Link Ph.D


——————————————————————————–

12 September 2006

Stephen Baskerville

The divorce regime is much more serious than simply “unfairness” or “gender bias” against fathers in custody proceedings. It is the government’s machine for destroying the principal check on its power – the family – and criminalizing its main rival: fathers. The most basic human and constitutional rights are routinely violated in America’s family courts. The lives of children and parents are in serious danger once they are, as the phrase goes, taken into “custody.” Systemic conflicts-of-interest among government and private officials charged with child custody, child support, child protection, and connected matters have created a witch hunt against plainly innocent citizens.

Stephen Baskerville’s site and articles may be reasonably familiar to many in the underground of the Matriarchy, but are worth linking too for those who have not encountered them.

Mr Baskerville’s writings are primarily concerned with US laws regarding divorce and child custody, but feminism and it’s hateful anti-family laws have been pasted thickly across most Western nations, especially the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and much of Europe, so his writings – particularly regarding why divorce and removing men from families is beneficial to power-hungry Big Governments – are still very important to those of us outside of the US but still – sadly – within the Matriarchy.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:31 PM


——————————————————————————–

At 3:47 AM, Anonymous said…

Men of the West generally are under attack (even India is seeing the growth of feminism). There’s something about the prosperity and inherent tolerance of the modern nations descended of imperial England that leaves us vulnerable. Different nations, same enemy: woman unfettered (and thus unhinged). I hate to admit this, but I’m starting to wonder if there’s an ancient reason that women were historically oppressed. Inborn urge to preserve the species from rampant, insatiable female greed?

You may not be my countrymen, but I sure as hell identify with your outrage.

Brother from the USA

——————————————————————————–

At 1:38 PM, Mystikan said…

Now there’s an interesting take on feminism. While I’ve known for a long time that the only reason feminists gained any real political power is that (the then male-dominated) governments pandered to their whims, I’d always considered that a prime motive for this was population control. My thoughts were that since people in the West refused to accept legislative restrictions on childbirth, then cultural engineering (in the form of feminism) was the only viable means of controlling population growth.

Shame on me. How could I, a lifetime devotee of George Orwell, have missed this? I suppose I’ve been so focussed on the population crisis (I’m also a member of VHEMT – the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement – see http://www.vhemt.org) that I failed to see the VERY obvious connection between elimination of the family and the ascendancy of government power. Even though Orwell EXPLICITLY describes this facet of power-mongering in Nineteen Eighty-Four! How could I have been so blind?

Thank you so much for pointing me to this. Kudos also to Stephen Baskerville for his brains and perception. This is life-changing knowledge – now my crusade will be taking a whole new direction.

Government oppression and the hideous future we are all facing is as strong a reason as feminism as to why I never want children. No progeny of mine will ever be slaves to the New World Order and the evil pigs who espouse it. I strongly urge everyone to refuse to have children; for Humanity’s sake don’t make slaves for the government filth to oppress. If we all deprive them of their labour pool, it will be only the children of the elite who will have to become the slaves.

So to all other visitors – read Baskerville’s article. And be afraid. Very afraid.

——————————————————————————–

At 5:33 PM, byrdeye said…

Wow, Baskerville’s decoding of the ulterior agenda is SPOT-ON!

I hate to admit this, but I’m starting to wonder if there’s an ancient reason that women were historically oppressed. Inborn urge to preserve the species from rampant, insatiable female greed?

Well, just like the fittest genes got propagated, the fittest memes did too. Benevolent patriarchies simply functioned and performed much better than any matriarchies did. And that’s why the world is mostly patriarchal today.

So, it represents the triumph of exploration, reason and grand visions over emotion and self-absorbed, directionless wheel-spinning. And at the most primal level, men’s natural desire to lead and women’s natural desire to be led.

Look, don’t hate to “admit” the truth. That is only letting the Matriarx thought police guilt-trip you into intellectual submission. The funny thing about the truth is that it is like a deeply-recognizable frequency that resonates us all like tuning forks. And that is an inherent power that no one can deny.

——————————————————————————–

At 7:04 PM, Christopher in Oregon said…

Boys:

Why do you think the Muslim nations hate and fear us so deeply? Muslim men KNOW how easily corruptible women are, and are fighting for their very survival. They know what will happen to their nations if the feminist west wins this cultural war.

Throughout most of history, if not all of it, women have been kept down because men knew that women ALWAYS lean to the dark side. Read what Solomon said in Ecclesiaistes about there being NO good women. Early Catholic leaders were very vocal about the corruption of women. Buddha also had many negative things to say about women, as well. Wise men have always known that women are an evil influence if left to their own devices.

Western men have forgotten this eternal truth, and as a result our societies are collapsing morally. We are literally rotting from within.

With that said, I am not a Muslim. Islam is a false religion. However, I believe the only hope for humanity will be the success of the Muslim world over the west. Do I desire this? No, but short of a nuclear war or plague wiping out the majority of the world’s population, we have no hope of reversing the destruction caused by women.

——————————————————————————–

At 9:36 PM, Anonymous said…

Despite his *credentials*, his neophyte reasoning cannot penetrate the big picture(he is too emotionally invested in the political arena).

As such, interpretations devoid of adequate appreciation for opposable stressors derived of dimorphic sex-biology(and their emergent polarities in sexual valence), are irredeemably flawed.

women’s natural desire to be led.

Quit trying to moralize your mechanically consonant mandate to subjugate females – it needs no such relative qualification(esp when the reasoning is spurrious and anthropomorphic).

Why do you think the Muslim nations hate and fear us so deeply? Muslim men KNOW how easily corruptable women are, and are fighting for their very survival. They know what will happen to their nations if the feminist west wins this cultural war.

Good going, Christopher.

You may be amenable to some of my earlier contributions in this blog.

– nSCOURGE

——————————————————————————–

At 1:33 PM, byrdeye said…

“As such, interpretations devoid of adequate appreciation for opposable stressors derived of dimorphic sex-biology(and their emergent polarities in sexual valence), are irredeemably flawed.”

women’s natural desire to be led.

“Quit trying to moralize your mechanically consonant mandate to subjugate females – it needs no such relative qualification(esp when the reasoning is spurious and anthropomorphic).”

Opposable stressors in sexual valence….uh, come again, in ingles, please?

And are you denying women’s natural desire to be led? Ever take ballroom dance? Ever gone out on a date? Ever had sex? Tell me the woman doesn’t EXPECT and want to be led and dominated deep down???

——————————————————————————–

At 9:09 PM, Anonymous said…

women’s natural desire to be led

When females yield to male ‘coercion'(which is what you are euphemizing if there is any logic at all to be found in this statement) it is not by tacit design of some heritable awareness(in their effete constitution) which tempers their resolve, but rather that they are acutely deprived(through biological dimorphism) of the vigorous resource to otherwise favorably counter/interdict/negotiate male strategies which appeal to force(which is why sovereign violence is the immutable male trump card, but which males are loathe to play for fear of it’s visceral fallout in exposing rival antagonisms – a triffling price to pay IMO).

None of this is by ‘design'(unless you’re a religious nutter), but is rather ‘determined’ through stark mechanical agency.

If female deference was ‘design’, then the phenomenon of servile male thralls who dutifully yoke themselves to the provision of female licence(deriving feminism, along with all the manifold artifacts which now fill the emergent power vacuum left by abandoning violent determination as selection lever), would not be in evidence everywhere around us(and consequently, we would not be engaged in this discourse – with this blog having been rendered immaterial in precluding the necessity of it’s design).

The burden is upon males to get off their asses and *make* females heel to their command…

Opposable stressors in sexual valence….uh, come again, in ingles, please?

Everyone can see you are misquoting me…

Try again, use a dictionary, infer context, and read my previous posts for help.

– nSCOURGE

——————————————————————————–

At 1:37 AM, Anonymous said…

I should further qualify my argument with respect to the empirical substrate of determined behaviors(appeals to mystical delusions of ‘self-determination’ become nebulously riddled with circular argument, so I will not indulge them).

Like every other sovereign organism, human females act in service to interests which are inexorably pressured by myriad extrinsic(and antagonistic) agencies which derive the constituent stress-energy of selection mechanics(an ideal example would be vigorously opposable/contra male interests) – which in turn, select for ‘fitness’.

If any itererant phenomenon is deprived of such rigorous stress trials for a requisite interval(through such effete selection ‘trials’, for instance, as which presently mediate homo-sapien recombination in the western sphere), it will invariably become calcified/rigid, exposing a terminal selection impasse(bottlenecking) which it can no longer negotiate – this is what is happening in the west courtesy of entrenched/intractable female license(again, which divests reproduction of all antagonistic vectors pursuant to rigorous selection gradients).

Of course, *everything* succumbs to selection bottlenecking eventually, but probability mandates a higher frequency under conditions of prolonged stress deprivation.

I apologize if I have offended anyone with my hasty remarks – In this medium, I should be fostering mutual accord, not enmity.

If I can clarify further, please specify a point of interest/ambiguity.

– nSCOURGE

——————————————————————————–

At 3:36 AM, Anonymous said…

Forgot to add:

I still contend that if females were innately deferential by design, provisioning their license would not have loosed such an intractable maelstrom of mercenary/imperious entitlement in the female psyche, as is clearly in evidence through the existence of this blog(which testifies to the manifold vectors which now occupy the power-vacuum ceded by males when they neglected violent determination as a selection lever).

– nSCOURGE

——————————————————————————–

At 9:03 AM, unpleasant bitter git said…

nSCOURGE, why don’t you start your own blog?

It would be much easier for us to ignore you then.

——————————————————————————–

At 7:52 PM, Anonymous said…

nSCOURGE, why don’t you start your own blog?

It would be much easier for us to ignore you then.

If someone who actually appreciates my arguments would ask me to do so(or if Duncan did), then I would do just that.

Otherwise, if more complaints are issued, I will simply stop contributing.

Verbosity aside though, what exactly is your objection?

If a male advocate cannot challenge my arguments, or merely spurns them for posing unpalatable conclusions/prospects(while being ill-disposed to offer anything beyond melancholic masturbation) – then they are a stark testament as to why any synergy of male accord(I’ve already delineated why jointly pussing out on violence does *not* qualify) may well be an impossible goal…

I’m here to contribute, not annoy.

Annoying people rather than eludicating is not my aim, and would constitute more a waste of my time than anyone elses.

If that’s the case, then sorry to be such a bother and good luck with your ‘men’s movement’…

– nSCOURGE

——————————————————————————–

At 10:51 PM, Christopher in oregon said…

nScourge;

I, for one, have no problems with your remarks. I like to hear opinions from all sources. I just can’t always figure out what the devil you’re trying to say. You’re a little over my head at times, so maybe you could tone it down to the idiot level for my benefit. Just sometimes. lol

Christopher

——————————————————————————–

At 11:36 PM, Duncan Idaho said…

nScourge is always welcome here, as is anyone who is against feminism. Admittedly his sesquipedalian-heavy essays make my brain hurt a bit, but really the only enemies I have are feminists and anyone who supports them, and anyone against feminism is a friend of mine.

Us men need to avoid taking too much offense at each other’s comments (and I present this advice to myself as much as to anyone else) and need to assume good faith in any feedback in discussions. We have to realise we all have to stand together against the repugnant ideology of feminism, which has laid waste to so much of the society it took our forefathers generations to create.

Be excellent to each other.

——————————————————————————–

At 6:59 PM, Abaddon_fff said…

nScourge said:
When females yield to male ‘coercion'(which is what you are euphemizing if there is any logic at all to be found in this statement) it is not by tacit design of some heritable awareness(in their effete constitution) which tempers their resolve, but rather that they are acutely deprived(through biological dimorphism) of the vigorous resource to otherwise favorably counter/interdict/negotiate male strategies which appeal to force(which is why sovereign violence is the immutable male trump card, but which males are loathe to play for fear of it’s visceral fallout in exposing rival antagonisms – a triffling price to pay IMO).

I agree somewhat with your statement. However I will say that you are speaking from an evolutionary point of view. I think that many Men in the west realize that violence is only to be used as a last resort. Your comments on sexual dimorphism are succinct to say the least. What women have failed to understand is their place in nature. Of course as with many generalizations, there are always exceptions to the rule. However, this is why women constantly seek to control reproduction. They understand (subconsciously) that they are inherently inferior to the male organism, and that being so, seek to manipulate and control them. Its a survival mechanism.

What they fail to take into account is the inherent male ability to invent and adapt to almost any situation. Once we realize that WE are actually the ones holding all of the cards (say when we refuse to breed, overcoming natures imperatives) and invent a way to replace them, they in turn will become extinct.

——————————————————————————–

At 7:54 PM, unpleasant bitter git said…

Ok, ok, no more sarky comments about nSCOURGE from me.

(I still think he’s fulla shit though)

——————————————————————————–

At 5:02 PM, Anonymous said…

When females yield to male ‘coercion'(which is what you are euphemizing if there is any logic at all to be found in this statement) it is not by tacit design of some heritable awareness(in their effete constitution) which tempers their resolve, but rather that they are acutely deprived(through biological dimorphism) of the vigorous resource to otherwise favorably counter/interdict/negotiate male strategies which appeal to force(which is why sovereign violence is the immutable male trump card, but which males are loathe to play for fear of it’s visceral fallout in exposing rival antagonisms – a triffling price to pay IMO)

Ok, I think you’re saying that women only get led (essentially against their will) because they are too weak to resist physically stronger men. WRONG. Women deliberately CHOOSE stronger men to begin with, and LIKE and EXPECT to be led by them.

Let’s say you go on a date. The girl does NOT want to take the responsibility of planning it out and having you follow her around. That’s why if you ask her what she wants to do, half the time she’ll say, “I dunno?” Cuz, she’d MUCH RATHER you have a good gameplan that you can execute well that she can simply play along with.

Now, I’m not sure what “exposing rival antagonisms” you’re talking about – perhaps blowback from other male rivals (her male friends and fanbois)?

——————————————————————————–

At 5:11 PM, Anonymous said…

If female deference was ‘design’, then the phenomenon of servile male thralls who dutifully yoke themselves to the provision of female licence(deriving feminism, along with all the manifold artifacts which now fill the emergent power vacuum left by abandoning violent determination as selection lever), would not be in evidence everwhere around us(and consequently, we would not be engaged in this discourse – with this blog having been rendered immaterial in precluding the necessity of it’s design).

Well, I’m talking about INSTINCTIVE biological programming – which CAN be overwritten and TEMPORARILY overridden by societal programming. Yes, our Matriarx attempts to override our reptilian programming…but ULTIMATELY FAILS. And even if some stay married (similar to some closet gays), neither will be truly fulfilled deep down inside. The woman will likely then escape in sexual fantasies of submitting and the male in dominating.

So sure, aging career women in their 30s may marry a submissive beta male…but may also later get bored with him and cheat on him or divorce him. These relationships are ultimately dysfunctional – as is evidenced by our 50% divorce rate. Also, all US women still bow down to Uncle Sam, who has now assumed many of the biological duties that her mate used to have (protection, welfare, etc).

——————————————————————————–

At 1:19 PM, Anonymous said…

Ok, I think you’re saying that women only get led (essentially against their will) because they are too weak to resist physically stronger men. WRONG.

No. I am saying that when violence is appealed to as a sovereign arbiter of conflict/dispute, females are left with no favorable recourse other than to reconcile their subjugation.

You, on the other hand, are alluding to unison dynamics of (transient) common interest, which effectively evades taboo discussion of sex-antagonism on a scale of selection mechanics – which is one of my central themes.

This is something I forgot to address in my scathing reply, and has unfortunately led to some confusion(for which I apologize).

But the fact remains that such facile observation of courtship protocol(which is mediated under an auspice of mutual accord, and therefore doesn’t really qualify as antagonistic) is a topic on which I prefer not to waste my idle time splitting hairs(as these are merely artifacts of selection phenomenon which occur on an emergent scale to which I am more attuned).

Women deliberately CHOOSE stronger men to begin with

Everyone here can cite example of spurned males who are objectively superior(to a more successful peer) by such a measure – not to mention any number of other criterion(objective or otherwise) you may care to scrutinize(be it physiological vigor, pragmatic reason, industriousness, or any other observable bias which is less conflicted with the resolution of bio-imperitives).

Males who, under any other aegis of selection(I’m talking about female sexual license here – ‘self-determination’ for the brainwashed imbeciles out there), would be able to out-fight, out-flank/think, and flat out out-compete their vacuous, slack-jawed rival.

Yet, instead, these vigorous rogue-males are either electing to spurn high-maintanence entitlement princesses, or being spurned by them(and it really doesn’t matter which).

What does that tell you?

It tells me something I hope you have the coherent faculty to appreciate: that spurrious/anthropomorphic correlation with female
preference(in mate-selection) is *NOT* an evolutionary verdict on
fitness(as population metrics are clearly beginning to demonstrate).

and LIKE and EXPECT to be led by them.

now this is an artifice men love to cloak themselves in because it salvages their dignity in concealing their suppliance – they love to delude themselves that they are ’empowered’ and taking the ‘initiative’, when in fact they are merely reacting to the calculated sensory pin-pricks of socialized chivalry and female behavioral/non-verbal cues(which they have learned to exploit out of necessity, having been deprived of a more vigorous resource through dimorphic heritance debt).

To counter your inane needle/thread analogy, I would like to offer one of my own:

It draws upon the carrot and the stick analogy – If the female is riding in the carriage(orienting direction) while the horse is harnessed to the carriage(akin to the organ of male labor, yoked in it’s provision of female license), then who’s leading whom?

All she has to do is give him a nudge(akin to a visual cue), and they’re off – in the direction *SHE* wants to go in(saying it just happens to be the direction the horse wants to go is clearly ignoring the ‘flow’ of causality – ‘thrall’ reasoning).

Perhaps, if he’s a good beast of burden, he’ll get a nibble of the carrot every now and again.

But then again, maybe not(his relative treatment is entirely within the discretion of his ‘mistress’)

And if he deviates too far from his projected course, he’ll be whipped(or ‘put down’ if he is habitually errant).

This is an apt analogy, and pretty much illustrates the limits on male ‘initiative’ in the western sphere.

If you say that men are ‘leading’, then it is contingent upon females soliciting(or indulging) that initiative(and only those of which they are desirious) in men that they *choose*(try challenging this logic by ‘leading’ unreceptive females someplace they don’t want to go[hehe], and see how it plays out).

If men were truly disposed to excercising a sovereignty of action, then they would be prepared to temper female license such that it is more in service to their interests(rather than females playing male chivalry – and tacit intra-sexual hostilities – to their own advantage).

Thus, females would no longer have to agonize over such conferred burdens as job/mate selection.

Rather than suffer idle dilettantes to vacillate over their wealth of choices, men would be making these for them, and would not shrink from the implicit violence in their determination.

Of course, this exposes men to the fallout of rival antagonism – which is why men largely pussed out on violence as a sexual selection lever to begin with.

Instead, these males would rather ‘beg the question’ through female entreaty, where they can rationalilize that finding favor with female biases in sensory-sexual valence*(a metric of sexual attraction) is somehow, in itself, an affirmation of their differential fitness – that they have somehow ‘vanquished’ their rivals by proxy(when in reality such ‘favor’ is merely a damning indictment by the malignant agency of a faltering selection paradigm, floundering in it’s death-throes as it arcs inexorably towards the culling void of it’s own terminus).

(* And remember: The mechanics of selection expose antagoniostic skews in sensory-sexual valence, derived of dimorphic biology.

You simply *cannot* have a utopian parity of intra-sexual interest across the mean as *this violates the energy laws of selection mechanics*.)

Well, I’m talking about INSTINCTIVE biological programming – which CAN be overwritten and TEMPORARILY overriden by societal programming. Yes, our Matriarx attempts to override our reptilian programming…but ULTIMATELY FAILS.

I agree.

But I must qualify that it fails *precisely* because females are afforded free license in reproduction/mate choices through male provision.

So sure, aging career women in their 30s may marry a submissive beta male…but may also later get bored with him and cheat on him or divorce him. These relationships are ultimately dysfunctional – as is evidenced by our 50% divorce rate.

This is not a testament to differential male quality, but to female license(reason it out for yourself already, if you are as sick hearing it as I am citing it)!

Females abuse/exploit males(and the system) because they have been accorded free reign through complicity of male negligence to contravene such abuse – there is no male on the planet who is so disarming to female temperment, that he is not subject to acute reprimand should he offend their solipsistic sensebilities under such a skewed codex.

Also, all US women still bow down to Uncle Sam, who has now assumed many of the biological duties that her mate used to have (protection, welfare, etc).

Again, if Uncle Sam is getting the short end of this stick(with women getting the better end of the deal), then who’s bowing to whom?

– nSCOURGE

Read this: http://tinyurl.com/nd7ft

——————————————————————————–

%d bloggers like this: