The Angriest Chicken in the Universe

As Introduction to

A Necessary "Iron Dome" for Young Western Men?



Commentary for 19 January 2015

Once upon a time there was a chicken farm; and on this farm lived a disgruntled chicken named Drumstick Kate. She was quite upset. “Why should I lay eggs?” she asked. “Why can’t I have the rooster’s job? All he has to do is puff himself out and cock-a-doodle-doo.”

Drumstick Kate was fed up.

It angered her even more that all the other hens didn’t realize their dismal condition. “What’s the matter with these bird brains?” she complained. “Don’t they realize how unfair the system is?”

Drumstick Kate was the angriest chicken in the universe. One might say that she was so rich in anger that she wanted to share her wealth. One day, at feeding time, as the hens gathered to peck their fill, Kate began to cackle in her angry way. She noted how horrible it was to lay eggs, how demeaning and humiliating it felt to squeeze out a big white one.

The other hens were caught off-guard. These were new thoughts, strange and amazing. It didn’t always feel so good, they admitted, when a big white one was coming out. And even worse, as Drumstick Kate told it, there was the slavery of sitting on those eggs until the farmer came to snatch them up. Or worse yet, if the eggs should hatch there was further trouble (as little chicks were such a nuisance).

The hens moaned and cackled in reply to Kate's new ideas.

Then Drumstick Kate began to expound on the advantages of the rooster. “He sits on top of the hen house and draws attention to himself while we are ignored,” she said. “This fowl arrangement is not fair.”

“This fowl is not fair,” echoed the hens, who rushed toward the rooster and pecked him into a bloody mass of dead pulp.

Far off in the distance a weasel and a fox were watching through binoculars. They realized that the hens were agitated. “It is time to go under the wire,” said the weasel. “Let us wait until nightfall,” advised the fox.

The hens were quite content, having liberated themselves from the loud and obnoxious rooster. Drumstick Kate had successfully taught the other chickens to hate their previous activities. “No more eggs!” became the battle cry of the hens. “We’re not going to lay anymore, are we girls?”

The hens all cackled their approving reply.

Nightfall came and the hens retired to their respective nests. Around 11 p.m. the two wiley predators arrived near the chicken-wire fence. “You go first,” said the fox to the weasel. “By no means, dear friend, I wouldn’t dream of taking your place,” the weasel replied.

The fox noted how hungry they both were, and pointed out that the one who went first would take the biggest chicken. This persuaded the weasel to slip under the wire without delay. A few seconds later a muffled squawk was heard as the weasel emerged with a plump chicken in his mouth. No alarm was sounded, as the rooster was dead. Seeing there was no danger of being caught by the farmer, the fox went under the wire and emerged with a plump hen of his own. Soon the two happy predators were devouring their prey.

In the morning the chicken farmer came upon the scene of his mangled rooster. He also found that two of his best birds were gone and no eggs had been laid. Something was terribly wrong. Regrettably, this pattern persisted for a second and a third night.

Meanwhile, the hens were enjoying their new liberated state. Drumstick Kate would make angry speeches against the system and the other chickens would cackle their applause. One day, however, Chicken Little came from the other side of the yard, having overheard a conversation between the chicken farmer and a local grocer. “They are going to lower the boom,” warned Chicken Little.

Drumstick Kate mocked Chicken Little for saying that “the sky is falling.”

“Nothing could be more cockamamie,” the hens cackled. As it happened, a few days later, a refrigerator truck pulled up to the yard. A stoop-shouldered little man emerged with a chopping block and other implements of horror. Soon enough, all the chickens were beheaded and plucked. Some were fried, others were roasted and a few were boiled.

All was not lost for the chicken farmer, however, since he bought some new birds from overseas. They laid many eggs and made the farm very successful. There was even a new rooster whose beak was razor sharp, and whose voice was loud and strong.

The weasel and the fox went hungry once again, their way no longer made easy by the angriest chicken in the universe.

Which Brings us to the following....

A Necessary "Iron Dome" for Young Western Men?

By Marten Gantelius

The vast majority of fathers in the Western countries for hundreds of years have loved their children and been prepared to protect them and their mothers with their lives. Nowadays, this fact makes fathers very vulnerable in these same societies where female criminality against children and fathers is systematized and rewarded. The description below might seem shocking to some. However, it is unfortunately true, and it has been so for several decades. The example which follows is from Sweden and could apply, to a greater or lesser extent, to the whole of Europe (and to North America). The goal of the family law industry is to increase its turnover. In contrast to businesses like Volvo and Stora Enzo, the family law industry does not have to make a profit. The departments that deal with family law in Sweden’s municipalities are the engine and heart of this industry. “In the best interests of the child” is in reality “the greatest amount of damage to children, adults and society.” This is what the goals of the industry actually amount to.

When you have understood this, the actions of the parties involved become completely logical. For example, the legal system, with a few exceptions, favours those who break the law and punishes those who follow it. Other participants in the industry include the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, the police (as a footnote, many honest police officers refuse to participate in the activities of the industry, such as the taking of children into care, though there are enough police officers who are willing to do so!), the Swedish Prosecution Authority, the legal system, the Swedish Tax Agency, the Swedish Enforcement Administration, lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists, consultants, the National Board of Health and Welfare, the Ombudsman for Children, the Ombudsman for Justice, BRIS (Children’s Rights in Society) – and I have probably forgotten several others!

Organisations such as women's refuges, men's centers, organisations for the rights of the father and organisations for the rights of the mother increase the polarisation of the sexes. This is completely in the interests of the industry. The industry gives the public the impression of acting “in the best interests of the child” and that Sweden is a nation governed by the rule of law. That this should be the case is the wish of all law-abiding citizens. This industry develops and refines the language of violence, which operates so that the victim of a crime is attacked while the perpetrator is defended. Here, silence may also be used to facilitate the victim’s dehumanization. Law-abiding people and their children who come into contact with the industry do not have a chance and are completely crushed. Many – and in particular previously well-functioning fathers – end up as welfare recipients, and the children become, to different degrees, damaged for life. The worst affected children suffer from PAS (Parental alienation syndrome, closely related to Stockholm SyndromeEx). The damage that these PAS affected children will cause society inevitably contributes to the industry’s turnover. And there are already multiple generations of PAS affected children in Swedish society today! This is in keeping with the goals of the industry.

A social worker who wants to help vulnerable people and follow the law should not bother looking for work with a Swedish social welfare service. Such a person would be working against the goal of the industry. An anecdote from 1991 serves to illustrate: I sat in a café in a civic centre in Skåne and overheard a conversation between the ladies of a family law department. The family law secretary said: “We’ll just take a few more children into care and we'll be able to have a new position!” On hearing this, all of the ladies around the table laughed heartily.

I do not have the same sense of humor, but they are truly worthy representatives of the industry. This industry is strong, and it is not much affected by the state of the economy. In times of crisis, it is others who have to make savings. In contrast, the actors in the industry benefit from social crises. They have money when no one else has it and can buy at knock-down prices when the market is at its lowest (this happened in 1992). However, it is not the industry that creates these crises – it is the politicians and the banks that do so.

Here we have something that is very close to Stephen Baskerville’s description of the situation in the USA. (See http://www.jrnyquist.com/stephen-baskerville.html – a podcast in which Dr. Baskerville calls the same phenomena “The Divorce Regime.” Baskerville is the author of Taken Into Custody .) How extensive is this problem in the United States? Quantification is not simple, since all official figures contain dezinformatsiya – yet with regard to Sweden I did my own investigation. In 1991 in the District Court of Lund, there were 900 custody cases. Zero (0) fathers won. I could count the number of children involved and relate it to the number of inhabitants living in the municipalities that went under the court. A friend of mine, working at the county administration in Malmö, gave me the secret number of children removed by force in the county. Since the situation was the same in the entire country, I could extrapolate. Also, there is a dark figure which reflects the many fathers that have given up without fighting. (By the way, I told my clients that “you won’t win, and your children will be injured.” I urged them to fight for the sake of their own self-respect.)

An anecdote related to the dark figures: One of my friends was a high, well- paid IT official in one of the big dragons in the Netherlands, and he loved his four children. One day when he got back from work, he was met by a note on the kitchen table: “I have moved with the children.” No warning signals in advance, at least there was none that he had noticed. He broke down totally, lost his job and lost everything. Of all places, he chose Stockholm to start afresh. And he didn’t have a clue where his children were.

This is how I got my estimate of 30,000 children a year in Sweden, which I mean as a low estimate. Since I have reason to believe that the situation is the same in all Europe, I could extrapolate and arrive at the figure of 2.5 million children a year. In fact, it is of minor importance if the correct figure is two or four million children a year. There is no doubt it is a huge, hidden and ongoing genocide. I use the word “genocide” intentionally to underscore the generational destruction which is taking place. [Editor’s note: Perhaps the future existence of entire nations is threatened by a falling birth rate which owes a great deal to the destruction of fatherhood.]

A feminist can turn out to be special type of mother and, like an Islamist, her methods are those of an aggressor. You don’t stop an Islamist or a feminist with facts or sophisticated arguments. It hasn’t worked with the Islamists for 1400 years, and it hasn’t worked with the feminists for the last 40 years. The only thing an aggressor understands is armament. How well armed is the prospective victim? The Israelis have developed a weapon called “The Iron Dome.” It is a strictly defensive weapon to protect their civilians from rocket attacks from the Gaza strip.

A young man today, if he wanted to be safe, might be tempted to rent a box at a semen bank and then get himself sterilized. It’s a simple surgery, and if he changed his mind, he might get a reverse-surgery with 50 percent chance of regaining fertility. This suggestion in itself is frightening, with dire implications for the future. Is this standpoint “immoral” or a way of “giving in”? No, not at all. We must consider carefully and ask ourselves: Since when has it become immoral to protect oneself against criminality? And it is absolutely legal and defensive.

You might object that this way of taking stand would hurt innocent and loving women and mothers. But here we are talking about a system which women (as individuals) have not criticized (as far as anyone has noticed). One might argue that they are all guilty of “assent through silence.” Having seen the suffering of many children and the ruined lives of their fathers, I would strongly advise against the risk of bringing children into the world to suffer such cruelty.

The following may be read as a woman’s speech to the man that she loves:

The moment that I become pregnant, I have total power over you – regardless of whether we are married or living together. This power increases exponentially with every child we have.

I can kidnap the children at any time and make sure that you never get to see them again. That you took the full responsibility for the children for many years will not help you, rather, the exact opposite. The entire community, with the social services in the lead, will support me. I can get the children to hate you and their paternal grandparents – PAS – “Parental Alienation Syndrome” *– so you can forget any hope of their mailing you or looking you up when they grow up or become adults. You will naturally receive a restraining order and will risk prison if you break it. Even if I seriously injure the children physically, and somebody reports me, you do not have a chance. If the children are taken from me, they will not be given to you, but rather placed in a foster home, which you – in your capacity as the non-custodial parent – will not receive information about from the social services.

I can, without risk, falsely accuse you of assault, ill treatment of the children, rape and incest. Furthermore, I can carry out a number of other crimes against you without being punished for them, such as serious theft. Because you are not a total abstainer, you will also be classed as an alcoholic. In Sweden, there is a considerable risk that you will go to prison as an innocent person. Even if you were to be acquitted, you will be marked for life. “No smoke without fire.”

But you will make your payments! The Enforcement Authority will not show any mercy when it comes to alimony. They will not hesitate for a second in taking whatever you own, your flat, your summer cabin, or your car, if you do not pay.

If you talk too much about these injustices at your workplace, you risk losing your job and not receiving another one. In any event, it will not be a job that matches your qualifications. If you are self-employed, you will be punished by nobody buying from you – regardless of how good your products are or what value for money they are.

No one will help you – not even your closest “friends”. On the contrary, everyone will attack you like piranhas.

Your greatly weakened finances will make it hard for you to start a new relationship.

Around 10,000 Swedish mothers a year act in the way described above to a greater or lesser degree. Many of the affected fathers have become alcoholics or drug-takers, and ended up in the gutter for the remainder of their lives, or they commit suicide.

No guarantees apply. A woman can break agreements at any time. And if, for example, a postpartum psychosis – something that affects about one in every thousand women – were to change her mental state, the situation will probably turn out very badly for the father and the children.

If you would still like to have children, at least you now know the risks. It is your choice.