Turkish feminist objects to Erin Pizzey’s assessment of feminism

March 30, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Cilek.Unsal@international.gc.ca wrote:

Dear Friends at Fathers For Life,

I came across your website when I read an Erin Pizzey [See Erin Pizzey’s CV - F4L] article from a few years ago. I was surfing the net, trying to understand why my homemaker 68 year-old mother-in-law hated feminists.

It takes all kinds obviously, but here I am, a (Turkish) diplomat’s daughter at 37 trying to make sense of the way women are treated around me… And then I meet people who are annoyed by feminism?!

In our villages women are still exchanged like animals, have no say and cannot leave their husbands when they are being systematically beaten.
In the cities, couples who put in the same hours at work and in traffic come home where it’s considered normal for the woman to continue working in the kitchen and with the children while the man relaxes his day off.

All extremists are problematic.
But to take a necessary, basic humanist movement and to turn it into the devil is beyond me.
Would Ms. Pizzey even be ‘allowed’ to speak her mind had not feminists of History fought for Her rights?
Would any of the female technicians, writers, lawyers, administrative officers at Fathers For Life even be able to create such a website had they not been freed to speak their minds, spend hours to formulate their work and continue it over time?
What happens when hubby is not understanding of this? Does she quit and leave herself or respect her own needs and leave him and be accused of ruining the sanctity of marriage?

Thank you.
Cilek

Hello Cilek,

Even in Turkey, women live on average a little over five years longer than men do on average. In fact, that gender gap in Turkey is close to the average for the greater life expectancies of women in the whole world, yet women are being seen by people like you as victims of men’s oppression. If all men oppress women, how does it come about that the oppressed live longer than their oppressors? If women were truly oppressed by men, their life expectancies would be shorter than that of men. There is no controlling biological reason for that gap between the average life expectancies of the sexes. The gap is a cultural artifact, evidence that men are being treated shabbily and that women are being treated more kindly than men are being treated.

Women own 70 percent of all corporate equity.

Men pay 70 percent of all taxes, social insurance and pension contributions, yet women receive 70 percent of all benefits from social insurance and pension plans, and a vastly greater amount of funding from tax revenues for women’s rights organizations (more than $400 million annually in Canada while men’s rights organizations receive exactly nothing).

Even though women have much greater life expectancies than men do, in many nations women become about ten years sooner eligible than men do to receive old age benefits.

Men comprise 18 to 19 out of all job fatality victims, not counting military service - which latter is compulsory only for men. Far greater numbers of men die in compulsory military service on account of the violence they encounter there than do minuscule numbers of women who die on account of violence in voluntary marriages.** Not even in many of the service and protection occupations into which women made inroads during the past few decades do women die or get hurt in numbers that come close to those for their male counter parts.***

* See US job fatalities for all occupations
** See Annual Fatalities by Sex
*** See US Job fatalities for selected occupations: Police, protective services, guards, firefighting

You provide no evidence at all for your claim that there is wage discrimination against women, although we would love to hear from you how things are in that respect in Turkey. However, I can give you much information that proves that in many localities no such wage discrimination has existed for decades, provided objective comparisons are being made, and when equal numbers of hours worked, women’s job choices, equal tenure and equal levels of education are taken into account. (See Pay equity for women doesn’t exist?)

If women do get traded like cattle in your villages, do something about it, but I bet that even in your villages you will find in the order of two elderly women for every elderly man who survived the much larger risks facing men throughout their lives on account of the attitudes of people like you who look at things through the female-friendly gender lens and who are totally blind to all of the contributions made and the most-often far greater suffering experienced by men. (See Grandma’s Apron, and what Grandpa had to do with it)

Give me objective facts, not your unsubstantiated, propagandistic opinions, and give equitable credit to whom equitable credit is due.

I submit that your 68-year-old mother-in-law has a much more realistic opinion of women’s plight than the indoctrination you have been subjected to allows you to have. However, that your views of feminism and its role in bringing about severe discrimination against men and families will have changed substantially by the time you reach the present age of your mother-in-law will neither surprise you nor anyone else. Mine did during the 33 years that passed since I was 37 years of age. After all, anyone who is not a conservative by the time he is in his mid-forties is a liberal who never smartened up.

About your sentiments regarding freedom of speech, why does it bother you that, after many decades during which the feminists slandered and vilified all men, fathers, mothers and families without encountering much opposition, men and their supporters now dare to exercise that right and to speak up? Yes, you are correct in stating that all extremists are problematic, but the most severe problems of all caused by extremists are, because they are so all-pervasive, those caused by feminist extremists. Intolerance of the objective truth and of straight-forward honesty is one of those feminist problems.

Regards,

Walter
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Health, Censorship, Men's Issues, Family, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

International Symbol of Marriage Approved

March 26, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Thanks to Rich Doyle, author of Save the Males: It’s about time:

That reminds me of a joke that was quite popular when I was much younger, in about the early 1950s.

A few fellows were having a beer before going home on their payday.  They all swapped stories of how little money each would be left with after they delivered their pay-envelopes to their respective wives (in those days there was no such thing as paycheques, guys received cash on Fridays).

One story topped all the others that had been told.  The poor guy said: “I don’t know what you all are whining about.  When I come home to deliver my pay, I have to walk on my hands into the house, so that even any change falls out of my pockets.”

And that was before feminism was being discussed in polite circles.

Posted in Men's Issues, Family, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

Letting feminist and pro-family women slug it out

March 25, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Bill (not his real name), a Canadian fathers’ rights activist, wrote in response to a report on a small but important chapter of the history of the Canadian fathers’ rights movement:

I am shocked. I knew none of this. But now it’s all coming together. No wonder we don’t get anywhere… I suspect the Fathers Activists currently “in the field” will have to move past this and ahead. We can’t afford to dwell on it. Even S. was involved. He is what I call a [new-age man]. And I see his magazine is now run by someone with a marked gay agenda too. I can’t move too close to that. Purely for the membership’s sake…

Right, you will be better off not to discuss that in public (few things harm the FR movement more than the frequent flame wars that some FR activists love to engage in; the redfems just love that), but don’t expect too much help from someone who often wastes people’s time by obsessing about the importance and nature of foreskins, or from someone who is obsessed with the need for equality for all seven genders — to the exclusion of true fathers’ rights, or from someone who is guided by the need to promote political correctness and censors everyone and everything that is politically incorrect.

Don’t think, though, that the local fiasco and its fundamental causes within the FR movement had or have a serious impact on the well-being of the FR movement other than in our province. Here it is difficult to “move past” the firm control by someone who is somewhat influential in academic circles, who is moreover adored by his disciples on account of his academic qualifications, and who is furthermore apparently motivated to maintain that control for no other reason than to stymie progress of the FR movement here and elsewhere as much as he can. (He does much of that by harming the reputation of true FR activists in the eyes of politicians and academics who on account of that distance themselves from the FR movement.)

Nevertheless, the major reason for the general lack of real movement and growth of the FR movement is the all-out propaganda war against the family (the father is the weakest link in the family and therefore the easiest link to remove, thereby making possible the destruction of families in whole-sale numbers).

The propaganda war has not only produced record numbers of feminists of the female variety. It also produced far greater numbers of male feminists. The anti-family propaganda war is being promoted first and foremost through the education system, of which our media are a major part playing a leading and controlling role. For instance, children are a captive audience for TV programs and are generally already well indoctrinated before they even enter kindergarten. See also How to create a new social order.

The following is a good indicator of the extent of the effectiveness and pervasiveness of that propaganda war:

The day of the year on which the most phone calls are made. The correct response was “What is Mothers Day?”

The day of the year on which the most collect phone calls are made. The correct response was “What is Fathers Day?”

–Jeopardy
From page 10 (third paragraph) of
Father and Child Reunion:
How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love
By Warren Farrell

We cannot and must not blame modern feminism for that symptom of the anti-family propaganda war. Having been involved with the telecommunication industry for all of my long working life, I can assure you that those disparate statistics have been around for as long as the telecommunication industry existed. Going by much evidence from the Victorian Age and before, evidence that the feminists never mention or talk about, the anti-father social bias was around even long before that. Modern feminism itself is a product of that propaganda war, except that now the feminists are the major influence steering and intensifying that war.

The propaganda war is designed to dumb people down and to create apathy and diversions, anything that works to take people’s attention away from things that really matter. For example, consider the dog-and-pony show that they made out of weather forecasts that often cannot even “forecast” current conditions correctly, let alone be reasonably accurate more than eight hours in advance. Consider also the indoctrination of people with the overriding but nevertheless totally unnecessary concern about saving the globe from the effects of greenhouse gases (pollution is nevertheless a very real problem worthy of much attention, as it harms literally millions of people and kills many of them).

Therefore most men who became expunged from their families feel guilty, not justifiably outraged about having their civil rights violated. All of western society has become a show trial in the “People’s Court” of public opinion, an all-pervasive and ongoing show trial in which men are made to confess guilt, to accept the blame and to atone for their transgressions against women. Just as in the people’s courts of totalitarian systems, in our ongoing show trial that brings men to “justice”, almost all of those alleged transgressions by men are based on lies. Just the same, all men are assumed to be guilty before they even appear in the court of public opinion.

That explains why in Alberta (and the same condition prevails more or less, with very slight variations, in all of Canada and in all of the developed nations) out of approximately 50,000 open cases in the child-maintenance enforcement program quite literally only a handful of men (probably at most five) are fathers rights activists. Believe it or not, I spoke with many Alberta fathers who firmly believed that the fact that they obtained joint custody (in reality standard visitation rights, that is, at best, one weekend every 14 days) is proof in writing that they are good and trustworthy fathers. They feel violated by not having that meager right that was meted out to them respected. They feel proud that they proved themselves to be trustworthy to that meager extent, but they are not outraged that their and their children’s rights have been violated by having the courts hold those children’s fathers in such a low regard that they don’t accord those children the right to be equally parented by both parents, even though after divorce or separation those children already miss out on half of the parenting time they should receive from both parents.

That situation is not likely to change until public opinion about fathers changes to the point where counter-propaganda in favour of fathers and families obtains an equal amount of attention by the very same audiences.

The problem of the general public apathy about the systematic and planned destruction of our families cannot satisfactorily be solved from the top down (e.g.: through arguments regarding the judiciary or jurisprudence in general). It must be solved from the bottom up, at the grass roots of society. The solution begins by teaching society respect for fathers. That can only be achieved by having fathers and mothers taking back from the feminists and their fellow-travellers the control of the education system.

Nevertheless, most so-called fathers rights activists are motivated not by an overwhelming need to change society for the better but by their feelings of anger about their personal misfortunes. That is why the FR movement has such a high turn-over rate. Most of its members drop out of the movement as soon as they manage by whatever means to cope with their personal issues. I know no more than about twenty men alive now in the whole world (including the non-English-speaking part) who stuck with the FR movement for more than twenty years and became effective activists in the process.

Unfortunately few so-called FR activists are familiar with any or most of their ideological leaders and pioneers. The feminists and the women taught by them know their ideological leaders and pioneers, on account of all-pervasive women’s studies programs that are mandatory in all social studies programs at the entry level. The teaching of the feminist doctrine extends to varying but extensive degrees even into all religious denominations, of whom, for example, Catholicism is only one of many that has been and is being made over in Her image.

Extremely few Canadian men’s rights activists know that not all that long ago men’s studies programs were taught at two Canadian universities and a Canadian college, let alone know who taught those programs or know the circumstances that caused those programs to cease being taught. For that reason it should not surprise anyone that few men’s rights activists know much of anything about men’s rights and what role those should play in a well-functioning society.

How far the feminist ideology has spread and overwhelms academic thinking in the social sciences, the media and all of society is illustrated by the following statistics compiled from search results using http://google.com.

Search Term	Search Returns
	2006 08 28	2006 09 14	2007 03 24
Women’s Studies	24,100,000	11,500,000	2,770,000
Men’s Studies	602,000	398,000	296,000
Women Studies Program	340,000	330,000	269,000
Men’s Studies Program	686	636	594

Source: Google.com

One of the best things about those statistics is that they reflect the rapid decline of the teaching of the feminist ideology at the university level. Men’s rights activists appear not to know about that decline. If they were to pay attention to it, the numbers for men’s studies and men’s studies programs would by now be on the rise.

The following two articles reveal the rift that developed within the women’s rights movement over the conflict between hard-line feminists presently in control of the women’s studies programs of the world and the women who would like to spread a dose of reality as to the importance of women as mothers within families and within well-functioning societies.

1. Feminist Says Child Rearing not Worthy of Time and Talents of Intelligent Humans

   By Hilary White

   NEW YORK, June 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Linda Hirshman, a feminist US writer on cultural issues, has told the world why she thinks staying at home with the children is an occupation “not worthy of the full time and talents of intelligent and educated human beings.” She complains at length that the feminist movement, while making some gains in public life through legal activism, has largely failed in the one area where it counts most: the family. (Full Story)

2. Germany’s Top News Anchorwoman Leads “Anti-Feminist” Revolution

   Admitted to regretting her three divorces, and condemned abortion

   By Gudrun Schultz

   BERLIN, Germany, March 20, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A leading German TV-moderator and anchorwoman of the country’s top newscast caused an uproar last year when she admitted to regretting her three divorces, and condemned abortion, Die-Tagespost reported.

   Eva Herman published her account of the fatal flaws in a career-oriented lifestyle in a bestselling book entitled “The Eva-Principle: Towards a New Femininity”, released last year. Now she’s published a second book, this one containing letters from women supporting her rejection of feminist self-fulfillment propaganda, reported Der Spiegel news magazine. (Full Story)

It seems that most fathers-rights activists are too involved with their personal issues to have noticed that that rift is there and widening.

Can there be fathers’ rights without complementary women’s rights? Should the two not go hand-in-hand? Just as there are as many or more male feminists as there are female ones, is feminism, with its anti-family stance, not the enemy of mothers, fathers, their children and of all of society? Is that an issue that feminist women and pro-family women must decide in a mutual slug-fest, while fathers’ rights activists stand by and say nothing?

Regards,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Education, Censorship, Abortion, Divorce, Men's Issues, Feminism, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

How to turn anger to good use

March 15, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Vern [not his real name],

I’ll put my responses to your observations between your lines. My responses are based on my interpretations of what I observed during the last twenty years or more. They reflect facts of life.

Vern wrote:

Well, maybe we should start small, maybe with building a discussion forum.

The platform for that already exists. Did you have a look at it? Check http://blog.fathersforlife.org

Or spamming the heck out of local radio stations email until they say something,

Even if that could be made to work (it can’t), that in-your-face tactic will at best make enemies. It will never make friends. We need friends and supporters, not enemies.

or paying for ads on their stations.

Virtually no divorced or separated fathers have money to spare. A vast majority of them struggle for survival, to varying extents. Very, very few men’s rights activists have enough money to be able to spare any of it for something like an ad-campaign.

Did you check out the costs of an ad-campaign like that? On the other hand, public-service announcement are quite within the realm of the possible. However, the stations have the last word on what format and content is acceptable. Don’t forget, the stations are generally (with very rare exceptions) controlled by feminists or their camp follower and fellow-travellers.

Feminist censorship is alive and well. It is all-pervasive in all sectors of society, from indoctrinating individuals to affecting individuals in all families and family-”alternatives”, throughout private- and service-organizations, throughout business and all government institutions right up to and including the Supreme Court, but especially in the human rights tribunals. Human rights tribunals are nothing other than a Canadian version of what always has been called “People’s Courts” in every totalitarian regime during the last hundred years or so.

It is not even permissible anymore to speak the truth based on hard and cold facts. The perception by the alleged victims of hate speech or of other hate crimes determines whether a given action or statement constitutes a hate crime.

Men cannot be victims unless they are members of a visible minority, but even then their victim status is inferior to that of any sort of women.

The truth is not a permissible defence. Human rights tribunals glare through their abrogation of the rights an accused has that are supposedly guaranteed through our Constitution, e. g.: the right to a speedy trial, to face one’s accuser, to know what crime one is charged with, to be judged by a jury of one’s peers, to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Men are generally assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.

Even outright and proven perjury, although still a crime, is now permissible in all of our courts. Especially women can with impunity commit perjury. To prove one’s innocence under those circumstances is often a hopeless task.

Those violations of our human rights are increasingly becoming more frequent in regular courts.

Family courts go one step farther. They no longer use the rules of the court and the rules of evidence. After all, they were set up in the late ’60s and early ’70s to alleviate the enormous backlog of divorce applications when “no-fault” divorce became the law. The purpose of family courts is to speedily dissolve marriages. Nothing would have been gained in that respect if the same rules that apply in regular court would have been made applicable in the family-court system.

The ever-increasing, constantly-intensifying socialist re-engineering of our nation creates a totalitarian feminist system, actually more correctly a gynarchy (rule by women).

I’ve been reading more things today and, wow, all it does is make me more angry.

Anger is a dish best eaten cold. Only then can it be turned into effective and constructive actions.

I personally believe things should be totally fair between mothers and fathers and that if they are then proven to not be doing the right thing they should be reprimanded. that whole innocent until proven guilty thing. I’m not sure what to do, but I’m going to have to do something. As a former IT professional, and now a fire fighter/medic, I have a lot of connections to try out for help. So I will pursue some of those avenues.

Vern, it is always constructive and productive to network, especially to participate and lead in community organizations. Whatever you do, you must not become frustrated by disappointments. Some of the things that someone can do under such circumstances and in the heat of the moment can and will actually makes enemies. They can and will hurt his career.

Still, do not quit. Stick to it like a used wad of chewing gum sticks to the sole of your shoe.

I need to start doing something about it. Ill give you a little back story, I have a 6-year-old daughter that I didn’t meet till she was a month old, and that was due to the fact that I had a paternity test done; there was delay with getting back the results. My daughter was christened within that month without my knowledge which was very upsetting and seemed underhanded to me. I also had to find out through a friend that the baby was born, and never was told by the mother until a week after.

Vern, your civil rights and those f your daughter have without a doubt been violated, but to tell that to your ex will turn her into your enemy. Rather than insisting on your “rights”, taking her to court and having your “rights” enforced through court orders, it would be far better for you to become a convenient babysitter for her that poses no threat to perception that she is the sole owner of your daughter. You are not alone. There are right now many other millions of men in the same predicament you are in.

What we perceive to be inalienable rights are nothing of the sort. They are privileges. No right can be made to work without at least one other individual granting it or even paying for it, so as to make that right a reality rather than just a meaningless formality or concept.

Today it is not so much legislation but political correctness that determines which rights will be granted by society and which legislative acts need to be ignored or capriciously interpreted. Our version of political correctness is formed, dominated and controlled by the feminist ideology. The version of that ideology guiding the radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminists, the currently ruling faction of feminism) is firmly rooted in communist ideology.

Since then the mother has married and has three more children but in the middle of that she was teaching my daughter to call her step father, dad, and that she had two dads. The only thing that did was confuse her more about things. So the last few years I’ve been seeing my daughter on the weekends, which is more than some get however, its always on what days are convenient for her and so I never know what my weekend is like and then during that I miss out on a lot of amazing things with my daughter during everyday life.

The only way either of two parents will not miss some or all of the things that bond his child to him and him to the child is to stay married to the other parent. That is no longer an option for you two. Now you have to learn to respect one another and how to cooperate to do the best you can for your daughter.

You need to read “Father and Child Reunion: How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love“, by Warren Farrell. It explains the major psychological factors and motivators that bring about situations like yours, but it also will give you a good understanding of what tactics to use to constructively address the consequences of those motivators. I don’t agree with everything Warren Farrell holds to be true, but that is not material. I write that off to his inexperience as a father. He apparently never was married and never had any kids of his own. His only experience as a father was to serve as a father-substitute for the children of women whom he lived with. There were a few of those women in his life over the years; he stated that a few times. Nevertheless, you need to read what he wrote.

You should also read every other book he wrote about men and their involvement in the war of the sexes.

So now I have asked her to have my daughter on a consistent basis every week, either Thursday, Friday and Saturday, or Saturday, Sunday and Monday. As well I suggested a one-week-on, one-week-off rotation, being that we live five minutes away from each other it shouldn’t be an issue. She flat-out refused. I then suggested mediation, and again she refused, saying she doesn’t think it’s best for my daughter’s routine. So, at this point I felt like there was no choice and I’am having her served with papers from the mediation board in Edmonton. I’m not sure what’s going to happen next, but I am very worried about a backlash from her and know that I can’t within the system do anything. Any suggestions or advice from here would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Vern

You cannot successfully solve a problem unless you first understand its nature, causes, circumstances and consequences. “Father and Child Reunion” will help you understand much better what you are dealing with.

You asked for my advice. The best advice I can give you is to read “Father and Child Reunion” and to learn to follow some of the methods for conflict resolution presented in that book. Read also at least one more of Warren Farrell’s books, “The Myth of Male Power.”

Did I already point you to the reading lists at http://fathersforlife.org/sex_politics.htm and http://fathersforlife.org/books/mcg_mens_studies_books.htm ? Some of the books and reading materials identified in those web pages are available for free on the Internet. Follow the links identified at those web pages.

There is no possible way to receive cooperation from someone totally unwilling to cooperate. You cannot force someone like the mother of your child to cooperate. You must make her understand why her cooperation is needed, so as to bring her to the point where she voluntarily and eagerly cooperates. Nevertheless, any attempt by you to make her cooperate or even to make her understand why is bound to make her at first angry at you. You must be ready for that and alleviate it.

However, there is something you must do, even though that will in all likelihood at first intensify her lack of cooperativeness. You need to obtain a visitation order from the court. Perhaps you have one already, but that order must include two statements: 1.) That the police needs to help you enforce your visitation rights if she violates that court order (to violate that order is a criminal offence), and 2.) An order that prevents her from moving away for a distance farther than what will cause you to have more than a half-hour of travelling time to pick up or drop off your daughter.

To get those two statements included in your visitation order may cost you from $8,000 to $30,000 or more. It depends on how cooperative she is likely to be.

Those two things are often overlooked and forgotten by lawyers acting on behalf of fathers like you. Those things are best addressed right from the start. To have them added later is very expensive and often not successful.

Regards,

Walter
http://fathersforlife.org

P.S. Vern, those comments would best be posted at http://blog.fathersforlife.org. I seldom make such extensive comments on an individual basis. If I do, it is because I may be able to use them at Fathers for Life, as they hardly ever relate to a specific situation only but address universal issues that are of concern and interest to millions of people. Begin your activism by contributing to http://blog.fathersforlife.org.

Try to prevent your anger from clouding your judgment. Make your anger a tool for reconstruction, not something that make others angry at you.

–WHS

Posted in Divorce, Censorship, Men's Issues, Shared Parenting, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Feminism | Print | No Comments »

How to create a new social order

March 11, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

The following commentary is a response to a new fathers-rights activist who believes he is a liberal.

Vern (not his real name),

I realize that very likely you are more liberal than I am conservative. The middle of the political spectrum appears to be a bit closer to me on the right than it is to you on the left.

I was quite liberal once, when I was your age. A good majority of people that age is liberal. However, someone once said that a person who is not a conservative at age 45 or older is a liberal that never smartened up.

But that younger people are liberal should not surprise anyone. The lure of sexual freedom, of entitlements and of “rights” is far more attractive to younger people than the fruits are that are long in coming from chastity before marriage, from marital fidelity and from duties and obligations.

It’s a story that is as old as the history of religions that tried to convert people from being a conglomerate of savages and from being addicted to swinging through the trees, so to speak, according to the law of the jungle, to convincing them to do labours required for earning their bread by the sweat of their brow, to learn the three Rs and whatever else they possibly could and was necessary to construct the orderly society that was required to build and maintain a thriving, constantly-improving civilization.

People assume that older people have a lot of wisdom. I don’t know whether I acquired enough wisdom to be called wise, but I know that I have far more wisdom now than I had when I was your age. Wisdom is nothing more than the sum-total of our experiences. I have a long life full of experiences behind me, few of which were learned in school, as I had to discard far too often too many of those. To me, to be wise is to apply one’s experiences in making rational and constructive decisions.

One of the things I experienced and also learned about is the changing nature of the education system (and I include the media in that, as they are the largest influence in indoctrinating us).

The public-education systems of the world are based on what was for the first time created in Prussia, when the Prussian king at that time realized (1794) that the his political and military successes depended on the thorough indoctrination of his subjects - indoctrination that could not be implemented without universal, state-controlled education. Prussia’s soldiers at the time could neither read nor write nor do arithmetic well, beyond counting their fingers and their toes. After all, common soldiers were conscripted from the lowest classes of society, classes that could not afford to send their children to private schools; and there were no public schools.

The Prussian king changed that by issuing a decree that made “free” public education compulsory and universal. He did that to produce better soldiers and more loyal subjects. It worked, and the rest is history. The Prussian education system was so successful in achieving its aims that in the 1800’s it was adopted by the USA and by Japan.

The Prussian public education system was used to create loyal and meek subjects in Germany under the Kaisers’ times during the 19th century, and to make those subjects accept their lot, to become willing to die for their Kaisers as well as to willingly produce a never-ending supply of children willing to become soldiers and do the same.

The German education system was used to convince German children that to be a liberal in a democratic nation was better than to die as a conservative under the Kaiser. The Weimar Republic lasted from 1917 until 1933 and brought social and financial chaos to Germany, through, amongst many other things, liberalizing society and social moral standards (to about the same extent to which that is being done right now throughout the developed nations and many of the lesser developed nations).

The communists as well as the national-socialists battled each other during the days of the Weimar republic for the privilege to liberate Germans from the Weimar Republic. The fascists won. The education system of the Weimar Republic, controlled and maintained by bureaucrats of the old bent, contributed much to bring the fascists to victory in that struggle, by making sure that kids in the system became good fascists who longed to restore the former greatness of Germany.

When the fascists had gained control, they promptly made sure that the education system came under firmer control by the State than it had ever been before. One method they used for that was to force all male students of age-10 and older to become members of the Hitler Youth (girls had to become members of the Federation of German Girls, affiliated with the Hitler Youth), a unified, state-controlled organization that simply amalgamated all of the 35 or more existing different youth organizations into the Hitler Youth. Until then there had been as many youth organizations as there were political parties and religious denominations, but after that there was only one party and one official religion.

Membership with any other organization became then illegal. All of that was achieved by promoting it through the education system, as surely as German boys’ teachers convinced their students that they had to volunteer to join the army (in class-room lots) during the first world war.

I was born in 1936 and entered school in the Fall of 1942. I was quite a smart kid and already at an early age read the newspapers. I realized some of what was going on. Having had parents that were not party members helped a lot with that, but all of my older brothers and sisters were members of the Hitler Youth and of the FGG (the German abbreviation is BDM = Bund Deutscher Maedchen). I don’t want to get lost in the details of all of that.

Even though I knew, to some extent, what was going on, I became a good German patriot and was quite disappointed when Germany lost the war (four weeks after the end of the war I turned ten). If you don’t think of looking for it (besides, what you are familiar with you are not likely to critically examine; moreover, in those days we did not question the authorities in charge of our education), you will never realize how much material used for indoctrination of children is contained in the text books they use, even in arithmetic primers.

When we were “liberated” by the Allied Forces (in reality by the American military/industrial machine), although then it was quite properly called “defeated”, one of the first things the occupational forces did was to confiscate and to literally pulp all text books that had been used in the education curriculum. Then new text books were printed: Nazism was out, American-style democracy and consumerism was in. We became re-oriented again, with such changes being easily implemented in a state-dominated and -controlled education system.

Things stayed pretty much the same then throughout most of the developed nations, until TV came, the 1960’s arrived, and the new liberal totalitarianism came to the end of the inroads it had been making throughout the post-war years. Now a new sort of totalitarianism established itself, to promote political correctness, sexual freedom, to dethrone man from his position as the crown of creation and to make him equal and even subservient to “the other animals.” That was no longer done under the auspices of either fascism or communism but under the control and direction of the toxic trinity of humanicide:

1. Environmentalism — the war between people and the planet.
2. Multiculturalism — the war between the world and its component nations.
3. Feminism — the war between the two component human genders.

All three took over and controlled the curriculum, made-over its text books (check WHO KILLED CANADIAN HISTORY?), began to get rid of the parents (at least half of them) and their influence, and started to produce kids befitting the New World Order.

In the process, a lot of affirmed feminists were created who want to impose the doctrine of Carl Marx and Fredric Engels (sans economics) on humanity.

Just as always before, the school system was the purveyor of the new state-religion. You are not quite with it if you believe that the feminists produced by the education system were and are all of the female variety. A state-sponsored education system steered and firmly controlled by a state-sponsored totalitarian ideology indoctrinates all children, boys as well as girls.

There never were two separate sorts of fascists, female and male, two separate sorts of communists, male and female. There certainly never was only a female variety of feminists.

Similar to the other radical ideologies and as with all belief-systems, the new totalitarian ideology operated and controlled the new education system that established itself by about the mid-sixties. It produced male and female acolytes of the state-religion of the new world order. This time around it produced girls that were made to believe that they are superior to boys although equal, and boys that are made to believe that they are equal to girls although they must accept that they are inferior to women, sub-human, second-class citizens that must subserviently accept that all women are good and all men are bad.

Lenin said: “Give me your four-year-olds, and in one generation I will create a socialist state.” He delivered on his promise, by indoctrinating children, just as all of the other education systems achieved their goals through indoctrinating children, children who, once they become almost-finished products of their education systems, believe that what they believe in, pursue and promote is a timeless, absolute norm. Most of those children will continue throughout adulthood along the trend set by the education system that formed their beliefs. Some will deviate from the prescribed path and attempt to change the world to something better than that with which they are being forcefully spoon-fed.

The education system of the new world order is doing its job well, better than any other education system ever controlled by totalitarian systems did, on a global scale. It is bringing about the global, socialist, totalitarian gynarchia. It does so without any shots being fired, without a bloody revolution, but through subversion of all social institutions from within. Nevertheless, it can be successfully argued that it is far more deadly than any other totalitarian education systems ever were. The new system not only causes men to die increasingly sooner than women (relatively, and the more so the more socialism is progressing in a given nation), it also causes all of humanity to vanish by reducing its rate of propagation to below replacement levels.

In the 1990’s I checked world population trends in detail and found that the number of children born annually had levelled off about 20 years earlier, that the population increases that were still happening were entirely due to steady increases in the average life span of women - due to a considerably slower increase in the average lifespan of men. That is certainly even more so today. It would not surprise me at all to find that the annual number of children born in the world today is dropping at a considerable rate, as 30 years ago abortions were not yet universally legal, while today they are not only legal virtually everywhere but even compulsory in some nations.

Going by conservative estimates, by 2150 the world population will have shrunk to 3.5 billion people, provided that current trends continue and that no one finds a way to accelerate the steadily accelerating rate of the extinction of mankind. Also going by existing trends, by 2150, women will quite likely comprise close to two-thirds of the world population, while the remaining men then still will be doing the dirty, sweaty, onerous and dangerous jobs. Is that not a fitting end to the glory of men enshrined in the infamous, long-dead patriarchy, to die to the last man as sacrifices on the altar of feminism?

Lastly, the German liberal Weimar Republic was no more nor less wise than today’s equivalent.

The Weimar Republic collapsed because it failed to pick a good model after which to fashion itself. It never had enough time to learn from history before it became subverted from within by the anti-democratic radicals it produced.

Today’s equivalent of the Weimar Republic went one step farther. It implemented a system of totalitarian radicals whom it can firmly control. It refuses to learn from history to the extent that it completely eliminated the teaching of history (as in history being a long sequence of actions and consequences that bring about and require more actions that bring more consequences).

Neither “Weimar Republic” acquired enough wisdom to make a single wise decision. The first brought chaos by allowing the destruction of social order to happen. The second is bringing social chaos through deliberately creating it.

–Walter

Addendum (2007 03 13) Thanks to Suchindra Chandrahas:

A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers.

–Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) in Brave New World, 1932

My Note:

It is on record that the German eugenics program as executed by the SS had its ideological roots in the Social Darwinism that led to the Eugenics Movement in the UK. Eugenics evolved out of the Natural Selection theory of Darwin’s cousin Sir Francis Galton. One of its promoters was, for instance, Aldous Huxley, who summarized some of his ideas [actually they were more likely his brother’s, Julian Huxley, who had expressed them a year or so earlier in a discussion paper in about the same detail as Aldous Huxley then in 1932 described them] in Brave New World.

Many people see Brave New World as a critique of Social Darwinism, but that would be taking the wrong view. Brave New World is a critique of “archaic” moral standards. [Mind you, in the foreword to the 1946 edition of Brave New World, Aldous Huxley white-washed his earlier views – although deliberately leaving them unchanged – by giving the impression that the original version of his book was intended to be satire. That would be acceptable if that foreword would have been written in 1932, when Hitler’s designs for all-out state-sponsored and -imposed eugenics were already well known and much to the liking of the international eugenics community of which the Huxley’s were then already and since long before an integral part]

–Walter H. Schneider, in About the History and Evolution of Eugenics

Is it necessary that the cycle of the current civilization must run down to its complete end, total social chaos, for a new dark age to establish itself and to prevail for many hundreds of years before the construction of a new civilization will begin once more? Isaac Asimov described a cycle like that in his short story NightFall, insinuating that, any extent of efforts to prevent collapse into total chaos to the contrary, the never-ending repetition of social chaos and reconstruction of civilizations cannot be interrupted.

There appears to be no solution to that in our world, for the reason that no serious problem was ever successfully solved unless there was first a critical mass of people affected by the problem that reached agreement that the problem existed, on what its nature was, on what needed to be done to eradicate the problem, and that the will and resources required to eliminate the problem existed. By the way, Nightfall was once required reading in the Rand Corporation, I believe. It appears doubtful that that is still so.

Once families according to the concept of the traditional nuclear family no longer exist, the transfer of wealth and social traditions from one generation to the next can no longer take place. The total collapse of the civilization bringing that about is inevitable. It will destroy itself. - WHS

Posted in Education, Abortion, Men's Issues, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

Male and Female Domestic Violence Rates

March 9, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

The implications of the report from which the excerpt shown below was copied are mind-boggling.

Unfortunately, the report is completely in graphic format, which is why the PDF file is so large.  Nevertheless, it is worth having a copy of.  (Link to the report)

The report is based on an examination of a good number of DV studies from all over the world.  It confirms what those with open and objective minds have known for decades: interspousal violence is not a male monopoly.  It is at least as often committed by women as it is committed by men.

That the myth of men having a monopoly on that aspect of interpersonal violence persisted for so long in the face of so much evidence from reputable and even government sources is nothing less than evidence of the power of feminist propaganda promoted by people in thrall to an oppressive totalitarian ideology.

Posted in Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed | Print | 2 Comments »

Will mass-rallies help draw attention to men’s plight?

March 9, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Jamie wrote:

Hi Walter,

I’m really happy to hear back from you, and I understand that we would need to have a lot of people show up at a rally to have our voices heard. Your website seems to be the perfect outlet for such a campaign, or perhaps by creating a not-for-profit foundation and contacting various media outlets and getting the word out there, haha. I know I have lofty ideas about this but I want to do whatever I can not just for myself, but for all people men or women who have been wronged by the lack of accountability and unfairness of the laws.

Sincerely

Jamie

Jamie,

There is someone who is trying his best to raise public awareness of men’s plight, in a fashion similar to but not quite the same in which you envision it should be done, although he may well endorse a rally if there are enough men that wish to dedicate themselves.

Without telling you who that is, I sent a copy of our exchange to him and hope that he will get in touch with you to discuss details. The success and effectiveness of your cooperation will depend on your willingness to devote yourself.

I don’t wish to kid anyone. I know how much time and dedication something like that takes and for how long.

Are you willing to spend a major part, and at times all, of your waking hours to something like that? It is a thankless job, mainly because most people will find it far easier to be critical than to be creative and constructive. Are you ready for that, for the frustration it can cause, ready to stick with it for years, despite of the criticisms and set-backs that you must be ready for?

About the website of Fathers for Life being used to promote something like that, sure, that is possible. The question is, for how much longer? I am 70, going on 71…., and I am quite maxed out, with fathers rights issues not the only area of activities I am involved in; but there is another problem.

The website of Fathers for Life is quite popular, growing in popularity, and it receives visitors from all over the world.  However, only 10.9 percent of those visitors are from Canada. To my knowledge, Fathers for Life is the second-most-popular fathers-rights website in Canada. Still, at best, the website can only help to promote activism. It is not likely that it will soon become a controlling motivating force for social change in Canada.

The Canadian media are the driving force for social change in Canada, and our media are firmly controlled by feminist and liberal interests who actively seek the promotion of the destruction of the family. Unless we get the media on our side, so that the general public is exposed to coverage of our concerns and goals every day of the year and many times each day, nothing will happen that will help men, especially not family men.

Rallies will help positive changes to come about, but they must be a growing wave of escalating mass-rallies that don’t let up, something in the order of the spontaneous and sustained mass rallies that helped to bring down the totalitarian regimes in many of the countries in the former communist block. Nothing less will gain lasting attention.

The fathers-rights rallies I observed or participated in during the past 20 years were far less likely to inflame than they simulated matches held to a wet fuse.

Lenin said that full bellies make for poor revolutionaries. The vast majority of people is far too-deeply immersed in enjoying the fruits of consumerism (and in trying to pay off an ever-escalating mountain of consumer debt) to be able to acquire the level of idealism required to bring about constructive social change.

I am convinced that the life cycle of our present civilization must run its full course, right down to the ultimate total chaos of complete social breakdown, before a better and more conservative social order can emerge once more.

History repeats itself. We now go through the equivalent of the last days of the Roman Empire. The New Dark Age is beginning. Quite possibly, the new social order that will eventually emerge will be firmly founded on Islam. That will be of little concern to us, because by that time we will no longer be around, and neither will our descendants, because we no longer produce enough of them to keep our civilization from vanishing.

–Walter

Posted in Men's Issues, Family, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »