The Challenge Ahead for Family Rights Activism

I too eagerly await a listing of the anti-father record of Romney. I am aware of the efforts of the legislature over several decades to create a very effective anti-father system. I am aware of the judicial fiat of the SJC under Margaret Marshall in finding same-sex marriage in America’s first Constitution written by John Adams. I am aware of Romney’s efforts to require the legislature to vote on ballot initiative amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman as required under Article 48. I was one of the 170,000 signatures. I am aware that
the the gay lobbyists and activists are working on case law, step-by-step, case-by-case, in a similar mannaer as was done for Roe v. Wade to loosely string along legal precedents leading to same-sex marriage nationally. I am aware that Romney had missed opportunities to speak out more on same-sex marriage which would have scored political points but would have had no effects on an SJC and Massachusetts State Legislature corrupt as all Hell and determined to shove same-sex marriage down the citizenry’s throat. To read more about Family Courts in Massachusetts read: “Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts” by Kevin Thompson. This is where the heart of Massachusetts anti-father activism lies: Family Court (backed by a corrupt SJC and a corrupt State Legislature).

“It’s possible that they aren’t aware, not because they don’t know much about Romney, but because his anti-father record is off their family-issues radar scope.”

“Also, I’d like to hear about specifics regarding Romney’s record in Mass as well. I’d like to link to this post from my blog, but need specifics to do so.”

Perhaps you should wait “to hear the specifics” before holding the view “they don’t know much about Romney, but because his anti-father record”. Perhaps you should have Romney’s anti-father record proven to you before you hold that opinion.

If we really want to look where things started to go bad we should look back to 1969 when Governor of California Ronald Reagon signed no-fault divorce legislation into California law. At the time fault-based divorce was the law throughout the U.S. By 1974 45 states became no-fault. By 1985 all states became no-fault. Perhaps Ronald Reagon ought to be crowned as the Great Destroyer of Marriage and Fatherhood in America. It started with him.

What has Romney signed into law that is anti-marriage and anti-father?

I am not interested in hearing about lost opportunities that Romnet had in scoring political points that have no legal effect.

Prove to me that the record of Guliane and/or Thompson is better.

Granted, in the murky world of politics no one running impresses me entirely. In fact I consider the system rotten to the core. The following article by Stephen DeVoy pretty well sums up what I think of America’s system of politics today:

The Virtues of a Disorganized Resistance
Stephen DeVoy

American opposition movements have always focused on the notion of organization. It has always been their goal to organize the people. Their hope has been to wield the collective power of the disaffected, downtrodden, and exploited as a single unit against the concentrated power of the ruling class. While their hope has been noble, their methods have been foolish. Organized resistance has many drawbacks. These drawbacks have seldom been discussed by the opposition. We believe that the only effective resistance is a completely disorganized, decentralized, and leaderless opposition.

While, on the face of it, this claim may impress you as absurd. Of course it seems absurd! It is counterintuitive. Never the less, it is the ONLY method of resistance that will work within American society. We will explain why organized resistance has never worked in the United States. In addition, we will promulgate a new formula for effective resistance.

Why has organized resistance failed in the United States?
There are many reasons for the failure of organized resistance. The two primary causes of failure are intimately connected to the culture of the United States and the political system laid down by our nation’s founding fathers.

The Cultural Cause

Americans, culturally, are anarchists. Few Americans realize this. Most Americans have a false understanding of the term “anarchism.” However, upon examining the beliefs of your average American, you will find that most Americans: do not trust leaders, do not trust government, wish to be left alone, value their privacy, think of themselves as independent from society, do not believe that there is a systemic solution to their problems, believe that others should be free to do what they choose, provided they do so in private and do not harm others

While it is undeniable that political culture in the United States often speaks to the opposite of the above list, it is also undeniable that most Americans register as neither Democrat or Republican and most Americans do not vote. Thus, despite the political culture, most Americans choose not to participate in it. This is not only due to their belief that the American political system is hopeless, but also is due to the cultural clash between the wider culture and the political culture.

Any attempt to organize large numbers of Americans into a single political movement will fail. Any attempt to create an organization led by a strong group of leaders will fail. Americans reject submersion into the collective. In a sense, Americans are anti-collectivists.

The Political Cause

American political culture is not ideological. Politicians attempt to draw ideological distinctions between the two major parties, but these distinctions are a matter of splitting hairs. The only significant difference between the two political parties is the degree of compassion represented by the rhetoric of the two parties. Compassion is not a political concept. Compassion is an attitude. Thus, the two parties differ, primarily, in attitude and not ideology.

Despite this, there remain two political parties. One is prompted to ask “why?” If each party is basically the same, with respect to ideology, why do they not merge into one party? The answer to this question is best found in viewing each political party according to its true nature. American political parties are, for all intents and purposes, organized crime units. American political parties have more in common with the Mafia than they have with their counterparts in more democratic societies. Like Mafia, each political party competes for control of territory in order to maximize the benefit to their business constituency. Like Mafia, the political parties attempt to mold the system to maintain their positions and access to resources. Like Mafia, the political parties force the average citizen to pay “protection” under the threat of violence (taxes). Like Mafia each political party uses the “protection” money collected for its own advantage.
By defining our political system in terms of the “majority” and the “opposition,” our Constitution enshrines this two mafia system into law. Each Mafia passes laws to exclude new comers from the game while focusing the rest of its energy in destroying the other Mafia.

Thus, any resistance movement that chooses to become an organization is in competition with these Mafiosi. The deck is stacked and the power of the state, wielded by these organized crime units known as the Democratic and Republican parties, will waste the time and resources of any newcomer. A newcomer can only succeed by rejecting the political system, draining its resources, and undermining the rule of the state.

How is disorganized resistance superior?

Reason No. 1:

In some societies, dissidents become heroes. In American society dissidents are systematically slandered, libeled, harassed, and villainized. If they become successful, they are murdered (e.g. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X). In the American experience, movements that look to leaders are decapitated. Leaders are a liability, not an asset. Organizations can be (and are) infiltrated. Organizations can be taxed. Organizations have legal responsibility. Organizations have membership lists and lists are wonderful tools for the oppressor. Organizations take on a life of their own. They struggle to exist and their continued existence takes priority over their mission. Organizations attract opportunists, power mongers, and attention seekers. Organizations tend to exploit their rank and file for the benefit of their inner circle. Disorganizations share none of these defects.

Reason No. 2:

Bureaucracy cannot comprehend disorganization. Disorganization is invisible. The asymmetry of the relationship between organization and disorganization favors disorganization. Organization depends upon planning. Planning requires predictability. Disorganization cannot be predicted. This leaves organization at a disadvantage.

Reason No. 3:

Organization requires a supply chain. Supply chains can be disrupted. Disorganization depends only upon the resources of its members. Supply chains that do not exist cannot be eliminated.

Reason No. 4:

Disorganized movements rely upon swarming. Swarms are difficult to defend against. If you cut a swarm in half, you have two swarms. If you eliminate one of the resulting swarms, you still have a swarm. Disorganization breeds. Organization grows. The many and dispersed are a more difficult target than the large and concentrated.

Resaon No. 5:

Organizations takes their steps by design. If the design is flawed, the organization fails. Disorganization relies not upon design but upon evolution. The motivating notions of disorganization are memes. Memes evolve and memes compete. This process improves the motivating notions of disorganization. This process produces multiple courses of action. While some may fail, others are likely to succeed. Taken as a whole, disorganization is more likely to succeed.

Reason No. 6:

The important thing to remember is that it is easier to destroy than to create that which is designed. Thus, the cost to those who lose the manifestation of their design outweighs by leaps and bounds the cost it takes to destroy it. That which evolves is cheap and when an effort is created to destroy the evolved entity, it merely mutates and evolves again, adjusting to the new conditions. As a process that fosters evolution, a movement based on disorganization will continue to survive, evolve, and expand without cost. The resource constraints placed upon the designed (e.g. government and corporate) and those absent from the evolved (a decentralized and disorganized opposition movement), favor the later.
The limits of disorganization

We do not propose a complete absence of organization. Instead we propose a disorganization of units. Units can be as small as a single individual, or as complex as cell of individuals working together. Cells may be internally organized, but they should not be statically organized cell to cell. The movement should have no commander. It should have no central committee or governing body. No global plans should be made. The modus operandi of each unit should be to think globally and act locally. Ideas, strategies, and tactics should float freely and compete as memes within the medium of the collective conscious.

Conclusions

We need to construct a disorganized movement. You need not apply to join. In fact, it might be better if you did not contact anyone except those with whom you wish to form a unit. Your ideas, strategies, tactics, and lessons learned should be spread anonymously or by word of mouth. When you act, should you decide to act in resistance, attribute your actions to “the Resistance.” The growing din of disorganized disruption will be felt as an earthquake. There will be trembles. There will be pre-shocks. The tension will mount and, in time, there will be an earthquake. When that earthquake strikes, the organized edifice of the oppressor will fall like a house of cards.

Finally, I am the first to state (as I’ve stated on many occasions here at MND) that the religious right is no friend of men and fathers. They have often been in bed with the radical feminists. And that includes passing legislation. I’ve never made any references to Romney’s religion. When it comes to casting my vote
for President I will hold my nose and hope for the best. The process offers me no better hope than that.

I too eagerly await to hear of verifiable and documented proof of “Romney’s extreme anti-family record as Governor of Massachusetts”.

Up until that time the only one making extreme statements would be you.