Irrational problem solving or rationality, the difference is?

Irrational problem solving is in, rational problem solving is out.  What is the difference?  The main objective is to make the victims of miscarriage of justice feel better — justified or not, right?  First there was Omar Khadr, except that — believe it or not — he wasn’t the first.  Now that there have been five precedents for about $10 million each, things should be rolling right along.  How many more cases like this are coming down the pipe?

Irrational Problem Solving

Three Muslim-Canadians who sued Canada’s government for $100 million each

Summation of the article

The CBC article states that three Muslim-Canadians were arrested in Syria and tortured:

1.) Abdullah Almalki, a Syrian-born graduate in electrical engineering from Ottawa’s Carleton University with a successful electronics export business, was arrested in May 2002 upon his arrival in Damascus to visit family. He was held in custody for 22 months.
2.)Ahmad Elmaati went to Damascus to get married in the fall of 2001. He was handcuffed and hooded at the airport and taken to a Syrian prison and tortured. Then he was put on a private jet and sent to Egypt, where he was tortured further. He was released in January 2004.
3.) Muayyed Nureddin, Iraqui-born Principal of a Toronto Islamic school…was detained in 2003, as he crossed the border from Iraq into Syria. …Nureddin was held for 34 days in a Syrian dungeon before he was released and allowed to return to Canada.

All three men had sued the Canadian government for compensation, for $100 million each. All three men settled out of court with the Canadian government. “The statement does not provide any details about the nature of the settlements reached, financial or otherwise.” I wonder whether the figure for each of the men was perhaps $10.5 million. After all, that seems to become a familiar figure for such settlements, because,

There is also another case, >>>A 2006 inquiry led by Justice Dennis O’Connor found that Canadian officials played a role in Arar’s torture, and he received an apology and $10.5 million from the federal government. O’Connor also recommended a review of Almalki, Elmaati and Nureddin’s cases.<<<

Issues and Consequences

I wonder. Does the Canadian government really have a responsibility to compensate people whom they grant citizenship, only to find them returning to where they came from and to be arrested there?

It is a safe guess that the settlements now total about $53 million. Before we know it, they may be some more cases, and — $10 million here, $10 million there — before we know, we are talking about real money.

Money does not appear to be the main concern for the Canadian government.  After all, what is another $53 million that is being added to the $12 trillion of what we already owe to lenders and future generations will be made to try but never manage to pay it all anyway?

What would be wrong with travel advisories to Canadian nationals who are Muslims and wish to return to the places they sought refuge from? Should the government perhaps tell them, “Look if you go to a country like that and get arrested and tortured, we will not be liable. You go there at your own risk. Here is a release from for you to sign, if you wish to go.”?

By the same token, just in case the Canadian government is incapable of keeping track of who wishes to go where (which they are and can’t), why not just issue a general travel advisory and tell all Canadians, when they purchase their tickets, that they will be going at their own risk?   That is what health-insurance companies do, and why shouldn’t they?  They need to worry about making a profit.  Our governments don’t even worry about the debts they run up.  They don’t, because no one holds them accountable.

Still, such a travel advisory is the norm for anyone else.  Why does the Canadian government not issue any?  That should take care of anyone from being caught in a fire-fight anywhere between local government forces and their allies, against terrorists troubling the local governments.  When he realizes that no one will help him out of the bind he will get himself into, he will think more than twice about getting into it.

What is happening is becoming ridiculous, but why not? If you can’t get any money from the regime that arrested and tortured you, why not go for compensation from the pushover country that let you go there? That works fine, doesn’t it?

How many more cases like that are in the pipe? Now that there have been five precedents for about $10 million each, things should be rolling right along.

Rational or Irrational Problem Solving?

We have got a problem. The problem with Muslims who have Canadian citizenship but yearn to be in Islamic nations of one sort or another for whatever reasons is turning into quite a good-sized liability. Perhaps Muslims coming to Canada and then opting for dual citizenship is not such a good idea because it is plainly an all-around bad deal.

How should the problem be solved?

The rational way to fix a problem is to,

  1. Recognize and admit that there is one;
  2. Determine the most economical and most effective way to fix it and how it can be prevented from re-occurring, and
  3. Fix it and keep it from happening again.

Irrational problem solving, the Liberal way to deal with the very same problem, is to,

  1. Ignore that there is one, but relish the pain experienced by anyone as a result of the problem;
  2. Determine what needs to be done to make the victims of the consequences of the problem feel good, and
  3. Make the victim of the problems feel good, regardless of the cost, and keep looking for more victims who can be made to feel good as well.

Rational problem solving addresses the fundamental causes of a problem, the causes that made the problem happen and keep it alive.  Rational problem solving eradicates those fundamental problem causes and keeps them from ever happening again.

Irrational problem solving focuses on problem symptoms and how to mitigate them, without ever wasting a thought on the fundamental causes that make the problem produce problem symptom after problem symptom.

Irrational problem solving ensures that there will be a never-ending number of problems symptoms that need to be mitigated.  Irrational problem solving can be compared to treating the symptoms of small-pocks with Band Aids, without ever spending a thought on developing a vaccine that will eradicate the  small-pocks virus forever.

 

Posted in Civil Rights, Men's Issues, The New World Order, Violence by Proxy | Leave a comment

Sheep People Comparisons – Are people sheeple?

It was in 1997 when I first wrote this commentary.  I updated it today, but not too many changes needed to be made.  It concerns sheep people comparisons, something that many people often make.  Some do it so much that they refer to people and their  allegedly sheep-like behaviour as sheeple.  Is that fair to sheep or people?  I thought about it, and here are the results of that.

Many years ago I obtained my first e-mail address.  I made it sheep_@telusplanet.net.  That address is now defunct, as eventually it became so well-known by spammers that a vast and overwhelming  majority of the mail I received was spam, and much of the rest of it contained attachments with viruses.  Some messages had the viruses embedded.

Coping with that was quite a nuisance that became alleviated to some extent through the efforts of the software industry that never seem to crack down on spammers and hackers but makes all of us buy-in on the virus protection racket.  Who can find fault with that?  Anti-virus protection and software is a multi-billion dollar business, and why fix what earns so much money?

At any rate, enjoy the sheep people comparisons that are contained in this article, the comments about sheeple.

Index to subject areas of sheep people comparisons

  1. Introduction
  2. Illegitimacy
  3. Group Instinct
  4. Sexuality
  5. Domestic Relations
  6. Domestic Violence
  7. Child Abuse
  8. Homosexuality

Introduction

Ever since I started to use my first e-mail address in 1988, I now and then had a comment on the first five characters of the address: sheep.  The following is an example from a message received in 1997.

PS I take it “sheep” is a word-play on the “Schneider” who shears sheep? Or, is this just a coincidence ? I thought “schneiden” usually referred to cutting/tailoring cloth, and “scheren” to cutting/shearing sheep.

Schneider is the German word for tailor, but it could also be used as the term for cutter (in a literal translation, usually in a compound noun, such as Glasschneider — glass cutter)

The man who asked the question was almost right.  The word “sheep” in the address does relate to sheep (the animal), actually, the fact that we produced sheep. In 1997, when this was originally written, we still had a few, after having had to down-size substantially, when our flock became literally decimated in 1996 through predation by three separate packs of coyotes that came daily for snacks.  We lost a good number of ewes and more than four times their number in lambs that year — almost our entire profit from the sheep operation went to the coyotes in the last year of our operation.

Curiously, at that time Canada Parks and Wildlife were equipping coyotes at nearby Elk Island National Park with radio collars.  They did that, so that they could track and study them, justifying that needless job because they had decided that Canadian coyotes were in danger from human encroachment, which was patently untrue at the time and even less so now.  Coyotes are routinely found in Canada’s cities, where they now and then dine on pets taken for walks by their owners.  Environmentalism was already then a cause célèbre and always good for successfully requesting lavish funding through which those so inclined could make a good living, regardless of whether the activities they pursued and wanted the taxpayers to pay for served a useful purpose or not.

After we decided to sell all except a few lambs for cutting the grass around the yard, I was actually worried for a while that we might lose so many before the next scheduled sale, that it might hardly have been worth it to call the trucker to haul them to the stockyards.

Well, the down-sizing was a blessing in disguise.  We gained a little bit more time then.   Ruth and I were both getting a bit worn out anyway.

We also chose the word sheep for the address because of our activism and the fact that society is as easily conditioned as a flock of sheep.  Sheep are much better though and more persistent in their habits.  They retain them far better than people do and always have realistic motives for their behaviour, which appears primarily and consistently motivated by greed for personal, instant gratification.

In the 1980s and ’90s,  we heard frequently about the Bonobos, a species of small chimpanzees living in Africa and in some zoos, whose members appear to be possessed by obsessive-compulsive sexual behaviour, that perhaps being the reason why they never fully developed and never managed to come out of the trees to create a civilization.  Instead, they remained stunted, while they blissfully copulated their brains out.  They simply wasted a lot of time devoting their attention to unproductive sexual behaviour.  Nevertheless, many feminists would like us to emulate their behaviour, while claiming that post-coital bliss and stupor would be a worth-while goal to achieve, somewhat like an eco-friendly, pacifying Soma, all the more so when it can be employed to gain social status and popularity in a troupe of Bonobos.  Those feminist “researchers” and their disciples seem to forget the little problem of the correlation between that type of behaviour and the lack of being civilized.


Update 2008 02 28: The Bonobos’ reality is somewhat different.  When observed in the wild, away from captivity in which there is little more to do than eat and have sex, Bonobos are not too different from other chimpanzees.  Bonobos in the wild, it can be argued, don’t have sex more often than other chimpanzees do.  Most importantly and counter to feminist propagandistic claims, Bonobos are violent, perhaps as violent as other Chimpanzees.  This link will lead to a very interesting article about that and many other misperceptions regarding the Bonobos, “Swingers : Bonobos are celebrated as peace-loving, matriarchal, and sexually liberated. Are they?” by Ian Parker July 30, 2007, The New Yorker.


Nevertheless, sheep people have many misperceptions about how things work in nature.

Environmentalist's fantasy of sheep and wolves living in harmony

Wolves (or coyotes, for that matter) and sheep do not live in harmony. They do not play leap-frog with one another.

Illegitimacy

There are other implications in the behaviour of the Bonobos and other varieties of chimpanzees whom the feminists would have us emulate and go back to the social standards that prevailed before the rise of civilization.  The Scientific American (January 1999 issue, page 97) reported that “Pascal Gagneux and David S. Woodruff of the University of California at San Diego — together with Christophe Boesch of the Zoological Institute of the University of Basel [Switzerland]” used DNA tracing to investigate “the mating habits of a group of wild chimpanzees in the Ta—Forest of Ivory Coast. . . . By comparing the … DNA fingerprints of the adult males and females of the group with those of 13 offspring, Gagneux, Woodruff and Boesch found that seven of the babies could not have been fathered by males in the group.”

That’s an illegitimacy rate of more than 50% with respect to the gene pool present in the group of chimpanzees that these researchers studied, not to say anything about the extent of promiscuity of the females within that group in relation to their ostensible mates (chimpanzees don’t practice monogamy).  From the account given of the researchers’ findings, it appears that the adult females in the study group were quite sneaky about their “trysts” and must have used stealth during the night to see their “extramarital” lovers.  The authors of the article, E. Richard Moxon and Christopher Wills, opined that behaviour like that might explain why even small groups of chimpanzees maintain a great deal of genetic diversity, with the preservation of such variety being essential to the survival of wild chimpanzee populations. (Scientific American, January 1999, p. 97) [*]


* The modern re-engineering of humanity managed to undo the regulating of human sexuality that it took 10,000 years to bring to reasonable levels, to the point where some groups of civilized humans reverted back to and now exceed the extent of promiscuity of primates in the wild.

Six in 10 who take DNA tests in Wales turn out not to be fathers
Wales News – News – WalesOnline, www.walesonline.co.uk

ALMOST six out of 10 Welsh men who take a paternity test turn out not to be the biological father….(Full Story off-site)


It is interesting that it is the females who sneak off to have their trysts, to follow their biological need for genetic diversification and dispersion in their offspring.

The preservation of genetic diversity played an important role in the social habits of the Eskimos and other isolated communities of northern natives of Canada.  They exercised the practice of providing visiting men from distant tribes or communities with local women, even if they came just for an overnight stay.  That practice became diminished to a considerable extent, ever since the advent of Christianity in those communities.  In consequence, strongly localized genetic aberrations made their appearance.  Some of these genetic aberrations, enhanced through the inbreeding forced upon extremely small communities that have insufficient genetic diversity to maintain viability, are distinctly European in origin.  Visiting sailors and other White men who spent time in Eskimo communities have left their mark.

The remnants of the biological need for genetic variety in small isolated communities may be a biological necessity that drives social behaviour in communities that no longer need to worry about deliberately bringing it about.  On the basis of  investigations in a community in England, another one in Canada, and based on the results of tissue matching for organ transplants in supposedly monogamous, stable families, it was found that on average one in five children in such marriages are not the biological offspring of their ostensible natural fathers.  It must be a very devastating experience for fathers ready and prepared to donate a kidney for their poor suffering offspring to discover that the child they thought all along was theirs isn’t.

Obviously, civilization was far from totally successful in regulating, guaranteeing and controlling paternity through matrimony, although jurisprudence increasingly grasps at straws to assign “fathers” to children, with little regard to marital or biological status of paternity.  Still,

Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more certain they are their own. —Aristotle

At any rate, Ruth and I never managed to go to far-off places to study the Bonobos in attempts to contrive from their behaviour reasons for establishing new moral standards in society, such as the exhaustive variety of sexual behaviour discovered in the study populations of the Bonobos.   We did, however, have occasion to observe sexual and social behaviour of another species of animals, the sheep that we lived for and who lived on our farm.   We learned quite a bit from our sheep.  But, rather than to suggest that humans should emulate the Bonobos and swing in the trees again, or rather than to suggest that humans should emulate sheep instead of emulating the Bonobos in some far-off African jungle,  I would like to simply recount some of the things in which man and sheep are alike, and some of those in which they differ.

Group Instinct

Sheep are animals that are without exception dominated by a group instinct.  They do everything together, when one eats they all eat, when one drinks they all drink, and when one lays down to chew its cud they all do.  When one panics, all of them panic, unlike humans, where that can only be said to be true of a majority of anyone group.  However, just like humans, sheep are easily fooled.  When they are fooled all of them are fooled.

Sexuality

We discovered an interesting peculiarity, peculiar only because it seemed so on account of a misperception that not only we had been but also many other people are suffering from, the alleged absence of the female urge to want to have sexual relations.  It is actually the ewes who actively pursue the ram to give themselves an opportunity to be bred.  That fact made it necessary for us to arrange the corrals in our yard so that the boards were nailed or screwed to the side of the fence posts on which the ewes spent their time eating and socializing.  Otherwise they would actually push the boards off to get to the rams and mess up our breeding program.  So much for the passive sexuality of the females, eh?

The mating behaviour of teen-aged girls (and even of fully grown adult women) appears to be much the same as that of ewes, although the feminists claim that it is all the fault of the men and boys.  By the way, cattle display basically the same behaviour. All domesticated mammals apparently do, except humans — they say.  But then it is questionable from my observations whether that is true or, if it isn’t, whether sheep people are truly domesticated.  What do you think?  If you should have any doubts about that, spend a few hours in a mall where teenagers hang out and observe their mating behaviour.  Honestly, I could swear that they behave like sheep in clothing.  I can tell without making any mistakes what sheep-like mating behaviour looks like, regardless of how it is dressed up.

I’ve got to do this right and give this part of my musings equitable and politically-correct treatment.  The sheep people comparisons of the mating behaviours must also address the one of man and beast.  Rams, unlike men, have it really good in that respect.  They know when a ewe is ready and when the time is right.  They constantly check out the ewes for breeding readiness, much like men do who are table-hopping in a bar, although these days it seems to be more likely that women pursue that activity.  Signals are exchanged between each ewe and the ram when he checks her out.  When she is at the right moment, she’ll let him know in no mistaken terms.  She’ll stand for him to be mounted, always!  The ewe simply would not think to turn away and say: “Not now dear.  I’ve got a headache.”

That and the idea that the ram could easily have an endless row of opportunities could make many a man envious.  Not so fast!  Each ewe has an 80% chance of being impregnated when she is bred.  Once she has been successfully bred, that’s it!  There’s no more copulating after that, until the breeding season in the following year.

We gave our ewes three chances, three cycles of 17 days, and if they weren’t bred after that, they went.  We shipped them out.  So, on average the rams had it good for about seven to eight weeks each year.  After that they had to abstain, which wasn’t too hard for them because, just like the ewes, they are seasonal breeders, unlike humans, men and women alike (except some feminists who like to abstain permanently), who normally like to do it all year around.

The shepherd wants that the lambing period will be over as quickly as possible. That means exposing the ewes to the ram for a maximum of 51 days during any year.  The rest of the year the rams and the ewes are by force chaste, through force of nature and man.  What lessens their bad feelings in that respect a bit is the fact, as I already mentioned, that they are seasonal breeders, like deer and like the members of the deer family they are, and that they are at the peak of their libido during September to early January.

There is one major difference in the breeding behaviour of man and beast.  Animals only copulate when the females are in estrus, but when that time comes there is no holding them back.  We have never had to eliminate frigid ewes from the flock, only sterile ones — they always all got themselves bred when they cycled (we used paint markers on the rams; the paint rubs off on the ewes; thereby we can can tell who did and who didn’t engage in breeding activities (the colour of the wax crayons used in the marking harness got changed when a new cycle began), while humans are usually immune from detection, unless something unforeseen and not-hoped-for should happen to them).  That had caused some frustration for us, because we would not find out about barren ewes until about 147 days after they had been bred, but we only experienced less than ten of them in a total of a few-thousand ewes over a twenty-year interval.  To avoid that problem, we exposed the ewes to the rams for three cycles and assumed that when a ewe came into estrus again, after having been bred during three cycles, she would not be bringing us any lambs and had to be sold.  Thereby we would not have to feed her for five months, only to find that she was barren.

Infant sheep (lambs, that is) do engage in sex play.  It is quite a large part of the routines they use in play, and they do play a lot.  The ram lambs do perhaps a bit more of the mounting than the ewe lambs, but they have no preference for the sex of the lamb they mount. Penetration is not possible, because they can’t produce an erection at a young age.  They truly consider it play and just go through the motion of mounting.  And let there be no mistake, ewe lambs and ram lambs alike love to engage in that mounting game, indiscriminately, as active and passive participants.

Domestic Relations

Sheep have neither marriages nor divorces, nor do they have any conjugal loyalty, unlike humans, who at least pretend at times that partners are true to each other.  All that matters to sheep in that respect is to breed and to be bred.  It would not really be to any advantage to the ewes to have marital bonds.  They are taken care of one way or another.  Child support can’t become an incentive for them.  If sheep in the wild have any social mechanisms to prevent inbreeding or incest, that got lost a long time ago in domesticated sheep.  The only one who can exercise any control over that and prevent undesired excesses is the one in charge of the flock, the shepherd.  Any such controls for the safe-guarding of general humanitarian moral standards in human society through the intervention of the equivalent institution, the judiciary,  have long ago been lost in human society.

Shared parenting has to my knowledge never been observed in sheep.  The rams don’t become involved in any parental duties or enjoyment of fatherhood, contrary to what gay-activist-influenced Disney would have us believe.  The rams are truly nothing more than donors of sperm and instruments for insemination; sort of what some lesbians use, like turkey basters on four legs.

Don’t look for anything in the way of rams in the role of protectors.  They simply don’t care, no more than a turkey baster does.  If any protecting is done, it’s done by the ewes.  However, there isn’t anything noble or indicative of self-sacrifice in the protecting that sheep do.  It’s all about self-protection when they are in a flock.

It was frustrating for us to see, when a predator attacked a flock of sheep in the open pasture, but also very interesting.  The ewes would crowd together into a tight mass that would be in a circular motion.  While the whole group of ewes milled around like that, the strong and heavy ewes managed to work themselves into the centre of the flock, with the weakest animals, the lambs and their mothers, being left on the outside.  Those lambs and some of their weaker mothers would then be picked off by the predators.

That is very much like similar situations in human society.  The big strong ewes are most likely to be ewes that have no lambs or at most only one.  Most of the weaker ewes would be the productive mothers whose lambs, of course, would cling close to their mothers at the periphery of the milling crowd that safely surrounded the few fat, strong ewes at the centre of the flock, whenever a threat came about.  It was those weaker ewes and their lambs at the periphery who would have to bear the brunt of any attack on the whole flock.  Just like weak women in society, weak ewes do not benefit at all from the protection that they offer to the fat ewes safely ensconced at the centre of the milling flock.  Rather, whether they do so on purpose or not, they maneuver themselves into sacrificing themselves, to save the big, fat ewes at the centre of the milling crowd.

That always reminded me of the herd mechanisms at work in women’s issues with respect to the few feminists in our society who ostensibly work for the benefit of all women and who rake in fat salaries while safely ensconced in women’s health centres, battered women’s shelters, women’s ministries, Status of Women offices, or any other institutions that ostensibly serve to protect the common masses of women from the depredations of the institution of the family.

While these few privileged, mostly childless women from the upper- and upper middle classes of society plot their strategies for the destruction of our families and society in their plush offices, the majority of women who are the child bearers — in attempts to secure the survival of civilization and the species — suffer the consequences at the periphery.  Ever-increasing numbers of these weaker women who were being coaxed from the protection of warm and loving families find themselves in poverty.  They struggle with the difficult task of being parents who mistakenly thought that they would have it all and now find themselves having to do it all, by themselves, and often relying on welfare handouts for which the funds are being rapidly depleted.

Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is a reality with sheep.  I always wonder why it is that, when we see sheep butting each other on TV, it is always the rams who are involved in that activity.  I suspect that it is a conspiracy by gay-rights activists and feminist propagandists that keeps the truth from us about that, too.  The truth is that ewes fight too, far more often than rams do.  They fight bitterly and hard! Often more than two are involved in an all-out brawl.  Not only that.  They are mean about it and relentless, often carrying on with their animosity for so long that we were forced to cull some of them and send them into exile.

Ewes have no compunctions about fighting dirty and often butt each other in the gut!  We found that when they butt, they often use sneak-attacks and do it without any warning to the victim.   In that respect, ewes are very much like women when the latter attack policemen after those come calling to investigate reports of domestic violence incidents.  That’s something the rams never do!  They make a ritual out of the process of fighting and are virtually always fair about their rules.  They seem like men when they make formal declarations of war before engaging in hostilities, or, if they do it in private, when they challenge each other to get the opponent to knock a chip of their shoulder or when they slap their opponents lightly on the face to challenge them before they join in formal combat.

Nevertheless, overall, ewes are the more violent ones, not only with respect to violence against their children but even with respect to mutual violence between adult ewes, much as in human society, where the households most likely to experience incidents of domestic violence are those of lesbian women.  If an adult sheep is involved in inter-gender violence, it most often involves a mother and an offspring that she considers not her own, with same-gender violence between ewes being a distant second.

Rams, too, are more like humans in that respect.  They never attack or hurt their offspring, much like real dads, at the very least not until their offspring are fully grown and worthy opponents, and never unless they are challenged.

Often I wish that people would be more like sheep in one aspect of domestic violence.  We never observed inter-spousal violence between opposite sexes in sheep.  Not once have we ever seen a ewe attack a ram, and, of course, the rams just wouldn’t dream of attacking  a ewe.

Child Abuse

Child abuse and neglect by sheep is called mismothering.  It is far more common in sheep than anyone would expect, just like in humans.  However, unlike humans, with sheep it is possible to eliminate that trait from a flock through aggressive culling — by selling off both mother and daughter — because daughters from bad mothers in turn have an 80% likelihood of being bad mothers themselves (who often deliberately kill their babies, again just like in humans, although, to give them credit in that respect, ewes never demand voluntary abortions).  Ewes are extremely reluctant to adopt strange babies.  Orphans are best taken care of by bottle-feeding them in foster homes run by humans.  On the other hand, expecting ewes that are within hours of lambing steal another ewe’s lamb if that ewe is too busy with the delivery of her second or third one.  That is the main reason why during lambing time ewes must be watched 24 hours, around the clock.  I suspect if that were to be done with humans (surprising results were found when that was done through covert video surveillance), fewer human babies would be stolen, and most definitely far fewer would be killed.

Nevertheless, although it is found time and again that mismothering by human mothers is very common (and goes, moreover, unchecked and is therefore rampant), dictionaries contain a definition of the term that relates it to behaviour that is peculiar with sheep.  It is apparently not to be mentioned in connection with the concept of sacred and often unjustifiably revered motherhood by women.  There it goes again, denial of reality for the sake of maintaining institutionalized misperceptions.  It is, of course, propaganda in action:

Definition of mismother
of a ewe
:  to fail to own and care for (her lamb)
_________
Source: Merriam Webster

With respect to the severity of violence against infants, it does not matter whether the infant truly is a strange lamb or whether the ewe just thinks that it is a strange lamb.  However, when such violence occurs, infants of both sexes are equally likely to be at the receiving end of it — very unlike what happens with human infants and their mothers.  In humans, boys are almost twice as likely as girls to be the victims of violence by their mothers.

However, we never observed any single ewe to develop any animosity towards any of her offspring once she assumed the sacred duty of motherhood.  Once they do that, they are devout, doting and loving mothers until their breeding cycle demands of them to prepare themselves to become ready for the next breeding season.  In that respect, ewes appear to be considerably different from human mothers, who often become a nemesis of their children and frequently inflict upon the latter a life-time of suffering, regardless of whether such malicious human mothers are in season or not.

Unlike in humans, where natural fathers are one-ninth as likely as biological mothers to kill their offspring, we never once had a ram that killed any of his descendants, although we once had a triad of rams that butted each other so aggressively that one of them got some of his ribs broken and died of the consequences.  That was primarily my fault.  I had wanted to improve the quality of the wool in our flock and bought a Finn-sheep ram.  That breed is finely boned and considerably less in weight than the other breeds that we were using.  He wanted in on the scrap and got a fatal licking. That was after he had done all of the breeding he was supposed to do.  At least we still had the benefit of his genes after he departed.  In that respect, just like any disfranchised father, he had done his job and donated his sperm, so that, although we would have liked to have him around for another two or three years, his loss wasn’t that important in the scheme of things.  Other rams took his place.  Just as in humans in modern society, that father was of little consequence in the subsequent life of the children he helped to be conceived.  That is the nature of sheep.  We now consider that to be desirable in humans as well.  At least that’s what the feminist sociologists tell us.

Homosexuality

Although it is claimed that homosexuality is natural with humans, it isn’t with sheep.  Not once did we observe homosexual activities in sheep when heterosexual opportunities for copulating were available for them, except for such behaviour in single-sex groups who were prevented from heterosexual contact.  Amongst adult animals, once they had experienced heterosexual copulation, they would never revert to homosexual behaviour, even though for most of the year they were in single-sex groups.  Quite a departure from the behaviour of homosexual humans, isn’t it?

It is not possible to be wrong about that.  With sheep you know!  They definitely don’t have any closets to hide in.  With them it’s all out in the open.  They are honest and at the same time have no scruples other than a slight reluctance to eat very close to where they have defecated (and in that their habits are quite removed from those of some homosexuals).  And you know what? I can’t really say that either one of us ever did observe lesbianism in ewes, unless one considers the ewes’ imitation of the rams’ fighting ritual as evidence of that.

If that’s the case, then one would have to consider all ewes to show lesbian tendencies to varying degrees when they come into heat and no ram is present.  However, one would also have to admit then that, because of the absence of such fighting behaviour when ewes are either pregnant, nursing lambs, or in the company of a ram, they have a distinct preference for real sexual contact over the fake kind, just like the rams do.

And what is wrong with that?  Consider that the main purpose of a sheep is to produce another sheep.  Just like humans, they are built for propagating and nothing else.  There is no way that anyone can deny biological requirements, not even in humans, regardless of how sheepish they might act.  That is the master plan!

Let’s assume that the claim by some “researchers” of a homosexual gene in humans is correct.  Maybe there is a genetic disposition towards homosexuality in some humans.  That would make humans distinctively different from sheep in that respect.

Could there be a hidden agenda for the experiments in Scotland, where they achieved to combine human genes with those of a sheep to produce what could be thought to be technically a human-sheep hybrid,  although that would not be quite correct if a full human chromosome was not used in the experiment?  I always was suspicious of the motivations of shepherds who would prefer a kilt to a pair of trousers equipped with zippers — the absence of noise, you know?  [It seems that we’ll have to fear nothing yet.  Other researchers reported since then that they failed to duplicate the results of the Scottish experiments and therefore were unable to verify the accuracy of the Scottish claims.  1998 10 07 —WHS]

Could the agenda be that either the researchers in Scotland are trying to produce homosexual sheep, or that they are trying to eradicate the “genetic disposition towards homosexuality” in humans, by introducing a superior gene into the human gene-pool?  If the latter is true, do they really think that it is possible to make people even more like sheep than they presently are?  After all of the hype about Lady Diana, who, suddenly elevated to the status of a saintly woman, was mourned by millions of sheep people (polished pedestal, and all flaws deliberatelyy ignored), it seems hardly possible to achieve such a goal.  Nevertheless, there are a few characteristics of sheep that, if they could be transferred to humans, would, oddly, make humans not more sheepish but, rather, more humane.

Count your sheep, don’t let the coyotes or the neighbour’s dogs get them, and good night.

Walter H. Schneider, 1997 11 14 (updated 1998 10 07 and 2017 07 14)

PS.   Please, don’t send me any jokes about sheep.   I don’t want to issue a challenge here, but there would be extremely few that I haven’t heard yet.  (Don’t give me any BS about anything I stated in this article.  I’m familiar with BS and SS and can quite well tell the difference between the two.)

Posted in Child Abuse, Child Support, Child-Custody Awards, Divorce, Gay issues, Paternal Rights, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ashley Murrell banished husband to sofa and found him dead | Daily Mail Online

Ashley Murrell, from Somerset, found her husband (pictured together) Mikey’s body on May 16, but it has now emerged that she is in a relationship with his brother, Chris.

Source: Ashley Murrell banished husband to sofa and found him dead | Daily Mail Online

Posted in Men's Issues | Leave a comment

Renewable energy neither practical nor viable

Energy generation from renewable energy sources is simply not economical, but in can be and is an excellent source of tax revenue and more yet in secondary taxes.  It cannot produce a good return on investment and requires subsidies to cover the losses it incurs.  People are being frustrated by the relentless push for energy generation from renewable energy sources.  More and more it becomes apparent that renewable energy generation for nothing other than to replace generation of energy from conventional sources cannot be made to pay for itself.  Nevertheless, renewable energy drives up electric energy rates, the more so the more expensive and uneconomical it becomes, and thereby it becomes a prolific source of tax revenues.

Index

Renewable energy sources — The lies and the truth

How renewable energy serves to pull the wool over the eyes of people: Clean energy employs more people than fossil fuels..., of course it does. That is evidence of how inefficient and costly it is.

“Clean energy employs more people than fossil fuels…, of course it does. That is evidence of how inefficient and costly it is.

Yes, of course it employs more people. If someone would invent a way for people to generate energy for the transmission grid by running tread mills every day, that would employ even more people. The fact that wind and energy employ more people is a consequence of the circumstance that the energy generated from solar and wind is from relatively low-density sources of energy. That is what makes generating energy from wind and solar so expensive.

It cannot be made to employ fewer people than generating energy from fossil fuels and from nuclear sources does. That is why the latter are and always will remain more economical sources of energy generation. They use high-density sources of energy and that happens to make them more efficient per unit of energy generated.

It is curious but not surprising that the Wikipedia article on energy density indicated by the preceding two links does not discuss the energy density of  renewable sources of energy (except for the energy of “Water at 100 m dam height”). After all, Wikipedia is not an objective source of information.  In this case its article lies by omission on an important matter, the very low energy density of the energy of the sun and wind that humans can access.  Fortunately, many scientists and engineers concerned about matters of energy are not so stingy with the truth on that.

WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY
CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS
BY 2050 (Link)

A REALITY CHECK

BY ROBERT LYMAN
ENERGY ECONOMIST

May 30, 2016

Humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have
gone so far with the decarbonization project without a
serious challenge in terms of engineering reality.
– Michael Kelly, Prof. Electrical Engineering, Cambridge

The nature of the renewable energy scam

When discussing what drives the push for renewable energy,  people often reach the conclusion: cut off the subsidies, and the insanity will wither on the vine.  Unfortunately, there is a catch, a big catch, perhaps an insurmountable obstacle.

It is not that easy to stop the drive, the enormous pressure for energy generation from renewable sources.

It is a scam, a very, very powerful scam. The ones perpetrating the scam make money and intend to become rich on it. The governments are in on this one. Even if it were only to squeeze subsidies out of the suckers, the taxpayers, that is not the main reason why the governments are so eager to promote, even to be the main drivers of it.

Government-funded subsidies (in reality taxpayer-funded) are only seed money. Firstly, there is always more where the subsidies (the seed money) come from, the taxpayers. Secondly, the governments are after more, because for every dollar of subsidies paid out, vastly greater amounts of tax revenues can be squeezed out of the suckers, the taxpayers.

Renewable energy most expensive alternative for energy generated per unit of energy generated

Solar- and wind-generated energy is the most expensive alternative for energy generation per unit of energy generated

Of course energy generation from renewable sources does not pay or barely pays for the expense of doing it, the expense of initial investment and the cost of annul operation and maintenance per unit of energy generated. Of course it drives up the cost of electric energy for everyone using it, in the manufacturing and provisioning processes of goods and services, at every stage — from their sources, right down to the end consumers, who will not only pay the price for vastly higher electricity rates charged for their own consumption of electric energy — plus the sum of the price of electric energy per unit price that everyone involved in making and providing goods and services has paid. That is not all, not the most important part of the scam.

Solar and biomass below and wind barely above economic threshold - Cost comparisons (per unit of energy generated) of alternatives for energy sources

Cost comparisons (per unit of energy generated) of alternatives for energy sources

The most important part of the scam is that the governments collect vastly increased tax revenues on the prices that are being paid for the energy by itself at every stage, for every transaction in the provisioning processes for goods and services plus increased tax revenues on the higher prices that must be collected by producers of the goods and services they sell, higher prices that guarantee them a profit margin.

That applies to every single dollar of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product), to every single dollar paid in every single transaction where money changes hand in the economy.  The idea is that, if prices for consumer goods and services go up, that will not affect consumption, more dollars will be changing hands, and the governments will be able to collect more taxes.  Of course, that will not be true for goods exported to other nations (it will also not be true domestically, as the total of all income earned will constrain how individuals shift priorities for the necessities of life).  The exported goods become more expensive, as they compete with similar, cheaper goods from countries that did not buy into the scam, and the country that did buy into the scam will see that its exports shrink.  An at least somewhat effective counter-measure is to have multinational organizations (e. g.: the UN and the EU) impose the renewable energy scam on every nation on earth.

Why renewable energy increases tax revenues

Energy is the life blood of nations. There is nothing that governments like better than to tax the blood of the economy, the energy that runs a nation. That is all the more so as the enormously increased tax revenues that can be collected by taxing energy are completely under the radar of legislative reviews, debates and approvals.

Yet, to be able to tax energy is a dream come true for every bureaucrat, ever politician who ever contemplated how to best generate tax revenues.  It is not necessary to introduce bills that will create new methods for taxation. It is not necessary to debate the need for tax-rate increases. It is only necessary to make energy more expensive, and the stream of tax revenues will increase substantially.

Ideally, and that is the smart aspect of the scam, the cause that drives up the cost and price of energy is being promoted so that the suckers, the end consumers of goods and services, the taxpayers, clamor to have that done because they have been made to believe that there is a global environmental catastrophe that will be mitigated by buying the Trojan Horse of “free and clean” renewable energy. Make them believe that it will save the planet, and no price is too high, but it is not free.  It is costly, and it cannot be made to pay for itself.

Nevertheless, the scam is not only extremely crafty, it is very nifty and enormously profitable for all around, except for those who pay the bill for it, the end-consumers.

Does anyone really think that the governments are too stupid to recognize a good scam for fleecing the taxpayers? I know that the Alberta government isn’t, because many years ago a member of the Standing Committee on Energy suggested to me exactly that, while we had a coffee break during a presentation being made to the Committee, by the board of directors of the Rural Electrification Association of which I was one of the directors. He said; “How would all of this work out if we were to tax energy? ” To which I responded, “You could have a revolt on your hands.” To which he replied, “Not if we told them that they no longer have to pay provincial income tax.” I said, “I doubt that would be enough.” To which he said, “Not if we were to throw in free health care, to boot. There would be enough revenue to do that, and we would still have plenty left.”

Well, see how nice that worked? They did not even have to make any concessions to bribe the people, to get them to buy into the scam. All they had to do is to tell the people that the globe is warming, that the environment is dying, and that people are a cancer on the face of the Earth, but that renewable energy will give everyone a free pass by being the solution to it all, that it will save the planet and bring Paradise on Earth.

There you go! That was easy, but now it will take considerably more than to merely cut off the subsidies to put an end to the scam, because now the scam is a big part of the economy.  In an essentially centrally planned economy that is being driven by millions of bureaucrats who all make a good living off that scam, who all depend on increased and ever-increasing government revenues derived from the scam to continue the life styles they have become accustomed to, it is perhaps too impractical or even impossible to expect a change in direction.

The renewable energy scam is now a controlling factor.  Without it, the economy is likely to collapse instantaneously.  That is so, even though the scam will drive the economies of nations and that of the world into the ground, if not back to the stone age.

Note: The conversation I had with that member of the Alberta Standing Committee on Energy took place before Al Gore had made a single dime on his brain child for cashing in on the scam by producing the award-winning propaganda movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” long ago debunked , that would eventually earn him about $100 million, far more than he had made during his entire term as  vice president of the U.S.  That conversation happened many years before Rachel Notley came on the scene.  It happened during the time of Premier Ed Stelmach — not that he is to be blamed for getting the scam going in Alberta.  It was going already long before he got into the picture. 

Taxing renewable energy in Iceland, as per the IMF

No one should give Alberta bureaucrats and politicians too much credit for pioneering the taxing of energy as an “equitable” method for raising tax revenues, based on the extent of energy consumption by individual taxpayers.  The idea had been considered and tossed around by far more more weighty fiscal expert, e. g.: The International Monetary Fund.  The IMF used it in its recommendations to Iceland on Advancing Tax Reform and the Taxation of Natural Resources.  Some (if not all) of those recommendations were used in designing ways for Iceland to prevent it from getting into another fiscal hole from which it would be difficult to escape due to borrowing on the international market to cover its tax-revenue shortfalls created by the Icelandic Government’s inability to have its bureaucrats stick to the limits of budget constraints.  Here are a few excerpts from that IMF report:

Renewable energy used to raise tax revenue

Renewable Energy : used in Iceland to generate tax revenues – IMF report, bottom of p. 8, second-last par.

Renewable Energy : used in Iceland to generate tax revenues

Renewable Energy : used in Iceland to generate tax revenues – IMF report, p. 12

Renewable Energy : used in Iceland to generate tax revenues - IMF report, p. 15

Renewable Energy : used in Iceland to generate tax revenues – IMF report, p. 15

You may wish to look up the figures at the end of the report, showing that, the higher the tax rate charge on electric energy, the higher the revenues for the government of Iceland. (Reference 1)

The price of electric energy in Iceland, as of Nov 8, 2015, was 5.54 US cents/kWh. At a generation of  50 MWh per capita in 2008, that works out to roughly US$2770 per capita, assuming that there were no transmission losses.  (Iceland electricity rate from Wikipedia)

With a population of 332,529 in 2016, that would add up to potentially US$920 million in gross revenues from the sale of electric energy.  (Pop. figure from Wikipedia)

________
References

  1. Iceland: Advancing Tax Reform and the Taxation of Natural Resources
    Philip Daniel, Ruud De Mooij, Thornton Matheson, and Geerten Michielse
    IMF, Fiscal Affairs Department, May 2011   

Heaven help us. The Wise Men of Gotham have a lot of descendants!

How can one explain why we see things being done that make no sense, unless one consider that the only thing the all have in common is that they are designed to drive up the cost of energy?  Take this example: Burning the environment to save it   A story of mining forests for trees all over the world, to reduce the trees to wood chips that are then shipped to the U.K., to be burned there in the furnaces of the Drax power station, to save on the burning of coal for power generation, so that the environment can be saved.  Surely, the Wise Men of Gotham or their offspring must have had a hand in that scheme.

I grew up in Germany. While there, as a kid, we frequently joked about the silly and illogical things the citizens of Schilda were doing. Never did I dream in my craziest dreams that the stories about the citizens of Schilda were parodies of real-life follies of their descendants who now promote energy generation from wind, solar and biomass, to feed into the transmission grid. That folly never fails to trigger memories of the very first fable summarized below.

The well-known follies of the citizens of Schilda (the German equivalent of the Wise Men of Gotham)

The citizens of Schilda build a town hall:
When the citizens of Schilda build a new, pompous town hall, the architect forgot to allow for windows, and the town hall is inside as dark as can be. As a result, the citizens of Schilda try to capture the sunlight with buckets and carry them inside to pour out the sunlight there.

The citizens of Schilda move the town hall:
A jacket serves as a mark of the town hall shift. When a vagrant takes the jacket, one of the citizens of Schilda believes the town hall has been pushed too far.

The salted community:
In order to be independent of the expensive salt deliveries, the citizens of Schilda decide to grow salt themselves, and spread a load of salt on the congregation. The harvest of the supposed salt plants (in reality nettles) by hand unfortunately fails.
In Schilda, the place where that happened is known as “Saltberg”.

The cow on the old wall:
Because high grass grows on an old wall, some of the citizens of Schilda want to remove the grass by letting a cow graze it. To hoist the cow on the top of the wall, some strong men pull the cow up on a rope. Since the rope was wrapped around the neck, the cow is finally strangulated. When the citizens of Schilda saw the cow’s outstretched tongue, they shouted enthusiastically: “Look how it is stretching its tongue! It’s eating the grass already!”

The Sunken Bell:
In order to protect the valuable town hall bell from the enemy, the citizens of Schilda decide to sink it in the lake. To find out where in the lake they can retrieve the bell after the end of the war, the resourceful citizens carve a notch into the boat’s edge. When, after the war, they realized that they could not find the bell again, they cut the notch out of the boat’s edge, in anger, which made the notch even bigger.

About the right scarecrows:
Because crows pick the freshly sown grain out of the field of the community, they are to be scared off. So that the mayor does not crush the seed, four men carry him on a platform on to the field.

(There are a few more stories like that, but that is enough to teach even the dumbest sack full of hammers a lesson, we can only hope. Solar and wind are not economical sources of energy for feeding into the grid. The people who think that they are may as well go and borrow a couple of pails from the citizens of Schilda and use the pails to catch some of the sunlight and of the wind they want so badly. – Walter)

Original source: German-language edition of Wikipedia

Conclusion

A maxim goes, “Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity.”  That is an interpretation of Ockham’s razor, “Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.”

It is tempting and would be easy to poke fun at the politicians, the government bureaucrats, and their camp followers, who act like the Wise Men of Gotham when they rationalize the need for promoting energy generation from renewable sources.  That would be a fatal mistake.  Some may seem dumber than a sack of hammers, but those who invented, promote and drive the scam are not dumb, which does not protect them against being irrational, and that makes them dangerous.

It would be far better to apply, in relation to them, a maxim that is the converse of the interpretation of Ockham’s razor shown above, as the simplest explanation that applies in the case of the renewable energy scam is not stupidity.  Therefore, “Never ascribe to simple stupidity what must be caused by malice,” except not malice drives it but nothing other than greed.

For government bureaucrats and their water boys, the politicians, what drives it all is an insatiable craving for tax revenues generated through a scheme that will give them an everlasting, open-ended budget (it will at least last until the end of the economy that it will drive into the ground).

Relating to a bureaucracy, keep in mind Parkinson’s Law:

Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.

In the case of the renewable energy scam and the open-ended budgets it funds, the work will expand indefinitely, as the resources funding it become indefinite but are nevertheless limited by the capacity of the economy to generate the funds to support it.  A cancer that nothing can or will cure would be an apt description of how that works.  It will feed on its host until the host becomes exhausted and dies, and the cancer along with it.

Posted in Corruption, Propaganda Exposed, Renewable Energy, Social-Destruction Enterprise, The New World Order | Tagged | 1 Comment

Blog-post via e-mail when away from home

I just had to try this out, so that I know whether I will be able to stay in touch with dads&things, doing a blog-post via e-mail when I am away from home and have only the cellphone to work with.

If making a blog post by e-mail works, then you have read this, and that would simply be fantastic! (Thanks to WordPress, I should add.)

You have a nice day. 😊

–Walter

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

SEO important web page ranking experiences

SEO (Search Engine Optimization) is important

SEO is important for anyone who runs a website or a blog.  Blogs are websites, too. Read this commentary, and decide if you should worry about SEO.

Believe it or not, I set out to make this a short article, but that was difficult.  It relates to a complex issue: How to influence people, many people, through using the Internet.  It also relates to some things that make it difficult to achieve that.  I dropped the fleeting thought of keeping it short.  By the way, SEO is a misnomer. It is not the optimizing of search engines but the optimizing of web pages, so that search engines get to like them and give them a high rank on account of it, but that is mostly what this blog post is all about.  Read on and all about how I, an amateur fought my way through SEO.

“You should write a book!”

People often told me that I should write a book.  The incongruous thing about those suggestions is that they were made often, and that they were made via the Internet, through e-mails, in chat rooms and on bulletin boards.  That was when there were not yet any web browsers. 

Time went by. The suggestions came more often, even though people were increasingly being influenced by information they received via the Internet and ever increasingly less by reading printed text in newspapers, news-magazines and books. The publishing industry suffered. It suffered a beating that got worse, but the suggestions that I should write a book kept coming.

I knew how much work it would be to write a book and get it published, that I was not a well renowned author (nor even a very good one), and what my limitations were as a writer. I knew that it would not be very likely that a book I would write and get published would reach many people, let alone influence many of those.

Running a website and watching it grow

As soon as I could afford it, I launched a website, first with a free add-on to MSWord, called “Internet Assistant.”  Then I progressed to Netscape, from there to MS FrontPage, and then to MS Expression Web.

MS FrontPage was a good tool to use, for standardizing page layout and design, as well as for correcting some flaws, primarily the checking for and repairing the integrity of links, both external (close to 5,000) and internal (about 45,000), in about 2003. 

MS Expression was an even better tool, because it substantially improved my effectiveness and productivity in maintaining and polishing my website, although most of that finishing work was largely invisible to visitors, even though it aimed at increasing the visibility of the website.

Initially I had hoped that the website would come to attract 30,000 visitors a year, at the end of the first year of being online.  The results were better, about 45,000.  The number of visitors grew exponentially, causing me to hope that perhaps it would come close to what the number of visitors was, annually, for the website of the Alberta Report Newsmagazine, about 250,000 a year. It did that and kept growing in popularity.

By 2007, the annual number of visitors to fathersforlife.org was close to 1.5 million.  That was very encouraging, but by that time many things were making themselves felt.  It had become a massive job, taking about 10 hours a day, 24/7, and often as much as 24 hours a day (no kidding) to keep up.  In one year alone, I spent most of the time working with the website to make sure of catering to what was becoming increasingly much more important than any of the other things I had been doing with the website (which by now had grown to about a 1000 web pages).  That was and still is—for every web designer worth his salt—search engine optimization.

Search Engine Optimization (SEO) vs. profit

SEO ensures that a website and individual web pages are ranked high on search-return lists.  It is not the optimization of search engines, it optimizes web pages, so that search engines will “like” optimized web pages more than web pages that have not been so optimized.  The web pages listed in the top-ten entries on search-return lists are optimally ranked, those in the top-20-30 not so much but still are very likely to be looked up, while a web page that ranks in 31st place or lower is a “further ran” in the competition for popularity.

I am neither a professional writer nor web designer.  The learning curve was steep.  The demands that had to be met to make the most of what needed to be done were steadily becoming more and more challenging, not just in time spent, but also in having to buy software that made the job of meeting those demands easier but nevertheless increasingly-more barely possible, for anyone with limited time and financial resources.

SEO is necessary because of what search engines do: analyzing web page content, indexing it – so that it can be found, and ranking it—so that web pages that appear to pertain to search terms used will be ranked according to how relevant they are. Efforts at SEO, at least to some extent, must also consider what search engine providers want.  That is, to make a profit.  They make a profit by making those web pages that provide the best opportunities for spreading advertising the most popular, not necessarily those that contain the best and most constructive or enlightening information.  The spreading of advertising is the bread and butter of search engine providers as well as that of information providers who rely on the spreading of advertising to make a living and their profits.

Those who are motivated by lofty ideals and any other, perhaps philanthropic, reasons to spread information, no matter how good it is, are caught between a rock and a hard place. Their intentions compete with those of others who use, say, pornography, gossip, sports, the weather and the news to spread advertising to make money.

Search-engine providers and others, who use search engines to have the pages popularized to make money from promoting advertising, are allies. 

Those who primarily make money from the spreading of advertising but not so much because they wish to offer information of value soon gave rise to the term “click bait” to designate what they do: cash in on an opportunity to make money, while offering little or nothing of value to go along with that.  Search engine providers make life difficult for the opportunists, by forcing standards on website design and layout that stress the value of information.  It stands to reason that the standards favour information that is popular.

Information that is not so popular, or that is, moreover, politically incorrect, is not conducive to promoting advertising and the incomes that can be derived from that.  All of that is bad news for activists who feel that they are fighting for a worthy cause but whose cause is politically incorrect, say anti-feminist or conservative sentiments.

Many frustrated activists who hope to raise the world’s consciousness about their cause feel that they oppose a formidable army of liberals and feminist at the search-engine providers that have only one thing in mind, to snuff the flame of knowledge offered by conservatives, anti-feminists, Libertarians, etc…  They are wide off the mark.  They fail to realize that there is not necessarily ill will involved.  They are butting up against the mundane reality of what drives corporations: Profit!

Although they may well be better for all in the long run, popular causes make no or little money for search engine providers in the heat of the moment.  Short term gains are always better liked than uncertain ones that are far off in the future.  The accounting rate of return and annual net profits are boss.  Companies like Google may well have more than their fair share of liberal, anti-conservative employees, but that is not so much because they have a liberal political agenda, as it is that those employees are better at making sure their corporations make money by promoting what is politically correct.  Political correctness ensures lots of clicks and thereby large profits, political correctness that opposes it does not.

All of that influences the standards for ranking algorithms used by search engine providers.  None of it helps activists labouring to promote politically incorrect causes.  At best, it causes them a lot of work.

SEO helps to Improve Web-Page Ranking

Above, I had briefly mentioned the work it takes to cater to the standards applied by search-engine providers when they rank web pages. I figure that in that one year I spent a little over an hour per web page to do SEO.  Not to put too fine a point on it, at that time I focused on three aspects of that in the web page code, the Meta fields called: “Title”, “Description”, and “Keywords”.  Roughly,

  1. Title: The title of the web page
  2. Description: A summary or abstract of what the given web page is all about. It must be short, as it contains what will be shown in the entry that will be contained in the list of entries that comprise the search return that anyone obtains when having searched for specific key words on the Internet
  3. Keywords: A list of the pertinent keywords that show up in the first 400 words of the text of a web page
  4. The interrelation of those three Meta fields amongst each other, and their relationships each and collectively to the aspects of the web page they represent.  The parameters for that are dictated by the search engines.  Not that I ever got a good grip on all of that, but I did a lot of reading and searching for information from good sources of information on that, and then some more reading, time and again.

If you figure that your website or blog needs SEO, then you are probably correct.

The precise parameters for that vary a little from search engine to search engine, but the details I used for those parameters covered what the most popular search engines used.  Just to do that improved the ranking for my website. In the space of one year the annual numbers of visitors had increased from 240,000 per year to more than 800,000 a year, then to more than a million, and then to 1.5 million, annually, but there were problems that I became increasingly less capable of coping with.

SEO was and is becoming ever more difficult, requiring more work per web page.  New software came on the market to make that work easier.  Still, although there were no longer enough hours in the year to permit me to do what was needed to do a good job with SEO, I had even less money to buy the software required to make it easier, less error-prone, and to keep up with the ever-increasing complexity of SEO.

SEO had helped me to popularize the product of my work.  That did not make me rich. It cost me money, but it gave me a good feeling that the work I did had more impact when a lot of people knew about it, whereas doing a little less work on SEO would only ensure that most of what work I did remained unknown to many people. 

Over the years, I stayed in touch with most men’s and fathers’ rights activists in Canada and monitored the health and popularity of their websites.  Much work went into some of them, little did into others.  Except for two, all had low ranks, all received very little traffic, some so little that Alexa.com could not even rank them.  I explained many times to many individuals what they would have to do and what not to do.  No one ever took it to heart.   

I know of one activist who was a prolific writer and collector of information, but whom it took years to be convinced that it was better to have many webpages linked through a hierarchical index than to have only one web page into which to stick it all.  His web page took up to 15 minutes to load, often resulting in a crash of my browser.  He most certainly never worried about SEO.  What a waste of brain power and effort!

It is much the same with many “activists” who use Facebook.  Facebook does little for activism but helps to fan the flames of public opinions, although not much more than voicing one’s opinions does in that respect when commuting via bus or having a coup of coffee at work.  Such opinions may have a bit of an impact, collectively, but they cannot be equated to something like the Sermon on the Mount. That sermon was recorded.  It can be and has been quoted. Very few casual conversations are ever recorded.  As far as leaving lasting impressions, vastly most of them have about as much impact on the few people they reach as does speaking into the wind.

SEO Improves the Ranking of Blogs

Blogs are websites.  Blog posts are individual web pages.  Ranking is done the same way as is the ranking of any other websites and web pages.  Anyone running a blog who neglects SEO will have the same results that he obtains when he ignores SEO on any other website: little traffic and few visits and page views.

I knew that, when I started a blog, dads&things, a few years ago.  Yet, I neglected to worry about SEO for that blog, but no more.

Life is what happens when one had other plans, and life threw me a few curves.  A couple of times the blog and my website got hacked into.  Nothing bad happened, except that a few months ago things got so bad, even though I had already been forced to deactivate logging-in and subscribing (the blog can still be visited), and WordPress had been running on it in Safe Mode, preventing even me from making changes or updates.  That problem was fixed a little over a month ago, and already the blog received last months 1,500 visits and 2450 page views.  That is not bad, after a couple of months of virtually no traffic, but it won’t get much better, unless I do SEO, and there is a plug-in for Word Press that is just the tool for that

I used the free version of it for a day now.  I am so impressed by what it does and can do to make SEO easy, with a dynamic interface for any blog post that I am writing, that I decided to upgrade to Yoast SEO Premium.  If you have ever done SEO, you will appreciate what this software package is able to do.  Check it out.  If you are using Word Press and have not tried Yoast SEO, you will quite likely not be disappointed.

After I have installed the upgrade for Yoast SEO premium, I will know more.

Note: I now worked with the basic version of Yoast SEO for a little more and found that, as of now, I just have to learn more about how to use it.
A couple of the flaws or shortcomings—I wrongly believed, it has—were in reality caused by my lack of expertise.  So, I will hold off on buying an upgrade to Yoast SEO Premium, until I know that I need it.  The upgrade would not have solved my finger problems or lack of comprehension.  But I am impressed by it.
Not only that it tell me what I am doing wrong, it tells me what I am doing right, and it is nice to be able to instantly see how I am doing trying to do it right.
I should also mention that it will tell whether any of the previous work I did is still up to snuff, when search engine parameters change and when it requires me to fix certain things.  Nothing like that has happened yet, but after I installed and activated the plug-in, it checked the whole blog, all 900 blog posts of it, to tell me that that I had some work to do and what that is.
It does indicate in the list of blog posts which ones have been optimized, how well they have been optimized, and tells me which pages have not yet been optimized at all.

SEO will not help against or alleviate outright censorship

SEO will not help against censorship -- Weekly page views of an article on sex-ed. Imagine what the volume of traffic to that web page would be if it were*not* censored.

Weekly page views of an article on sex-ed. Imagine what the trend of traffic to that web page would be if it were not being censored.

There is not much one can do to oppose or to get search engine providers to amend their decisions and algorithms affecting websites or web pages they do not like for whatever reasons.  Regardless of how popular a web page is, such as the one with the weekly numbers of page views of an article dealing with sex-ed shown in the graph just shown above, such a page can be made popular by SEO, through improving its rank, but when it gets to be popular, it attracts attention.

The whole website containing it may be rated adult content.  That will reduce the traffic to the whole website containing it.  There are tools, such as parental control, or telecommunication providers like O2, in Europe, who dictate proof of age, for anyone who uses internet access provided by them.  That is being done, not just for individual websites but for categories of websites, and that has a very noticeable effect on website traffic.  That is what had happened with that sex-ed page.  That web page is under targeted censorship.

The rapid drop-offs in traffic volumes have nothing to do with website or page ranking.  They are the result of categorizing and even blocking website from being listed in search return lists.  Some one searching for them and for other webpages from the given website who did not provide proof of age will not even know that the website exists, because it is not in his list of results of searches, let alone being unable to access it if he did know what the URL s for such a web page or website.

No one should even remotely think that the general public’s interest in the issue of sex education drops over night to nothing or to a small fraction of what it was hours before, when it had been enjoying a rising volume of very high traffic.

Consider that I checked website classifications for as many men’s rights websites as I could think of and found that all of them, every one of them (close to a hundred different websites and blogs) had been made difficult to find or access, while feminist web pages with comparably sensitive content were not rated “adult content” or “proof of age” or even “discrimination” or, worse, “blocked”.  For more on that, check the side-bar menus on the right of your screen and look for anything relating to “O2”, and that is just one telecommunications provider.  There are many of them.  You complain to them, and they won’t even respond to you.

Formatting Web Pages for Smart Phones

Earlier in this commentary, I mentioned the height of the popularity of the website of Fathers for Life, and that it was becoming more difficult to do things that the standards for SEO required.  There is without a doubt software for that now, but then there was not all that much of it.  Moreover, I had neither the time nor the money to do much about it.

One of the many things that causes a search-engine provider like Google to give a website or a web page a low rank is if web pages are not smartphone-friendly.  Google themselves told me that, when I contacted them to find out why the traffic volume to my website had dropped of by one-third, overnight.  There is a good solution for that now.

I must work on it for a while to make it look nicer and work a bit better, but menu options in WordPress and just a few clicks permitted me to set up a menu for primary navigation for anyone who has a smart phone and wishes to pay a visit to dads&things.  It’ll take a little while to show up in the traffic statistics for the blog, but at least Google will be able to remove that handicap in their ranking of the pages at the blog; dads&things is now smartphone friendly!

That is all for now, as far as SEO and related things go.

Posted in Censorship, Media Bias, Organizational News, Web Statistics | 1 Comment

dads&things now smartphone-friendly

I did what needed to be done to make dads&things smartphone-friendly.  It was not the most important thing on my mind, for far too long.  It should have been long ago.

dads&things is now smartphone friendly. Enjoy!

One of the many things that causes a search-engine provider like Google to give a website or a web page a low rank is if web pages are not smartphone-friendly.  Google themselves told me that, when I contacted them to find out why the traffic volume to my website had dropped of by one-third, overnight.  There is a good solution for that now.

I must work on it for a while to make it look nicer and work a bit better, but menu options in WordPress and just a few clicks permitted me to set up a menu for primary navigation for anyone who has a smart phone and wishes to pay a visit to dads&things.  It’ll take a little while to show up in the traffic statistics for the blog, but at least Google will be able to remove that handicap in their ranking of the pages at the blog;

dads&things is now smartphone friendly!

May you never be bored  — 900 blog posts on fathers’ right issues and a few other things to enjoy…  All at your finger tips.  How can you go wrong?!

–Walter

Posted in Organizational News | Leave a comment

Debt-financing seriously troubles developed nations

Addiction to debt-financing put all developed nations in serious trouble, all of them, as far as I can tell, at least the OECD nations, countries that are members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.  Here are two examples:

First the largest of them all, the

United States National Debt

Visit USADebtClock.com to learn more!

The U.S. National Public Debt Outstanding represents the face amount or principal amount of marketable and non-marketable securities currently outstanding.
– Source: U.S. Treasury

[Update 2017 07 01, Note: On this day, at 7:00 a.m., the figure for the U.S. national debt was only $19.852 Trillion.]

More must be added to that to get the total of the money owed by the U.S. Government, namely the U.S. Unfunded Liability.

The total US Unfunded Liability includes Social Security, (Medicare Parts A,B and D), Federal Debt Held by the Public, plus Federal Employee & Veteran Benefits. (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). That is a very substantial amount of money, $106.6 Trillion, and counting, for a total of about $126 Trillion, and counting.

FAQ 7: What are “unfunded liabilities”? Suppose you have no assets (no house, savings etc.), and you promise to pay me $1000 per month for a year. Your “unfunded liability” is $12,000 (12 months times $1000). The Federal Government has made similar promises for Medicare, Social Security, Medicare Part D (the Prescription Drug Plan) while not setting aside any money for these programs. Eventually the bill will come due and the government will have to pay those promises by law – or change the law. More

The only conceivable payers of the unfunded liabilities will be the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on, ad infinitum, because it is not likely that those unfunded liabilities (and don’t forget the amount of the national debt that must be paid) can ever be paid by anyone, as the government debt per household is about $1.1 Million right now and keeps growing.

Then consider, in comparison (but keep in mind that the country’s population and economy are roughly one-tenth the size of those of the U.S.),

Canada’s National Debt

US$824,516 Million
(US$825 Billion or
C$1.089 Trillion, but that is not all.)

See National Debt Clocks for current figures (links to figures for 52 countries that all are labouring to get out of the holes they dug for themselves, or are they?)

[Update 2017 07 01, Note: On this day, at 7:40 a.m., the figure for Canada’s national debt was US$824.668 Billion or C$1.068 Trillion, indicating that, although Canada’s national debt had fallen somewhat during the intervening three days, but that the value of the U.S. Dollar had fallen even faster.]

The figure of C$1.1 trillion only covers marketable IOUs or debentures.  It excludes the very real portion of Canada’s debts that are very real but non-secured, unfunded financial liabilities that are backed up by nothing more than the Canadian governments’ promises that they will be paid, but can they be paid?

Much searching by me did not provide me with a debt-ticker or -clock for Canada that shows the amount of unfunded liabilities that Canada has racked up, nor have I been able to find a source of information anywhere that shows Canada’s amount of federal unfunded liabilities, but for a rough estimate, let’s use a comparable proportion of that very real debt that no one wishes to mention.  For Canada, that would be about 5 times the amount of the federal national debt, which is about US$4.4 Trillion or C$5.8 Trillion, but things do not come to an end with that.  There is more.

Addiction to debt-financing causes massive inter-generational transfer of debt.

From an exercise I did about 20 years ago, I found that Canada’s federal debt was just one half of the total national debt (including unfunded liabilities).  An equal amount must be added over and above the federal figure to account for debts racked up by provinces and municipalities.

That means that all Canadians will have to pay C$11.6 Trillion at some point in the future, just taking into account what is owed now.  If that would have to be paid off right now (or if the money would have to be put away right now to secure or fund that debt), that would be about C$352,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada.  People who think that that can be done, now or at any time in the future, better have their heads examined.

Never mind the accuracy of the result of those calculations, a couple of trillions here or there – it doesn’t matter.  It is far too much, and the racking-up of debt should have never been done to begin with.  It is much the same with all countries in the world, but the “wealth” of the developed nations, once-upon-a-time solid and reliable, is now nothing more than a financial house of cards that will fall down at any moment.

The CEOs, of any corporation, who operate on the principle of real but undisclosed debt will go to prison for doing so, but not our bureaucrats and politicians who drive and endorse such a scam.  They are immune from prosecution.

Obviously none of the politicians, bureaucrats and economists responsible for replacing a fairly solid world economy with a financial house of cards never read this piece of cowboy logic they should have taken to heart right from the start (they probably knew it all along but intentionally never paid attention to it):

If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing is to stop digging.

All of the individuals who raked in fat salaries while promoting that debt scam – a pyramid scheme, an inter-generational transfer of debt – did and still do well on it.  We, the people and our descendants, are paying and will be paying for it, unless someone will find a way to do away with the meaning of money and the value of work.

 

Posted in Corruption, Economy, Propaganda Exposed, Social-Destruction Enterprise, The New World Order | 5 Comments

Socialism begets Slavery

Introduction

Socialism is founded on slavery.  Socialism cannot persist without slavery.  Left to themselves, socialist regimes become totalitarian.  That may take a short time, as in a revolution or through conquest by a socialist nation, or it may take centuries.

The outcome was virtually always the same, throughout human history.As explained farther down, Ancient Greece, long before the birth of Christ, had not only slaves but also a yearning for socialism.  Ancient Greece and the Ancient Roman Empire were socialist regimes when they perished.

We admire those regimes, especially the Ancient Greek regime, which contributed so much to our yearning for democracy, freedom and equality (and for socialism), but very few people mention that both,, Ancient Greece, as well as Ancient Rome had slaves, massive numbers of slaves, to do the work that needed to be done.

Estimates of the ratio of free citizens to slaves vary (after all, accurate census data for those days is hard to find), but the ratio of free citizens to slaves in Ancient Greece, in Athens, could be said to have been roughly 1:1, or 3 to 4 per household, while that ratio was as high as 1:7 in Sparta.

In Ancient Rome,

Demography (of slavery)

Estimates for the prevalence of slavery in the Roman Empire vary. Estimates of the percentage of the population of Italy who were slaves range from 30 to 40 percent in the 1st century BC, upwards of two to three million slaves in Italy by the end of the 1st century BCE, about 35% to 40% of Italy’s population.[37][38][39] For the Empire as a whole, the slave population has been estimated at just under five million, representing 10–15% of the total population of 50–60 million+ inhabitants. An estimated 49% of all slaves were owned by the elite, who made up less than 1.5% of the Empire’s population.

Source: Wikipedia  (anyone who has a more reliable source and data, please be so good and let me know the details – FB would be best)

There was not much “freedom and equality” in those times, but many ideas of socialism, Utopia and Paradise on Earth were presented then in comedy and tragedy, and those then served to become the standards for what socialism in our times was to look like.  It did not work out all that that, but here is a glimpse into what happened.

Socialism now

Totalitarian socialism was almost always ultimately the end-stage of socialist evolution wherever socialism evolved, and most countries in the history of humanity went down that road and perished, either because socialism ran out of other people’s money or even out of people.

”   under communism,” [wrote Daniel Amneus (in The Garbage Generation)], “the state’s guarantee of economic security weakens the male’s commitment to work and undermines his productivity. “The other day,” writes Eric Hoffer,

“I happened to ask myself a routine question and stumbled on a surprising answer. The question was: What is the uppermost problem which confronts the leadership in a Communist regime? The answer: The chief preoccupation of every government between the Elbe and the China Sea is how to make people work — how to induce them to plow, sow, harvest, build, manufacture, work in the mines, and so forth. It is the most vital problem which confronts them day in day out, and it shapes not only their domestic policies but their relations with the outside world.”

Eric Hoffer expressed that observation during the height of the Cold War.  We no longer have to worry about the Cold War.  The inevitable end-stage of socialism, slavery – and people of the USSR and the whole communist block rebelling against it – put an end to the attempts of the USSR and the communist block to dominate the people and even to prevent them from escaping their slavery.  The Iron Curtain came down, along with the collapse of the communist empire.  Still, the attempts to promote socialism, even in the so-called Free West, and to put people under its domination did not end.  They now proceed faster than ever before. Take just one example, the ramming-through and imposing of Obamacare in the U.S.

Socialism and Obamacare: The rich get richer!

Wendy McElroy provided a very valuable piece of information, in one of her blog posts.

HUGE PROFITS FOR OBAMACARE CRONIES

“A blog reader and friend, Bill, emails, My girlfriend is very liberal, and is irate over any attempt to dismantle Obamacare. I went out to my stock sites to get a picture of what Obamacare was really all about, so I could show her. Now, I knew that the stock prices had gone up, but I had no idea it was this much of a giveaway to Obama’s cronies.”

More: http://wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.8134

Here is one of the six stock charts she provided in that blog post.  The one shown here is just one of six for shares of health-care corporations who are healthcare providers that will profit enormously from the rising prices for their shares.  The astounding aspect of the rising trends in value of the shares of those six health-care providers is that there is not the least of a dent in the rising trends that indicates that Donald Trump’s threat to dismantle Obamacare had any noticeable impact.

United Healthcare (UNH) share trend

United Healthcare (UNH) share trend

That is the problem with socialism. Someone promotes an idea that will “benefit the people,” but the people will pay for having it made reality and to run it, and someone other than the people will rake in the money that people will pay to reap the benefits they imagined should have resulted.  Obviously, it is a scheme that will make the people running it very rich.

Oh, what a lovely way to get rich! Do you understand, yet, why the big push to impose Obamacare is continuing?

One of the primary aspects of socialism is that corporations that have a relationship with the government in power will not have to worry about competition anymore, as soon as they become a designated provider of specific goods or services.

Once socialism is established, escape is no longer possible. It will not only be made compulsory to participate, the people in thrall or captured by it are detained and prevented from being able to escape, first by having their passports revoked or confiscated, and when that is not sufficient, walls and iron curtains will be erected. There is nothing new about that.

“The Socialist Phenomenon”

Igor Shafarevich described it well how that was supposed to be made to work in Ancient Greece and later, during the 16th century, in the introduction to his book, ‘The Socialist Phenomenon,” quoting from Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’, and stating:

This book was first published (in Latin) in 1516, and its complete title is: “A Truly Golden Handbook, No Less Beneficial than Entertaining, About the Best State of the Commonwealth and the New Island of Utopia.” At the time, its author was an influential English statesman with a brilliant career. In 1529, More became Lord Chancellor of England, the first office below the king. But in 1534 he emerged as a strong opponent of the Church reform that was being carried out by Henry VIII. He refused to swear allegiance to the king as head of the newly created Anglican Church, was accused of high treason and beheaded in 1535. Four centuries later, in 1935, he was canonized by the Catholic Church….

“As long as private property remains, the largest and by far the best part of mankind will be oppressed with an inescapable load of cares and anxieties.” (42: p. 74)

By way of an example, criminal behavior is discussed; it is attributed entirely to flaws in the social system. “What else is this, I ask, but first making them thieves and then punishing them for it?” (42: p. 57) The laws of the day which punished thieves with death are considered to be not only unjust but ineffective as well. Instead, Hythloday offers the customs he had observed among people living in the mountains of Persia, the Polylerites. “I can find no better system in any country.” (42: p. 59) The custom calls for a thief to be turned into a state slave. As a sign of his status, a thief’s ear lobes are notched. The lazy “are sooner prompted with blows than punishment with fetters.” (42: p. 60) Finally, as a measure against the escape of slaves, informing is encouraged–and rewarded by liberty (for slaves) or money (for a free man). A runaway slave who is caught is executed and any free man who helped him is turned into a slave. “You can easily see how humane and advantageous these laws are,” concludes the narrator. (42: p. 61)….

More: ‘The Socialist Phenomenon’ p. 82

Make sure to do a “find in page” search of the text, for the term “slave”, to find all of the instances of it used in the book by Igor Shafarevich, whereby one is able to take in the point Igor Shafarevich wishes to drive home, namely how important a role slavery plays in a socialist system.

It was not that, for which the Roman Catholic Church declared Thomas More to be a saint. It was to use his example, of giving his life for the defence of the Church, to encourage others who were being persecuted for upholding the Church in the totalitarian socialist systems of the day, such as in the USSR and in national-socialist Germany, where they were being punished by being turned into slaves and worked to death. After all, 60 percent of the victims of National-Socialism that died in the slave-camps were Christian, and a much larger proportion of slaves, yet, were the ten million killed by Stalin’s USSR in the Gulags and through execution, before Stalin even had a chance to be asked to become a member of the Allied to oppose and defeat the Nazi Regime, and long before the Hitler regime engaged on its killing spree that was by far not as deadly as that which obsessed Stalin.

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn summarized that in his foreword to ‘The Socialist Phenomenon’, by stating:

It could probably be said that the majority of states in the history of mankind have been “socialist.” But it is also true that these were in no sense periods or places of human happiness or creativity.”

More

Igor Shafarevich explained that our obsession with socialism is solidly rooted in the morals and ethics of Ancient Greece, for instance, in the introduction he wrote for his book. An excerpt from that is quoted here to illustrate how big a role slavery played in the ancient Greek traditions that we in the West so much admire and do our best to bring into play now:

We shall begin with socialism understood as a doctrine, as an appeal.

All such doctrines (and as we shall see, there were many of them) have a common core–they are based on the complete rejection of the existing social structure. They call for its destruction and paint a picture of a more just and happy society in which the solution to all the fundamental problems of the times would be found. Furthermore, they propose concrete ways of achieving this goal. In religious literature such a system of views is referred to as belief in the thousand-year Kingdom of God on earth–chiliasm. Borrowing this terminology, we shall designate the socialist doctrines of this type as “chiliastic socialism.”

In order to give some sense of the scale of this phenomenon and of the place it occupies in the history of mankind, we shall examine two doctrines that fit the category of chiliastic socialism, as they are described by their contemporaries. In doing so, we shall attempt to extract a picture of the future society envisaged, leaving to one side for the moment the motivation as well as the concrete means recommended for achieving the ideal.

The first example takes us to Athens in 392 B.C. during the great urban Dionysia, when Aristophanes presented his comedy Ecclesiazusae or The Congresswomen. Here he depicts a teaching fashionable in the Athens of the time. The plot is as follows: The women of the city, wearing beards and dressed in men’s clothing, come to the assembly and by a majority vote pass a resolution transferring all power in the state to women. They use this power to introduce a series of measures, which are expounded in a dialogue between Praxagora, the leader of the women, and her husband, Blepyros. Here are several quotations.

[3]


PRAXAGORA:

Compulsory Universal Community Property is what I propose to propose; across-the-board Economic Equality, to fill those fissures that scar our society’s face. No more the division between Rich and Poor. …
…We’ll wear the same clothes, and share the same food. …
…My initial move will be to communalize land, and money, and all other property, personal and real.
BLEPYROS:
But take the landless man who’s invisibly wealthy…because he hides his silver and gold in his pockets. What about him?
PRAXAGORA:
He’ll deposit it all in the Fund. …
…I’ll knock out walls and remodel the City into one big happy household, where all can come and go as they choose. …
…I’m pooling the women, creating a public hoard for the use of every man who wishes to take them to bed and make babies.
BLEPYROS:
A system like this requires a pretty wise father to know his own children.
PRAXAGORA:
But why does he need to? Age is the new criterion: Children will henceforth trace their descent from all men who might have begot them. …
BLEPYROS:
Who’s going to work the land and produce the food?
PRAXAGORA:
The slaves. This leaves you just one civic function: When the shades of night draw on, slip sleekly down to dinner. …
…The State’s not going to stint. Its hand is full and open, its heart is large, it’ll stuff its menfolk free of charge, then issue them torches when dinner’s done and send them out to hunt for fun.
   (2: pp. 43-51)

The reader will of course already have noticed many of the features of a familiar doctrine. Let us attempt to specify the associations that arise by considering a second example–the classic statement of the Marxist program contained in the Communist Manifesto. Here are some quotations characterizing the future society as the authors imagine it: “…the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. …” (3: V: p. 496) ” Abolition of the family! Even the most radical Hare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. …On what foundation is the present

[4]



family, the bourgeois family based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution….

More at ‘The Socialist Phenomenon’ p. 5

Thanks for making it this far.  Until next time. — Walter


See also:  Debt-financing seriously troubles developed nations, 2017 06 28


Note:
2017 07 o2 Updated to expand on the introduction.

Posted in Books & Films, Civil Rights, Economy, Education, Family, History, Religion, Social-Destruction Enterprise, The New World Order | 2 Comments

Feminism and communism are identical

Outcomes of communism and feminism cannot be differentiated, described well by Prof. Daniel Amneus in The Garbage Generation (page 64 to 66).

According to feminists Barbara Love and Elizabeth Shanklin:

“The matriarchal mode of child-rearing, in which each individual is nurtured rather than dominated from birth provides the rational basis for a genuinely healthy society, a society of self-regulating, positive individuals.”

    Things are this way in the ghettos, where half of the young bear the surnames of their mothers, and where the proportion of such maternal surnames increases every year, along with crime and the other accompaniments of matriarchy.

“You Frenchmen,” said an Iroquois Indian three hundred years ago to the Jesuit Father Le Jeune, “love only your own children; we love all the children of the tribe.” In a promiscuous matriclan this is the best way to see that all children are cared for; but it will not create the deep family loyalties needed to usher a society out of the Stone Age. “At the core of patriarchy,” says Adrienne Rich, “is the individual family unit which originated with the idea of property and the desire to see one’s property transmitted to one’s biological descendants.” This creation of wealth cannot be motivated by a desire to transmit it to an ex-wife or to a welfare system which undermines the families whose resources it feeds upon.

The patriarchal family, whose linchpin is female chastity and loyalty, makes men work. That is why civilization must be patriarchal and why it slides into chaos, as ours is doing, where family arrangements become matrilineal. What feminist Marie Richmond-Abbott says of men in general is especially true of men in capitalist patriarchy:

“A man’s life is defined by his work, his occupation. The first question a man is usually asked is, “What do you do?” People shape their perception of him according to his answer.”

     A man’s life may be defined by his work even under matriarchy, but it is only loosely defined. Here, described by the 19th century German explorer, G. W. Schweinfurth, is the way males perform when females regard them as inessential. The tribe described is the Monbuttu:

“Whilst the women attend to the tillage of the soil and the gathering of the harvest, the men, except they are absent either for war or hunting, spend the entire day in idleness. In the early hours of the morning they may be found under the shade of the oil-palms, lounging at full length upon their carved benches and smoking tobacco. During the middle of the day they gossip with their friends in the cool halls.”

     Similarly, under communism, the state’s guarantee of economic security weakens the male’s commitment to work and undermines his productivity. “The other day,” writes Eric Hoffer,

“I happened to ask myself a routine question and stumbled on a surprising answer. The question was: What is the uppermost problem which confronts the leadership in a Communist regime? The answer: The chief preoccupation of every government between the Elbe and the China Sea is how to make people work — how to induce them to plow, sow, harvest, build, manufacture, work in the mines, and so forth. It is the most vital problem which confronts them day in day out, and it shapes not only their domestic policies but their relations with the outside world.”

     Who wants to plow, sow, harvest, build, manufacture, work in the mines — unless the work, unsatisfying and unfulfilling in itself, is made meaningful by a man’s knowledge that it must be done if he is to provide for his family?

The Garbage Generation (Nov. 1990), by Daniel Amneus, pp. 64-66  (The full text of the book is accessible at that link, at the Internet Archive.)

Considering that 27 years have gone by since the book was published, it is admirable that Daniel Amneus was right on target with his description of the outcomes of feminism, but then he most certainly made sure that he went by what he had learned from history.

The majority of men’s rights activists then never accepted what Daniel Amneus wrote.  The majority of them considered him to be a dinosaur.  That is, the younger ones of them did, the ones who already had become indoctrinated by the feminist curriculum (yes, already then it had rubbed off, to a lesser or greater extent, on everyone who had graduated since the 1960s).  It would have been a good thing, had they listened and paid attention, but that is not the way of the world.  Humanity tends to force itself into having to re-invent the wheel, rather than to learn from the experiences of previous generations, when it comes to fundamental, vital, social issues.

Feminism – Roots in Communism

Like Marxism, feminism can explain everything from advertising to religion by following its single thread, the oppression of women.”

— Carol Iannone,
The Feminist Confusion, Second Thoughts: Former Radicals Look Back at the Sixties,
eds. Peter Collier and David Horowitz
(Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1989, p. 149)

More

Mind you, now we must come to terms with something else, something that neither Daniel Amneus nor most definitely the feminist social engineers saw coming, even though it had been at play since people began to work: mechanization of work, only now not merely to have machines serve instead of human- and animal-muscles, but now to increasingly do man’s thinking, too.

Was Valerie Solanas a prophet?  She stated the primary goal of feminism thus:

“Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government,  eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and  destroy the male sex.”

— Valerie Solanas,
The opening paragraph in her SCUM Manifesto
(Society for Cutting Up Men.)

More

Valerie Solanas overreached.  Feminism is without a doubt a powerful, destructive force, but feminism cannot be credited with everything that happens.  Feminism, too, must bow to a far more powerful force.

Profit motives, not feminism, drive mechanization of work

How will The Rise of the Machines affect people, after feminism just about finished making men as well as women obsolete?  It is of course not so much a rise of the machines as it is a bit of mopping-up that still needs to be done to make leisure a necessary condition and work a luxury for all. The Rise of the Machines figures we have about 20 years to adapt.  If I could live that long, I would wish I could do it in the company of a woman, one who respects men and respects and loves her man, and who will be loved and respected in return.

Posted in Economy, Family, Feminism, The New World Order | 1 Comment