Though many other evils exist, it is the wholesale destruction of children, families, and marriage by a false ideology that looms largest. Clearly the basic building blocks of our civilization are families and millennia of experience has taught us that children learn best, and accomplish most when raised by their father and mother in a patriarchal family. But the rise of radical feminism in the 1960's merged with the implementation of "no fault" divorce to begin destruction of children, families, and marriage on a previously unimaginable scale. As we move into the Third Millennia of the Christian Era approximately one-half of all marriages end in divorce and, as this is written, 38% of all children are born out-of-wedlock.
Since incorporating in 2001 the Equal Justice Foundation has repeatedly stated that under current laws a man has to be functionally insane to marry and a drooling idiot to sire a child. In his popular FredOnEverything column, Fred Reed made the same point in July 2003. In a November 11, 2007, newsletter, Dr. Stephen Baskerville, author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, again called attention to the problem, a situation our society cannot long sustain and survive.
The best history of how "no fault" divorce evolved that I'm familiar with is Judy Parejko's book Stolen Vows. She traces the corruption of the current law to the venal behavior of California Assemblyman James A. Hayes, who was appointed chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee in 1969 while undergoing a high-conflict divorce. Hayes used his position to advantage in his divorce but began the destruction of marriage in general. Dr. Baskerville gives credit for this evil to the National Assoc. of Women Lawyers (NAWL) and those redfems also certainly played a starring role in the destruction of marriage we are now witnessing. However, the origin of this societal disease can be traced to Marx and Engels who declared that "The class struggle begins in the family." Lenin furthered this Marxist ideology when he grabbed power in Russia and attempted to abolish marriage. But we certainly failed to learn from this historical failure in the Soviet Union.
It is no secret that radical feminism blames all the ills and misfortunes of women on the patriarchy. Because of this belief, in their ideology all women are victims and all men are batterers, which is a requirement in order for men to maintain their patriarchal privileges. Also, their dogma claims that all "domestic violence" results from "power and control" actions taken by males in order to preserve the patriarchy. Thus, based on feminist ideology, in order to gain equality for women it is necessary to eliminate the patriarchy and "restore" a more primitive matriarchal society.
This nonsense was sinking into well deserved oblivion until Erin Pizzey founded the first shelter for battered women in Chiswick, London, England in 1971, followed by the publication of her book, Scream Quietly Or The Neighbors Will Hear. As no civilized society tolerates violence against women within its midst, Pizzey's pioneering work gained worldwide support, including Queen Elizabeth II in England.
Unfortunately, radical, leftwing feminists (redfems) quickly seized the issue of violence against women for their own nefarious goals. When Erin Pizzey pointed out that women were at least as violent as men in intimate relationships, she was hounded into exile by the redfems, leaving them in clear possession of the now well-known and publicized "domestic violence" issue. Hardly the first time a legitimate social issue has been usurped by demagogues for their own purposes.
By the 1980s redfems had begun to form an unholy alliance with lawyers (always an easily corruptible class), legislative bodies (largely made up of lawyers), and the judiciary (more lawyers who are ready to eat their own if they don't conform) in the name of stopping "domestic violence."
The resultant destruction of families created employment for lawyers as guardian ad litems (GALs) and special masters to protect "the best interest of the child," "family" lawyers whose actual objective is to destroy families with maximum conflict and, hence, billable hours.
This despicable alliance also drew in, and financed an army of parasites: psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and similar ilk by the tens of thousands. These bottom feeders came in the guise of "chid protective services" (legalized kidnapping), "child support enforcement" (uses police to force fathers to pay for children stolen from them, or who might not even be their child), foster homes that have the humanity of puppy mills, child and family evaluators to ensure a family only behaves in a socialistically-acceptable manner, and administrators and teachers in politically-correct schools where children are routinely drugged and criminally charged at ages as young as 5 or 6 for innocent games children have played since time immemorial.
While this alliance has proven to be a financial bonanza for all players, criminal domestic violence (DV), exclusive of the normal disagreements many couples have, is quite rare, occurring in only about 4 out of 1,000 households (0.4%) in a given year, and there is no evidence that the draconian DV laws have had any effect on this problem. Note that I use Prof. Don Dutton's definition of a "batterer" as someone who repeatedly strikes or kicks an unresisting victim when speaking about "domestic violence." I have discussed in detail when interactions between a couple is not domestic violence, and when violence against a woman is justified and even required by law. But today every loud argument between a couple is classified as a criminal case of "domestic violence" or abuse.
Research has shown that "...Increases in willingness of prosecutors to take on protection order violations associated with increases in homicides of white married intimates, black unmarried intimates, and white unmarried females."
As noted above, half of all marriages now end in "no fault" divorce. New York Supreme Court Judge Brian Lindsay stated, "There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father, mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System." But this well suits redfem ideology whose objective is to destroy the patriarchy. Certainly if marriage is destroyed the patriarchy will fall.
Further, actual family violence is commonly associated with mental and medical problems, the cure for which are of little value to the DV industry and the "legal" system. Worse, the partner suffering the mental or medical problem is commonly the female. To circumvent these inconvenient facts, redfems and their allies have put forth an ever expanding definition of "domestic violence" and "domestic abuse" to keep their feeding at the public trough alive.
As the definition of domestic violence and abuse expanded, and ever more draconian laws were passed circumventing even the most basic protections of English law and the U.S. Constitution, it became convenient to use DV charges and restraining orders in divorce cases. By the 1990's the DV and divorce industry that burgeoned under "no fault" laws had effectively merged. That merger was of great financial benefit to both groups and, conveniently, acts to destroy the patriarchy.
After the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994 a clear pattern of legal abuse emerged so that today there is a standard script used to destroy children, families, and marriage. With variations we see the following pattern on a daily basis, and about 2 million men (and some women) in the United States go through some version of this nightmare every year:
Woman is tired of her marriage or boyfriend, or is having an affair and wants man gone, but doesn't want to lose the kids, the house, the car, the bank account, credit cards, etc. that she enjoys as a result of the marriage or shacking up.
She talks with an attorney, shelter worker, victim's advocate, or similar parasite, who advise her to take out a restraining order of file DV charges against her husband or boyfriend. They also tell her what to say, e.g., she is in "fear for her life," he is a "trained killer" due to his military service, he abuses her, she is suffering emotional harm, etc. Since perjury and subornation of perjury are virtually never punished, any lies will do and hearsay is admissible.
Since, by decree, he is branded as dangerous and violent, it is in "the best interests of his children" that he have no, or very limited contact and visitation with them. He certainly must not have primary custody of them.
His path will fork here. Most men will believe the lies the DA tells them about DV, or the restraining order violation, being simply a misdemeanor and take a plea bargain. Wrong again, and he surrenders all rights to appeal, to civil liberties, to professional licenses, security clearances, to even rent an apartment. The outcome is the same if he takes a bench trial before a judge, which is simply a long, slow way of pleading guilty.
A few will take the very wise course of pleading not guilty and demanding a jury trial. While this almost guarantees charges against him will eventually be dropped or he will be acquitted, he is going to have to spend a lot of money on an attorney. And finding a competent attorney is searching for a needle in a haystack. His hiring an attorney escalates the conflict and she is likely to get free legal assistance, particularly if criminal charges are brought against him. Nothing excites and enriches the "legal" profession more than two feuding attorneys.
Any assets either he or she have probably go to legal fees or survival. He lives in his car or with relatives, or becomes homeless. He can't pay child support because he is unemployed but that doesn't stop the court from "imputing" an income based on what the judge thinks he should be earning. When he can't pay he is placed in debtor's prison as a "deadbeat dad." Many times his only way out is suicide.
After taking everything she can from him, she shacks up with other men, who may really be abusive either to her or any children she has. In the meantime any medical or mental problems she has go untreated as, obviously, everything is the fault of her ex and she is fine.
The kids want Dad and become rebellious. She can't handle them and child abuse or neglect begins because there isn't any money. "Child Protective Service (CPS)" becomes involved. Of course no redfem CPS agent in her left mind would ever consider letting Dad take the kids. So, all too often, the kids end up in foster care, often a recipe for even more abuse and neglect. Don't look for many future scientists and engineers to emerge from kids who have been through this.
Probably half the people who read this script will react with something like: "Been there, done that!" But despite the incredible number of men and women who go through this nightmare every year we have found it virtually impossible to get citizens or legislators to believe how debased, dysfunctional, and evil our "legal" system has become unless, and until they or someone close to them becomes involved in one of these nightmares. And I have been astounded to find that even men caught up in such a legal nightmare are still denying its existence. Their reaction, though they are destitute and convicted by their own plea bargain, is a specious claim that they are going to sue. It is no wonder the courts mock them.
For skeptics, Dr. Stephen Baskerville has extensively documented this corruption in his recent book, Taken Into Custody. In it Baskerville considers Freud and his theory of patricide, but ignores the much greater influence of Freud's cousin, Edward Bernays, who created the field of public relations and its offshoot, the marketing of lifestyle and consumerism. Bernay's work, and that of his colleagues and disciples, provided means for crowd control and manipulation that have been successfully used by governments, redfems, and the divorce industry. One finds clear evidence of such manipulation in terms such as "deadbeat dads" and the government bureaucracy that is built around child support enforcement.
Unfortunately, those who work to preserve children, families, and marriage have not mastered the art of public relations or evolved the necessary catch phrases. "Shared parenting," often heard from father's rights groups, for example, contains the death of a marriage within it and inherently accepts defeat. And there is certainly no bureaucracy to carry the burden of family preservation, only to collect child support.
Ever expanding definitions of "domestic violence," "sexual assault," "rape," and "abuse" created a bonanza for prosecutors and judges. Begun by the War on Drugs in the 1970s, prosecutors found they were no longer bound by such outdated concepts as providing due process, establishing mens rea (guilty mind), and proving a crime was actually committed (actus reus). A simple claim by a woman, no matter how blatantly false, became sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Examples of prosecutorial excesses generated by lack of such restraints abound.
Perhaps the best current example is that of Mike Nifong in North Carolina and his prosecution of rape charges that he had to know were false. The books Dreams of Ada and John Grisham's The Innocent Man document convictions for murder of four innocent men in just the small town of Ada, Oklahoma by one obsessed district attorney. Another disgusting example is John "Chuck" Magera, state Dept. of Social Services attorney for South Carolina. Those are hardly exceptions of headline-seeking district attorneys.
In Taken Into Custody Dr. Baskerville documents in detail the sick, despicable, dangerous beast the "family courts" have become. Judges, who should be neutral arbiters of justice, have become the major support of divorce and DV industries whose objective is to entrap men by deceit, stealth, and surprise before they can mount a defense traditionally supplied by due process. Courts have abdicated their role in ensuring warrants were required before an arrest could be made, that prosecutors met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that property rights were honored, and to ensure that the rights of children and families to live their own lives was protected.
Attorney David Heleniak has shown how domestic violence and family courts have become modern Star Chambers, where the proceedings are secret and virtually no defense is possible. As the Star Chamber did in England during the 16 th and 17 th centuries, modern DV and family courts have become a byword for unfair judicial proceedings. Dean Roscoe Pound once said: "the powers of the star chamber were a trifle in comparison with those of our juvenile courts and courts of domestic relations."
In many cases under the guise of "the best interest of the child," courts have permitted "child protective services" to become little more than a rubber stamp for legalized kidnapping of children.
There is no better place to lay the problems with the destruction of children, families, and marriage today than on the courthouse steps. And my condemnation scarcely scratches the surface of court corruption.
As her humanitarian work was usurped by redfems, Erin Pizzey presciently noted that "Any country that has tried to create a political solution to human problems has ended up with concentration camps and gulags." With a current prison population of about 2.2 million men and women, we have reached that point.
It is characteristic of the authoritarian agents required to maintain gulags that they resort to brutality and torture. As they are nothing more than "deadbeat dads" and "wife beaters" in the totalitarian view of their jailers, men are tortured and beaten with nightsticks, pepper-sprayed, punched, tasered, have the nerves in their hands damaged by improperly applied handcuffs, subjected to sleep deprivation, hypothermia, and put in stress positions familiar to anyone who saw the Abu Ghraib pictures from Iraq.
One method of torture we have not heard of in use within the United States is waterboarding. But that may simply be incomplete data.
Ilana Mercer documents many such incidents in her article Tasers 'R' Us. In December 2007 the City of Chicago, Illinois, paid four former death row inmates $20 million to settle claims they were tortured by Chicago police and wrongly convicted.
While we've heard convincing stories from men in jails all across America about all these forms of torture, the one most commonly used appears to be hypothermia. Many jails in the United States have a "cold cell" where additional air conditioning ducts are run with cold air blasting the inmates. Sometimes they simply turn down the thermostat or heat isn't provided. The temperature in these cells seems to be about 50° and prisoners have only their jump suits for warmth, as no blankets are provided. A single day observing DV court in El Paso County (Colorado Springs), Colorado, was sufficient to find one case of such treatment. Another case in Christian County, Missouri, was reported to me while writing this. The best documented case, however, is in Charleston, South Carolina, where David Bardes was kept in a "cold cell" for three days, April 3-5, 2006, and nearly died. His ordeal is documented in his book The Public Trust: Statement of Fact.
There is little recourse and the public largely does not believe it because, as far as they are concerned, men who are being put in cold cells, tasered, sprayed, and beaten by police "must have done something wrong" to have gained the attention of the police and the courts. However, the major crime the men who contact the Equal Justice Foundation are guilty of is being a father.
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and George Orwell's 1984 seem eerily prescient in the new millennia. The names are changed but we have the endless war, the mindless demonization of an amorphous enemy, the ceaseless monitoring of citizens, the arbitrary detentions and torture, endless and meaningless government propaganda, men presumed guilty unless and until they can prove their innocence, secret courts, decisions based on emotions and feelings rather than logic and reason, the destruction of our basic industries, etc.
In addition, the destruction of the patriarchy, families, and marriage appears to be succeeding at a rate even the most rabid redfem hardly dared dream of. The results of the alliance of the DV and divorce industry can be seen in any inner city ghetto as DV laws are disproportionately enforced against minorities. For blacks "domestic violence" has become the new Jim Crow and the effects of family breakdown are glaringly evident in black communities.
Regardless of what good intentions feminists of the 1960s had, it has become a form of public welfare in which these looters obtain billions in public funds for the clear, if unstated, purpose of destroying children, men, and families. As a result, modern feminism has evolved two types of common, and readily recognizable, types of women:
Susie Looter: Susie is typically a lawyer, or in some other parasitic profession like victim's advocate (note that only women are "victims" ), social worker (CPS, CSE, or the like), but not a very good one. She has little knowledge of the law but an acid tongue and many cronies in the court. Susie probably has a Bachelor of Arts degree in sociology, psychology, or, god forbid, women's studies. But it is certain she doesn't have any formal training in deductive, inductive, or symbolic logic, which are outdated methods of the patriarchy and the antithesis of her existence. And while she constantly quotes statistics she has no training or experience with quantitative analysis. One constant with Susie is a desire to destroy the "patriarchy" that she claims oppresses and subjugates women. Like all zealots, any means of doing so are justified by her ideology. Men are going to pay for every real or imagined slight she has ever received.
Julie Moocher: In theory, Susie exists to serve the needs of Julie but, in practice, Susie is often Julie's worst enemy. Julie is divorced or a single mother with a couple of out-of-control kids of questionable paternity. She has probably shacked up with a number of men who are, of course, the cause of all her problems. If divorced she likely brought DV charges or got a restraining order against her ex, who is now unemployed and a "deadbeat dad" as a result. Commonly she has a substance abuse problem, alcohol, prescription or illegal drugs, which is someone else's fault, of course. On top of the substance abuse Julie is likely to have a personality disorder or other mental problems. However, the world owes her a living, an unquestioned presumption. But she has no education or experience and no interest in getting any. No matter what happens, or what she does, Julie is the "victim."
In the face of these conditions do you wonder why I think we have entered the realm of the surreal? And why am I asking: "Who is John Galt?" Because looters never have plans for the future, that would require logic and reason, and injure their feelings and emotions in the present. While the redfems are successfully destroying the patriarchy according to all available evidence, and supplanting it with matriarchies in our inner cities, I have pointed out that I can find no evidence that any matriarchy ever advanced beyond a Stone Age level of technology. Clearly the de facto matriarchies in our inner cities are rapidly regressing to that level but redfems will feed on the carcass of our patriarchal civilization until they have picked the bones clean. Then what? Throughout known history only patriarchal families have farmed, mined, built, and developed the technology on which our modern world rests.
I have no easy solutions and here I only outline the problem. My only defense against this darkness is to document it. The closest individual we have today to John Galt is Congressman Ron Paul . If his campaign succeeds a mighty burden will rest on him and I hope he can bear the burden of Atlas on his shoulders.
Dr. Corry is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America and an internationally-known earth scientist whose biography has appeared in Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in America, Who's Who in Science and Engineering, among others, for ten years.
After service with 1 st Marines he became involved with the early space program in 1960, doing preflight testing and failure analysis on Atlas and Centaur missiles, including all the Project Mercury birds. In 1965 he switched to oceanography and did research at both Scripps Institution in San Diego and Woods Hole Oceanographic on Cape Cod. He has also taught geophysics at university and worked as a research manager for a Fortune 500 company.
He has climbed high mountains, been shipwrecked and marooned on an unexplored desert island, ridden horseback through Utah, Arizona, and Colorado, among other adventures during his career.
His research on domestic violence resulted from the horrifying experience of watching his former wife, Theresa, go violently insane between 1995 and 1997. He began documenting the problems after being acquitted of DV charges she brought against him and two subsequent restraining orders were dismissed. She also stalked him for five years. That experience pushed him from an ivory tower into the DV script outlined above and the corruption of today's legal system.