a fiscal disaster" in which California could run out of money to pay its bills by late February, the governor said in a news conference in Los Angeles.

He compared the growing deficit, which could reach $28 billion by 2010, to an avalanche gaining momentum, and he slammed the Legislature, Democrats and Republicans both, for not coming up with any solutions during a special session that ended Nov. 25...

Feminists rely on State and Local governments to pass and enforce a host of feminist friendly legislation including restraining order and domestic violence laws. However, these governmental units are falling upon hard times themselves, and their budget constraints are only going to increase in the coming years.

And, seeing as how feminist public policy wastes billions of dollars, methinks that, when the pain and anguish of maintaining our present system becomes unbearable, the politicians will be forced to do the right thing and chart a more pro-male and family friendly course of action. They won't do it because they have seen the light and are now ready to do the right thing, but they will do it because if they don't have their best and brightest men actively engaged in marriage, family life, child-rearing, and industry, then the nation will simply not survive. Already we see the impact this crisis is having on divorce rates, and other widespread changes will occur in the fullness of time.

I expect to see laws that currently discriminate against men, families and marriage be amended or repealed, quietly, over the coming decades. And, one fine day, the masses and the elite will join forces to toss feminist family values to the scrap heap, to rot in the afternoon sun.



I for one, can't wait.






Conclusions.






We have examined feminism, public policy, and the law and found each of them wanting.

In every respect, none of these upholds the true spirit of Justice as defined by Mr. Frederic Bastiat's essay, The Law.

At the present time, Mens Rights Activists should educate, debate, expose, and attack at every opportunity. At this stage of the game, raising awareness of the issues, with a vigorous counterattack against feminist ideology, is the best way to take the fight to our enemy. It goes without saying that high profile lawsuits, public protests, and well researched books and publications are also highly effective.

Now is the time to get our message out, to offer a positive alternative to the ruling party line, and now is the time to base our theory upon solid and irrefutable ground.

In the meantime, those who promote feminist jihad, as well as those who buy feminist bullshit hook, line and sinker, will only be convinced of the wrongness of their ways by the disaster they bring upon themselves. As was said previously, feminism is against nature, and violates the Universal Law. Therefore, it has already sown the seeds of its own destruction, and the best thing we as enlightened men can do is to simply get the hell out of the way, and whenever and however we can, help push the feminist/globalist/socialist/fascist Superexpress right over the edge of the Grand Canyon.

Little by little, this blog is becoming dated and irrelevant. Human beings are ever so slowly beginning to find their way home. Most people are already relearning the ancient lessons; that men and women need each other, that strong families are the basis for a strong nation, and no one loves you or cares about you more than your kith and kin. It's just a matter of time before public policy, and the laws that uphold it, catch up to the new reality.

So breath easy. It's only a matter of time before the Universal Law is enforced, with spectacular judgment for those who have ignored it for so long.

Toku X.

Obama's Victory: The Aftermath.

Another week has come and gone, and as usual, there's a lot to talk about.



Without further ado...



Obama: The Nation's Sixth Black President?



Well gang, I don't need to tell you that Barack Obama has been elected President of the United States.







As a man with Mozambican, Columbian, Irish and German ancestry, I definitely appreciate the significance of this moment.

Forty or so odd years ago, black people weren't allowed to sit at certain restaurant counters, or to use specific bathrooms. And now, we have the first obviously black President-elect.

Why did I say obviously?

Well dear reader, the Kidd does his homework. And I know that there have been other black Presidents who have been elected to office, if we apply the traditional understanding [a][b] that a single drop of black blood makes a person black. Click here for more info on our other "black" Presidents [c][d][e]

Some have asked me why I don't focus more on race and racism instead of holding women and feminists accountable for their destructive ways.

The short answer is, while racism is still alive and well, the question of which racial group is superior, or chronicling the ignorance of what people do to one another in the name of "(fill in racial group) power" is the lesser of more important evils at this point, and the election of Senator Obama goes a long way towards bolstering my position. The question of Racism is not that important to me in comparison with the wholesale discrimination Men receive in the Matriarchal West.

The facts are that blacks and whites have a very long and intimate history, from ancient times [1] to this very day. In suffering and in pleasure, black and white Americans are a great deal closer than many would be prepared to believe or to accept [f][g].

Close and critical examination of the history of American slavery will find that there are two outside groups whose role in this evil institution is seldom acknowledged and little understood, causing more confusion for black and white Americans alike.













Consequently, I view feminism as the greatest threat that Men of all stripes and colors face today, because it is a silent oppressor that robs us of our children and our livelihood, our Natural Rights and our Honor. Therefore, this is where I direct my energy. However, I am well aware that racism exists amongst all classes of people, and I support the efforts others are making to combat this ignorant way of thinking, so long as the free speech rights and responsibilities of other people are not suppressed in the process.

I should also add that just because a group of people of common ancestry wants to celebrate or take pride in that culture or ancestry does not equate to racism in all cases. I believe people should be proud of the good things that their ancestors have contributed to the world, and its simply not true that someone who is proud of their heritage is automatically hateful towards everyone else. People should take refuge in the deeds and sayings of their ancestors, so long as they don't fall into the trap of insulting (ethnic group X) in order to elevate their own status. This evil attitude is responsible for much suffering in the world.

As for me, being a multi-racial individual, I am comfortable with all aspects of myself, and I pay homage to all of my ancestors accordingly. It is my opinion that if all people understand where their people came from, and acknowledge and respect ALL of their ancestors of whatever origin, then a lot more people would be more comfortable "in their own skin."

And finally, I disagree with those who argue that multiculturalism means that all cultures are exactly the same, that everyone has to act in a certain homogeneous manner, and that the negative qualities of a culture have to be accepted without a peep of criticsm or evaluation.

There are differences and tendencies across cultures and groups that I have observed with my own eyes. I know that the English and the French have differing perspectives on various issues, that Koreans tend to be more musical and rhythmic than their Japanese cousins, and that black Americans have always had a love affair with music and spiritual matters.

There is room to be different, and it is dangerous to place people into neat little categories and keep them there by force, because generalities do not apply to all persons at all places and at all times.

For these and other reasons, the basic rights and responsibilities of all men need to be upheld and enforced. In a free society, individuals will pursue their chosen goals with passion and purpose, individuals will be able to make contributions that benefit the greater society, and truly diverse nations, who can draw upon the combined strengths of individuals and groups, will outperform their more homogeneous peers.

Hopefully, in post Obama America, we can begin to work towards realizing the Dream: True, complete, and just equality under the law, the ironclad guarantee of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for all individuals without respect to race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or political worldview, and the absence of "special rights" for specific groups that have led to much suffering and strife throughout American history.






Obama's Priorities.



Before I begin my thoughts on the subject, please listen to this segment from the Financial Sense crew. Their analysis is spot on, and form the backbone of today's discussion. My commentary builds off of their central theme: the Financial Crisis will greatly constrain the new President's political objectives.

The utter breakdown of families in the real world (the true engine of real and sustainable economic wealth and prosperity) due to feminism, cheap money and credit, government interventions in the marketplace (see Ron Paul's Pillars of Prosperity, p. 313), and massive amounts of anti-family propaganda, has led to the manifestation of a consumer driven economic downturn that the world hasn't seen for decades.

As the Financial Sense commentators noted, in addition to banks requiring massive cash infusions, State and local governments, automobile manufacturers, and other entities will need trillions in aid.

And one false move on the part of the Obama team could lead to either a massive selloff of U.S. dollar denominated assets, leading to a dollar collapse, or a deflationary depression (see Youtube video below) that would cause all manner of havoc.







In short, the economy is going to take up much of Obama's time.




Obama's Precarious Position.



Mr. David Hass has written a very interesting article posted on Market Oracle.uk entitled, 2008 Election Shocker! NOTA Wins by a Landslide:

IMPORTANT UPDATE: 9am EST, November 6th, 2008 - The voting counts are now closing in on their final percentages and here is the latest approximate tally based upon a known U.S. voting-age population of 231,229,580 and currently-estimated voter turnout of 133,300,000:


97,929,000 - 42.35% - NOTA
63,500,000 - 27.46% - OBAMA
55,800,000 - 24.13% - MCCAIN
14,000,000 - 06.05% - OTHER

The author continues:

... When pushed to talk about his “stand” on “the issues” or describe his philosophical “platform” NOTA answers, tersely if not impatiently: “My stand? The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights spells it all out concisely and clearly for all of us so, if you're not familiar with what they say, I suggest you run - don't walk - and go read them both.” “My platform? It couldn't be simpler… Do not harm others. Mind your own business. Keep your own house in order. Live and let live. Clean up your own messes. Do all that you say you will do. Love your neighbors and your country. Always play fair with others. Be nice and be generous - in deed and in spirit.” Indeed. Words of profound wisdom seldom heard in the cacophony of the modern-day political carnival.

So, exactly who is this NOTA character? NOTA is the consistent winner in each and every election held in the United States in modern times. In fact, NOTA has probably dominated every election since 1900 or before. NOTA is more commonly known as NONE OF THE ABOVE. And, whether you like him or not, NOTA is the preferred choice of the preponderance of voting-age and voting-eligible Americans.

Here are the recent facts, according to an ongoing research project conducted by the Department of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University there were:

231,229,580 - 2008 Total U.S. Voting Age Adults (known)
213,005,467 - 2008 Total U.S. Voting Eligible Adults (known)
133,300,000 - 2008 Total Voter Turnout (projected based on results observed)

UPDATE: 2008 Could Mark Highest Voter Turnout Rate Since 1968

Observation #1. In 2008, a presidential year, 57.6% of voting-age adults voted.
Observation #2. In 2006, a non-presidential year, 37.1% of voting-age adults voted.
Observation #3. In 2004, a presidential year, 55.4% of voting-age adults voted.
Observation #4. In 2000, a presidential year, 50.0% of voting-age adults voted.

What immediately becomes clear is “to not vote is still a form of a vote”. It is still a personal statement. It should still be counted (and it is by the likes of the researchers at George Mason University) and, since these are our fellow Americans, their voices should still matter...

Please note that a total of 167.7 MILLION people, or 79% (167,729,000/213,005,467) of the voting age adult population "voted" against Obama! Among those who showed up to cast a ballot, 69,800,000 people, or 52% of the voters, voted against Obama.

And so, while Obama has a friendly Congress to work with, and may end up appointing hardcore Leftists to the Supreme Court (furthering consolidating his power), upon closer analysis, Obama is much weaker than he appears to be.

Any leftist misadventures, such as the passage of blatantly discriminatory, in-your-face, anti-male and pro-feminist legislation, such as a nationwide "Man-Collar" program, or any attempts to take guns away from the citizenry, could very well cost him control of Congress during the 2010 midterm elections. Significant ideological campaigns against the Sovereign People will most definitely help him become a One-Term Wonder.

Domestically, Obama has the wind to his back. But if he thinks that he can do whatever he wants and alienate the vast majority of Americans who did not elect him, he is in for a very rude awakening, which could come within two short years.




Obama's International Challenges.




The private intelligence group Stratfor, writing for Market Oracle, notes that:

... Obama will have many options on domestic policy given his majorities in Congress. But his Achilles' heel, as it was for Bush and for many presidents, will be foreign policy. He has made what appear to be three guarantees. First, he will withdraw from Iraq. Second, he will focus on Afghanistan. Third, he will oppose Russian expansionism. To deliver on the first promise, he must deal with the Iranians. To deliver on the second, he must deal with the Taliban. To deliver on the third, he must deal with the Europeans...

... As with all American presidents (who face midterm elections with astonishing speed), Obama's foreign policy moves will be framed by his political support. Institutionally, he will be powerful. In terms of popular support, he begins knowing that almost half the country voted against him, and that he must increase his base. He must exploit the honeymoon period, when his support will expand, to bring another 5 percent or 10 percent of the public into his coalition. These people voted against him; now he needs to convince them to support him. But these are precisely the people who would regard talks with the Taliban or Iran with deep distrust. And if negotiations with the Iranians cause him to keep forces in Iraq, he will alienate his base without necessarily winning over his opponents...

... Obama must deal with extraordinarily difficult foreign policy issues in the context of an alliance failing not because of rough behavior among friends but because the allies' interests have diverged. He must deal with this in the context of foreign policy positions difficult to sustain and reconcile, all against the backdrop of almost half an electorate that voted against him versus supporters who have enormous hopes vested in him. Obama knows all of this, of course, as he indicated in his victory speech.

We will now find out if Obama understands the exercise of political power as well as he understands the pursuit of that power. You really can't know that until after the fact. There is no reason to think he can't finesse these problems. Doing so will take cunning, trickery and the ability to make his supporters forget the promises he made while keeping their support. It will also require the ability to make some of his opponents embrace him despite the path he will have to take. In other words, he will have to be cunning and ruthless without appearing to be cunning and ruthless. That's what successful presidents do.

Cunning and ruthless. Very Machiavellian.


In any event, the new President has many challenges to deal with. With any luck, this will keep the Joe-Bama team busy, and will put their pro-feminist and anti-male agenda on the back burner for a time.

Realistically speaking, however, feminists will push hard for "reforms" and additional funding in an attempt to solidify their political position. They are well aware that their power is diminishing. Events beyond their control are stripping them of their influence. Ever so slowly, feminist opponents are making headway in the courts. Amazingly, even the feminized, man unfriendly Republican party might decide to champion Men's rights and pro-family policies, providing men with a nationwide vehicle to directly oppose feminist tyranny.

They know things are beginning to unravel... this is why the femmes have redoubled their blogging, their brainwashing, and their political efforts in a futile quest to hold on to power.

They aren't going out without a fight, and those of us who oppose them MUST do everything in our power to defeat them. Be it blogging, Youtubing, joining other like minded organizations, educating others about the cause of Men's Rights, or running for political office, IT IS TIME THAT MEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS STOP PROTESTING FROM THE WILDERNESS, AND SEEK POLITICAL POWER, AS WELL AS FORMING COALITIONS IN ORDER TO FURTHER OUR AGENDA. Instead of running away from the system, we need to actively take it over in order to hasten the changes we seek.

The feminists have gotten this down to an exact science, and MRAs need to do the same. Please watch the video below for a more through explanation of what I'm getting at.







Conclusion.




From the beginning of Mr. Obama's rise to power, this blog has warned about his globalist connections, and his anti-male rhetoric.

And here we are. President Elect Obama is poised to take the world by storm. How successful he will be in implementing his political ambitions is largely based on outside forces beyond his direct control. It will be an interesting time, and those of us who value true freedom and equality will be watching for any opportunities to advance the cause of freedom at the President's expense.

I would like to leave you with these videos featuring Dr. Ron Paul. His comments on Obama will prove to be prophetic, in my opinion.











There's no time for sleep friends... keep your eyes open.

Toku.

Little Known Political Facts.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Seeing as how Election Day is rapidly drawing near, I've decided to post some interesting videos outlining the history of the Republican and the Democratic parties with respect to the protection of the Natural Rights of black Americans, along with some interesting links from Mises.org and ABC's 20/20 program.




The Racist Democratic Party?



Before we go further, I'd like to make some disclosures.

I am a member of the National Rifle Association. I am not a member of the Republican, Democratic, or any other Party. I am not Conservative in the modern sense, nor am I a Liberal, as they are defined today.

I am a Classical Liberal.

By posting these videos, I am not implying that the Republican Party is "better" than the Democratic Party, and I also recognize that there have been considerable shifts in the political philosophies of both parties over time. The Democrats of today are not necessarily the Democrats of yesterday, and vice versa.

However, the ideas and actions of yesterday give birth to the ideas and actions of today. In a sense, they are related, and as such, traces of the ancestors can be witnessed in the thoughts, words, and deeds of the descendants.

As an example, by understanding the background and core philosophy of the Democrats of old, we can understand why the Democratic Party champions certain policies that are ruinous to the health and well-being of black Americans in our modern day.

I also want to stress that, since political parties stand for different things in different eras, it is crucial that the individual should not blindly swear allegiance to any one organization or group.

Each person should remain neutral and dispassionate while carefully examining each candidate and political group to see if their beliefs and objectives are consistent with the Universal Laws that lead to Life, Liberty, Happiness, Justice, and Wealth. If there is harmony, then one should commit themselves to supporting that particular person or group.

I say again, blind allegiance to any political group is dangerous, and must be avoided under all circumstances. This advice is especially intended for Men, because we as a group have no friends supporting our interests, and many detractors who want to strip away the few liberties we have left. Men, at this stage in our history, should consider themselves as minorities desperately in need of protection.

If you picture yourself as a hated and despised minority while watching these videos, Dear Reader, then what these people have to say should become much more relevant to you.


In any event, check 'em out:













This last video may come as a surprise to many... but not to me. My family is very political, with several members being government employees, police officers, and elected officials. My grandfather was the first black Republican elected official in the history of my city. In my generation, my politically connected family members are Democrats who reserve the right to vote Republican when it is in their best interests.













Interesting, is it not? It's amazing what schools don't teach when it comes to political history.




Lincoln vs. The Constitution.





(President Abraham Lincoln)


One of the above videos stated that Lincoln fought the Civil War (or The War Between the States as some call it) in order to end slavery, and because he had a deep and sincere desire to help the black man out. Unfortunately, this was not at all the case [a].

In the interest of accuracy, and a greater desire to understand our Constitutional process, I would like for you to listen to this lecture hosted by Mises.org entitled Lincoln vs. the Constitution.

As the talk explains, among Lincoln's critics of the handling of the war was Lysander Spooner, a famous abolitionist who argued quite eloquently that slavery was unconsitutional. He argued that Lincoln's actions during the war violated the Supreme Law of the Land, and that his commitment to end slavery and secure the liberty of millions was secondary to his desire to strengthen the national government at the expense of the Constitution and the States.

More tellingly, Mr. Spooner wrote an essay entitled, The Constitution of No Authority:

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago.

And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years.

And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves...

Blasphemy!

Or is it?




The Constitution, a Document of Freedom or Enslavement?





Spooner also points out:

... It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution – not as I interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those who pretend to administer it – the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall never be “questioned” as to any disposal they make of them...

...The Constitution itself, then, being of no authority, on what authority does our government practically rest? On what ground can those who pretend to administer it, claim the right to seize men's property, to restrain them of their natural liberty of action, industry, and trade, and to kill all who deny their authority to dispose of men's properties, liberties, and lives at their pleasure or discretion?...

... The whole affair (speaking of the Rothschilds and other powerful Money Lenders who financed the Civil War for profit - Toku), on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these purposes.

They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so-called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have “Abolished Slavery!” That they have “Saved the Country!” That they have “Preserved our Glorious Union!” and that, in now paying the “National Debt,” as they call it (as if the people themselves, all of them who are to be taxed for its payment, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting it), they are simply “Maintaining the National Honor!”

"By maintaining the national honor,” they mean simply that they themselves, open robbers and murderers, assume to be the nation, and will keep faith with those who lend them the money necessary to enable them to crush the great body of the people under their feet; and will faithfully appropriate, from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders, enough to pay all their loans, principal and interest.

The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of “maintaining the national honor.”

Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white (see here, here, and here for more information on white slavery - Toku). And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before.

There was no difference of principle – but only of degree – between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men’s natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.

If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result.

It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them...


... Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist...

(Robert LeFevre)


Turning back to Mises.org, we find two very interesting lectures by Mr. Robert LeFerve entitled Background to The Constitution and The Constitution Revisited.

Please take the time to listen, as these talks expound on Spooner's general thesis: that the Constitution, and our political order in general, isn't designed to guarantee the Natural Rights of Liberty coupled with Responsibility, but to encumber our freedom and provide ever increasing amounts of power to the central government, which may have been the desire of the Federalist founding fathers from the beginning.

MRAs, in particular, will note how Mr. Lefevre's explanation of how the Constitution's promise of ensuring "domestic tranquility" opens the door for government regulation of the home, via VAWA and all manner of Domestic Violence laws, is right on the money.

Along the same lines, Mises Scholar Thomas Woods explains in Who Killed the Constitution how the document, which is supposed to restrain the government and limit its authority, has been totally ignored or used as a justification for limiting the rights of the People, all the while expanding the power and privilege of Fedgov. It's a short, yet enlightening discussion.




Government Mostly Sucks, and Final Remarks.




As Election 2008 rolls around, we here at Togakure School have to state some unpleasant truths.

A) Government mostly sucks. Please see this video for an excellent example as to why:





B) The Constitution, as it is written, is meaningless in modern American political discourse.


C) The Constitution is a flawed document that allowed our Republic to become an Imperial Democracy (which is now experiencing its Death Throes).

D) Politicians, political parties, Big Businesses, and bankers have sold the American people into financial servitude, covered up their past misdeeds, and have thoroughly confused the electorate to the point where they believe black is white, up is down, and freedom is slavery.

In the final analysis, Men should be very careful as to whom they support when it comes to politics, finance, religion, or any other discipline that requires the work, resources, and allegiance of other men. Many of our thoughts and beliefs, when closely examined, turn out to be the stale and useless facts that others have implanted in our minds while we attended government run schools.

After much reading and meditation on the subject of man, economics, politics, and spirituality, I have come to the conclusion that Men have inalienable and natural rights given to them by God; and all of the Constitutions, laws, political parties, and social customs in the world cannot change this singular reality. In my view, the reason why the People are not free is due to their (intentional and unintentional) ignorance, and that most will not accept the responsibility that the exercise of their awesome powers bring.

Government, to be frank, has gotten too big for its britches. However, instead of abolishing it altogether, I believe that we need to cut it back down to size so that it only handles certain core functions.

These functions are:

A) The protection of life, property (which can never include human beings), and liberty,

B) Enforcement of the responsibilities that come with rights,

C) The establishment of impartial, fair, and open venues to adjudicate disputes with other people and entities, corporate or governmental.

Speaking of these organizations:

No Corporation, no Public Official, and no Governmental unit is above the law, and none of these can escape the review of the People. As a matter of fact, these entities exist to better the lives of men, and only exist at the pleasure of the people.

My attitude is that these groups are subordinate to me and to the public at large and, when they aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing, they should be prepared for harsh criticism, being booted out of office, or seeing me in court as I sue for relief.

I for one refuse to bow down or kiss the wide arses of political hacks and corporate raiders. If anything, government and business should be bending over backwards to be of service to the people, and to justify their very existence.

After a long time of study and life experience, I now understand that the only person on this Earth that is going to look out for my best interests is Yours Truly. Looking to politicians, presidential candidates, and CEOs to solve all of my problems is just asking for trouble, in my view.

No matter what happens this election, please recognize that Power serves those who are awake, aware, and knowledgeable. An enlightened and knowledgeable citizenry can amend or write a new Constitution that would, in precise and unalterable terms, seal the Demonic Beast of government back to the Fourth Dimension where it rightfully belongs.

New and better ways of appointing Representatives, Executives, and Judges can be devised. The rights and responsibilities of all people can be protected and enforced. Correct economic, monetary, and fiscal processes can be written into a new Supreme Law of the Land that will virtually ensure that the nation enjoys an unparalleled standard of living.

It can be done, and it's not impossible if we as a nation are willing to learn from our mistakes, do the right things, and avoid incorrect or ineffective adventures like the plague.

All of this can be done IF the masses become aware of the powers they posses, STOP giving their power away to those who would do them harm, and take action to insure that favorable developments come to pass.

Toku out.