Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor, Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief, Doctor, Lawyer, Merchant, Chief (ahem, that is, bureaucrat). It is not so much the politicians who drive the evolution towards censorship and control by the state. The bureaucrats are the main movers of it. The politicians come and go. Bureaucracies are forever.
Bureaucracies have their own agendas, powerful ones, all-pervasive and intrepid. They are the ones who make the necessary things (and many others besides that) happen. Politicians have some influence. Most of them just come along for the ride. The bureaucrats are far more numerous and have much more power that is always being used. The bureaucracy is the wagon that virtually no politicians can steer, but that they happily use to hitch rides.
No doubt, when aiming high, fly high. Why not? Grow the planet and make everyone feel good! (Let’s hope that whoever designed that poster figures out that he is urging the wrong thing to be taxed, before he lights up another toke.)
It is highly unlikely that any elected politician(s) will ever be powerful enough to tell the wagon of the bureaucracy where to go, in other words, be in control of it and drive it (through taxes, censorship, red tape, whatever you may desire or are bothered by). The driving of the wagon that is the bureaucracy is being done by powerful bureaucrats. That helps to ensure that bureaucracies are forever.
Take just one example, Justin Trudeau’s campaign promise that under his term the trade in pot would be legalized. Of course he felt compelled to say that. It was a calculated move that helped to bring a good number of voters to the polls, voters that otherwise would never have bothered. How could Justin Trudeau resist? It is a dream come true, for any bureaucrat worth his salt, to legalize the lively trade of pot in Canada! Nevertheless, promising that it be done is easy, getting it done is hard work. It is work that bureaucrats are made for.
It takes the creation and re-writing of rules and red tape, one consequence of deciding that what was illegal is now legal. That involves:
All and every one of the bureaucratic sectors and departments involved in jurisprudence;
The creation and rewriting of rules for industry and commerce. It must be decided who can do it, who may do it, who must do it, how much of it, how, of what quality, when and where, market studies, audit trails and much more. It must be decided what it will cost (while no bureaucrat can possibly know how much it will cost; don’t think that bureaucrats are all-knowing);
Making an estimate of how much money it will cost the government to produce pot, control it, administer and control the production and trade, and of how much can be raked off in tax revenues;
Travelling by the Prime Minister and many bureaucrats (separate trips, conveyances and accommodations, of course, to drum up foreign trade and to make foreign-trade agreements. There are precedents, fortunately, as Canada once before tried to corner the world market on the production and trade in hemp products (sail cloth and ropes made from hemp, whose production the government heavily subsidized, unfortunately in vain, as the advent of steamships grew to be very detrimental to those plans);
Making more rules for how to collect the taxes. the designing of all the forms, applications, permits and exemptions that will apply, and of course to bring all of that to bear in government budget estimates, do I need to go on?
The legalization of pot, just as the legalization of gambling, tobacco, alcohol or any other vice, is a bureaucrat’s wet dream. That is why the bureaucracy will go along with it and make it go, even if it should break the Country. After all, it is much work and a great boon for employment that presents untold career opportunities for self-respecting bureaucrats. It makes the Canadian bureaucracy a growth industry with plenty of opportunities for growth, a grow-op! Long live the bureaucracy! Bureaucracies are forever.
How do the people manage?
If you wonder where that leaves us, we are the horses that pull the wagon. Between the bureaucrats who tell us where to go, how fast, how long and when, and the politicians who go along for the ride and make us believe that they are our leaders, and that they act in our best interests, we can only hope that we are always told to go into the right direction and that we get fed.
Politicians come and go. If lucky, they will last at least one whole term until the next election comes along. Usually, bureaucrats outlast even the most long-lived politicians. The wagon of the bureaucracy is self-renewing, self-controlling, essentially autonomous (except for the little detail of the tax revenues it consumes to keep the bureaucracy in fine shape). Bureaucracies usually see Politicians as temporary inconveniences, necessary evils, meddlers that must be tolerated, their plans and objectives to be supported if useful for the purposes of the bureaucracy — to be circumvented, opposed and even sabotaged, if seen as being counter-productive to its aims.
The first order of business for a bureaucracy is to create business for itself, business that caters to the self-interests and well-being of the bureaucracy. C. Northcote Parkinson knew a thing or two about bureaucracies. He knew why they grow inexorably. He expressed that in Parkinson’ Law. We owe him eternal gratitude for pointing out that the inevitable cannot be changed, that bureaucracies are forever, that a bureaucracy’s “Work expands so as to fill available time,” and that the unavoidable corollary is that “Expenditure rises to meet income—and tends to surpass it.” That quite nicely demonstrates that there are virtually never any budget surpluses but with virtual certainty always budget overruns. That also never fails to get politicians elected, who – time and again – promise to put an end to what cannot be changed.
Yet, whenever a discussion turns to the consequences of a bureaucracy’s actions and inexorable growth, the thought gets expressed, “How much longer to the next election?” As if that would make a difference! It never did before. After all, the bureaucracy that is the cause of the concern that the hoped-for election is to fix existed since time-immemorial; not because it got elected, but because it never did get elected, it always existed, and it always will. No election will fix that. Bureaucracies are forever and always were.
Do we need to go along with it all? That depends, and we must come to terms with this:
“A government is not the expression of the popular will, but rather the expression of what a nation’s people are willing to endure.”
— Kurt Tucholsky
Many people throughout history tried to fix the problem through revolutions, bloody or administrative, which says nothing about their effectiveness or the extents to which they are harmful or even deadly. Still, the deconstruction of the patriarchy, whenever it was attempted, whether that was through things like the Bolshevik revolution in Russia or revolutions in any other country that were to create Utopia, or on account of the feminist, global re-engineering of civilization, to get rid of the patriarchal family once and for all, had no effect on the existence of the bureaucracies, other than to increase their power. The bureaucracies survived them all, to become the new law and order, with a vengeance, in every single case, unhindered (because all resistance, protection and hope for opposition had been removed), the Parens Patriae (Latin for “parent of the country”; lit., “parent of the fatherland”), with powers over everyone that were and are far in excess of anything the bureaucracies had before all protection against the rising powers of bureaucracies had been removed.
The hallmark of totalitarian regimes always was and always will be that the powers and the excesses of their bureaucracies, on whom they rely for their existence and effectiveness of the oppression for which the are the tool, is far greater, far more terrible than elsewhere or when, where people could or can enjoy life more because freedom still ruled or rules.
Bureaucracies are forever, even though they can become cancers, ranging from being benign to being extremely malignant. Still, whether a bureaucracy contributed much or little to the untimely demise of the society it lived on, a bureaucracy will be the very last thing that perishes after a nation or civilization exhausted itself while trying to support the bureaucracy that it hosted.
Bureaucracies and civilization are inseparable
Through the cycles of empires, from their births, through feudalism, monarchies, democracies, increasing socialism into totalitarianism and dictatorship, even through conquest by outside forces and the ultimate decline back into chaos, the bureaucracy always is, until the last remnant of humanity expires. For all practical intents and purposes, bureaucracies are forever.
The most important career-decision anyone ever made was when he decided whether he would work for the bureaucracy, or the bureaucracy would work him, for – win or lose – just as with medical doctors or lawyers, as long as there is demand for them (remember and never forget: bureaucracies are forever), bureaucrats will always get paid, for as long as there is someone capable of paying the taxes required for that.
Even Hitler knew that, but that is a different story, although it is much the same, as Hitler, too, managed to turn the bureaucracy of his time into something that could no longer be controlled, by removing the controls that had kept the German bureaucracy in check for about 400 years. He had promised aspiring bureaucrats without employment jobs when he would get into power, if only they would work for him and support him in getting there. They did, and he made good on that promise. Hitler was not as sophisticated as he was honest. His lure was law and order, and employment, not the legalization of illegal substances, but you’ve got to admit, he delivered in spades, because he got the help of the whole bureaucracy, all of it, not just a few portions of it required to legalize just one illegal substance.
With the help of a German bureaucracy that grew to cancerous proportions, Hitler managed in an interval of about six years to change Germany’s fortunes from rags to riches. Within about another six years he blew all of it and left Germany in ruins, rubble and ashes, and he could have done neither without the help of a bureaucracy that he had caused to grow to cancerous proportions.
Hitler died by his own hand, at the end of that, but the bureaucracy he used to make that roller coaster ride happen survived, unscathed, uncontrolled, uncontrollable and more of a cancer than ever before, with the bureaucracy now changing its strategy: If Germany and its bureaucracy cannot conquer the world, invite the world (at least the people of the poor third world nations) to come and conquer Germany. That is no skin off the back of the German bureaucrats. Their bureaucracy will still be around, and its bureaucrats will still get paid. The bureaucracy does not care who the taxpayers are that feed it, as long as they consume goods and services, and as long as they pay taxes.
Justin Trudeau’s Dad knew how well total control works in that respect, because, as he once remarked to his dear friend, Fidel Castro, that it would be much easier to accomplish reforms in Canada, if only he could do them the way Fidel Castro did them in Cuba.
An orderly blog needs blog rules. There can be no order without rules. Without rules there is chaos.
This is a moderated blog. At the present time, individual blog entries are open to comment for no longer than 30 days, each, and are closed to comments after that interval. The interval may be expanded indefinitely if I manage to get the problem of spammer-subscriptions under control. For now, that problem is the overwhelmingly primary reason dads & things is a moderated blog. Some spam gets through spam detection, I still receive close to 100 spammer subscription a day, and I just finished deleting 32,000 of them. Moderation permits me to stay on top of that issue. No one would like the looks of the blog unless it is moderated.
The blog is closed for comments, but I can be reached at FaceBook. I may not respond immediately but will try. If you wish to have something posted at the blog that should be seen by others, send it to my FB address, but make sure to follow the blog rules listed here:
Keep your comments short. Consider that a longer posting should, and may perhaps require to, be posted as a guest-post, so that it can become the beginning of a new discussion thread.
When making a comment, stay on topic. The title of the initiating posting usually states what the topic is.
Make no ad-hominem attacks (any statement that a. appeals to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect, or b. is marked by or is an attack on an opponent’s character rather than being a response to the contentions made).
Do not swear or use vile language.
Do not call for revolutions or assassinations.
Do not deprecate ethnic or racial origins.
Use facts and logic in your comments.
You will not be permitted to point to any location of information without stating which specific item of information at that location it is that you refer to and wish the reader to look up. In addition to that, you must also state sufficient details that will enable anyone to find with ease the exact location of a specific item of information you are using to illustrate or support your point of view.
Do not base your comments on political correctness. (Political correctness usually precludes logic and facts and is generally based on unsubstantiated opinions.)
Do not troll or pile on (to pile on is to respond to an argument without properly answering a point that was made but to offer instead more opinions that are not or at best only remotely related to the contention).
Postings may not contain or point to advertising, so as to promote a product or service, but they may identify advertising to illustrate a point under discussion, if the advertising is used to deprecate or slander fathers and families.
In general, this blog permits freedom of speech. With the ever-intensifying promotion of more self-centeredness, especially through the education system during the last few generations, it has come to pass that many people now see freedom of speech as the right to say anything they want, without regard to whether what they say is true or a violation of the standards of civility. That is not a view that is tolerated here.
At dads & things freedom of speech is encouraged, but it is constrained by the obligation to express the truth that can be backed up by information from credible sources and by the obligation to extend common decency to others.
Rights bring responsibilities and obligations. Without duties and responsibilities no rights can be exercised or enjoyed. Without that there will be mob rule and chaos.
A comment that does not meet all of the preceding rules will not be posted.
My other half and I hope that you will be able to subscribe to the blog, so that you can contribute to making this blog a success in support of fathers and families, because they are what it is all about. As long as FB reigns in its greed for the power to socially engineer society and to mold it into the shape it wants, as long as FB permits people to write to me, that is, as long as FB does not censor me, get in touch with Dads & Things @ FB (the same blog rules apply there).
» Actual Average Lifespans Decline — U.S. Women Lose Big « That should have been in the headlines of the front pages for years. It wasn’t. International Women’s Day is not over. It would be over now, largely gone from our minds, if it weren’t for the news. The news during the past few days mentioned much about discrimination against women, about an escalating epidemic of sexual harassment, about the persistent pay gap (entirely mythical, when examined objectively, which is of course never mentioned) that puts women at a disadvantage, and many more things like that which feminists had decided years ago needed to be eradicated to make women more equal.
In all of the news I watched and read during the past few years and especially during the past few days, there was not a word about the very real issue that actual average lifespans decline, and that U.S. women are being seriously affected by that. Do the newscasters, pundits and experts discussing the issues they like to discuss live on the same planet as the rest of us normal mortals, or is it that we normal mortals are not supposed to learn about the important facts of life and death?
After waking up, it usually takes a while before I have the courage to move my feet out of the bed and onto the floor. If the news are on the radio, I listen. That gets me sufficiently riled up to make me want to get up and to begin my search for evidence of reality and of objectivity in relating to it. The news don’t offer much of either.
I wish it was Jordan Peterson or someone like him who is reading the news. Then I would not be trying to make headway with the onerous task of attempting to resist being choked by political correctness that causes the orgy of feeling compassion for the poor, suffering women of the world. The pundits with their commentaries and with their discussions they had with the experts of their liking were ladling it out and laying it on, this morning. They had enough of it to go around. They were obviously full of and bursting with it.
When the whole world looks for evidence of suffering women, it will not fail to find it, and every pundit gets in on the feeding frenzy. The suffering of poor oppressed women is a nice, big, fat, red herring to drag across the trail of human progress and especially of those who have their gender lenses firmly implanted and make a nice living of looking through them. How come they don’t want to see the elephant in the room, the fact that the sum of discrimination of the sexes is expressed quite nicely by their respective actual average lifespans?
Still, in view of what is happening to U.S. women, the beneficiaries of the lion’s share of the blessings bestowed by feminism, how much more equal are women to become? When will enough be enough? What is the objective, when the goal was surpassed a long time ago? The feminists should have quit while women were ahead and still had it good.
No mention during International Women’s Day 2018 that actual average lifespans decline and that US women lose big
David Thomas’ ‘Not Guilty: In Defence of the Modern Man’ (1993) 1 will be the main source of a few quotes I am collecting for the conclusion of my article series, ‘Single-Gender Classes’.2
‘Not Guilty’ contains this gem:
»Armed with their wage packets and fortiﬁed by booze and the new, fashionable female machismo, young women are now taking to the road with all the mad abandon of their boyfriends and beginning to kill themselves with increasing frequency. Before they do, they should consider one important fact which sober, health conscious, emotionally open men have cottoned onto: the traditional male life style is hazardous to your health. It doesn’t carry a government warning, but it should. Once women start to behave like men, and work like men, and earn like men, they may well start to die like them, too.«
— p. 29, second-last par.
That, stated 25 years ago, was not a prediction. It was and still is a statement of fact. In the U.S., where yesterday International Women’s Day was celebrated (and it still is in the news today) with such reckless abandon, women’s actual average lifespans began to decline in 2014, and the rate of decline could well begin to accelerate. A bit of objectivity in celebrating human achievements would have made that fact hit the front pages ever since it became known that it would happen, let alone after it did happen. That is what the pursuit of the Holy Grail of long-sought equality for women is all about. It appears to have come to an end, as it shortens women’s average lifespans! That is of course not to be mentioned, ever, especially not on International Women’s Day.
Lifespans in the United States Was it coincidence that the actual average lifespans reached their plateau and thereafter declined during the Obama years?
So, does anyone know why that statistic is not being discussed, not even on International Women’s Day 2018? The MSM have been silent on that important issue for more than four years already! Do the MSM not have the guts to be honest enough about that the most outstanding achievement of feminism’s pursuit of the agenda for achieving equality for women is that it is shortening women’s average lifespans? What is up with that?
Should it perhaps not be a concern for all those gender warriors – who make a good living off manufacturing concern for poor suffering women – that they should find out whether the advances made by feminism are the reason why the U.S. is leading the pack in the race to gain 1st prize, to bring about the decline of women’s average lifespans, or is it? 3
Addendum (2018 03 14)
The history of the transition of UNICEF, from an organization that had come to save the lives of hundreds of millions of children, to one that made it its primary mission to have children killed before they are born, by the hundreds of millions.
The International Organizations Research Group
THE UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN’S FUND:
WOMEN OR CHILDREN FIRST?
Douglas A. Sylva, Ph.D.
Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute
For decades, the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has enjoyed perhaps the finest reputation of any large international organization. UNICEF earned this reputation through an earnest, unwavering commitment to improve the health and lives of as many children as possible. Unfortunately, this reputation is increasingly at risk, and it is at risk because powerful forces both within the organization and within the larger international community have demanded that UNICEF change, that it alter its traditional child survival programs and that it add new and ever-more controversial programs, that it consciously and consistently embrace a newly dominant ideology in all that it does – the ideology of radical feminism. Radical feminism  has come to define the current UNICEF, even to the possible detriment of UNICEF’s original mandate to help children. The story of UNICEF is a cautionary tale, a tale of how difficult it is for international organizations to retain autonomy, to retain control over their own policies, to remain free from the influence of this powerful ideology. UNICEF still saves many children’s lives, but a reformation of UNICEF programming will be necessary for UNICEF to perform as much good as possible. A reformation in programming – and perhaps personnel – will be necessary for UNICEF to regain its reputation as the world’s pre-eminent child-care organization. «4
Unfortunately, no one responsible for UNICEF outside of or within UNICEF implemented the recommendation with which Douglas A. Sylva closed the introduction to his discussion paper. UNICEF is just as deadly now to the welfare of children and their families as it had become during its usurpation by feminist ideologists decades ago.
The deplorable aspect of that is that, by being deadly to children about to be borne, UNICEF is not kind but sadistically cruel and deadly to the families of the children those families are being deprived of having. In nations without functioning or well-functioning social safety nets, the families intent on having had those children are being deprived of the only viable social safety net available to them. Those parents without children will die when they are sick, disabled or too old to be able to earn their living. Parents without children die!
Parents without children die, usually because they are too weak to go begging. That is even true in developed nations, but there the misery of declining living standards due to a lack of children will take longer to make itself felt, as socialist government largess ensures that the misery of parents without children is being spread out over all people and a longer interval. For that reason it is also taking longer in the developed nations for that truth to sink in. Nevertheless, in both the U.S. and in Canada that truth has already arrived, without anyone having noticed or wanting to mention it.
Average lifespans in the U.S. and Canada reached a plateau in about 2010. In the U.S. they have been declining since 2014. It is to be expected that the average lifespans in Canada and in other developed nation will soon be in steady decline as well, as that is the inexorable consequence of shrinking young, productive population sectors increasingly less able to support the needs of a growing population sector of the elderly.
Gender re-education — If you don’t get it (the gender Newspeak), then you should go to school and take remedial classes, which may permit you to appreciate the difficulties facing new immigrants who try to learn English and a vocabulary they never heard of, let alone imagined, such as in this:
No doubt, SJWs are correct (they must be, how else could we rationalize the validity of political correctness), and children are resilient. Children will be better able to cope with the requirements of the Newspeak than non-English-speaking new immigrants are. Children will be growing up with and into all of it and, with the help of mental giants such as Canada’s relatively new Prime Minister, who insists that people must learn to refrain from using grammatically correct English based on time-honoured traditions, and must instead be so kind as to use proper, legal pronouns for 69 different genders and learn to employ new concepts such as those of his design ( e. g.: he recently blessed us with one of his creation, “peoplekind” instead of “mankind”).
At least our children, if we are still capable to procreate sufficiently well and often enough to have enough of those, will be able to find their way through the maze of Newspeak. That attempt did not pan out well for the ancient Roman Empire. It got up and died, to some extent on account of becoming involved with gender re-education and having to call in the Barbarians to help them out with showing the Romans the proper way to procreate.
The Canadian Prime Minister is a good fellow. He has nice hair and is a man of experience, frequently moved to tears, which process he elevated to an art. After all, his experience was gathered as a substitute English teacher, a job that served well to make many members of manpeoplekind weep, which job he had practiced for a few months. I am fully confident that he knows what he is talking about. Mind you, he frequently changes his mind (even on aspects of Canadian Newspeak of his own making in this case), which I won’t hold against him, as he always speaks the truth (as he sees it), and Newspeak is hard to master, even for a manperson/individual/figure of his capacity. Still what is there to worry?
Our children will grow into it. What better way to force them to do that than to make them all use one washroom in the school they must attend. Bathrooms are good places to have children learn what they need to learn. I imagine how difficult it would be to give each group of children of a specific gender orientation a washroom of its own! We could not possibly expect to have enough bathrooms that are as flexible and as numerous as our gender definitions are in every given school. No, it is definitely much more practical to have the students all use just one single washroom in a given school they must attend.
That brings us to how many classrooms a school must have, which relates to whether there should be single-gender classes or not. After all, when there is no need to segregate the sexes in the bathrooms in schools, why should there be a need to have gender-segregated classrooms? That would be counter to all principles of gender re-education.
When there is no perceptible need to segregate students according to probable outcomes in academic achievements, regardless of how likely given students may be able to meet academic qualifications for advancing into Grade II, let alone into any other grade, and if all students are entitled to reach graduation after completing Grade XII, regardless of why, should a simple thing like their genitalia or their sexual preferences be a cause for segregation? No! That would be discriminatory, it would hurt their sensitivities, their hard-won self-esteem.
The students may not learn much, but, by Gosh, they are being protected and coddled and indoctrinated to acquire what they need more than their daily bread for the rest of their lives, which are all hard lessons learned in gender re-education. It is a hard struggle, but they spend twelve long years acquiring self-esteem, and nothing must be done to interfere with that. If nothing else, they will have self-esteem, and nothing will give it to them but to come out of their closets, declare and celebrate their gender differences and thereby acquire in common bathrooms and co-ed classrooms what formerly was kept private, their stigma of being openly declared deviations from the norm, thereby to build their character in spite of being widely known, all-around deviations from the norm. They will be appreciated for that, even loved, and with enough effort, the 98-percent (or 94-percent majority, if one includes those who declare themselves to be bisexual or any other gender of their choice) will come to love them, thereby to become (if that is not too much to hope for) like them, deviations from the norm. When they all deviate, normal is the new deviation.
Gender re-education — Gender-Newspeak Pronouns (When in doubt and in conversation with an individual of unknown gender and unknown pronoun preference, show the sheet and let (insert pronoun) indicate the pronoun that (insert pronoun) prefer(s?).
Besides, having as many genders as possible will soon cure anyone wishing for gender-segregated classes. The gender-reality of that quite simply is that there are neither enough qualified teachers nor enough classrooms to give one to each group of students bothered by their genitalia or gender orientation. It quite simply cannot be done. There is not enough money in the budget for it. It is therefore cheaper and more practical to treat everyone the same. That cannot possibly be done by catering to each individual’s preferences. Consider that the plan was all along to create, bring out, enhance, and celebrate those gender differences, so that there is a good reason to treat everyone the same and to hammer them all flat.
Aside from that, have you studied the re-engineered set of pronouns that will fit the brave, new gender-reality? (See Table of Gender-Newspeak Pronouns) You have not yet found the time for that? What are your priorities? You better get with the gender re-education program, before proceeding to the conclusion of this article series.
Make sure to memorize that table, but, for your protection against malicious prosecution, I recommend the use of a cheat-sheet. Print a copy of that table and carry it in your wallet. I suggest that you replace it now and then, to catch up on any updates that are bound to happen, frequently. There does not appear to be a reliable, authoritative source of that information; I don’t know of one. Moreover, the genders we once knew are still under re-construction, wherefore we will need quite some time yet, before our gender re-education is done.
Next to come: The unacceptable solution – Return to simplicity and
Single-sex Classes for Two Sexes
Seven genders – why stop there? There were of course people, well-endowed with common sense, who argued against letting anyone get a foot into the door of the time-honoured discussion of Nature vs. Nurture and pointed out that, if
Nature no longer matters;
Gender is a very flexible thing, “a construct”;
The number of sexual orientations need not be limited by choice as much as by human imagination (and who knows where the limits of that may be);
Gender need not to be cast in stone, and the ever-changing vagaries of human desires – if let loose – would make it very difficult to address any of the aspects of the desires of human diversity to cater to gender preferences that can change at the drop of a hat;
SJWs will demand legal recognition for even only one of those gender preferences of choice, let alone that any and all imaginable sexual orientations should require formal, legal recognition, then
There will be a lot of confusion with respect to how people feel about themselves, how others think of them, how social conventions deal with and evolve to deal with them, and how the law will eventually come around (after it has been much rewritten) to cope with things that became legal after being illegal, permitted after being forbidden, encouraged after having been discouraged (the latter wherever economies and societies thrived), and that
Adding an unlimited number ofgender orientations to cultural and ethical norms that permitted generally only two sexes for at least the past 10,000 years of existence of civilization will create an extent of confusion and chaos that will bring civilization to an end.
Besides, seven genders will not suffice. Consider that some Lesbian SJWs decided quite some time ago already that there are some 30+ sexual orientations in just the category Female Homosexual:
Female homosexual, and I quote:
Old-school, or classic butch-femme— Refers historically to the well-documented Butch-Femme community that organized in the 50’s. Can also refer to modern day Butches and Femmes who appreciate an/or emulate many of the values from an era when the roles in our community were more clearly defined.
Power Femme—Femme who revels in the power, strength, and mystique of her femininity.
Femme top, Femme bottom, Butch top, or Butch bottom— Didja think all S/M Femmes were bottoms? A Butch bottom might express masculinity and strength through endurance, while a Femme top might express her power through femininity.
Stud And Lady— Old school term for Butch-Femme. Usage is still prevalent in Black lesbian culture.
High Femme— Exhibits hyper-femininity which may manifest itself outwardly in appearance, and inwardly as a a celebration of femininity.
Packing—Butch wearing a “cock” under clothing. This could be a silicone or rubber model readily used for fucking, or a realistically flaccid prothesis which can either be purchased or home-made.
Daddy, grrl, or daddy/grrl— Dynamic in some butch-femme relationshipswhere the Butch takes over the parental or care-taking role, either 24-7, or as occasional age play. Sexually, Daddy/Grrl can be played out in a incestous or S/M fashion where Daddy is irresponsibly “wicked”, or Daddy might be emotionally responsible for nurturing and loving the grrl. This particular dynamic can allow Femmes to freely explore being bratty, playful, independent, innocent, or submissive, etc… and perhaps in some instances, both partners can confront issues surrounding abuse.
Mommy/Boy— Rarely discussed dynamic which exists in some Butch-Femme relationships where the Femme takes on the parental role, either 24-7, or as occasional age play. The Mommy may be loving, or in an S/M context, very demanding. This dynamic an allow the Butch to be adored or punished, be child-like, innocent, boyishly devilish, or rebellious, ect.
Stone Femme— Can define a Femme who is sexually untouchable, a Femme who is “very” femme, a Femme top, or a Femme who is partnered with or attracted to very masculine/stone Butches. “Stone Femme” iis spelled with two words. Online usage often runs the words together because early majordomo-based mailing lists required one word titles.
Stone Butch— Usually means a hard Butch who prefers not to be touched by a partner sexually at all, or in any way that is feminizing. Stone can also mean “very”, as in “very butch” and proud of it. “Stone Butch” is spelled with two words.
Kiki—A somewhat outdated term for a Butch/Femme switch.
Polyamorous— Having pre-negotiated relationships with multiple partners. The opposite of monogamy.
FTM, F2M, or TS— Female to Male transexual. The transition usually involves taking male hormones, sometimes includes top surgery, but doesn’t always indicate bottom surgery. Many feel bottom surgery for F2Ms at this time is not a completely successful resolution. Some Butches may take testosterone and have top surgery, yet don’t consider themselves transexual, or even male-identified.
TG—Transgendered.Many believe that Butches transgress the gender of “woman” or blur traditional gender to such a degree that they are transgendered. Others believe Butch is clearly a gender of it’s own.
Hir, hym, s/he— Various masculine pronouns for Butches. Sometimes Butches online will also call one another “bro” or use traditional male pronouns, much in the same way that queens call one another “she”. Such bending of our limited language isn’t always politically motivated, but often the practice is simply employed as a tidy way of differentiating between the Butches and Femmes online.
Het queer— Controversial phrase used to describe how the power dynamics and polarity of B-F sexuality are closer to heterosexuality than homosexuality.
Fag Butch— Butch into other butches or FTMs; not usually meant as a derogatory term, although some old-school butches may express discomfort with Butch-on-Butch sexuality.
Lipstick lesbian—Media term used to describe feminine lesbians, not normally used to indicate Femmes.
Andro dyke— Mainstrream lesbian style that is deliberately void of either masculinity or femininity, or an androgenous combination of both gender expressions, each crossing the other out. Androgeny can find roots in politics, having originated from feminist beliefs of the 70’s.
Inner faggot— Humorous way to explain a dandy Butch who is fastiduous about style, or a Butch who (although masculine) exhibits other traits common to gay boy, such as a love of theatre or a flair for design.
Baby Butch or baby Femme— Newly-out Butch or Femme, not always related to age.
Binary gender system— Concept that there are two genders: man and woman. Many believe that Butch and Femme disprove the concept of a binary gender system. Some Butches and Femmes claim rights to a third gender.
Saturday night Butch— Expression used to describe lesbians who only “butch-out” at the bar on weekends.
Biology vs. Destiny— Very topical issue in Butch-femme discussion groups. It’s important to distinguish between sex (male/female), gender identity(butch/femme/man/woman/queen, etc), and gender expression(masculine/feminine). Since these three things aren’t dependent and each other, the safest way to navigate is to assume nothing!
As stated there, at the source of the preceding list, “As always, our language has it’s limits…so mileage may vary!” No doubt, and clearly, seven genders are not enough! There is no doubt that the list requires considerable contemplation and much serious thought, of which it received not enough, by far.
There is no possible way to tell how much time or effort should be spent to guarantee satisfaction. It is not possible to establish any standard for determining who needs to be satisfied or when he should or will be. There is no obvious reason why female homosexuality should limit itself to far fewer of those gender preferences, merely to keep the total count for all of humanity down to seven genders.
There is also no doubt that the list sets the stage for the demand that there should be vastly more than seven genders.
No doubt, some will notice that the items on the list of those sexual orientations do not add up to the promised 30+, true, but if that bothers you, you are not paying attention. Logic has nothing to do with this. SJWs and logic are not quite compatible, at best, but we must follow their directions. Reasonable or not, that is the choice we made. Nevertheless, consider that in the description of the last item in that list it is without a doubt specified that the list of 24 “sexual orientations” in the category Female Homosexual has a multiplier, a factor of 3, comprising sex, gender identity, and gender expression. That alone will cause rapid inflation far beyond the specified seven genders.
Therefore, the set of 24 sexual orientations can soon add up to 72. That is just to cater to what the major category Female Homosexual entails. There is of course some duplication in that list, but duplicated definitions of sexual orientations go under different names or labels, which makes it a requirement to consider each and every one of those 72 gender orientations. You see how that works, don’t you? Right! You’ve got it! It is perceptions that count! Reality no longer matters in our brave new world that relocated to Never-Never Land. That is not the end of it.
More and more sexual gender orientations have received and are receiving legal (well, as of now mostly legislative) recognition (as many of the laws, rules and regulations require changing, to adapt them — dismantling and reconstructing a civilization is no easy task and should not be hurried). Still, the general principle is that anything goes, although there are a few complications to be resolved, such as how to fit in orientations that have been discussed but not very often or very publicly, yet, various fetishisms, bestiality and intergenerational sex (a.k.a. pedophilia), but those are minor details, even if they require some time to be resolved and legalized. With enough determination and lobbying, we are bound to get to the end of it, wherever that may be on our trip down the slippery slope to our culture’s oblivion.
Some refuse to be confused by facts. Still, their perception of reality is even more unreal or surreal in relation to the issues involved than is the perception of someone who insists that all pretense of sexual duality is futile and undesirable, wherefore it needs to be abrogated because, he insists, the only correct interpretation of the gender issue is that there are infinitesimally fine gradations of gender fluidity. If there are to be absolutely standards for the assignment or categorization of genders, how many categories should there be? Why or how can the demand for all-inclusiveness possibly stop at seven genders, when there is a so much larger number of gender orientations yet to be embraced?
NY City now officially recognizes 31 genders (as of May, 2016) – How many more?
What is the frame of reference? Should that be a division of our perceptions, social standards as well as moral, ethical and legal standards according to chromosomal categories? Is there a case to be made for or against social, moral, ethical and legal categorization of individuals to fit the greater aspects of society at large? Should individual rights or the greater good of society be king? Should individuals submit to the greater good or should the greater good be the accidental, collective consequence of the rights of individuals? Who should conform, the individuals or society?
Chaos is the absence of order.
All of those considerations are complex and difficult enough if one considers just the chromosomal reality of nature.
Incidence Rates of Chromosome Aberrations (Not exhaustive — addresses just the most prevalent categories)
• Overall – 1:700 of live births; • Young Mothers – 1:2,000 of live births, and • Mothers over 40 – 1:50 of live births
? A few males were found in institutions for criminals with subnormal I.Q.
Intersex States (True Hermaphroditism)
? Extremely rare in humans (less then 500 reported cases in the whole world)
Pseudo Hermaphroditism — is not a chromosomal defect. It is due to endocrinal imbalances during gestation and is curable with varying degrees of success through treatment with hydrocortisone and other similar preparations.
Dr. Warne cites an incidence rate of 1:4,500 live births, while inter-sex advocates claim an incidence rate of 1:1,500 live births
Those considerations become far more complex when perceptions, desires and preferences are being brought into play. No right, entitlement or privilege that anyone demands can be enjoyed if all of the others who are to grant it won’t do that, if they will not assume the burden of the obligation to grant it. Must or should the vast majority of humanity be forced to accommodate the wants and desires of a very small minority or even the needs of a minuscule few?
Is it morally right to force the vast majority of society to assume the responsibility of providing for the comforts and self-esteem of members of minuscule minorities? It seems not. It appears that the discussion of gender rights must come to terms with the reality that, beyond tolerance of those who are by nature different, it is simply too much of a stretch to demand that the vastly larger majority of society or humanity caters to those who make a deliberate choice to want to be different.
It is not reasonable to let a few force the vast majority of society to dance to their tune. Common sense dictates that some of the few have a right to be tolerated, but that all of the few are obligated to submit to the vast majority, to the extent that no harm is done, so as to make it possible for the vast majority to grant tolerance, the right to be different. Why ask for more?
Why ask for more? What a question! Because it is all for the asking! The 98-percent majority is silent. It is silent because it has been and is being cowed into silence. It is politically incorrect to speak up. In a free society, free speech permits anyone to speak up about such issues. Unfortunately, going by the reality of censorship, of peer pressure, destroyed careers and destroyed lives, long, drawn-out court battles that leave bad tastes in the mouths of all involved and much money in the pocket or bank accounts of the lawyers and expert witnesses who get paid, regardless of which side loses, many people can no longer afford to speak up. They are not even allowed to joke about any of it anymore. Not even gallows humour is permitted in our so-called free society that is free no longer.
Therefore we must learn what we can, to acquire language skills, the rules for which appear to have been designed by sadists.
Gender under re-construction: Social justice warriors (SJWs) had been fighting for a long time to have co-ed classes for both sexes, but, once they had achieved to make them a reality, that was just a first step. They also demanded that the term sex, to identify biological differences between males and females of the human species, was not longer desired. They deemed that term to be sexist, discriminatory to the minuscule minorities of what not very long ago were five different genders (apparently to teach those a lesson who thought that there are only two sexes).
Then there were five, even seven genders
Robert H. Bork
“These attitudes are not merely the personal idiosyncrasies of these writers. At the Beijing conference, for instance, the word “family” was not to appear in the Platform. Instead, the word “household” was used. The significance of this is to be found in the feminist insistence upon use of the word “gender.” There being five genders, unions or marriages involving any gender or genders are legitimate. These unions can be called households. The traditional family is then presented as a household, just one form of living arrangement, not superior to any other. Indeed, since feminists view the family as a system of oppression, and since feminism contains a large lesbian component, the marriages of men and women are often seen as morally inferior to unions involving the other three genders.”
— Robert H. Bork, in Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline (1996)
In Chapter 11, The Politics of Sex: Radical Feminism’s Assault on American Culture
p. 205, last par.
The five genders referred to by Robert H. Bork were:
Homosexual male (commonly referred to as “gay” and understood to be male, comprising less than two percent of the male sector of humanity);
Homosexual female (commonly referred to as “lesbian” and understood to be female, comprising less than two percent of the female sector of humanity), and
Bisexual male/female (once upon a time commonly understood to comprise people who exhibit sexual characteristics of both sexes, people who are, in medical terms, chimeras, an extremely rare chromosomal aberration)
The Beijing Women’s Conference took place in 1995. That was sufficiently long-ago for Wikipedia to redact any mention of, and all references to it from its version of history (Wikipedia, once upon a time, did carry an article dedicated to that conference, while now it no longer mentions the conference). Some feminists, without a doubt, hope that soon all references and accounts of that conference will be gone for good — at least from the Internet — but for now not even Google has been able to obscure all links to articles on the topics, as an advanced search with Google, for “beijing women’s conference”, still produces a list of “about 313 results” (2018 03 06 9:18). So far so good.
Little did Robert H. Bork know, when he wrote Slouching Towards Gomorrah, that it would not be long before SJWs would clamor that not only would gender be more inclusive for the five genders they had argued for at the Beijing Women’s Conference, but that they would add two more, to make the list of genders more inclusive by adding two more, which required the subdividing of the male and female varieties of homosexuality into two more categories, each, thus:
See? That is not so bad. Allow for those additional categories, allow also for bisexuality (two in one makes one, but anyone with just a touch of smarts can already see the problem that bisexuality requires more than just one category), make room for the 98 percent of humans who prefer to be male and female, because that is what they are) and you have to allow only for seven genders. Any child can deal with that, right? Gender under re-construction is now well underway.
It is not quite so obvious, other than to a child that is naturally more objective and has not yet absorbed all of the prejudices and wisdom that people acquire by the time they become adults, that by establishing the rightful existence of more than just the two traditional genders, male and female, something else has happened. The normalizing of normal human sexuality down to the level of sexual aberrations that don’t fit the norm (conversely, by recognizing sexual aberrations and thereby equating them to the norm), that gave sexual aberrations that did not fit the norm of civilization for the last ten-thousand years validity equal to the norm that was the norm because 98 percent of more of humanity lived by that norm. Any child can see that, so they do, and so do most other people, wherefore social evolution now takes a new path.
Next to come: The unacceptable solution – Return to simplicity and
Single-sex Classes for Two Sexes
Once upon a time, single-gender classes were thought to be important. Once-upon a time they were the rule, when they were called boys-classes or -schools, and girls-classes or -schools, when things were still simple and there were thought (or claimed) to be only two sexes, but that changed.
All Male Advantage – Covington Catholic High School
Single-sex classes (as they were at times called) were out, and co-ed classes were in. Today, the issue of co-ed classes progressed to the point where the term sex, to identify biological differences, is no longer called sex but gender. There is a reason for that, but first let me mention that, on 2008 08 01, I had posted a blog commentary on single-gender classes that now can no longer be found at dads&things. Various links at fathersforlife.org still point to it, but the article vanished. Attempts to access the article produce 404 errors. That is the reason why I feel it to be necessary to put together another commentary on single-gender classes.
Does it need to be said? Single-gender classes for boys need to be taught by men.
Single-gender classes work, teachers and parents say
You may wish to skip this note.
» The Internet Archive contains evidence of a 2008 08 01 commentary at dads&things on single-sex classes, but some of those references state that the commentary cannot be found. Others state that the article is a 404 error page (at the address of the article that is no longer there, a 404 error page that I don’t recall setting up — my blog, unfortunately (but that is a different story) never had a 404 error page that I knew of, until I set one up, just a few days ago — while other evidence at the Internet Archive shows apparently corrupted portions of blog pages that I don’t recall having seen in the state that they are in, with corrupted portions of their headers and no other content. At any rate, whatever the article once contained is no longer where it is supposed to be. All traces of the commentary at the address it once contained are gone, and of the page there are only traces of incomprehensible remnants in the Internet Archive.
I strongly suspect that whatever the article had stated was sabotaged by someone through deleting it, and that the 404 error page had been put into its place, so as not to draw my attention to the fact that the article had been deleted. It is incomprehensible that there should have been such an error page, as I never saw it and most certainly did not delete it.
During the past few days I noticed that quite a few visitors try to access the article and cannot find it, because, although it once existed, it no longer does. The interest is there, for which reason it is a good idea – it seems to me – to put together another commentary on the issue, rather than to finish the re-writing of history that some hackers had attempted so imperfectly. Okay, back to single-gender classes. «
End of note
Single-gender classes or co-ed classes, the students attending them must work hard to acquire the language skills necessary to give them the fluency in Gender-Newspeak required to permit them to cope with the new gender-reality that is causing escalating inflation of the number of genders.
Gender is no longer a simple thing. Gender is gaining in complexity. More and more genders are being created as we speak (or as this is being read). Our students must prepare for the brave, new world of gender, as must adults, or they will face heavy fines and worse.
This is no longer a confrontation of Nature vs. Nurture. It is a full-fledged, massive program for social re-engineering that will – whether it is designed to do that or not is immaterial – create much confusion, a new source of of copious income for the legal community, much pain and much financial gain (one party’s gain is another’s pain). Weep and beware!
Parkinson’s Law (a.k.a. Parkinsons Law), and some of it variations and roles in the context of the gradual decline of the efficiency and effective operations of governments, were described by C. Northcote Parkinson (* 30 July 1909 – † 9 March 1993), when he presented his first law (and some others that are derived from or relate to it), “Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.” That was in a 1955 essay published in The Economist, an essay which is accessible online. Here is the beginning of it (click on the image for the rest):
Parkinson’s Law (the first law is highlighted, by me)
That essay is short, but – because it became very popular – C. Northcote Parkinson soon produced a book on the topic, “Parkinson’s Law, or The Pursuit of Progress (1957)”.
I have a paperback on hand that is, according to its foreword by C. Northcote Parkinson, a complete reprint of the original, without amendment. That is because, as C. Northcote Parkinson stated, “The validity of Parkinson’s Law has been proved again and again.”
— Parkinson: The Law, Complete (First American edition 1980).
The back cover of the book presents – from the author’s examination of what causes governments to creak and their efficiency to decline (into chaos, the book leads one to assume) – those of Parkinson’s laws that the author apparently held to be the most important ones of the laws that he had discovered:
“Work expands so as to fill available time.”
Law of Extravagance
“Expenditure rises to meet income—and tends to surpass it.”
Law of Triviality
“The time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved.”
Law of Delay
“Delay is the deadliest form of denial.”
Law of the Vacuum, or Hoover for President
“Action expands to fill the void created by human failure.”
The first of a few illustrations in the book that demonstrate the growth of bureaucracies (on page 8), in inverse relation to the declining need for them to be involved, is also shown in the article in The Economist:
Parkinson’s Law or The Rising Pyramid
Deliberate application of Parkinson’s Law of Triviality to social engineering
The law of triviality was applied to the promotion of the planned destruction of the family that began in earnest in the 1960s and continued ever since. The results were predictable, as far as to what were the respective fates of the important item and of the far less important one on the agenda for social engineering.
Because the far more important item on the agenda got little attention, funding and promotion, and the trivial, nevertheless harmful one got far more attention, funding and promotion – just because a few radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminists wanted it that way) – the fate of the traditional, nuclear family was sealed.
Funding disparities — A consequence of the Law of Triviality
In the US, the ratio of funding for dealing with the consequences of family disintegration vs. preventing that disintegration is 1000:1
“Fiscal conservatives should realize that federal and state governments spend $150 billion per year to subsidize and sustain single-parent families. By contrast, only $150 million is spent to strengthen marriage.
Thus, for every $1,000 spent to deal with the effects of family disintegration, only $1 is spent to prevent that disintegration.”
FB censorship in the guise of help no one asked for is still censorship. FB may claim it is not, but it is one of the worst sort. It is insidious. FB censorship and censorship by Google, so as to direct and control what information we should get access to and even what we are to think or be concerned about, is a reality that should be of great concern to lovers of freedom of expression and of freedom of choice. There are growing concerns about that.
Decades, about 80 years ago, prescient, those concerns were expressed in this:
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?”
― George Orwell, 1984
I am getting the strong impression that FB does not like me. On first glance, one wonders why, on second glance, it appears obvious why not.
FB does not like the truth. It likes only its own truth or, rather, what FB’s thinks its version of the truth ought to be.
FB’s self-appointed mission appears to be twofold: a. Protecting all others against the truth being told, and b. Re-educating the ones telling it.
The way FB goes about doing the protecting and the re-educating involves doing both on a massive scale. It essentially involves every FB client on the planet. It is no longer necessary to do it to individuals by giving each transgressor the undivided attention of the Party, but to have FB assume the role of the Party and treat all FB clients like Winston Smith was being treated in ‘1984’, not by torture, but through making it impossible for all FB clients on the Planet to do anything other but toe the Party line.
With FB, there is no need to give individuals the treatment or to send them to re-education camps, to have them make it their nature to toe the Party line or even to love FB for making them do so. FB conditions each and every one of its clients not to transgress by deviating from the desired path, by making it impossible to deviate. The process is automated. Refinements are constantly being incorporated into FB’s censorship algorithms. FB apparently uses contractors to do the work of designing and refining the censorship algorithms.
Case in point:
Yesterday (2018 03 01) I posted a few comments, with links to objective, reputable sources of information on US gun violence (e. g.: John Lott and Thomas Sowell), to a discussion thread of a FB group. It only took minutes for FB to do something – repeatedly and in a short time – it had rarely ever done to me. FB marked those comments as ‘Spam’. Which means that no one can see them, unless I choose to undo what FB did. I did undo it, but if I were to neglect to do so (that can easily happen), the comments would be gone, regardless of how much interest they would spark.
[Today, 2018 03 02, FB went so far as to mark as ‘Spam’ and to prevent from being displayed at her FB Status a comment I had sent to one of my granddaughters (mother of one of my great-grandsons), and FB did not even indicate to me they had done so – I found out by accident, marked the comment as ‘not spam’, got an acknowledgment, but nothing happened to make the comment visible once more. I re-created the comment once more and posted it again. The modified version of it has not yet been marked spam, but I don’t know whether my granddaughter has seen it or can. (She did write to me this morning – 2018 03 04 – and let me know that she had seen and read it; thank God, FB let her do it this time, but was that because of the goodness of their heart, because it was the right thing to do, or was it merely because their censorship algorithm could not catch it on account of whosover wrote it not comprehending the rules of English grammar so well….?]
After we came back from a visit to our doctor, yesterday, I checked my FB notifications and found that FB not only decides which of my comments in other groups are spam, but FB also decides that I am receiving too much information from other FB groups.
FB Censorship, by any other name, is still censorship.
How in the World can FB decide what is relevant to my interests or not? The claim that FB can is presumptuous but not irrational. It is virtually certain that it is a pretense, namely censorship in the guise of unsolicited help.
FB notification about notification clutter Is it immediately obvious that such a notification is important? You better believe it is!
Just as with comments that FB marked ‘Spam’, anyone receiving a notification about notification clutter from FB (and notice well that in the list of notifications it is not identified who the originator of that message is, unless you are in the habit of paying a lot of attention to icons in the last line of such notifications) better make certain to click on it, and specify that the changes FB made must be undone (although no one can be certain that they will actually be undone — good luck to anyone who thinks he can ascertain that FB will do what it should be doing and do it correctly, to boot).
If the recipient misses that notification and does not click on “Undo Changes,” no or few notifications from many of the groups he decided to receive notifications from will be received by him anymore. In essence, the FB member will lose much or most of the contact he had with a lot of other FB users. That is bad, especially given the fact that I never complained and have no reason to complain about notification clutter.
I receive only few notifications each day (2018 03 01 there were 75). In the unlikely event that I should ever experience any notification clutter and become sufficiently bothered by it, I will be quite capable to do what needs to be done about it, thank you very much, without feeling the need to have FB make decisions for me. After all, being almost 82, I am sufficiently old and smart enough to be able to make such decisions. I do not need FB to make them for me. Possibly hundreds of millions of people all over the world feel that way.
Not all is lost. The problem of FB censorship will in short order go away. I bet that right at this time there is a number of young, wild geniuses, adept at figuring out how it can be done, who are hard at work in their parents’ homes to come up with better ways of letting people get in touch. They will have all the more incentive to get that done, the more the censorship of the Internet intensifies. They are the people who are the leaders, movers and shakers of the Internet-samizdat. At least one of them, quite likely more, will come to outperform and outrank Mark Zuckerberg.
_________ Note — 2018 03 02: The preceding commentary did not start the war that FB is waging against me (and against hundreds of millions of FB users). The commentary is a reaction to the war that FB began a long time ago against it clients.
FB is not a democracy. It is a medium for information exchange that is being used in the same ways as any monopoly that cornered the market for the services or goods it offers behaves. The richer it grows, the more powerful it becomes, the more dictatorial it will be.
Henry Ford said of the Model T, “you can have it in any color you want, as long as it is black.” The problem is that we are not talking about the colors of cars. We are talking about the quality, accuracy and meaning of information exchanged that people use to communicate with and to influence one another. We are talking about FB deciding not that we can have no color other than black for our cars.
FB censorship is about FB deciding what we need to think, how to think and what not to think, FB deciding what we may and may not pass on to others, and in what form we may pass on to others even only those thoughts that FB permits us to exchange with others! That is very bad. That is a combination of censorship and indoctrination that surpasses by far anything that George Orwell imagined ‘the Party’ could do to anyone who failed to perform and toe the party line. FB does not only do all that, but it also involves changing large parts of history by making it impossible to communicate with anyone about them and not even to be able to point them out, describe or quote them!
FB is not merely autocratic, it is becoming more and more dictatorial and becoming outright tyrannical. No one has much influence over either the goal, the objectives or the methods that FB applies in bringing its social engineering efforts to fruition. That social-engineering effort is not merely an experiment for which a prototype is being constructed that experiments on the minds of a few dozen people. It is a full-fledged social re-engineering project of massive size and proportions that involves hundreds of millions of people, every single FB client in the world. No man, woman, individual, organization, no single entity, regardless of its shape, size or intentions must be permitted to have that sort of power to change the nature and destiny of mankind, let alone be allowed to do it without any supervision by anyone, without any controls whatsoever!
It is a horror of indoctrination and mind control that surpasses anything George Orwell could ever have imagined.
Still, as mentioned at the end of the commentary, good, healthy, vigorous competition will fix problems posed by dictatorships through competition (or through resistance). That does not take a lot of money in the form of seed capital, it takes dedication and the power of the masses. I am convinced that the issue of FB censorship will be forced out of the way by what the people want.
It will be interesting to see what will evolve to that end, and evolve it will. I just hope that I will be granted the time to watch it happen.
This blog is closed for comments (other than by me). That is not because we hate people who browse and read it, but because I am only one and have no one to help me, and my wife is not into moderating. That does not mean that none of anyone’s comments can be expressed (some will be posted here, with desired credits to the originators). As long as FB reigns-in its greed for the power to socially engineer society and to mold it into the shape it wants, permitting people to write to me, that is, as long as FB does not censor me, get in touch with Dads & Things @ FB. If FB should ban me, anyone can still get in touch with me through e-mail. Look up the contact details for that at the dads&things or at fathersforlife.org.
The ideological foundation of Second-wave Feminism
Second-wave Feminism is (as are most other forms of feminism) firmly rooted in communism and in the prevalence throughout history of socialism and its never-changing goal, Utopia, Paradise on Earth. Communism can be made impervious to all criticism, by giving it a name that makes it untouchable, say, Feminism. Communism and any other ideology become intrepid, as soon as they assume the label or even only the appearance of being an aspect of feminism.
“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.”
— Catharine A. MacKinnon,
in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, 1989
First Harvard University Press. Page 10.
“When I was in college it was the McCarthy era and that made me a Marxist.”
— Gloria Steinem in Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1983.
»Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender hatred, just as Marxism was the intellectual organization of class hatred. Feminism’s business is fashioning weapons to be used against men in society, education, politics, law and divorce court. The feminist aim is to overthrow “patriarchal tyranny.” In this undertaking, the male’s civil rights count for no more than those of the bourgeoisie in Soviet Russia or the Jews in National Socialist Germany.«
— What civil rights has wrought By Paul Craig Roberts, July 26, 2000 Townhall.com – Creators Syndicate
Any student of history who is only slightly familiar with the evolution of communism and the prevalence throughout history of socialism and its never-changing goal, Utopia, Paradise on Earth, will have no problem with recognizing Second-wave Feminism, the complaints and recommendations in The Feminine Mystique, and the resulting 1966 agenda of NOW for what they all are: manifestations of communism, mission statements and lists of objectives for the re-engineering of society and civilization.
Wherever and whenever such a massive remaking of the existing order was called for and implemented, it involved deconstructing the existing social system. From the resulting ruins and rubble of society, whatever was necessary was then to be salvaged and to be used for the construction of a better socialist regime.
»The radical feminists agreed with the Marxists that the goal was a classless society, but the feminist revolution would do away with sex classes, through “control of reproduction.” Really radical thinkers, like Peter Beckman and Francine D’Amico consider that the labels men and women create fictitious beings and perpetuate inequality.
Marxism should have died with the fall of the Berlin wall, but O’Leary found that it is still alive on some American campuses. Why? One professor answered this question by saying that atheists need something to believe in…..«
Socialism, communism, the deconstruction of the family and the reconstruction of society to achieve the construction of a great, socialist, (if possible) totalitarian regime
In contemplating how we got from communism to Second-wave Feminism (that was the sort that ‘The Feminine Mystique’ catered to and helped to launch), was it not necessary to have First-wave Feminism before we could proceed to Second-wave Feminism? I wondered what Wikipedia had to say about First-wave Feminism.
»First-wave feminism was a period of feminist activity and thought, that occurred within the time period of the 19th and early 20th century throughout the world.[where?] It focused on legal issues, primarily on gaining women’s suffrage (the right to vote).
There is of course much more about all of that, but it bothers me that Wikipedia does not address the ocean of feminism that existed since before the ancestors of Man came down from the trees and started to walk upright (for which reason they were given the name, though quite recently, ‘Homo Erectus’).
Take for instance,
The Liberator (Mar/Apr issue 2000)
Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson
Frank Zepezauer, resident philosopher
»Have you ever heard of the National Congress of Mothers? Until recently I didn’t know about them myself and I’ve spent a lot of time studying women’s organizations. It so happens that the NCM was actually the biggest women’s lobby in American history. Founded during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, it had 190,000 members by 1920 and over one million by 1930. The National Organization for Women, even in its heyday, could never claim such numbers….
Who created the housewife role?
What are these misperceptions? The first is that the women’s movement of the 19th Century was like its 20th Century counterpart, an effort to liberate women from the bondage of housewifery.
The facts show exactly the opposite. Women’s organizations throughout that century fought to liberate women not from the kitchen but from the workplace….« More
Well, there are many things wrong with what Wikipedia states about the history of feminism, mainly the allusion that feminism did not begin to make waves until “within the time period of the 19th and early 20th century throughout the world.”
You may not think that it is worth worrying about any of that, but many others and I do. Communism has been around for as long as civilization, and feminism for much longer than that. Communism affects all of us, and, since even the feminists insist that “communism and feminism are one,” (as the Russians can ascertain, because they had a very feminist boss who threatened not-quite-so but almost equally feminist JFK and all of the US for an intense period of time), it is debatable whether in the symbiosis of socialism and feminism, feminism is not far more deadly than communism. (In case you wonder what feminism did for Russia, Russian men live now on average about ten fewer years than their women do, largely and most definitely thanks to feminist Nikita Khrushchev).
Rudyard Kipling would have said so. He more or less forgot to include that aspect of the circumstances in his poem, ‘The Female of the Species’. So, when anyone contemplates the symbiosis of socialism and feminism, never forget, as Kipling warned in his poem,
»That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.«
For those who wonder, and I won’t steal my thunder in revealing that right now, the road traveled by modern communism (a variant of socialism) was traveled arm-in-arm with feminism, first,
• radical feminism (a.k.a. socialist- or Marxist-feminism, incorrectly called 1st-wave feminism; a.k.a. “communism in drag”), then
• radical feminism (a.k.a. socialist- or Marxist-feminism, incorrectly called 2nd-wave feminism; a.k.a. “communism in drag”), then
• radical feminism (a.k.a. socialist- or Marxist-feminism, incorrectly called many sort of feminism, but a.k.a. “communism in drag”).
There you are. It is all quite simple. The symbiosis of communism and feminism, by any other name, still is the same.
Betty Friedan was one of the founders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and a co-author of the original 1966 Agenda of NOW. Judging from some of the statements that the original Agenda of NOW contains, it may seem that what feminism was about in those days was nothing more than an attempt to get women a place in the sun. The 1966 Agenda of NOW stated:
“NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life.” [my emphasis —WHS]
It was further stated that:
“With a life span lengthened to nearly 75 years it is no longer either necessary or possible for women to devote the greater part of their lives to child-rearing; yet childbearing and rearing which continues to be a most important part of most women’s lives-still is used to justify barring women from equal professional and economic participation and advance.” and that,
“We do not accept the traditional assumption that a woman has to choose between marriage and motherhood, on the one hand, and serious participation in industry or the professions on the other.” and further,
“WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman’s world and responsibility–hers, to dominate–his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of “half-equity” between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes. [my emphasis —WHS]
That does not sound so bad at first glance, but that was just the bait for the hook. The switch followed. Regardless of what it sounds like, it is but one way by which to attempt to entice women, the majority of whom are found in poll after poll to prefer to be stay-at-home, married moms, to enter the work force. Why would anyone promote an idea that most women don’t like? The answer to that question may be found in the fact that the goal to bring women into the work force is an ancient goal of communism and that, as Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz states in his new book “Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique,” Betty Friedan was well into her thirties a devout and active functionary of the Communist Party of the U.S.A..
This overview of Betty Friedan’s life and circumstances contains more: comments by her ex-husband, his observations and experiences that describe an extremely violent woman whose rages were often totally out of control, details of her life steeped in the promotion of Marxist ideology, and much more.
Marxist family policies and aims
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels stated in the Communist Manifesto:
The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but an instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited cooperatively and naturally can’t think of anything else but that the lot of cooperatives will also affect the women as well….
The communists have been accused, furthermore, that they want to abolish the fatherland, the national identity. The workers don’t have a fatherland. It isn’t possible to rob them of what they don’t have. Because the proletariat must first of all conquer political rule, elevate itself to a national class (45), constitute itself as a nation, it will itself be national, even though by no means in the meaning of the bourgeoisie.
Nobody should have any illusions that the feminists consider any of the ideas presented in the Communist Manifesto to be outdated and archaic. The feminists use it as their bible. Erin Pizzey tells, when she speaks of her experiences with the radical feminists that usurped the women’s shelter movement, that a commonly-stocked book on their book shelves was Mao’s Little Red Book, and that Mao’s face was ever-present on posters in their living rooms. Mao most definitely based his ideas on the Communist Manifesto.
Do Betty Friedan’s and NOW’s objectives differ from, say, Mao tse tung’s? This is what Mao had to say about the structure of society with respect to the family:
“A man in China is usually subjected to the domination of three systems of authority [political authority, clan authority and religious authority]…. As for women, in addition to being dominated by these three systems of authority, they are also dominated by the men (the authority of the husband). These four authorities – political, clan, religious and masculine – are the embodiment of the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology and system, and are the four thick ropes binding the Chinese people, particularly the peasants. How the peasants have overthrown the political authority of the landlords in the countryside has been described above. The political authority of the landlords is the backbone of all the other systems of authority. With that overturned, the clan authority, the religious authority and the authority of the husband all begin to totter…. As to the authority of the husband, this has always been weaker among the poor peasants because, out of economic necessity, their womenfolk have to do more manual labour than the women of the richer classes and therefore have more say and greater power of decision in family matters. With the increasing bankruptcy of the rural economy in recent years, the basis for men’s domination over women has already been undermined. With the rise of the peasant movement, the women in many places have now begun to organize rural women’s associations; the opportunity has come for them to lift up their heads, and the authority of the husband is getting shakier every day. In a word, the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology and system is tottering with the growth of the peasants’ power.”
— Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan
(March 1927), Selected Works, Vol. I, pp. 44-46. The Little Red Book, Chapter 31. WOMEN, Full text [It’s only a little more than one page.]
Just in case you should be wondering what the aim of all of this was, it is no more than what Marx and Engels wanted, and what today’s feminists clamor for: the liberation of women from the drudgery of housework and from the raising of children. But why would anybody be intent on launching social revolutions over that and to turn all of society on its head? Well, the answer is in the rest of Chapter 31 of The Little Red Book. Here are just two more quotes from that chapter.
“[In agricultural production] our fundamental task is to adjust the use of labour power in an organized way and to encourage women to do farm work.”
Our Economic Policy (January 23, 1934), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 142.
“With the completion of agricultural coöperation, many co-operatives are finding themselves short of labour. It has become necessary to arouse the great mass of women who did not work in the fields before to take their place on the labour front….China’s women are a vast reserve of labour power. This reserve should be tapped in the struggle to build a great socialist country.”
Introductory note to Solving the Labour Shortage by
Arousing the Women to Join in Production (1955),
The Socialist Upsurge in China’s Countryside, Chinese ed., Vol. II.
Fall-out from the symbiosis of communism and feminism
The creation of the U.S.S.R. brought about the abolition of marriage, with a vengeance. That was exactly what Marx and Engels had called for, and the Bolsheviks followed that prescription to the letter. Anyone who wished to become ‘unmarried’ merely had to go to the local magistrate, declare his intention, pay five kopecks (in purchasing power roughly the equivalent of a nickel at the time), and walk out with a divorce certificate.
It soon became obvious that neither Marx and Engels nor the Bolsheviks had understood the importance of marriage, and that marriages are essential for making any society function well. The hasty abolition of marriage turned into a social catastrophe of massive proportions.
Free love, as the early communists called it, is today called sexual freedom, but it it is not a good foundation for a well-functioning society. (See The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926)
Soviet propaganda from WWII — ex. (above) 1942 “Everything for the Victory: Women of the USSR for the Front” vs. (left) 1942
In the long run, the USSR (and its affiliated nations) never recuperated from the escalating social chaos that it had caused for itself by its early family-hostile policies. For instance, the population of the Russian Federation is currently about 145 million and is estimated to have shrunk in 2050 by about 50 million. Incredibly, though, the Russian divorce laws were imported, verbatim, to the USA in the mid-1940s and became, through the efforts of feminist law societies, part of family-hostile legislation and law in the USA, from where they were then exported to all nations in the so-called “free” West. (See this history of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws.)
Frauen Warte (‘Warte’, as plural of ‘Wart’, can mean a number of things in the context: care takers, protectors, lookouts, etc. It can also be the singular and the plural of a high place or high places of refuge, from where lookout, etc.)
Throughout history, the place of women in society changed much to fit political expediency and the role of men in relation to women, but it took an extremist form of socialism to separate women from their role as mothers within families, and with men as protectors and providers within those very same family families.
Second-wave Feminism managed to set that goal and make the efforts to bring that about without coercion by the state in the free West a reality. Who needs coercion by the state when women want what no state ever could bring about. In 1917, that became the new reality for women in USSR and it satellites. In 1966, Marxist feminists set the stage in the free rest of the World to make it happen there, too. They called it Second-wave Feminism, and it did not take a communist conquest to make it happen, it took radical feminism under another name. That is power of persuasion!
It should by now be abundantly obvious that the feminist social engineering since Second-wave Feminism came on the scene in the mid-1960s resulted in the systematic and endemic marginalization of fathers and families produced much harm and considerable social decay, not much different from what had happened in the few years after the Bolshevik revolution took place. The program for the re-engineering of society took longer, because of the trappings of democracy, but it happened just as irresistibly, and it was a Marxist revolution just the same.
It’s official: The experiment has failed
For the best part of thirty years we have been conducting a vast experiment with the family, and now the results are in : the decline of the two-parent, married-couple family has resulted in poverty, ill-health, educational failure, unhappiness, anti-social behaviour, isolation and social exclusion for thousands of women, men and children.
The earliest experiment in modern history to abolish the two-parent. married-couple family in the USSR was a massive failure. That was never a secret. We knew about it early on and should have learned from it; the USSR did and tried corrective actions but never succeeded with alleviating the terrible consequences of those early anti-family policies.
We refused to learn from the experiences of the USSR with the experiment to abolish marriage, because the failure of the USSR did not end the symbiosis of communism and feminism in the rest of the world.
“If at first you don’t succeed, try, and try again,” but when such exercises in futility fail to bring the desired results, they are frequently described with this definition of insanity (often wrongly attributed to Einstein): “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,” except, that does not describe insanity, it describes the futility of repeating a course of action that does not, cannot and will not produce the desired results.
The most effective course of action for alleviating a problem and its harmful consequences is to eradicate the cause of the problem. The cause of the failures of the experiments with the family is the symbiosis of two ideologies (communism and feminism) that proved themselves to be, time and again, dismal failures. The worst of that is, time and again we allowed those two ideologies to gain control over social evolution. We must put an end to doing what does not, cannot, and will not work out well.
Walter H. Schneider, 2018 02 26
The observations in this just scratched the surface. For a far more informative, exhaustive analysis of the issues of concern, well referenced and linked to sources, refer to the following:
In the last half century, feminist thought has become the received wisdom. Whereas the original feminists saw themselves as radicals and freethinkers, today their views have reached a level of such universal assent that feminism can be regarded as a new orthodoxy and contemporary dogma.
Whereas social theorists, public intellectuals and assorted professional damned fools routinely subject other ideologies, philosophies and political movements to sustained analytical critique, male thinkers generally let feminists off with little more than a patronising and approving pat on the head – thus ironically demonstrating precisely the kind of patronising chivalry that feminists, when they are not benefiting from it, usually purport to oppose!
Neither has there been any significant popular opposition by ordinary men (marches, demonstrations etc.). Instead, as Esther Vilar observed in ‘The Manipulated Man’ [which I have reviewed here]:
“From The New York Times to the Christian Science Monitor, from Playboy to Newsweek, from Kissinger to McGovern, everyone was for Women’s Liberation. No marches of men were organized against them; a senator McCarthy oppressing Women’s Liberation was missing, the FBI did not lift a finger against them.”
The battle of the sexes thus became, as Ronald K Henry characterised it, “a war in which only one side showed up”.
Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blogs are being slandered and censored.
Whether you are a fathers-rights activist, a pro-family activist or a skeptic of environmental alarmism, it is quite likely that your website or blog is being slandered and censored, too. It is being done on the sly. No one will tell you about it. If it happened, you will have been found guilty and were sentenced in the Star-Chamber court of a multinational corporation (by an obscure clerk, in an obscure office), and it is not likely that you will be able to appeal.
Check the rating of your website or blog.
I had asked O2 to review and explain their website rating policy in regard to Fathers for Life. They did not respond.