Saturday, November 18, 2017

Prejudicial Colonial Power calls United States Tribal Civilization By; Sgt. Shakes-Speare!



DATELINE 11/18/2017

In a shocking radio rebroadcast of BBC News commentary which was aired on Public Radio in the United States. The state funded international news outlet British Broadcasting (BBC). The one time  largest most prolific Colonial government in the world, the United Kingdom. Declared the United States and its citizens a "tribal society".

 On 11/18/2017 in what can only be called a scathing indictment of the American political system. The BBC ran a news commentary decrying the recent spat of dirty (pornographic) politics being played out in the United States news media. As I drove home from work last night at 3:00 Am in the morning, I was reminded of what it must have felt like to be under the rule of the British monarchy in the 17th and 18th Century Colonies. As the Alabama senate race allegations of sexual misconduct blared in my ears as expressed by a female commentator who's demeanor was pointed, angry and vindictive as if she were the victim of the crime being reported.

As the news progressed, I was suddenly assailed by a strong and loud female voice speaking in an upper class British accent. The commentary suddenly spiraled out of control as the commentator outlined the shortcomings of the American political system and the current spat of sexual allegations being thrown into the dirty arena of American politics. As I continued my commute I was driven back into my seat by the visions of Pedophilia in politics, allegations of misogyny and claims that the United States and its citizens are members of different tribes whom refuse to cooperate in any form whatsoever to resolve any political issue. 

After I awoke from a fitful disturbed sleep. I immediately went to the BBC website to search for a (any)  podcast that pertained to what I heard, which I was unable to locate. But what I did find was a disappointing litany of stories that repeated the American tribal pseudo-theoretical premise that American society is nothing more than loose conglomerate hostile inarticulate non-intellectual  sub-humans who cannot cooperate long enough together to sweep a floor. I found this premise both strange and illegitimate at best. After all did we not descend from our benefactors in the United Kingdom? I already know this to be true, because I am a descendant of ancestors from the UK who came to the to this British colony in the 1790's.

However powerful the tone of the story may have been. The BBC's position is both historically incorrect and hypocritical in every sense. Afterall, for over two hundred years the British crown kept other societies in a state of servitude. The thirteen colonies were just one of many interests that the crown kept under control by iron fist rule and military intervention. The fact remains that in the two hundred forty years that the United States has existed. It's report card on human rights and freedom has very few failing grades.

THE GLARING DIFFERENCE IN OUR PEOPLES AND PRACTICES

There a very distinct and glaring political and social differences between the U.S. and the U.K. The American system is highly adversarial and American politicians are considered "Gladiators" in a tough arena where symbolic blood is drawn in combat to win the prize of service to the American people. Politics in the American sense are not for the faint of heart, the weak minded and those that wish to live in safe places surrounded by the like minded. On the other end of the spectrum the U.K. may possess a certain gentile methodology in parliament that would not fair well in American politics. 

Thomas Paine once said; The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.
Paine's statement is the essence of American political thinking.

SO.... Lets take a look at the United Kingdom's political history and think about its position on human rights...


Mohandas K. Gandhi .. His single minded leadership shook the colonial overlords to the core

THE British Empire, a worldwide system of dependencies—colonies, protectorates, and other territories—that over a span of some three centuries was brought under the sovereignty of the crown of Great Britain and the administration of the British government. The policy of granting or recognizing significant degrees of self-government by dependencies, which was favoured by the far-flung nature of the empire, led to the development by the 20th century of the notion of a “British Commonwealth,” comprising largely self-governing dependencies that acknowledged an increasingly symbolic British sovereignty. The term was embodied in statute in 1931. Today the Commonwealth includes former elements of the British Empire in a free association of sovereign states.

Great Britain made its first tentative efforts to establish overseas settlements in the 16th century. Maritime expansion, driven by commercial ambitions and by competition with France, accelerated in the 17th century and resulted in the establishment of settlements in North America and the West Indies. By 1670 there were British American colonies in New England, Virginia, and Maryland and settlements in the Bermudas, Honduras, Antigua, Barbados, and Nova Scotia. Jamaica was obtained by conquest in 1655, and the Hudson’s Bay Company established itself in what became northwestern Canada from the 1670s on. The East India Company began establishing trading posts in India in 1600, and the Straits Settlements (Penang, Singapore, Malacca, and Labuan) became British through an extension of that company’s activities. The first permanent British settlement on the African continent was made at James Island in the Gambia River in 1661. Slave trading had begun earlier in Sierra Leone, but that region did not become a British possession until 1787. Britain acquired the Cape of Good Hope (now in South Africa) in 1806, and the South African interior was opened up by 
Nearly all these early settlements arose from the enterprise of particular companies and magnates rather than from any effort on the part of the English crown. The crown exercised some rights of appointment and supervision, but the colonies were essentially self-managing enterprises. The formation of the empire was thus an unorganized process based on piecemeal acquisition, sometimes with the British government being the least willing partner in the enterprise.


United Kingdom: Imperialism and British politics
Imperialism was the key word of the 1890s, just as Home Rule had been in the critical decade of the 1880s, and the cause of empire was associated not merely with the economic interests of businessmen looking for materials and markets and the enthusiasm of crowds excited by the adventure of empire but also with the traditional lustre of the crown. Disraeli had emphasized the last of these...
In the 17th and 18th centuries, the crown exercised control over its colonies chiefly in the areas of trade and shipping. In accordance with the mercantilist philosophy of the time, the colonies were regarded as a source of necessary raw materials for England and were granted monopolies for their products, such as tobacco and sugar, in the British market. In return, they were expected to conduct all their trade by means of English ships and to serve as markets for British manufactured goods. The Navigation Act of 1651 and subsequent acts set up a closed economy between Britain and its colonies; all colonial exports had to be shipped on English ships to the British market, and all colonial imports had to come by way of England. This arrangement lasted until the combined effects of the Scottish economist Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776), the loss of the American colonies, and the growth of a free-trade movement in Britain slowly brought it to an end in the first half of the19th century.The slave trade acquired a peculiar importance to Britain’s colonial economy in the Americas, and it became an economic necessity for the Caribbean colonies and for the southern parts of the future United States. Movements for the end of slavery came to fruition in British colonial possessions long before the similar movement in the United States; the trade was abolished in 1800s and slavery itself in Britain’s dominions in 1833.Competition With France
British military and naval power, under the leadership of such men as Robert Clive, James Wolfe, and Eyre Coote, gained for Britain two of the most important parts of its empire—Canada and India. Fighting between the British and French colonies in North America was endemic in the first half of the 18th century, but the Treaty of Paris of 1763, which ended the Seven Years’ War (known as the French and Indian War in North America), left Britain dominant in Canada. In India, the East India Company was confronted by the French Compagnie des Indes, but Robert Clive’s military victories against the French and the rulers of Bengal in the 1750s provided the British with a massive accession of territory and ensured their future supremacy in India.

The loss of Britain’s 13 American colonies in 1776–83 was compensated by new settlements in Australia from 1788 and by the spectacular growth of Upper Canada (now Ontario) after the emigration of loyalists from what had become the United States. The Napoleonic Wars provided further additions to the empire; the Treaty of Amiens (1802) made Trinidad and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) officially British, and in the Treaty of Paris (1814) France ceded Tobago, Mauritius, Saint Lucia, and Malta. Malacca joined the empire in 1795, and Sir Stamford Raffles acquired Singapore in 1819. Canadian settlements in Alberta, Manitoba, and British Columbia extended British influence to the Pacific, while further British conquests in India brought in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh and the Central Provinces, East Bengal, and Assam.Dominance And Dominions
The 19th century marked the full flower of the British Empire. Administration and policy changed during the century from the haphazard arrangements of the 17th and 18th centuries to the sophisticated system characteristic of Joseph Chamberlain’s tenure (1895–1900) in the Colonial Office. That office, which began in 1801, was first an appendage of the Home Office and the Board of Trade, but by the 1850s it had become a separate department with a growing staff and a continuing policy; it was the means by which discipline and pressure were exerted on the colonial governments when such action was considered necessary.New Zealand became officially British in 1840, after which systematic colonization there followed rapidly. Partly owing to pressure from missionaries, British control was extended to Fiji, Tonga, Papua, and other islands in the Pacific Ocean, and in 1877 the British High Commission for the Western Pacific Islands was created. In the wake of the Indian Mutiny (1857), the British crown assumed the East India Company’s governmental authority in India. Britain’s acquisition of Burma (Myanmar) was completed in 1886, while its conquest of the Punjab (1849) and of Balochistān (1854–76) provided substantial new territory in the Indian subcontinent itself. The French completion of the Suez Canal (1869) provided Britain with a much shorter sea route to India. Britain responded to this opportunity by expanding its port at Aden, establishing a protectorate in Somaliland (now Somalia), and extending its influence in the sheikhdoms of southern Arabia and the Persian Gulf. Cyprus, which was, like Gibraltar and Malta, a link in the chain of communication with India through the Mediterranean, was occupied in 1878. Elsewhere, British influence in the Far East expanded with the development of the Straits Settlements and the federated Malay states, and in the 1880s protectorates were formed over Brunei and Sarawak. Hong Kong island became British in 1841, and an “informal empire” operated in China by way of British treaty ports and the great trading city of Shanghai.
The greatest 19th-century extension of British power took place in Africa, however. Britain was the acknowledged ruling force in Egypt from 1882 and in the Sudan from 1899. In the second half of the century, the Royal Niger Company began to extend British influence in Nigeria, and the Gold Coast (now Ghana) and The Gambia also became British possessions. The Imperial British East Africa Company operated in what are now Kenya and Uganda, and the British South Africa Company operated in what are now Zimbabwe (formerly Southern Rhodesia), Zambia (formerly Northern Rhodesia), and Malawi. Britain’s victory in the South African War (1899–1902) enabled it to annex the Transvaal and the Orange Free State in 1902 and to create the Union of South Africa in 1910. The resulting chain of British territories stretching from South Africa northward to Egypt realized an enthusiastic British public’s idea of an African empire extending “from the Cape to Cairo.” By the end of the 19th century, the British Empire comprised nearly one-quarter of the world’s land surface and more than one-quarter of its total population.

The idea of limited self-government for some of Britain’s colonies was first recommended for Canada by Lord Durham in 1839. This report proposed “responsible self-government” for Canada, so that a cabinet of ministers chosen by the Canadians could exercise executive powers instead of officials chosen by the British government. The cabinet would depend primarily on support by the colonial legislative assembly for its tenure of ministerial office. Decisions on foreign affairs and defense, however, would still be made by a governor-general acting on orders from the British government in London. The system whereby some colonies were allowed largely to manage their own affairs under governors appointed by the mother country spread rapidly. In 1847 it was put into effect in the colonies in Canada, and it was later extended to the Australian colonies, New Zealand, and to the Cape Colony and Natal in southern Africa. These colonies obtained such complete control over their internal affairs that in 1907 they were granted the new status of dominions. In 1910 another dominion, the Union of South Africa, was formed from the Cape Colony, Natal, and the former Boer republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State.

This select group of nations within the empire, with substantial European populations and long experience of British forms and practices, was often referred to as the British Commonwealth. The demands and stresses of World War I and its aftermath led to a more formal recognition of the special status of the dominions. When Britain had declared war on Germany in 1914 it was on behalf of the entire empire, the dominions as well as the colonies. But after World War I ended in 1918, the dominions signed the peace treaties for themselves and joined the newly formed League of Nations as independent states equal to Britain. In 1931 the Statute of Westminster recognized them as independent countries “within the British Empire, equal in status” to the United Kingdom. The statute referred specifically to the “British Commonwealth of Nations.” When World War II broke out in 1939, the dominions made their own declarations of war.


The rest of the British Empire consisted for the most part of colonies and other dependencies whose predominant indigenous populations had no such experience. For them a variety of administrative techniques was tried, ranging from the sophisticated Indian Civil Service, with its largely effective adoption of native practices in civil law and administration, to the very loose and indirect supervision exercised in a number of African territories, where settlers and commercial interests were left much to themselves while native Africans were segregated into “reserves.”
Nationalism And The Commonwealth

Nationalist sentiment developed rapidly in many of these areas after World War I and even more so after World War II, with the result that, beginning with India in 1947, independence was granted them, along with the option of retaining an association with Great Britain and other former dependencies in the Commonwealth of Nations (the adjective “British” was not used officially after 1946). Indian and Pakistani independence was followed by that of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and Burma (Myanmar) in 1948. The Gold Coast became the first sub-Saharan African colony to reach independence (as Ghana) in 1957. The movement of Britain’s remaining colonies in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean toward self-government gained speed in the years after 1960 as international pressure mounted (especially at the United Nations), as the notion of independence spread in the colonies themselves, and as the British public, which was no longer actively imperial in its sentiments, accepted the idea of independence as a foregone conclusion.



Citation 





Sunday, September 6, 2015

I'm No Longer Your Victim, Healing for Victims.

It's easy to either wax philisophical or to lay cliche upon actions like trying to seal bullet wounds with cotton balls. But the truth is that life hurts. And all too often we suffer at the hands of other people with deeply personal agendas or people that operate with very little agenda other than the fact that they care nothing for other human beings.

“I love you because I love you, and if you don’t like it you can use my circular logic as a noose and hang yourself.”
Jarod Kintz, Love quotes for the ages. Specifically ages 18-81.

Americans (those folks who occupy the 50 contiguous states located on the North American Continent) have become expert victims. They are told everyday how the system victimizes them, how the government victimizes them, how their spouse victimizes them, how their bosses victimize them and how the victimize themselves. We have become the largest and best trained victim cadre on the planet earth.

Everyday the media loves to spin stories of people who have been victimized because of the color of their skin, the symbols that surround them, the language they speak, the words they speak and the thoughts that run through their minds. In many ways the mass media of the 21st century has become they biggest social labeling machine ever known.  But despite the fact they we are easily swayed by what the media tells us, we still have to keep our feet on the ground and deal with each other in a multitude of social situations.

The truth of the matter is, that no one person has the answer to the social ills of a massive society. The planet earth is currently home to more human beings than any other time in recorded history. This last fact is both a living testament to the human spirit and a terrible warning.  Everyday we flirt with the possibility of world war and the fate of a crashing end to humaity as we know it. But because we allow ourselves to be the walking wounded rather than the divine spark we were meant to be. We allow darkness to enter our minds and souls. Though we must be guarded because the darkness is real. It becomes a living thing when we manifest it in our actions and words. We also manifest it in our reaction to the information thats given to us by sources that have more to gain that we do as individuals.

I have been many things in life, Father, Son, Brother, Warrior, Sailor, Cop etc. But the bottom line is that taking on some of these roles were my choice. I chose to follow a path, I chose to take the actions that placed me these roles. So being a victim can also be a choice or .... I can choose to not be a victim.

“You can run from the truth. You can run and hide from the truth.
You can deny and avoid the truth. But you cannot destroy the truth. Nor can you make the lie true. You must know that love will always uncover the truth.”
Delano Johnson, Love Quotes



Friday, May 1, 2015

The Slavery of Men


Soldiers! Don't give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you, enslave you; who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel! Who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines, you are not cattle, you are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don't hate! Only the unloved hate; the unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers! Don't fight for slavery! Fight for liberty! In the seventeenth chapter of St. Luke, it is written that the kingdom of God is within man, not one man nor a group of men, but in all men!

- Charles Chaplin
The Great Dictator

As the 21st century swept across the planet and the third wave of feminism was well underway. The endeavor of equality was shifting within the sands of time and morphing into the next conflict in the battle of the sexes.
Though this new battle was more widespread and took on the persona of a worldwide war upon the male of the human species. The struggle quickly engulfed and decimated the traditional nuclear family and the foundation of traditional marriage. The war soon infiltrated the arena of international law and local politics. Women became a protected class and men were left to maintain their traditional roles as worker bees, warriors and providers. All without the benefit of equal protection under law.

The early part of this new century ushered in a period of worldwide change as revolutions broke out around the world and a very real struggle began against oppressive governments who had fallen under the control of large corporations and special interests.

These new influences generated a new language of political correctness which failed to promote equality but sought to vilify a segment of society to motivate the warriors of their cause. That new villain was of course the male or the "patriarchy" or the perceived notion that men had caused all of the problems which have plagued the world. Though the real evidence of this plague came into social context by way of propaganda and lacked empirical data.

The propaganda machine is a meat grinder that turns out images of inept men and the women who handle them, Woman who are portrayed as smarter, quicker and of superior intellect. The mainstream media treats men as the Nazi's treated the Jews prior to world war two. And it represents females in a way that reminds one of the way that the national socialists imagined the blonde haired and blued super race.

The court systems in the United States use men as a bottomless financial money pit, seeing men only in their traditional roles and labeling them as a threat to the safety of people based on not only gender but their military service.

Earlier in the month of April 2015 a black male by the name of Freddie Gray died while in police custody.
 Freddie C. Gray was the 25-year-old son of Gloria Darden. He had a twin sister, Fredericka, as well as another sister, Carolina. At the time of his death, Gray lived in the home owned by his sisters in the Gilmor Homes neighborhood.He stood 5 feet 8 inches (1.73 m) and weighed 145 pounds (66 kg).
Gray had a criminal record, mainly on drug charges and minor crimes.[Gray had been involved in 20 criminal court cases, five of which were still active at the time of his death, and was due in court on a possession charge on April 24.
-Wikipedia
The small amount of information contained in this wikipedia article speaks volumes about the state of our male population. It is indeed obvious that Freddie Gray was a young black male and was not only member of a segment of society that has been disenfranchised in the United States for hundreds of but years but also a member of a demographic of society which has found itself a victim of modern circumstances. In recent months the media has been on fire with stories of police shootings of blacks, but the one thing that the media perpetually overlooks is the fact that the people killed by police are not only black, but male as well.

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Are You Limping .... My Fellow Countrymen?

I hope you don't mind my observation, but I am concerned for your well being. Is that a limp that you're walking with? What type of injury has brought you to this sad, low and lonely place? What unseen hazard or secret enemy has found it's way into your soul to cause you such damage? Is our house filled with pit falls and stumbling blocks? Are the floor boards loose and the foundation showing it's flaws? Have you fallen down the back stairs while taking out the trash? Or is that your condition is systemic, a type of cancer perhaps?

It could be that your condition is hereditary, handed down through years of bondage and perceived fear and loathing of what you covet. Could this unbridled self pity be the cause of your ailment? Have you seen the Doctor? Did you know that those who are currently nursing you back to health are in fact doctors of old? Blood letting faded from memory long ago .. It's time to go to a modern doctor. One who will prescribe what you really need and use modern techniques to fix your limp.

It's time to realize that the doctors in the white coats were there before the great emancipator stepped into the operating theater. Freedom was the medicine which you refuse to swallow. The Plantation owner was your mother and she has passed onto the next life and left you alone of this plane of existence to fend for your self now.... freedom is all you need. That and gods intellect which he gave you ... or have you been abandoned by god?


Wednesday, October 8, 2014

May the Dust Settle Quickly; Johntheother and A Voice For Men



The modern battle space of relationships are many. We may live with another person,
we go to work daily and deeal with customers, clients and co-workers, we have friendships
at many levels, we deal with the sexual politics of human encounter and in our modern world, we
even have electronic relationships, some of which can turn into actual physical relationships
or die in the same server that it emunated from.

Since becoming an MRA (Men's Rights Activist)I have found that a majority of my interactions with and my
initial introduction to the Men's rights movement was of the electronic variety.
Much like early television (another venue for electronic relationships and vicarious living)
I formed relationships and found role models online who were part of the movement.
One of these role models was an MRA who calls himself "Johntheother" (JTO)who is an avid video-blogger and speaks out to, and against the feminist movement as well as addressing many other social
problems that face men in todays world. For a time, John seemed to have a working relationship
with the grass roots men's right organization "A voice for Men"(AVFM). I recently blogged
about AVFM, because they were the very first organization to organize and conduct
the first international men's issues conference which was held in the Detroit Michigan area.
I was however unaware that Johntheother, an MRA who I had followed for quite some time, was
not invited (or in his own words, invited and then uninvited) to the international men's
conference. In fact it wasn't until today (10/08/2014) that I found out that there
was somer  type of disagreement between JTO and AVFM. The likes of which I won't even attempt to address in this blog post due to the simple fact that the complaint and/or complaints
seemed to somewhat childish in nature. But with that said, the very foundation of
the disagreement seemed to go back the modern battle space of "relationships". Like
so many relationships that end up in the family courts (the very reason that many of us are MRA's)
It seems that JTO and AVFM have reached a point of irreconcilable differences
(music to the ears of any divorce lawyer).

JTO, being the activist that he is, most certainly wears his heart upon his sleeve. As
do I. And as do  males must do to protect themselves in the modern battle space. JTO
is no different. However, I do see JTO as having an ability to utilize simple
intellect to sort through a problem and to find useful information. JTO is indeed
very resourceful. Though, despite this resourcefulness, he seems to have found himself
being "friend zoned" by AVFM. In a recent (two) video(s). JTO attempted to reconcile
and find reasons for why he had found himself on AVFM's shit list. In his video blog
JTO labled himself as "bombastic and abrasive" and admitted that perhaps he had made people
 angry at him because he had spoken his mind and perhaps angered other MRA's and/or AVFM allies.I find that claim to be ludicrous.

 It seems to me that if we choose to step upon the battlefield that MRA's have chosen to fight upon, That we must have thick skin and possess the ability to take
a punch in the face, after all, we are talking about equality, civil rights and freedom.
No patriot or MRA ever won a battle by allowing his enemies to divide and conquer, or
by allowing what someone said to hurt their feelings. This is after all "battle".
Much is at stake in this battle, while we suddenly find ourselves weeping in the corner
because one MRA or one Men's rights organization has found themselves squabbling
with each other, one single solitary Father has walked into family court by himself
and lost custody of his children, or single solitary Father has walked into family
court and found himself ejected from his home, and finally, one single solitary
Father has committed suicide because he could no longer tolerate the pressure
that our system has placed upon his shoulders.

As an observation, it seems that many individual MRA's and Men's right organizations
argue their cases on the street, on social media and / or within the social context. Allow me to
clue you in on something. From 1955 to 1975 there was a war in a place called Viet Nam. During this conflict, one of the goals was to win "the hearts and minds" of the local populace. Unfortunately
the local populace chose to reunify with their own people. A fact that any fool should have seen coming. The lesson to be learned here, is that we, as MRA's may be attempting to undo centuries
of psychological programming. In other words, an un-winnable war. When in fact the real battles
must be fought in the court systems of each state.


Friday, September 26, 2014

The "Letter" Part II

The Letter Part II

First and foremost. The anonymous letter holds no signature and/or copy right marks. It was sent to me via United States Postal service. It appears to be an orginal copy, which therefore makes it my legal property. I can only assume that the letter came from one particular family and/or person, because the writer purports to be a direct eye witness of the events that they outline in the letter. The writer appears to make quite a few assumptions of their own, so therefore, it only stands to reason that I am also allowed to draw my own inferences in response.

In order to bring social context to the letter,I am including empirical research by Dr.Robert Briffault and I will also make commentary within the letter itself to clarify either the truthfulness of or erroneous information. I am reproducing the letter here in it's original language, spelling, syntax and grammatical errors will not be omitted. Though I have decided to not reproduce the entire letter due to the extremely negative language that it expresses.

Robert Stephen Briffault (1876 – 11 December 1948)
was trained as a surgeon, but found fame as a social anthropologist and in later life as a novelist.
Briffault is known for what is called Briffault's Law:
"The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. — Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol. I, p. 191"
In other words;
1.Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2.Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3.A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

With that said, I present "The Letter";

The following text is protected under copyright by myself "Eugene C Stevens" as the rightful owner. It is not protected under the fair use doctrine and it is not public domain. Any use of this text must be pre-approved by the myself. Names will be omitted for obvious reasons to protect the innocent party or parties who were or may be affected by its content.

"The letter" Begins on the wrong note, as it is addressed to my wife and I. Her name is misspelled, which lends credence to the fact that the person or persons who authored the anonymous letter either did not know us very well and/or failed to take the time to contact us to come to an understanding or to discuss the matter.

Begin Text

Name withheld (NMW) &; Gene Stevens,

It is my understanding that today 11/15/13, NMW came into the halls of the Lake county court House and made a public statement that NMW will not allow him to see his children. If this is true, it is an intentional lie, MNW has only followed the court orders as written and served to the parties.

REBUTTAL

As in any divorce proceeding, the divorce decree was drafted by legal counsel and it was served. But then my son was called into a public venue where his ex-wife and other multiple family members present and he was pressured into signing divorce papers under duress. The decree violated his rights and he was not allowed any type of judicial over-site and could not afford competent counsel. The decree removed all rights to his children, did not ask for any support of his children and gave sole custody to his ex-wife.

TEXT

NMW left his family with no knowledge of his location nor any support of any kind. After over nine months without contact or child support of any kind he showed up to retrieve the car tools NMW had "purchased" and stored in her leased garage. NMW had left them there rent free for nearly a year. When he arrived he brought his first support offering for his children, a jug of HI C fruit punch. He loaded the nine hundred dollar tool into a vehicle collected the money for selling it poured each of the boys a Dixie cup of juice --- then took the remainder of the bottle and the cash and once again disappeared. When the boys asked for a little more on a hot summer day NMW had to explain the (Dad) took it with him. (Not one dime for the tool storage was repaid).

REBUTTAL

There is serious error within the timeline of this statement. Preceding the months before my sons divorce, his wife had been assigned to work in Ohio by her employers and during the several months of absence he was sole care taker and responsible for their care. He had also allowed his mother in law to move into his home. During this time I spoke frequently with him. During the alleged disappearance. They had already separated as a couple. As many people know, the economy had taken a serious turn and my son moved to Michigan for a few months to secure employment. I see no reason as to why he had to communicate his whereabouts to someone who had the intention of taking sole custody of his children as it was.

TEXT

Gene states that he again in law enforcement his (life's calling) I am told by life long friends both serving and retired (US Marshals, Internal Affairs Officers, and Lieutenant on the Sheriff's Police that all swear an oath to serve an protect the people at all times in all ways possible. (Which means deliberately stabbing a mom in the back on publicly viewed sights is a travesty of justice --- with or without names. People can read between the lines.)
If Gene is a law officer we the family question his lack or professional attitude, NMW has been caught and had reports filled against him for ----

Breaking rental contract -- confiscating his roommates half of the rent then leaving the state
driving without insuarnce - driving without proper plates -reckless driving
Driving a vehicle with grass and other substances on board concealing various drugs in his tools boxes at work and home (which he did not pay for, but traded for labor)
He refused to appear in court for family benefits and rulings on issues at hand and has never paid any kind of child support of any kind yet has money to commute from Michigan to Racine Wisconsin to see not his children (that he claims to miss so much) but to spend the weekend party timing with a new girlfriend.

Why has Gene not brought him in?

REBUTTAL

The previous paragraph is very telling. It serves to not only threaten me by evoking other peace officers, who's integrity they tarnish and use for their own delusional purposes. It also indicates that I was being monitored (as I always have been by former family) and both my son and myself were the subjects of ongoing character assassination. Furthermore, as Police Officer, we are trained to respect all of the bill of rights as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, including the first amendment which gives us all the right of free speech. I am also a paid published Writer by "profession" which places my work in the light of the first amendment.

The paragraph also indicates that they not only knew of my sons whereabouts, but were acting as spies monitoring and attempting to control his actions. They knew that they could accomplish this and manipulate him because of his ADHD. They then go into a laundry list of alleged crimes that he committed. These are things that I was never privileged to. They never spoke to me, they never allowed me to see my grand children they never called me, never sent me an email and barely said hello. But if they did have intimate knowledge of crimes, they should have called the police themselves. Furthermore, Their inherent misunderstanding of the law enforcement profession and criminal law itself, leads them to believe the wrong things. I have no jurisdiction and no authority where any crimes are committed except for the place that I am employed. During the short few times that I encountered person(s) associated with this "family" I found that they were also substance abusers and seemed to intoxicated on a regular basis. It was due to this that my current wife and I decided to steer clear of these persons, as we do not drink and do not use drugs, we wanted to raise or children without this influence around. The very first time that we spent  an hour with them, they became drunk and engaged in a domestic dispute. It was later that I learned that they had separated as well. To answer the question ... "Why has Gene not brought him in?" I offer this challenge, if your daughter commits a crime .. will you turn her in? No you won't you will defend in the same way.. right or wrong .. just as you did in this letter. Isn't adultery a crime? I Illinois it is.

TEXT

One day he states that no real Mom would not let dad see the kids, the next day he states that maybe she isn't asking for support because he's not the dad. This bi-polar attitude makes all people reading his comments which way he  is going. Does he not believe in Jeremy or do you just not have any faith in his masculinity. Did someone else have to service his wife.

REBUTTAL

The above paragraph is more indication that we were being monitored. However the above statement is extremely filthy in nature. The facebook post that this pertained to, dealt with paternity fraud. A sad fact that many American men have been subjected to by the feminist movement. Family courts throughout the United States have forced men to pay for children that they did not father. The message it sends also uses typical shaming tactics employed against men. The very nature of the statement is the very model of "gaslighting" or attempting to label a person as "crazy or insane"  (or in the writers case stating that I am "Bi-polar) to redirect blame back onto the person identifying a problem or a crime that has been committed.  If you don't like what I have to say... stay off my facebook page.

TEXT

NMW reached into her pension and took out thousands of dollars for a man that was fired nine times.

REBUTTAL

This fact is very comendable and should be applauded, however marriage is a two street. Money and property in marriage is considered "marital property". It is true that my son had lost multiple  jobs, many of which he quit and was not fired, for multiple reasons, but in hind site, I now know that it was due to his ADHD and or probable aspergers syndrome (as we have now come to realize, played a part in this).

TEXT
The night the child was born NMW was supposedly looking for car parts on her lap top computer at the hospital. When he left to go home he set it on the roof to unlock the door and drove off with the lap top on the roof of the car, never seen it again. Needless to say he never replaced that for NMW either.

REBUTTAL

I am extremely sorry that I could not have been there to help my son sort through the many thoughts and hardships that he may have gone through on the night that his child was born. Unfortunately I was not invited, I was not called and told that my grand child was born. But on another note, marital property is marital property, laptops are extremely expensive, especially for people that work for substandard wages as he did at the time. I would also call this an "accident or a mistake" Not something that needed to stored as weaponry for a divorce. There is no legal expectation to replace or fix broken, lost or stolen items in marriage, not even the marriage itself. This is a lost idea in the 21st century. Men and women are equal and pay for their own stuff. This is not 1850.

TEXT
A real law man would protect an innocent woman trying to provide for her children, would understand that she is following the instructions from family laws of the state. He would honor her for trying to make a life of her own. And would applaud a young man that says I love this "Lady" and her children. Now she has a real man in her life.

REBUTTAL

A "real law man" examines evidence, listens to all sides, (note the word listen) and makes an informed decision. No one has the right to demand my respect or honor for someone who has not earned it. The fact that a person is male or female, mother or father (and which is the entire basis of your letter) does not automatically place them in a superior position to demand immediate and unearned respect. If this were the case, and if we lived in an equal society like so many people say we do, then my son would instantly have your unearned  and or demanded respect for being a father. But as we all know, here in the United States, being a man and a father means being a target for angry vindictive people and the slave of the family courts. And "Briffaults Law now applies" where one benefit has faded, a new one has arrived to replace it, until such time, that the new benefit falters. Then it's onto the next phase. More shaming tactics. I feel for the new real man should ever be fired, laid off due to the economy. He will follow suit and wander into the male wasteland which is "Briffualts Law"

TEXT
In court today the topic was the children and their best interest, yet NMW had to be reminded constantly that the court time was not about him or his girlfriend. His constant. reply is I can't afford that.

REBUTTAL

No clearer truth has ever been spoken. Millions of men, including men like Thomas Ball, Chris Mackney and Robin Williams tried to say the same thing .. and all three were destroyed by their wives who were granted "superior class social status" by the law of the land and now of them are dead. All from suicide. And the numbers of men killing themselves because of family court grow by the thousands every day.

TEXT

If you are a Christian man you claim to be then stop throwing verbal rocks at a woman trying to survive with her children.

REBUTTAL

It was due to my efforts and the fact that  I reviewed my sons divorce decree and discovered that both her (my son's ex-wife) and my son had been mislead by the lawyers and the family court. both had allowed a terrible injustice to over take both of their lives. They took money for court expenses and fee's and never thought about child support until we petitioned everyone back into court. My son now has limited visitation with his children and he pays child support, something that the legal experts left out of their divorce decree, simply to see that ego and pride were satisfied and the female was granted "sole custody"... don't believe me? Ask me for a copy, I will fax it to you!











Thursday, September 25, 2014

The Letter Part I

What made me become an MRA (Men's Rights Activist)
"The Letter" Part I
In July of this last year I turned 55 years old. Having been raised in the middle of the
20th century, I was brought up with some very common values. It may sound cliche, but I
was raised to have basic respect, to believe that my parents were always right, that
America was a great place to live and that our system was fair and unbiased.
I maintained this frame of mind for a good part of my life.
In 1988, I got separated from my first wife and experienced a divorce. The divorce was
pretty typical as divorce goes, (and as we understand them here in our country). It had a
ton of animosity on the part of both myself and my ex-wife (nothing unusual here) and the
course that it took was just about the same as any divorce that I had ever heard about. I
had joint custody of my children and seen them frequently, which was good.
However, time went on I realized that the divorce had a component to it that I never
expected. After a while I began to see that friends that were formally very important
friends of mine suddenly became my ex-wives friends and divested me, and that my divorce,
despite the fact that fifty percent of marriages end in divorce seemed to carry a stygma.
Even stranger.. a childhood friend that I grew up with became very close to her as did a
another friend of mine who I had served with in the Navy. I wasn't necessarly hurt by this
as much as I was perplexed by this situation. I did'nt have time overthink it, I was in
the middle of a growing career in law enforcement and as a rule, I had very little time to
myself. I ended up re-marrying and having more children. The years flew by and my own
children from my first marriage grew into adulthood, and unfortrunately both children also
ended up on the divorce merry-go-round.
I ended up becoming estranged from my children now two grown adults. There are many
reasons for this, some known to me,and some not known to me. But then I began to realize
that there were many things in the background from the former marriage that I was unaware
of. Much of it was emotional and unspoke, but as time progressed, I began to understand.
My first son's wife had given birth to two children, my grandchildren, though I was
prohibited from partcipating in their lives because we had become separated by emotions
and hatred that I was aware of, but I was not clear on the reasons for the festering hate
or what was fueling the hate.
It was on a day that I was at my wits end over car trouble and a lack of money that I was
having, not to mention the fact that I would be unemployed shortly after this day due to a
lay off. But I decided to pick up the phone to my son to ask for his help. It was at this
time that I began to realize that something was seriously wrong in his own relationship
with his spouse.
We eventually got back together and he helped me get my car back working again. And then
it started to happen, his relationship began to unravel. As a child my son was diagnosed
with ADHD, Though I later learned that aspergers sydrome may run in our family, which is
milder form of autism.And this later information was showing through in my sons reactions
to his mpending divorce.To say the least,he was distraught and unable to cope with what
was happening and in a monentary lapse of judgement became suicidal. A fact that would be
sued against him, evem though no police reports were filed and no police intervention was
ever called for in his household.
It was during this time that he suddenly found himself being ejected from his home, by not
only his ex-wife, but his own sister and mother showed up to "assist him" in moving out.
From what he told me, he was confused and the situation sounded as though it was moving at
lightening speed and he did not want it to happen, but it did.
It was also around this time that I had also gotten a phone call from my own ex-wife and
she told me that she had been in close touch with my son's ex-wife and she had gotten his
own children for a family party and when my son intervened to take them home to their
mother a huge arguement ensued and she attempted to have him arrested. During this same
time, I was helping watch my grand daughter and was planning on taking her to a family
gathering. It was at this time that she told me that if my son were there, that she would
not allow me to see my grand daughter and placed me in a position to choose between my son
and my grand daughter.I am ashamed to say, that I folded to the same type of intimidation
and pressure that had taken away my other children and grand children year after year.
My son moved out of state in an attempt to find a job in a really tough national economy,
it was during this time that he was called to a public place to sign divorce papers with
his ex-wife. Also present were multiple male relations of his ex-wife. He later told me that he was intimidated and very nervous, so without thinking or knowing what he was doing, he signed the divorce papers.
It wasn't until a few months later that we all realized what had happened. He had no legal
counsel and had no idea what was to happen. I was concerned as to why he was not paying
child support and he had indicated that he had never reveived a letter or anything from
the state. It was at this time that I asked him to mail me a copy of his divorce decree.
Upon reading the document, I was shokced to find out that the agreement that he had signed
under duress took away the rights to ever participate in his kids lives and gave sole
custody to his ex-wife, and she did not ask for support. It was at this very moment when I
realized that there was a ongoing program, a system of "generational blackmail" that was
taking place. The use of systematic intimdation and character assaination taking place in
the background.
I immediately went to work to repair the damage that had been done myself, my son and our
relationship. I went to work, researching the law and helping him to represent himself
"pro se" (without legal counsel) and we wrote the petition to the court for visitation of
his children. Our battles were sucessful and he secured visitation, but not without being
fleeced for cash by the family courts.
During my experience with his situation I began to search online legal sources and I found
many websites dedicated to "men's rights" two words I had never heard anywhere else. But
then one day I went to the mail box athome and I found an envelope. It was hand written
with no return address. As I opned the letter and read it, I found that the three page
letter was an anonymous orgy of hate, threats and intimidation. Ironically it was adressed
to both my current wife and myself, but only adressed me and of course... my son.

In part II .. I will post "The Letter" and it's content....