The DesertLight Journal |
Duncan Shields |
Violence and Extreme Feminist Laws March 2002 |
I am and always have been a pacifist. I have never condoned wars; in fact I abhor states run by megalomaniacs sending innocent men to their death on many occasions, only when the elite and their wealth and power are threatened. There are few nations who would invade a country to take Joe Soap and his pitiful life struggling on an impoverished minimum wage or benefits. Wars are in the main the elite protecting their land and riches, using the poor to do their fighting for them, while the generals sit in their bunkers sending those men to an early grave. Also wars are an excuse when dictators who destroy a countries infrastructure, often due to that megalomania, divert a potential civil war and unrest by sending those most likely to have strength, the men, to lose their lives shooting at each other across a barren wasteland to appease that elite. It is an easy way for the state to get rid of potential trouble makers (in their eyes anyway) men who see empire building by that elite doing nothing for the masses except impoverish them. Hence the view that wars in the main can be used to unburden authorities (authoritarians) from the responsibility of running a country for the greater good of all, not for that elite alone. There is also massive propaganda used to justify the murder of innocents while condemning retaliation as terrorism. All killing is a form of terrorism. The terms used are irrelevant, as long as those using that force to kill have the right catchphrases to ensure they are being seen to justify the killing and maiming in the propaganda generated within news reports. I raise this to focus on the gender war the extreme feminists are waging, who use similar buzz words to justify imposing their dogma on society. Gone are the days when feminism was a means to obtain equality -- something I firmly believed in, as equality ensures the human rights of all people are secured. HUMAN RIGHTS are the way forward for ALL mankind, providing states adhere to those fundamental rights affecting all our lives, and why I have spent the formative part of my life trying to ensure peace and stability for my children opposing anything which might threaten the family unit. That is a most basic human trait of man and is how you proffer humanity. Good men ensure that status quo is not disrupted. However I now face a dilemma, as I am sure many others do, and troubled by what we have presently. The very family we live to protect and shelter, our kids, our wives or partners now have to be looked at in a very different light. Power has now more than ever threatened that stability, when gender apartheid undermines men, the true protectors of the family. Laws which produce such imbalance, taking away that protective influence, are now seriously affecting fathers and children's human rights. These are almost the same actions used by that elite who in the past sent men to their death in war but now use hostility within law to impose similar repercussions; not by the gun but by massive psychological pressure using secretive family courts . That war is in fact, far more serious than trench warfare or concentration camps when you can face the same isolation from family far closer to home. only, instead of wire fences there is a brutal legal system, massively funded by the state, imposing artificial walls which, as with Chinese torture, can be far more psychologically damaging than wire fencing. Women high on DV power, encouraged by corrupt lawyers and "women's" (read -- anti-male hate groups) are like generals in their bunkers who don't need to be violent to impose violent acts. Hitler may not have been directly violent but he used others to impose violence on a massive scale showing that it's not necessary to be directly responsible for violence as far greater atrocities can be instigated using others to propagate that evil. Presently women can now use their own troops (police, lawyers, judges, the SS social services, "male friend" and any other agency used to oppress) to impose a form of violence with far more impact than a slap on the face using the termination of fatherhood and restraining orders to suppress parental responsibilities. This is something likely to cause an almost immediate knee jerk reaction in any father facing the enormity of losing contact with their child, and which can induce sudden, highly-depressive psychological trauma provoking uncharacteristic lack of self control leading to devastating consequences for the benefactor or the perpetrator or worst of all, the children. That can either be through suicide which may include the children or the killing of a mother who may be have been using malicious intent to oppress and deny those parenting rights with a prejudiced legal system to further those ends. This may be for financial gain, either by the mother and/or the legal firm using massive legal aid fraud to generate endless court actions and asset stripping of the father adding to those psychological pressures (the slow drip.) Which are likely to deeply affect children emotionally whose human rights are regularly breached by that system. Anyone who cares deeply about children knows this is abhorrent, having such a provocative legal system which generates deeply disturbing repercussions, supported by a mass media which distorts the true reasons for such extreme behaviour . Going back to pacifism, having seen the enormous and utterly despicable legal process acting in this way leads to a feeling that doing nothing will perpetuate the corruption which undermines all legal issues in family law. Fortunately this is being uncovered gradually by individuals coming forward and willing to ignore the highly defamatory way those courts subject individuals to ridicule; who use persecution against anyone attempting to stand up to that inhumane system and the effect it has on all those bearing the brunt of that oppression. Pacifism cannot work in those extremes when someone, anyone gets between a father and his child, that lights the blue touch paper producing explosive consequences. The right to protect one's own child comes from the heart, not from laws and thousands of years of evolutionary imprinting cannot be brushed aside so easily. Man's natural instinct to protect his offspring is being tinkered with against all common decency. Suppression of that protective force is wrong and will never succeed in stifling it. There is an enormous tidal wave of disgust, anger and contempt at authorities imposing such brutal laws using agencies to provide fabricated reports. That will be the downfall of such a system when founded on lies, deceit and corruption. Oppression of a race did not work in South Africa and neither will oppression of a gender. The spirit will never die in that oppression, as too many lives have already been lost and must not be allowed to continue. The emotional protection of fathers and children is at a stake. |
