S o what brought us to this point in history? How did those who promote anti-family agenda sieze sole control of about half the social landscape in America without anybody objecting to it? Who are these people, and who are the organizations?

This requires us to look at the historic roots of radical feminism which contemporary political correctness has blinded us to. Most folks alive today believe that contemporary feminism just appeared out of nowhere in the 1950's or 1960's as a movement dedicated to obtaining "equal rights for women". This is incorrect.

Radical feminism's first organized incarnation was within the Women's Ku Klux Klan (WKKK) in the late 1800's.

Here is a very simple overview of the etiology behind 1880's era discrimination against blacks:

WKKK women basically went around talking about what black men night do to them, and white men preached of the sanctity of "white womanhood". The sexually hypercharged imagery, together with economic desires of slave-owners, made widespread violence and discrimination against blacks acceptable and even necessary in the public eye. Women got what they wanted by motivating men with horrid sexual imagery about blacks, and men took up their dirty duties protecting the sanctity of "white womanhood".

Early WKKK radical feminists also wrote about the drudgery of motherhood and other typical feminist topics we read about frequently today. A common overarching theme was women using their sexual power to get men to do whatever they wanted – a theme identical to the core ideology of the contemporary V-Day initiatieve pushed by N.O.W. in hopes of replacing Valentine's Day with a murky celebration of misandry.

In the late 1880's, a broadside was published in Evansville, Indiana proclaiming; "No longer will man say that in the hand of woman rests the necessity of rocking a cradle only. She has within her hand the power to rule the world." This, and many other early radical mottos would magically reappear in the 1960's and find popularity in "great society" feminist revolution.

The similarities in core language and ideology between the WKKK and the modern radical feminist movement over time are remarkable.

The WKKK was also a major power base of the "Votes for Women" movement, although this historical fact is of little interest in this analysis.

Then, as is now, radical feminists treat motherhood as an unfair struggle, while rigidly hanging on to control of the family as a matter of fundamental biological right.

The end position of "bipolar" contemporary radical-feminist perspectives is essentially that motherhood is a laudable but sadly heroic exercise in victim-hood – but is really only laudable if there is no husband in the picture (who is of course blamed for all of society's problems).

With the exception of a few egalitarian feminist thinkers, who hold somewhat more balanced views (and are viciously attacked by radicals for it); mainstream contemporary feminism is unquestionably founded in misandry.

The WKKK had over 4 million members by 1925, a substantial organization in those days. In Indiana, an estimated 32% of white native-born women were members of the WKKK.. Their work was largely promulgated through networks in the Protestant Church, the Y.W.C.A., and a variety of "vice squad organizations" which blamed all vice on men, but never questioned women's part in it.

By the 1920's, a congressional investigation into the KKK concluded that a woman named Elizabeth Tyler was the "true power" behind the KKK -- the grand dragon serving as little more than a figurehead. Tyler had achieved controlling power by catering to the weaknesses of men, and being the leading fundraiser of the WKKK and even the KKK itself.

After passage of the 19th amendment, radical women no longer needed the Klan as a power base, and vacated it in the early 1930's.

Those who don't believe us about feminism's substantial participation in discrimination against blacks, via the use of sexual imagery; and the foundation it formed for contemporary feminism, should read the book "Women of the Klan" by Kathleen L. Blee. This book be purchased at here.

As part of her summary about the WKKK movement Blee concluded, "the WKKK [created] a gender ideology that was neither fundamentally reactionary nor progressive. Rather, the women's Klan was contradictory: a reactionary, hate-base movement with progressive moments." (Those who study the agenda, activities, and methodology of contemporary radical feminism - which traded hate of black men for hate of all men-- have little choice but to come to a similar conclusion).

One book reviewer wrote this summary of Blee's book: "The significance of "Women of the Klan" rests not in its somewhat ebullient celebration of feminist principles, but rather, that it documents in great detail a direct lineage between the Women's Ku Klux Klan and the radical feminist movement as it exists today. The book draws from a wide variety of historical documents, letters, and in-camera interviews that the author recorded with older women who were still alive at the time the book was written."

Was sexism a truly powerful driver of racism?  Is this just a theory?  No.  This fact is evident, spanning time into the relatively-contemporary thinking of a respected President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Chief Justice Earl Warren had been invited to a White house dinner during the time the U.S. Supreme Court was pondering Brown v. Board of Education.  Dwight D. Eisenhower went to some length to encourage Warren to affirm continuing school segregation.  Earl Warren captured Eisenhower's belief in his memoirs.  Please note that Eisenhower's statement is founded on sexism, and directly iterates the Klan directive of "protecting the virtue of white women".

"The president took me by the arm, and as we walked along, speaking of the southern states in segregation cases, he said 'These are not bad people. All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big overgrown nigroes' [The Memoirs of Chief Justice Earl Warren, Madison Books, December 2001].

Post-Klan Feminism

Starting in about 1930, radical feminists began studying Freudian psychology which was eagerly being exported from Europe. They practiced and incorporated it conveniently to eventually contrive professional credibility for ulterior victim-feminist theories and goals.

Anna Freud was a participant in this effort. In 1973, she callously wrote, "The noncustodial parent should have no legally enforceable right to visit the child, and the custodial parent should have the right to decide whether it is desirable for the child to have such visits."

Freud's granddaughter, a retired Simmons College professor of Psychology perhaps knows better than anybody else what Freudian psychology was all about and the tremendous human damage it has done.  In her lecture False Prophets,  Sophie unequivocally stated, "Freud and Hitler shared a neighbourhood. They also shared the ambition to convince other men of the one and only truth that they had come upon - Sigmund Freud with brilliant rhetoric, Adolf Hitler with brutal force. Adored by their followers, they founded powerful movements. In my eyes both Adolf Hitler and my grandfather were false prophets of the 20th century." [False Prophets; Adelphi University, Garden State, NY, October 15, 2002].

Despite substantial rejection of Freudian psychology in many areas of psychology, feminist psychology and jursiprudence centers its work on sexual innuendo, subjective observation, and a lack of hard data to create the illusion that findings are professional findings.

The wide body of psychological science provides no support showing that this is a good policy, yet courts do this regularly, police refuse to enforce orders, and legislatures rarely provide legislation or funding to enforce orders. We find it interesting that stealing a child from another parent is not a crime, but stealing a Barbie doll from the toy store will get you arrested.

The Freudian science of discrimination is most easy seen in the style and mysterious technique of conventional psychological "tea leaf readers" who testify for a fee to "validate" child or spousal abuse despite a lack of statistical testing.

"Validation" is the dishonest process of taking an allegation, then applying the anecdotal evidence within the allegation itself to "prove" that abuse took place. This method operates in defiance of the ridiculousness of the allegations or strong fact to the contrary, and rarely incorporates statistical measurement by having an M.M.P.I. done on all parties in the case. For example, in one notorious St. Louis case, Dr. Montaleone of Cardinal Glennon Hospital testified; "You can never say that a child has not been abused. Never." If this true, could one ever testify that a child has been abused?

Feminist psychologists often "project" the behavior of the wife and/or children on the husband, blaming him for their problems, usually without ever meeting or interviewing him -- thus creating an "innocent until proven guilty" scenario.

Feminist studies and courts pretend that fathers are causing problems for women and children when they try to save the marriage, litigate for fair custody provisions or attempt to enforce visitation. The feminist perspective is entirely incorrect, for it is the commonplace aggression of divorce, denial of parenthood, and denial of constructive social position, which brings on litigation by fathers who care.

A large consensus of studies from both "liberal" and "conservative" researchers show that children in non-intact families have tremendously higher rates of many psychological disorders. This is true of parents as well. The stresses of divorce weigh heavily on everyone.

If problems are to be blamed on anyone, they must be blamed on those who seek divorce for irresponsible reasons or those who truly deserved the divorces they were served with. Unless one could reasonable conclude that 60% of America's divorced men were cruel wife-beating child-abusing husbands, we cannot blame these problems on husbands as we do today.

In the 1960's, feminism arrived on center stage. Instead of using sexual imagery about black men, they simply dropped the word "black" from their jargon. Men were unfair and unjust. Marriage was a trap. Any self respecting man must leave the human race to do whatever women wanted. And many of them did.

Divorce rates skyrocketed as demanded by anti-family radical feminist activists. Lawyers controlling the political and legal system profiteered unimaginably by replacing husbands with child support. All of society's problems were blamed on men. Radical feminists applied a classic "fallacy of composition" trick to the situation. Divorce drove men out of the house by doing things behind closed doors. Suddenly, the husband was no longer in the home. The appearance is that men ran out on the family, in large numbers, when in fact the vast majority of them were thrown out of it.

Even Paul McCartney, the President of Promise Keepers, blamed family breakdown on men in a National Review article. This was a tragic and fatal blow to the Promise Keepers movement, because most men know this is false feminist imagery – and by the end of that year Promise Keepers was nearly bankrupt due to the exodus of members.

By the late 1980's, the debacle of the McMartin case weakened the now-commonplace feminist family-courtroom trick of using wild allegations of child abuse against men to control families and society. The Carter-Mondale Act of 1974 had combined two bills, one automatically funding child abuse treatment, with another bill designed to find out how much child abuse there was out there. The combination of the two created a self-financing endless search for child abuse under every rock, and feminists played the system to the limit. All it took was one phone call, no matter how absurd the allegation, to put the husband out of the home -- never to return.

In the 1990's, radicals switched to using false allegations of domestic abuse. The political-correctness of misandry dictates that women are always the victim (when in fact women initiate slightly more than half of all serious physical spousal altercations). Between 1999 and 2003, $4-billion in federal funds given to the National Organization of Women under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), will have been spent spreading hate of men in society and on college campuses and driving husbands out of families.

By 1988, most state laws (driven by federal pass-through legislation) permitted seizure of home, family, bank accounts, and all other substantial assets by women in one court ex-parte hearing, which the husband is not permitted to attend. Even "live-in" girlfriends can steal the ranch in this manner. Most judges don't have time to figure out whether or not the allegations are true, and no judge wants to end up on the front page of the newspaper because some woman got hurt, so most judges approve these restraining orders without question.

Unfortunately, the abuse of restraining orders causes far more violence than it prevents. According to the National Family Violence Surveys, less than 25% of serious altercations take place in the intact family. The substantial majority of domestic violence takes place in the broken family. The stresses of divorce cause tremendous friction between spouses, particularly if one spouse is being abused by the courts. Public policy makers would do far better by helping spouses work through the normal processes of marriage and aging rather than throwing gasoline on families.

Lesbian Politics: Where did it come from?

Ever since the inception of Johnson's Great Society, and the "divorce revolution" that accompanied socialization of "lack of family", poverty has continued to be a tremendous problem. We spent more than the national debt on it, with no traction to show for it.

Here is why: It takes 1.4 incomes of $29,300 per year (in 1995 dollars) to support a middle class family. It is structurally impossible for that middle class family to support two households in divorce and sustain large legal fees and still be a middle-class "broken" family.

Conclusion: The laws of economic gravity dictate that single-parent household economics cannot work.

Lesbian Political Agenda: What its really all about

Around 1987, N.O.W. found a solution for this problem. It realized that if it could only legalize "female-female" marriage, that women could have what I call "super-families". Under existing federal and state laws, a "Super-family" would have six sources of income, comprised of two sets of welfare entitlements, two sets of child support orders, and the incomes of the two women.

N.O.W. also realized that America would not go along easily with the idea of "female-female" marriage. A victim-class was needed, and lesbians were the perfect victims. Of the two states which have legalized female-female marriage, none have a " sexual preference" requirement in order to qualify. Any two women can marry each other – regardless of sexual preference.

The result is that lesbian politics became the trojan-horse for creating "female-female" marriage (evidence is presented to support this claim on the next page).

Under this arrangement, men would be doubly discriminated against (both black and white, regardless of sexual preference), and would only be able to labor desperately outside legitimate society in a modern form of slavery. This matched N.O.W's desires precisely.

The Actual Goal sought under the guise of "lesbian rights": A Sexually-Segregated Society

Recallthe hubbub over Strom Thurman, Trent Lott, and "segregation". Both Conservatives and Liberals agree on one thing: segregation is just plain wrong.

Segregation is precisely what lesbian political agenda is designed to create. N.O.W. wants to segregate society along sexual lines, with women having all social rights to marriage and family, while men can no longer be a part of family or society. Their idea is for women to have a couple of kids under any possible circumstance as the vehicle for walking away from society, taking all their marbles, accumulating additional social and economic rights at the expense of men, and get paid for doing so.

In this light, we begin to realize that "Heather has two mommies" is really a supremacist sex power slogan, no different than the "white power" slogans of the Ku Klux Klan. The difference between racist segregation and sexual segregation is this: Racial segregation was intended to be forced on blacks by not allowing them various social, legal, and property rights.

Because of the "divorce revolution" (which was forced on men by feminists and hungry lawyers), sexual segregation already affects about half the fathers in America, by revoking their natural parental rights because government took away their children at the whim of some woman. We see here that the deeply anti-family dreams of the 1960's would actually come true if legislators are fooled into creating a sexually-segregated society in the false name of "equality".

The shallow family and dissolution policies derived from Roe v. Wade has ideologically converted marriage and fatherhood into nothing more than an economic liability assessed against men because feminists "chose" to take away their children.

The oft-claimed right of "women's choice", is merely a cover for widespread discrimination against men. The Civil War was fought because Southerners defiantly claimed that it was their right to choose to do what they wanted. Nobody has yet properly declared the war on feminism that is long overdue. Feminists and corrupt lawyers should not have a right to force a sexually-segregated society on America.

Feminists have a shocking amount of support within the legal profession (who like any other self-regulating trade organization monopoly cares more about profits than anything else). A recent report issued by the American Law Institute calls for the creation of this sexually-segregated society under the guise of "domestic partners" and "marital equality".

Those who simply complain about "liberals deconstructing the family" make a good point, but they miss the keystone civil rights issue that would make the lesbian agenda immediately unpopular in most political circles: Anybody who opposes racism must oppose the vicious brand of sexism N.O.W. would inflict on America by deconstructing heterosexual marriage and replacing it with a predatory, sexually-segregated society intended to widely discriminate deeply against men.

Misandry Enacted Into Law

Lets look a few examples demonstrating feminist misandry enacted into law. Please remember that so-called mainstream feminists went along with, and even urged the creation of these policies: