An Anthology on Women

I have a couple of interesting personal observations to indicate which vicious little minority seems to be winning the culture wars within the left-wing elitist establishment, at least since the Clintons took power.

As some of you know, I also write fiction, and as a kind of hobby I try to market it, mostly to collect and analyze the rejection slips. Needless to say, all my stuff is far too politically incorrect to be published, but some of the responses are suggestive and revealing. The Jews, of course, maintain overall business and financial control of the world publishing industry through the five or six major conglomerates, but what I begin to find fascinating is the editorial aspect of it, where The Agenda is most visible.

My Civil War murder mystery novel has, of course, always been rejected, usually with great frankness by editors who admit that they cannot publish a book with a Confederate hero. (Perhaps significantly, they always say that they cannot publish a pro-Southern book, not that they will not.) But lately it seems as if the radical feminists have taken over the editorial boards of most publishers. The determination to publish or not has moved away from race to an author's politically correct (or otherwise) treatment of his female fictional characters.

One of the most immediately obvious results of this situation is something that has been noted by a number of literary reviewers and scholars, and that is the virtually total collapse, over the past fifteen years, of science fiction as a literary genre. Most 'science fiction' nowadays, as a quick trip down the aisles of your local Waldenbooks or Barnes and Noble looking at the covers will confirm, is actually 'science fantasy' involving mythical lands of dragons, elves, magic, and of course all kinds of fetching liberated female characters, witches or space princesses or Xena the Warrior Maiden types who spend the whole book doing down assorted evil males who want to dominate them and make them have babies or some such. (A good example is the last female captain of the Enterprise in the Star Trek series; White males have virtually disappeared from Star Trek since its inception 30 years ago.)

National Socialists generally being pretty omnivorous readers, I'm sure you will have some idea of the kind of drivel I'm talking about. There simply are no more Robert Heinleins, Ray Bradburys, Brian Aldisses, Philip K. Dicks, or Alfred Besters in sci-fi today. The whole once vital genre has been blanded down and PC'ed and feminized into mush. You can't even get any good old proper sword-and-sorcery fantasy – where is today's equivalent of Robert E. Howard or Clark Ashton Smith or John Norman? The closest we've got is Orson Scott Card, and frankly in my view he is only a pale imitation of earlier s-and-s glories.

A second indicator of the way in which radical feminism has seized control of English-language fiction in all media came to my notice only a few weeks ago. I picked up a paperback copy of a P. D. James murder mystery, A Mind To Murder, which was new to me, or so I thought. I was almost thirty pages into the book before I realized that I had actually seen this particular Commander Dalgliesh mystery dramatized on British television.

Or had I? Because while the names of the characters were the same and the overall plot was the same – a female bureaucrat in a private mental clinic is found done in with a chisel – there were puzzling differences. The television show opened up with Commander Dalgliesh's female partner, a woman detective sergeant, being shot and killed in a warehouse in some unspecified criminal investigation by a man in a ski mask and black jumpsuit; we later learn that this man is a renegade MI5 agent who is covered up for by the evil Conservatives of Britain and sent to a private mental hospital on an island off the coast to "recuperate". There the main murder takes place, and Dalgliesh shows up by helicopter with his new partner, also a "strong woman" copper. There is a whole long digression into the patients at the clinic, which consist of neurotic males, all potential killers, and women who have been driven to nervous breakdowns of various kinds by male persecution. Lunatics are people just like us, don't y'know, mustn't be judgmental and all that rot.

One male patient commits suicide and a second murder is attempted; finally the killer turns out to be a blond, blue-eyed young White man who is a genuine, working artist producing paintings as opposed to the neurotic quasi-Jew pseuds in the clinic. The evil White male MI5 guy also gets his, the female partner of Dalgliesh saves the day, and sisterhood is vindicated.

That's the TV show. The actual P. D. James novel A Mind To Murder, written in 1962, bears virtually no resemblance at all to the British television show, circa 1991 or so, I think. In the original book, the clinic is located in the middle of London, not on an island. There is no murder of a female cop by a spook gone berserk. Dalgliesh's partner is the stolid White male Sergeant Martin. There are no pseudo-intellectual psycho patients spouting politically correct drivel; all the suspects in the killing of the administrator are among the staff. Finally, in the book, the killer is a woman. The very ending and plot of the novel were altered by television to render the result politically correct.

This is the way these people will rape the fiction of P. D. James, possibly Britain's greatest living mystery writer – and a woman. So I suppose I shouldn't complain about what they've done to my work.

My first encounter with this phenomenon was in my historical novel Vindictus, which has as its protagonist a character who must certainly have existed at some stage in real history – the first gunfighter. It's set in the Cromwell period and features a former Royalist soldier who comes home and finds that he's been royally screwed (no pun intended) by his Puritan neighbors who chose the winning side, and he decides to return the favor. I had one female editor reject it on the grounds that my main character, Denzil, "...has a cavalier attitude towards women."

"Cavalier attitude." Get it? I don't think the silly woman realized the atrocious pun she was making. But the fact is that what she was demanding, essentially, was that I make a character who supposedly existed in the 1650s into a sensitive 90s-kind-of-guy, which is even more absurd. In other words, she wanted me to re-write history, which I won't do.

Some time ago I wrote a piece of pure hackwork, a ghost story along the Stephen King line. (I won't give the title because I've got another agent nibbling at it at the moment.) Without getting overly conceited, I am simply stating a fact when I say that as horror/supernatural stories go, this book is at least as good as 90% of the pure crap that is being published in that genre today. This book makes no pretense to be great literature and is chiefly interesting for the fact that it's the only one I have ever written with a female protagonist. About a year ago I had a very strong nibble from an agency, run by women of course, who claimed that they wanted to offer me a contract, but... there just had to be a few teensy-weensy changes made....

"Here it comes," I said to myself with a grin, reading their fax. "Always those few changes." Which I usually won't do because they always want to gut the whole novel, whatever it is, and make it stomach-churningly politically correct. I figured in this case the changes would involve the fact that my heroine, Amy, is a fundamentalist Christian. But no. Explained the head of the agency, I had to rewrite the whole ending of the book, because the female protagonist was perceived by their staff as being "Too much of a victim. Only fiction showing women as strong and independent people in their own right who control their own destinies and triumph over all odds is acceptable in today's market."

The lady didn't say acceptable to whom or why, nor did I ask. The fact that this is a horror story and the protagonist might reasonably be expected to come to a sticky end made no difference at all. Sticky ends in supernatural horror novels are apparently okay for all kinds of White males in the pulp paperbacks, on up to Stephen King's Jack Torrance in The Shining; I'm positive if my protagonist had been male there would have been no problem with my book's plot line.

But not for les femmes. The fact that the classic of the whole genre, Shirley Jackson's The Haunting Of Hill House, also has a female protagonist who comes to a sticky end is beside the point, apparently. Shirley Jackson was writing in 1960 under classical Judaic literary Stalinism, before this particular brand of political correctness had set in. It's ironic that Stalinist liberalism controlled by Jewish men of the day actually left American writers with more intellectual freedom than modern-day feminism controlled by Jewish women; in 1960 so long as you didn't criticize the Soviet Union you had a good chance of being published in New York.

My second encounter with literary feminism was more recent and an even sharper indication of the way the wind is blowing in the halls of the decrepit and PC-riddled publishing industry. After November 1996, I never even bothered to submit my anti-Clinton novel Fire and Rain to publishers or agents. We live in a nation of people who re-elected Bill and Hillary Clinton, knowing what they were full well, and there is obviously no point. However, I did try the one agent out in California who did me the favor of pushing my Civil War murder mystery like hell for almost two years, against all the anti-Confederate odds, purely because he liked the book. I came across his address and said, "Eh, what the hell?" I asked him if he wanted to look at Fire and Rain, warning him right up front that there was virtually no chance it would ever be published in today's political climate. He read the book, loved it, and sent it back to me in sad agreement.

A while later he actually called me on the phone, wanting to know what else I was working on. (I ended up half promising him a medieval murder mystery I've got about 40,000 words done on, but I doubt I'll ever have time to finish it once the NSWPP HQ gets going.) We went over all my other stuff, and he said something like, "Pity about Fire and Rain," to which I replied, "Yeah, but I know there's no market for something that's anti-Clinton and exposes the 1960s anti-Vietnam war movement as corrupt, etc."

"No, no," said the agent. "You don't understand. It's not that. If it were only the anti-counterculture and Vietnam stuff I'd at least take a crack at finding you a publisher. No, the problem is Heather."

"Huh?" I asked. Heather is my female lead in Fire and Rain, a single mother, Yuppie Barbie doll "professional" type who starts out very politically correct but gets disenchanted with PC when A) She gets the hots for a handsome Southern detective who is digging into a 26-year-old murder in Chapel Hill; and B) She becomes entangled in the plot and a hit team from the FBI and CIA try to murder her and her daughter in order to cover up the truth about the Vietnam era.

"Heather is a strong, independent woman with all the correct PC credentials at the beginning of the book," explained the literary agent. "Including your reference to her experimenting with bisexuality like a good PC White female is supposed to do these days. Not only do you have Heather rejecting political correctness with the Vietnam thing, but she also rejects feminism and lesbianism to end up marrying Matt. A conservative, White Southern male more or less rescues a modern 90s career woman from a life of feminism and lesbianism through honorable marriage, commitment, personal courage, and love. That's about as big a no-no as you can possibly commit in today's fiction. If I tried to send that manuscript to some of my editors I'd have a mob of lesbian feminist harpies down from San Francisco on my doorstep tomorrow with pitchforks and torches. They're already suspicious enough of me because of that Civil War novel of yours I tried to peddle, plus some other PI stuff."

There you have it, folks. You wonder why you can't seem to get anything but PC crap on TV and can't seem to find anything but PC crap by way of fiction to read except for stuff written over 30 years ago? This is how it works. The Jews won't put up the money or give an unapproved author the contacts to publish – it's always been like that, of course – but now they don't even have to exert the effort to suppress politically incorrect books. Such material not only doesn't make it past the editor's desk, it never leaves the agent's office, because the agents know full well what will sell and what won't and what will lose them every business contact they have in New York and get them blackballed if they even try to sell it.

Bruce is a father who came home one day to find his belongings on the street, the locks on his doors changed, and his wife's new boyfriend already moved in. Angry and bewildered, Bruce kicked in the door and began shouting. His wife called the police, who arrived and took Bruce away in handcuffs. She then got a restraining order preventing any contact with his three children. When his son was hospitalized with an illness, Bruce was not allowed to visit. Eventually he was allowed to see his children at a supervised visitation center, for which he must pay an hourly fee, with his wife and her boyfriend present in the next room. He pays half his salary to his wife and her boyfriend in child support.

Bruce's experience is increasingly common among fathers. In fact, it is now epidemic. Enormous numbers of fathers who are accused of no wrongdoing are losing their children, plundered for everything they have, publicly vilified, and then incarcerated without trial.

The astounding fact is that, with the exception of convicted criminals, no one today has fewer rights than fathers. Even accused criminals have the right to due process of law, to know the charges against them, to a lawyer, and to a trial. A father can be deprived of his children, his home and life savings, and his freedom with none of these constitutional protections.

How has this startling situation come about, and why does no one seem to know about it? A combination of changes in divorce law, feminist and media vilification, and the usual machinations of the legal profession has left fathers with no protection against the confiscation of their children. It has also left them the targets of what may be the most massive witch hunt in this country's history.

Under the guise of pursuing deadbeat parents, we are now seeing mass incarcerations without trial, without charge, and without counsel, while the media and civil libertarians look the other way. We also have the spectacle of the highest officials in the land – including the president, the attorney general and major cabinet secretaries, and leading members of Congress from both parties – using their office as a platform to publicly attack private citizens who have been convicted of nothing and who have no opportunity to reply. We also have government officials freely entering the homes of citizens who are accused of nothing and simply helping themselves to whatever they want – including children, life savings, and private papers and effects.

All this is now the norm for fathers whose only offense is to have had their children taken away. They need not be accused, let alone convicted, of any wrongdoing; they need not have given any grounds for divorce; they need not even have agreed to one.

But surely these are "deadbeat dads" who have abandoned their children? Not at all. According to the largest federally-funded study ever on divorced fathers, psychologist Sanford Braver of Arizona State University has shown conclusively that two-thirds of divorces are filed by mothers, who have virtual certainty of getting the children and a large portion of the fathers income, regardless of any fault on their part. Far from abandoning their children, 90 percent of deserted fathers pay court-ordered child support (unemployment being the main reason for nonpayment), and most make heroic efforts to stay in contact with children from whom they are forcibly separated by the police.

And these are fathers who are accused of nothing. Those who face trumped-up charges of child abuse must in addition prove their innocence before they can hope to see their children. Yet it is now well-established that most child abuse takes place in the homes of single mothers. A recent study by the Department of Health and Human Services found that almost two-thirds of child abusers were females. Given that male perpetrators are not necessarily fathers but much more likely to be boyfriends and stepfathers, fathers emerge as the least likely child abusers. From the perspective of the father it would appear that the real abusers have thrown him out of the family so they can abuse his children with impunity.

David Gray Ross, head of federal child support enforcement, has a huge sign over his door proclaiming "Children first" and tells a television reporter, "We really are looking out for the children." It is very easy for Mr. Ross and his plainclothes agents to pose as the defenders of wronged women and children; the smug self-righteousness of judges, lawyers, and child support enforcers is a source of constant humiliation to ejected fathers. Yet we should bear in mind that their chivalry costs them nothing. On the contrary, we now have a sizable portion of the population making quite a handsome living in the business of hunting down fathers. If we take a moment to glance at what it now costs fathers to stay in contact with children who have been removed from their care and protection through no fault of their own, and who must now risk almost certain financial destruction, public excoriation, and indefinite incarceration, we might discover that it is not so simple to say precisely who are the villains and who are the heroes.

Sometimes in this job, helpless to intervene or stop it, able only to offer an occasional few words of advice or comfort, I witness things which this system does which can only be called pure evil.

One of these events occurred in 1990-92 when a once strong and proud man named Phil H. was humiliated, destroyed, bankrupted, and his very soul violated and contaminated and desecrated by a woman whom, pathetically, he has to my knowledge never ceased to love to this very day.

Her disgraceful and vicious behavior in this matter cuts to the very heart of this whole dichotomy between White men and White women, not because it is excessive, but because it is typical. I could cite dozens of similar stories I've run across personally down the years, including several of my own, but Phil's case I know a bit better than most because he got to be pretty regular pen and phone comrades and I got a play by play description as a White woman and lawyers and a court system run by Jews destroyed his life piece by shredded piece, in one of the most contemptible and egregious acts of betrayal I have ever observed on the part of any woman of any race.

Phil's mistake was to acquire certain racial and religious beliefs along the line of Christian Identity. Since he lived in Idaho, one weekend he attended one of the gatherings at the Aryan Nations compound in Hayden Lake – a legal political and religious assembly wherein constitutionally protected freedoms were exercised. (Take the bitter and ironic laughter as read.)

Security at Hayden Lake is completely non-existent, as anyone who has ever attended such a pow-wow can confirm, and every knees-up on Butler's property is so heavily infiltrated with Federal agents, ADL spies, and undercover news media that there has been more than one documented case of them spying on one another, trying to entrap one another into illegal acts or gun deals, etc. One of the undercover reporters was snapping pictures and Phil's face ended up on his local front page. I repeat – his photo at a completely legal gathering on private property, exercising freedoms clearly protected by the First Amendment.

In a pig's eye. That photo turned his life into a blasted wasteland.

Phil's wife of 12 years had been perfectly well aware of his racial views from the time they first met and it had never been a problem so long as the shekels flowed into her greedy little manicured hands at a prodigious rate, which for a time Phil was able to provide. However, about this time Phil's business hit a slump and there were some other financial problems and the flow of goodies was sharply curtailed. About the same time wifey got involved in a fling with a local glitterati type, of which there are many in the Idaho Panhandle, some kind of ski bum I think this guy was. So she decided it's time to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. She filed for divorce and, of course, Phil's smiling mug at the AN gathering was the centerpiece of the festivities.

Phil sent me the actual legal papers on all this, and I think from this point on we can all fill in the blanks. Between his attorney and hers, his financial carcass was picked clean as a whistle. Over $100,000 ended up going to lawyers and assorted legal parasites alone. She forced him to liquidate his business and give her the entire proceeds. She ended up with (as I recall) something like $2,500 a month child support, an insane sum which the judge admitted she (of course) was awarding "to make sure that money goes to your wife and child and not to racist causes." (Phil was never a member of AN and used to donate maybe the odd $5 or $10 to AN and to me every three months or so.)

But the worst of all was Phil's child visitation rights, if such they may be called; this ruling is in fact a kind of ritual humiliation of the White and Christian fundamentalist male which is becoming all too common in the liberal court system today. Phil was allowed to see his 12 year-old son for something like two hours every two weeks, only at the county courthouse or police station in an interview room, only in the presence of the wife, and only in the presence of a police or county sheriff "community relations officer" to make sure that Phil did not (I'm quoting direct here) "attempt in any way or manner to instruct, indoctrinate, or propagate in the mind of [boy's name] any doctrine or belief system of a racial, White supremist [sic] or Christian Identity nature." Phil ran out of money about that time and has not been able to hire another lawyer to appeal, nor would it do any good if he did; his son is almost 18 now anyway.

Phil has spent the intervening years fighting back with a dignity and stubborn strength which excites my admiration and makes me wonder how many guys like him are out there. He understands and accepts that he cannot stop her and that he is helpless unless he wants to pick up a gun and "go postal," the last tangible remedy left to him. He told me he considered it but decided he will not complete the destruction of his own life and his son's by killing the bitch.

What he has done is the White male equivalent of passive resistance: he has simply done like Nancy Reagan advised and said "no." He refuses to pay for his ex to disport herself with the ski bum and a subsequent string of lovers, apparently of both sexes and mixed races as she enjoys her "liberation" from Phil's racist patriarchal shackles. He refuses to get a job and spends his days intermittently homeless and living in his car, when he has one, or in a boarding house when he is able to scrape up a little money collecting aluminum cans or doing odd jobs. This can get pretty dodgey in those terrible Idaho winters, but he manages, although sometimes he has to go as far as Boise to get admitted to a shelter when it's really bad – but when the weather breaks he shoots right up to Coeur d'Alene again. He's managed to sneak onto welfare a couple of times until they found out and tried to garnishee his benefits, so he canceled them.

Phil has been arrested at least twice that I know of and once did 30 days for contempt when he refused to get a job and pay his obscene child support. This was in the winter and when the judge hauled him back in front of her to berate and browbeat him he asked for another 30 days because the jail was heated and he got fed better there than he could feed himself homeless on the outside. She was so enraged she kicked him loose. The second time she tried to order the sheriff to put him on bread and water in an unheated cell, but the sheriff explained to her, gently and patiently, that torture is illegal in this country, even for White males, and refused, so she threw Phil out into the snow again. He was also busted a couple of times for "stalking" when he got caught near wifey's home, but nothing ever came of it because the "stalking" consisted of wifey and the boy observing him panhandling or sleeping in a doorway on a public street.

His credo is now simple, and he has told it to the judge and anyone else who cares to listen. "She did this. She can live with the consequences. She gets nothing from me, not ever again. End of story." To the question, "What about your son?" he answers, "I can't give him money and material things, but I can give him a visible example of how a true man lives his life and stands up for what's right no matter what it costs him. I think that will be more valuable to him than whatever benefit he might get from my money once she gets through spending most of it on herself and her latest toy boy or girl."

I sure as hell hope that kid has the smarts to learn that lesson and not just be resentful because he can't buy the latest Nintendo or Air Nigger athletic shoes.

Phil did one more thing. In 1992 he wrote a leaflet for me called "Politically Correct Sexuality." This comes from the heart and soul of a really big man in every sense of the word. Sieg Heil, brother!

RULE 1. Men and women are equal. Period. End of story. If anything, women are superior. No contradiction of this basic premise is allowed. None. Period. End of story. Any biological, physical, or practical facts which contradict this basic premise simply do not exist. Period. End of story. Any person, man or woman, who attempts to disagree or argue that there are innate biological, physical, or emotional differences between men and women must be shouted down and silenced by any means available.

RULE 2. For White heterosexual males, marriage is the only socially acceptable institution for the relief of innate biological sexual instincts. Sexual activity outside marriage for White males is sexist and shows disrespect for women. Sexual activity for White females outside marriage is liberating and shows independence and strength of character. Blacks of either gender may engage in any sexual behavior of any kind on an unlimited basis, without restraint or social reproof. (NB: Blacks are immune to criticism of any kind.)

RULE 3.For the duration of any sexual relationship before, during, and after marriage, the provision of relief for the man's biological sex drive is entirely at the discretion of the woman. She says when, where, how, and is in full control. In most states nowadays, if she is displeased with her mate's sexual, financial, or social performance, she may accuse him of marital rape and have him sent to prison for many years.

RULE 4. IMPORTANT: Women always tell the truth. Men always lie. No woman is ever guilty of anything. All men are always guilty of everything. Any accusation of physical or sexual abuse made by the woman against the man is to be believed, completely and without question, regardless of how improbable or bizarre the allegation. Any denial by the man, any attempt on his part to point out facts which do not conform to the woman's version of events, any attempt to bring out any past falsehood or neurotic behavior on her part, is inadmissible and shall be disregarded, scorned, and shouted down.

RULE 5. The only White males who are entitled to credibility, responsible position in the community, or any rights at all are homosexuals. The duty of the heterosexual White male is to work hard, obey his woman, and to pay for everything. At all times he shall remain humble and maintain a respectful silence unless spoken to.

RULE 6. Women will receive the advantage in any dealings with the courts and the legal system. The theory behind this is that women have been traditionally disadvantaged and must therefore now receive preferential treatment, i.e. two wrongs make a right.

RULE 7. When children are involved, custody will almost always be granted to the mother, unless the mother shows up for court reeking of liquor, obviously stoned on drugs, or else raving mad and confined in a straitjacket. Sometimes she'll even get custody under those conditions. If the mother is in a mental institution or serving a prison sentence for a felony conviction, the children will almost always be given to the mother's relatives. Granting custody to the father is to be avoided at all costs in order to avoid preserving White Male Hegemony, whatever that is.

RULE 8. Any accusation of physical or sexual child abuse leveled by the woman against the man is to be believed without question. Great strides in jurisprudence have already been made in the legal disposition of child abuse and rape cases. Such tedious formalities as the Constitutional right to be confronted with one's accuser, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the legal prohibition against hearsay evidence, the right to a speedy trial, the right not to be denied bail and not to have excessive bail imposed, and in some cases the right to trial by jury have already been done away with in many states. In the state of Washington the progressive legal concept of preventive detention without even a criminal charge is being implemented against White males who may offend against politically correct sexuality, while in Idaho a new hate crimes law defines ALL WOMEN as a politically protected minority, thus covering everyone except heterosexual White males against discrimination and "crimes of bias".

It is to be hoped that under the enlightened rule of Presidents Bill and Hillary Clinton, the whole time-consuming business of a trial for accused White male child abusers and rapists may be done away with altogether, and the process streamlined so that the accused man is arrested, immediately taken before a judge for sentencing, and then directly to prison. The victim of White male aggression has already suffered enough, and it is unjust that she be put through the ordeal of having to relive her nightmare in a courtroom. Besides, the savings to taxpayers alone argue strongly for such a progressive approach. The money saved can be used to feed the millions of starving people in Africa, or better yet, to bring them here to a new home and new life in America.

RULE 9. When the woman tires of the marriage and ends it, the man will be legally compelled to pay one third to one half of his NET income to support a wife and family who are no longer his and whom he may never see again, sometimes for as long as twenty-five or thirty years. If the man objects to this perpetual debt bondage, he is liable to be imprisoned for any length of time without trial, for contempt of court. Should the man revolt in despair against this life of perpetual impoverishment and financial slavery which becomes utterly unbearable, and take flight in a desperate attempt to find someplace where he can start over and possibly build another life and another family before he is too old to do so, then he is a dog, a cur, and he will be hunted down like the vile beast he is and punished with all the majestic wrath of American justice.

RULE 10. Women are born with an inalienable right to HAVE IT ALL: love, money, respect, subservience, obedience, children, career, adventure, romance, political power. Man exists on this earth solely to provide her with this wonderful, stress-free, disappointment-free life which is rightfully hers. She is Woman, hear her roar! All men are morally required to look like Robert Redford, earn a minimum of $300,000 per year, perform like a bull in bed when his woman is in the mood and never, ever make the slightest demand otherwise, and generally to fulfill every whim, every fantasy, every materialistic desire she may have. Men must treat her like a princess while respecting her as an equal – indeed, as a SUPERIOR being – and above all, they must LIKE it. Any White male who does not meet the above standard is a failure as a man and a wretch who almost certainly harbors secret right-wing, racist, sexist, homophobic, neo-Nazi criminal thoughts. Society must be protected from men like this.