lobby, and I'll show you an abuser, a liar and a coward.

And that makes dirt-poor material for having the parenting rights that
they seek."

The social and historical movements have habit of coming down hardest
on people who least deserve it, and to empower those who likewise
deserve it the least. When Soviet Union fell, it wasn't the
bureaucrats, KGB agents, factory managers or military commanders that
got the worst of it, but rather the honest, responsible, hard-working,
dedicated people like teachers, doctors and scientists. So it shall
come as no surprise that the gender wars - both the 1990s feminism and
the reaction against 1990s feminism - have injured, and are injuring,
precisely the wrong people.

It has been said by just about every woman of sense and intelligence
that feminism in America has gone too far. And as with any movement
that becomes extreme enough to commit the unjustifiable, the reaction
against it becomes just as extreme. There is a problem however. It
wasn't the men around the world who truly merited the attention of
feminism that got injured by it in 1990s; and it isn't the women
around the world who merit the reaction against feminism that get
injured now. Instead it is precisely the people who deserve it the
least.

The 1990s feminists' attempt to deal with rape was an abject failure.
There is one simple reason for this problem. There is an inverse
correlation between the kind of woman who is believed in court and the
kind of woman who is likely to get raped. The women who are most at
risk for getting raped - women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds;
women who are socially disempowered; women who are traumatized or
marginalized; and women who take risks - are not given credibility in
court of law. The women who do have credibility in court of law, are
women living protected lifestyles, who are far less likely to get
raped by strangers. And the people who are more likely to sexually
abuse them - their family relatives - are protected by family loyalty
and family reputation, through a phenomenon known as conspiracy of
silence, from having their acts revealed publicly or believed in a
court of law.

Which means that consistently the women who are likely to get raped
are either prevailed upon not to push forward their accusations or do
not get believed when they do - and the women whom the courts are
inclined to believe, are far more likely to be lying.

In workplace sexual harrassment, we see similar inverse correlation.
The women who are likely to get harrassed are the open, compassionate,
friendly women, who are generous of nature and are least likely to
want to destroy someone's career even if the other person has insulted
them. The kind of women who are malicious enough to want to destroy
someone's career are not likely to have men want them in the first
place. These are not likely to be harrassed, and the harrassment
claims they lodge are much more likely to be false.

The 1990s feminism did not begin to affect the real wrongdoers - the
Muslims, the Hindus, the redneck and ghetto hooligans. These sneered
at it and then maintained their ways by claiming wrongly to speak for
traditional values or sanity and rightly to speak against the feminist
wrong. Instead it fell squarely on the shoulders of liberal men who
were anywhere near the centers of feminism - the academia, the media,
the liberal cities, the Democratic-voting areas of the United States.
And the global reaction against the wrongs and excesses of feminism is
likewise not hurting American feminists and false accusers. Instead it
is hurting the innocent women around the world, who get falsely
portrayed as being potentially the same as American feminists, and are
under that wrongful consideration being unjustly injured for sins
perpetrated by aggressive, malicious, poisonous women who claimed to
speak for the women and used that colossal usurpation of power to
injure both women who thought differently from them and men who
refused to buy their party line.

In Australia, there is a racket known as Parental Alienation Syndrome.
The concept was invented in 1980s by an American conman and was
quickly discredited in United States. In Australia however it is still
used by the family court system. The racket claims that a woman who
speaks up about her ex-partner abusing the children is mentally ill
and fabricating the accusations, and if the children make accusations
as well then she has manipulated them into so doing. Out of that
consideration Australian courts make a policy of taking away the
children from any woman who tells the truth.

It can be very well said that American feminists do not deserve
American liberal men. Here however, and in much of the rest of the
world, the problem is quite the opposite. In Australia, it is the men
who do not deserve the women - and like all people who do not deserve
their partners, invent ridiculous reasons to abuse them and tear them
down in order that they could keep at the top of relationships with
people they do not deserve to be with in the first place. Using a
mechanism identified by Eric Berne as racket anger, in which a person
invents false reasons to be angry at someone in order to justify
wanting to mistreat them, these men come into relationships expecting
to be somehow betrayed and mistreated - and injure, wear down, beat
and abuse the women until they either suffer so much that they do
something (in which case the man claims he was right from the
beginning), or are completely destroyed and accept abuse lying down.
At which point many of the abused, either believing this to be the
natural lot of women or feeling that no woman is allowed to have
better than they have, go on and abuse, destroy and entrap other women
in their communities (especially anyone younger and prettier) into
lives of brutality and personal destruction. In either case, the
racket continues, and the lie gets bigger and bigger and breaks and
strangles more people into a world of self-perpetuating injustice,
atrocity and deceit.

Which then becomes the true character of the arrangement and the
formative core of all its claimed values, attitudes and ways.

Which then markets itself as tradition, common sense, sanity, reality
or religion and thus profanes all these concepts by using them for
perpetuation of ways whose true character is one of atrocity and
deceit.

Australian women (like Russian women, or Middle Eastern women, or
Latin American women) are vastly superior to what one sees in America.
They are beautiful, cultured, elegant, smart, hard-working,
responsible, loving, and warm. To someone who's lived through American
1990s feminism, when American women turned into cruel, malicious,
deceptive, abusive harpies who thought nothing of falsely accusing an
innocent man of workplace sexual harrassment or falsely accusing an
innocent man of rape, these women are creatures from heaven. An
American liberal man would dream about having such woman; Australian
men already have them and treat them like trash.

The people who need patriarchial institutions are people who least
deserve them. The true person treats the partner in such a manner that
she does not want to leave him, not create laws and social
institutions that make it difficult for her to leave. The only person
who wants the protection of such institution, is the person who wants
to abuse the partner and for the partner to have no recourse.

It is the person who wants to brutalize, degrade, undermine and
mistreat the partner - and have the institution of marriage, or
institution of family, or institution of community, to keep the
partner from leaving.

It is the person who wants to commit crimes in the privacy of the
household, and let the social institution of househod to keep these
crimes from getting redressed.

It is the person who wants to appeal to a borrowed virtue to cover for
his own lack of virtue.

And this - appeal to borrowed virtue to cover for own lack of virtue -
is the essence of Australian father's lobby.

As it is the essence of Islamist, Hindu, and other degenerate manhood
in the hellhole cultures of the world.

The people who want the protection of tradition to keep their
relationships, are ones who do not want to do what it takes to keep a
relationship going. What they want, is license to commit crimes
against their partner under the guise of tradition and family. As
such, they use appeal to ethics to hide ethically damnable behavior.
Which profanes the ethics they appeal to as much as it profanes
themselves.

Appealing to these fallacious ethical arguments, Australian men are
blaming everything on women. At Current Affair, there was a story
about a woman who has six children by six different men. Even though
the woman is working hard and keeping her children well-fed and well-
cared for, she has been singled out as an example of women's
immorality. An obvious question to ask is, What about the men? Where
are their ethics? Where is their responsibility? It takes two to have
a child, and if the woman is prosecuted - but man is not - then one
group has an immoral free ride at the expense of the other. Which
ruins whatever claims of ethics or responsibility or morality that
they may assert. I once ran into a man who called himself "a producer"
because he "produced" eight children by eight different women and did
not take care of any of them. Immorality to be blamed on women? What
about their partners who impregnate them and then leave them or batter
them?

What about you, Australian father's lobby? Where is your
responsibility?

When a social group gets power disproportionate to its merits, the
arrangement that follows is that of the worst controlling, dominating
and enslaving their betters. The standards applied on the members of
the powerful group are lower than the standards applied to the members
of powerless group, and the former degenerate while the latter have to
constantly improve themselves in order to survive. Through this
mechamism, comes an inversion of merit and inversion of value and
inversion of principle. The Muslim men, who have absolute power in
their societies, are some of the laziest, most violent, most stupid,
most arrogant, most ignorant people that one can run into. The Muslim
women who are not Islamofascists are some of the most beautiful, most
strong-willed, most kind and most generous people that one can meet.
For the former to dominate the latter, is an absolute outrage. An
outrage that can only be corrected by having the Muslim women see what
good men are capable of - and by Muslim men being shown what women who
actually are bad, as they think all women are, are like.

Like Islamic men, the American feminists are absolutely the worst of
womanhood that one finds anywhere. They are malicious, cold, snide,
hideous, evil harpies who have no second thought about destroying an
innocent man's career or placing an innocent man behind bars. Whereas
American liberal men are hard-working, considerate and respectful in
their treatment of women. For these to be made tools of feminists' war
against beautiful women and loving relationships, is an outrage as
well.

The men who describe their wives and their girlfriends as "bitches"
are best dealt with in the following manner: "There are plenty of
bitches that I can introduce you to in American feminist movement. If
your woman is nothing like that, then she's not a *****, so shut up."
When a society - any society - has gone insane in any direction, the
best way to restore sanity is to confront it with material from other
societies. And that goes both to societies, like liberal America, that
has gone insane in direction of feminism - and to other societies that
have gone insane or are trying to go insane in the other direction.

Neither Islamic men nor American feminists come close to deserving
what they have in their respective societies, and the only way for
there to be anything approaching fairness and justice to
counterbalance whatever evil any society is accomplishing is for there
to be free flux of people across borders for purpose of intermarriage.
Which would create real-world practical mechanisms - the mechanisms of
people being free to choose their partners - to check whatever
malignant dynamics are responsible for these social abominations and,
like free market economic competition, create competitive pressure on
people in all cultures to not only achieve excellence themselves, but
likewise to treat their partners in worthy manner.

If the Australian men are anything like the men that they claim to be,
it wouldn't be their girlfriends and wives that they'd be attacking.
They'd be attacking the centers of feminism in America and risking
their reputation, their freedom, and their careers, as did the men in
America who had courage to stand up to this real systemic wrong.
Instead they are being complete cowards and beating up on women who
are predisposed to being loving toward them enough to pick them as
their husbands. You think you are the men that you claim you are? No
you aren't. Real men don't beat up on those who like them enough to
pick them as husbands. Losers do that and in so doing they ***** in
their own pond.

So, some among men would say, how can I as a man be going against my
own gender. My response to that is, if you see life in terms of battle
of men against women (or if you're a gender feminist and sees it in
terms of battle of women against men), then you have no chance of
being good to anyone you're with and should not be getting married or
having children at all. Others would say, how can I be so stupid as to
deny my own rights as a man against my wife. My response to that is
that I do not need such rights against my wife; I seek to treat her in
such a manner as to make these unnecessary. My far greater concern is
with the rights of my daughter, who will have to live in the world
created by these movements. And if you do not want your daughters to
have rights in the world in order that you can have short-term
advantage against your wives in the court of law, then you are too
selfish and too short-sighted to be adequate material for parenting
and do not deserve to have that privilege.

The people who would employ a concept, like Parental Alienation
Syndrome, that has been soundly discredited in the place it originated
have no regard for the truth. And the people who would seek legal
privileges that they do not merit, are likewise ones who are least
worthy of them. Show me someone involved in Australia's father's
lobby, and I'll show you an abuser, a liar and a coward.

And that makes dirt-poor material for having the parenting rights that
they seek.

The social and historical movements have habit of coming down hardest
on people who least deserve it, and to empower those who likewise

The social and historical movements have habit of coming down hardest
on people who least deserve it, and to empower those who likewise
deserve it the least. When Soviet Union fell, it wasn't the
bureaucrats, KGB agents, factory managers or military commanders that
got the worst of it, but rather the honest, responsible, hard-working,
dedicated people like teachers, doctors and scientists. So it shall
come as no surprise that the gender wars - both the 1990s feminism and
the reaction against 1990s feminism - have injured, and are injuring,
precisely the wrong people.

It has been said by just about every woman of sense and intelligence
that feminism in America has gone too far. And as with any movement
that becomes extreme enough to commit the unjustifiable, the reaction
against it becomes just as extreme. There is a problem however. It
wasn't the men around the world who truly merited the attention of
feminism that got injured by it in 1990s; and it isn't the women
around the world who merit the reaction against feminism that get
injured now. Instead it is precisely the people who deserve it the
least.

The 1990s feminists' attempt to deal with rape was an abject failure.
There is one simple reason for this problem. There is an inverse
correlation between the kind of woman who is believed in court and the
kind of woman who is likely to get raped. The women who are most at
risk for getting raped - women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds;
women who are socially disempowered; women who are traumatized or
marginalized; and women who take risks - are not given credibility in
court of law. The women who do have credibility in court of law, are
women living protected lifestyles, who are far less likely to get
raped by strangers. And the people who are more likely to sexually
abuse them - their family relatives - are protected by family loyalty
and family reputation, through a phenomenon known as conspiracy of
silence, from having their acts revealed publicly or believed in a
court of law.

Which means that consistently the women who are likely to get raped
are either prevailed upon not to push forward their accusations or do
not get believed when they do - and the women whom the courts are
inclined to believe, are far more likely to be lying.

In workplace sexual harrassment, we see similar inverse correlation.
The women who are likely to get harrassed are the open, compassionate,
friendly women, who are generous of nature and are least likely to
want to destroy someone's career even if the other person has insulted
them. The kind of women who are malicious enough to want to destroy
someone's career are not likely to have men want them in the first
place. These are not likely to be harrassed, and the harrassment
claims they lodge are much more likely to be false.

The 1990s feminism did not begin to affect the real wrongdoers - the
Muslims, the Hindus, the redneck and ghetto hooligans. These sneered
at it and then maintained their ways by claiming wrongly to speak for
traditional values or sanity and rightly to speak against the feminist
wrong. Instead it fell squarely on the shoulders of liberal men who
were anywhere near the centers of feminism - the academia, the media,
the liberal cities, the Democratic-voting areas of the United States.
And the global reaction against the wrongs and excesses of feminism is
likewise not hurting American feminists and false accusers. Instead it
is hurting the innocent women around the world, who get falsely
portrayed as being potentially the same as American feminists, and are
under that wrongful consideration being unjustly injured for sins
perpetrated by aggressive, malicious, poisonous women who claimed to
speak for the women and used that colossal usurpation of power to
injure both women who thought differently from them and men who
refused to buy their party line.

In Australia, there is a racket known as Parental Alienation Syndrome.
The concept was invented in 1980s by an American conman and was
quickly discredited in United States. In Australia however it is still
used by the family court system. The racket claims that a woman who
speaks up about her ex-partner abusing the children is mentally ill
and fabricating the accusations, and if the children make accusations
as well then she has manipulated them into so doing. Out of that
consideration Australian courts make a policy of taking away the
children from any woman who tells the truth.

It can be very well said that American feminists do not deserve
American liberal men. Here however, and in much of the rest of the
world, the problem is quite the opposite. In Australia, it is the men
who do not deserve the women - and like all people who do not deserve
their partners, invent ridiculous reasons to abuse them and tear them
down in order that they could keep at the top of relationships with
people they do not deserve to be with in the first place. Using a
mechanism identified by Eric Berne as racket anger, in which a person
invents false reasons to be angry at someone in order to justify
wanting to mistreat them, these men come into relationships expecting
to be somehow betrayed and mistreated - and injure, wear down, beat
and abuse the women until they either suffer so much that they do
something (in which case the man claims he was right from the
beginning), or are completely destroyed and accept abuse lying down.
At which point many of the abused, either believing this to be the
natural lot of women or feeling that no woman is allowed to have
better than they have, go on and abuse, destroy and entrap other women
in their communities (especially anyone younger and prettier) into
lives of brutality and personal destruction. In either case, the
racket continues, and the lie gets bigger and bigger and breaks and
strangles more people into a world of self-perpetuating injustice,
atrocity and deceit.

Which then becomes the true character of the arrangement and the
formative core of all its claimed values, attitudes and ways.

Which then markets itself as tradition, common sense, sanity, reality
or religion and thus profanes all these concepts by using them for
perpetuation of ways whose true character is one of atrocity and
deceit.

Australian women (like Russian women, or Middle Eastern women, or
Latin American women) are vastly superior to what one sees in America.
They are beautiful, cultured, elegant, smart, hard-working,
responsible, loving, and warm. To someone who's lived through American
1990s feminism, when American women turned into cruel, malicious,
deceptive, abusive harpies who thought nothing of falsely accusing an
innocent man of workplace sexual harrassment or falsely accusing an
innocent man of rape, these women are creatures from heaven. An
American liberal man would dream about having such woman; Australian
men already have them and treat them like trash.

The people who need patriarchial institutions are people who least
deserve them. The true person treats the partner in such a manner that
she does not want to leave him, not create laws and social
institutions that make it difficult for her to leave. The only person
who wants the protection of such institution, is the person who wants
to abuse the partner and for the partner to have no recourse.

It is the person who wants to brutalize, degrade, undermine and
mistreat the partner - and have the institution of marriage, or
institution of family, or institution of community, to keep the
partner from leaving.

It is the person who wants to commit crimes in the privacy of the
household, and let the social institution of househod to keep these
crimes from getting redressed.

It is the person who wants to appeal to a borrowed virtue to cover for
his own lack of virtue.

And this - appeal to borrowed virtue to cover for own lack of virtue -
is the essence of Australian father's lobby.

As it is the essence of Islamist, Hindu, and other degenerate manhood
in the hellhole cultures of the world.

The people who want the protection of tradition to keep their
relationships, are ones who do not want to do what it takes to keep a
relationship going. What they want, is license to commit crimes
against their partner under the guise of tradition and family. As
such, they use appeal to ethics to hide ethically damnable behavior.
Which profanes the ethics they appeal to as much as it profanes
themselves.

Appealing to these fallacious ethical arguments, Australian men are
blaming everything on women. At Current Affair, there was a story
about a woman who has six children by six different men. Even though
the woman is working hard and keeping her children well-fed and well-
cared for, she has been singled out as an example of women's
immorality. An obvious question to ask is, What about the men? Where
are their ethics? Where is their responsibility? It takes two to have
a child, and if the woman is prosecuted - but man is not - then one
group has an immoral free ride at the expense of the other. Which
ruins whatever claims of ethics or responsibility or morality that
they may assert. I once ran into a man who called himself "a producer"
because he "produced" eight children by eight different women and did
not take care of any of them. Immorality to be blamed on women? What
about their partners who impregnate them and then leave them or batter
them?

What about you, Australian father's lobby? Where is your
responsibility?

When a social group gets power disproportionate to its merits, the
arrangement that follows is that of the worst controlling, dominating
and enslaving their betters. The standards applied on the members of
the powerful group are lower than the standards applied to the members
of powerless group, and the former degenerate while the latter have to
constantly improve themselves in order to survive. Through this
mechamism, comes an inversion of merit and inversion of value and
inversion of principle. The Muslim men, who have absolute power in
their societies, are some of the laziest, most violent, most stupid,
most arrogant, most ignorant people that one can run into. The Muslim
women who are not Islamofascists are some of the most beautiful, most
strong-willed, most kind and most generous people that one can meet.
For the former to dominate the latter, is an absolute outrage. An
outrage that can only be corrected by having the Muslim women see what
good men are capable of - and by Muslim men being shown what women who
actually are bad, as they think all women are, are like.

Like Islamic men, the American feminists are absolutely the worst of
womanhood that one finds anywhere. They are malicious, cold, snide,
hideous, evil harpies who have no second thought about destroying an
innocent man's career or placing an innocent man behind bars. Whereas
American liberal men are hard-working, considerate and respectful in
their treatment of women. For these to be made tools of feminists' war
against beautiful women and loving relationships, is an outrage as
well.

The men who describe their wives and their girlfriends as "bitches"
are best dealt with in the following manner: "There are plenty of
bitches that I can introduce you to in American feminist movement. If
your woman is nothing like that, then she's not a *****, so shut up."
When a society - any society - has gone insane in any direction, the
best way to restore sanity is to confront it with material from other
societies. And that goes both to societies, like liberal America, that
has gone insane in direction of feminism - and to other societies that
have gone insane or are trying to go insane in the other direction.

Neither Islamic men nor American feminists come close to deserving
what they have in their respective societies, and the only way for
there to be anything approaching fairness and justice to
counterbalance whatever evil any society is accomplishing is for there
to be free flux of people across borders for purpose of intermarriage.
Which would create real-world practical mechanisms - the mechanisms of
people being free to choose their partners - to check whatever
malignant dynamics are responsible for these social abominations and,
like free market economic competition, create competitive pressure on
people in all cultures to not only achieve excellence themselves, but
likewise to treat their partners in worthy manner.

If the Australian men are anything like the men that they claim to be,
it wouldn't be their girlfriends and wives that they'd be attacking.
They'd be attacking the centers of feminism in America and risking
their reputation, their freedom, and their careers, as did the men in
America who had courage to stand up to this real systemic wrong.
Instead they are being complete cowards and beating up on women who
are predisposed to being loving toward them enough to pick them as
their husbands. You think you are the men that you claim you are? No
you aren't. Real men don't beat up on those who like them enough to
pick them as husbands. Losers do that and in so doing they ***** in
their own pond.

So, some among men would say, how can I as a man be going against my
own gender. My response to that is, if you see life in terms of battle
of men against women (or if you're a gender feminist and sees it in
terms of battle of women against men), then you have no chance of
being good to anyone you're with and should not be getting married or
having children at all. Others would say, how can I be so stupid as to
deny my own rights as a man against my wife. My response to that is
that I do not need such rights against my wife; I seek to treat her in
such a manner as to make these unnecessary. My far greater concern is
with the rights of my daughter, who will have to live in the world
created by these movements. And if you do not want your daughters to
have rights in the world in order that you can have short-term
advantage against your wives in the court of law, then you are too
selfish and too short-sighted to be adequate material for parenting
and do not deserve to have that privilege.

The people who would employ a concept, like Parental Alienation
Syndrome, that has been soundly discredited in the place it originated
have no regard for the truth. And the people who would seek legal
privileges that they do not merit, are likewise ones who are least
worthy of them. Show me someone involved in Australia's father's
lobby, and I'll show you an abuser, a liar and a coward.

And that makes dirt-poor material for having the parenting rights that
they seek.

The social and historical movements have habit of coming down hardest
on people who least deserve it, and to empower those who likewise
deserve it the least. When Soviet Union fell, it wasn't the
bureaucrats, KGB agents, factory managers or military commanders that
got the worst of it, but rather the honest, responsible, hard-working,
dedicated people like teachers, doctors and scientists. So it shall
come as no surprise that the gender wars - both the 1990s feminism and
the reaction against 1990s feminism - have injured, and are injuring,
precisely the wrong people.

It has been said by just about every woman of sense and intelligence
that feminism in America has gone too far. And as with any movement
that becomes extreme enough to commit the unjustifiable, the reaction
against it becomes just as extreme. There is a problem however. It
wasn't the men around the world who truly merited the attention of
feminism that got injured by it in 1990s; and it isn't the women
around the world who merit the reaction against feminism that get
injured now. Instead it is precisely the people who deserve it the
least.

The 1990s feminists' attempt to deal with rape was an abject failure.
There is one simple reason for this problem. There is an inverse
correlation between the kind of woman who is believed in court and the
kind of woman who is likely to get raped. The women who are most at
risk for getting raped - women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds;
women who are socially disempowered; women who are traumatized or
marginalized; and women who take risks - are not given credibility in
court of law. The women who do have credibility in court of law, are
women living protected lifestyles, who are far less likely to get
raped by strangers. And the people who are more likely to sexually
abuse them - their family relatives - are protected by family loyalty
and family reputation, through a phenomenon known as conspiracy of
silence, from having their acts revealed publicly or believed in a
court of law.

Which means that consistently the women who are likely to get raped
are either prevailed upon not to push forward their accusations or do
not get believed when they do - and the women whom the courts are
inclined to believe, are far more likely to be lying.

In workplace sexual harrassment, we see similar inverse correlation.
The women who are likely to get harrassed are the open, compassionate,
friendly women, who are generous of nature and are least likely to
want to destroy someone's career even if the other person has insulted
them. The kind of women who are malicious enough to want to destroy
someone's career are not likely to have men want them in the first
place. These are not likely to be harrassed, and the harrassment
claims they lodge are much more likely to be false.

The 1990s feminism did not begin to affect the real wrongdoers - the
Muslims, the Hindus, the redneck and ghetto hooligans. These sneered
at it and then maintained their ways by claiming wrongly to speak for
traditional values or sanity and rightly to speak against the feminist
wrong. Instead it fell squarely on the shoulders of liberal men who
were anywhere near the centers of feminism - the academia, the media,
the liberal cities, the Democratic-voting areas of the United States.
And the global reaction against the wrongs and excesses of feminism is
likewise not hurting American feminists and false accusers. Instead it
is hurting the innocent women around the world, who get falsely
portrayed as being potentially the same as American feminists, and are
under that wrongful consideration being unjustly injured for sins
perpetrated by aggressive, malicious, poisonous women who claimed to
speak for the women and used that colossal usurpation of power to
injure both women who thought differently from them and men who
refused to buy their party line.

In Australia, there is a racket known as Parental Alienation Syndrome.
The concept was invented in 1980s by an American conman and was
quickly discredited in United States. In Australia however it is still
used by the family court system. The racket claims that a woman who
speaks up about her ex-partner abusing the children is mentally ill
and fabricating the accusations, and if the children make accusations
as well then she has manipulated them into so doing. Out of that
consideration Australian courts make a policy of taking away the
children from any woman who tells the truth.

It can be very well said that American feminists do not deserve
American liberal men. Here however, and in much of the rest of the
world, the problem is quite the opposite. In Australia, it is the men
who do not deserve the women - and like all people who do not deserve
their partners, invent ridiculous reasons to abuse them and tear them
down in order that they could keep at the top of relationships with
people they do not deserve to be with in the first place. Using a
mechanism identified by Eric Berne as racket anger, in which a person
invents false reasons to be angry at someone in order to justify
wanting to mistreat them, these men come into relationships expecting
to be somehow betrayed and mistreated - and injure, wear down, beat
and abuse the women until they either suffer so much that they do
something (in which case the man claims he was right from the
beginning), or are completely destroyed and accept abuse lying down.
At which point many of the abused, either believing this to be the
natural lot of women or feeling that no woman is allowed to have
better than they have, go on and abuse, destroy and entrap other women
in their communities (especially anyone younger and prettier) into
lives of brutality and personal destruction. In either case, the
racket continues, and the lie gets bigger and bigger and breaks and
strangles more people into a world of self-perpetuating injustice,
atrocity and deceit.

Which then becomes the true character of the arrangement and the
formative core of all its claimed values, attitudes and ways.

Which then markets itself as tradition, common sense, sanity, reality
or religion and thus profanes all these concepts by using them for
perpetuation of ways whose true character is one of atrocity and
deceit.

Australian women (like Russian women, or Middle Eastern women, or
Latin American women) are vastly superior to what one sees in America.
They are beautiful, cultured, elegant, smart, hard-working,
responsible, loving, and warm. To someone who's lived through American
1990s feminism, when American women turned into cruel, malicious,
deceptive, abusive harpies who thought nothing of falsely accusing an
innocent man of workplace sexual harrassment or falsely accusing an
innocent man of rape, these women are creatures from heaven. An
American liberal man would dream about having such woman; Australian
men already have them and treat them like trash.

The people who need patriarchial institutions are people who least
deserve them. The true person treats the partner in such a manner that
she does not want to leave him, not create laws and social
institutions that make it difficult for her to leave. The only person
who wants the protection of such institution, is the person who wants
to abuse the partner and for the partner to have no recourse.

It is the person who wants to brutalize, degrade, undermine and
mistreat the partner - and have the institution of marriage, or
institution of family, or institution of community, to keep the
partner from leaving.

It is the person who wants to commit crimes in the privacy of the
household, and let the social institution of househod to keep these
crimes from getting redressed.

It is the person who wants to appeal to a borrowed virtue to cover for
his own lack of virtue.

And this - appeal to borrowed virtue to cover for own lack of virtue -
is the essence of Australian father's lobby.

As it is the essence of Islamist, Hindu, and other degenerate manhood
in the hellhole cultures of the world.

The people who want the protection of tradition to keep their
relationships, are ones who do not want to do what it takes to keep a
relationship going. What they want, is license to commit crimes
against their partner under the guise of tradition and family. As
such, they use appeal to ethics to hide ethically damnable behavior.
Which profanes the ethics they appeal to as much as it profanes
themselves.

Appealing to these fallacious ethical arguments, Australian men are
blaming everything on women. At Current Affair, there was a story
about a woman who has six children by six different men. Even though
the woman is working hard and keeping her children well-fed and well-
cared for, she has been singled out as an example of women's
immorality. An obvious question to ask is, What about the men? Where
are their ethics? Where is their responsibility? It takes two to have
a child, and if the woman is prosecuted - but man is not - then one
group has an immoral free ride at the expense of the other. Which
ruins whatever claims of ethics or responsibility or morality that
they may assert. I once ran into a man who called himself "a producer"
because he "produced" eight children by eight different women and did
not take care of any of them. Immorality to be blamed on women? What
about their partners who impregnate them and then leave them or batter
them?

What about you, Australian father's lobby? Where is your
responsibility?

When a social group gets power disproportionate to its merits, the
arrangement that follows is that of the worst controlling, dominating
and enslaving their betters. The standards applied on the members of
the powerful group are lower than the standards applied to the members
of powerless group, and the former degenerate while the latter have to
constantly improve themselves in order to survive. Through this
mechamism, comes an inversion of merit and inversion of value and
inversion of principle. The Muslim men, who have absolute power in
their societies, are some of the laziest, most violent, most stupid,
most arrogant, most ignorant people that one can run into. The Muslim
women who are not Islamofascists are some of the most beautiful, most
strong-willed, most kind and most generous people that one can meet.
For the former to dominate the latter, is an absolute outrage. An
outrage that can only be corrected by having the Muslim women see what
good men are capable of - and by Muslim men being shown what women who
actually are bad, as they think all women are, are like.

Like Islamic men, the American feminists are absolutely the worst of
womanhood that one finds anywhere. They are malicious, cold, snide,
hideous, evil harpies who have no second thought about destroying an
innocent man's career or placing an innocent man behind bars. Whereas
American liberal men are hard-working, considerate and respectful in
their treatment of women. For these to be made tools of feminists' war
against beautiful women and loving relationships, is an outrage as
well.

The men who describe their wives and their girlfriends as "bitches"
are best dealt with in the following manner: "There are plenty of
bitches that I can introduce you to in American feminist movement. If
your woman is nothing like that, then she's not a *****, so shut up."
When a society - any society - has gone insane in any direction, the
best way to restore sanity is to confront it with material from other
societies. And that goes both to societies, like liberal America, that
has gone insane in direction of feminism - and to other societies that
have gone insane or are trying to go insane in the other direction.

Neither Islamic men nor American feminists come close to deserving
what they have in their respective societies, and the only way for
there to be anything approaching fairness and justice to
counterbalance whatever evil any society is accomplishing is for there
to be free flux of people across borders for purpose of intermarriage.
Which would create real-world practical mechanisms - the mechanisms of
people being free to choose their partners - to check whatever
malignant dynamics are responsible for these social abominations and,
like free market economic competition, create competitive pressure on
people in all cultures to not only achieve excellence themselves, but
likewise to treat their partners in worthy manner.

If the Australian men are anything like the men that they claim to be,
it wouldn't be their girlfriends and wives that they'd be attacking.
They'd be attacking the centers of feminism in America and risking
their reputation, their freedom, and their careers, as did the men in
America who had courage to stand up to this real systemic wrong.
Instead they are being complete cowards and beating up on women who
are predisposed to being loving toward them enough to pick them as
their husbands. You think you are the men that you claim you are? No
you aren't. Real men don't beat up on those who like them enough to
pick them as husbands. Losers do that and in so doing they ***** in
their own pond.

So, some among men would say, how can I as a man be going against my
own gender. My response to that is, if you see life in terms of battle
of men against women (or if you're a gender feminist and sees it in
terms of battle of women against men), then you have no chance of
being good to anyone you're with and should not be getting married or
having children at all. Others would say, how can I be so stupid as to
deny my own rights as a man against my wife. My response to that is
that I do not need such rights against my wife; I seek to treat her in
such a manner as to make these unnecessary. My far greater concern is
with the rights of my daughter, who will have to live in the world
created by these movements. And if you do not want your daughters to
have rights in the world in order that you can have short-term
advantage against your wives in the court of law, then you are too
selfish and too short-sighted to be adequate material for parenting
and do not deserve to have that privilege.

The people who would employ a concept, like Parental Alienation
Syndrome, that has been soundly discredited in the place it originated
have no regard for the truth. And the people who would seek legal
privileges that they do not merit, are likewise ones who are least
worthy of them. Show me someone involved in Australia's father's
lobby, and I'll show you an abuser, a liar and a coward.

And that makes dirt-poor material for having the parenting rights that
they seek.