Refutation of Feminism and All Feminist Assumptions

Jan Deichmohle wrote:

Hi Walter, these are short English and German descriptions of the book for your blog:

Refutation of Feminism and All Feminist Assumptions

Since the 1980s Jan Deichmohle has been writing books to refute feminism. The topic was rejected by all mainstream publishers, often-enough bashed and ridiculed. Now his basic findings have been published: “Culture & Sex. Feminism: Big Mistake – Severe Consequences” as the first book of a series “The Two Sexes”.

The book is available now in German language. It needs support and readers, so that it won’t be pushed off the table again. It needs interest, so that it will be translated to English and made available in English.

Widerlegung des Feminismus und aller feministischer Annahmen

Seit den 1980ern schrieb Jan Deichmohle Bücher, den Feminismus zu widerlegen. Das Thema wurde von allen seriösen Verlagen abgelehnt, oft genug verspottet oder beschimpft. Jetzt sind wesentliche Ergebnisse veröffentlicht worden: “Kultur und Geschlecht. Feminismus: großer Irrtum – schwere Folgen.” als erstes Buch einer Reihe “Die beiden Geschlechter”.

Das Buch ist jetzt auf Deutsch erhältlich. Es benötigt Unterstützung und Leser, damit es nicht wieder vom Tisch gefegt wird. Es braucht Beachtung, damit es ins Englische übersetzt und in englischer Fassung verfügbar wird.

Translated text from the listing at

Culture and Gender: Feminism: Big mistake – serious consequences
Paperback – Dec. 1, 2014, by Jan Deichmohle

“[It] can be shown that women were never suppressed but, to the contrary, were dominant in key areas and shaped the traditional forms [of gender discrimination] or created them by selection, namely that women were to be treated preferentially and men more burdened with duties … Feminism exacerbated the imbalance.”

The target of the author, Jan Deichmohle, is to exercise factually and scientifically well-founded criticism of feminism.


Posted in Books & Films, Feminism | Leave a comment

Detroit bankruptcy: Gangs, drug dealers, decline of the economy

Yesterday I came across an interesting YouTube video by Al Profit: Detroit bankruptcy documentary on Crime: Gangs, drug dealers, decline of the economy (1hr 22min).  It describes a vicious circle, but two things struck me about the documentary. One is that its title does not necessarily describe the correct sequence of actions and consequences: gangs, drug dealers, decline of the economy. The other one is that it does not mention at all an obvious, major contributing reason for the decline and decay of Detroit.

One of the figures of the YBI (Young Boys Inc.) interviewed in the documentary comes close to identifying the key problem: “They used to say that “it takes a village to raise a child,” but [after the YBI took it down] there is no village left to do anything.”

That statement expresses wrongfully perceived self-importance. The members of YBI contributed to Detroit’s decline, but they were merely parasitical, criminal opportunists that took advantage of circumstances brought about long before any of them were born.

The key issue is that when there are insufficient numbers of or no families left in a community at any level of the social structure, there can be no functioning ‘village.’ Intact, sovereign families form a bulwark against totalitarianism or neglect by the State and against social chaos.

The “family” in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.

It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities—such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations—grow.
Allan Carlson, in “What’s Wrong With the United Nations Definition of ‘Family’?” in ‘The Family in America’ (August 1994), p. 3

Certainly, real fathers put the welfare of others — their families, community and nation — before their own. However, they cannot exercise their role if they are not part of their families and if they don’t receive the respect they deserve for the sacrifices they make.   For that we need: Fathers in families, not families without fathers.

Posted in Books & Films, Corruption, Economy, Family, History, Men's Issues, The New World Order | Comments Off

Slavery is a racial issue?

It is a bit hard to figure out why some of today’s Blacks in the U.S. feel they are entitled to special privileges and entitlements, including that non-Blacks atone for that a few non-Blacks were slave owners.  Here is a good example, a Black woman with an attitude that is expressed with a whole slew of logical fallacies, of which most prominent are ad-hominems and arguments from ignorance (e. g.: she has a grandmother who is 104 and was a slave):

Watch this lady demand free drinks because her ancestors were slaves…wow

For those who would argue that America does not have an entitlement problem: Lo and behold…. link to YouTube video.

It is a bit of an insult to all of the women who truly are ladies to call this woman a lady.  Nevertheless, it is a bit hard to figure out the reasoning that drives the complaints by the woman and by anyone like her.  Even if her grandmother was once a slave, which is hardly possible, given that the Civil War was fought from 1861 to 1865, why would that entitle the woman to be exempt from having to pay for a drink of water in a convenience store, while all other customers have to pay for it?

Why would having had ancestors who were slaves give any Black in the U.S. any special privileges and the right to demand that Whites atone?  Is it not enough that more than 600,000 American men died fighting for the freedom of Black slaves, at about the same time that Slavery was being abolished in many other parts of the world?

Aside from that, most free men and women that had come to the U.S. either came out of slavery themselves or had ancestors who also had been slaves.  Slavery was wide-spread in Europe and in many parts in the world.  Why is it that only Black slaves or the ancestors of Blacks who were slaves are mentioned, but never that slavery had been endemic throughout the world for many generations, going back for centuries and even millennia, going back to as far as and even before the days of the ancient Roman Empire?

Punishment with a knout. Blacks are not the only ones who can claim to have ancestors that were slaves.

Punishment with a knout.
Blacks are not the only ones who can claim to have ancestors that were slaves.

Slavery as part of the human condition for everyone, not just for Blacks, needs to be examined objectively.  More: Serfdom

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Totalitarianism is as totalitarianism does.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. — George Santayana

Outrage Over Obama Sing-Along
Elementary school students taught to sing praises of President Obama.
More: Fox News Item

I was born in Germany, in 1936, and began school during the Hitler regime. I do remember having to sing, first thing in the morning in school, the national anthem, “Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles, ueber alles in der Welt….” (“Germany, Germany above everything, above everything in the world….“), upon which followed the Horst Wessel song, “Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest gechlossen!….” (“The flag on high! The ranks tightly closed!….” )

Walt Disney captured the spirit of it all quite well,

Education For Death – The Making Of The Nazi (1943) Walt Disney
WWII 1943 Walt Disney animated short about Hitler Youth. Features book burning, anti-Catholic persecution, Nazi indoctrination, etc. Disney produced this und…

but what difference does it make whether the savior to be revered is Hitler and his party or Barack Hussein Obama and his?

Totalitarianism is as totalitarianism does.

Posted in Books & Films, Education, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Comments Off

The education disruption

Today’s students are faced with rising tuition fees and substantial debts by the time they graduate, while the prospects of them finding a job that will permit them to pay off those debts after they graduate are diminishing.

The Futurist analyses that dilemma in a blog posting,

The Education Disruption : 2015

I was not going to write an article, except that this disruption is so imminent that if I wait any longer, this article would no longer be a prediction.  Long-time readers may recall how I have often said that the more overdue a disruption is, the more sudden it is when it finally occurs, and the more off-guard the incumbents are caught.  We are about to see a disruption in one of the most anti-productivity, self-important, and corrupt industries of them all, and not a moment too soon.  High-quality education is about to become more accessible to more people than ever before.


A month prior to that the NY Times discussed the very issue in this article:

Come the Revolution

Palo Alto, Calif.

Andrew Ng is an associate professor of computer science at Stanford, and he has a rather charming way of explaining how the new interactive online education company that he cofounded, Coursera, hopes to revolutionize higher education by allowing students from all over the world to not only hear his lectures, but to do homework assignments, be graded, receive a certificate for completing the course and use that to get a better job or gain admission to a better school….


Re: “Come the Revolution”
From that article: “In each course, students post questions in an online forum for all to see and then vote questions and answers up and down. “So the most helpful questions bubble to the top and the bad ones get voted down,”
Ng said. “With 100,000 students, you can log every single question. It is a huge data mine.”

To “vote questions and answers up and down” is a prescription for the evolution of science along party lines, in accordance with political correctness. It will stifle the scientific method: observation –> hypothesis –> theory –> falsification. True science is not done by consensus.


Posted in Education, The New World Order | Comments Off

Another Green Crash Landing: Norway Buries CCS Project

Another Green Crash Landing: Norway Buries CCS Project

  • Date: 23/09/13
  • Walter Russell Mead, Via Meadia

Norway buries CCS project – “one of the ugliest political crash landings we have ever seen.”


It was hailed at the time as Norway’s “moon landing,” but Oslo’s outgoing government announced its plan to scrap a carbon capture and storage (CCS) facility. Reuters reports:

Via Meadia, 22 September 2013

Posted in Climate & Weather, Propaganda Exposed, Social-Destruction Enterprise, The New World Order | Comments Off

Burning the environment to save it

What a weird and wondrous story a detailed investigation of the conversion of the Drax power station to bio-mass fueling (mostly wood chips) would make.  Who is behind that one and who profits the most, the owners, the accountants, the politicians or perhaps the media?

Even Wikipedia must be considered to be part of the media. It cannot be trusted to tell the truth on environmental issues.  It does not even mention that Drax is now being partially powered by wood chips imported from places such as the US and produced by mining vast tracts of land for trees (although Wikipedia’s main article on the Drax power station covers that). Even if the fears that man-made CO2 plays a controlling part in the alleged but undetectable man-made global warming were correct, how does anyone in their right mind rationalize that that particular scheme will reduce global warming, save any money, and reduce CO2 emissions or even environmental pollution?

The net effect will of course be nothing other than that coal mining in Britain will be replaced with clear-cutting in the US, Europe and Africa; that local jobs will be lost; taxes, energy cost and pollution will increase, and that more people in Britain will shiver in winter on account of not being able to afford to heat their homes.

Drax Power Station

The former Central Electricity Generating Board commissioned Drax power station in two phases in 1974 and 1986. It is the largest power station in the United Kingdom, producing around 8% of Britain’s electricity, and is the second-largest coal-fired plant in Europe. It has a potential consumption of 36,000 tonnes of coal a day and produces 1.5 million tonnes of ash a year. It is both the United Kingdom’s largest producer of carbon emissions, and one of the UK’s most carbon dioxide-efficient power stations.,_North_Yorkshire#Drax_Power_Station

See also:

“Depending on Government subsidies, Drax eventually plans to convert the coal-fired plant into one mainly fired by biomass….”

The total costs for the scheme are creeping ever closer to £1 billion.

It’s a scam driven by green insanity.  However, the powers have a long way to go before they run out of red herrings with which to divert people’s attention from what really matters.

Posted in Climate & Weather, Economy | Comments Off

Are we seeing the death of global-warming alarmism?

The IPPC’s newest Climate assessment report (AR5) is due to be released this month.  Searching the Internet for that will produce some article even in the main-stream media.

It is obvious that the IPPC has not been able to find evidence of continuing global warming trends.  The warming trend that the IPPC and its camp followers have been tauting for all these years came to a halt close to 17 years ago and appears unlikely to resume any time soon, while the alleged culprit, atmospheric CO2, has been steadily on the rise.  It is at best difficult to avoid the conclusion that CO2 has been exonerated, but the IPPC maintains its insistence that global warming is (or will be) happening.

The principle of the climate change alarmism needs to be put into the proper perspective.   It needs to be considered along with the hoax of limited resources.

As to running out of resources, there are no limits to resources. The development of resources is only limited by human ingenuity. We have not yet run out of any resources, ever. We never will.

Energy is the life-blood of nations. What better way to raise tax revenues for governments than to drive up the cost of energy for end-consumers? Although there is some competition between sources of fuel that keeps energy costs somewhat in check, royalties and various other taxes comprise the vast majority of the price of energy to end consumers, at absolutely no penalties in terms of capital investment for governments. Add to that taxes on taxes, such as cap and trade, carbon taxes and value-added taxes.

The higher the costs of energy-generation, -transmission and -distribution, the more tax revenues can be garnered, without any legislative debates. The scheme is a bureaucrat’s dream come true. Anything that can be done to make energy more expensive, such as hare-brained schemes for generating energy from renewable resources makes the scheme more attractive and far more lucrative. After all, it is not possible to generate energy from wind, the sun or bio-mass at a lower cost than from conventional sources, such as coal, natural gas, nuclear plants and hydro dams.

Energy from renewable resources is as a rule two to three times more expense than from conventional sources, period! It cannot be made competitive. It cannot be made attractive to investors without paying enormous subsidies, which subsidies drive up the cost of energy to end consumers.

The consequences of all of that ripple through the economy. Energy costs drive up costs of raw materials as well as those of manufactured goods, which in turn drives jobs and whole industries off-shore, causing unemployment in industrial nations.

The rest is history. All it took to get uninformed voters and politicians to buy into the scam was to convince them that the globe needed saving. That is what people like Maurice Strong and cohort promptly set out to do. The industrial nations eagerly cooperated. That is a war that is a long way from coming to an end. It is a war against the common people, especially against the poorest of the poor.

Posted in Climate & Weather | 1 Comment

Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Feminism

This may be a bit more than you wish to read, but have a look. Maybe the first three paragraphs tell you everything about fascism you need to know.  However, if you wish to read more about the conection between fascism, communism and feminism, you need to read more than just those first paragraphs.  Take a a look:

Eric Hoffer is mentioned in that page, and it is a good thing to see what Eric Hoffer had to say about fascism, especially about the evolution of fascism in the U.S.

Just to make sure that you don’t overlook the context in which Eric Hoffer is mentioned, here it is, as is the quote from Eric Hoffer (at the end of the quoted text):

Even though their methods reek of a communist conspiracy, most, if not all, feminists object strongly to any accusations of being communists.  Does a leopard change its spots?  He would still be a leopard even if he could.  Are communist ideologies no longer communist just because they are now encompassed under the all-embracing term feminism? [1]
Many people said that “The end justifies the means.”  If the means used by feminism are the same as those that communism, fascism, or any other extremism use to achieve their ends, and if the ends that will be achieved are the same, the domination of society — and indeed the domination of the world — and the planned destruction of our families and moral traditions by a group of like-minded extremists, how can anyone then claim that feminism is any more benevolent to society than any of its related ideologies are? [2]

Prof. Daniel Amneus, devoted his book “The Garbage Generation” to the description of the consequences of feminist extremism and how little there is about the outcomes of communism and feminism that can be used to tell them apart.  On page 64 to 66 he says:

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, by Daniel Amneus, pp. 64-66

—end quote; more at

The web page that contains that text also contains a link to an article titled “Matriarchy in the USSR“.  Check that out.  It is not very long but is essential reading.

The key statement in the article is the last one:

“When at our days representatives of so named women’s movement debate about unequal position of women in ex-USSR, it would be useful to recall the real position, which was got to contemporary society from the times of USSR. Mature soviet society was a society of developed matriarchy, and motion to mature matriarchy was a content of soviet history since 1917.”

That appears to explains it all, perhaps even that the beginning of modern social evolution with respect to matriarchy is firmly rooted in the Bolshevik revolution. The article is quite clear on that the roots of the Bolshevik revolution go back to the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” by Marx and Engels (1848/49)

The question now is: how did the Soviet matriarchy spread from there and then to every part of the “free” world?

I like the addendum to the article:

“It would be strange and new for some people that we consider modern society and analyse it. Scientists are accustomed to search matriarchy somewhere at far away islands or in Africa. We know it but we can only be surprised at their waiting for future to study our societies as a past in their academic manner.

Possibly matriarchal modern society is Israel. Its laws openly assert matrilineality and there is no need to prove and analyse anything (see article “Who is a Jew?” in Wikipedia).”

Posted in Feminism, Men's Issues, The New World Order | Comments Off

Death or life? You decide.

They told you abortion is healthcare? Does healthcare usually kill people?

captured at

Abortion is being promoted for a number of reasons. The rationalization used to justify it is that is is being done “in the best interest of the children” (every child born is a wanted child) and to “promote equal rights for women” (so as to liberate women from the biological constraint of being the bearers of new life).

In a different place and under another totalitarian regime, deadly human engineering, not quite as massive or as massively deadly, was being promoted not all that long ago thus:

“[The State] must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure. It must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must see to it that only the healthy beget children….”
— Hitler, in ‘Mein Kampf’

To put that into perspective, world-wide, the annual death toll due to abortions is now vastly greater than the combined career totals in human lives of Stalin and Hitler, which makes population control in the name of feminism and to save the environment an ideology that is far more deadly than any of those that humanity ever had to cope with.

Throughout the history of ten-thousand years of civilization, a mother’s womb used to be the safest place for human life, but that has now been changed.

The killing of children about to be born, right in the wombs of their mothers, became acceptable, even desirable and most definitely deliberate, at the rate of 50 million or more annually, world-wide. It should not surprise us that human life at any other stage becomes at least equally — if not more — disposable.

After legalizing the killing of children about to be born on an industrial scale, anything can and will become acceptable. Suicide will be legalized and is already legal in many nations. Assisting someone to kill himself will be made acceptable and already is legal in some nations.

From voluntary euthanasia through assisted suicide we will progress to widespread, compulsory euthanasia, with selection criteria being anything imaginable. Selection criteria already used are: color, race, age, productivity, ideology, sex, wealth, physical appearance, intellect…there is no limit.

There will be no death squads or concentration camps. Euthanasia is being enacted through the rationing of health care services, not so much through deliberate budget cuts as it is being done through the limiting of financial resources of whole nations, through the limiting of their economic and industrial development, through nothing more than simply making energy unaffordable for increasingly larger numbers of people — with the poorest being the ones affected most severely.

People who must choose between eating and using energy to improve the quality of their lives will not have any financial resources left to fund social safety nets and will not even complain when those don’t come into existence or fall into disrepair and collapse. They will be too busy with finding something to eat.

A nation that kills children about to be born has lost the will to live and will surely die. It will shy away from nothing that will accelerate its own demise and that of other nations, to make life ostensibly more pleasant for those permitted to live, to permit and to force them to scavenge. The fewer survivors, the more there is for each to scavenge. That is the inevitable outcome in a civilization obsessed by the doctrine of limited resources and the culture of death.

However, resources are not limited, because there is no limit to human ingenuity.

A miserable death or a comfortable life? The choice is ours.

Posted in Abortion, Propaganda Exposed, Social-Destruction Enterprise, The New World Order | Comments Off
%d bloggers like this: