U Not Gonna Like This

In order to hopefully bring about some discussion about the path that our country is taking I have deicded to post several of the Anti-federalist Papers here. The first post will be of Anti-Federalist Paper Number 9. However, before I post that here's and overview of the Anti-federalist Papers (link):

During the period from the drafting and proposal of the federal Constitution in September, 1787, to its ratification in 1789 there was an intense debate on ratification. The arguments against ratification appeared in various forms, by various authors, most of whom used a pseudonym. The positions of the Federalists, those who supported the Constitution, and the anti-Federalists, those who opposed it, were printed and reprinted by scores of newspapers across the country.

Due to its size, wealth, and influence and because it was the first state to call a ratifying convention, Pennsylvania was the focus of national attention. On October 5, anti-Federalist Samuel Bryan published the first of his "Centinel" essays in Philadelphia's Independent Gazetteer. Republished in newspapers in various states, the essays assailed the sweeping power of the central government, the usurpation of state sovereignty, and the absence of a bill of rights guaranteeing individual liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

In New York the Constitution was under siege in the press by a series of essays signed “Cato.” Mounting a counterattack, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay enlisted help from Madison and, in late 1787, they published the first of a series of essays now known as the Federalist Papers. The 85 essays, most of which were penned by Hamilton himself, probed the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and the need for an energetic national government.

Against the Federalist leadership and determination, the opposition in most states was disorganized and generally inert. The leading spokesmen were largely state-centered men with regional and local interests and loyalties. The anti-Federalists attacked on several fronts: the lack of a bill of rights, discrimination against southern states in navigation legislation, direct taxation, the loss of state sovereignty. Many charged that the Constitution represented the work of aristocratic politicians bent on protecting their own class interests.

The call for a bill of rights was the anti-Federalists' most powerful weapon. The anti-Federalists, demanded a more unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the rights of the people and limitations of the power of government. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect “those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist.” (Source: A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution)

Although the anti-Federalists lost the struggle over ratification, their defense of individual rights and
suspicion of power remain core American political values, and the bill of rights is a lasting monument to their importance.

And now here's Antifederalist Paper Number 9



A CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT IS A TYRANNY


"MONTEZUMA," regarded as a Pennsylvanian, wrote this essay which showed up in the Independent Gazetteer on October 17, 1787.



We the Aristocratic party of the United States, lamenting the many inconveniences to which the late confederation subjected the well-born, the better kind of people, bringing them down to the level of the rabble-and holding in utter detestation that frontispiece to every bill of rights, "that all men are born equal"-beg leave (for the purpose of drawing a line between such as we think were ordained to govern, and such as were made to bear the weight of government without having any share in its administration) to submit to our Friends in the first class for their inspection, the following defense of our monarchical, aristocratical democracy.


lst. As a majority of all societies consist of men who (though totally incapable of thinking or acting in governmental matters) are more readily led than driven, we have thought meet to indulge them in something like a democracy in the new constitution, which part we have designated by the popular name of the House of Representatives. But to guard against every possible danger from this lower house, we have subjected every bill they bring forward, to the double negative of our upper house and president. Nor have we allowed the populace the right to elect their representatives annually . . . lest this body should be too much under the influence and control of their constituents, and thereby prove the "weatherboard of our grand edifice, to show the shiftings of every fashionable gale,"-for we have not yet to learn that little else is wanting to aristocratize the most democratical representative than to make him somewhat independent of his political creators. We have taken away that rotation of appointment which has so long perplexed us-that grand engine of popular influence. Every man is eligible into our government from time to time for life. This will have a two-fold good effect. First, it prevents the representatives from mixing with the lower class, and imbibing their foolish sentiments, with which they would have come charged on re-election.



2d. They will from the perpetuality of office be under our eye, and in a short time will think and act like us, independently of popular whims and prejudices. For the assertion "that evil communications corrupt good manners," is not more true than its reverse. We have allowed this house the power to impeach, but we have tenaciously reserved the right to try. We hope gentlemen, you will see the policy of this clause-for what matters it who accuses, if the accused is tried by his friends. In fine, this plebian house will have little power, and that little be rightly shaped by our house of gentlemen, who will have a very extensive influence-from their being chosen out of the genteeler class ... It is true, every third senatorial seat is to be vacated duennually, but two-thirds of this influential body will remain in office, and be ready to direct or (if necessary) bring over to the good old way, the young members, if the old ones should not be returned. And whereas many of our brethren, from a laudable desire to support their rank in life above the commonalty, have not only deranged their finances, but subjected their persons to indecent treatment (as being arrested for debt, etc.) we have framed a privilege clause, by which they may laugh at the fools who trusted them. But we have given out, that this clause was provided, only that the members might be able without interruption, to deliberate on the important business of their country.



We have frequently endeavored to effect in our respective states, the happy discrimination which pervades this system; but finding we could not bring the states into it individually, we have determined ... and have taken pains to leave the legislature of each free and independent state, as they now call themselves, in such a situation that they will eventually be absorbed by our grand continental vortex, or dwindle into petty corporations, and have power over little else than yoaking hogs or determining the width of cart wheels. But (aware that an intention to annihilate state legislatures, would be objected to our favorite scheme) we have made their existence (as a board of electors) necessary to ours. This furnishes us and our advocates with a fine answer to any clamors that may be raised on this subject. We have so interwoven continental and state legislatures that they cannot exist separately; whereas we in truth only leave them the power of electing us, for what can a provincial legislature do when we possess the exclusive regulation of external and internal commerce, excise, duties, imposts, post-offices and roads; when we and we alone, have the power to wage war, make peace, coin money (if we can get bullion) if not, borrow money, organize the militia and call them forth to execute our decrees, and crush insurrections assisted by a noble body of veterans subject to our nod, which we have the power of raising and keeping even in the time of peace. What have we to fear from state legislatures or even from states, when we are armed with such powers, with a president at our head? (A name we thought proper to adopt in conformity to the prejudices of a silly people who are so foolishly fond of a Republican government, that we were obliged to accommodate in names and forms to them, in order more effectually to secure the substance of our proposed plan; but we all know that Cromwell was a King, with the title of Protector). I repeat it, what have we to fear armed with such powers, with a president at our head who is captain- -general of the army, navy and militia of the United States, who can make and unmake treaties, appoint and commission ambassadors and other ministers, who can grant or refuse reprieves or pardons, who can make judges of the supreme and other continental courts-in short, who will be the source, the fountain of honor, profit and power, whose influence like the rays of the sun, will diffuse itself far and wide, will exhale all democratical vapors and break the clouds of popular insurrection? But again gentlemen, our judicial power is a strong work, a masked battery, few people see the guns we can and will ere long play off from it. For the judicial power embraces every question which can arise in law or equity, under this constitution and under the laws of "the United States" (which laws will be, you know, the supreme laws of the land). This power extends to all cases, affecting ambassadors or other public ministers, "and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects."




Now, can a question arise in the colonial courts, which the ingenuity or sophistry of an able lawyer may not bring within one or other of the above cases? Certainly not. Then our court will have original or appellate jurisdiction in all cases-and if so, how fallen are state judicatures-and must not every provincial law yield to our supreme flat? Our constitution answers yes. . . . And finally we shall entrench ourselves so as to laugh at the cabals of the commonalty. A few regiments will do at first; it must be spread abroad that they are absolutely necessary to defend the frontiers. Now a regiment and then a legion must be added quietly; by and by a frigate or two must be built, still taking care to intimate that they are essential to the support of our revenue laws and to prevent smuggling. We have said nothing about a bill of rights, for we viewed it as an eternal clog upon our designs, as a lock chain to the wheels of government-though, by the way, as we have not insisted on rotation in our offices, the simile of a wheel is ill. We have for some time considered the freedom of the press as a great evil-it spreads information, and begets a licentiousness in the people which needs the rein more than the spur; besides, a daring printer may expose the plans of government and lessen the consequence of our president and senate-for these and many other reasons we have said nothing with respect to the "right of the people to speak and publish their sentiments" or about their "palladiums of liberty" and such stuff. We do not much like that sturdy privilege of the people-the right to demand the writ of habeas corpus. We have therefore reserved the power of refusing it in cases of rebellion, and you know we are the judges of what is rebellion.... Our friends we find have been assiduous in representing our federal calamities, until at length the people at large-frightened by the gloomy picture on one side, and allured by the prophecies of some of our fanciful and visionary adherents on the other-are ready to accept and confirm our proposed government without the delay or forms of examination--which was the more to be wished, as they are wholly unfit to investigate the principles or pronounce on the merit of so exquisite a system. Impressed with a conviction that this constitution is calculated to restrain the influence and power of the LOWER CLASS-to draw that discrimination we have so long sought after; to secure to our friends privileges and offices, which were not to be ... [obtained] under the former government, because they were in common; to take the burden of legislation and attendance on public business off the commonalty, who will be much better able thereby to prosecute with effect their private business; to destroy that political thirteen headed monster, the state sovereignties; to check the licentiousness of the people by making it dangerous to speak or publish daring or tumultuary sentiments; to enforce obedience to laws by a strong executive, aided by military pensioners; and finally to promote the public and private interests of the better kind of people-we submit it to your judgment to take such measures for its adoption as you in your wisdom may think fit.


Signed by unanimous order of the lords spiritual and temporal.


MONTEZUMA





If you wish to jump ahead and read the rest of the Anti-Federalist papers copies can be found at the following sites:

http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/

http://patriotpost.us/antifedpapers/antifedpapers.html

http://www.thevrwc.org/antifederalist/index.html

http://anti-federalist.org/contents.htm

http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/index.html

This article from Fathers Unite (link):



Glen Sacks recently covered the issue of military men who return from a tour of duty to find themselves stripped of their parental responsibilities or facing jail because they are behind in child support. The military divorce rate is higher than that of the general population; therefore, military men are at greater risk for being treated like second class citizens. So what incentive men into joining the military when they are guaranteed t be treated as second class citizens as a Father both inside and outside the military?



Joining or being in the military is an act of patriotism and is a noble act; but what if that patriotism does not take into account the Stalinist (anti-)Family courts? The Wisconsin Plan, the plan most state base their (anti-)Family Law, is modeled after the Stalinist Russia's Family law code; right down to the percentage taken from men to "support their children". Never mind the inherent difference in the Communist and Free market system; twenty-five percent of a communist's income where taxes are not taken out and housing is provided by the state is far different from taking the same percentage from a free market's income where taxes and housing account for a significant percentage of overall expenditures.



Since the goal of Communism is to achieve a socialist utopia where everything, including children, are 'owned' by the collective, by what right did the United States adopt such a policy that is foreign to our Constitution? At the start of our union, the Common Law defined that a unmarried woman held 'title to the custody' of her children and married men held 'title to the custody' of his children. Title being the indication of the right of property which protected the children from state involvement. Then around 1830 or so the judiciary, without citing any organic law, began to introduce the 'Tender Years' doctrine; which, at the time was gaining popularity in Britain and in Europe. Despite the fact that parent's rights with respect to their children was a 'right of property' with greater protections, judges began interfering with this right of married men but not the identical right of unmarried women. But wait a minute, doesn't a right of property require a jury trial in the United States? Does the judiciary have the right to increase judicial discression in a Constitutional Republic where jury trials are a sacred right? Aren't jury trial a check on government - and in this case judicial - tyranny?



The answer historically given by government apologists has been the legislature must be called upon to change the laws. But what about the rights of the citizens? The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers debated the various ways tyrannies that could arise in this Republic. These debates clearly state that each person is a sovereign individual and has certain (God given) rights that the state can not intrude on.



Hence the state does not, via the legislature or judiciary, have the right to arbitrary change certain things; in this case a right more precious than that of property. Nowhere in either the Common Law or Federal or any State Constitution(s) does it say the parent child relationship is defined by the state. The Common Law only allowed the state to interfere in the parent child relationship if the child needed rescuing. Only governments based on Marxist philosophies allow the state to make decisions for children. Even in the case of divorce, the Common Law did not allow any judicial discretion by the state; except in the extreme case where the child needed rescuing.



A country that was founded on God given rights means that those rights are inalienable or unalienable. The Protestant Founding Fathers included scripture in the Federalist papers. They believed that the individual stood before God, not the collective. Common Law and Natural Law rights were derived over the millennium to correspond to human nature in a free societies. When the state defines rights or makes itself the fountainhead of rights it can use Orwellian logic to redefine rights and hence individuals are no longer sovereign. Historically, when the state (re)defines behavior, million must be re-educated or killed in order to further the state's ideology; e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, ..., etc., and their fellow ideologues all had a dream; that dream turned into a nightmare for tens of millions. These variations on Marxism tallied more victims in the name of achieving an ideal collective utopia than any other cause or disease in the history of mankind. It has been said that Marxism is a good idea just applied to the wrong species; they fail to point out the human toll of this forced ideology has resulted in which makes it more than just a bad idea.



The state has decided that the right to recreational coitus is solely a female right. Men who engage in any form of sex which result in seminal discharge are at risk for 18 to 24 years of indentured servitude, involuntary servitude, slavery, and state peonage. Even thirteen year old boys who are raped can expect to have their lunch money confiscated by the state in the name of the greater good of the collective (i.e., society). Women, on the other hand can treat each act of coitus according to her free will given the choices of the pill, the morning after pill, an abortion, a late term abortion, dropping the child off at safe-house, giving the child up for adoption, or even raising the child alone. Under Common Law, the marriage or comparable contract or accepting children outside of a contract of their own free will was the only way to bind a man to the care and maintenance of offspring. The person with the title to the custody of the children and enjoyed their companionship had a reciprocal obligation to support the child(ren). Today that reciprocal relationship has been abolished. Divorced or never married men have less rights than criminals yet these men may never have committed a crime.



When we see that the armed forces are well behind in their recruiting efforts because of the war we should also ask why should men participate in their own destruction? They should not. Volunteering for the armed services is a noble endeavor but since men are the only ones in combat and they are currently being treated like second class citizens - both inside or outside the military - men should ask themselves if they should boycott this noble profession until their rights and this Republic is restored. This call for a boycott should be echoed by all fathers rights groups across the nation. Men should not die to protect the right of the government to treat them as second class citizens.




Mark

Here's an interesting aticle that I found at the American Form Party web site asking what seems to be a very important issue that America maybe in need of a new political party (link):



Why America Needs A New Political Party



By Stephen E. Ambrose & Richard D. Lamm



America needs a new political party. The most pressing issues facing the nation are beyond the ability of the two parties to solve, because neither party can act alone to solve these problems, and any bipartisan compromise can not equal the magnitude of the problems we face. These are not issues problems we are talking about here; they are structural problems. Structural problems that we are not even seriously debating, let alone solving! Structural problems that can only be solved by a new political coalition.



It is now time for another political realignment. We are not arguing for a change in the two-party system into a three-party system; we are arguing that America needs a new political party that would eclipse one of the existing major parties and itself become one of the major parties.



Now is again such a time. We fear that neither political party can do politically what we need to do economically to remain a great country, and that a third party built around a personality cannot force change—something just proven by Ross Perot. Bringing America's expectations in balance with our revenue will be a terribly painful and monumental task. We shall have to substantially downsize some of our most popular programs. We have ourselves in a Catch 22—where the best politics is the worst long-term public policy. Neither party can afford to take the steps in campaign reform and entitlement reform required to solve these politically volatile problems. Short-term political considerations eclipse long-term public interest considerations. We judge it to be substantially beyond the ability of either political party in the present political climate to deal successfully with these structural problems.



If a new party is to emerge, it would of necessity have to begin as a third political party and then grow. It is relatively easy to start a third political party; it is immensely difficult to grow them. The third parties that have grown into major parties are those that went after structural change. They solved not political problems (which the existing system could eventually solve), but instead deep structural flaws the existing political process could not solve. The Free Soilers/Republicans of the 1850s, and the Progressives of the first two decades of the 20th Century, are the models. They insisted on confronting issues the two major parties were incapable of addressing — slavery in the first instance, and the need for state and federal regulation of meat packing, drugs, the stock market, civil service, etc. in the second. Major problems had gone unaddressed by the existing parties until a new party filled the need. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.



The answer of the Progressives to the ills of democracy was something the existing system could not or would not give the nation - more democracy. Recall. Referendum. Direct election of senators. Primaries. Above all, primaries. Progressives said that if you take the nomination process out of the hands of the pros in their smoke-filled rooms and give that power to the people, all of a sudden you will have clean politics. In many ways, this worked. But in the age of TV and special interests primaries have extended the political "season" to a nearly continuous process costing huge sums of money.



There has (correctly, we think) always been a heavy skepticism about the future of third political parties. In the last 140 years, not one third party became institutionalized, not even the Progressives. So, why a new party and why now?




Because we have a structural problem that cannot be solved with "politics as usual." As political scientists Levergood and Breyfogle point out:



We must realize that our current crisis of self-interested bickering and anarchy derive neither from our own selfishness, nor from the dishonesty and incompetence of politicians, but rather from political institutions that are no longer able to restrain the worst within us.



That's just a small sample of what's in the article. The rest can be read by going here.

This is part of a book nearly 50 years old that I was able to obtain a copy of and parts of it unfortunately are still relavant now.



What You Should Know About COMMUNISM and Why


by William Henry Chamberlin



Why Study Communism?





Communism is more than a theory. It is a fighting force that deeply affects the life of every one of us.



U.S. citizens pay billions of dollars in taxes each year, 60 percent of which go to support immense armaments. Expansion of U.S. Armed Forces has led to the first peacetime draft in the history of the nation, calling hundreds of thousands of young Americans into the Armed Services. These measures are needed to protect the country and the Free World from the threat of communism, and they will continue in force as long as the Cold War — the conflict between the Free World and the Communist World — lasts.



You owe it to yourself to learn all you can about communism. If you do — and a careful reading of this book will give you a good start — you will be helping to safeguard your freedom, the freedom of your country and of the other free countries of the world. This book will not limit its analysis of communism to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, although as the first Communist power, as the dominant Communist power in today's world, and as the one about which most is known, the Soviet Union will be
emphasized.




Two Giants of Communism



Since November 7, 1917, when a group of Communist revolutionaries violently seized power in tsarist Russia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been the center of world Communist power. Using economic and political techniques radically different from those of the Western democracies, the Soviet Union has, in almost 50 years since the Bolshevik Revolution, forged a strong economic system. Today that system provides the base upon which Soviet leaders draw in attempting to spread communism throughout the world. In the last 10 years, Soviet military might has been built to a position second only to that of the U.S. — a very close second indeed, according to some experts.




China — the China now led by Mao Tse-tung — is another Communist giant. With Soviet help, Mao's Chinese Communists seized power through civil war in 1949. Today more than 700,000,000 Chinese live under their rule.




Each of these two giants of communism, the Soviet Union and Communist China, possesses its own "satellites" — countries whose foreign and domestic policies they largely control. The U.S.S.R.'s influence over Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, East Germany, and Poland is strong. Yugoslavia and Albania, although Communist, have shown greater independence of Soviet authority.




Red China has also extended its control into neighboring states, among them Tibet, incorporated as a Chinese "autonomous region" in 1951, and North Vietnam and North Korea, both now under Chinese-influenced Communist regimes. Albania, in southern Europe, has also aligned itself with Red China. Cuba, 90 miles off the Florida coast of the U.S., has come under the dictatorship of Communist Fidel Castro. It looks to both Red China and the U.S.S.R. for economic help, and is getting it.



The Threat to the Free World





Free people everywhere must be alert to the dangers of communism and be prepared to combat them intelligently, without fear. If in our decisions we are motivated by fear, we could make dangerous piecemeal surrenders, or act rashly and perhaps end up using communism's own tactics.



What has the Soviet Union been doing that arouses the concern of the United States and many non-Communist nations? Already nearly a third of the human race has been brought, against its will, under the Communist yoke. By word and action, Soviet leaders have made clear their determination to destroy our form of society and to put Communist governments everywhere. Would they start a war to do this? The Soviets have often boasted of the destructive power at their command. When Nikita Khrushchev was the Soviet premier, he told leaders of non-Communist nations how cities like Rome, Athens, and London could be reduced to ashes by his country's missiles. But the U.S. government has made its position
clear: it will retaliate. Thus American military might has so far deterred the Soviets from seizing West Berlin, and the Communist Chinese from invading Taiwan, outpost of the free Chinese.




Soviet leaders are thoroughly committed to Communist doctrine and to the spread of communism
throughout the world. Along with propaganda, they rattle their rockets and flex their atomic muscles to frighten nations into doing their bidding. These military threats are supplemented by other threats. During his visit to the United States in 1961, Khrushchev was asked by reporters what he meant when he said, "We will bury you." He replied he did not mean burial by bombs, but burial by political and economic victory. He said that the Soviet Union, by 1980, will outproduce us in all kinds of goods, and will thus become a shining example of the success of communism. The propaganda effect will be so tremendous, he thought, that nation after nation will be converted to communism.




Meanwhile, Kremlin leaders are not sitting back and waiting for the example of Soviet "progress" to take effect. Like Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev before them, they are working to promote communism. Everywhere — and especially in the underdeveloped nations of Asia, Africa, and South America — Soviet agents and local Communists are working to unseat existing governments. Soviet policy has long been to capitalize on the anticolonial feelings of the peoples of the new nations in order to bring to bear anti-Western, Communist influences in their governments. The Soviet leaders thus hope to win the emerging nations to their side in the Cold War, and eventually to establish communism in them.




Seven Tests of Freedom




The menace of communism to our freedom is not new. Since 1917, when the Communists overthrew the first Russian democratic government (then only eight months old) and set up a Communist dictatorship, strong voices from the democracies have warned the world of the danger. One of the most eloquent voices raised in opposition to communism was that of Winston Churchill, prime minister of Great Britain during World War II. He set down these seven tests of man's freedom under government:


1. Is there the right to free expression of opinion, to opposition and criticism of the existing
government?





2. Have the people the right to vote out a government of which they disapprove, and are
constitutional means provided by which they can make their will known?





3. Are there independent courts of justice free from executive control, and free from threats of mob violence and association with any particular political party?





4. Will these courts administer well-established laws which are associated in the human
mind with the broad principles of decency and justice?






5. Will there be equal justice for poor as well as for rich, for individuals as well as for
government officials?





6. Will the rights of the individual be exalted?






7. Is the ordinary citizen free from the fear that a secret police organization under the control of a single political party will pack him off without fair or open trial?






In other words, the chief tests of freedom are whether citizens are permitted to think, speak, act, and work freely. In the chapters that follow you will see how communism denies those freedoms and rights we take for granted, and which we must ever be on the alert to defend and protect.




Democracy's Challenge



This is a book about communism — not about democracy. When living conditions in a Communist country are described, the reader should not assume that there are no short- comings in the standard of living in many non-Communist countries. For example, the description of housing shortages in the Soviet Union should not be taken to mean that housing is adequate in every democratic country. On the other hand, when it comes to the important "living condition" of freedom for the individual, there can be no dispute that the citizen of a democracy has rights denied the person living under communism. That story, What You Should Know about Democracy — and Why, is told in a companion book




Why study communism? A look at the front page of your daily newspaper will give you the answer: because communism affects your daily life — your present and your future; because upon a firm understanding of communism, its nature and its history, depends the fate of all mankind.



The Communist System




The governments of the world today fall into three broad groups: democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian. Within each group there are variations in the degree of power exercised by the government over the people.



The word democracy comes from two Greek words: demos, meaning "people," and krator, meaning "ruler." A democratic government is a government by consent of the people. The people have the right to vote — to replace their leaders at elections. They have freedom to criticize the government openly and to disagree with its policies without fear of punishment.





An authoritarian government is one that is dominated by a single leader or a dictatorial group (the authority). It usually permits private ownership of property, but restricts freedom of political action, including freedom of expression.




A totalitarian government is one which exercises total control. This includes control of property, education, and the means of communication — newspapers, books, magazines, radio, TV, theater, motion pictures, and other forms of art. Even the job each person holds is controlled by the government.




The line between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is sometimes thin. Both are dictatorships of one person or a ruling group that cannot be changed by the orderly process of voting by the people. Neither system gives the people the opportunity for a peaceful change of government, or permits individuals to campaign or agitate for a change.



A Totalitarian System



The Communist system is the most totalitarian system in existence today. It exercises complete control over the lives of the people. When the Communists seized power in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, they immediately set about tightening their grip on all phases of life in the newly proclaimed Soviet Republic.




The basis of Communist organization was and is the proposition that the Communist Party, which controls the state, knows what is "best" for the people and acts as the "vanguard" of the people. Communists use state power to control not only an individual's political life, but his economic and social life as well.





Communism is all-embracing — it is a dogmatic belief, a form of political organization, a form of government, an economic system, a system of control over the individual, and a world-wide conspiracy.



1. Communism is a dogmatic belief. According to the Communists, their system is destined to take control of the entire world. The dedicated Communist is certain that his system is the "wave of the future." To bring the day of communism's triumph nearer, he will use any means — treachery, falsification, or violence — to advance his cause. As a disciplined agent of the Communist movement, he is expected to follow the Party's orders rigidly and carry them out un-questioningly. The Party line, or policy, may change from time to time as to method, but the goal of communism — world domination — remains unchanged.



2. Communism is a form of political organization. The Communist Party controls all political life in Communist countries. Party membership is closely regulated to ensure obedience to top Party leaders. Of the total Soviet population of over 226,000,000, some 11,000,000 are Party members. A candidate for membership is accepted only after Party leaders have checked his background and are satisfied that he is loyal to the regime. A member is expected to see that Party orders are obeyed in all his daily contacts — at work, at home, in the schools, anywhere. It is his duty to report any breach of Party discipline by his fellow workers, friends, or family members.



In the Soviet Union, Party organization is parallel to that of the government on national and local levels. At the top is the first secretary of the Party. He is in charge of the Party Presidium (before 1952 known as the Political Bureau, or Politbureau), a small group of members —11 in 1964 — who determine Party policy. The Presidium directs the Central Committee (319 members in 1964), which, in theory, handles Party affairs between meetings of the Party Congress (held every four years). The 22nd Party Congress met in
1961 and had 4,813 delegates. The first secretary also has charge of the Secretariat, which controls the choice of Party secretaries (or leaders) all the way down to the local Party groups, called "cells."



3. Communism is a form of government. On the surface, a government in a Communist state is like any other government. It carries out administrative, judicial, and legislative functions. Communist government is basically different from democratic government, however, in that it serves merely as a "rubber stamp" for decisions that have already been made by Party leaders. This applies to all laws, appointments, and actions of the various government agencies. Important officials are Party members, subject to Party discipline.




At present, the highest official of the Soviet government is Aleksei N. Kosygin. He is chairman of the Council of Ministers, which directs the various ministries (government departments), such as foreign affairs, economy, transportation, and others. In reality, however, he is subordinate in authority to Leonid I. Brezhnev, first secretary of the Party. Former Soviet Premier Khrushchev held both of these top posts — in government and Party — himself.


Nominally, the highest lawmaking body is the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., which has almost 1,500 members, called "deputies," and two chambers: the Council (or Soviet) of the Union, and the Council of Nationalities. Membership in the Council of the Union is based on population. Deputies in the Council of Nationalities are selected on a geographical basis from the various republics that make up the U.S.S.R., and from smaller areas. The Supreme Soviet elects the premier and the Svipreme Court. However, since all actions of the Supreme Soviet require prior Party approval, it is merely a rubber stamp for Party policy.


"Elections" in Communist countries offer voters only one "choice." For example, candidates for the Supreme Soviet and the local Soviets, or legislative bodies, are nominated at meetings of trade unions, schools, and collective farms, under Party supervision. Party officials direct the choice of one nominee for each office, so his election is assured.


The Soviet magazine U.S.S.R. (March, 1962) expressed the official point of view on
elections this way:


Since the interests of the people and the Communist Party are one and the same, and
since there are no antagonistic groups or classes, there is no reason for several candidates
to appear on the ballot.




That's what it said!




4. Communism is an economic system. In the Soviet Union, the state has complete control of
the economy. For all industries and for agriculture, the government sets production quotas.
Despite some relaxation of controls since Stalin's death, the Soviet wage earner is still largely a pawn of the state. It is the government that determines the number of people to be trained for specific jobs or professions, assigns work, sets wages, and approves promotions. A worker may quit if he gives two weeks' notice. He pays a stiff price, however, for quitting.




He loses many social-security benefits, and his accident and health insurance is restored only after he has worked at his new job for six months. There are, to be sure, trade unions in the U.S.S.R. But the function of the Soviet trade unions — unlike those in free countries — is mainly to enforce production quotas, and to serve as a disciplinary arm of the Party and government. The management metes out penalties for tardiness and absenteeism. No strikes are permitted. Quotas and prices of most consumer goods are fixed by the government.




Economic policies vary somewhat from one Communist nation to another. In Yugoslavia, for
example, farmers are no longer forced to give up their land and join government-run
collective farms. The same is true in Poland, a Soviet satellite, where most of the peasants
own the land they work. In Poland there are also independent craftsmen, such as shoemakers,
tailors, and barbers. However, industry is 90 per cent owned and operated by the state.




5. Communism is a system of control over the individual. In addition to controlling political and economic life, Communist governments make special efforts to mold people's thinking.




The Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party has a special section called
AGITPROP (Agitation and Propaganda), which has been set up to indoctrinate the
people. Through the use of all channels of communication — newspapers, magazines, books,
radio, TV, motion pictures, posters, literature, art, music, the theatre, the schools, Communist Party local groups — this agency carries on propaganda to support current government drives. These drives may take various forms, such as anti-U.S. campaigns, crusades against religion, or pressure for increased production.





6. Communism is a world-wide conspiracy. Soviet Russia extends its influence through a
network of 91 Communist parties throughout the world, including the United States. In
countries where the Communist Party has been declared illegal, it operates underground.




Until recently, all of these parties received instructions from Moscow as to their programs of action. They sent delegates to international Communist Party meetings or congresses, held
every two years. At the October, 1961 Party Congress in Moscow, there were delegates from
Communist parties in 83 countries. Today some Communist parties (in North Vietnam, North
Korea, and Albania) owe their allegiance to the Communist leaders of China.




The work of the various Communist parties is supplemented by the activities of Soviet or
Communist Chinese agents, whose tasks may include recruiting local supporters, getting
control of political organizations, provoking disturbances and riots, or working quietly to
influence elections. When the political climate is favorable, these agents may incite an armed uprising, leading to the overthrow of a local government and its replacement by a Communist regime.



Such, then, is the nature of communism — a system that suppresses and intimidates the
individual, instills in people a fear of saying or doing anything that might displease Party
leaders, keeps its leaders in power by means of dictatorship, and is committed to spreading
itself throughout the world.

By Sean Turner



August 11, 2003




Orginally Posted at:

http://www.gopusa.com/seanturner/st_0811p.shtml


For years, the Democratic Party has portrayed itself as the friend of blacks and other racial minorities in America. Its leaders and supporters have proven adept at the art of historical slight of hand, as they have convinced the vast majority of blacks with overwhelming success that they are civil rights champions. However, the "Information Age" has ushered in a new era of awareness for those who seek it, as the ubiquity of the Internet has delivered volumes of historical data right to one's fingertips. With this awareness, comes a new view on the Democratic Party's true relationship to America's black population.




To date, only four blacks have ever served in the United States Senate. The first two, Senators Hiram Revels and Blanche K. Bruce, were elected in Mississippi to the U.S. Senate in the 1870's, and both were Republican. The third was Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, also a Republican, who served two full terms from 1967 to 1979. Lastly, in 1992, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, the only Democrat, was elected to represent Illinois, and became the first black woman to serve in this capacity. Additionally, in 1870, Joseph Hayne Rainey, a Republican from South Carolina, was the first black to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives.




Prior to the election of FDR in 1932, blacks primarily voted Republican by the margins in which they vote for Democrats today. However, FDR's "New Deal" programs, which turned out to be a raw deal particularly for blacks, inveigled the black electorate into a Democratic voting trend that has yet to cease. As part of the "New Deal", the Agricultural Adjustment Act was established which reduced crop production, and forced many blacks out of farming. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) / Wagner Act was established, granting the right of existence to labor unions, who often excluded blacks. The "New Deal" also established the national minimum wage, which has directly contributed to the 36% unemployment rate among black teens in America. As late as 1954, the unemployment rate for black teen-age males ages 16 and 17 was still below that of their white counterparts: 13.4% vs. 14%. Beginning in 1956, when the minimum wage was raised from 75 cents to $1, unemployment rates for the two groups began to diverge. By 1960, the unemployment rate for black teen-age males rose to just under 23%, while the white rate remained below 15%. By 1981, the unemployment rate for black teen-age males averaged 40.7%, four times its early 1950s level, when the minimum wage was much lower with less extensive coverage.




The issue of civil rights proved extremely contentious and divisive for the Democratic Party, when in 1948, a group of Southern Democrats who opposed integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and racial segregation broke from the party to form the Dixiecrat Party. In 1964, it took the leadership of Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen to break the Democratic filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill led by current Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and then Senator Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee. In the Senate, only six Republicans voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, vis-a-vis twenty-one Democrats in opposition. In the House, 40% of the Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act, while only 20% of Republicans opposed it.




Today, nine Democrats have undertaken an effort to win the votes of the American electorate, in the hopes of becoming the next leader of this great nation. All support raising the national minimum wage, despite its insidious history toward black teens and small businesses. Most oppose affording poor families the choice to remove their children from failing schools, which disproportionately affect black and Latino children particularly in urban areas. Some have even opposed welfare reform in 1996, which has succeeded in helping scores of recipients re-enter the labor force and off of government (taxpayer) assistance.



Though the Republican Party is not devoid of improvident policy and legislation, what the Democratic Party offers in the "Notorious 9" presidential candidates is an all-out sprint toward complete socialism, where blacks will bear the brunt of the destruction. Still, the so-called "civil rights establishment" remain ardent supporters of candidates like Dick Gephardt, who according to Newsmax.com, spoke before a prominent St. Louis white-rights organization during his first run for Congress and attended two of the group's picnics after his election.



Belafonte's recent infantile comparison of Secretary of State Colin Powell to a house slave, and other ominous comments by NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, reveal an utter contempt for history and the truth by two bitter relics of a dark era in America's history. They also reveal a tenuous relationship between the Democratic Party and blacks, built on a web of duplicity decades in the making. The time has long expired for this web to be dismantled, the facts to be revealed, and the Democratic spell cast over blacks in America to be broken -- never to return.

By Linda Chavez


January 29, 2003



Orginally posted at:



http:/gopusa.com/lindachavez/lc_0129.shtml



Despite preferring to play with boys rather than girls when I was growing up in the 1950s, I was never one for sports. I sometimes agreed to play baseball with the boys, but only if they let me take as many tries at bat as it took to finally hit the ball. By the time I was in high school, I had perfected a long list of mysterious ailments and physical limitations to keep me from having to play basketball, volleyball or any other tortuous game our male gym teacher devised for the one-hour-a-week session of physical education required at my Catholic school.



Although my distaste for sports was more common among girls of my generation, I suspect that many girls feel the same way today, some 30 years after passage of Title IX, the landmark law that guaranteed nondiscrimination in all education programs, including sports.



Title IX has been a wonderful vehicle to expand opportunity for girls who chose to play sports in schools and colleges over the last three decades. Unfortunately, some feminist extremists have tried to hijack the law in recent years to limit choices for both girls and boys to participate in school-sponsored sports teams.



The purpose of Title IX was to ensure that girls have equal opportunity to engage in school sports activities if they chose, not to guarantee that every school produces as many female athletes as male. While female interest in athletics has increased dramatically since Title IX was enacted, many schools still find it difficult to get as many girls as boys to join sports teams. The problem is especially acute at the college level -- and that drives some feminists mad.



If more boys than girls sign up for college sports, feminists cry foul. Even if schools expand the number and types of sports offered to encourage more female participation -- and no female who has an interest in playing a particular sport has been denied opportunity to do so -- these gender-equity radicals claim the schools are discriminating. The feminists' solution has been to limit boys' participation so that it matches the girls', which is why many schools have cut out some sports altogether, such as wrestling and football.



It's not the schools' fault. They are in a real bind. If the federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR) finds that schools do not provide athletic financial assistance that is "substantially proportionate" to male and female athletes, the school jeopardizes its federal funding, since the law allows the government to deny money to schools that discriminate. For several years, OCR has applied a three-prong test to determine if schools were complying with the "substantially proportionate" rule -- which language, by the way, isn't in the law itself.




OCR's three prongs allow schools to demonstrate compliance if they can show the number of female athletes are proportional to the number of women who attend the school; they can demonstrate a history and continuing practice of expanding women's athletic programs; or if their current programs fully accommodate the interests and abilities of women.




In practice, however, especially during the Clinton years, OCR has relied almost exclusively on the first prong, which amounts to insisting on quotas for female athletes. If a school's enrollment is 55 percent female (the national average), then 55 percent of its athletes have to be female. Too bad if a higher proportion of male college students are interested in playing sports than females. The feminists who have dominated Title IX programs and enforcement in recent years don't believe girls should have a choice in the matter -- or more accurately, if girls choose not to play, then neither can the boys.



This week, an independent commission appointed by the Secretary of Education recommended that OCR should change its methods of interpreting compliance with Title IX to allow schools more flexibility. The commission -- made up of leading female and male athletic directors, prominent female athletes, professors and representatives of three women's advocacy groups -- sensibly considered whether schools should be allowed to survey students to determine the relative interest male and female students express in playing sports.




It's time now for the feminist ideologues to prove they're pro-choice when it comes to athletics.

This from The Rogue Jew:

Cannot Understand Normal Thinking! As offensive as this might sound, take the first letter from each of the words on the title of this post and that is who we have as the NEW Majority Leader in the Congress. The Howling Moonbat from San Fran Freako Nancy Pelosi will now be able to Destroy America with the help of her friends.

The Baloney Smoking, Baby Killing, Butt Slamming MINORITY of America now has its leader in Washington and she takes her marching orders from the Gay Mafia.

Hang on to your wallets and your children America, Nancy Pelosi & Co. want them both.

If anything, yesterday was NOT a Mandate for the Democrats, it was a message to the Republicans that they had better go back to their Conservative ways of Less Government, Tougher Immigration Laws, and Fiscal Control. Unfortunately now that the Democrats are in control of America’s Purse Strings, the Economic Recovery that we’ve experienced since the Recession started by the Clinton Presidency will be but a memory.

Higher Taxes because of Democrats refusal to renew President Bush’s Tax cuts and the raising of the Minimum Wage that Democrats have long desired to accomplish will put more people out of jobs and send more businesses out of the country.

This from Rush on A Roll:


Just to reiterate, ladies and gentlemen: "It's going to get worse before it gets better." I'm not trying to be negative. I'm trying to prepare you here for what is coming. It is obvious from the president's press conference that his view is: "The Democrats won the election yesterday, and that means they get some of what they want, if not a lot of what they want, if not all of what they want." Specifically, here's what you can look for: You can look for there to be a minimum wage bill. The president was passionate about one thing in this press conference. He came alive when he was asked a question about: What does this mean for your immigration policy? "Yes, I think we have a better chance of getting immigration reform now with a Democrat-controlled Congress."

I told you this before the election. I told you, "The reason we don't have amnesty and a guest worker program is because of the Republicans in the House." Now with Democrats running the place you're going to get it and the president's excited about it. We're going to get a guest worker program. We're going to get amnesty. It's going to be called "immigration reform," and you're going to get a minimum wage increase. The president's going to talk to these people about entitlements -- and when you sit down with Democrats to talk about entitlements, you're not talking about getting rid of them. You're talking about "reforming" them, maybe, or perhaps even new ones.

This from the World According To Bob:

Better learn to speak Mexican
The left wingnut media is all smiles today. Their 4-year anti-Republican campaign of constant editorials and misinformation has paid off with a Democratic victory in mid-term elections. "How does this affect the failed Bush policy in Iraq," is not a question, it’s an editorial. It was spoken by the CBS news cunt the day after the election. For the past 4 years the major TV media and most of the print media have been feeding the public a steady diet of aggressive partisan editorializing instead of reporting the news. Even the FOX network talking heads often speak with the same leftist editorial bias instead of honest reporting.

The US House of Representatives will be ruled by San Francisco lesbian feminazi Congresscunt Nancy Pelosi who never met a left wingnut policy she didn't support. Better learn to speak Mexican because Pelosi advocates wide open borders with total amnesty, tax paid benefits, and voting rights for all illegal Mexicans who will now flood our states in ever increasing numbers. Better kiss your family goodbye because Pelosi advocates abandoning marriage, sending fathers to prison, and making two lesbians and a sick child the definition of a decent home. Better forget your constitutional rights, if you are a MAN, because Pelosi supports abrogation of the 2nd Amendment and relegation of MEN to prison or indentured servitude, slavery. If you are a man, not a faggot, better learn to turn around and bend over.

Bob notes that Google only finds about 96 uses of "congresscunt" on the Internet. Notable users of the term "congresscunt" includes the Drudge Report and The World According to Bob. With Pelosi running the Congress you can expect that number to increase significantly over the next 2 years.

Its going to get worse before it gets better. Bob expects it to get so bad that it will eventually collapse from its own weight. Bankruptcy of the US government and currency could happen, probably will happen, and probably lots sooner than most people believe possible. When the financial and precipitated political collapse comes it will be a lot quicker, a lot harder and a lot more violent than most will have imagined. Better learn to speak Mexican. The lesbian feminazi cunts are running the Congress.

and this from "The Other Side of Kim"

Just so we’re all clear on the concept, what future Speaker Pelosi is promising is not a “new” direction: it’s the same old tired neo-Bolshevik direction they’ve always envisioned for this country. Only this time, instead of having a rock-hard Reagan to oppose them, we’ve got the likes of Specter, McCain, and Bush, all looking for ways to compromise.

The White House sent the strong signal this morning that Bush intends to offer a conciliatory message, indicating he will express the desire to work closely with Democrats during the next two years on Iraq and domestic issues such as education and energy.

Yippee. Stronger teachers’ unions and unworkable energy “alternatives” like wind farms (except in Ted Kennedy’s little fiefdom of Martha’s Vineyard, of course).

Say hello to: House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, and Appropriations Committee Chairman Henry Waxman. I’d like to list the other new chairmen, but I don’t have the stomach for it.

Here’s what else we can look forward to:

A Democrat-controlled House removes the major obstacle to a broad immigration bill that includes a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. House Republicans had blocked action on such a proposal, calling it amnesty, but House Democrats can now team with a bipartisan majority in the Senate and with a willing president to pass a bill.

Translation: Zero enforcement, and an amnesty to illegals. Think Waxman’s going to provide funding for the wall? Start brushing up your Spanish.

Democrats will for the first time be positioned to challenge Bush’s conduct of the war while promoting their own idea of a phased withdrawal of 140,000 U.S. troops from Iraq.

Translation: We’re outta there. Good luck, Iraqis; it was fun while it lasted.

“We extend our hand of friendship, fellowship and partnership to the Republicans,” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid told a victory rally last night. “The only way we can accomplish anything in the Congress is by working in a partisan basis.”

Translation: Give us what we want, or else.

Democrats’ wins in the House, giving them control for the first time since 1995, will alter the agenda on several thorny issues, including key gun legislation such as the assault weapons ban, which lapsed under Republican control but could come back under Democratic control.

Translation: Thought this was a settled issue, did you? Better scoop up those AK-47s while you can, you knuckle-dragging rightwing troglodytes: Sheriff Schumer’s coming to town.

Feminist about to put the last touches on the slow motion cultural coup d'état they started back in the late 1960s:

Evangelical feminism a new path to liberalism, book says
Nov 1, 2006
By Erin Roach

\NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Evangelical feminism, a movement that disregards unique leadership roles for men in marriage and in the church, is now one of the greatest threats to the survival of true evangelical Christianity, Wayne Grudem writes in a new book, “Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?”

Grudem, author of numerous books and co-founder and former president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, is research professor of Bible and theology at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona. In his new book, he discusses 25 patterns of argument employed by evangelical feminists and shows how each one dismisses the authority of Scripture.

“A work like Evangelical Feminism has been desperately needed, and Grudem’s new book arrives just in time,” R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote in an
Oct. 23 commentary on albertmohler.com. “A new generation of younger evangelicals is facing the challenge of evangelical feminism just as the current and the larger culture are moving even more against biblical authority.”

Mohler says Grudem’s goal is to demonstrate that the methods of interpreting the Bible necessary to justify the ordination of women to the pastorate undermine biblical authority and “open the door for a complete reshaping of Christianity.”

One of the most important sections of the book, Mohler noted, is the examination of “trajectory hermeneutics” now gaining popularity among some evangelicals. People who subscribe to such interpretations argue that the church should not limit itself to a first-century understanding of the Bible concerning gender issues but must consider Scripture from a modern-day standpoint.

“This means that the teachings of the New Testament are no longer our final authority,” Grudem writes. “Our authority now becomes our own ideas of the direction the New Testament was heading but never quite reached.”

Mohler raises the question, “If the New Testament is to be superseded by a later reality based in a more modern understanding, how can the church justify relativizing some texts without relativizing others?”

Grudem argues that the hermeneutic, or method of interpreting Scripture, used to advocate evangelical feminism leads to the normalization of homosexuality as well. And the approval of homosexuality, Grudem writes, “is the final step along the path to liberalism.”

Mohler described Evangelical Feminism as “truly a tract for the times -- a manifesto that should serve to awaken complacent evangelicals to the true nature of the egalitarian challenge. Furthermore, the book provides an arsenal of arguments to use in revealing the crucial weaknesses of the egalitarian proposal.

Japan in the throes of baby scarcity
By nevosopelo at 02/11/2006 - 17:56
I was watching the news last night on the telly and I was aghast to see eldearly japanese people who are buying small baby dolls to use them as Grandsons and Granddaugthers. The japanese people are now growing older faster than anywhere else in the world. The birth rate is now so low that toy companies are producing toy babies for the Grans, who are without Grandsons and Granddaugthers, to care for them as if they were alive babys.

It seems that the millionaires club of countries of the world are following suit to this trend, as countries like Italy shows negative growth.

I do not know what the underlying causes are, but I think that wealth and success has distorted the natural proccess of procreation to the point to which people do not have a wish of enjoying family life.

A very selfish style of life.
NEVO


by Major Tom on Thu, 11/02/2006 - 19:14
That is very sad to read about.

I suppose when the generation of elderly japanese people were kids their grandparents were an involved part of their lives. They probably also thought that when they were their grandparents age that they would have grandchildren too.

Alternatively, they could always pull a Madonna and steal a black baby.

by Timocrat on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 02:21

Just last year deaths out numbered births in Japan. Only because Japan isn't keen on immigration does it show what is still worse in countires- like Italy.

In 5O years most of western Europe will have more Muslims than others and will be rearranged accordingly. Japan may have to encourage its birth rate in their over crowded island. European with its hyper-rationalizing deconstrictionist leadership will be gone for sure, though I'm not sure what will be the new order.

When women want to have it all, and think having children is stupid, societies fall. Japan is in much less difficulty than your own European countries, but I guess it is more interesting to look at the neighbours when you see things that tug at the heart strings. Women are always fond of dolls. Please look in your own house, and not avoid the tough choices coming to your states and own characters.

by Tyrael on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 02:42

Italy has very poor birth-rates and not many citizens compared to capacity and total population density.

I think Russia (Russian Federation) has the poorest birth-rates in all of Europe.



by Tyrael on Sat, 11/04/2006 - 02:52

I checked and according to CIA statistics Russia doesn't have the lowest birth-rates in Europe, but it's below the European Union average in 2006.

Germany is the European country with the lowest birth-rate in 2006.

by Mamonaku on Sun, 11/05/2006 - 14:14

Good day!

Nice to meet you all.

While I live in the USA full time, I am a registered citizen on Kyoto Japan, as my wife is a japanese national living in Japan.

According to my male friends on the street, the last thing they are thinking about is making babies. Japanese men simply work too many hours (about 10-12 hours a day, six days a week) to think about doing the nasty.

Sex between Japanese couples is among the least frequent in the world.

Also, many guys are not interested in marriage simply because Japanese women are becoming "Americanized", and feministic.

Jitsuroku Oniyome Nikki (Factual Demon Wife Diary) is a wildly popular drama that portrays a husband being abused by his wife.

http://wiki.d-addicts.com/Jitsuroku_Oniyome_Nikki

While the media likes to spin the story that women are rejecting marriage en mass, while true in some respects, isn't what's really going down.

Men are simply writing off love relationships, marriage, and women in general.