October 27, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

This may be of interest to anyone who wishes to know about trends of various indicators regarding the consequences of the changes in the politics of sex.

Have you ever used the information provided through alexa.com on traffic volumes and ranking for websites (e. g.: angryharry.com)?

If not, do it, and you will be surprised by the wealth of information you can glean from that. By replacing angryharry.com in the preceding link with the corresponding domain name and suffix for any other website you know, you can make an examination of website “reach” (the percentage of all Internet users who visit a given site) that a given website represents over time. Alexa.com even permits to compare, graphically, up to five different websites on a common chart. Most of the various indicators and terms used for the analysis report are explained here: http://www.alexa.com/site/help/traffic_learn_more

Reach and any other of the indicators provided by alexa.com are relative, not absolute. In the case of “reach”, for example, the indicator shows what percentage of all the website traffic to all Internet websites goes to an individual website, but it does not show the absolute number of visitors going to that individual website. That means that if the growth rate for all Internet traffic is greater than that for the website traffic for an individual website, the “reach” indicator for the given individual website will show a decline that correlates to the difference between the growth rate for all Internet website traffic and the growth rate for the specific website being examined. The important thing here is that although website traffic to a given website traffic steadily increases, its reach or rank can decline. That would be more or less normal. However, if the reach or rank for a website increases, that means that the website receives an extraordinary amount of Internet user interest that is in excess of the rate of traffic volume growth of the Internet.

A website that has a steady or slowly growing traffic volume by its visitors will nevertheless see its reach and rank decline for as long as the traffic volume for all Internet websites growth at a faster rate.

That must be considered when examining the apparently declining popularity of apparently all feminist and most men’s rights websites. However, that can be deceiving. Not unless the total proportion of all Internet traffic that goes to feminist or men’s rights websites is taken into account can it be determined whether the public’s interest in feminism or in men’s rights, with respect to the opposing group of websites, is in decline.

There has been an enormous proliferation of men’s- and men’s-rights websites. It stands to reason, but I don’t know for sure, that feminist websites may have seen a similar proliferation. I believe that may be so, as the trend lines for reach for virtually all pro-men websites show a decline over the last few years. Feminist websites have seen corresponding declines. I speculate that the decline is an indication of the dispersion of the public’s interest in men’s issues, from relatively few websites some time ago, to a much larger number of websites now. The total attention given to men’s issues may well be increasing, even though most men’s rights websites, each, see declining trends for reach.

Statistics reflecting their influence over time should be tracked. That is time-consuming, but an examination of those statistics shows how well fathers’ rights websites reflect aspects of the public opinion.

It must also be considered that more and more people have PCs and Internet access. It is hard to determine what portion of the public (that with Internet access plus the portion without) has an interest in men’s rights issues. The one with PCs and Internet access has a direct impact on policies and a large and perhaps complete presence on the Internet. The portion that doesn’t has nevertheless a very important indirect influence, namely through elections (limited only by fast-growing voter-apathy) and now - ever more so - through public opinion polls directed by the media and the politicians.

Nevertheless, websites do influence voter opinions. For instance, the proportions of the sexes of the visitors to a fairly popular and somewhat liberal FR website (1 male for every 1.14 females) is shown to be in the ten most-often visited general interest websites with similar affinities to be very much the same (1 male for every 1.38 females). That website is neutral in relation to feminism.

On the other hand, the proportions of the sexes of the visitors to a fairly popular and somewhat conservative FR website (1 male for every 0.8 females) is also shown to be in the ten most-often visited general interest websites with similar affinities to be similar (1 male for every 0.94 females). That website opposes feminism.

Both websites will influence voters. The one with the most visitors (the conservative one) will have the most influence on voters when it comes to the influence of the two respective websites.

“Public opinion” drives “democracy” and thereby policy. Ideology drives special interest groups. Special interest groups control the media. The media promote ideological issues dear to the hearts of special interest groups. In effect, that is propaganda in action, mostly agitprop. Propaganda indoctrinates the masses, agitprop incites them. The masses elect “their” representatives who are in reality those individuals whom the special interest groups wish to have elected.

Moreover, elected representatives will cater to “public opinion” to make sure they will get elected. Anyone who is not politically correct will not get elected. In the end our elected representatives (not necessarily those who stand for election) all have virtually identical platforms (regardless of which party they belong to) that all cater to the goals of the special interest groups that have the most influence. What passes for “public opinion” in the media is in fact a mixture of direct and indirect manifestations of the wishes of the special interest groups that dominate and control the media. True public opinion doesn’t matter. Public opinion only matters if it is a proper reflection of “public opinion” in the media, in other words, if it is politically correct and reflects what the special interest groups in power want.

But there is more. Special interest groups control all sectors of society, especially the bureaucracy or administration or government services, over the latter three of whom our elected representatives have absolutely no control. Instead, the bureaucracy controls the elected representatives. That extends to censorship of information sent to constituency offices of elected representatives, especially when the office staff is being supplied by the government administration in whatever nation the office happens to be located. There is no guaranty that information sent to an elected representative through his office will actually reach him. Worse yet, confidential information or information that has the potential of damaging the career of an elected representative can be and has been strategically leaked by administration staff if the information is politically incorrect and counters the ideology that drives the administration. Some elected representatives have had their careers damaged and even destroyed in that fashion.

The leading members of the bureaucracy are in effect appointed for life, with change in the direction of the bureaucracy only happening through attrition and through changes in the relative power of ideologies and of the special interest groups that promote them.

For instance, the German bureaucracy came into existence and had an unbroken history of existence and control since long before there was a modern German nation, since about 400 years ago.

Generally, ideology-driven changes in the German bureaucracy over time happened at a glacial pace: from monarchy, to confederation, to the virtually absolute rule of the Kaisers, to the Weimar Republic, to the Nazi regime, to the liberalism of the sixties and the student revolution of 1968 (brought about, as in all other nations where it happened, through organizational direction by Moscow and funding by Pankow - the capital of the GDR - it happened not just in France but in many nations at the same time - e. g.: 1968 in an international context), and then to the world-wide usurpation of power and control by radical feminism - largely by means of the influence of radical feminism on the UN.

All those changes happened through whatever special interest group’s ideology influenced the bureaucracy, controlled it and then had the bureaucracy promote and enforce it.

Democracy? Not at all! We have degrees of bureaucratic totalitarianism, with the extent varying according to what extent the members of a special interest group manage to ensconce themselves in a bureaucracy. The power and influence of the bureaucracy ranges from being mild and causing some changes, to being in absolute control and causing quick and even large changes and totalitarianism.

I digress, although those thoughts relate to the great influence of the driving forces that steer the characteristics of the shifting and changing foci of “public opinion” on the Internet.

The trend lines for reach of men’s rights websites are almost synchronized (even down to peaks and dips over the space of a few days - and more about those peaks and dips a little later) with corresponding declining trend lines for feminist websites. They reflect media-generated and -promoted “public opinions” that the public made their own through having its interest perked. It cannot be said for sure why the public’s interest got perked. As things are going, that will normally be because the public reacts the way the social engineers that determine what the media’s contents had to be wanted the public to react to (that is in effect the consequence of indoctrination and propaganda). It is somewhat less likely that the public reacted due to politically undesired and unanticipated concern or outrage. Hitler already knew that when he stated in Mein Kampf that one should never underestimate the enormous capacity of the masses to forget and how easy it is to sway the masses with properly designed and successful propaganda.

Today, of course, propaganda is no longer an art. It is an applied science against which the general public has virtually no defence, except for what is passed around on the Internet. That, of course, explains why many governments do their utmost to gain control of the Internet, so that it can be censored.

All of that is an area that should be of interest to men’s rights activists. Although the tools for that exist (e. g.: the selection of a number of the top ranking feminist and pro-men websites through a search engine, based on exactly corresponding search parameters, and then the examination of traffic parameters over time for the two groups of websites), I don’t know of anyone in the men’s rights movement who has been or is doing such an analysis.

However, the examination of Internet traffic data for the marketing sector (that is, the marketing of goods and services, ideas and politics) is a fast-growing business. If you have the time, check the Internet for studies or reports on audience affinity, but don’t get your hopes up that you will find any information that is truly useful to the men’s movement. Useful and detailed audience-affinity survey-results are important, expensive and confidential.

The men’s movement has not commissioned a single audience affinity survey. Being totally without funding, it doesn’t have the money for that. Many government-favored organizations have the money for it, because they are being lavishly funded out of taxpayers’ revenues, but I doubt that they have commissioned any audience affinity surveys. Why should they? Don’t they have their camp-followers in the government to commission those surveys, if not for special interest groups, then at least to make survey results available to government-paid government-funded and politically-correct special interest groups?

Figures on the history of traffic volumes are not readily available for free on the Internet. Manually tracking them (which I did for a few websites and for a few years some years back) is very time-consuming. However, I recently began to record some parameters on the popularity of some issues, such as those that you examine now and then (see trends of the prevalence of studies and study programs for men and women). That takes much less effort and still has some value. Those popularity figures are somewhat misleading in absolute terms but relate fairly well to the public’s relative foci on specific men’s and women’s issues.

As I stated above, I looked at the characteristics of the reach trends for a number of websites, comparing some of them over the years. I found that the short-term variations (especially those for the high-traffic websites) are driven by what is prominent in the media. For instance, the large peaks in both the reach trend-lines of now.org and fathersforlife.org in November 2006 and September 2007 (shown here, but you will have to select the option for reach and enter “now.org” in the appropriate input field to make a website comparison) are quite likely related to two separate media campaigns on anorexia nervosa, designed to create sympathy for women who choose to starve themselves as victims, alleged to be largely due to the fault of men (there is a marked homosexual influence on the fashion industry) of course, men who, ironically, are frequently femme-type homosexuals. Femme types promote the boyish look in women, while butch-types promote the buxom, voluptuous look in women.

It is interesting that when masculinity still counted, butch-homosexual men ruled the fashion industry, while during predominantly liberal periods femme-homosexual men (one could call them feminized homosexuals) ruled (with the fashion ideals that women bought into over the years being the flappers during the roaring twenties and the days of the Weimar republic, and the anorexic models during our “much more enlightened” times).

The key to becoming a controlling influence in social evolution is to be the most influential special interest group. It is not possible to become a dominating special interest group without gaining control of the curriculum and the education system. The feminists did that, and that is why they cannot be dislodged from their position of power unless the control of the curriculum is wrested away from them.

But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. (Aristotle, in Politics)

Plato, in Republic, has Socrates offer this advice to philosopher kings: Take all the children from their parents and rid the city of adults.

Who owns the youths controls the future. (Slogan used by Napoleon and also by the founders of the Wandervogel (”bird of passage”), the enormously popular youth movement that began in about 1880 in Germany and produced many of the prominent (and often homosexual) Nazi leaders, in German: “Wer die Jugend hat, hat die Zukunft.”)

Give me your 4-year-olds, and within one generation I’ll construct a socialist state. (Lenin)

The power of the Internet, media, bureaucracy, elected politicians, all sectors and institutions of society, including even all religious denominations, firmly rests on the indoctrination that our children and youth receive in the most important sector of the bureaucracy: the public education system (of which TV is without a doubt an important part for a captive audience comprised of children and adults - e. g.: the teaching of homosexuality as a valid and even desirable life-style on Degrassi). That sector of the bureaucracy, too, is centrally controlled. Therefore, in the long run, we live in a totalitarian system driven and controlled by whatever ideology rules.

Dissatisfaction with feminism plays a role in the slowly and barely growing influence of men, but the men’s rights movement is not the driving force for instilling that dissent. The driving force is the opinions of men who were raised in and indoctrinated by a feminist-dominated and -controlled education system. As of now, and probably for some generations to come, social change occurs and will occur, but it is and will be little more than a little bit more influence by feminist-indoctrinated and largely feminized men.

All of what I stated above relates to short- and medium-term variations that are super-imposed on long-term cycles, not trends. History repeats itself, and now we come to a node in the characteristics of short-term, medium-term and long-tern trends.

The social programs, policies and corruption created by feminism are prohibitively expensive. If at all, it will be extremely difficult to eliminate them or to replace them with more constructive and productive programs and policies. Most likely the world economy will collapse before we can halt or reverse social “progress”. A new dark age will descend on us, most likely within this generation.

The ages of civilizations range from about 800 to 1200 years. Our civilization is tottering and will soon fall for many of the same reasons that caused the fall of the Roman empire: invasions by “Barbarians”; total fertility rates that are far, far below required replacement levels; extortion and even torture to collect onerous and destructive taxes (child support enforcement is one of them, and physical torture is frequently being used to enforce that), and wide-spread, all-pervasive and escalating corruption. Not until many centuries had gone by did the West extricate itself from the Dark Age that followed the decline and fall of the Roman empire.

Our sun has already set once more. Dusk is upon us. It seems that all that matters now is how much longer we have before total darkness sets in.

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

October 27, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Deep down, more or less buried under a layer of chivalry that varies in thickness from man to man, every man knows either openly (a few) or subconsciously (most) that he is being shafted, that ongoing and escalating anti-male discrimination has, in the eyes of society, turned virtually all men into sub-humans, through a process that is not driven centrally, as in other totalitarian regimes, but is steered and motivated by an all-pervasive, totalitarian and state-promoted ideology, a religion. In effect, today’s men are the equivalent of the Jews during the late 1930s in the Nazi regime. Men are being vilified and slandered by much the same but far more pervasive and effective methods as those used in other totalitarian regimes. Today’s men are the Jews of the third millennium, and they are not happy with that.

Feminism has become a state-promoted and state-sponsored religion. That, in a closed world-society, makes opposition by men about as effective as it was for them to oppose the priests in ancient Egypt. Nevertheless, men are as much the slaves now as they were then, with one important difference. Men are no longer led and directed by men, they are being led and directed by women, and - let there be no mistake - this time not by their mothers, the mothers that at one time stood by their husbands and fathers of their children.

The social institution of the family is as old as civilization, and so is feminism. When women and men were still united, when families were still important and the building blocks of our civilization, opposition to feminist oppression was still possible. The successful war against the family put the ax to that, and the eradication of the traditional nuclear family is almost done.

Men weren’t defeated, they resigned - once the protection of their families was gone. They are not so much retreating and fighting a rear-guard action now as they are negotiating from the position of the defeated the terms of their surrender after the war against the family is almost over.

We don’t have much time (some people say, no more than two years in the US) before we run out of a chance for saving the family, the restoration of the status of men and of the respect society once had for men, before the social chaos and damage brought about by feminist liberalism becomes irreversible. Here in Canada there are no discussions like that in the mainstream media. There are few discussions like that in any of the developed nations. There are most definitely very few discussions like that in the men’s movement.

As far as saving our families is concerned, the members of the men’s movement seem to be busy scrabbling to salvage for themselves what they can amongst the ruins, rubble and ashes of what once were our families.

Yes, men do get riled up already, openly and in practical ways. They insist on getting their share of the equality that feminism had promised men would get by women assuming their fair share of the work and the risks formerly carried by men alone.

Just last Wednesday a man told me that a woman he had been living with and whom he had intended to marry refused to work, and that she had instead constantly partied. He “fired” her because she would not work! He was quite clear and adamant on that. He considered her not to have lived up to what was her duty, namely to contribute her equal share of work to their consumer group of two.

I think that’s great, he had every right, and I am sure that there are many more men like that. He thought of equal shares in terms of sharing expenses and had to assume all, instead of sharing them. She thought of her equal share in terms of what she considered to be her rightful share of what she thought to be enjoyment, by acquiring and using up all of it and by consuming all of the money he brought home. Neither of them had been willing to exercise their primary function and the responsibilities and duties that arose out of their union, to produce and raise children in the safety and comfort of the family. That they broke up was a good thing under their circumstances, but not a good thing for society. It is an evolutionary dead end for civilization and for the population in that civilization.

We need functioning families, not happy consumer groups of men and women.

If consumerism is the primary goal of society, then it will be better for men and women not to share anything at all and to live in individual isolation. That will drive the frenzy of consumerism and production of consumer goods to the max, but without families and children the economy and society will collapse, and we will all be gone within two generation.

- Walter

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