August 8, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

At the website of Fathers for Life, I stated at a number of places that feminism is communism or, more precisely, that feminism is communism in drag - communism disguised as feminism.  One could even consider, arguably, that feminism is a means by which socialism (or communism, if you will) is being implemented in the so-called “free” West, that therefore the West is steadily becoming more totalitarian; totalitarianism being something into which socialism inevitably evolves.

Totalitarianism is a form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of the individual’s life to the authority of the government. (Note that the long description of totaltitarianism at Britannica from which the preceding quote was taken mentions neither socialism nor feminism nor communism.)

Some of those ideas of mine were sparked by similar ones expressed by others.  Those ideas seem harsh to many people.  The harsher they seem to those people, the more advanced the evolution towards socialism appears to be in their country of residence.  However, the older I get and the more I keep my eyes open and look around, the more confirmations from surprising sources I find that relate or allude to the strong relationship between feminism and socialism.

This morning I re-read Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 commencement address at Harvard, A World Split Apart.  In that address, Solszhenitsyn stated:

I hope that no one present will suspect me of expressing my partial criticism of the Western system in order to suggest socialism as an alternative. No; with the experience of a country where socialism has been realized, I shall not speak for such an alternative. The mathematician Igor Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliantly argued book entitled Socialism; this is a penetrating historical analysis demonstrating that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich’s book was published in France almost two years ago and so far no one has been found to refute it. It will shortly be published in English in the U.S.

The book that Solzhenitsyn alluded to is: The Socialist Phenomenon, by Igor Shafarevich.  Translations of the book into English (with a foreword by Solzhenitsyn) are no longer in print, but a translation of the book into English is available on the Internet in full and for free; see The Socialist Phenomenon.

I will quote here just one page from the book.  The answer to the question posed in the header of this blog entry will become instantly apparent.

It would seem that socialist ideology has the ability to stamp widely separated or even historically unlinked socialist currents with indelible and stereotyped markings.

It seems to us quite legitimate to conclude that socialism does exist as a unified historical phenomenon. Its basic principles have been indicated above. They are:

• Abolition of private property.
• Abolition of the family.
• Abolition of religion.
• Equality, abolition of hierarchies in society.

The manifold embodiments of these principles are linked organically by a common spirit, by an identity of specific details and, frequently, by a clearly discernible overall thrust.

Our perspective on socialism takes into account only one of the dimensions in which this phenomenon unfolds. Socialism is not only an abstract ideological system but also the embodiment of that system in time and space. Therefore, having sketched in its outlines as an ideology, we now ought to be able to explain in what periods and within what civilization socialism arises, whether in the form of doctrine, popular movement or state structure. But here the answer turns out to be far less clear. While the ideology of socialism is sharply defined, the occurrence of socialism can hardly be linked to any definite time or civilization. If we consider the period in the history of mankind which followed the rise of the state as an institution, we find the manifestations of socialism, practically speaking, in all epochs and in all civilizations. It is possible, however, to identify epochs when socialist ideology manifests itself with particular intensity. This is usually at a turning point in history, a crisis such as the period of the Reformation or our own age. We could simply note that socialist states arise only in definite historical situations, or we could attempt to explain why it was that the socialist ideology appeared in virtually finished and complete form in Plato’s time. We shall return to these questions later. But in European history, we cannot point to a single period when socialist teachings were not extant in one form or another. It seems that socialism is a constant factor in human history, at least in the period following the rise of the state. Without attempting to evaluate it for the time being, we must recognize socialism as one of the most powerful and universal forces active in a field where history is played out.

[200]

Igor Shafarevich
The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 200

It appears that the feminism that is being rammed down our throats in the developed nations is the Spartan kind described by Aristotle.

If you are not yet convinced, read a bit more of The Socialist Phenomenon.  I also recommend for you to look up some of the sources used by Igor Shafarevich.  You better do that anyway, because it is extremely unlikely that much more than exceedingly little of what he wrote about was covered by the educational curriculum used to indoctrinate you with.  After all, the feminists who dominate, control and censor the curriculum (in the mid-1980s they literally purged the text books at all North-American schools, colleges and universities of all politically-incorrect content) don’t want you to know that they are socialists or communists disguised as feminists.  Most of their students probably don’t even know that is the case.  That is how indoctrination works.

By the way, you will not find anything at Wikipedia that comes even close to what I wrote about here.  But that is no surprise to you, is it?  (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafarevich#The_Socialist_Phenomenon)

Last, but not least, for anyone who ever wondered why feminists scorn science and are hostile to rigorous scientific examination of the expressions of their feelings they wish to have us buy and swallow, here is a quote from Solzhenitsyn’s foreword to Igor Shafarevich’s book:

World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them–all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis, features which the

[vii]

---

author of this volume points out repeatedly and in many contexts….

There you have it: feminism is socialism.

Posted in Censorship, Media Bias, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Paternal Rights, Education, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

August 8, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

It is not just this or that or even the majority of men’s rights activists who miss the boat with actions against individual judges.

The bias of individual judges should without a doubt be used as examples of the consequences of systemic bias.  Still, all instances of such bias are problem symptoms, not fundamental problem causes.  No problem has ever been successfully solved by treating its symptoms.  Only by eradicating their fundamental causes can problems be cured permanently.

The bias goes far beyond “the shadow of the law,” and it is not merely bias by judges that needs to be of concern.

I believe that it was in about 1967 or so that a neighbour of mine (he intended to make a career in probation) told me that when he was doing his dissertation for his masters in sociology, he had wanted to expose the wide variations in sentencing in Alberta for crimes of equal severity.  His mentors soon convinced him that to write on that subject would cause him to fail or at the very least to irreparably harm his career.

My neighbour picked a different, less controversial subject for his dissertation, after having done a few months of work on the politically-incorrect one.  He made his masters, and he did well in his career, although eventually he left the Government and went into business for himself.

The problem is Western Chivalry, and that has not just merely the judges in its grip.  Western Chivalry has been around longer than the reverence for the Virgin Mary.  Even the reverence for the Virgin Mary, having done much to shape Western Chivalry, is nothing but a problem symptom.

It seems that it can be argued that reverence for women is as old as civilization.  In my mind there is no doubt that Aristotle was right and that reverence for women was the fundamental cause of the decline of Sparta.

Female supremacism is a crime of opportunity caused by men who let women take advantage of the opportunities offered through Western Chivalry.

The systemic bias against men will vanish as soon as there is mutual and equitable respect by the sexes, not for who they are but for what they do.  That requires the recognition of the vital differences between equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes.

A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.  The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.

Milton and Rose Friedman
in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement
(Milton Friedman won the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economics)

–WHS

Posted in Men and Women Work, Men's Issues | Print | No Comments »

August 8, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

What is behind a story under such a heading?

Telegraph.co.uk

A gym owner who decapitated himself in his Aston Martin sports car was heavily in debt and going through a bitter divorce, an inquest has heard.

By Jessica Salter
2008 08 08

[Gerald Mellin’s ex-wife, Gerald Mellin Mellin] said Mr Mellin had self-harmed and made a number of attempts on his life during their short and “horrendous” marriage.

He is of course no longer around to verify that.

Mr Mellin owned a gym and sun tanning centre. The pair had been in court the previous day where she was awarded an extra £100 a week from him.

An extra £100 a week? Over and above what and for what?  It was only a short marriage!  How short was it?  Why did she receive anything at all?  Given that Gerald Mellin was heavily in debt, why didn’t he receive support money from her?  Did he cause her to be crippled?  It seems that it was he who needed financial support more than she did.  What was the reason for him being so heavily in debt?  Was he heavily in debt before or after she took him to the cleaners?

…the cause of death was recorded as decapitation.

That was the method by which he took his life.  The fundamental cause that drove him to his death has been left undetermined.

The Telegraph missed a good opportunity for a great human interest story with this one.  Perhaps that is because Jessica Salter is an incapable journalist, but the cause of that surely is with the editors of the Telegraph.

Posted in Media Bias, Divorce | Print | No Comments »